|
|
03-02-2012, 10:36 AM | #1 |
I like 'em mustard & biscuits
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Hill
Casino cash: $10011076
|
I is here! Wow this thread got lit up.
I’m still chugging along. It’s a bitch sometimes but I’m am seeing results. Tomorrow morning I will complete the third week. I will not step on a scale again for a long time – I weighed in after the first two week and I had gained a pound!!! I am more solid now though, I am changing. One pair of gym shorts I was wearing on week one…I can’t use them anymore, they start falling off. OK…..alnorth….I really hope you are a young dude talking about heart rate of 170….either you are young or I have my heart rate calculation way off! I need to know if I’m doing this right. Very important! I have been using this formula…..220 – age times .65 for low end and 220 – age times .85 for high end. I’m 47. My low end is 112 and my high end is 147. I frigging LIVE in the 150’s. I just can’t help it. Am I calculating this right??? Buehler445 - by the time I’m thru the “warmups” and get to the stretching….I don’t think it’s a joke. Sometimes I can’t even hold the positions as long as they can. Keep doing it! Don’t skip it. I’m sure it will help you avoid injury. Chiefs1968 – keep going! Who cares if you miss days…keep doing it. It’s GOTTA make you better. Better….stronger....FASTER! (can anyone identify that tv show?) My immune system is ASS. I usually get sick when starting out on a physical fitness odyssey. I’ve been taking a daily vitamin and popping some airborne at the slightest hint of feeling bad. So far so good. Painful as it is sometimes….I don’t want to get derailed. Also another thing I started doing….drinking a protein shake after the workouts. I’m feeling pretty good.
__________________
A naked American man stole my balloons. |
Posts: 6,787
|
03-02-2012, 11:57 AM | #2 | |
.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Casino cash: $57166239
|
Quote:
(Also, this is probably only interesting to math nerds like me, but the traditional 220-age formula which became really popular is apparently thought to be not the most ideal formula. Some researcher just threw that out there years ago as a rough estimate and heart rate monitor companies just took it and ran with it. There's a lot of other more complicated formulas out there, one that was created a few years ago is calculated as: 163 + (1.16 x age) - (0.018 x (age^2)), but 220-age still gets you pretty close to that.)
__________________
Last edited by alnorth; 03-02-2012 at 12:09 PM.. |
|
Posts: 36,130
|
|
|