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

[Preston Crawford]

On 2004-07-01, Badger_South <[email protected]> wrote:
> In the window period, surrounding relatively intense exercise, one may
> consume glucose, usually in the form of a protein drink and sweet tarts,
> etc., and here the insulin aids in muscle building, and not increasing the
> size of the fat cells.
>
> FWIW

FWIW, I lost over 150lbs. by becoming a vegetarian and biking a lot. I ate
a lot of carbs while I was a vegetarian ("was" since I now eat fish and
eggs) and I still lost weight. Go figure. Plus, even though I recently
gained a few pounds back, I've largely maintained that weight for over 3
years.

Preston

 

[Pat]

> Pat wrote:
>
> > You really shouldn't discuss the Atkins Diet if you know nothing about
it,
> > and it is obvious that you do not know the principles of it. If you had
> > read Dr. Atkins' book, you would find out that it is not a "low carb
diet"
> > but a "controlled carb diet" that, after the initial 2 weeks, adds 5
grams
> > of low glycemic carbs a day per week to the diet and maxes out with as
many
> > carbs as you can eat and maintain your weight. There is no "loss of lean
> > muscle mass" and anyone can get a "reasonable level of carbs" on the
Atkins
> > Diet.


> Five grams of carbs per day is "reasonable"? I don't think so.

I didn't write that, and that has nothing to do with the Atkins diet. The
diet starts with 20 grams of carbs a day for the first 2 weeks only. Then,
the dieter adds 5 grams daily during the next week. The week after that,
he/she adds 5 more grams of carbs a day, etc.




My
> daily target is more like 600 grams. Weight loss benefits aside, any
> diet that greatly restricts carbs is going to be total disaster for
> an aerobic athlete.

The Atkins diet, following the first 2 weeks, does not "greatly restrict
carbs". I have been on the diet since last June and I have done 8 metric
centuries and 2 mile centuries---The Hotter 'n' Hell Hundred and the Waco
Wild West Century. I'm still alive (oh, and on the off days, I swim a mile a
day).



After about 90 minutes of exercise, your body
> starts to consume lean muscle as fuel. To counteract this, your
> recovery meal should contains carbs and protein. Carbs raise insulin
> levels, and insulin is an anabolic (muscle building) hormone.
> Protein is consumed to repair the muscle damage caused by the
> exercise. Finally, carbs taken after exercise replenishes stored
> muscle glycogen, which will prevent muscle fatigue and the infamous
> "bonk".

Never had a bonk on this diet.



>
> Fad diets may come and go, but the basic nutritional needs for
> athletes remain the same.
> --
> terry morse Palo Alto, CA

Oh, it's no fad. It's a way of looking at carbs---eating as many as you want
to but eating low glycemic carbs.

Pat in TX

 

[Terry Morse]

Daniel Crispin wrote:

> There are a lot of carbs sources that won't make your insulin
> spike, those are fine. Even an athlete should avoid these nasty
> foods like potatoes.

Nasty? Potatoes are an excellent choice as a pre-race meal. So is
rice, pasta, bananas, white bagels, low-fat yogurt, tapioca, cream
of wheat, etc. These are easily digested and will quickly replenish
the liver glycogen lost during sleep.

It's not the insulin spike that's bad, it's the insulin crash.
Sugars cause a spike, followed by a crash. More complex carbs still
cause an insulin spike, but sustain levels much longer than sugar.
Basically, sugar bad, complex carbs good.

Maltodextrin, a corn by-product, is probably the best carbohydrate
source for endurance athletes. It has a high glycemic index (boosts
glycogen levels quickly) but low dextrose equivalent (no insulin
crash).
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[David Reuteler]

Daniel Crispin wrote:
> Even an athlete should avoid these nasty
> foods like potatoes.

Terry Morse <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nasty? Potatoes are an excellent choice as a pre-race meal.

it's true. potatoes good. i live in idaho. the license plates here read
"famous potatoes" .. potatoes good. i drank the kool-aid, i ate the
potato. people like daniel are sadly misguided.

