WAF - they don't know how lucky they are...

best way is balanced diet and plenty excercise, there is some merit in the Atkins, but not so extreme, to lose weight calories in must be less than calories expended.

Well done mr slim
 
i'm actually using the atkins diet - however i actually bought the book and read it rather than just dived into a diet of full englishes and lard. for example today i had some cold roast beef and vitamins with a liter of water for breakfast. a bag of salad with prunes, toasted almonds mayonaise and ham for lunch and my dinner will be some mortadella sausage with wedges of gouda and double glouster with chives and more water. i also use a stationary bike for 20 minutes most days (at least 3 times a week - usually 5) and do 1/2 an hour of free weights / situps / pressups etc.
i've cheated a few times (the omiga myth buster day and when i went on holiday to devon, you try outstaring a good devon cream tea) but it's never actually put weight on just stalled me for a few days / weeks. i've recently been checked for diabetes (which has a history in my family) and i was negative. i need to get a cholesterol check but suspect i'll be ok.
btw. the first week doing atkins is a total bastard you feel like hammered crap but once your body gets used to it you feel great.
cheers


julian
 
analoguekid said:
best way is balanced diet and plenty excercise, there is some merit in the Atkins, but not so extreme, to lose weight calories in must be less than calories expended.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I lost 6 kgs in one month, not much food, and only "good for you" stuff, and lots of exercise, my weight has been 79 kgs for the last couple of months, I am 1.87 cms tall...

Thats 6'2" and 174 pounds...
 
julian2002 said:
does classical get into the 130+ bpm's?
Click to expand...

:D Just a tad, yes. One of the scariest things I've ever had to play is Bartok's 2nd string quartet, which has an ultra-fast prestissimo at the end of the second movement. It's in 6/4 time, crotchets throughout, and about 100 bars per minute - so basically you're trying to play ten notes a second, with precious little respite in terms of repetition or patterns. Difficult isn't the word. :eek:

The closest I can think of to a fast-paced electronic beat though might be something like the bit in the last movement of Walton 1 where two timpanists go totally mental for a bit - and you get a lot of beats per minute, albeit not for very long.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dev, thanks - don't need any new clothes just yet as most of my existing stuff is elasticated iykwim and i have some clothes from a few years ago which i've always meant to be able to fit into again and now i can if i want to. just before i went on holiday i had to buy a shirt so i got one a few sizes smaller than i used to be and it was still too big - chuffed or what.

peter, fair enough i guess there are a few classical bits that get into the gabba bpm range then. i would think, though, that these pieces are still pretty far and few between so don't invalidate my point. thanks for the info though.
cheers


julian
 
julian2002 said:
i would think, though, that these pieces are still pretty far and few between so don't invalidate my point.
Click to expand...

I think it's more beside the point - you don't get a relentless pounding rhythm with digitally produced perfect transients with classical music, so in terms of hifi playback it's probably a different beast.

If you're interested, there is lots of classical music that goes really, really fast - often in pop/whatever you've got a melody which is either sung or within the kind of tempo range you could sing (even if there's a very fast drumbeat the vocal/other melodic line is often moving along at a much slower speed). Violins, pianos or whatever are an awful lot more agile in terms of playing different notes in quick succession, so the interesting bits can go much faster than is possible if it's being sung.
 
I weighed the same from the age of 18 until I got married at the age of 48. I've put on a stone since then but seem to be holding steady. :)

One things that I've always believed is that to effectively get one's weight down, one should lose it slowly. Even losing just 1lb a month still adds up to almost a stone a year. Most people who lose weight too quickly put it on again.

The other theory I've had - and I don't know whether there's any truth in it - is that those wanting to lose weight should turn the heating down a degree or two in winter and change from valve to solid state amps. If a high percentage of the body's energy is used in maintaining temperature, this makes sense to me.
 
steve,
the temperature thing makes sense to me also - i'm actually sitting here naked with the patio doors open.
cheers


julian
 
analoguekid said:
best way is balanced diet and plenty excercise, there is some merit in the Atkins, but not so extreme, to lose weight calories in must be less than calories expended.

Well done mr slim
Click to expand...

I would add that metabolism (or rate of) is more important than simply trying to balance calories - ie. if you eat less your body tries to compensate for the apparent famine by slowing down so you suffer and dont lose weight. Oysters have no ability to store fat but have a ubiquitous supply of food, Polar Bears have the ultimate ability to store fat, but finding food is very hard. Modern humans have the food supply of an Oyster and the ability to store fat of a Polar Bear. Oooh look at that pie!
 
Very good point on metabolism, greg.

Another of my crazy theories is to use a biofeedback machine (temperature meter) to learn to increase blood flow to the 'brown fat' regions of the upper back - does anyone remember the 'brown fat' theories of some years ago?

Might be worth a try to anyone serious about trying to increase their metabolism.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top