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

James Calivar

"curt" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:tqGqc.783$TY1.745@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> You should buy that Atkins book. You don't have to follow
> it, but you should understand the principles of it. It
> will be a very big help in losing weight. I would suspect
> if you cut your carb intake to below 100 a day, you would
> lose 30 pounds in two or so months with your exercise.
That
> is a guess, but you being a male and riding a bicycle, you
> will drop fast most likely.

When you say "cut carbs to 100 a day" - are you saying 100
grams of carbohydrate (400 kcal), or 100 kcalories from
carbohydrate (25 grams)?

Thanks

eyagerusenet

David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:

> We evolved eating most anything which nourish us, and that
> includes wild grains. Why would we have started
> cultivating grains if we didn't already know they were
> good to eat? And fruit is one of the major food sources in
> forested areas. The entire primate family eats lots of
> both plant and animal materials for food, and that
> includes humans.

I thought theory was we didn't evolve much brainpower until
the diet included fish, which contains an oil that
contributes to brain growth. Then enough brainpower
developed for mankind to process grains?
--
---
Eric Yagerlener remove "usenet" from email address to reply

eyagerusenet

Denver C. Fox <dnvrfox@aol.com> wrote:
>>Some of your fat has been converted to muscle

> A physiological impossibility!

Ok. How about a slight reduction in amount of fat with a
corresponding increase in the amount of muscle resulting in
no net gain or loss in body weight?
--
---
Eric Yagerlener remove "usenet" from email address to reply

Pbwalther

>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).

Well, I agree with this. It isn't really a matter of weight
bearing vs non weight bearing. It is just a fact that it
takes quite a while to burn a lb of body fat and that means
a lot of miles.

>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.

I would disagree depending on what you mean by "intense"
rides. He could even lose weight by cruising at 12 mph on
flat terrain, he would just have to spend hours doing it to
burn up many calories.

>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.

You do enough cycling and you can burn up the calories and
you don't need no stinkin cross-training. As I posted
above, I burned off 10 lbs of fat in 14 days by doing a
lot of cycling in the mountains and doing a sort of
reverse Atkins diet - lots of carbs to replace glycogen,
low fat and a little protein. Remember, quantity has a
quality all its own.

Terry Morse

Badger_South wrote:

> >I lost close to 15 pounds during a cross country tour. Of
> >course it was fully loaded and there was some serious
> >climbing during the ride, and it took 6 1/2 weeks.
>
> You don't metion your normal weight here, and that's an
> important part of the picture. IOW if you were 165 and
> dropped to 150 that might signify near dangerous
> catabolism.

Losing 15 pounds on a cross-country tour is pretty common
for males. Females, for some reason, reportedly don't lose
nearly as much.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

Rick Onanian

On Wed, 19 May 2004 22:19:30 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
<rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>::: True, to an extent. If he has a belly then perhaps
>::: losing some of it might help him ride even better.
>::: Let's face it, lugging around fat is going to slow you
>::: down.
>::
>:: Only uphill. It's got practically no effect on flat, and
>:: provides a great gravity assist downhill, as well as a
>:: more aerodynamic shape.
>
>Really? I would have thought that on a flat weight still
>makes some difference, just not as much as going uphill.
>And down hill (and on flat), you still have wind resistance
>due to surface area due to being big. Is that not so? I
>know you'll get the gravity assist downhil, though, since I
>get that myself and catch up with smaller guys...

The beauty of an aerobelly is that it has no more frontal
area at all, but stores additional inertia.

On the flat, it requires a slight increase in effort to
accelerate, but once going, you keep on going. This means
that a gust of wind won't slow you down, or for that matter
steady wind, as much as it would if you lopped off the
aerobelly. The aerobelly is made for cruising.

Downhill, it provides the gravity assist with no cost
whatsoever.

Aerodynamically, while it has no more frontal area, it does
provide a better aerodynamic shape than a flat torso. If the
rounded front-end wasn't more aerodynamic, autos would all
look like this: http://www.sweptline.com/hist/big1_coe.jpg
--
Rick Onanian

Badger_south

On 19 May 2004 18:11:53 -0400, eyagerusenet@chartermi.net wrote:

>David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
>
>> We evolved eating most anything which nourish us, and
>> that includes wild grains. Why would we have started
>> cultivating grains if we didn't already know they were
>> good to eat? And fruit is one of the major food sources
>> in forested areas. The entire primate family eats lots of
>> both plant and animal materials for food, and that
>> includes humans.
>
>I thought theory was we didn't evolve much brainpower until
>the diet included fish, which contains an oil that
>contributes to brain growth. Then enough brainpower
>developed for mankind to process grains?

