Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. (Page 7)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2011-03-31 4:30 PM in reply to: #3421639 |
Elite 5316 Alturas, California | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. Ok 5 9 here and 145 at the moment. I hit an all time high of 180-185 (2007) before I started training for triathlons and endurance run events. So I am down 35 pounds and ideally I would like to lose another 5-10 pounds. I am at 12 percent ish body fat at the moment and I can see my abs if I flex and look in the mirror... I know I'm not the only one fess up. My pants size has gone from a 40ish down to 33 ish and my too small belt is now on notch 5. I think the focus should be on being fit an healthy. Healthwise I am fine at 155, but race wise I am faster at 140. I was there prior to an injury and then went back up to 155. It turns out that when you do not workout at all you are around food more...well you eat some of it. My motabolism is exteremely slow, and I do not believe that eating more will make me lose weight. It is a happy thought, but it just makes me either not lose or gain weight. Typically I workout 2 hours a day (1 hour run and 1 hour swim or bike) and sometimes work out much more (3-7 hours on a weekend in IM training), but can get buy on 1500 calories without losing any weight (+ 200 cal per hour on workouts longer than 1 hour continuously) or at least I can go for a month or two without losing any weight and then maybe drop a pound here or there. So if I run 6 miles at lunch and bike 20 miles at night that is what 1100 ish calories burned with 1500 calories "in" results in no weight loss. |
|
2011-03-31 4:36 PM in reply to: #3421639 |
Member 61 Abbotsford | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. Last year I weighed in at 288 pounds today Im 185 pounds Im 5'8 Still have a few more pounds to shed but Im working on it, Training for my first Triathlon and having a blast with it, It is so much fun Training towards the big day, Even though Im starting my first ever Tri as a Sprint but I have to take baby steps and work my way up to the more longer larger races, I plan to be there one day, I lost so much weight now I feel like I can do anything and I love it |
2011-03-31 4:45 PM in reply to: #3422589 |
Veteran 306 | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. trigal38 - 2011-03-30 8:25 PM Speaking from the perspective of someone who has not struggled with weight, I think I just don't care a lot about food. My husband wants a large meal every night. I could really care less. I don't like to do the grocery shopping, plan the meals or cook. I get hungry and have to eat. I enjoy my share of junk food but my body reacts so negatively (bloating and stomach aches) to it that it is becoming increasingly not worth it. Yep, I agree with this. I've never struggled with my weight but I dont care much about food - I could have cereal or eggs every night for dinner and be totally happy. My husband cooks dinner because I would just make quesadillas. I also feel sick when I eat too much junk food but do enjoy a glass of wine several times per week. Also, I am active year round. I do not stop. I do more swim, bike, run stuff now (than before I raced triathlons) but I just always do something. I don't know about genetics. My family has some bad genes: diabetes, heart problems, cancer, thyroid issues, breast cancer and obesity to name a few. This too. Always been active, more so now but always have exercised at least 4 or so days per week. I do not take offense to what any man on this forum regards as an attractive physique but I also don't think anyone asked for an opinion of what is the sexiest. Maybe this is not the best place for that discussion. You wonder why not many woman comment on this thread? Because of overwhelming body image stereotypes that are reflected in our every day culture. From every magazine cover, to billboard, and even to BT. Totally agree here too. I also dont think that many "thin" women have responded because, IMO, for better or worse, I feel pretty rude commenting on other people's struggles with weight when I've never had one. And it feels like bragging, which I dont like to do, to say that I've never had a weight problem. I find it tough to lose 3 lbs - I cant imagine the battle that would happen trying to lose 10 or 20 or 50. Personally I am not racing triathlons to gain a lean/rawboned look. The thought has never crossed my mind and my physique has not changed much since I started racing. Yep, this too. I just want to be healthy, set a good example for my kids, and have some fun. I guess I did take offense a little . I think that trigal is right on.
