returning to running (10 years later)

[Mark Mauro]

Hi, I'd like to introduce myself to the group. About 10 years ago (when I was
30) I was in shape and loved running. I met all the modest goals I made for myself, 18:30 5k, 39:00
10k and even a 3:10 Marathon to qualify for Boston. Anyway, I ran way to many races and got
plantar fasciitis and stopped running.. and got really really fat (365 lbs). So 10 months ago I
finally came to my senses and went on a diet and now I'm down to 190 lbs (still 10 - 20 lbs to
go). I've been running again for about 10 weeks and have my base up to 50 mpw with 16 mile long
runs. I need the groups advice on something.

I really want to run a marathon again. I kind of wanted to do an early season marathon like maybe
ocean drive. I don't want to qualify for Boston yet , but maybe run in the 3:45 range. My long runs
are at 9:30 pace and I "was" always about a minute fast in races vs. training. Is this way to soon?
Should I look at a fall marathon instead?

Thanks for any advice,

Mark Mauro markmauro@verizon.net

[Topcounsel]

>Is this way to soon? Should I look at a fall marathon instead?

There's always the idea of using the early marathon as one of your "long" runs in preparation for a
later event. That is, enter it, plan to complete it, but don't "race" per se. Some of us are too
competitive to do this, however; you know yourself the best.

[Neoncoyote]

> Anyway, I ran way to many races and got plantar fasciitis and stopped running.. and got really
> really fat (365 lbs). So 10 months ago I finally came to my senses and went on a diet and now I'm
> down to 190 lbs (still
10 -
> 20 lbs to go).

No advice on the marathon question, but kudos on that weight loss...must have taken a huge amount of
work and discipline.

[Miss Anne Throp]

It's only 26 miles. What's the problem Buttercup? Sheesh, I drive twice that far to work everyday.

[Rick++]

You are middle aged now and prone to injury. Overtraiging could make you a cripple. Take two years
to work up to a marathon.

[Ray]

rick++ <rick303@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You are middle aged now and prone to injury. Overtraiging could make you a cripple. Take two years
> to work up to a marathon.

Some sanity at last

Reading between the lines, I would say that you can be extremely disciplined, focused and obsessive.
This is probably what caused your first injury. You injure yourself the way you did before, and you
may never run again.

Take it slow. Work up to it.--

[Mark Mauro]

Thanks for all the good advice. I do tend to get obsessive about things and it probably would be
best if I concentrated on base and do a fall marathon. My biggest mistake before was running 2
marathons in a month (Hyannis to qualify then Boston), and I was wrecked after that. So again thanks
for all the good advice, and hopefully I can learn alot more from the group as time goes by.

Mark Mauro "TopCounsel" <topcounsel@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040121171258.22719.00000524@mb-
m18.aol.com...
> >Some sanity at last Reading between the lines, I would say that you can be extremely disciplined,
> >focused and obsessive. This is probably what caused your first injury. You injure yourself the
> >way you did before, and you may never run again.
>
> >Take it slow. Work up to it.--
>
> This may be good advice generally, but Mark is someone who said he had previously run 18:30 5k,
> 39:00 10k and even a 3:10 Marathon to qualify for Boston. He put on some weight and lost it, but
> he is still not an inexperienced runner. I would tend to tell him to trust his intuition
about
> how he feels when he runs.

[Jean S. Barto]

Hell--I'd like to know how you lost all that weight! I'm having a lot of trouble losing 40 lbs which
I've gained in the last 2 years--and the weight won't come off. I do think that men can lose weight
more easily, but there *has* to be something else I can do other than starving myself and exercising
3 hours a day.

As far as the fall marathons, I say go for one marathon for sure, and if you feel like #2, do that.
Back in 2001 I almost bagged doing Chicago because of not having enough longer runs--but I decided
to do it anyway and was glad I did. Injuries the last year have really decreased my running mileage
and I'm not sure when, if ever, I'll complete another marathon--so in retrospect I'm very glad I did
Chicago--which will most likely remain my marathon PR.

