wedgy!

determined said:

Quoted message said:

Excuse me if it's a stupid question, but why do you need underwear
underneath the shorts then ?

Um, I guess for hygienic reasons? I figured without undies the sweat issues
might get carried away. Don't you need something absorbant?

You really don't want absorbant underwear for working out. Workout underwear is
not absorbant. Anything "absorbant" will get drenched during a workout.

Quoted message said:

Or to prevent the seam of the shorts from going places...

Spandex running shorts (such as the brands I mentioned) should have a separate
panel in the middle, the seam should not run along the crotch.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

determined said:

"Elflord" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

determined said:

Glad I'm not the only one ;-) I thought once I got down to an ideal
weight that would stop, but it hasn't...

That's cos you're not down to an ideal weight

I really don't like you.

Don't be a baby. There is always room for improvement.

Quoted message said:

What's an ideal weight then?

adj 1: conforming to an ultimate standard of perfection or excellence;
embodying an ideal

IOW, until life is perfect you're not there yet.

Quoted message said:

Or perhaps a better question is, what is an ideal bodyfat % for a 31 yr old
female?

BF% is hard to measure. I have Tanita scales for example, and the numbers I get
are so low on them that I don't really believe them. In terms of visuals --
most of the fast women in my running club have six-pack abs and popout veins
around their calves.

Basically, as far as running performance is concerned, start by getting ripped,
and then lose about 10lb and you're on the right track. I'm currently about
160lb and have popout veins around my midsection. My "running fit" weight is
about 150lb.

But it's best to accomplish this by eating normally, and let the mileage take care of
everything. You will drop body fat as you build miles.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Stop complaining.... it's probably the only action you're getting.

Miss Anne Thrope said:

Stop complaining.... it's probably the only action you're getting.

"Once again, the creativity was nonpareil! An astonishing artistic
achievement setting a new benchmark in Usenet gnarliness! Other authors
can now only stand back and dream!" -- Gene Jean, the Dance Machine

--

______________________________________________
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

Donovan said:

determined said:

what is an ideal bodyfat % for a 31 yr old female?

But it's best to accomplish this by eating normally, and let the mileage take
care of everything. You will drop body fat as you build miles.

I like Donovan's answer, its prescriptive (just run a lot) and
descriptive (no quantified ideal BF% nor weight) aspects.

Bodies are different, even really fit ones. You want to approach your
ideal runner's body? Keep running. Eat right most of the time. By
this fall, if you keep at it, your body will have changed
substantially. At some point you'll catch your reflection and be
surprised at how different you look, perhaps with a touch of
narcissistic admiration if that's your bag.

And then if you keep on keepin' on, *next* fall you'll be thinking
"wow, I thought last fall was as good as it got... is that really *me*
in the mirror?"

After a couple or three years of running and eating well, you'll have
a pretty good idea of what *your* ideal running weight is.

Quoted message said:

I'm currently about 160lb and have popout veins around my midsection.
My "running fit" weight is about 150lb.

Both my numbers are ten pounds lower - I'm shorter than the Lord of
Elves. And I'm also popping out around the midsection, but not in a
good way.

"Charlie Pendejo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Donovan wrote:

Quoted message said:

And I'm also popping out around the midsection, but not in a
good way.

Pregnant?

_DF

"Elflord" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

BF% is hard to measure. I have Tanita scales for example, and the numbers
I get
are so low on them that I don't really believe them. In terms of
visuals --
most of the fast women in my running club have six-pack abs and popout
veins
around their calves.

Just a thought -- I don't know if it's reproductively healthy for women to
get that thin. The fastest women I know aren't exactly regular, if you get
my drift.

In addition, certain shapely attributes are greatly attenuated, to the
detriment of the world at large.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Elflord" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Basically, as far as running performance is concerned, start by getting
ripped,
and then lose about 10lb and you're on the right track. I'm currently
about
160lb and have popout veins around my midsection. My "running fit" weight
is
about 150lb.

BTW, what was your weight for your 2:51:59.999999999 in ChicagoLand?

My marathon PR's were at my best weight (~140). Of course, from a world
class perspective, I should have weighed 128 or so at my 5-8.5"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

determined said:

I have never had such a problem with undies riding up as I do with
running... What's a girl supposed to wear? Are there special running
underwear?

First, if your undies are riding up, then you're wearing the wrong
size - probably TOO BIG! When was the last time you went underwear
shopping?? Perhaps you've lost more weight than you realize, and need
to downsize?

Second, I never wear undies under my running tights. Cotton undies
just soak up the sweat, and leave me cold or feeling soggy and gross.
Nylon undies don't breathe enough. I also agree with the person who
said the panty lines make her feel old and frumpy!

Try going commando... it's really not that bad! I've never had any
seamage problems with it either. The only issue is that in the dead of
winter, my butt gets too cold. But I have learned to fix that by
layering tights.

As far as hygeine goes, just be sure to change out of your tights
immediately after your workout, so you don't grow any funky bacteria
(this will happen with or without undies, by the way!). And wash the
tights for the next day, or invest in several pairs ... one for every
day of the week... just like... underwear!

jen

D Stumpus said:

BTW, what was your weight for your 2:51:59.999999999 in ChicagoLand?

I think it was around 155lb. I wasn't in great shape for that race.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

D Stumpus said:

"Elflord" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

BF% is hard to measure. I have Tanita scales for example, and the numbers I
get are so low on them that I don't really believe them. In terms of
visuals -- most of the fast women in my running club have six-pack abs and
popout veins around their calves.

