Conference rocks::weight_control

    
    It doesn't matter when you fill the tank, It matters that you use up
    the fuel that you put in.
    
    	- andy

    re:.0
    
    More tricks, gimmicks and fads.
    
    It does not significantly� matter _when_ you eat.
    
    It does significantly matter how much and what kind of food you eat,
    and also, how much and what kind of exercise you get.
    
    There is no magic involved.  There are no secrets to weight loss.
    
    Eat less fat, get regular exercise.
    
    
    �: I say "significantly" because I just read a study this weekend
       about how eating 1 large meal was better for weight loss than
       eating the same amount of food, broken up into 3 smaller meals.
    
       The caloric difference was  ... are you sitting down? ... less
       than 10 calories! 10 calories!  So, over the course of 350 meals,
       you'd lose about 1 pound of fat.
    
       The study made no mention of how hard it would be to stave off 24
       hours of hunger between meals, or how much discomfort or distress
       it would cause to be so bloated for half the day.
    
       Just that you could save 10 calories per meal.  The sad part is
       that some people will not read the figures and realize how LITTLE
       weight that is, but instead will consider this the new diet trick
       and try it to lose weight.

    I found the article... Consumer Reports on Health, Feb92, p13 :
    
    It was 16 calories per day they saved, eating their day's food in
    one sitting (10 minutes), rather than in 6 sittings, each 30 minutes
    apart.
    
    The "daily food" was a 750 calorie liquid meal.
    
    Digestion took 58 calories when eaten all at once, 42 calories when
    eaten in 6 settings.

    
    OK, exercise is important. I have another question.
    
    Someone told me that walking and running the same distance will
    burn up the same amount of calories as your body is moving the same
    distance because in physics, work = mass x distance.
    
    Any comment.
    
    Steve

    That's more-or-less true. It's quicker if you run, obviously. This
    doesn't apply to cycling or swimming though.
    
    	- andy

.4>  Someone told me that walking and running the same distance will
.4>  burn up the same amount of calories as your body is moving the same
.4>  distance because in physics, work = mass x distance.

    Work = forceXdistance, not massXdistance, but that's irrelevant to
    your question ... like Andy said in .5, for the most part, that's
    right, running and walking will consume the same # of calories per
    mile.

    There are some differences worth mentioning, besides # of calories :

    o Walking is easier on the knees and lower back (very important if
      you're overweight).

    o Walking doesn't require expensive footwear to prevent injuries
      (any good sneaker is Ok)

    o Walking, as an exercise, consumes MORE FAT PER MILE than running
      (as a general rule, the lower the intensity, the more fat your
      body can metabolize for energy)

    o Running will increase your cardiovascular conditioning, walking
      will NOT (speedwalking will, though, and it's also easier on the
      knees and lower back than running)

    o Running takes about half as much time as walking to cover the
      same distance

    
    Very good analysis from .6
    
    It seems walking is more preferable than running for over-weight
    people to start exercise to lose weight.
    
    Wiil walking up a slope yield more advantages than just walking
    on flat ground ?
    
    Steve

    Walking uphill requires more energy than walking on level ground.
    
    How much more depends on how much you weigh.

    How fast is "speed-walking"?
    
    Also, walking *will* increase your cardio-fitness if your heartrate is
    in your training target zone when you walk.  For most people this won't
    be the case but for very heavy or very out-of-shape people it will be.
    
    I get  in to my target heart rate by walking on a treadmill at a 13%
    grade at 3.5 mph.
    
    D!

    Diana, there's a half-pager on walking on p94 of the July/August92
    edition of American Health.
    
    Briefly, a strolling pace is about 20 minutes per mile, a brisk pace
    is about 14-18 minutes per mile, and power walking is faster than 14
    minutes per mile (this is what I call speed walking).

    
    I heard about something about exercise that you need to keep your heart
    beat faster at a certain rate , say 30% more, and maintain this rate 
    at certain lenghth of time, say 20 minute or so, before you can gain 
    real benefit from exercise. Is it true ?
    
    Steve

    20 minutes, 3 times a week, is the minimum needed for
    cardiac-respiratory conditioning. More like 40 minutes for burning fat.

    
    
    	Add one thing to Andy's note.  Intensity.  Your heartrate
    	should be in the Target Zone.
    
    	Remember it this way:
    
    	F.I.T.
    
    	Frequency (3-5 times/week)
    	Intensity (60-80 percent of Maximum heart rate, roughly calculated	
    		   as 220-AGE)
    	Time	  Minimum of 20 minutes
    
    
    	One note on Speed walking - Mike's note is a good guideline, but
    	at 13 minute miles, I find I'm usually just barely in my target
    	zone.  I've started to add some joggig back into my walks to bring
    	my heartrate up, unless I'm pushing the baby stroller.
    
    	Karen