Mrs Atkins speaks - Page 3

<plonk> Donal Fagan AIA Donal@DonalO'Fagan.com (Anglicise the name to reply by e-mail)

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:08:12 +0100, "m. w. smith"
<mikenelsonii@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:25:19 GMT, <MJuric> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:23:35 GMT, Donal Fagan <DLFagan@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:45:21 +0100, "m. w. smith" <mikenelsonii@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:25:03 GMT, Donal Fagan <DLFagan@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:08:21 -0600, "Pat" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/atkins.asp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Claim: Dr. Robert Atkins, proponent of the low carbohydrate diet, died of a heart attack.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Status: Undetermined.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not according to his doctor. The "undetermined" comes from rumors. let's let the man rest in
>>>>>> peace.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Atkins camp made a few claims that don't make much sense to me. If you disagree, e-mail
>>>>> Snopes and complain.
>>>>
>>>> Which claims don't make much sense to you?
>>>
>>> Don't waste my time, Martin.
>>>
>>>
>>> Donal Fagan AIA Donal@DonalO'Fagan.com (Anglicise the name to reply by e-mail)
>>
>> He is sensitive about that whole Atkins thing isn't he? Is it a diet or a religion?
>

See sensitive.

>I think you are the one who is sensitive, Matt. When you refute my argument re running and riding
>being better for losing weight than swimming, then we can discuss your hatred of the Atkins plan.

Already have. Plain and simply running, riding, sitting standing swimming, rolling etc. None of them
better for losing weight than others. Again simply stated calories in calories out. Burning 100
calories is burning 100 calories whether or not you are sitting around doing nothing, swimming,
running or standing on your freakin head. It's burning 100 calories.

>For me it is just a plan that worked, and I believe I know how it works.

Again no argument it works, however as previously stated so does anorexia and bulemia,
doesn't make them a good "diet" plan does it?

>Donal doesn't really have any claims that don't make sense to him, or he would simply list them.

I've posted my problems with Atkins several times, the fact that you don't agree with them
is not my problem. As stated before we can simply agree to disagree and be done with it.

~Matt

>If it is important enough for him to post that there are claims that don't make sense to him, then
>it doesn't make sense for him to say it is a waste of time to list those claims.
>
>martin
>
>--
>If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote, because we badly need a new
>president.

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:49:55 GMT, <MJuric> wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:08:12 +0100, "m. w. smith" <mikenelsonii@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I think you are the one who is sensitive, Matt. When you refute my argument re running and riding
>> being better for losing weight than swimming, then we can discuss your hatred of the Atkins plan.
>
> Already have. Plain and simply running, riding, sitting standing swimming, rolling etc. None of
> them better for losing weight than others. Again simply stated calories in calories out. Burning
> 100 calories is burning 100 calories whether or not you are sitting around doing nothing,
> swimming, running or standing on your freakin head. It's burning 100 calories.

You haven't refuted anything. You can't refute an argument by proclamation. Burning calories is not
losing weight. I have stated the argument. Refute it or don't. It is up to you. But you haven't even
touched it yet. It appears correct to me, so if all you have is your silly calory zin calory zout
one liner, you can blopw it out your ass.

Nor have you explained why top swimmers, especially female swimmers appear to have more fat than top
runners, especially female runners, who appear very lean. Even if it is because of something as
incredible as the temperature of the water, that still argues for running and riding being better
for losing weight than swimming. Obviously, if cold water induces the body to store fat but you want
to do the opposite, then you should do an exercise that doesn't work against you.

Nor have you explained why it appears to be true in my own case that running and riding are better
for losing weight than swimming. During my entire swimming career after high school, I carried extra
weight. If I tried to lose that weight by increasing my swimming distance, even to over 6k per day,
and even if I added a little aerobics and weights on top of it, I didn't lose weight, and I was
hungry all the time. Yet, doing doing two hours a day of riding and aerobics and weightlifting and
step classes and step machine and eliptical walker, plus 1500m in the pool a few times per week, I
can lose weight easily.

Nor have you established your calory zin calory zout argument. You can't appeal to thermodynamics,
because the system is not a simple closed one. Nor have you demonstrated 100% efficiency of energy
absorbtion in the body. Nor is any such system 100% efficient.

The bottom line of our discussion is you haven't said anything I don't know, and you haven't touched
the argument for running and riding being better for losing weight than swimming. I'm the one who
needs to apply the theory. What I do to lose weight shouldn't threaten you.

>> For me it is just a plan that worked, and I believe I know how it works.
>
> Again no argument it works, however as previously stated so does anorexia and bulemia,
> doesn't make them a good "diet" plan does it?

No, anorexia and bulemia *don't* work. That is why they are classified as eating disorders,
not diets.