Just my 2 cents--

Jean in VA

"Mark Mauro" <markmauro@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1TPPb.6015$kH2.4442@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> Thanks for all the good advice. I do tend to get obsessive about things
and
> it probably would be best if I concentrated on base and do a fall
marathon.
> My biggest mistake before was running 2 marathons in a month (Hyannis to qualify then Boston), and
> I was wrecked after that. So again thanks for all the good advice, and hopefully I can learn alot
more
> from the group as time goes by.
>
> Mark Mauro "TopCounsel" <topcounsel@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040121171258.22719.00000524@mb-
> m18.aol.com...
> > >Some sanity at last Reading between the lines, I would say that you can be extremely
> > >disciplined, focused and obsessive. This is probably what caused your first injury. You injure
> > >yourself the way you did before, and you may never run again.
> >
> > >Take it slow. Work up to it.--
> >
> > This may be good advice generally, but Mark is someone who said he had previously run 18:30 5k,
> > 39:00 10k and even a 3:10 Marathon to qualify
for
> > Boston. He put on some weight and lost it, but he is still not an inexperienced runner. I would
> > tend to tell him to trust his intuition
> about
> > how he feels when he runs.

[Rick \]

Well, I just lost about 60 lbs from 252 and did the NY marathon in November. I am now in training
for an Ironman. The answer - Atkins. I feel so much better, even than when I was a teenager (I am
now 48). It doesn't work for everybody, of course, but it really helped me. I "carbo-loaded" for the
marathon and burned it right off. I am going to do the same thing for New Orleans Feb 29.

I started Atkins Feb 14, 2003, but didn't start doing any exercise until Oct
1. If you exercise, it comes off even faster, of course. I will probably get flamed by a low-fat
enthusiast (a.k.a. religious nut), but it really does work for many people. There is even a
scientific article that compared three diets: low-carb to high carb to low-carb with three days
carbo-loading, in trained endurance cyclists. The low-carb with loading was actually slightly
more energy output the high-carb diet. The pure all low-carb diet is not good for endurance
sports, as dogma reiterates.

Rick
1/1/190

next: 140.6 in 16:59!

"Jean S. Barto" <jsbarto1@cox.net> wrote in message news:%_RPb.6238$_H5.1646@lakeread06...
> Hell--I'd like to know how you lost all that weight! I'm having a lot of trouble losing 40 lbs
> which I've gained in the last 2 years--and the
weight
> won't come off. I do think that men can lose weight more easily, but
there
> *has* to be something else I can do other than starving myself and exercising 3 hours a day.
>
> As far as the fall marathons, I say go for one marathon for sure, and if
you
> feel like #2, do that. Back in 2001 I almost bagged doing Chicago because of not having enough
> longer runs--but I decided to do it anyway and was
glad
> I did. Injuries the last year have really decreased my running mileage
and
> I'm not sure when, if ever, I'll complete another marathon--so in
retrospect
> I'm very glad I did Chicago--which will most likely remain my marathon PR.
>
> Just my 2 cents--
>
> Jean in VA

[Mark Mauro]

First I'm definitely not flaming you, but I lost my weight with slim fast and walking 5 miles
everyday. At one point I tried to switch over to the zone but only lasted a week on it, but I know
people that it has worked great for. Since I started running I can't seem to lose the last 10lbs.
I've been holding at 190lbs and I'm 6' so according the charts 180lbs is the very most I'm supposed
to weigh. I just keep hoping that fat is converting to muscle and eventually I'll lose the rest, but
I feel good so I guess that's what counts.

Thanks, Mark Mauro "Rick (Saga 35)" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message
news:344da$40105d3b$4364082a$20901@msgid.meganewsservers.com...
> Well, I just lost about 60 lbs from 252 and did the NY marathon in
November.
> I am now in training for an Ironman. The answer - Atkins. I feel so much better, even than when I
> was a teenager (I am now 48). It doesn't work for everybody, of course, but it really helped me. I
> "carbo-loaded" for the marathon and burned it right off. I am going to do the same thing for New
> Orleans Feb 29.
>
> I started Atkins Feb 14, 2003, but didn't start doing any exercise until
Oct
> 1. If you exercise, it comes off even faster, of course. I will probably
get
> flamed by a low-fat enthusiast (a.k.a. religious nut), but it really does work for many people.
> There is even a scientific article that compared
three
> diets: low-carb to high carb to low-carb with three days carbo-loading, in trained endurance
> cyclists. The low-carb with loading was actually
slightly
> more energy output the high-carb diet. The pure all low-carb diet is not good for endurance
> sports, as dogma reiterates.
>
> Rick
> 252/190/190
>
> next: 140.6 in 16:59!
>
>
>
> "Jean S. Barto" <jsbarto1@cox.net> wrote in message news:%_RPb.6238$_H5.1646@lakeread06...
> > Hell--I'd like to know how you lost all that weight! I'm having a lot
of
> > trouble losing 40 lbs which I've gained in the last 2 years--and the
> weight
> > won't come off. I do think that men can lose weight more easily, but
> there
> > *has* to be something else I can do other than starving myself and exercising 3 hours a day.
> >
> > As far as the fall marathons, I say go for one marathon for sure, and if
> you
> > feel like #2, do that. Back in 2001 I almost bagged doing Chicago
because
> > of not having enough longer runs--but I decided to do it anyway and was
> glad
> > I did. Injuries the last year have really decreased my running mileage
> and
> > I'm not sure when, if ever, I'll complete another marathon--so in
> retrospect
> > I'm very glad I did Chicago--which will most likely remain my marathon
PR.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents--
> >
> > Jean in VA
>

