Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Woman takes up jogging to make her bum perkier; just kidding, she actually GIVES UP jogging, and IT ACTUALLY MAKES HER BUM PERKIER (w/pics)   (dailymail.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, University of Central Lancashire, London Marathon, oxidative stress, free radicals, cellulite, cortisol, sports medicines, Long-distance track event  
•       •       •

20700 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Dec 2013 at 1:01 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-18 01:45:20 AM  
How do we, the viewer at home, know she has a perky fanny.

I'm going to submit an article "hot woman says she can't stop making out with other hot women (w/pics)" in protest
 
2013-12-18 01:46:23 AM  

Frederick: Habitual joggers have no asses and stick legs.  Sprinters....they got asses.


Overtraining distance runners are tards.

/if any of you love running that much though, have at it :)
 
2013-12-18 01:46:48 AM  

Lamadin: What a perky bum might look like, if GIFfy goodness.

NSFW


What are those things on her spine? Piercings?
 
2013-12-18 01:49:02 AM  

RogermcAllen: RogermcAllen: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Peter von Nostrand: *checks article*

She stays fit by throwing up her meals. Probably cut down on portions after she stopped exercising

Or she was overtraining and just now recovered. This would lead to a increase in muscle mass.

Or she never worked in power exercises in so that her body body responded laid down a nice marbling in her thighs so that the energy could be stored closer to muscle.

Lets try that again:
Or she never worked in power exercises.   Her body responded by laying down a nice marbling in her thighs so that the energy could be stored closer to muscle.  No more running = no more need for fat stored next to the muscle.


Call me ignorant, but I have never once heard of significant fat redistribution around more heavily used muscles.

Especially not in the lowest fat % type of exercisers: the distance jogger.
 
2013-12-18 01:54:58 AM  
bedroomfreak.com
 
2013-12-18 01:58:17 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Peter von Nostrand: *checks article*

She stays fit by throwing up her meals. Probably cut down on portions after she stopped exercising

Or she was overtraining and just now recovered. This would lead to a increase in muscle mass.


She could have gotten the same results doing squats with a proper technique.

Girlfriend didn't believe me. Added squats to her routine, and now she has a nice firm posterior that isn't flat. She is a jogger as well.
 
2013-12-18 02:11:26 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-12-18 02:11:36 AM  

SunsetLament: It's my experience that a person running 25 miles a week will lose about 2 pounds more than the person doing no exercise (assuming they are both eating an identical amount). That's 10 pounds a month.


You are bad at math.
 
2013-12-18 02:17:46 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: "Some even argue that running may cause cellulite, by stimulating the production of free radicals"

Free Radicals? Somehow I blame Obama!


BECAUSE A REAL MURCAN PRESIDENT WOULD LOCK UP THOSE RADICALS!!!!!
 
2013-12-18 02:21:50 AM  
How does the Mail even get these stories?

What would motivate a person to stop jogging, examine their butt, and immediately report their findings to the nearest tabloid?

It boggles the mind.
 
2013-12-18 02:27:19 AM  
Stop running your ass off, your ass comes back. MAGIC!

20% body fat looks hotter than 10% body fat, in women. She looks like she's rockin' it at about 15%.
 
2013-12-18 02:29:49 AM  

WeenerGord: [img.fark.net image 306x576]

She casts no shadow and there are white outlines around her image. I suspect a photoshop.

That or she's a vampire.


neither - it's Britain in December. There is no sun.
 
2013-12-18 02:35:17 AM  

super_grass: How does the Mail even get these stories?

What would motivate a person to stop jogging, examine their butt, and immediately report their findings to the nearest tabloid?

It boggles the mind.



Maybe they have a submit a story like Fark.


"Dear Daily Mail, I work out. Want to take a picture of me in spandex? We can do it in the cold, I don't mind."
 
2013-12-18 03:23:52 AM  

lordargent: It's harder than people realise to lose weight through running. You'd need to run 80 or 90 miles a week to lose a kilogram of fat in that time.

The numbers in that article looked iffy to me, so I ran some math.

1 kg => 2.2 pounds => 7,700 calories

7,00 calories in 80 miles is 96 calories per mile.

I just ran 3.72 miles after work and I use one of those expensive ass watch/chest sensor/foot sensor combos (a gift from my employer), and it says I burned 833 calories (224 calories per mile)

// go to google, search for "calories burned per mile" punch in the numbers and you'll probably come to the same conclusion that I did (that 96 calories burned per mile of running is way too damn low of an estimate).

