Lets put this a bit more plainly for M3ta7h3ad. I'm used to pain. I have quite a bit of it every day. I take several 30/500 cocodamol plus aspirin, plus other drugs to try and keep the pain manageable. Note it doesn't stop the pain, it just reduces it a bit, some reduction being better than none.

On that occasion I barely got to a jog. As to the pain level I thought I was having my bollocks ripped off. I nearly fainted and had to grab onto a roadside railing in order to stop falling onto the pavement.

I doubt if 20 metres equates to running in anyone else's books.

And if 'anyone' can run try that with Prof Stephen Hawking... 

I wouldn't do running personally, long term it seems to do absolutely no good for your knees and joints, it's also the least time-effective way to burn calories other than walking. I'd much rather sit on a rowing machine in front of the TV

Quote from: Serious on April 10, 2012, 12:56:25 PM
Lets put this a bit more plainly for M3ta7h3ad. I'm used to pain. I have quite a bit of it every day. I take several 30/500 cocodamol plus aspirin, plus other drugs to try and keep the pain manageable. Note it doesn't stop the pain, it just reduces it a bit, some reduction being better than none.

On that occasion I barely got to a jog. As to the pain level I thought I was having my bollocks ripped off. I nearly fainted and had to grab onto a roadside railing in order to stop falling onto the pavement.

I doubt if 20 metres equates to running in anyone else's books.

And if 'anyone' can run try that with Prof Stephen Hawking... 

Stephen Hawking can't walk.

You're clearly an exception being disabled obviously discounts you from my anyone can run. Fact is though... you still ran for a short distance.

Given the C25K starts you "running" at 30 seconds of brisk walking followed by 2 minutes of regular walking. Running itself is pretty loosely defined (if you get an oxford dictionary out, I will facedesk) at my level.

least efficient? I'd say cycling ranks lower on the calorie burning factor. Rowing being a full body workout done properly is brilliant but if you can sit down and watch TV while rowing you're clearly not giving it your all

Still anyway, whatever you naysayers moan about. I say if this guy can do it, anyone* can.




*Didn't realise I had to deal with pedants here but disclaimer, anyone is discounting those who are physically incapable of movement or those who's bollocks are currently in the process of being torn off of their body.

I have a metabolic condition that effectively works like this - I could do the same amount of exercise as someone else, and burn 50% less calories then they do. So basically, for exercise to have any real effect on me, (because for me, I want to exercise to lose weight, any other reason I just don't want to hear about) I need to do such excessive amounts it isn't really worth it - and Clock'd will vouch that I am one of the laziest beings on earth, I could have been a sloth in a previous life.

I do however try and keep 'active'; when the weather starts to improve I will cycle from my house to Nigels (which google maps tells me is about 3.5 miles), which I know isn't the most intense form of exercise, but I'm going to whip out my asthma card here (and the fact I'm so unfit) as a reason why I don't generally do anything else (:

Quote from: Beanissocoollike on April 10, 2012, 19:46:47 PM
I have a metabolic condition that effectively works like this - I could do the same amount of exercise as someone else, and burn 50% less calories then they do.

That's likely a bit dubious - while people's metabolism's do vary a bit you probably won't burn 50% less than other people doing the same amount of exercise - if that were the case you'd surely be some awesome world record breaking endurance athlete who burns calories so efficiently running a marathon only requires half the resources of a normal human being - alternatively if you survived in a plane crash in some remote frozen region of the planet you'd last a week longer than everyone else... its rather unlikely.

Quote
So basically, for exercise to have any real effect on me, (because for me, I want to exercise to lose weight, any other reason I just don't want to hear about) I need to do such excessive amounts it isn't really worth it - and Clock'd will vouch that I am one of the laziest beings on earth, I could have been a sloth in a previous life.

I do however try and keep 'active'; when the weather starts to improve I will cycle from my house to Nigels (which google maps tells me is about 3.5 miles), which I know isn't the most intense form of exercise, but I'm going to whip out my asthma card here (and the fact I'm so unfit) as a reason why I don't generally do anything else (:

try swimming - tis good for you if you've got asthma - I can sympathise a lot as I had quite bad asthma as a kid (as in rushed to hospital a couple of times/ambulance called etc...).  You might find that being a 'sloth' is partly to blame - someone who fidgets a lot and is quite restless likely burns up quite a few more calories than someone who is rather more lethargic.

Quote from: M3ta7h3ad on April 10, 2012, 18:49:51 PM

Quote from: Serious on April 10, 2012, 12:56:25 PM
Lets put this a bit more plainly for M3ta7h3ad. I'm used to pain. I have quite a bit of it every day. I take several 30/500 cocodamol plus aspirin, plus other drugs to try and keep the pain manageable. Note it doesn't stop the pain, it just reduces it a bit, some reduction being better than none.

On that occasion I barely got to a jog. As to the pain level I thought I was having my bollocks ripped off. I nearly fainted and had to grab onto a roadside railing in order to stop falling onto the pavement.