>> Donal doesn't really have any claims that don't make sense to him, or he would simply list them.
>
> I've posted my problems with Atkins several times, the fact that you don't agree with them
> is not my problem. As stated before we can simply agree to disagree and be done with it.

I haven't seen any problems with the Atkins diet posted by you. The fact that it might hinder
swimming performance is not a problem with the diet. It isn't supposed to preserve swimming
performance. It is supposed to help you lose weight, and then it is supposed to help you maintain
your desired weight. Those are the only two things it promises.

martin

--
If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote, because we badly need a new
president.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:57:17 +0100, "m. w. smith"
<mikenelsonii@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Yet, doing doing two hours a day of riding and aerobics and weightlifting and step classes and
>step machine and eliptical walker, plus 1500m in the pool a few times per week, I can lose
>weight easily.

You call "two hours a day of riding and aerobics and weightlifting and step classes and step machine
and eliptical walker, plus 1500m in the pool a few times per week" easily ?!?!

What would you call hard? Flying at light speed around the sun to turn back time?

I swam for half an hour 3-5 times a week and lost quite a bit of fat. Not weight, but fat.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:00:42 +0000, Helgi Briem <HelgiBriem_1@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:57:17 +0100, "m. w. smith" <mikenelsonii@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Yet, doing doing two hours a day of riding and aerobics and weightlifting and step classes and
>> step machine and eliptical walker, plus 1500m in the pool a few times per week, I can lose weight
>> easily.
>
> You call "two hours a day of riding and aerobics and weightlifting and step classes and step
> machine and eliptical walker, plus 1500m in the pool a few times per week" easily ?!?!

Easy to lose weight. But, yes, when you become accustomed to doing a lot of work, it is easy to work
hard for a long time. Look at Marianne. She swims, what, 7000m per day?

> What would you call hard? Flying at light speed around the sun to turn back time?

Swimming 7000k per day. Not because it is physically hard, but because it is boring to swim for that
long a time by myself.

> I swam for half an hour 3-5 times a week and lost quite a bit of fat. Not weight, but fat.

I have never argued that one can't lose weight swimming. I only argue that running and riding are
better for losing weight than swimming.

martin

--
If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote, because we badly need a new
president.

In article <opr3vlndrf46cygo@news.eunet.no>, mikenelsonii@yahoo.com says...
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:00:42 +0000, Helgi Briem <HelgiBriem_1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:57:17 +0100, "m. w. smith" <mikenelsonii@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yet, doing doing two hours a day of riding and aerobics and weightlifting and step classes and
> >> step machine and eliptical walker, plus 1500m in the pool a few times per week, I can lose
> >> weight easily.
> >
> > You call "two hours a day of riding and aerobics and weightlifting and step classes and step
> > machine and eliptical walker, plus 1500m in the pool a few times per week" easily ?!?!
>
> Easy to lose weight. But, yes, when you become accustomed to doing a lot of work, it is easy to
> work hard for a long time. Look at Marianne. She swims, what, 7000m per day?
>
> > What would you call hard? Flying at light speed around the sun to turn back time?
>
> Swimming 7000k per day. Not because it is physically hard, but because it is boring to swim for
> that long a time by myself.
>
> > I swam for half an hour 3-5 times a week and lost quite a bit of fat. Not weight, but fat.
>
> I have never argued that one can't lose weight swimming. I only argue that running and riding are
> better for losing weight than swimming.

I don't pretend to have a clue about the scientific rationale for one argument or another, but one
thing's for sure - I get MUCH more bang for my buck running than I do swimming when it comes to
weight loss. Maybe the fact that I'm a much better swimmer than a runner has something to do with
it, but I really think I'd have to swim in excess of 6 or 7000 meters a day before I'd even begin to
make a dent in my weight; yet running 3-5 miles, 5 days a week produces immediate results for me.

- Al

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:57:17 +0100, "m. w. smith"
<mikenelsonii@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:49:55 GMT, <MJuric> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:08:12 +0100, "m. w. smith" <mikenelsonii@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I think you are the one who is sensitive, Matt. When you refute my argument re running and
>>> riding being better for losing weight than swimming, then we can discuss your hatred of the
>>> Atkins plan.
>>
>> Already have. Plain and simply running, riding, sitting standing swimming, rolling etc. None of
>> them better for losing weight than others. Again simply stated calories in calories out. Burning
>> 100 calories is burning 100 calories whether or not you are sitting around doing nothing,
>> swimming, running or standing on your freakin head. It's burning 100 calories.
>
>You haven't refuted anything. You can't refute an argument by proclamation.

Were are all of your studies? Haven't seen anything from you that I haven't refuted.

> Burning calories is not losing weight. I have stated the argument. Refute it or don't. It is up to
> you. But you haven't even touched it yet. It appears correct to me, so if all you have is your
> silly calory zin calory zout one liner, you can blopw it out your ass.