[Tim Downie]

Rick (Saga 35) wrote:
> Well, I just lost about 60 lbs from 252 and did the NY marathon in November. I am now in training
> for an Ironman. The answer - Atkins. I feel so much better, even than when I was a teenager (I am
> now 48). It doesn't work for everybody, of course, but it really helped me.

There was a fascinating program here in theUK last night (Horizon) that attempted to work out how
the Atkins diet worked, with it's apparently contradictory "eat all the protein and fat you like"
principle.

The program highlighted the apparent contradiction that would seem to imply the Atkins dieters can
eat as many calories as they like and still lose weight which flies in the face of conventional
wisdom (and basic thermodynamics).

To keep it short, what they found was that when they carefully analysed diet of people on the Atkins
diet, they found that dieters were in fact eating *fewer* calories, even when they allowed to eat as
many as they liked. Turns out that the Atkins diet is a good appetite suppressant. Another bit of
research isolated this phenomenum to the protein intake, not the fat. Being a good appetite
suppressant made it easier for dieters to stick to the diet (hence its success).

It was pleasing that the program showed that no basic thermodynamic principles were being violated
but it did also reveal that blood fat levels *weren't* adversely affected. They actually improved a
lot. Despite this (and I think correctly) the program highlighted the lack of long term evidence for
the safety of this diet.

Tim

--
Remove the obvious to reply by email.

[David]

Safety is the biggest issue for sure. The Atkins people released new
guidelines last week partly in response similar but lower fat diets like
South Beach... the NEW guidelines? 60% of your total daily calories
should come from fat and one third of that (20% of total calories)
should come from saturated fat. That does not sound healthy... to say
the least... and it makes me wonder... if those are the new lower fat
guidlines... what were the guidelines before?! Also, I have read
numerous anecdotal reports of people sustaining organ damage from Atkins
and specifically kidney failure (in some cases... almost total failure
within 6 months). The flood of ketones in the bloodstream (a
'starvation' state where your body starts feeding off stored fat because
you are not getting any energy fuel... a.k.a. carbs) is apparently just
too much for some people's kidney's to handle. Atkins got a few things
right I think (we are addicted to sugar and white bread... protein
supresses appetite by regulating blood sugar)... but he got just as much
wrong (very high fat... the wishful thought that whoppers with or
without a bun are ever a good thing to eat! :)

"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Despite this the program highlighted the lack of long term evidence for the safety of this diet.

--
Nova Scotia, Canada

[MJuric]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:17:31 -0000, "Tim Downie"
<timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Rick (Saga 35) wrote:
<Snip>
>
>To keep it short, what they found was that when they carefully analysed diet of people on the
>Atkins diet, they found that dieters were in fact eating *fewer* calories, even when they allowed
>to eat as many as they liked. Turns out that the Atkins diet is a good appetite suppressant.
>Another bit of research isolated this phenomenum to the protein intake, not the fat. Being a good
>appetite suppressant made it easier for dieters to stick to the diet (hence its success).
>
<Snip>

The lower calorie intake on Atkins is something I've argued with my mother-in-law, an Atkins
advocate, for quite some time. She especially had a very high carb diet, guestimating 60-70% of her
total intake. It's very difficult to instantaneously replace 60-70% of your diet with someting you
don't normally eat. In her case I'm guessing she'd have to nearly triple her fat and protein intake
just to make up for the carbs she'd cut out, not an easy task. By doing so she had the "idea" that
she was "eating alot" because it was new food and more of it when in fact she merely doubled her fat
and protein intake, yet significantly cut her total caloric intake.

