Exercise

[teamsaint]

Nothing like a bit of religion at Christmas.

I agree, that is nothing like a bit of religion.

[Bryn]

I agree, that is nothing like a bit of religion.

Just happens to read a little like a religious tract, replete with the devil(s). Happy, clappy religion, of course. Not the self-immolation variety. Still, running (with s decent technique), is a lot healthier than jogging.

[muzzer]

I thought there was a generally far healthier attitude to exercise all round these days. Do it or don’t do it, assuming you have no obvious reason why not, and benefit or don’t. The End.

[teamsaint]

Just happens to read a little like a religious tract, replete with the devil(s). Happy, clappy religion, of course. Not the self-immolation variety. Still, running (with s decent technique), is a lot healthier than jogging.

I’m not at all clear what the difference is, other than speed !

Anyway, on a related issue, does anybody calorie count when trying to shift the odd unwanted pound/ kilo ?
Reason I ask is that in my limited experience, the daily calorie levels suggested by the NHS/BBC calculators give values that seem way above my weight maintenance requirements.

The BBC gives my maintenance level as 2133.Now, having done a calorie controlled diet a few years back, I know for a fact that my maintenance level is probably around 1500, give or take 100, plus whatever I burn off in exercise

https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/how_many_calories_do_you_need

My fitbit has my maintenance level at about 1400 which seems about right
So what concerns me is the possibility that a lot of people might be taking the NHS and BBC sites as gospel, and putting weight on through poor advice.
Thoughts?

[Bryn]

I’m not at all clear what the difference is, other than speed ! . . .

I was taught that with a good running technique, the ball of the foot makes contact with the ground before the heel, thus allowing greater distribution of the stresses on joints, particularly the knees and hips. In jogging, the heel tends to make first contact. Joggers also tend to pay less attention to their arm action, an important aspect of an efficient running technique.

[teamsaint]

I was taught that with a good running technique, the ball of the foot makes contact with the ground before the heel, thus allowing greater distribution of the stresses on joints, particularly the knees and hips. In jogging, the heel tends to make first contact. Joggers also tend to pay less attention to their arm action, an important aspect of an efficient running technique.

It seems to be all about mid foot strike these days. Which is doubtless much the same as what you are describing. Personally, i find that increases stress on my knees.
Arm action is, I think its fair to say, ignored by very many casual runners/ joggers.

Anyway, about those calories......

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I was taught that with a good running technique, the ball of the foot makes contact with the ground before the heel, thus allowing greater distribution of the stresses on joints, particularly the knees and hips. In jogging, the heel tends to make first contact. Joggers also tend to pay less attention to their arm action, an important aspect of an efficient running technique.

That's why a good pair of running shoes is an essential investment. I could recommend Adidas Solarglide, but that would only be helpful for people who share my running style and general physique. It's worth finding a good local dealer.

[gradus]

I miss running but stopped 3 years ago due to clapped out knees which left me with no choice but to stop. Fortunately my knees just about allow the rotation of the pedals on my electric bike and it is a joy to ride and recommended to anyone similarly affected.

[gurnemanz]

I miss running but stopped 3 years ago due to clapped out knees which left me with no choice but to stop. Fortunately my knees just about allow the rotation of the pedals on my electric bike and it is a joy to ride and recommended to anyone similarly affected.

Slight impairment in left hip, right knee and lower back combine to make running (and longer walking) less than pleasurable. OK for short bursts eg tennis, when allowed. Bike riding at about 5k a day since lockdown is enjoyable, easier on the joints and keeps me generally fit and waistline more acceptable than it's been for years.

[muzzer]

I’m not at all clear what the difference is, other than speed !


Anyway, on a related issue, does anybody calorie count when trying to shift the odd unwanted pound/ kilo ?
Reason I ask is that in my limited experience, the daily calorie levels suggested by the NHS/BBC calculators give values that seem way above my weight maintenance requirements.

The BBC gives my maintenance level as 2133.Now, having done a calorie controlled diet a few years back, I know for a fact that my maintenance level is probably around 1500, give or take 100, plus whatever I burn off in exercise

https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/how_many_calories_do_you_need

My fitbit has my maintenance level at about 1400 which seems about right
So what concerns me is the possibility that a lot of people might be taking the NHS and BBC sites as gospel, and putting weight on through poor advice.
Thoughts?

That wouldn’t surprise me at all. I’ve been trying since Christmas to get rid of some lockdown lard and, as on previous occasions over the years, the only thing that works is what works. This means consuming far fewer calories than you’d think was correct based on a calculator and burning off thru exercise as much as possible. It’s become clear to me that I really just eat too much compared to what I need.

I wouldn’t trust the BBC on this. Do you recommend Fitbit? I’m generally very wary of anything like that, Apple Watch etc. I’m not a number, etc.

[teamsaint]

That wouldn’t surprise me at all. I’ve been trying since Christmas to get rid of some lockdown lard and, as on previous occasions over the years, the only thing that works is what works. This means consuming far fewer calories than you’d think was correct based on a calculator and burning off thru exercise as much as possible. It’s become clear to me that I really just eat too much compared to what I need.

I wouldn’t trust the BBC on this. Do you recommend Fitbit? I’m generally very wary of anything like that, Apple Watch etc. I’m not a number, etc.