Here ya go

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...d+caloric+burn

Try reading a bit and get back to me. I don't have time to read 57,500 pages.

>
>Nor have you explained why top swimmers, especially female swimmers appear to have more fat than
>top runners, especially female runners, who appear very lean.

I've dealt with this also. Weight is simply not as large of a factor in the water as it is
out. In a pool your weight is supported by teh water and therefore a coupel of extra lbs of
fat will not effect performace as much as carrying taht weight around on dry land.

> Even if it is because of something as incredible as the temperature of the water, that still
> argues for running and riding being better for losing weight than swimming. Obviously, if cold
> water induces the body to store fat but you want to do the opposite, then you should do an
> exercise that doesn't work against you.

Water doesn't "induce you to store fat" Eating to much does. Being in a cooler medium cause
you to lose core body heat causing a reaction "in the mind" indicating that "we need energy"
AKA eat. If you fullfill this "eating desire" without burning the calories, I.E. Easy swim
burning 150 calories then eat a 550 calorie quarter pounder, you gain weight. Simple huh?

>
>Nor have you explained why it appears to be true in my own case that running and riding are better
>for losing weight than swimming. During my entire swimming career after high school, I carried
>extra weight. If I tried to lose that weight by increasing my swimming distance, even to over 6k
>per day, and even if I added a little aerobics and weights on top of it, I didn't lose weight, and
>I was hungry all the time.

Well obviously because you weren't burning enough calories not because you were doing the wrong
excercise. As stated above "Even adding aerobics and weights" you didn't lose weight. These are land
based I'm assuming and if they didn't make you lose weight then why would they now?

> Yet, doing doing two hours a day of riding and aerobics and weightlifting and step classes and
> step machine and eliptical walker, plus 1500m in the pool a few times per week, I can lose
> weight easily.

Hmmmm Eating less? Not too mention that on a "per time" basis land based excercises are generally
more effecient at burning calories. It has been studied that people that go on Atkins eat less. Not
because it's a "great magical diet" but because it's next to impossible to suddenly go from 60%
carbs to 10-15% and maintain caloric intake. OTOH Larry has posted that people on Atkins are less
likely to stick to it than those on "less radical" diets than Atkins. My opinion, radical changes
don't usually work.

>
>Nor have you established your calory zin calory zout argument. You can't appeal to thermodynamics,
>because the system is not a simple closed one. Nor have you demonstrated 100% efficiency of energy
>absorbtion in the body. Nor is any such system 100% efficient.

Nor have I ever made any such argument. Nor do I need to. Obviously people have
different metabolisms and obviously a calorie for you is not a calorie for me. But
everyone has a balance, somewhere, where more calories going in causes weight gain, less
causes weight loss.

>
>The bottom line of our discussion is you haven't said anything I don't know, and you haven't
>touched the argument for running and riding being better for losing weight than swimming. I'm the
>one who needs to apply the theory. What I do to lose weight shouldn't threaten you.

Not threatened at all, no more than I'm by vodoo or magic.

>
>>> For me it is just a plan that worked, and I believe I know how it works.
>>
>> Again no argument it works, however as previously stated so does anorexia and bulemia,
>> doesn't make them a good "diet" plan does it?
>
>No, anorexia and bulemia *don't* work. That is why they are classified as eating disorders,
>not diets.

Sure they do if you simply classify "working" as weightloss happens.

>
>>> Donal doesn't really have any claims that don't make sense to him, or he would simply list them.
>>
>> I've posted my problems with Atkins several times, the fact that you don't agree with them
>> is not my problem. As stated before we can simply agree to disagree and be done with it.
>
>I haven't seen any problems with the Atkins diet posted by you. The fact that it might hinder
>swimming performance is not a problem with the diet.

To you. To me a lack of performance and or loss of performance indicates lack of health or lack of
recovery in some way.

>It isn't supposed to preserve swimming performance. It is supposed to help you lose weight, and
>then it is supposed to help you maintain your desired weight. Those are the only two things it
>promises.

Simply going on a "hunger strike" followed by eating again fills those criteria.