Just a thought -- I don't know if it's reproductively healthy for women to
get that thin.

They are *lean*, but not exceptionally *thin*. There is a difference.

Quoted message said:

The fastest women I know aren't exactly regular, if you get
my drift.

There's more to that than just BF%.

Quoted message said:

In addition, certain shapely attributes are greatly attenuated, to the
detriment of the world at large.

I don't think providing wanking material for perverts sits very high on their
list of goals.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Doug said:

Pendejo said:

And I'm also popping out around the midsection, but not in a
good way.

Pregnant?

Could be, could be.

In addition to that pesky ten pounds, I haven't been menstruating (or
womenstruating for that matter). I may have to track down that
redhead!

Funny thing is, though there's absolutely no doubt the scale is
telling the truth, nor that these pounds are primarily fat not muscle,
upon showing up at my old workplace last month (doing some part time
work for them) quite a number of people asked if I'd lost weight! And
this is NYC, land of the (relative to most of America) thin. I take
that as a sign of how far out of touch our society is with what an
active person looks like.

We're obviously well acquainted with 30 - 50 - 100+ pounds over that
weight, and there's plenty of starvation-thin celebrities on the front
of tabloids, and young women on the streets of Brooklyn. But a
healthy adult who gets at least an hour a day of serious exercise
seems to be a real anomaly.

Elflord said:

Spandex running shorts (such as the brands I mentioned) should have a separate
panel in the middle, the seam should not run along the crotch.

Otherwise all your wedding tackle ends up at the same side of the seam
(ladies have different issues ;-)

Elflord said:

But it's best to accomplish this by eating normally,

Yes but. What's "normally" when it's at home?

Quoted message said:

and let the mileage take care of
everything. You will drop body fat as you build miles.

I don't buy this on it's own. If you don't restrict kcal in (without
necessarily depriving yourself of nutrion), then whatever your kcal out
may be, you can always counter-balance it with food.

You have to eat nutrionaly "efficient" stuff, not "empty calories" or
fatty-sugaries or...

As I see it, if you have extra kilos (I know what this means remember :-P)
you can't eat "normally" cos eatig normally is precisely what got you were
ya wuz, already. No?

Elflord said:

They are *lean*, but not exceptionally *thin*. There is a difference.

OK 'tis true but c'mon! Amenorrhea, osteoporosis and Co. are major
problems amongst top women endurance athletes (and gymnasts and ...)
either through or in conjuction with eating disorders.

D Stumpus said:

BTW, what was your weight for your 2:51:59.999999999 in ChicagoLand?

I know you didn't ask me but

2002 69kg 155lb 2:55
2005 73kg 164lb 2:59
2007 76kg 170lb 2:59

all at 1m80 5'11". I haven't been "notably non-fatty" since I left where I
was to go live with my current spouse (65kg/146lb in 1993). Pity I wasn't
a runner at the time :->

steve common said:

nutrion

....

Quoted message said:

nutrionaly

if this hasn't been registered yet, I claim trademark and copy- rights.

Elflord said:

Quoted message said:

Or perhaps a better question is, what is an ideal bodyfat % for a 31 yr old
female?

BF% is hard to measure. I have Tanita scales for example, and the numbers I get
are so low on them that I don't really believe them. In terms of visuals --
most of the fast women in my running club have six-pack abs and popout veins
around their calves.

Basically, as far as running performance is concerned, start by getting ripped,
and then lose about 10lb and you're on the right track. I'm currently about
160lb and have popout veins around my midsection. My "running fit" weight is
about 150lb.

But it's best to accomplish this by eating normally, and let the mileage take care of
everything. You will drop body fat as you build miles.

Cheers,

this approach may help with rubbing thighs, but couldn't they maybe be
caused by a form or body type "issue"? not only do my thighs rub, my
knees rub together when i run, and my calves too. i thought it was
because of how i run.
do i have fat knees?
(pondering my (mostly ugly) knees:
http://home.comcast.net/~pomeroyq/legs.jpg)

i purposely lift weights to work those inner thigh muscles, so they may
be built up some too (the better to crush the necks of my opponents!!!
wait, did i write that or just think it...)

heather
ps. some of the ugly blotches on my knees are ugly blotches, but some of
them are scars from falling down.

steve common said:

Elflord said:

But it's best to accomplish this by eating normally,

Yes but. What's "normally" when it's at home?

Quoted message said:

and let the mileage take care of
everything. You will drop body fat as you build miles.

I don't buy this on it's own. If you don't restrict kcal in (without
necessarily depriving yourself of nutrion), then whatever your kcal out
may be, you can always counter-balance it with food.

Yes, but why would you ? If you increase your calories out, your caloric intake
doesn't automatically increase proportionately.

Quoted message said:

You have to eat nutrionaly "efficient" stuff, not "empty calories" or
fatty-sugaries or...

As I see it, if you have extra kilos (I know what this means remember :-P)
you can't eat "normally" cos eatig normally is precisely what got you were
ya wuz, already. No?

In this context, what I meant by "normally", was, being somewhat attentive to
the fundamentals of nutrition, without imposing excessive caloric restriction
on oneself.

If you run a lot of miles and are somewhat attentive to nutrition, you are
going to end up pretty lean.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

steve common said:

Elflord said:

They are *lean*, but not exceptionally *thin*. There is a difference.

OK 'tis true but c'mon! Amenorrhea, osteoporosis and Co. are major
problems amongst top women endurance athletes (and gymnasts and ...)
either through or in conjuction with eating disorders.

That's why I don't recommend an emphasis on caloric restriction.

Cheers,
--
Elflord