~Matt

>Tim
>
>--
>Remove the obvious to reply by email.

[Swstudio]

"David" <user@host.com> wrote in message news:user-
> . Atkins got a few things right I think (we are addicted to sugar and white bread

All my life, even when I was a teeneager who could care less about "eating healthy", I never
understood the concept of why people would choose white bread over say, rye or bran or whole
wheat..... among lots of other choices. They all taste so much better (especially rye), and actually
have substance. Again, I made these observations well before I cared about health/nutrition issues.

White bread has just always seemed so tasteless, thin, and useless to me, with the occasional
exception of french stick, the only "white" bread that has a few redeeming factors, such as a crust
that actually has some type of texture.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org

[Jean S. Barto]

Mark--

I can relate to success on SlimFast--the last time I actually *dieted* to lose weight was in 1990-
1991 when I lost 10 lbs or so with having Ultra SlimFast for breakfast. I was in the Army at the
time and *making weight* as well as doing well on the PT test was important. Many days I did PT
before work, and so I brought the SlimFast to work with me and drank it at my desk as I was starting
my work day.

Except for a short period 2+ years ago when I was training for the Chicago Marathon and weighed 119-
125, I've weighed in the 130's for the last 10 years, and gained 20 lbs last year--from the low
140's to 162 or so today. What's hard for me is that until my mid-30's I weighed 100 to 110 lbs--and
never weighed over 100 lbs until I entered the Army at age 25, and was forced to eat 3 cafeteria
meals a day. So, my weight gain is definitely an adult issue--and not how I grew up!

My steady weight gain in the past 2 years is because of a combination of factors--injury resulting
in decreased running/exercise, slower metabolism due to getting older and nearing menopause, and the
weight gain effects of anti-depressant medications and Depo-Provera shots for birth control.

Guess I should go to Costco and get another case or two of SlimFast! I can't walk/run 5 miles/day
every day right now, but I can work up to it in a couple months or so.

Jean in VA "Mark Mauro" <markmauro@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:h%6Qb.9129$ro4.9100@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> First I'm definitely not flaming you, but I lost my weight with slim fast and walking 5 miles
> everyday. At one point I tried to switch over to the zone but only lasted a week on it, but I know
> people that it has worked great for. Since I started running I can't seem to lose the last 10lbs.
I've
> been holding at 190lbs and I'm 6' so according the charts 180lbs is the
very
> most I'm supposed to weigh. I just keep hoping that fat is converting to muscle and eventually
> I'll lose the rest, but I feel good so I guess
that's
> what counts.
>
> Thanks, Mark Mauro "Rick (Saga 35)" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message
> news:344da$40105d3b$4364082a$20901@msgid.meganewsservers.com...
> > Well, I just lost about 60 lbs from 252 and did the NY marathon in
> November.
> > I am now in training for an Ironman. The answer - Atkins. I feel so much better, even than when
> > I was a teenager (I am now 48). It doesn't work
for
> > everybody, of course, but it really helped me. I "carbo-loaded" for the marathon and burned it
> > right off. I am going to do the same thing for
New
> > Orleans Feb 29.
> >
> > I started Atkins Feb 14, 2003, but didn't start doing any exercise until
> Oct
> > 1. If you exercise, it comes off even faster, of course. I will probably
> get
> > flamed by a low-fat enthusiast (a.k.a. religious nut), but it really
does
> > work for many people. There is even a scientific article that compared
> three
> > diets: low-carb to high carb to low-carb with three days carbo-loading,
in
> > trained endurance cyclists. The low-carb with loading was actually
> slightly
> > more energy output the high-carb diet. The pure all low-carb diet is not good for endurance
> > sports, as dogma reiterates.
> >
> > Rick
> > 252/190/190
> >
> > next: 140.6 in 16:59!
> >
> >
> >
> > "Jean S. Barto" <jsbarto1@cox.net> wrote in message news:%_RPb.6238$_H5.1646@lakeread06...
> > > Hell--I'd like to know how you lost all that weight! I'm having a lot
> of
> > > trouble losing 40 lbs which I've gained in the last 2 years--and the
> > weight
> > > won't come off. I do think that men can lose weight more easily, but
> > there
> > > *has* to be something else I can do other than starving myself and exercising 3 hours a day.
> > >
> > > As far as the fall marathons, I say go for one marathon for sure, and
if
> > you
> > > feel like #2, do that. Back in 2001 I almost bagged doing Chicago
> because
> > > of not having enough longer runs--but I decided to do it anyway and
was
> > glad
> > > I did. Injuries the last year have really decreased my running
mileage
> > and
> > > I'm not sure when, if ever, I'll complete another marathon--so in
> > retrospect
> > > I'm very glad I did Chicago--which will most likely remain my marathon
> PR.
> > >
> > > Just my 2 cents--
> > >
> > > Jean in VA
> > >
> >
>

