3000 miles in 10 months... so Why am I still fat?

David Kerber

In article <2h1ho8F7dtk6U1@uni-berlin.de>,
rogerzoul2@hotmail.com says...

...

> :: FWIW, you don't have to go anaerobic to deplete your
> :: muscle glycogen. Simply riding at a lower cadence with
> :: the same power output will accelerate the depletion
> :: rate. Glycogen usage is tied to muscle effort.
>
> Er, riding at a lower cadence with high power output (like
> going uphill in a high gear or going very fast on a flat
> in high gear) is the same thing as going anaerobic.
> Anaerobic activity is what uses sugar for fuel.

Which is another way of saying the EXACT same thing.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in
the newsgroups if possible).

Curt

"Terry Morse" <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:tmorse-F260CB.08181619052004@news.covad.net...
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>
> > Terry Morse wrote:
> > ::
> > :: Reading "you don't have to watch you(r) fat intake"
> > :: doesn't scare
> > :: me. It makes me laugh. If P.T. Barnum were still
> > :: alive, I think he'd also find the humor in it.
> >
> > Where is the humor in it? I've lost 130 lbs on a low
> > carb diet without worrying about fat intake other than
> > to not eat too many calories. And
I
> > have improved blood lipids to show for it.
>
> The humor is that it is a ridiculous statemet. If you eat
> too much food, no matter what it's made of, you will gain
> weight. The statement should correctly read "you don't
> have to watch your fat intake, as long as you don't eat
> too much of it". Wow, there's a revelation!
> --
> terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

How silly this is. Usenet at its finest. I guess I need to
state the obvious when speaking to someone like yourself. Of
course you shouldn't over-eat. My point was, you don't have
to concern yourself with how much fat you eat. Not meaning
you can eat as much food as you want. You still need to find
the amount of calories that is right for you.

Geez. Curt

Badger_south

On Wed, 19 May 2004 11:31:28 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Badger_South wrote:
>:: On Wed, 19 May 2004 10:15:42 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
>:: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>::
>::::: But don't stop with just these suggestions. Get the
>::::: bible "The Ketogenic Diet" by Lyle McDonald, and
>::::: "Protein Power" by Eades and learn the facts
>::::: yourself.
>:::
>::: Right. I recommend Lyle's book, but PP is great too
>::: (better than Atkins on the science).
>::
>:: The thing is, you (the OP) can not just go by what ppl
>:: say. You have to understand the 'science' behind it.
>:: It's all based on insulin response.
>::
>:: It doesn't mean you have to be committed and
>:: disciplined. For me, though, being on LC allows me to
>:: 'intellectually' take control of my eating. Otherwise,
>:: being a carb addict, I could eat a horse made of pizza
>:: twice a day. <g>
>
>Me too. Actually, there are many who fall into the same
>boat. Understanding the science of it will allow you to
>understand why you can pick up 10 lbs of weight over a
>weekend, but then lose it quickly the following week once
>you resume LC eating.

This is, as you know, the TKD diet, in which you allow
carbing up (within reason) on weekends, presumably to reset
your system and metabolism.

If you can do this, very good. I on the other hand have to
keep a much tighter reign on my carb intake. One slice of
pizza and I know I risk 'falling off the wagon'. It's more a
mental thing, and I know that's atypical. It does allow me
to foist a smug and superior attitude upon all the weak and
slovenly ppl around me though. (LOL, sarcasm meter pegging
out to the max).

-B

BanditManDan

I don't know why cycling alone wouldnt be enough. It's a great calorie burn and as long as your not consuming more than you burn it should result in weight loss. Not that theres anything wrong with weight bearing exercise or cross training but a person can lose weight even without exercise if they control their diet sufficiently.

Dan.

