Friday, 3 April 2015

Weightloss milestone :-)

Some of you will be following by "shift the gut" efforts this year.
It is going much better than last year when I only did "cycling" as extra exercise.
This year there is quite a bit of running mixed in too.

But the "proof of the pudding is in the eating" as they say!

So what is the milestone?

For two days running I have weighed in at UNDER 93 kgs! (that's about 205 lbs).
I haven't been that light for ... um, let me think - 15 years ago, I got down to 94kg (about 207 lbs) but no lower, before heading back up to about 97 kg. But I know I was only about 90 kg in the Summer of 1998 (I changed jobs and put a lot of weight on quite quickly!).
So I guess that is the lightest I have been in about 17 years!


Ok, so the "weigh-ins" were only just under 93kgs (92.9kg yesterday, and 92.8kg today), but under 93kg, all the same (!)
I'm glad I took up running this year, even though my feet get a bit sore (especially the toes!), and my leg muscles were complaining like carzy for the first few weeks (this is the reality of running after not doing it for so many years!)

What do I put it down to?

Well, mostly the running.
The cycling I was doing last year - indeed I was doing more, but the lowest weight I saw was 93.9 kg, and I'm a whole kilo (about 2.2 lbs) less than that now. Of course, by the end of last year I was back up to my "usual" 97 to 100 kg (213-220 lbs), so it is not a case of "leveraging" last year's efforts - more a case of "starting again"!

I've been trying to eat a few less donuts and a few more cans of chickpeas, too, so there could be a minor calorie reduction going on as well.

But the BIG change is definitely the running!

Update (still today!)
I went out for a 10K run with my new, lighter, weight,
Part of it is my increasing fitness anyway, but having less weight to lug up the slope (it is about 14m a lap on the climb, and I do 6 laps for 10K).
Anyway, I set a new PR for 5 K and 10K, with the 10K time at 1 hr 0 mins and 26 seconds.
So I just need to knock off 26 seconds from my time to hit my 1 hr target!

Another running strategy (actually it applies to cycling as well!) is to set up a long-ish "time trial" segment, My training book suggests about 16K for cycling. I set up one for 1.6K and one for 8.3K for running (the 8.3K is 5 laps of the 1.6K!).
Over time you can see how your progress is moving by looking at a set of times for the same section.
You need to make them longer than the "itsy" little "segments" most folks set up in Strava - 300m isn't going to tell you much about general fitness, and most cycle events are paced at 50Km or more (although a few ones have shorter segments starting at about 15 Km or 10 miles). Running races for charity or pleasure are usually at least 5K or 10K, and tend to be half-marathons (21.1 Km) or full marathons (42.2 Km),
So you'll probably have to set up your own segments.
Using a "custom" Strava segment to track my training progress - this one is 1.6km long.
The 8.3 km "custom" Strava segment tells a clearer story of my improving fitness!
Update 10th April 2015:
Weighed in at a new "low" this morning - 92.6kg :-)

Thinking about running vs. cycling, jogging seems to have three main advantages over cycling:
1) it is "load bearing", which as we get older is important for a variety of reasons - cycling isn't!
2) it is quick and easy to fit in a short session
(although if you have a turbo trainer permanently set up at home and spend most of your time near it, then it is also true for the turbo trainer)
3) it is much easier to maintain a decent cardio-vascular workout while jogging than it is to do it on a bike "on the road" (although, again, a turbo trainer also allows for a consistent effort,) - "Road" cycling results in a very varied effort levelm due to other road users, road design etc, etc,

Weight loss is a calories in/calories out kind of thing.
There is no particular "automatic" advantage to jogging over cycling for weightloss, except the average intensity of the workout tends to be much higher than cycling (point 3, above), and it is quick and easy, and thus more likely to actually happen (point 2, above) - it is the actual increased calorie usage that causes the weightloss, not the method employed.

No comments:

Post a Comment