Sunday, March 01, 2009

Tipping the scales

Today's weight: 58.3 Down 500g.

Yesterday was a rest day, not even a walk, thanks to my old SIJ deciding to play games with me. I woke up with some pretty extraordinary lower back pain, so shelved training altogether. Some stretching of my tight hamstrings did not much at all, and in the evening, when the pain was beginning to really drag me down, I resorted to some tennis ball therapy. That helped quite a lot, and some drugs got me through the rest of the night.

Nutrition was fine - although a few crackers with light Philly and tomato, and about 40g of leftover dark chocolate from my cookie-baking the other day ended up being eaten late in the evening, on top of my usual meals.

So with a few extra calories, no exercise and some inflammation, I wasn't expecting any joy from the scales this morning. Just shows that sometimes changing things up gets unexpected results. *scratches head*


Thanks to Carolyn, I have a passionfruit version of my souffle omelette to test out. Yum!! Might do that this afternoon - if so, I'll blog it.

I love it when somebody takes one of my recipes and experiments with it. :o)


Linda left a comment yesterday on my scales post that reminded me of something that peeves me. She said:

scales at the gym ask for age and height. Whooohooo- if I put my age in much younger I have much less body fat apparently!! oh to be 25 again!@ lol You gotta take these instruments with a dash of salt!

When I did the setup on my scales for my stats, I hesitated over the age entry. It always annoys the crap out of me that your age is even factored into these things. There is an assumption amongst health experts that it's "normal" to get fatter as you get older. It may be normal, in terms of what most people experience because they allow it to happen, but it is not inevitable.

Now, if these machines are so accurate, *snort* then why do they even need to know your age? Surely the contraption can measure your fat, muscle and water without knowing if you're 20 or 70? I've always known that age is factored into the calculations the scales make in some way. So they clearly take some measurements, from some areas, then based on whether you're male or female, and how old you are, they make some breath-taking assumptions about how much fat etc you have in parts of your body that aren't measured....not to mention assumptions about things like bone density.

I've often wondered what would happen if I lied about my age..... Now I know. Thanks, Linda!

Might go change those settings, just for fun. Let's see.....I feel about 30. Hmm.


Right now I'm off to the gym to do the workout that didn't get done yesterday. Upper body, thank goodness - my back's feeling quite a bit better, and should cope OK with that.

I was planning a short run too, but perhaps I'll switch to the bike instead. 20 minutes of jarring force on my spine is maybe not such a great idea.


Raechelle said...

Yeah-I totally don't get that at all! Makes no sense that age has anything to do with it-I don't even look at the bodyfat thing on my scale anymore (sorry I even bought that kind!)-as even the week before my comp and my skinfolds came out with around 12% bodyfat-that stupid thing was saying I was around 24%! Something just ain't right with that!

Tara said...

lol Keryn what a great post!!

Great job on the drop in weight, especially after more cals and a rest day :o)

I say we throw those scales in the bin ;o) totally useless for accurately measuring. The only thing they are good for is tracking fluctuations.

Looking forward to hearing how ur latest recipe turns out :o)

Tara xxx

ss2306 said...

Have you ever tried entering on scales as a male? That's interesting too.

Kek said...

Dunno Shelley, that just seems a bit freaky somehow. LOL.

Post a comment

Join the conversation...leave a comment.