David Kerber

In article <JGMqc.11829$cv3.3032@fe20.usenetserver.com>,
dballagh@hotmail.com says...
> Steve Knight wrote:
> > >Well, for much of human history people were lean
> > >indeed on a diet of complex carbs, mainly in the form
> > >of grains, vegetables and very little animal protein.
> > >It is quite easy to have a diet like that and be
> > >quite lean.
> > humans only started eating grains when we learned to
> > cultivate. we did not evolve eating grains.
>
>
> But how long has cultivation been around? This is not a
> new technology or anything and the planet wasnt overall
> fat a 100 to 200 years ago.

Last I read, 8000 to 10000 years is the current best
estimate.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in
the newsgroups if possible).

\"El Paisano\

"Badger_South" <Badger@South.net> wrote in message
news:3uqma0hbua5f62peqmumnnml3up1e1rdje@4ax.com...
> On 19 May 2004 13:46:26 GMT, pbwalther@aol.com
> (Pbwalther) wrote:
>
> >The thing is that you can do a pot load of exercise and
> >not burn much
fat.
> >Now, assuming burning 50 calories per mile, your 3,000
> >calories would be
42 lbs
> >of fat. However, many people up their food consumption in
> >response to
exercise
> >and that is probably what you have done.
>
> You lost me here. 42 lbs of fat? huh, who what? Typo?
>
I think that would be 3000 miles not 3000 calories. And
about 40lbs of weight loss not 40lbs of fat.

Matthew

Badger_south

On Wed, 19 May 2004 17:38:22 GMT, BanditManDan <dballagh@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I don't know why cycling alone wouldnt be enough. It's a
>great calorie burn and as long as your not consuming more
>than you burn it should result in weight loss. Not that
>theres anything wrong with weight bearing exercise or cross
>training but a person can lose weight even without exercise
>if they control their diet sufficiently.
>
>Dan.

A non-scientific comment on this. When I was in college I
rode my bike everywhere, and it was nothing to go ride to
the next city and back on a lark, and suffered nary a sore
muscle, ever.

Now, I ride at 15mph for 10-15 miles and I'm cooked, down
4-5lbs, even drinking some water, and I feel the same as
after jogging three to four miles, or lifting weights for
90 minutes. (Of course I'm larger, more muscular, body-
builder type physique, and 80lbs heavier. Then I was skinny
and 145lbs)

So it -appears- to me that I'm burning up a lot of calories,
and in addition I stay warm for several hours, and have to
open all the windows in the winter.

It might be an effect of age, or efficiency on the machine,
or metabolism. But it appears that for some this amt of
biking would be very efficient at burning calories, while
for others it would be a sub-optimal workout, and more like
a stroll in the park, if you'll pardon some hyperbole.

-B

Drs

"BanditManDan" <dballagh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iYMqc.25375$Pl2.13247@fe15.usenetserver.com
> Psycholist wrote:
> > Cycling alone won't do it. It's non-weight bearing. If
> > you're
> going to > rely heavily on cycling, you'll need to do
> MUCH more of it (3,000 miles > may sound like a lot to
> you. I've done 5,300 so far this year). You'll > also
> need to do some intense rides each week. Don't just go
> through the > motions of pedaling. You're going to need
> to do some hard riding. > All that may not be enough.
> Adding a cross-training activity would help. > I walk in
> the mornings and I do 15 minutes of core strength
> exercises.
>
> I don't know why cycling alone wouldnt be enough. It's a
> great calorie burn and as long as your not consuming more
> than you burn it should result in weight loss. Not that
> theres anything wrong with weight bearing exercise or
> cross training but a person can lose weight even without
> exercise if they control their diet sufficiently.

You can lose weight by losing fat and you can lose weight by
losing muscle. Reducing your calorific intake whilst not
maintaining anaerobic exercise levels wil result in
excessive muscle loss. Since muscle is more metabolically
expensive than fat, by maintaining your muscle mass you are
actually able to burn more calories than someone with less
muscle. Cycling is an aerobic activity. It does little to
preserve muscle mass because it primarily recruits Type I
fibres (endurance). It also doesn't burn as many calories as
people think. You go for a ride, work like crazy to burn a
few hundred calories and then put it straight back on again
and more with a single Big Mac and fries. Cardio has its
place in weight loss regimes but it's third in importance
after diet and anaerobic exercise.