Definitely my experience. When I really wanted to shift about half a stone , I aimed at a calorie deficit of about 500 per day ( which is a commonly used figure) and this did result in a weight loss of about 1-2 pounds a week, probably around 1.5 in fact. The deficit takes into account any exercise. Even with 3-5 miles a day walking ( 200-300 calories) this meant really quite a limited intake of food , far less than the BBC and some other calculators suggest . I became an overnight calorie bore, but it is true to say that much of our processed food is terribly calorific. I still can't go into a Costa without checking the calories on the cakes, almost all over 400 !!

Things I found useful : sweet craving dealt with by very slowly sucking a square of dark chocolate , possibly 50 calories. Tightly controlling booze, one small glass of wine , which becomes a real treat !! Lots of fruit helps , as it is quite low cal, and also things like stews are fairly low cal and filling. Sorry, don't mean to lecture. But the key thing was that realistic calorie control really worked for me.

As for Fitbit....well once you have a smartwatch, you already are a number ! I think Fitbit has just been flogged to one of the tech giants.If google are really interested in my running habits, well now they will have the data ! Most smart watches come with a health app/step counter, which does for most purposes. I quite like my fitbit ( charge 3) but really it is a glorified watch with a built in exercise function. I mostly bought it as a Xmas pressie for self, bit of a luxury, I think I paid about £79. I would definitely buy one with built in GPS, but that is more important for accurate running /cycling timings.

[oddoneout]

Definitely my experience. When I really wanted to shift about half a stone , I aimed at a calorie deficit of about 500 per day ( which is a commonly used figure) and this did result in a weight loss of about 1-2 pounds a week, probably around 1.5 in fact. The deficit takes into account any exercise. Even with 3-5 miles a day walking ( 200-300 calories) this meant really quite a limited intake of food , far less than the BBC and some other calculators suggest . I became an overnight calorie bore, but it is true to say that much of our processed food is terribly calorific. I still can't go into a Costa without checking the calories on the cakes, almost all over 400 !!

Things I found useful : sweet craving dealt with by very slowly sucking a square of dark chocolate , possibly 50 calories. Tightly controlling booze, one small glass of wine , which becomes a real treat !! Lots of fruit helps , as it is quite low cal, and also things like stews are fairly low cal and filling. Sorry, don't mean to lecture. But the key thing was that realistic calorie control really worked for me.

As for Fitbit....well once you have a smartwatch, you already are a number ! I think Fitbit has just been flogged to one of the tech giants.If google are really interested in my running habits, well now they will have the data ! Most smart watches come with a health app/step counter, which does for most purposes. I quite like my fitbit ( charge 3) but really it is a glorified watch with a built in exercise function. I mostly bought it as a Xmas pressie for self, bit of a luxury, I think I paid about £79. I would definitely buy one with built in GPS, but that is more important for accurate running /cycling timings.

That encapsulates both a specific and a general problem. Many people don't realise how easy it is to rack up the calorie intake with alcohol, not helped by the way wine glasses for instance are so much larger than 20 or 30 years ago, so that "one glass of wine" is now a significant chunk of a bottle in one go. Alcohol can also make appetites bigger. Linked with very much larger portion/plate sizes, this means that it is all too easy to take in far larger calorie loads than are required. Stomachs obligingly stretch to accommodate the larger load and so don't feel "full enough" with the right amounts, and the eye/brain relationship will likewise look at a correct size portion and perceive it as too small because it's on a modern over-sized plate. Consumption of ready meals/takeaways compounds the problem through the overlarge portion sizes of high calorie ingredients. TV programmes now demonstrate this, the most recent being Channel 5 last Wednesday(Secrets of your supermarket food) showing an overweight family how what they see as normal servings are up to 90% larger than they were 20 years ago.

[Dave2002]

That encapsulates both a specific and a general problem. Many people don't realise how easy it is to rack up the calorie intake with alcohol, not helped by the way wine glasses for instance are so much larger than 20 or 30 years ago, so that "one glass of wine" is now a significant chunk of a bottle in one go. Alcohol can also make appetites bigger. Linked with very much larger portion/plate sizes, this means that it is all too easy to take in far larger calorie loads than are required.

We have found that trying to persuade people that they didn't have such a terrible day that they have to have a G&T, then another, then have wine with the evening meal is not easy.
Telling them that if that's done every day their weight will either increase or stabilitise at a level they don't want doesn't have much effect. Then one listens to them wondering how some people maintain much lower weights.

[Sir Velo]

That encapsulates both a specific and a general problem. Many people don't realise how easy it is to rack up the calorie intake with alcohol, not helped by the way wine glasses for instance are so much larger than 20 or 30 years ago, so that "one glass of wine" is now a significant chunk of a bottle in one go. Alcohol can also make appetites bigger. Linked with very much larger portion/plate sizes, this means that it is all too easy to take in far larger calorie loads than are required.

Didn't I hear something that restaurants were going to be obliged to give the calorific load on menus? It really is about time that the fax tax was levied on the consumer to pay for the cost of obesity.

[muzzer]

I’m off the sauce almost completely. A few drops of bitters in soda is all. And that’s surprisingly alcoholic actually. Else I’m not missing booze so far this year, in stark contrast to last year’s confinements. Agree with everything else about “calorie creep”. I have to say that overall my bloody mindedness has been engaged by the, shall we say, manifest shortcomings in our national leaders and the severe reduction in things we have any control over. Well, it gets me exercising most days.