....

truth be told: i f'ing hate the potato in all its digusting forms and i
paid the DMV $60 extra for special plates for no reason other than to get
the word "potatoes" off mine. so, ok, i puked the kool aid.

love pasta, tho! live on the stuff. i'm vegetarian & trapped in an office
with two atkins diet adherents. aiiyy.. steak & potatoes of course.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]

 

[Terry Morse]

Pat wrote:

> The [Atkins] diet starts with 20 grams of carbs a day for the first
> 2 weeks only. Then, the dieter adds 5 grams daily during the next
> week. The week after that, he/she adds 5 more grams of carbs a
> day, etc.

20 grams, 25 grams, that's essentially zero. On that diet, I'd be on
my back on the roadside with my feet in the air, with the other
riders whizzing by comfortably.

> The Atkins diet, following the first 2 weeks, does not "greatly
> restrict carbs". I have been on the diet since last June and I
> have done 8 metric centuries and 2 mile centuries---The Hotter
> 'n' Hell Hundred and the Waco Wild West Century. I'm still alive
> (oh, and on the off days, I swim a mile a day).

Then you're just not riding very hard. The studies have been done,
the nutritional science is straightforward: if you take away carbs
your endurance performance suffers.

> Never had a bonk on this diet.

More evidence for not riding very hard.

> Oh, it's no fad. It's a way of looking at carbs---eating as many
> as you want to but eating low glycemic carbs.

"fad: A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief
period of time; a craze."

By what criteria does Atkins *not* constitute a fad? Oh, never mind.

But hey, follow whatever weight loss program you want. But please
don't say that restricting carbs won't affect an endurance athlete,
because that's just nonsense. In general, I think we can agree that
sugar is generally bad for anyone, and complex carbs are ideal.

BTW, for endurance performance, when it comes to choosing what types
of carbs to consume, glycemic index is less important that dextrose
equivalence (DE). The lower the DE, the more easily the food can be
digested, and the slower the insulin levels will drop.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Terry Morse <[email protected]> writes:

> In general, I think we can agree that
> sugar is generally bad for anyone, and complex carbs are ideal.

I think that sums it up rather nicely.

> BTW, for endurance performance, when it comes to choosing what types
> of carbs to consume, glycemic index is less important that dextrose
> equivalence (DE). The lower the DE, the more easily the food can be
> digested, and the slower the insulin levels will drop.

Interesting. I wonder what the DE of dates is? I can get along
for quite a while of exertion on that venerable foodstuff.

In re: fads and diets and things like that -- I think hearkening
to old experience usually trumps experimenting with new theories.
The only reason to re-invent the wheel is to write (& sell) a
book about it. But I have no right to talk specifically about
Atkins, 'cuz I weigh 148 lbs and I'm 5'11" and 50 y.o, and it
would take me an awful lot of effort to gain weight. And I
don't even do anything special, other than riding a heavy bike
a lot, over hilly terrain, and a lot of other stuff that keeps
me active and burning calories. Sometimes a blast of simple
carbs (like half a dozen French Puff donuts) gives me a burst,
like a nitro kit in a street rod. But I don't get any crash.
Just an overwhelming desire for a cup of coffee to wash down
the cloyingness of the sugar. I guess if other people saw
what I choke down my neck it would put them into cardiac arrest.
You should see what I do to a stack of pancakes (it involves
bacon & eggs, and artificial maple syrup). Or, maybe you
shouldn't. And I don't suffer from hypertension, high LDL or
hypoglycemia. Just a little dandruff, sometimes.

I don't understand the politics of overweightness, because I
/cannot/ understand them. And that renders me incapable of
realizing what other people have to go through. But I know
they're going through something, and my heart and well-wishes
are with them.

But IMhO, I do think maybe people concentrate too much on diet
and not enough on activity (let's not call it 'exercise', because
that might connote too much regimen.)

I'd happily donate some DNA if folks wanna undergo some
recombinant experimentation (and risk ending up too much
like me)

Actually, I think car seats make people put on fat weight.
They also cause ass-spread.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 20:28:01 -0700, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>I don't understand the politics of overweightness, because I
>/cannot/ understand them. And that renders me incapable of
>realizing what other people have to go through.