[Donovan Rebbech]

In article <user-FC3C2C.08073423012004@news.hfx.eastlink.ca>, David wrote:
> Safety is the biggest issue for sure. The Atkins people released new guidelines last week partly
> in response similar but lower fat diets like South Beach... the NEW guidelines? 60% of your total
> daily calories should come from fat and one third of that (20% of total calories) should come from
> saturated fat. That does not sound healthy...

Why doesn't it "sound healthy" ? Does the fact that it doesn't "sound healthy" reflect some problem
with the diet, or does it actually reflect your prejudices (which are probably based on childhood
"food pyramid" indoctrination) ?

> to say the least... and it makes me wonder... if those are the new lower fat guidlines... what
> were the guidelines before?!

The main point of the new guidelines is to restrict the amount of saturated fat.

> Also, I have read numerous anecdotal reports of people sustaining organ damage from Atkins and
> specifically kidney failure (in some cases... almost total failure within 6 months).

"numerous anecdotal reports" don't prove anything. There are equally "numerous anecdotal reports" of
people who aren't on Atkins and have kidney problems (and all kinds of other problems).

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

[Rick \]

Hi Mark,

Congratulations on your SlimFast diet!

We are both 6 feet and 190. I've seen the same charts about 180 lbs, but I am very happy at 190, and
all my friends tell me not to lose more weight. If a few more pounds go away, that is probably good,
but I am really not concerned. If you research the origin of the various charts, none of them are
based on any really hard science, and there is a lot of disagreement on the "right" numbers. There
is no disagreement that obese is not healthy, but rather for a specific individual what is the right
weight. Bone, organ, and muscle mass vary a lot.

For example, some of the low weight numbers are based on rodent studies for "extended" lifetimes
with very low caloric intake, basically anorexic rats. IIRC, calories equivalent were restricted to
below 1500 or 1000 per day. Not much fun. Others question if these rodent studies are a meaningful
comparison, since these rodents were not on an exercise program, did not have medical care, were
bred in unnatural (laboratory) conditions, exposed

In other words, if you like 190 and are happy, be happy!

Rick

"Mark Mauro" <markmauro@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:h%6Qb.9129$ro4.9100@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> First I'm definitely not flaming you, but I lost my weight with slim fast and walking 5 miles
> everyday. At one point I tried to switch over to the zone but only lasted a week on it, but I know
> people that it has worked great for. Since I started running I can't seem to lose the last 10lbs.
I've
> been holding at 190lbs and I'm 6' so according the charts 180lbs is the
very
> most I'm supposed to weigh. I just keep hoping that fat is converting to muscle and eventually
> I'll lose the rest, but I feel good so I guess
that's
> what counts.
>
> Thanks, Mark Mauro

[Rick \]

Responding to kidney issues:

Atkins is very emphatic of a very high water intake, which flushes the kidneys. I don't recollect
kidney failure as being an issue, but kidney stones are with some people. And for a lot of people
not on Atkins, too.

I am not trying to proselytize, but a lot of the issues people raise are because they didn't read
the book or don't follow all the recommendations. High water intake is important. So are vitamin
supplements. And it does NOT say eat all you can of saturated fat - eat until satisfied, don't
gorge. Eats lots of high fiber vegetables, like broccoli. Cream is good - but in limited
quantities. Etc.

Of course, there are lots of other diets that work, too. They didn't for me, but YMMV!