~Matt

>
>martin
>
>--
>If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote, because we badly need a new
>president.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:08:49 -0600, Al <spohn@nospam.bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>In article <opr3vlndrf46cygo@news.eunet.no>, mikenelsonii@yahoo.com says...
>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:00:42 +0000, Helgi Briem <HelgiBriem_1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:57:17 +0100, "m. w. smith" <mikenelsonii@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yet, doing doing two hours a day of riding and aerobics and weightlifting and step classes and
>> >> step machine and eliptical walker, plus 1500m in the pool a few times per week, I can lose
>> >> weight easily.
>> >
>> > You call "two hours a day of riding and aerobics and weightlifting and step classes and step
>> > machine and eliptical walker, plus 1500m in the pool a few times per week" easily ?!?!
>>
>> Easy to lose weight. But, yes, when you become accustomed to doing a lot of work, it is easy to
>> work hard for a long time. Look at Marianne. She swims, what, 7000m per day?
>>
>> > What would you call hard? Flying at light speed around the sun to turn back time?
>>
>> Swimming 7000k per day. Not because it is physically hard, but because it is boring to swim for
>> that long a time by myself.
>>
>> > I swam for half an hour 3-5 times a week and lost quite a bit of fat. Not weight, but fat.
>>
>> I have never argued that one can't lose weight swimming. I only argue that running and riding are
>> better for losing weight than swimming.
>
>I don't pretend to have a clue about the scientific rationale for one argument or another, but
>one thing's for sure - I get MUCH more bang for my buck running than I do swimming when it comes
>to weight loss. Maybe the fact that I'm a much better swimmer than a runner has something to do
>with it, but I really think I'd have to swim in excess of 6 or 7000 meters a day before I'd even
>begin to make a dent in my weight; yet running 3-5 miles, 5 days a week produces immediate
>results for me.
>
>- Al

Not sure what your specifics are but this is quite possible. If your a good "efficient" swimmer
maybe your burning very low calories per hour reguardless of weight. If your a heavy, ineffiecient
runner, you coudl be burning very high calories per hour.

~Matt

In article <403baa21.4256023@news.choiceone.net>, MJuric says...
> Not sure what your specifics are but this is quite possible. If your a good "efficient" swimmer
> maybe your burning very low calories per hour reguardless of weight. If your a heavy, ineffiecient
> runner, you coudl be burning very high calories per hour.

I think you hit the nail on the head, more so with the 2nd factor than the 1st :-)

- Al

Al <spohn@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>I don't pretend to have a clue about the scientific rationale for one argument or another, but
>one thing's for sure - I get MUCH more bang for my buck running than I do swimming when it comes
>to weight loss. Maybe the fact that I'm a much better swimmer than a runner has something to do
>with it, but I really think I'd have to swim in excess of 6 or 7000 meters a day before I'd even
>begin to make a dent in my weight; yet running 3-5 miles, 5 days a week produces immediate
>results for me.

It's pretty simple. In one exercise, you lift your body off the ground and since you aren't moving
fast enough to cool down, you're overheating a bit. In the other, your body weight is suspended and
you have a very efficient cooling system. Only by going very fast does the high drag make up for
this difference, and few are proficient enough to swim that fast.

Doesn't matter - one shouldn't be single sporting it. The calorie rate will definitely drop if you
keep doing the same old thing.

BTW, I think you can get results at 4 miles, twice a week.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:44:27 GMT, <MJuric> wrote:
> Were are all of your studies? Haven't seen anything from you that I haven't refuted.

You haven't refuted a single thing. You haven't even posted an argument. All you have said is
calories eaten must be less than calories burned. You actually haven't even said why. You haven't
given an argument for why what you eat is irrelevant; you have simply declared that what you eat is
irrelevant. You have simply declared that calories eaten must be less than calories burned,
completely ignoring the fact that the body has more than one way of storing calories and more than
one way of burning them. You have completely ignored the fact that there are three different muscle
fibers that burn different kinds of fuel at different rates under different conditions. You have
completely ignored the facts that there are no 100% efficient thermal systems, and that the human
body is not a closed system in any case. You have ignored the fact that much of the calories eaten
on low-carb diets is fiber, which is not digested by the body at all. And you have ignored the
facts that training with swimming burns more glycogen and less fat than training with running or
riding, and that for the body to replace that glycogen by manufacturing it internally, it must burn
protein, not fat.

That last fact alone should be enough to at least make you question whether the kind of exercise
you do affects your rate of weight loss, because it must affect that rate, if you want to use a
high glycogen-burning exercise program to lose weight and you want to prevent muscle loss while
doing it. It means you must compensate by eating extra protein, which is fine, but eating that
extra protein replaces more of the calories burned, which reduces the rate at which you lose
weight. Using a high fat-burning exercise program, on the other hand, means that less glycogen will
be burned, which reduces the protein requirement to replace the glycogen. That means more of the
calories burned do not require replacement by protein, and so the rate of weight loss can be
increased without losing muscle.

That analysis is based on Larry's articles and on my own experience and observations. The analysis
might be wrong, but you haven't said anything that even raises a doubt.

> Try reading a bit and get back to me. I don't have time to read 57,500 pages.

I have read much more than a bit already, and I've already gotten back to you.

>> Nor have you explained why top swimmers, especially female swimmers appear to have more fat than
>> top runners, especially female runners, who appear very lean.
>
> I've dealt with this also. Weight is simply not as large of a factor in the water as it is
> out. In a pool your weight is supported by teh water and therefore a coupel of extra lbs of
> fat will not effect performace as much as carrying taht weight around on dry land.