I do, up to a point. I used to weigh 225lb (height 6'1") and had a
40" waist. I was a fat *******. So I started exercising (and cut out
beer and surplus fat from my diet) and within three months I hit 185
and 34" waist. After six months I started drinking beer again, and
after 18 months I stopped using the gym. I have now been around 180lb
for three years and maintain it despite drinking beer and eating pizza
simply by riding my bike for transport. Oh, and I stop eating when
I'm full.

The thing is, the only way to lose weight is to burn more than you
absorb. That fundamental has never changed because it can't. You can
use products to prevent you absorbing food, which cause other
problems, you can eat less, or you can recognise that the human body
is poorly adapted for sloth and get on your bike. Or a combination of
the above.

All the diet crazes seem to me to be attempts to fool people that this
is not so. Atkins was primarily designed for those with a sedentary
lifestyle (I saw him say so on TV), so it has no relevance to me as a
daily cyclist. In fact, because I don't have a sedentary lifestyle, I
don't have a weight problem to start with, but even if I did the
tinkering which people propose to make Atkins suitable for someone who
does not fit the original parameters does not appeal. For overweight
couch potatoes who can't bring themselves to exercise it may work
wonders. I wouldn't know. It faces an uphill struggle to gain
credibility because there have been so many quack diets over so many
years all of which have been supplanted by other quack diets, and the
people on the quack diets are still, for the most part, fat.

So I recommend the bike diet. Eat what you want, but ride it off

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Daniel Crispin]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 20:28:01 -0700, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
> >I don't understand the politics of overweightness, because I
> >/cannot/ understand them. And that renders me incapable of
> >realizing what other people have to go through.
>
> I do, up to a point. I used to weigh 225lb (height 6'1") and had a
> 40" waist. I was a fat *******. So I started exercising (and cut out
> beer and surplus fat from my diet) and within three months I hit 185
> and 34" waist. After six months I started drinking beer again, and
> after 18 months I stopped using the gym. I have now been around 180lb
> for three years and maintain it despite drinking beer and eating pizza
> simply by riding my bike for transport. Oh, and I stop eating when
> I'm full.
>
> The thing is, the only way to lose weight is to burn more than you
> absorb. That fundamental has never changed because it can't. You can
> use products to prevent you absorbing food, which cause other
> problems, you can eat less, or you can recognise that the human body
> is poorly adapted for sloth and get on your bike. Or a combination of
> the above.
>
> All the diet crazes seem to me to be attempts to fool people that this
> is not so. Atkins was primarily designed for those with a sedentary
> lifestyle (I saw him say so on TV), so it has no relevance to me as a
> daily cyclist. In fact, because I don't have a sedentary lifestyle, I
> don't have a weight problem to start with, but even if I did the
> tinkering which people propose to make Atkins suitable for someone who
> does not fit the original parameters does not appeal. For overweight
> couch potatoes who can't bring themselves to exercise it may work
> wonders. I wouldn't know. It faces an uphill struggle to gain
> credibility because there have been so many quack diets over so many
> years all of which have been supplanted by other quack diets, and the
> people on the quack diets are still, for the most part, fat.
>
> So I recommend the bike diet. Eat what you want, but ride it off
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Well I will give you the point. It's hard to get far when you are active.
Problem is that
if you are already fat, being active will make you loose weight but very
slowly. You also
need to cut back food. As time goes by, I don't think there is any really
Bad diet. The only
thing is that the diet will make you loose weight but if you don't get an
active life style, you
will gain it back. Only thing people have to understand is that you can't
sit all day and expect to
be in shape.