"David" <user@host.com> wrote in message news:user-FC3C2C.08073423012004@news.hfx.eastlink.ca...
> Safety is the biggest issue for sure. The Atkins people released new guidelines last week partly
> in response similar but lower fat diets like South Beach... the NEW guidelines? 60% of your total
> daily calories should come from fat and one third of that (20% of total calories) should come
> from saturated fat. That does not sound healthy... to say the least... and it makes me wonder...
> if those are the new lower fat guidlines... what were the guidelines before?! Also, I have read
> numerous anecdotal reports of people sustaining organ damage from Atkins and specifically kidney
> failure (in some cases... almost total failure within 6 months). The flood of ketones in the
> bloodstream (a 'starvation' state where your body starts feeding off stored fat because you are
> not getting any energy fuel... a.k.a. carbs) is apparently just too much for some people's
> kidney's to handle. Atkins got a few things right I think (we are addicted to sugar and white
> bread... protein supresses appetite by regulating blood sugar)... but he got just as much wrong
> (very high fat... the wishful thought that whoppers with or without a bun are ever a good thing
> to eat! :)
>
> "Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Despite this the program highlighted the lack of long term evidence for the safety of this diet.
>
> --
> Nova Scotia, Canada

[Donovan Rebbech]

In article <21e9d$40116fcd$4364082a$5599@msgid.meganewsservers.com>, Rick (Saga 35) wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Congratulations on your SlimFast diet!
>
> We are both 6 feet and 190. I've seen the same charts about 180 lbs, but I am very happy at 190,
> and all my friends tell me not to lose more weight. If

Your friends haven't measured your body fat percentage. Anyway, why should they want you to be more
succesful than them at weight loss ?

> a few more pounds go away, that is probably good, but I am really not concerned. If you research
> the origin of the various charts, none of them are based on any really hard science,

BMI charts originated with mortality data collected by life insurance companies.

hence if you're too heavy, you are on average more likely to die (but don't let that bother you ;-)

> and there is a lot of disagreement on the "right" numbers. There is no disagreement that obese is
> not healthy, but rather for a specific individual what is the right weight. Bone, organ, and
> muscle mass vary a lot.

At the very least, it's worth testing your body fat percentage, as well as other risk factors that
are associated with weight, and checking that you're healthy. Otherwise this sort of relativism is
really just excuse-making.

Once you're outside the healthy BMI range, you owe yourself an explanation as to what makes you
different from most of the other people with a high BMI (who, as the data shows, are not going to
live very long). And if your explanation is something like "I have more muscle than them", you owe
it to yourself to actually check this.

> For example, some of the low weight numbers are based on rodent studies for "extended" lifetimes
> with very low caloric intake, basically anorexic rats.

But that's not where the "healthy weight" BMI charts that are in common use originate. Speculation
about VLCD as a life extender is more recent than the BMI mortality data.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

[Donovan Rebbech]

In article <buqvn8$l39iq$1@ID-81538.news.uni-berlin.de>, Tim Downie wrote:
> Rick (Saga 35) wrote:

> To keep it short, what they found was that when they carefully analysed diet of people on the
> Atkins diet, they found that dieters were in fact eating *fewer* calories, even when they allowed
> to eat as many as they liked. Turns out that the Atkins diet is a good appetite suppressant.
> Another bit

Apparently, that's what most of the research shows.

You can control appetite on *any* diet by making sure you take in adequate protein. For someone
doing a lot of exercise, 0.8gm/lb protein per day is about right.

> of research isolated this phenomenum to the protein intake, not the fat.

Maybe, but it's very hard psychologically to stay on a low fat diet because everything starts to
taste like cardboard.

For someone training for endurance athletics, a combination of good protein intake, moderate carbs
works well. People taking in fairly low amounts of carbs will probably want/need to use
GU/Gel/whatever during training runs.

> *weren't* adversely affected. They actually improved a lot.

The problem with this (health indicators improving on an Atkins diet) is that the effect of of a
caloric deficit is counfounded with the macronutrient balance.

> Despite this (and I think correctly) the program highlighted the lack of long term evidence for
> the safety of this diet.

There's a lack of "long term evidence for the safety" for lots of things (for example, using
Microsoft Windows, or driving any car built after 2000) It's difficult to *prove* that any normal
diet is "safe". For example, there are loons claiming soy is dangerous. Same is true for milk. Same
is true for Aspartame. Same is true for a number of common products that nearly everyone consumes at
least one of.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/