--

A: Top-posters.
B: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Badger_south

On Wed, 19 May 2004 17:17:21 GMT, "curt" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote:

>How silly this is. Usenet at its finest. I guess I need to
>state the obvious when speaking to someone like yourself.
>Of course you shouldn't over-eat. My point was, you don't
>have to concern yourself with how much fat you eat. Not
>meaning you can eat as much food as you want. You still
>need to find the amount of calories that is right for you.
>
>Geez. Curt

I think it bears repeating. One of the 'problems' with low
fat or low calorie diets is all the tedious calorie counting
and weighing of food that you have to do. Sure, ppl learn
how to do it and soforth.

But on LC you don't have to ever weigh anything or count any
calories. The appetite is under control, you decide what you
eat with your intellect, and for me, I feel better without
all that food in me.

After you get through the induction phase you spend your
time looking at the numbers on the scale dropping and
grinning like a fool, usually high as a kite and going
shopping for the next smaller size pair of black jeans.

-B

Curt

No, but I play one on T.V.

Seriously, I am not a Doctor, but I took the time to read
the book by Dr. Atkins. I just can't stand these people that
claim to be experts on low carb, if they have not even read
anything on it. It is like me arguing about something I know
nothing about.

I am not saying everyone should be on a low carb diet, but
if you are going to tell everyone it is crap, you should at
least read a book on the subject to understand what you are
putting down.

All I ask is go to the library and read. It isn't that hard
to do. If you disagree with what Dr. Atkins says after you
read the book, tell us why. Most people think low carb
eating means you don't eat veggies or fruit and we all eat
steak deep fried for breakfast. It is so silly.

Curt

"Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FdOdnTd1Z7VnEjbd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> "curt" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:T7Hqc.782$TY1.707@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... <snip>
> > I suggest you stick to your X armature body building
> > status and no try
and
> > be a Doctor or nutrition.
>
> Are you a doctor or nutritionist?
>
> C.Q.C.

Badger_south

On Wed, 19 May 2004 18:56:47 GMT, "curt" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote:

>No, but I play one on T.V.
>
>Seriously, I am not a Doctor, but I took the time to read
>the book by Dr. Atkins. I just can't stand these people
>that claim to be experts on low carb, if they have not even
>read anything on it. It is like me arguing about something
>I know nothing about.
>
>I am not saying everyone should be on a low carb diet, but
>if you are going to tell everyone it is crap, you should at
>least read a book on the subject to understand what you are
>putting down.
>
>All I ask is go to the library and read. It isn't that hard
>to do. If you disagree with what Dr. Atkins says after you
>read the book, tell us why. Most people think low carb
>eating means you don't eat veggies or fruit and we all eat
>steak deep fried for breakfast. It is so silly.
>
>Curt

Why, oh why?

After all, more meat for us. <g>

There must be some kind of perverse drive to proselytize, I
admit, but perhaps it would be better to just laugh
maniacally.

-B (or, actually, howl and make carnivore noises)