That doesn't deal with the issue. Are you now claiming that swimmers have extra fat because swimming
isn't a load bearing exercise? You can argue that repeated exposure to the effect of the lower
temperature and higher heat conductivity of water induces the body to add an extra layer of fat, or
you can argue that extra fat imcreases buoyancy and therefore swimming efficiency, or, I suppose you
can argue that swimming for an hour or two per day does reduce the weight bearing load on the legs
for that brief daily period and therefore it must reduce the calories burned by the legs. But, Matt,
all of those possibilities support the claim that swimming is not as good for losing weight as
running and riding. Whatever the reason for the extr fat, it is there in swimmers but not there in
runners and riders. So if you really think you have dealt with the issue by claiming that swimming
is not a load bearing exercise, then thanks for proving my claim.

> Water doesn't "induce you to store fat" Eating to much does. Being in a cooler medium cause
> you to lose core body heat causing a reaction "in the mind" indicating that "we need energy"
> AKA eat. If you fullfill this "eating desire" without burning the calories, I.E. Easy swim
> burning 150 calories then eat a 550 calorie quarter pounder, you gain weight. Simple huh?

You just argued again that swimming is not as good for losing weight as running and riding. You are
claiming that swimming in water that is a lot colder than the body does not induce the body to add a
layer of fat. That's ok with me. I'm not married to that idea. But you do claim that the body stores
fat when your exercise program isn't primarily load bearing exercises, despite the fact that
competitive swimmers work extraordinarily hard. And now you argue that swimming in colder water does
induce you to eat more, while running in colder air or riding in colder air does not. I think both
of those are really reaching, but ok. You are still proving the point: Running and riding are better
for losing weight than swimming, because swimming induces you to eat more than running or riding!
But let's look at the consequences of your claim. It would mean, for example, that people who live
in Norway would tend to be fatter than people who live in the southern US, because walking around in
below 0 temperatures for half the year would induce Norwegians to eat more. But it isn't like that.
Norwegians are not typically overweight, and they eat a lot of chocolate.

> Well obviously because you weren't burning enough calories not because you were doing the wrong
> excercise. As stated above "Even adding aerobics and weights" you didn't lose weight. These are
> land based I'm assuming and if they didn't make you lose weight then why would they now?

Because of the mix! When I didn't lose weight, my exercise program was 80% hard swimming and 20% land-
based. Now my xercise program is about 80% land-based and 20% swimming. And I eliminate hunger by
eating fat, not carbohydrates.

>> Yet, doing doing two hours a day of riding and aerobics and weightlifting and step classes and
>> step machine and eliptical walker, plus 1500m in the pool a few times per week, I can lose weight
>> easily.
>
> Hmmmm Eating less? Not too mention that on a "per time" basis land based excercises are generally
> more effecient at burning calories.

...which means... ...wait for it... Running and riding are better for losing weight than swimming!

> It has been studied that people that go on Atkins eat less. Not because it's a "great magical
> diet" but because it's next to impossible to suddenly go from 60% carbs to 10-15% and maintain
> caloric intake.

How does that work? Fat and protein have higher energy densities than carbohydrates. The truth is
the opposite of what you just said, which is why ruminants eat all day. If you live on carbs, you
have to eat more volume more often to maintain your caloric intake. It is easier to eat the same
amount of calories if you switch to a low-carb, because you eat more fat and more protein. It cost a
lot more, but in terms of energy density fat is higher.

> OTOH Larry has posted that people on Atkins are less likely to stick to it than those on "less
> radical" diets than Atkins. My opinion, radical changes don't usually work.

I don't recall Larry posting that. And your conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of the Atkins
program. Everybody goes off the weight loss part of the diet when they reach the weight they want,
but that means going *on* the weight maintenance part of the diet, which is exactly what you have
been calling a healthy diet. There is nothing radical about it. What is radical is the early part of
the diet, during which you eat almost no carbs at all except for fiber. You don't stay on that part
of the diet for long. Then you add carbohydrates gradually, as long as they are low-glycemic, and
you only add enough so that you continue to lose weight at the rate you want. So take your own
advice and do some reading.

martin

--
If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote, because we badly need a new
president.

"m. w. smith" <mikenelsonii@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<opr3vkxrp446cygo@news.eunet.no>...
> Nor have you explained why top swimmers, especially female swimmers appear to have more fat than
> top runners, especially female runners, who appear very lean.

I don't believe this is a diet or calory expenditure issue, it's an issue of how detrimental the fat
is to your performance. For runners the battle is against gravity not air resistance so reducing
dead weight, i.e. fat, is worthwhile. Swimmers on the other hand battle drag which is only slightly
affected by carrying a bit of fat and this fat has the benefit of giving the body a little extra
bouyancy, reducing the amount of energy needed to stay high in the water.