// the calories burned per mile depends on a person's weight to begin with, so maybe it is 96 per mile for _her_ (doubtful), but if it were, you don't turn around and make statements about the general populace based on that outlier.


But how many calories do you burn at rest in the same period of time? You need that number for your base metabolism to work out how many of those 833 calories were burnt by the actual running.

/ass watch? Ewwww. :-D
 
2013-12-18 03:55:10 AM  
Pinko_Commie: But how many calories do you burn at rest in the same period of time?

You would think that it would be a lot, but it's not (which is why I didn't bother with the calculation). But just to appease you.

BMR is based on 0 exertion and is usually given as calories/day.

In my case, that's ~1,800 calories/day

1800 / 24 => 75 calories per hour

I did 3.72 miles in about an hour.

so 75 calories of the 833 that were from BMR (assuming that running calculators are including BMR calories ... which I don't think they do. At the end of the day, it's a negligible difference either way.
 
2013-12-18 04:00:22 AM  

WeenerGord: Jument: WeenerGord: FTFA:  says John Brewer, Professor of Sport Science at the University of Bedfordshire. 'It's harder than people realise to lose weight through running. You'd need to run 80 or 90 miles a week to lose a kilogram of fat in that time.'

Sounds like bullshiat to me

A pound of fat is 3500 calories. Covering a mile is somewhere around 100 calories, more if you are heavy. It's not too far off, but most people aren't aiming to lose 2.2 pounds in a week without any dietary change.


I can lose 2.2 pounds a week just by eating slightly less. Something tells me that if I went out and ran 80 to 90 miles, I'd lose more than just 2.2 pounds. I bet I'd lose 5 to 10 pounds. But hey, you got those numbers, so, it must be the same for all metabolisms.

Meanwhile, if it's a perky butt she wants, how about taking up twerking.


You can lose 1100 calories per day eating "slightly less?"

You sound fat.
 
2013-12-18 04:06:01 AM  
I've only gained ~10 lbs in the last 26 years and I don't exercise at all really.

/In my 40s
 
2013-12-18 04:39:52 AM  

HawgWild: That ain't no pic of her bum!


Given that she appears to have the body of a 12 year old (insert ChrisHansen.jpg), it's probably because she doesn't HAVE a bum to post pics of.
 
2013-12-18 05:33:56 AM  
Sitting down works too.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-18 05:39:37 AM  

inglixthemad: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Peter von Nostrand: She could have gotten the same results doing squats with a proper technique



Let's hear it for squats!alittleoneonthemove.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-18 06:04:12 AM  

super_grass: How does the Mail even get these stories?

What would motivate a person to stop jogging, examine their butt, and immediately report their findings to the nearest tabloid?

It boggles the mind.


She's the author so it probably went something like this.

"Hmm, i've stopped jogging and my arse is improving... I'll write about this for the DM".
 
2013-12-18 06:29:56 AM  

pedobearapproved: How do we, the viewer at home, know she has a perky fanny.

I'm going to submit an article "hot woman says she can't stop making out with other hot women (w/pics)" in protest


In England, a perky fanny has quite a different look about it. I think you're referring to a perky bum. Careful there, ol' chap.
 
2013-12-18 07:20:49 AM  
i26.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-18 07:24:15 AM  

Omahawg: aie?

eip


I was going to go with Bums In Email but yours works as well. I risk pictures of homeless folks, you risk donkeys.

/EIP
 
2013-12-18 07:28:56 AM  

rzrwiresunrise: pedobearapproved: How do we, the viewer at home, know she has a perky fanny.

I'm going to submit an article "hot woman says she can't stop making out with other hot women (w/pics)" in protest

In England, a perky fanny has quite a different look about it. I think you're referring to a perky bum. Careful there, ol' chap.


Let's be honest, though, I'd happily take a close look at her fanny. Only to judge perkiness, of course.
 
2013-12-18 07:34:38 AM  
If she's running for an hour a day as well as marathons, she's burned off nearly all the fat on her body in the process. Butts and breasts are made up largely of fat, so I'd not be surprised at all if she got a perkier butt after resting for six weeks.

/probably got bigger breasts too
//she could use them IMO
///looks good in the photo anyway
 
2013-12-18 07:43:36 AM  
This woman has no ass. I'm late for work because I clicked on a link of a woman with NO ASS.
 