 

[Denver C. Fox]

loose, lose , loss

HELP!


http://members.aol.com/foxcondorsrvtns
(Colorado rental condo)

http://members.aol.com/dnvrfox
(Family Web Page)

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 18:23:53 -0400, "Daniel Crispin"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Well I will give you the point. It's hard to get far when you are active.
>Problem is that if you are already fat, being active will make you loose
>weight but very slowly. You also need to cut back food. As time goes by,
>I don't think there is any really Bad diet. The only
>thing is that the diet will make you loose weight but if you don't get an
>active life style, you will gain it back. Only thing people have to
>understand is that you can't sit all day and expect to
>be in shape.

Well, like I said, I burned off 40lb in 3 months without significantly
reducing the amount I ate (although I did cut out beer and excess
fat). I don't know anyone who's lost over 40lb due to dieting alone
and not put it back on. Cycling is a maintenance activity for me.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Michael J. Klein]

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 18:42:59 -0700, Terry Morse <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Pat wrote:
>"fad: A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief
>period of time; a craze."
>
>By what criteria does Atkins *not* constitute a fad? Oh, never mind.

No, I don't mind telling you this. Mom, a retired RN told me recently
that she used the Atkins diet in the early 60's to lose weight. That
almost qualifes it as a religion. ;p
Michael J. Klein [email protected]
Dasi Jen, Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
---------------------------------------------

 

[Terry Morse]

Michael J. Klein wrote:

> No, I don't mind telling you this. Mom, a retired RN told me recently
> that she used the Atkins diet in the early 60's to lose weight. That
> almost qualifes it as a religion. ;p

Your mom must have bee clairvoyant, because the original Atkins diet
book came out in 1972. Maybe she deserves royalties.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Michael J. Klein]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 09:03:18 -0700, Terry Morse <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Michael J. Klein wrote:
>
>> No, I don't mind telling you this. Mom, a retired RN told me recently
>> that she used the Atkins diet in the early 60's to lose weight. That
>> almost qualifes it as a religion. ;p
>
>Your mom must have bee clairvoyant, because the original Atkins diet
>book came out in 1972. Maybe she deserves royalties.

You don't wanna know - you just wanna make smartassed comments. If
you were smart, you can figure it out from the info I gave you.

Don't bother, I don't care.

Michael J. Klein [email protected]
Dasi Jen, Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
---------------------------------------------

 

[Terry Morse]

Michael J. Klein wrote:

> Terry Morse wrote:
>
> >Your mom must have been clairvoyant, because the original Atkins diet
> >book came out in 1972. Maybe she deserves royalties.
>
> You don't wanna know - you just wanna make smartassed comments. If
> you were smart, you can figure it out from the info I gave you.

If I were smart, I wouldn't kick sacred cows. Especially not fad
diet sacred cows.

> Don't bother, I don't care.

Words typed from your keyboard suggest otherwise.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Rick Onanian]

I can't believe this thread is still going.

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 06:02:15 -0700, Terry Morse <[email protected]>
wrote:
>If I were smart, I wouldn't kick sacred cows. Especially not fad
>diet sacred cows.

Don't kick cows! What did cows ever do to you? Cows are cool, and
they go "Moo", and they provide us with milk and beef!

http://www.bigdwarfrodeo.com/lyr/smoke_em/eat_steak.htm
--
Rick Onanian

 

[gntlmn]

gntlmn wrote:
> That would be about 12,000 calories a week burned instead of about
> 4,600 you are burning now.



Oops. I meant to say the 3,600 a week you are burning now.



--

 

[Duffy Pratt]

"Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael J. Klein wrote:
>
> > No, I don't mind telling you this. Mom, a retired RN told me recently
> > that she used the Atkins diet in the early 60's to lose weight. That
> > almost qualifes it as a religion. ;p
>
> Your mom must have bee clairvoyant, because the original Atkins diet
> book came out in 1972. Maybe she deserves royalties.

Before Atkins, there was a low carb diet called The Drinking Man's diet.

http://www.forbes.com/health/2004/04/21/cz_af_0421feat.html

That book was published in 1964. I think there may have been other low
carb variants before that. Its not clear to me that Atkins had any original
ideas. Today, when people say they used "Atkins," they may be using the
term as synonymous with Low Carb. If so, then its perfectly possible that
Klien's mom was doing "Atkins" before Atkins published.

Duffy