GO ABBA GO!!!

[Sparklehorse]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I paid I think $60 for an hour of semi-private (2 students, one instructor) lessons in Dallas, with the machines. In a couple weeks, I'm getting a free private session at my gym; I may start doing it again. Not sure how much it costs. I liked the semi-private because one-on-one is really just not necessary, but it doesn't seem to exist at my gym, unfortunately. Group classes always seem like they are too big for the instructor to be keeping track enough of everyone's exact positions.

The rates you paid seem consistent with what I've found for around here (and also Long Island when I found a studio there for a friend).

There are several reasons why I like about the private sessions. My schedule is constantly changing around and there are weeks when I can't make the quads. With the private, we can focus on particular areas like my weak hamstring. We also use more of the other equipment beyond the reformer for the private sessions. I really like the "cadillac" which looks even more like an instrument of torture than a reformer:

[ABBAKiss]

Walking is a decent exercise.* However, covering 1.4-2.0 miles in an hour is not "booking it." A person walking for fitness would likely want to cover 4-5 miles in an hour. (Five miles in an hour would be "booking it.")

TM is correct about the soreness and the muscle groups, though I think he is more focused on working out with weights than cardio. I have been doing both weights and cardio every day since I was 16. I am rarely sore from cardio workouts. I am almost always "a little bit" sore from weights. And that is what I aim for, as TM suggested.

*Running or more vigorous aerobic activity is better than walking, but there is nothing wrong with walking at all. Walking is excellent.

[ABBAKiss]

Originally posted by dtb
Wait a second, you walk a mile and a half in an HOUR? Sometimes MORE??

Are you walking on your hands, or something?

I was envisioning she had her shoelaces tied together.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Stop saying "I agree with you but" because what follows the but is usually an indication of how you did not understand that with which you purport to agree. If you want exercise tips, you can ask for them. It is not also necessary to engage in continuous, pathetic, fruitless, futile, pointless, counterproductive, having-effects-opposite-from-those-you-seek, useless, unsuccessful, unproductive, wasted, ineffective efforts to attain affirmation from people who will never, ever give it to you in a million billion zillion years, no matter what you do, even if you were to rescue one of their children from a speeding train.

Stop responding to her like she is a normal human person with the ability to think rationally, because what follows from her is an indication of how she did not understand that which you are explaining in the simplest of terms. If you want to hit yourself repeatedly with a brick, you can do so. It is not also necessary to engage in continuous, pathetic, fruitless, futile, pointless, counterproductive, having-effects-opposite-from-those-you-seek, useless, unsuccessful, unproductive, wasted, ineffective efforts to converse on any level with a person who will never, ever understand you in a million billion zillion years, no matter what you do, even if you were able to speak Retarded.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Stop responding to her like she is a normal human person with the ability to think rationally, because what follows from her is an indication of how she did not understand that which you explaining in the simplest of terms. If you want to hit yourself repeatedly with a brick, you can do so. It is not also necessary to engage in continuous, pathetic, fruitless, futile, pointless, counterproductive, having-effects-opposite-from-those-you-seek, useless, unsuccessful, unproductive, wasted, ineffective efforts to converse on any level with a person who will never, ever understand you in a million billion zillion years, no matter what you do, even if you were able to speak Retarded.

TM

two days in a row my posts gathered the most obliviously dumb replies.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Somebody's got a pretty high opinion of his imagination. If I were in your head when you were reading it, I might think differently.

You couldn't handle inside my head, son. They'd find you in a corner, whimpering and sucking your thumb.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
My cat is dead.

Put the damn thing down, then.

TM

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by ABBAKiss
Walking is a decent exercise.* However, covering 1.4-2.0 miles in an hour is not "booking it." A person walking for fitness would likely want to cover 4-5 miles in an hour. (Five miles in an hour would be "booking it.")

TM is correct about the soreness and the muscle groups, though I think he is more focused on working out with weights than cardio. I have been doing both weights and cardio every day since I was 16. I am rarely sore from cardio workouts. I am almost always "a little bit" sore from weights. And that is what I aim for, as TM suggested.

*Running or more vigorous aerobic activity is better than walking, but there is nothing wrong with walking at all. Walking is excellent.