|
2011-03-31 5:32 PM in reply to: #3423307 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
2011-03-31 5:41 PM in reply to: #3424093 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
2011-03-31 5:44 PM in reply to: #3421639 |
Master 2009 Charlotte, NC | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. I definitely do not discuss weight or anything like that around my kids, my girls and boys. I just try to set really good examples through my training and my food choices. |
|
2011-03-31 5:50 PM in reply to: #3421639 |
Veteran 179 | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. 5'8", 140 lbs. I'm aiming for 130 lbs by the beginning of the summer and 125 lbs by my "A" race, ~20 weeks from now. Of course, these are arbitrary numbers and I usually base all my decisions on how I feel each week. I just work better when i have a set number in mind. |
2011-03-31 6:15 PM in reply to: #3421639 |
Champion 6627 Rochester Hills, Michigan | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. Tom, in direct answer to your question, no, we shouldn't talk more about weight. We shouldn't talk about weight at all. We should do in line with what we want to achieve, whatever that is. Several examples: - Me: I don't care about weight. I'm 6'2", 190 right now. Heaviest I've been, clearly not optimal for being a competitive cyclist or triathlete. But that's not my goal, I want to be healthy, be a dad, be a responsive employee, be in shape for certain things. I'm great with my weight (although it could, and is being rearranged). Weight is very far down my list of goals. As it should be. - The professional: Shouldn't care about weight. They know their muscle / endurance / speed balance and can manage weight within that. Moreover, they know their body composition and can get very specific. Weight is but one of a few variables. - The amateur: as this thread shows, most people don't put tri performance ahead of living a healthy, full life. If that means a beer or a barbeque, it happens. Focusing on weight puts an artificial standard which runs at cross purposes to being healthy, broadly defined. Again, one variable among many. Now, two funny things: First, weightweenies. I'm fairly sure, that WW is a shill for 1) frustrated engineers that need to be the expert in something, or 2) product companies that create an artificial need, and hope through industry co-opting that it'll sell. Sheep will buy, it's proven. That's why lots of people own a P3C or a P4 as opposed to a P2C. Second, go ahead and google your top 10 IM finishers at, well, any IM-distance race. If you aspire to look like those stick figures 1 2 3 4 , then weight matters, as it will make SOME PEOPLE faster. But if you don't live in that lucrative world, which most of us don't, then that emaciated, gaunt look is sickly, and not optimal or healthy, and not necessary. You choose. My humble opinion. |
2011-03-31 6:29 PM in reply to: #3421639 |
Member 90 | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. Woman here (no pic so thought I should announce). I am pretty tall (5'8")and have a larger frame and just got under 150 for the first time in years. I don't have a weight goal right now. I am so darn slow that losing weight can't hurt and I doubt a $2K bike can help. I have an idea in my head of what I want to look like in a swimsuit then remind myself that I am 39 and have 3 kids and adjust accordingly. It's still a work in progress (and it is work) and I wonder how many different kinds of weights are there and are they official somehow?
Which of these are subjective and which based on some sort of science? When someone says they are 10 pounds from their "ideal weight" do they mean the weight that they will be happiest at or the weight that a doctor/trainer/nutritionist has told them that they should be? |
2011-03-31 7:09 PM in reply to: #3423328 |
Elite 2608 Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. ingleshteechur - 2011-03-31 10:22 AM I am a small woman (5') however I'm no waif...I hover around 130 lbs--I have booty and thighs and they are strong. However, everytime I finish a marathon or half marathon in a decent pace I ALWAYS think--how much faster could I have run if I would have dropped to 120? I am currently training for my first HIM on June 11 and again I'm thinking I would like to toe the line at 120...I'm just not sure if the effort to get there is worth it when I'm training so well and strong at my current 130. Any thoughts? Do I have any thoughts? No. I stopped reading after "I have booty and thighs and they are strong." |
2011-03-31 7:47 PM in reply to: #3421639 |
Veteran 200 | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. Since getting back "in shape" I now walk around (beer and bbq) and do everyday training at 6'4" ~185lbs. My hips and knees love this weight a whole lot more than the 6'4" 240lbs that they used to have to cart around. I plan to drop to 180lbs for the early part of the season, by paying a bit of attention to what I take in, more for performance than pure wieght loss, then dropping to 175lbs a few weeks before IMC (we'll see how I feel then and perhaps adjust back up a bit if necessary.) I like trying to go fast and I can't go fast with too much weight. |
|
2011-03-31 9:45 PM in reply to: #3424351 |
Extreme Veteran 378 Acton, Ontario | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. slokat - 2011-03-31 7:29 PM Woman here (no pic so thought I should announce). I am pretty tall (5'8")and have a larger frame and just got under 150 for the first time in years. I don't have a weight goal right now. I am so darn slow that losing weight can't hurt and I doubt a $2K bike can help. I have an idea in my head of what I want to look like in a swimsuit then remind myself that I am 39 and have 3 kids and adjust accordingly. It's still a work in progress (and it is work) and I wonder how many different kinds of weights are there and are they official somehow?
