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



> 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
 
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/
 
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]
 
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/
 
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
 
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
 
"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.
 
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
 
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
---------------------------------------------
 
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/
 
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
---------------------------------------------
 
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/
 
Originally posted by Doug Cook
The story thus far....

12 years ago - single, 6'3", 180lbs., hair, and competing in
citizens class triathlons.

Fast forward to last July... Married, two kids, mortgage, no
hair, sedentary, 279lbs.

Sick of that fat man in the mirror, I bought some XXL
cycling clothes, dusted off and tuned up my old Trek, and
started riding again. Now 10 months and close to 3000 miles
later... I still weigh 274! I mean... come on! 3000 miles
for 5 pounds?!

My fitness level has increased tremendously. I use to
struggle on 10 mile rides. Now I do at least 3-4 weekday
rides of 15-30 miles each and one weekend ride for 50-70
miles - all solo. My computer puts my average speed for
these rides between 16-18mph depending upon the particular
ups&downs of the ride. My HRM says my average rate is
usually right about 75% of max (although that can vary,
usually on the high side, when the ride has climbing). I
feel lean and mean while I ride, but when I get home I
wonder who that fat guy in the mirror is!

I don't diet per se, but I do eat sensibly. The days that
I've tracked my caloric intake it's usually right between
2500 - 3000. One friend who is a "wellness" expert suggests
I'm not eating *ENOUGH*. Although she readily admits she
doesn't specialize in athletes ("slovenly couch potato" is
how she describes her typical client), she says that with my
activity level my BMR is 5300... as she explained it that's
the number of calories needed to just maintain my weight!
Therefore she thinks my body thinks it's being starved and
refuses to let go of the fat. She thinks by eating MORE the
body will move away from this starvation reflex and start
shedding pounds. She also suggested riding easy first thing
in the morning BEFORE breakfast so the body has to switch to
fat because the glycogen stores will be low (sound like a
recipe for the BONK to me).

Well, I tried to eat 4000 calories today and about died! I
felt horrible, stuffed, tired, etc. I tried riding with
just water (no sport drink), and found myself craving sugar
after the ride.

Any experts lurking out there that would like to comment?
Are there any coaching services online that could help
customize my training to help me lose weight? I can't afford
to hire a coach.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

I wonder if you are counting the sports drinks you consume during the ride. That can add up to a lot of calories.

I saw something recently that would suggest that you are burning maybe about 40 calories a mile on your rides. This means about 400 calories for a 10 mile ride. That's not much, really. Even the sports drinks you consume will put a big dent in that.

If you are craving sugars, you are burning mostly sugars during the rides. Maybe you ought to try riding slower and longer. That might knock the cravings down a bit. As the body adjusts to fat burning instead of sugar burning, maybe then it will start dropping weight as your appetite doesn't get so stimulated.

I think 10 miles for you is enough to stoke your appetite but not enough to lose weight. If you did more miles at a lower pace, I think you would notice appetite suppression and weight loss. If you told us that you had been riding 10 months and 30,000 miles instead of 10 mo. and 3,000, we would be shocked. Your mileage is not really that high. It wouldn't take 30,000, but for you, it seems that it will take a lot more than 300 miles a month. That's pretty minimal. 300 a week would be better and maybe about right for you. That would be about 12,000 calories a week burned instead of about 4,600 you are burning now.

It sounds like you are in good enough shape now to really get in good shape. Good luck.
 
Originally posted by gntlmn
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.