Week 2 Self Weekly Weigh-in

Share this content

I cannot say that this week’s loss was due to any effort on my part. If I had a food diary I would have loved to share this on my blog. It would have been a real revelation on the amount of food I consumed over the week.

I love cycling as a means of commuting. When I get to the office I feel on top of the world triggered by endorphins. Thankfully the weather has allowed me to cycle for 4 days of the week. With my joggers and T shirt dress code this week, I think without cycling I would have felt far worse. 

So what can I put this week’s loss down to? Being honest about this, I think this is because as we are approaching the end of  2012 my subconscious is telling me another year nearly over and you are older – just look at you? More importantly, it is also over a relationship that has really raised some uncomfortable questions in me. These are questions I rather not face up to.

One of the blog readers (thank you) recommended a book - Why We Get Fat: And What to Do about It. I listened to an unabridged audio version of this book. The author argues that it is excess carbohydrates-not fats and not excess calories that has led to the obesity epidemic. His research looks sound. 

I love my carbs. They keep me going through out the day. I just cannot see me cutting down on my carbs by a significant amount. Despite the sound research against carbs, I will see I how get on without a large reduction in my carb intake.

I have not been to the gym for some time. I will cancel my gym subscription and start using my wiifit. At the moment wiifit is only used for weigh-ins.


This week’s result– Loss 2 lbs

Total Weight loss to date: 16 lbs

This week’s Weight:12 stones and 9 lbs

Target Weight: 10 stones


Please login or register to join the discussion.

09th Dec 2012 17:34

Walk to work

I think if you walked to and from work every day you would lose weight faster.

Thanks (0)
By Old Greying Accountant
09th Dec 2012 21:45

My understanding is ...

... you use exactly the same calories to travel a mile whether you walk, run or cycle - the only variable is the time it takes to cover that mile.

So, if time is limited, cycling is the best as you can cover more miles and therefore burn more calories in the same amount of time.

Unfortunately, I loathe cycling with a passion, I think it was those 6 o'clock starts come rain, snow or shine when I used to do a paper-round oh so many years ago - that and my dodgy knees from too much scrummaging when I used to play rugby!

Thanks (0)
10th Dec 2012 03:48

I disagree

"you use exactly the same calories to travel a mile whether you walk, run or cycle - the only variable is the time it takes to cover that mile."

"I'm not sure where you heard that running and walking one mile burns the same number of calories, but as you found out with your experiment, this statement is not correct.

Distance itself does not really determine total calories burned. How long you exercise, how fast/hard you exercise, how much you weigh, and your fitness level are the major determinants of calories burned.

According to the website www.caloriesperhour.com, a 200 pound man would burn 113 calories walking 1 mile at a pace of 4 miles per hour (total exercise duration = 15 minutes).

The same man would burn 151 calories running a mile at a pace of 6 miles per hour (total exercise duration = 10 minutes).

And if you were strolling for a mile at a pace of 2 miles per hour, you would burn 113 calories but it would take you twice as long (total exercise duration = 30 minutes).

This may be where the confusion takes place. You burn fewer calories exercising at a lower intensity, but if you exercise for a longer period of time, in some cases, as with walking at 2 miles per hour versus 4 miles per hour, you may burn the same total number of calories.

Exercising at a higher intensity burns more calories per minute, which is much more relevant than distance. In addition, if you weigh more, you burn more calories doing the same activity (this is just something to keep in mind. I'm not suggesting that you gain weight to increase the number of calories that you burn!).

Also, if you are more fit, you actually burn fewer calories doing the same activity, but the good news is that you burn more calories from fat when you are fit.

The bottom line is that more intense exercise, like running, is a more time efficient workout. However, many people, including myself, are not able to run because of injury or arthritis. In this case, exercise as intensely as you can, but realize that you will have to exercise for a longer period of time to burn the same number of calories.

This is why the physical activity recommendations for adults are either 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity (brisk walking) per week or 75 minutes of vigorous (running or jogging) physical activity per week in addition to strength training.

You can also try walking on an incline (or hills) to increase calorie burn or alternating running and walking (interval training), which is great for people just starting a more intense exercise program or looking to improve their overall fitness level."




Thanks (0)
By Old Greying Accountant
10th Dec 2012 09:19

I was just ...

 ... repeating something I read the other day about latest scientific findings on the subject - don't remember where now!

Thanks (0)
10th Dec 2012 09:55

It does seem

from the article that it's an old wive's tale.

When I used to run very fast I felt that it would do me more good than strolling the same distance so it didn't seem very plausable to me.

Thanks (0)
10th Dec 2012 10:51

it does depend upon

 weight etc but i think the 150 calories for a 10 min jog seem a little over optimistic based upon my limited understanding and experience of exercise.  Also the more intense the exercise the more likely you are to benefit different 'cells'.  For running, a heart rate of approx 150-160 (very slow jog) is most efficient for burning fat cells....as you increase the intensity you benefit other cells which help your body to be more efficient (hence you get fitter/less out of breath etc).