Which of these are subjective and which based on some sort of science? When someone says they are 10 pounds from their "ideal weight" do they mean the weight that they will be happiest at or the weight that a doctor/trainer/nutritionist has told them that they should be? A doctor, trainer, or nutritionist may have a different measure of what your "optimal", "healthy", "racing", and "ideal" weight are. They are all subjective. You decide what weight you will be happy at. |
2011-04-01 10:36 AM in reply to: #3422296 |
Extreme Veteran 331 Lawrenceville, GA | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. Gaarryy - 2011-03-30 5:37 PM I don't expose myself to any of those things unless I have to. I didn't say I don't live life, I just choose to cut back where I can or where I get a choice. I use sunscreen daily, I don't go out and "tan"... I actually wear long sleeves in Florida when I go fishing. If I have an option to get data without radiation, I will. Now, there is always a return on investment part too... I'm not scared of Dexa, but at the cost the last time I check (300 bucks), why would I expose myself to any radiation when I can get very accurate results for 50 bucks hydrostatic (of course this gets you exposed to chlorine and other chemicals..heck, even might be more radiation than dexa...but you get my point). I also don't drive on the interstate when I don't have too... I guess I'm a bit of a freak, but don't get me wrong... I'm not saying anyone else shouldn't get Dexa or drive on the interstate...so unless you are aviod things like flying, and CRT monitors, and basically living, you not subscribing to the less radiation model Edited by Davisjl 2011-04-01 10:37 AM |
2011-04-01 10:42 AM in reply to: #3422476 |
Extreme Veteran 331 Lawrenceville, GA | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. Tom Demerly. - 2011-03-30 8:06 PM I think I saw this same thing or read it... I believe the finding was that the weight loss was in muscle... ie geriatrics had a harder time maintaining muscle mass and therefore lost weight easier... again showing that weight loss isn't always good weight lost. Actually, I think the study concluded that muscle deteriorization started as early as 40..."The older I get the harder it is to lose weight." Ah ha! I think I may be able to disagree with you on this... Maybe. I recently heard a documentary on the BBC Listener about a long duratin weight loss study on geriatrics. They discovered moderate regular exercise did not only exert a similar weight loss effect on geriatrics, but it took less work for geriatrics to lose weight. It was fascinating. I could no sooner find the resource than fly to the moon- but it was about 4-6 weeks ago and reported in a half hour program on the BBC Listener internet service world wide. " Edited by Davisjl 2011-04-01 10:43 AM |
2011-04-01 10:46 AM in reply to: #3422505 |
Extreme Veteran 331 Lawrenceville, GA | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. tcovert - 2011-03-30 8:22 PM This one is tough, though, Tom. (Almost took exception to it when Mike posted it.) Adipose belly fat is pretty much universally regarded as a killer. Linked clinically to all sorts of diseases (even Alzheimer's, possibly). If you are talking about a sedentary person with "normal" BMI, BF%, lipids, etc., well, then, no: Sedentary per se is NOT more unhealthy than "fat"...it certainly isn't "lethal." That's hyperbole that does a disservice to lots of people who manage to maintain a healthful diet and proportionate physique without exercise. They do exist (I know a few)...and sometimes the evangelical fervor on this site regarding exercise as some sort of panacea loses site of that. I think I've read anew study out now that says all excess fat is bad, regardless of where. They now believe there is no link to "belly fat" and those things to you listed... but rather an excess of visceral fat in general. I believe that subcutaneous belly fat didn't show any direct links... I'll see if I can find the link and in what medical journal it was published... Anyone else see this?Apart from that caveat (which is not trivial, IMO), I think the rest of your statement (and the rest of Mike's post) are on the money.
And back on Healthy issue... I think what we all miss in talking about Heathly, is that is isn't made up of one statistical number... Weight, %fat, % muscle, Life Style, Strees Level, nutrition... all makes up "Healthy". I think sometimes we all tend to focus on one aspect and lose site of the others. Edited by Davisjl 2011-04-01 11:09 AM |
2011-04-01 10:56 AM in reply to: #3424404 |
Elite 4583 | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. MikeTheBear - 2011-03-31 7:09 PM ingleshteechur - 2011-03-31 10:22 AM I am a small woman (5') however I'm no waif...I hover around 130 lbs--I have booty and thighs and they are strong. However, everytime I finish a marathon or half marathon in a decent pace I ALWAYS think--how much faster could I have run if I would have dropped to 120? I am currently training for my first HIM on June 11 and again I'm thinking I would like to toe the line at 120...I'm just not sure if the effort to get there is worth it when I'm training so well and strong at my current 130. Any thoughts? Do I have any thoughts? No. I stopped reading after "I have booty and thighs and they are strong."