AD.

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:08:18 +0100, "m. w. smith"
<mikenelsonii@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:44:27 GMT, <MJuric> wrote:
>> Were are all of your studies? Haven't seen anything from you that I haven't refuted.
>
>You haven't refuted a single thing. You haven't even posted an argument. All you have said is
>calories eaten must be less than calories burned. You actually haven't even said why. You haven't
>given an argument for why what you eat is irrelevant; you have simply declared that what you eat is
>irrelevant. You have simply declared that calories eaten must be less than calories burned,
>completely ignoring the fact that the body has more than one way of storing calories and more than
>one way of burning them. You have completely ignored the fact that there are three different muscle
>fibers that burn different kinds of fuel at different rates under different conditions. You have
>completely ignored the facts that there are no 100% efficient thermal systems, and that the human
>body is not a closed system in any case. You have ignored the fact that much of the calories eaten
>on low-carb diets is fiber, which is not digested by the body at all. And you have ignored the
>facts that training with swimming burns more glycogen and less fat than training with running or
>riding, and that for the body to replace that glycogen by manufacturing it internally, it must burn
>protein, not fat.

Apparently you have not read any of my post as I have refuted all of the above and given
reasons for all. I'm not going thru them all again but if you have a particular issue on one
or two of teh above I may not mind repeating myself...AGAIN.

>
>That last fact alone should be enough to at least make you question whether the kind of exercise
>you do affects your rate of weight loss, because it must affect that rate, if you want to use a
>high glycogen-burning exercise program to lose weight and you want to prevent muscle loss while
>doing it. It means you must compensate by eating extra protein, which is fine, but eating that
>extra protein replaces more of the calories burned, which reduces the rate at which you lose
>weight. Using a high fat-burning exercise program, on the other hand, means that less glycogen will
>be burned, which reduces the protein requirement to replace the glycogen. That means more of the
>calories burned do not require replacement by protein, and so the rate of weight loss can be
>increased without losing muscle.
>
>That analysis is based on Larry's articles and on my own experience and observations. The analysis
>might be wrong, but you haven't said anything that even raises a doubt.
>
>> Try reading a bit and get back to me. I don't have time to read 57,500 pages.
>
>I have read much more than a bit already, and I've already gotten back to you.
>
>>> Nor have you explained why top swimmers, especially female swimmers appear to have more fat than
>>> top runners, especially female runners, who appear very lean.
>>
>> I've dealt with this also. Weight is simply not as large of a factor in the water as it is
>> out. In a pool your weight is supported by teh water and therefore a coupel of extra lbs of
>> fat will not effect performace as much as carrying taht weight around on dry land.
>
>That doesn't deal with the issue. Are you now claiming that swimmers have extra fat because
>swimming isn't a load bearing exercise?

> You can argue that repeated exposure to the effect of the lower temperature and higher heat
> conductivity of water induces the body to add an extra layer of fat, or you can argue that extra
> fat imcreases buoyancy and therefore swimming efficiency, or, I suppose you can argue that
> swimming for an hour or two per day does reduce the weight bearing load on the legs for that
> brief daily period and therefore it must reduce the calories burned by the legs. But, Matt, all
> of those possibilities support the claim that swimming is not as good for losing weight as
> running and riding.

Absolutely not, and again you read into something that doesn't exist. Even as another poster
has seen my point you miss it do to the blinders. Fat is not as high of an issue for
swimming simply because YOU DONT HAVE TO CARRY THE WEIGHT IN THE WATER. 5lbs in the water is
not 5 lbs on land. Has nothing to do with caloric burn or calories. A top swimmer can swim
at top levels with 5lbs of extra fat because it's really ways nothing in the water. On land
a runner or swimmer must carry that weight and it WILL effect their overall time. AGAIN
NOTHING TO DO WITH CALORIC BURN.

> Whatever the reason for the extr fat, it is there in swimmers but not there in runners and riders.
> So if you really think you have dealt with the issue by claiming that swimming is not a load
> bearing exercise, then thanks for proving my claim.

Thanks for taking halucingenic drugs.

>
>> Water doesn't "induce you to store fat" Eating to much does. Being in a cooler medium cause
>> you to lose core body heat causing a reaction "in the mind" indicating that "we need energy"
>> AKA eat. If you fullfill this "eating desire" without burning the calories, I.E. Easy swim
>> burning 150 calories then eat a 550 calorie quarter pounder, you gain weight. Simple huh?
>
>You just argued again that swimming is not as good for losing weight as running and riding. You are
>claiming that swimming in water that is a lot colder than the body does not induce the body to add
>a layer of fat. That's ok with me. I'm not married to that idea. But you do claim that the body
>stores fat when your exercise program isn't primarily load bearing exercises

I did? Where?