Yeah, like whenever I watch the Discovery Channel and they
do those Alaskan Salmon and Grizzly bear shows, I'm thinking
"Any minute a super-smart Bear with this giant forehead is
gonna come walkin' out of the shrubbery..."

"...with a bunch of fishermen crammed head down in his
fishing bag"

-B

Badger_south

On 19 May 2004 18:11:53 -0400, eyagerusenet@chartermi.net wrote:

>David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
>
>> We evolved eating most anything which nourish us, and
>> that includes wild grains. Why would we have started
>> cultivating grains if we didn't already know they were
>> good to eat? And fruit is one of the major food sources
>> in forested areas. The entire primate family eats lots of
>> both plant and animal materials for food, and that
>> includes humans.
>
>I thought theory was we didn't evolve much brainpower until
>the diet included fish, which contains an oil that
>contributes to brain growth. Then enough brainpower
>developed for mankind to process grains?

Yeah, like whenever I watch the Discovery Channel and they
do those Alaskan Salmon and Grizzly bear shows, I'm thinking
"Any minute a super-smart Bear with this giant forehead is
gonna come walkin' out of the shrubbery..."

"...with a bunch of fishermen crammed head down in his
fishing bag"

-B

David Kerber

In article <tmorse-4B472A.08250920052004@news.covad.net>,
tmorse@spamcop.net says...
> Pbwalther wrote:
>
> > In a practical sense cycling burns far more calories the
> > almost any other form of exercise. Running, in a
> > practical sense, does not burn much because most runners
> > can not run that long per day without either hurting
> > themselves or pooping out. Cyclists can cycle for hours
> > per day easy.
> >
> > The only two exercises that I know of that burn more
> > calories per hour then cycling are cross country skiing
> > and rowing (where you use your legs, arms and back
> > muscles). But both of those exercises are sort of less
> > accessible then cycling.
>
> A trained cyclist easily can burn as many calories per
> hour as a cross country skier, runner, swimmer, or rower.
> The VO2max of all elite aerobic athletes, when adjusted
> for body size, are identical.

How do they manage that when they don't recruit as
many muscles?

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

Fritz M

Terry Morse <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote:

> Probably because the dieting has reduced their lean
> body mass.

Just removing calories does indeed reduce lean body mass.
The body actually robs from muscle mass (including the heart
muscle) in order to create glucose to feed your brain while
preserving the fat. It's a starvation response, and insulin
plays a key role in this.

The original poster is showing the classical signs of
insulin resistance and should probably be tested for
diabetes -- can't lose weight in spite of limited caloric
intake and excercise. High insulin levels promote fat tissue
creation. The high level of fat tissue induces further
insulin resistance, leading to even more resistance to
burning fat. It's a cycle that levels off only when the
pancreas Beta cells finally say "Enough!" and can't pump out
any more insulin.

The trick is to reduce caloric intake without triggering the
lean-body-mass-robbing starvation response. This is done
with a low-carb diet. A low-carb diet AND excercise is
essential to breaking this cycle; there's really no other
way around it.

Several posters commented that humans naturally eat a high
proportion of carbohydrates: complex grains, fruits, and so
forth. This is correct, but many of us eat way too much
carbs (how many sodas will you drink today?) for our
activity level. Low-cal, high carb "diets" results in
insulin resistance, which results in fat storage. Once
you're fat, reducing calories simply does not work.

Others have noted the possible increased risk for
cardiovascular disease from a low-carb diet. The link
between high insulin levels and cardiovascular disease
(along with a whole host of other problems) is proven and
the mechanisms are well understood. Reducing caloric intake
by replacing high calorie proteins and fats with lower
calorie carbs also increases incidence of heart disease by
inducing a starvation response that robs lean muscle mass
from the heart muscle.

RFM http://www.masoner.net/bike/

Fritz M

Terry Morse <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote:

> Probably because the dieting has reduced their lean
> body mass.

