To feel depressed by this DM article re size 16

[Rachtoteach]

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2342207/Is-size-16-normal--danger-These-women-Britains-common-dress-size-youd-expect-healthy-battery-medical-tests-came-surprising-worrying-results.html

After 37 years on this planet I have finally developed something I wish more women could have - an acceptance of who I am and the ability of being happy in my own body..... even though - shock, horror - I am 5ft2, size 16, 11 something stone. Anyway, I don't cry in the changing rooms anymore . I exercise 3 x week, eat a balanced-ish diet, don't smoke, blah blah blah.

It just makes me sad and mad that the DM have taken 4 size 16 women who each turn out to have some health issues, and declare (effectively) all us size 16 women a picture of ill-health! On the results of four women?!! And implying, or least leaving the reader with the impression, that any other (smaller sized) women would conversely be in tip-top health - all of them, simply based on their size!

AIBU to think that there must be some healthy size 16 women out there and probably some not so healthy smaller women? If I am BU then I may as well give up now as I know I am unlikely to ever be much smaller than I am now.

Sorry Samu2 but you've bought into it big time. I think the jury is still out on the 'Interval vs cardio' debate.

The problem is that people's definitions of "normal" have changed.
People think that, if size 16 is average, if walking at an average pace counts as exercise, and if biscuits/cake are everyday food, then they must be healthy.
But, as the DM article points out, they could actually be storing up health problems for the future. I hate the DM and everything it stands for, but this piece actually has a point. Which is that BMI is not nonsense in 99 per cent of cases, and being overweight and a size 16 does have health implications.

I've recently lost a stone, taking me from a size 12 to a 10. In doing so, I've knocked 7 minutes off my 10k PB. Now, that is huge. More than a minute a mile. I am absolutely convinced, more than ever, that weight has a huge impact on physical fitness - especially as I was training more when I was larger.

BMI is also a huge, huge bracket. At my height I could be anything between around 8.5 and 11 stones and still be healthy. However, at 10st 12, I was healthy and chubby. Now I'm 9st 12 I'm healthy and average - but still have a distinct roll of fat around my tummy.
If I was more than 11st I'd still be fit enough to run marathons, but that wouldn't make me any less overweight.

A bit more here about it

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311123639.htm

www.simplyshredded.com/fit-with-hiit-science-is-dropping-the-hammer-on-endless-bouts-of-steady-state-cardio.html

There are studies out there if you want to find them.

Oh I realise that, Cote. It is all the same shit dressed up in different ways!

Thing is, for a lot of people starting out exercising 45minutes is a bloody long time and just not doable (whether that purely physically or mentally). That is why c25k is so good, training people up and keeping them motivated. How many people can now run for 5km/10km nonstop because they started with short bursts on an IPod? Bloody loads on MN and my parkrun at least.

We can't bemoan obesity and lack of exercise on one hand and then poo poo when people are making the effort to actually do something.

The problem with cardio is the more you do the more efficient your body gets so it has less impact. It also burns not that many calories depressingly.

The more muscle you have the more calories you will burn at any point. I doubt that metafit burns 800 calories, but if you do it properly you will be close to puking, and its all strength stuff so your muscles will get bigger and you will burn more calories.

Well I am happy to be corrected if that is the case, but from all my research and talking to personal trainers it seems that the evidence is pretty solid to me.

If there are studies that prove me wrong then I will happily eat my words. I am not too proud to admit when I am wrong :)

I manage to maintain my weight easier doing interval training.

Interval training works for me too. It seems to reduce my appetite too.

In fact, I'm pretty sure there is a valid school of thoughts that says the most effective exercise is lifting heavy.

Samu2

There are just as many articles out there that say the opposite.

I agree that heavy lifting is where it is at, too.

It has transformed my body and weight.

Techno, point taken.. so I guess it boils down to personal choice then :) I know I would rather do 25 minutes of intervals followed by heavy weights than 45 minutes on those darn machines

And yes of it reducing your appetite.. long cardio does the opposite for me.

I have experience of quite a few very good personal trainers, Samu, and I am quite familiar with the principles of interval training.

My problem is with your use of the word "ideal" - as in, no more and no less. Fine, if you can't or don't want to do any more, but WHO EXACTLY has determined that 24 minutes is "ideal" and HOW?

Maybe ask your trainer if he knows. Also ask him whether he is aware that it takes the body about 20-30 minutes to start burning fat reserves.

Mine started me on 3 x 15 minutes = 45 minutes from the first session. (This was a training program in a sports hospital where professional athletes go when they have a problem so I dare hope that they know what they are doing.). This was followed by weights and stretching. I lost 10 kgs in 2.5 months and went down two dress sizes.

Again, my comments are for people who say they go to the gym often but their weight doesn't shift. They need to up their training to 45 minutes and keep their heart rate at the required interval.

That last sentence didn't make much sense!

Lifting weights is something to be done full stop. Muscle mass is high maintenance so is beneficial for all, especially as we lose muscle mass as we get older.