Mind you put this into context....say one hard session of running (20-30 mins....300 calories....lots of exhaustion...a 2 hour recovery and aching legs 1-2 days later.....) trumped by a whispa duo eaten in seconds for the same calorie count.  


IMHO any exercise is good...especially if the more intense stuff is going to leave you with injuries.  Do that and watch what you eat....we are all different so like anything else experiment with stuff....and hopefully you will find something that works for you. 

Thanks (0)
10th Dec 2012 11:38

You need better goals

OK, this is my advice which you can take or leave however it is intended to be helpful so don't go off the deep end:-

1. You like eating. Food is more than simply a fuel to you and will likely remain so.

2. With the exception of your cycling, you dislike exercise and get no enjoyment from working out for it's own sake.

On their own, these two factors mean that you are unlikely to achieve any significant long term weight loss. The fact that you associate weighing yourself with ritual humilition/punishment does not help.

My advice is stop worrying about your weight (throw out the damn scales, it will make you feel better) and find a cycling event to train for. There are loads in the new year so pick one for around the summer and train to take part. There will be lots of support avaible (there always is) and your diet will sort it self out.

Try to limit the booze, sugar, Mickey D's etc and I bet you will get on far better.




Thanks (0)
By Jeeves
10th Dec 2012 11:54

Worth a try?

I've used the following programme for some months now. 


 It's a little american (perhaps more than a little!), it's a little expensive (£105 for a home fitness programme), and really hard work, but if you're disciplined enough to spend 45mins to an hour every day, 6 days per week for 60 days it does the job.  I didn't need to lose too much weight, but what was there has gone and I'm a whole lot fitter. 



Thanks (0)
10th Dec 2012 11:58


When I was at college we were taught that the more work you did when exercising the more calories were burnt. One of the Mums made a weighted bib which looked like a flack jacket and was weighted by 14 lbs of rice evenly distributed over the upper body. We each used it once per week and it certainly was efficient. The beauty of it was that the weight could be increased slowly.

You wont loose weight unless you exercise and cut down on food. Try cutting out all bread sugar and alcohol. If you want a fast fix the old student emergency rations cereal and semi fat milk 4 or 5 times a day until weekend will get weight down. I would still do this maybe once per fortnight (but not on exercise day).


I admire your honesty in this long battle.


Good luck


Thanks (0)
By Old Greying Accountant
to Kent accountant
11th Dec 2012 08:40

Sorry ..

edward33 wrote:

You wont loose weight unless you exercise and cut down on food.

Yes you will - if you maintain input and increase output you will lose weight, but not as quickly as if you reduce input as well!

I was doing a little surfing this morning

This was my favourite find:


My research, rightly or wrongly, has led me to conclude:

If FirstTab want's to eat carbs he needs a high level of high level excerise as this will burn them off and stop them being stored as fatSwimming or cycling as non weight bearing would be his best method as these will not risk heart or joint damage.If he wants good cardiovascular fitness and sensible weight loss without other health risks (mainly joint damage from impact excercises such as running) brisk walking is best.Cycling is not weight bearing so has a much lower calorie burn per mile than walking or running (but as you go much faster for longer it may counter-balance if you excerice by time not distance)

But, going back to my original comment, brisk walking uses more calories per mile than slow running, the cross over depends on the individual but is around 5mph. Without being disrespectful to FirstTab I think he would struggle to achieve 5mph for more than short bursts.

Overall my conclusion is that if you are overweight then walking is the best way to loose weight, but once you are at or near your optimal weight then running is a more time effiocent way of maintaining that weight level.

Being blunt, running to achieve a 20% weight loss could bring more problems than it solves.


So, also, Peter is right - walking to work would use more calories than cycling, but would take longer! But strolling is no good, it needs to be a brisk walk to increase heart and respiratory rates.


Thanks (0)
11th Dec 2012 10:10

Brisk walking leading to running

I would recommend that FT goes to his doctor and see what the doctor recommends.

I would have thought that starting with brisk walking and then, when safe, running would be one of the best ways to get fit.

FT may like cycling but I'm sure he will learn to love walking!

Thanks (0)
14th Dec 2012 17:48


you surprise me, i thought you had long given up on such pleasures as ruining your knees

swimming is great i stop at the end of each length for a nice g&t and occassionally the odd puff on a fag. it exercises muscles you forgot you had

walking is a second best

Thanks (0)
By Old Greying Accountant
15th Dec 2012 22:17


my knees were ruined years ago, thank God for the cowgirl that's all I can say ;o) That's the best aerobic excercise in my book!

Thanks (0)