2013-12-18 08:02:44 AM  

Uzzah: Well, looks like I got the "dumbest thing I'm going to read today" out of the way nice and early this time.

Some say running may cause cellulite by stimulating free radical production

Yep.
 
2013-12-18 08:19:45 AM  

Goimir: This woman has no ass. I'm late for work because I clicked on a link of a woman with NO ASS.



*I* am late for work because I got stuck in Omahawg's mind trap for a good fifteen minutes.
 
2013-12-18 08:50:31 AM  

lordargent: Pinko_Commie: But how many calories do you burn at rest in the same period of time?

You would think that it would be a lot, but it's not (which is why I didn't bother with the calculation). But just to appease you.

BMR is based on 0 exertion and is usually given as calories/day.

In my case, that's ~1,800 calories/day

1800 / 24 => 75 calories per hour

I did 3.72 miles in about an hour.

so 75 calories of the 833 that were from BMR (assuming that running calculators are including BMR calories ... which I don't think they do. At the end of the day, it's a negligible difference either way.


To be honest, I only needed an excuse to make the "ass watch" joke :-)
 
2013-12-18 09:06:12 AM  
Oh Britain, can't you come up with a better euphemism for the ass than "bum"?  I HATE that!  I picture some girl with that old guy from the cover of Jethro Tull's Aqualung album strapped to her ass.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-12-18 09:18:12 AM  
"The problem is that my morning run often leaves me too knackered (or complacent) to do any other exercise. Since my break from running, I've been surprised to find myself more inclined to take the stairs rather than the lift - and more likely to make that after-work yoga class."

So she took a break from running and did more strength training and she developed more defined muscle tone.  Quick!  Someone right an article about this incomprehensible feat!
 
2013-12-18 09:22:03 AM  

Fark In The Duck: Oh Britain, can't you come up with a better euphemism for the ass than "bum"?  I HATE that!  I picture some girl with that old guy from the cover of Jethro Tull's Aqualung album strapped to her ass.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x300]


We have loads, we have arse, bum, crevice or crevasse, rear/rear-end, behind, crap-factory, Lord Neville's Cave of Wonder, posterior, Scotland Yard, buttocks, derriere, crack, and i'm sure there are plenty i've forgotten. There are more words to describe someone's botty than there are words for all other things, true fact.
 
2013-12-18 09:26:26 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-12-18 09:38:49 AM  
hehe.....nipples
i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2013-12-18 09:40:57 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Peter von Nostrand: *checks article*

She stays fit by throwing up her meals. Probably cut down on portions after she stopped exercising

Or she was overtraining and just now recovered. This would lead to a increase in muscle mass.


I'd agree with that. The clueless think that exercise is some kind of money--the more you get the better it always is. There is an optimum amount. Not enough, you get the various disorders of sedentary life. Too much, you die early anyway from wearing down the body faster than it can recuperate.
 
2013-12-18 09:46:46 AM  

Slaxl: Fark In The Duck: Oh Britain, can't you come up with a better euphemism for the ass than "bum"?  I HATE that!  I picture some girl with that old guy from the cover of Jethro Tull's Aqualung album strapped to her ass.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x300]

We have loads, we have arse, bum, crevice or crevasse, rear/rear-end, behind, crap-factory, Lord Neville's Cave of Wonder, posterior, Scotland Yard, buttocks, derriere, crack, and i'm sure there are plenty i've forgotten. There are more words to describe someone's botty than there are words for all other things, true fact.


I always was partial to "turd cutter" myself.
 
2013-12-18 09:55:24 AM  
sprinters bottom anyone??

firthfitness.com
 
2013-12-18 10:57:19 AM  
img28.imageshack.us
 
2013-12-18 11:00:52 AM  

sedric: sprinters bottom anyone??

[firthfitness.com image 177x177]


This is just too wonderful to bring under the size requirement
 
2013-12-18 11:19:19 AM  

Lamadin: What a perky bum might look like, if GIFfy goodness.

NSFW


annnnnnd, I'm spent....
 
2013-12-18 11:20:12 AM  

lordargent: It's harder than people realise to lose weight through running. You'd need to run 80 or 90 miles a week to lose a kilogram of fat in that time.

The numbers in that article looked iffy to me, so I ran some math.

1 kg => 2.2 pounds => 7,700 calories

7,00 calories in 80 miles is 96 calories per mile.