Just removing calories does indeed reduce lean body mass.
The body actually robs from muscle mass (including the heart
muscle) in order to create glucose to feed your brain while
preserving the fat. It's a starvation response, and insulin
plays a key role in this.

The original poster is showing the classical signs of
insulin resistance and should probably be tested for
diabetes -- can't lose weight in spite of limited caloric
intake and excercise. High insulin levels promote fat tissue
creation. The high level of fat tissue induces further
insulin resistance, leading to even more resistance to
burning fat. It's a cycle that levels off only when the
pancreas Beta cells finally say "Enough!" and can't pump out
any more insulin.

The trick is to reduce caloric intake without triggering the
lean-body-mass-robbing starvation response. This is done
with a low-carb diet. A low-carb diet AND excercise is
essential to breaking this cycle; there's really no other
way around it.

Several posters commented that humans naturally eat a high
proportion of carbohydrates: complex grains, fruits, and so
forth. This is correct, but many of us eat way too much
carbs (how many sodas will you drink today?) for our
activity level. Low-cal, high carb "diets" results in
insulin resistance, which results in fat storage. Once
you're fat, reducing calories simply does not work.

Others have noted the possible increased risk for
cardiovascular disease from a low-carb diet. The link
between high insulin levels and cardiovascular disease
(along with a whole host of other problems) is proven and
the mechanisms are well understood. Reducing caloric intake
by replacing high calorie proteins and fats with lower
calorie carbs also increases incidence of heart disease by
inducing a starvation response that robs lean muscle mass
from the heart muscle.

RFM http://www.masoner.net/bike/

Badger_south

On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:02:13 +1000, "DRS" <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au>
wrote:

>"Pbwalther" <pbwalther@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040520104242.13568.00001433@mb-
>m26.aol.com
>>> 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.
>>
>> Well, sort of. A lb of protein has about 1400 calories
>> and that is dry weight. Since muscle is about 66% water,
>> a lb of muscle is about 500 calories. A lb of fat is 3500
>> calories and fat tissue is virtually 100% fat. But you
>> are right, the metobolic requirements for maintaining a
>> lb of fat tissue is virtually 0 and just having a lb of
>> muscle requires a certain expenditure of calories per
>> day. So if you do a little weight work to build muscle
>> mass, even though the weight lifting does not burn many
>> calories, maintaining the muscle will.
>
>There's no 'sort of' about it. Fat contributes to calorific
>burn at about
>4.5kcal per kg per day. Muscle is about three times as
> metabolically expensive as fat. Therefore, if person A is
> 75kg @10% body fat and person B is 75kg @20% body fat
> person A's maintenance calorific expenditure will be
> higher than person B's.

Neat. You are sort of like a warm fuzzy version of Lyle!

-B

>
>[...]
>
>> In a functional sense, you are better off doing all
>> three. I can not think of any form of exercise regime
>> that can not be sabotoged by a poor diet. So diet is
>> obviously the most important one.
>
>Diet is absolutely the most important factor. And most
>people are lousy at keeping track of what they
>actually eat.

Banditmandan

"Fritz M" <nospam@masoner.net> wrote in message
news:2c505724.0405200847.1ef63bbb@posting.google.com...
> Terry Morse <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> The original poster is showing the classical signs of
> insulin resistance and should probably be tested for
> diabetes -- can't lose weight in spite of limited caloric
> intake and excercise. High insulin levels promote fat
> tissue creation. The high level of fat tissue induces
> further insulin resistance, leading to even more
> resistance to burning fat. It's a cycle that levels off
> only when the pancreas Beta cells finally say "Enough!"
> and can't pump out any more insulin.
>

You make a very good point, if he is already eating
correctly and exercising and still can't lose weight he
probably does need to be checked for diabetes.

>
> The trick is to reduce caloric intake without triggering
> the lean-body-mass-robbing starvation response. This is
> done with a low-carb diet. A low-carb diet AND excercise
> is essential to breaking this cycle; there's really no
> other way around it.
>

This is exactly what a diabetic's diet consists of.