I think in the long run it will be a disadvantage that the only kind of cardio I have ever been able to do (from mental ability, not physical ability, standpoint) is elliptical. I also was OK with doing a 3-mile walk on Sunday, because I had a destination that involved something I wanted to do. But just going for a walk, alone? Especially walking fast, which makes my ankles/shins hurt like a motherfucker? No way. Running? No. HATED IT even when I was doing it with a friend after college.

It seems like from a calorie-burning standpoint, if I'm walking and not running, it shouldn't make a ginormous difference how long it takes me to cover a given distance. Various little calorie-burning calculators seem to imply that you burn more calories over a given distance (not in a given time) walking slowly than you do walking quickly. OTOH, there's no cardio benefit unless you get your heart rate up.

[patentparanyc]

Originally posted by ABBAKiss
Walking is a decent exercise.* However, covering 1.4-2.0 miles in an hour is not "booking it." A person walking for fitness would likely want to cover 4-5 miles in an hour. (Five miles in an hour would be "booking it.")

TM is correct about the soreness and the muscle groups, though I think he is more focused on working out with weights than cardio. I have been doing both weights and cardio every day since I was 16. I am rarely sore from cardio workouts. I am almost always "a little bit" sore from weights. And that is what I aim for, as TM suggested.

*Running or more vigorous aerobic activity is better than walking, but there is nothing wrong with walking at all. Walking is excellent.

Thanks, Abba. I will adjust my speed and see how it goes.

and I do listen and learn from the posts I am recalibrating the amount of distance covered in the hour.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe he's just pretending he has a good imagination.

He might even be a figment of it.

[cheval de frise]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Look, pal, just because *you* have a life, don't come around here mocking the rest of us.

(Long time, no see -- how's it going?)

Good, thanks. (My little guys are taking whatever life I had left.) Changed jobs, bought a house, added to the family and stayed happily married. But our liquor cabinet is suffering mightily from disuse.

How're things at the Dewdrop Inn?

CDF

ETA it's nice to see you're still on top of your re: line game

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It seems like from a calorie-burning standpoint, if I'm walking and not running, it shouldn't make a ginormous difference how long it takes me to cover a given distance. Various little calorie-burning calculators seem to imply that you burn more calories over a given distance (not in a given time) walking slowly than you do walking quickly. OTOH, there's no cardio benefit unless you get your heart rate up.

According to me,* if you are doing cardio, you continue to burn calories at a higher rate when resting after your workout than you would resting after walking. It also works your heart out as a muscle more, which is gud.

TM

*I'll just continue to use this when I've read something somewhere but have no desire to look it up.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
2. I remember reading the Penthouse forum letter than was the source for debbie does Dallas.

I found the letter, ummm, gripping, but the movie was better.

I do have a particular talent for bringing out the inner porn star in Texas women.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think in the long run it will be a disadvantage that the only kind of cardio I have ever been able to do (from mental ability, not physical ability, standpoint) is elliptical. I also was OK with doing a 3-mile walk on Sunday, because I had a destination that involved something I wanted to do. But just going for a walk, alone? Especially walking fast, which makes my ankles/shins hurt like a motherfucker? No way. Running? No. HATED IT even when I was doing it with a friend after college.

It seems like from a calorie-burning standpoint, if I'm walking and not running, it shouldn't make a ginormous difference how long it takes me to cover a given distance. Various little calorie-burning calculators seem to imply that you burn more calories over a given distance (not in a given time) walking slowly than you do walking quickly. OTOH, there's no cardio benefit unless you get your heart rate up.

sometimes I think you burn more calaries asking questions about working out than you do working out. Just Do it!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
According to me,* if you are doing cardio, you continue to burn calories at a higher rate when resting after your workout than you would resting after walking. It also works your heart out as a muscle more, which is gud.

TM

*I'll just continue to use this when I've read something somewhere but have no desire to look it up.

Yup. But for me, on the weekend, it's better for me to actually walk (albeit at a leisurely pace) to and from the Farmers Market (note to people in LA, I'm not talking about the permanent one but a neighborhood one between a mile and a mile and a half from me) even at a leisurely pace than to intend to go to the gym but actually end up driving to the Farmers Market and then home.

I really like www.mapmywalk.com; I think someone on here linked to it or something similar at some point.