I just ran 3.72 miles after work and I use one of those expensive ass watch/chest sensor/foot sensor combos (a gift from my employer), and it says I burned 833 calories (224 calories per mile)

// go to google, search for "calories burned per mile" punch in the numbers and you'll probably come to the same conclusion that I did (that 96 calories burned per mile of running is way too damn low of an estimate).

// the calories burned per mile depends on a person's weight to begin with, so maybe it is 96 per mile for _her_ (doubtful), but if it were, you don't turn around and make statements about the general populace based on that outlier.


You are either very large or that watch is way off.

224 is a huge number per mile.  100 is pretty standard guide stick for me (~180 lb male).  Less for females.  It generally works out to somewhere around .7 * weight in lbs.  Also varies by effort, but that is pretty minimal.
 
2013-12-18 01:04:48 PM  
bacongood: 224 is a huge number per mile.

185, I also used several online calculators as well and came up with similar numbers.

// basically did a google search for 'calories burned while running' and tried the first handful of results.
 
2013-12-18 01:12:53 PM  

bacongood: lordargent: I just ran 3.72 miles after work and I use one of those expensive ass watch/chest sensor/foot sensor combos (a gift from my employer), and it says I burned 833 calories (224 calories per mile)

// go to google, search for "calories burned per mile" punch in the numbers and you'll probably come to the same conclusion that I did (that 96 calories burned per mile of running is way too damn low of an estimate).

// the calories burned per mile depends on a person's weight to begin with, so maybe it is 96 per mile for _her_ (doubtful), but if it were, you don't turn around and make statements about the general populace based on that outlier.

You are either very large or that watch is way off.

224 is a huge number per mile.  100 is pretty standard guide stick for me (~180 lb male).  Less for females.  It generally works out to somewhere around .7 * weight in lbs.  Also varies by effort, but that is pretty minimal.


Agreed. I've done some lab testing on a treadmill, and my 195 lb. self burns about 140 calories per mile at a pace around 8:15. My 135 lb. GF runs closer to 9:00 miles, and burns about 115 calories per mile. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this little wisp of a gal in the article barely manages 100 cal/mi., as weight is probably the biggest factor in calorie burn. 200+ seems like measurement error, though -- I don't think I've ever seen anyone who runs regularly test out that high. (In fact, the more you run, the more efficient you become, and your burn rate goes down a little.) And gadgets/treadmill readouts, or really anything short of a controlled lab test, are notoriously unreliable in guessing calorie burn rates.

Still, I agree with the people who point out that the "80-90 miles per week to lose 2.2 lbs" comment misses the mark. It's mathematically correct, but it doesn't account for elevated metabolism post-exercise and the increased metabolic effect of building muscle. Just based on personal experience and talking to others, just about anyone going from 0-5 miles per week to 10-20 miles per week will easily lose a kg a week, so long as they don't use the increased activity as an excuse to dramatically increase food intake (which is the only point in the article that really makes sense).
 
2013-12-18 01:14:58 PM  

lordargent: bacongood: 224 is a huge number per mile.

185, I also used several online calculators as well and came up with similar numbers.

// basically did a google search for 'calories burned while running' and tried the first handful of results.


Not sure where you are getting those results, but in my experience, you are vastly over-estimating calorie output.  I find if I factor it at 100/mile the math is easy and it tends to agree with what I eat and weigh.

My first couple google hits agree with me, maybe up to 150ish (runnersworld, cool running, etc.).
 
2013-12-18 01:30:03 PM  
No one should be measuring calories burned for any other reason than to compare one workout to another (like did I do more on the treadmill today than yesterday, are my workouts improvingetc). Never to say 'i burned off x lbs of fat or x calories worth of food'.

There is too much inaccuracy, and it encourages bad dieting habits.
 
2013-12-18 01:39:31 PM  

fatassbastard: SunsetLament: It's my experience that a person running 25 miles a week will lose about 2 pounds more than the person doing no exercise (assuming they are both eating an identical amount). That's 10 pounds a month.

You are bad at math.


Well, the math is wrong if you cut out the other half of the paragraph explaining why the math works.
 
2013-12-18 01:42:33 PM  
"Perky bum".  The mods give you "perky bum" to work with and you posted what, 3 pictures?
Have I taught you nothing?

Sigh.

i216.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-18 01:43:29 PM  
i216.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-18 01:44:24 PM  
i216.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 50 of 130 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report