> Several posters commented that humans naturally eat a high
> proportion of carbohydrates: complex grains, fruits, and
> so forth. This is correct, but many of us eat way too much
> carbs (how many sodas will you drink today?) for our
> activity level. Low-cal, high carb "diets" results in
> insulin resistance, which results in fat storage. Once
> you're fat, reducing calories simply does not work.
>

I agree that ppl eat too many carbs, especially sodas, but I
want to clerify your point about low-cal diets. A low-cal,
high carb diets may lead to insulin resistance but that does
"not" mean that a low-cal, balanced diet would. A balanced
low-cal diet consists of 20% protein, 30% fat, and 50% carb
calories and unless a person is already pre-disposed
(hereditary or already partially insulin resistant) to
diabeties this diet won't create a significant problem.

Are you saying that nobody has ever lost weight on a low-cal
diet once they became fat?

>
> Others have noted the possible increased risk for
> cardiovascular disease from a low-carb diet. The link
> between high insulin levels and cardiovascular disease
> (along with a whole host of other problems) is proven and
> the mechanisms are well understood. Reducing caloric
> intake by replacing high calorie proteins and fats with
> lower calorie carbs also increases incidence of heart
> disease by inducing a starvation response that robs lean
> muscle mass from the heart muscle.
>

Bottom line balance your diet, high-protein or low-cal.
Too much of anything is "not" a good thing.....except
cycling.

Dan.

Roger Zoul

Fritz M wrote:
:: Terry Morse <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote:
::
::: Probably because the dieting has reduced their lean
::: body mass.
::
:: Just removing calories does indeed reduce lean body mass.
:: The body actually robs from muscle mass (including the
:: heart muscle) in order to create glucose to feed your
:: brain while preserving the fat. It's a starvation
:: response, and insulin plays a key role in this.
::
:: The original poster is showing the classical signs of
:: insulin resistance and should probably be tested for
:: diabetes -- can't lose weight in spite of limited caloric
:: intake and excercise.

I'm not so certain of that. Based on what he wrote and the
way he wrote it, I'm not at all convinced he really knows
how much he is eating.

High insulin
:: levels promote fat tissue creation. The high level of fat
:: tissue induces further insulin resistance, leading to
:: even more resistance to burning fat. It's a cycle that
:: levels off only when the pancreas Beta cells finally say
:: "Enough!" and can't pump out any more insulin.
::
:: The trick is to reduce caloric intake without triggering
:: the lean-body-mass-robbing starvation response. This is
:: done with a low-carb diet. A low-carb diet AND excercise
:: is essential to breaking this cycle; there's really no
:: other way around it.
::
:: Several posters commented that humans naturally eat a
:: high proportion of carbohydrates: complex grains, fruits,
:: and so forth.

How do you define "naturally" in this instance? Sure, that's
what humans in the US eat now, but that's by no means
natural, imo. We basically live engineered lives now, so who
knows what the impact of our diet will be on us.

This is
:: correct, but many of us eat way too much carbs (how many
:: sodas will you drink today?) for our activity level. Low-
:: cal, high carb "diets" results in insulin resistance,
:: which results in fat storage. Once you're fat, reducing
:: calories simply does not work.

While I agree with almost all of what you're saying, it is
not exactly true that one you're fat, you can't lose weight
by reducing calories. I've been a type 2 diabetic since age
23 (I'm 46 now) and I lost 100 lbs on a low fat diet with
lots and lots of exercise (did I say lots & lots?). As a
type 2, I was fully insulin resistant. Of course, all of
that exercise and restricted eating worked to make me less
and less insulin resistant over time, but I still lost
easily when I was very large (we're talking 360 lbs here).
So the point here is: it depends. A lot of people are as you
describe, btw.

::
:: Others have noted the possible increased risk for
:: cardiovascular disease from a low-carb diet.

That claim is nonsense, imo.

The link between high insulin levels
:: and cardiovascular disease (along with a whole host of
:: other problems) is proven and the mechanisms are well
:: understood. Reducing caloric intake by replacing high
:: calorie proteins and fats with lower calorie carbs also
:: increases incidence of heart disease by inducing a
:: starvation response that robs lean muscle mass from the
:: heart muscle.

Right! However, I'm not sure I believe the claims of the
body robbing lean mass from the heart muscle. While I can
see that under the most severe of conditions, why would the
body rob from a vital organ when there are leg muscles, butt
muscles, back muscles (most of the muscle mass on the body
is in those locations) that have plenty of mass to pick
from? The body is amazingly smart at protecting itself, so
someone is going to have to provide me with a lot of
reference material before I accept that notion so easily.