I doubt if 20 metres equates to running in anyone else's books.

And if 'anyone' can run try that with Prof Stephen Hawking... 

Stephen Hawking can't walk.

You're clearly an exception being disabled obviously discounts you from my anyone can run. Fact is though... you still ran for a short distance.

You clearly said anyone, and that has to include people like Hawking. You can't make a claim involving everyone and then make exceptions.

I'm not saying that most people can't run, they can, but there are always exceptions. Keeping active is always good too, but not everyone can manage that.

What people can do is try to do exercise that is suitable for them, I have trouble running but I can cycle. I have an arthritic back which massively reduces the effort I can put in on a rowing machine. None of the above means I don't try.

Quote from: Dave on April 10, 2012, 20:55:21 PM

That's likely a bit dubious - while people's metabolism's do vary a bit you probably won't burn 50% less than other people doing the same amount of exercise - if that were the case you'd surely be some awesome world record breaking endurance athlete who burns calories so efficiently running a marathon only requires half the resources of a normal human being - alternatively if you survived in a plane crash in some remote frozen region of the planet you'd last a week longer than everyone else... its rather unlikely.

I don't think I explained it very well at first. Basically, the condition I have gives me an insulin imbalance, so anything I eat - even stuff people would consider healthy will make me gain weight, and it's a lot harder for me to burn it.
'Women with this disorder store more fat than women without it, and burn fewer calories throughout the day.'
Like I said before, I don't really know much about my condition, it's quite complicated and even doctors don't know a great deal about it, but I'm just going by information I've read from scientific research. It seems the only way for me to have a 'healthy diet' is to cut down on all carbs, cut out all sugar, eat about a 1500 calories a day instead of the recommended 2000 and eat smaller portions. But no way is that happening

Quote
try swimming - tis good for you if you've got asthma - I can sympathise a lot as I had quite bad asthma as a kid (as in rushed to hospital a couple of times/ambulance called etc...).

Also, I can't swim. I could learn to, but all the attempts when I was younger ended in me screaming the place down because of my fear of drowning.

Quote from: M3ta7h3ad on April 10, 2012, 18:49:51 PM

least efficient? I'd say cycling ranks lower on the calorie burning factor. Rowing being a full body workout done properly is brilliant but if you can sit down and watch TV while rowing you're clearly not giving it your all

Cycling maybe less efficient, I have no idea, but its also maybeless stressful to the body? BTW I'm not saying there's no place for running as its obviously the first port of call for cardio fitness; I think running on a treadmill as a warm up is a great way to get started, but I wouldn't make running the basis of an entire exercise regime for myself, doing marathons, etc. As for watching TV, that was just to say something throwaway like the music channels. Or I'd stick on Man vs Food to give me an appetite by the time I'm finished

I think running is too intense for someone who hasnt done any for a long time. I find im shot to pieces after a very short distance and the pain in my side is terrible.. a stitch? really? feels like iv been shot.

I didnt find the same problem when attempting cycling.. new problems.. like the bike feeling like a joke (after riding motorcycles) and getting tired quickly.. the point tho surely heh..

Quote
Also, I can't swim. I could learn to, but all the attempts when I was younger ended in me screaming the place down because of my fear of drowning.

rowing machine might be the next best thing then I guess - though swimming is really good for asthmatics so worth a shot if you're feeling like giving it a go again - I think it helped me a lot when I was younger - like you're probably well aware that on a cold day if you were to go out walking or jogging you can feel wheezy, swimming provides a great environment to exercise in as you're breathing in warm moist air...

Quote from: Beanissocoollike on April 10, 2012, 19:46:47 PM
I have a metabolic condition that effectively works like this - I could do the same amount of exercise as someone else, and burn 50% less calories then they do. So basically, for exercise to have any real effect on me, (because for me, I want to exercise to lose weight, any other reason I just don't want to hear about) I need to do such excessive amounts it isn't really worth it - and Clock'd will vouch that I am one of the laziest beings on earth, I could have been a sloth in a previous life.

I do however try and keep 'active'; when the weather starts to improve I will cycle from my house to Nigels (which google maps tells me is about 3.5 miles), which I know isn't the most intense form of exercise, but I'm going to whip out my asthma card here (and the fact I'm so unfit) as a reason why I don't generally do anything else (:

Have you tried to find an activity that you enjoy and view as a hobby more than as a form of exercise? Anything that gets you up and moving and you can get a bit addicted to will be far more beneficial than a more traditional exercise that you aren't so keen on and have to force yourself to do.

There is one activity 

On a serious note though, we've both said we are going to make a conscious effort to eat a bit better and do more walking at the weekends. I'm not a good influence on anyone with my levels of laziness and gluttony.

 Do quite a bit of walking with the Mrs, http://www.walkjogrun.net/ is a handy -not only to measure distance but to also find other peoples routes that might be slightly off the beaten track, can be handy if you fancy a bit of peace and quiet on a nice day when the more popular local spot's tend to get quite busy, found a couple of really scenic walks less than a mile or 2 from my house.