>, despite the fact that competitive swimmers work extraordinarily hard. And now you argue that
>swimming in colder water does induce you to eat more,

I said cold water makes you want to eat. YOU actually induce youself to eat more. AKA calories in.

> while running in colder air or riding in colder air does not.

Yes this is true, finally something we agree on. However as an aside if teh swimmer is swimming hard
enough to maintain core temperatur the hunger is not present.

> I think both of those are really reaching, but ok. You are still proving the point: Running and
> riding are better for losing weight than swimming,

Again I can't even see the logic of your statements. How do you get from "swimming in cold water
makes you hungry" to "running and riding are better for losing weight". Here's the real statement.
"Swimming in cold water makes you hungry, if you swim at a low intensity" "Eating more calories than
you burnt during the excercise of swimming MAKES YOU FAT"

>because swimming induces you to eat more than running or riding! But let's look at the consequences
>of your claim. It would mean, for example, that people who live in Norway would tend to be fatter
>than people who live in the southern US, because walking around in below 0 temperatures for half
>the year would induce Norwegians to eat more. But it isn't like that. Norwegians are not typically
>overweight, and they eat a lot of chocolate.

Again missed the point. The hunger is a function of core body temperature. Swimming is a near naked
person in a medium that has a propensity of heat absorbtion. Thus heat loss is rapid and core body
temperature is high. People walking around in Norway are in cloths, alot I woudl assume and in a
medium that is a fairly good insulator. Thus no core body temp loss or little compared to swimming.
However you do make a good point.

>
>> Well obviously because you weren't burning enough calories not because you were doing the wrong
>> excercise. As stated above "Even adding aerobics and weights" you didn't lose weight. These are
>> land based I'm assuming and if they didn't make you lose weight then why would they now?
>
>Because of the mix! When I didn't lose weight, my exercise program was 80% hard swimming and 20%
>land-based. Now my xercise program is about 80% land-based and 20% swimming. And I eliminate hunger
>by eating fat, not carbohydrates.
>
>>> Yet, doing doing two hours a day of riding and aerobics and weightlifting and step classes and
>>> step machine and eliptical walker, plus 1500m in the pool a few times per week, I can lose
>>> weight easily.
>>
>> Hmmmm Eating less? Not too mention that on a "per time" basis land based excercises are generally
>> more effecient at burning calories.
>
>...which means... ...wait for it... Running and riding are better for losing weight than swimming!
>
>> It has been studied that people that go on Atkins eat less. Not because it's a "great magical
>> diet" but because it's next to impossible to suddenly go from 60% carbs to 10-15% and maintain
>> caloric intake.
>
>How does that work?

>Fat and protein have higher energy densities than carbohydrates.

Wrong fat does at 9 cals per gram protein does not carbs are 4 cals per gram and so is protein.

>The truth is the opposite of what you just said, which is why ruminants eat all day. If you live on
>carbs, you have to eat more volume more often to maintain your caloric intake.

Volume has nothing to do with calories. I can drink unlimted volumes of water and take in
no calories.

>It is easier to eat the same amount of calories if you switch to a low-carb, because you eat more
>fat and more protein. It cost a lot more, but in terms of energy density fat is higher.

You're kidding right? Easier to take in calories on fat and protein than carbs? I can mix up
a bottle Carbo pro and G-Push with a 1000+ calories in a 28oz water bottle. A can of pop is
180 calories. I suppose you could suck down a tub of butter or something like that to get
those type of calories. Even 10oz of cheese is only around 1000 cal. Ever try eating 10 oz
of cheeze? Most High calorie food is a mixture of carbs and fat like CHEESE CAKE yummmmmm.
You're the one asking for studies. A recent study, it was on Netscapes home page awhile back
and discussed in Rec.Running I believe pointed out exactly this fact. "People are losing
weight on Atkins because they are taking in less calories overall" Another point, I even
think ATkins points this out himself, initial weight loss is highly due to water and
glygogen stores being depleted. 1g of glycogen takes 3 or 4 gram of water for storage.
Figuring that a trained athlete may have 500g of glycogen stored in the leggs and liver
alone thats around 2KG right there. Thats not including storage in arms and back.

>
>> OTOH Larry has posted that people on Atkins are less likely to stick to it than those on "less
>> radical" diets than Atkins. My opinion, radical changes don't usually work.
>
>I don't recall Larry posting that.

Of course you don't you only see and remember what you want.

Repost: of Larry's post

>>>>Recall the recent NEJM study, comparing (in a prospective, randomized trial): Atkins, Ornish,
>>>>Zone, and Weight Watchers.