However you cannot survive on lifting heavy weights alone. Neither should you only do intervals.

The only real way of keeping things real is to combine it all i.e. bouts of heavy strength training followed by light weight endurance.

Intervals should also be mixed up with steady state cardio. Read any serious training manual and they will always say to mix it up.

The benefit of this is also that it prevents any plateau and also keeps things interesting.

Well sure, people can do more of less if they want. I should have said that imo you don't need to do more for it to be effective.

I will put those questions to my trainer when I next see her though :)

Sorry I haven't had time to read the whole thread yet, but... I am a size 16 and trying to lose a little more weight, it has taken a loss of 21lbs to get to a 16. What amazes me is the difference in weight/height yet all are size 16.

Woman1: 11st 5lb and 5ft 6inches
Woman2: 14st 8lb and 5ft 7inches
Woman3: 13st 7lb and 5ft 2inches
Woman4: 10st 8lb and 5ft 5inches

Surely this has to show that natural body shapes and not just weight dictate your size too?

Well, then I eat my words!!

I am always happy to learn more and will start adding more longer cardio into my routine.

Oh Cote, I do know where you are coming from. The magazine readers and chitter chatterers at the gym irritate the hell out of me
Same with people gossiping in the swimming pool, in everyones way and then doing only about 4 lengths in total.

Exercise is like diets, soooo many RIGHT ways, so many experts with DVDs/classes/diet books/Supplements to sell. No ONE size fits all.

OhTheConfusion - I had no idea it varied so much until I joined MN. Just on this thread me and ILike birds are almost 2 stone different in weight, same height yet she is slimmer than me. Completely different body types presumably (I am ).

I cannot big up the weight training enough, I have been weight training recently and in just a few weeks there has been a noticable difference in my body shape, I run in between but only shortish distances at the moment as trying to fit more sessions in each week. I lost lots of inches just with the weight training and a healthy diet (not dieting) before I added the running.

Completely different body types

what does this mean? do you mean height? she has more muscle?

Techno, point taken.. so I guess it boils down to personal choice then I know I would rather do 25 minutes of intervals followed by heavy weights than 45 minutes on those darn machines

That's an interesting one Samu2. I'm not nit picking but that goes against every thing I've been told by trainers I've come across.

What I've been advised has been to always do weights first. Partly to ensure you don't end up too knackered to lift the weights but also for fat burn. Thus doing squats/deadlifts will burn the maximum amount of glycogen ready for when you do your cardio, by which time the cardio will turn to fat stores for fuel.

TBH I'm not a scientist so don't know if this is solid advice but is what I've been told.

I agree that there are some very efficient ways to burn calories and fat. And some will build muscle at the same time.

But the average unfit/overweight person will find the thought of a special plan daunting. Walking and swimming are both low impact excercise that can and do increase fitness, burn calories and build stamina. I read an interesting article re the body only burning fat after 20 mins a couple of years ago.

It basically agreed that though the most efficient way to do this is to increase your heartrate sufficiently for a set period of time. After you have reached this heartrate and done the required time your body begins to convert fat stores into energy which are burnt off or something along those lines.

However it then went on to say that walking burns more calories than sitting. So if you walk more you burn more calories. It may be the calories you have eaten recently and not had chance to lay down as fat but if you don't lay down as much fat then surely you will maintain your weight? Then add to that the fact tha your muscles will increase if you do more walking, muscle burns more calories than fat so overtime you will use more calories just sat the more walking you do?

There was lots of science behind it. But the main message it was trying to get across was move more and you will loose weight eventually. Or at least increase the amount of muscle you have and reduce the amount of fat you are carrying.

In an ideal world then everyone would be interested and clever enough to have a personal fitness plan that they had the time and resources to pursue. Many people don't, or perceive that they don't which gives the same end result.

If I don't have enough time/money/understanding/the right gear to do 25 minutes 5 times a week of the right kind of excercise then there is no point doing any and I may as well use the car to do the school run/nip to the shop etc etc.

The way I see it anyone can go for a walk at any time. Whether it be for 10 mins or 2 hours. Whether they are able to increase their heart rate to the desired numbers or not. Telling people there is no or very little point in doing this is not actually that helpful.

I notice at my DD's school that the mums that walk to do the school run are generally slimmer than those that use their cars. I know unless I make an effort in the holidays to walk a lot I will put on 3/4 lbs by the time they are back. So I know for me that walking works, keeps me fit and keeps the excess lbs off.

And it gives people confidence too. If they can walk 2 miles a day, then they may manage a class at the gym, or to be able to walk the Run for Life events, or even take up cycling or running.

You have to walk before you run is certainly true IMO.

The thing about wait to hip ratio baffles me. I have no waist and it doesn't matter how thin I get. If you are nanturally straight up and down, you can be extremely lean and still have a poor hip to waist ratio.

Techno. I do the warm up then one cardio exercise followed by the weights then I do the other cardio exercise.

I have read that it is best to do weights first. It's so hard to know what is best when so many experts have different advice.

Betty I think that's why they've started doing waist to height and waist on its own.