LOL... |
|
2011-04-01 2:26 PM in reply to: #3421639 |
Pro 3804 Seacoast, NH! | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. Forgive me for not reading all 9 pages...but has anyone posted the best way to figure out your optimal racing weight? Is it really all trial and error? Where should one start? I'm currently at 6'3" and 192 lbs. What I want to know is: Would weighing 10 lbs less make me faster? I think this is the question of many athletes. What is the magic number? Do we just continue to drop weight until we start dropping performance...gain a pound and we're good to go? I don't think it's that simple. I personally am going to make an appointment with a sports nutritionist to find out what my RMR is...start tracking every calorie I eat and dropping a few lbs. I'm very interested in this. I have good body image and feel like I look acceptable naked...so yeah, for me, it's just speed. Edited by jgerbodegrant 2011-04-01 2:27 PM |
2011-04-01 3:28 PM in reply to: #3425725 |
Extreme Veteran 586 Richmond | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. If that is you in your avatar, then yes, dropping 10lbs would make you faster. And no, I am not calling you fat. Fairly lean already actually. The magic number is somewhere in the 5-8% bodyfat range for males. You are not real close to that. Be careful determing ideal weight through decreases in performance. When you get very low, you might notice a decrease in performance immediately upon losing weight, but you may also bounce back. It is pretty simply. If you are in it for speed, you can look fairly unhealthy to the average Joe and still be racing faster and faster. "Somewhat emaciated" is fast. Most, and I mean 99.9% of those reading this will never go as low as they can, and that is ok. I sure won't. 5% bodyfat for me is like 148. To get yourself down to the fastest weight possible would probably be harder than the actual training for many. |
2011-04-01 3:51 PM in reply to: #3421639 |
Master 2009 Charlotte, NC | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. I wouldn't even know how to get to "somewhat emaciated" looking. |
2011-04-01 5:15 PM in reply to: #3425872 |
Master 1993 Riverside, IL | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. tricrazy - 2011-04-01 3:51 PM I wouldn't even know how to get to "somewhat emaciated" looking.
LOL...x1000!!!! |
2011-04-01 8:01 PM in reply to: #3425872 |
Extreme Veteran 586 Richmond | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. tricrazy - 2011-04-01 3:51 PM I wouldn't even know how to get to "somewhat emaciated" looking. You're not alone. |
|
2011-04-01 9:05 PM in reply to: #3421639 |
Pro 3804 Seacoast, NH! | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. Dave thanks for the insight. It is me in my avatar. (assuming you are referring to me) That's about the weight I'm at now. I have an appt. with a nutritionist so I will see where I can go from here. |
2011-04-01 10:38 PM in reply to: #3421639 |
Veteran 471 Alpharetta | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. I'll add my thoughts on here as i represent two things that are lacking in this thread. I am a formerly fat woman. At my high of 230 pounds I thought if I could just get to 175 I wouldn't feel like such a social outcast. Fat may be all around us, but as a fat woman it isn't pleasant out there. Then when I got there I discovered I liked being active and decided that 148 would be a good stopping point. I never thought I could get lower than that, because well I'm no spring chicken anymore. But once there then I started thinking about how much faster I'd be if I lost a few more. I'm now in the mid 130s and the difference is amazing. I just ran my first 10k at this new low and I cut about a minute a mile off my PR. Of course the irony is now people feel free to tell me to stop losing weight. Nobody ever felt free to tell me to start! Edited by cindi 2011-04-01 10:39 PM |
2011-04-02 5:42 AM in reply to: #3426199 |
Pro 3804 Seacoast, NH! | Subject: RE: Our Biggest Single Limiter: Our Weight. cindi - 2011-04-01 11:38 PM I'll add my thoughts on here as i represent two things that are lacking in this thread. I am a formerly fat woman. At my high of 230 pounds I thought if I could just get to 175 I wouldn't feel like such a social outcast. Fat may be all around us, but as a fat woman it isn't pleasant out there. Then when I got there I discovered I liked being active and decided that 148 would be a good stopping point. I never thought I could get lower than that, because well I'm no spring chicken anymore. But once there then I started thinking about how much faster I'd be if I lost a few more. I'm now in the mid 130s and the difference is amazing. I just ran my first 10k at this new low and I cut about a minute a mile off my PR. Of course the irony is now people feel free to tell me to stop losing weight. Nobody ever felt free to tell me to start! Cindi, that's seriously awesome. You're a great example for people for sure. There is a member of my family that I would love to confront about their weight. I honestly don't feel comfortable doing it. I am always very supportive of any activity they do just to emphasize the importance of exercise, but have never been "strong" enough to make the actual point that they need to lose weight. It's very tough as this person is fragile. Believe me, I know that me not saying something is probably worse than if I did. I just don't know exactly how to do it. |
2011-04-02 7:51 AM in reply to: #3426199 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
|