>>>>At the end of 6 months, Atkins was in the lead. At the end of 12 months, there was EQUAL weight
>>>>loss in all 4 groups AMONG THE PEOPLE WHO CONTINUED TO FOLLOW THE DIET PLAN. However, only about
>>>>1/3 of Atkins and Ornish dieters were still on the plan, while about 1/2 of Zone and Weight
>>>>Watcher dieters were on the plan. I've written before that the Zone is just Weight Watchers in
>>>>disguise, so that makes sense.

>>>>I'm sure that really dedicated Atkins and Ornish dieters can do much better than average (my
>>>>family and I have been Pritikin/Ornish for > 20 years), but what makes the most sense from a
>>>>public health point of view is just something like Weight Watchers, which is eating relatively
>>>>healthy, "balanced" diet, with portion control and exercise.

So does this mean Atkins is not good for weight loss?

~Matt

<Snip>

>
>martin
>
>--
>If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote, because we badly need a new
>president.

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:40:37 GMT, <MJuric> wrote:

> Apparently you have not read any of my post as I have refuted all of the above and given
> reasons for all. I'm not going thru them all again but if you have a particular issue on one
> or two of teh above I may not mind repeating myself...AGAIN.

I read everything you wrote, and you didn't address the argument at all. And now you are repeatedly
making claims that, if true, actually support the original assertion that running and riding are
better exercises than swimming for losing weight.

>> But, Matt, all of those possibilities support the claim that swimming is not as good for losing
>> weight as running and riding.
>
> Absolutely not, and again you read into something that doesn't exist. Even as another poster
> has seen my point you miss it do to the blinders. Fat is not as high of an issue for
> swimming simply because YOU DONT HAVE TO CARRY THE WEIGHT IN THE WATER. 5lbs in the water is
> not 5 lbs on land. Has nothing to do with caloric burn or calories. A top swimmer can swim
> at top levels with 5lbs of extra fat because it's really ways nothing in the water. On land
> a runner or swimmer must carry that weight and it WILL effect their overall time. AGAIN
> NOTHING TO DO WITH CALORIC BURN.

I didn't say it had anything to do with caloric burn. I said, Swimmers appear to carry extra fat
that runners and riders don't carry. You explain this alleged fact by saying what you say above. But
the other fact is that these same swimmers do an enormous amount of work each day. I know they do,
because I've done it right alongside them for years on end. We still carried this apparently extra
fat. I have seen very few lean swimmers, where lean means lean like a distance runner. It doesn'yt
make any difference how many calories they burn. They do an enormous amount of work. So do runners
and riders, but runners and riders appear leaner to
me. This supports the claim that running and riding are better for losing weight, ie losing fat.

Aside: I have bewen saying losing weight, but what is important, and what I really am on about, is
losing fat.

> I said cold water makes you want to eat. YOU actually induce youself to eat more. AKA calories in.

Matt, if this point is true, can't you see how it supports the claim that running and riding are
better for losing weight than swimming?

This has become silly. You haven't addressed the argument at all. The only claims you have made
either directly support the original assertion, or they don't say anything about the problem at all.
I really don't care anymore whether you believe my argument or another one. I thank you for
providing this opportunity to make my argument clear, at least to me.

martin

--
If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote, because we badly need a new
president.

On 25 Feb 2004 08:07:45 -0800, adrian <bikefortallguy@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "m. w. smith" <mikenelsonii@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<opr3vkxrp446cygo@news.eunet.no>...
>> Nor have you explained why top swimmers, especially female swimmers appear to have more fat than
>> top runners, especially female runners, who appear very lean.
>
> I don't believe this is a diet or calory expenditure issue, it's an issue of how detrimental the
> fat is to your performance. For runners the battle is against gravity not air resistance so
> reducing dead weight, i.e. fat, is worthwhile. Swimmers on the other hand battle drag which is
> only slightly affected by carrying a bit of fat and this fat has the benefit of giving the body a
> little extra bouyancy, reducing the amount of energy needed to stay high in the water.

That is all true, but it doesn't address the issue. If you simply mean that swimmers don't care
about losing weight, I disagree. I have known lots of kids as swimmers, girls especially, who wanted
to lose weight, but didn't.

Matt argues that they don't have gravity working for them, forcing them to burn more calories to
carry the increased load of running, and they fight increased hunger induced by swimming in cold-ish
water. And now you argue that they are also induced to keep fat because it makes them more buoyant,
which improves their swimming efficiency, allowing them to burn fewer calories staying afloat. To
that I add that the swimming they do, being an upper-body HIIT exercise, burns a higher percentage
of glycogen and a lower percentage of fat than what they would burn were they to spend the same
amount of time running or riding. This forces them to eat more protein to avoid muscle loss,
assuming they don't replace all the glycogen with carbs that they eat.

All of this argues *for* the assertion that running and riding are better than swimming, if you want
to lose weight.

martin

--
If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote, because we badly need a new
president.