|
|
|
THERESA: I just came across a fun piece that ran awhile ago in the Washington Post. The writer set out on an experiment: He quit exercising completely for nine days, and carefully tracked his caloric intake to make sure it did not exceed the calories he burned during normal, non-strenuous daily activities. The result? He lost weight, a couple pounds in the short term. The outlook if he were to continue this no-exercise lifestyle at the rate he's eating? As his column points out, he's likely to gain weight, because he'll lose muscle mass, which will slow down his metabolism.
The experiment is interesting, but even if weight control was not a factor, I would not want to give up exercise. As tough as it sometimes is, exercise provides so many other benefits beside helping me fit into my clothes-- stress relief, heart health, heightened energy and a sense of accomplishment. What do you think about this, girlfriends?
APRIL: That is so interesting because I did not run for a whole week or lift weights and actually lost 5 pounds. I know it is a bad weight loss though becuase I've lost muscle, even if it's not visible...
LAURIE: Exercising to lose weight doesn't really work unless dieting is involved, for me. I tend to eat more when I work out a lot -- or justify overeating. Now I'm more aware of this and try to stop myself. Overall, I think more these days of maintaining my strength and flexibility, and doing weight-bearing stuff for my bones (osteoporosis runs in my family) than I do strictly exercise.
I, too, have experienced weight loss when I stopped eating!
YVONNE W: I must exercise, although I will lose weight by controlling my calorie intake. I need exercise to increase my stamina and to remain strong and flexible.
It's an interesting thought. I feel very energized when I exercise as well as self-satisfied that I'm taking care of my health. But if I could remain healthy without having to spend an hour and a half at the gym, the benefits would be enormous. I could sleep later, not be so exhausted all the time, feel less stressed about having to find the time to do everything I need to do. And with the money I save on gym membership, workout clothes, etc., I could buy more chocolate -- hell, maybe even a pair of earrings. What an idea. . .
Posted by: Jill on May 11, 2004 10:20 AMJill, you speak the truth! On second thought, I know I'd still dance and do yoga even if it wasn't good for me. And I think Theresa would still run (would you, T?). Maybe that's the key to exercise -- find something you'd do anyway. There are lots of exercise modes I've done and been glad to stop at some point, though.
Posted by: Laurie on May 11, 2004 10:39 AMIn truth, would I run if it wasn't good for me? I gotta admit, it's not usually 100 percent fun while I'm doing it. It's fun trying new running gear and hitting the trails on cool, sunny days, and I like the scene at huge races like Broad Street. And it's always fun to stop running after a long workout, and have an icy bottle of water and then a hot bath.
I know I would like to someday run a marathon, even though I'm not positive that's good for me. I don't think human beings need to run marathons to stay healthy. But the urge to do one is nagging at me.
You're absolutely right, Laurie. I would definitely still take my Saturday dance class and walk my dog on Sunday in the beautiful historic cemetery around the corner. I'd ride my bike in the spring and fall, too. It's just those grueling days at the gym I'd gladly give up.
For those who run, it seems a marathon is a really good once-in-a-lifetime thing to do. Like climbing Everest, only horizontally. You should do it!
Posted by: Laurie on May 11, 2004 10:47 AMOnline Casinos | Online Casino - Online Casino
Posted by: Online Casinos on August 9, 2006 02:37 AMOnline Casinos
Posted by: Online Casinos on August 9, 2006 03:41 AM