Roger Zoul

DRS wrote:
:: "BanditManDan" <dballagh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
:: news:iYMqc.25375$Pl2.13247@fe15.usenetserver.com
::: Psycholist wrote:
::: > Cycling alone won't do it. It's non-weight bearing.
::: > If you're
::: going to > rely heavily on cycling, you'll need to do
::: MUCH more of it (3,000 miles > may sound like a lot to
::: you. I've done 5,300 so far this year). You'll > also
::: need to do some intense rides each week. Don't just go
::: through the > motions of pedaling. You're going to
::: need to do some hard riding. > All that may not be
::: enough. Adding a cross-training activity would help. >
::: I walk in the mornings and I do 15 minutes of core
::: strength exercises.
:::
::: I don't know why cycling alone wouldnt be enough. It's a
::: great calorie burn and as long as your not consuming
::: more than you burn it should result in weight loss. Not
::: that theres anything wrong with weight bearing exercise
::: or cross training but a person can lose weight even
::: without exercise if they control their diet
::: sufficiently.
::
:: You can lose weight by losing fat and you can lose weight
:: by losing muscle. Reducing your calorific intake whilst
:: not maintaining anaerobic exercise levels wil result in
:: excessive muscle loss. Since muscle is more metabolically
:: expensive than fat, by maintaining your muscle mass you
:: are actually able to burn more calories than someone with
:: less muscle. Cycling is an aerobic activity. It does
:: little to preserve muscle mass because it primarily
:: recruits Type I fibres (endurance). It also doesn't burn
:: as many calories as people think. You go for a ride, work
:: like crazy to burn a few hundred calories and then put it
:: straight back on again and more with a single Big Mac and
:: fries. Cardio has its place in weight loss regimes but
:: it's third in importance after diet and anaerobic
:: exercise.

Correct!

Roger Zoul

Badger_South wrote:
:: On Wed, 19 May 2004 11:31:28 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
::
::: Badger_South wrote:
::::: On Wed, 19 May 2004 10:15:42 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
::::: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
:::::
:::::::: But don't stop with just these suggestions. Get the
:::::::: bible "The Ketogenic Diet" by Lyle McDonald, and
:::::::: "Protein Power" by Eades and learn the facts
:::::::: yourself.
::::::
:::::: Right. I recommend Lyle's book, but PP is great too
:::::: (better than Atkins on the science).
:::::
::::: The thing is, you (the OP) can not just go by what ppl
::::: say. You have to understand the 'science' behind it.
::::: It's all based on insulin response.
:::::
::::: It doesn't mean you have to be committed and
::::: disciplined. For me, though, being on LC allows me to
::::: 'intellectually' take control of my eating. Otherwise,
::::: being a carb addict, I could eat a horse made of pizza
::::: twice a day. <g>
:::
::: Me too. Actually, there are many who fall into the same
::: boat. Understanding the science of it will allow you to
::: understand why you can pick up 10 lbs of weight over a
::: weekend, but then lose it quickly the following week
::: once you resume LC eating.
::
:: This is, as you know, the TKD diet, in which you allow
:: carbing up (within reason) on weekends, presumably to
:: reset your system and metabolism.

No, what I described is the CKD...you do it to refill my
glycogen so that you can train harder the next week
(assuming you're lifting). The TKD is where you take much
smaller amounts of carbs (say 50 g) either pre or post (or
both) workout. The former is usually much harder to do well
and results in a lot of water-weight gain. The latter is
much easier to do, and usually doesn't land you with 10 lbs
of water weight, but it is not as much fun. On a CKD you
want to limit fat intake as well.

::
:: If you can do this, very good. I on the other hand have
:: to keep a much tighter reign on my carb intake. One slice
:: of pizza and I know I risk 'falling off the wagon'. It's
:: more a mental thing, and I know that's atypical. It does
:: allow me to foist a smug and superior attitude upon all
:: the weak and slovenly ppl around me though. (LOL, sarcasm
:: meter pegging out to the max).

Lots of people are you like. I can, however, do a CKD.
:I've done enough
of them to be able to get right back on track the following
monday. The hard part for me is keeping the CKD clean -
that is, limiting the fat intake while getting the carbs
and protein.

BanditManDan

I won't disput what you are saying and in my case I lost 90lbs doing both aerobic & anaerobic exercise. However my primary exercise came mostly from cycling because that's what I ejoyed the most, currently I cycle exclusively and have not gained a pound back. I also know people who lost weight simply dieting and walking as their only form of exercise. I realize that a person can only lose so much weight this way but it does work. As I see it, anything you do to increase activity will burn calories. As long as you consume fewer calories than you burn you will lose weight. Once at the desired weight you simply balance the intake/output.

Its just that simple. (although I know there is much more scientific information on the subject I'm just summarizing).

Dan.