Atkins diet and riding

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:29:15 -0700, Dan Daniel <[email protected]> wrote:

>Road rage

I prefer the term "traffic tantrum" as being more indicative of the level of maturity involved

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.

 

[Barry Gaudet]

Duffy Pratt <[email protected]> wrote: [...]
: BTW, we weren't evolved to ride bicycles either,

No, but in a million years or three we will be. What would be the best evolutionary
adaptation? Anatomical pedal clips? A subtle shifting of the male genitalia? Body hair that
replaces lycra shorts?

Anyways, y'all feel free to continue your diet kerfuffle. It's a beautiful day and I've got a
ticket to ride.

later...

--
'Philosophy, is the talk on a cereal box Religion, is the smile on a dog. Philosophy, is a
walk on the slippery rocks Religion, is a light in the fog' -Edie Brickell

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>, Barry Gaudet <[email protected]> writes:
> Duffy Pratt <[email protected]> wrote: [...]
>: BTW, we weren't evolved to ride bicycles either,
>
> No, but in a million years or three we will be. What would be the best evolutionary adaptation?

Better knees.

cheers, Tom

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

 

[W K]

"Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> Pat in Texas

How much do you weigh pat?

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:03:59 -0300, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> from
Ramsay's wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Kevan Smith
><[email protected]/\/\> says...
>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 06:10:24 GMT, "Duffy Pratt" <[email protected]> from Road Runner -
>> Texas wrote:
>>
>> >We weren't evolved to farm or to eat a whole lot of grains or refined foods either.
>>
>> Oh? You have the inside track on how humans evolved?
>
>What are you, a creationist?

No. Evolution happens at the genetic level. There is no someone can start with out set of genes and
go back to history and sya with any certainty what was selected for and what was discarded. The
saying "we weren't evolved for X" is patently unprovable. Even the obverse statement faces major
skepticism just by its nature, aside from the obvious like "Humans evolved to walk on two legs."
--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace Jesuit priests are DATING CAREER DIPLOMATS!!
1:59:06 PM 14 June 2003

 

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

<snip>>
> I've relied on this method for a long time. Food, other than normal
eating
> (mealtime) doesn't do anything for my energy or stamina. Fat is where
it's
> at!
>
> --
> Robin Hubert

I started to get this idea about fat while riding the Hotter 'n' Hell Hundred. At the 50 mile rest
stop, there were some good ol' boys grilling up sausages for people. As I started to go closer,
another rider said to me "Don't eat that! It's nothing but fat and you'll get sick!" So I went over
to see what kind of sausages people were talking about. The "grillmaster" gave me a big, fat, greasy
stick of beef sausage wrapped in a tortilla. It was hot, juicy, and crunchy. Just pure heaven!

Then I got on my bike for the next part of the ride and as I went down the road I started feeling
better and better. It was as if I had eaten a hot lunch and started the ride over again. As the
miles went on, I actually felt stronger. At the 90 mile point, there were some poor souls taking IVs
in the medic tent and here I was feeling as if I'd only ridden 20 miles.

At the Waco Wild West Hundred I took along a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for my fat snack. This
didn't turn out to be such a hot idea. I kept it in my back pocket for 50 miles and it was ugly and
mashed when I tried to eat it.

Pat in Texas

 

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

> "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > Pat in Texas
>
> How much do you weigh pat?

why don't you answer my questions, W.K.? All you do is spout opinions but never back up anything.

Pat

 

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

>
> When I was younger starch was the dietary bogeymen, then it was saturated fat, now it's starch
> again. My theory is that as long as people keep eating too much it probably doesn't matter a great
> deal what they're eating too much of: ultimately, only a regime where you burn more than you eat
> will result in weight loss, and any diet which pretends otherwise is snake oil for the gullible
> and greedy[1]

The way I understand it, the "bogeyman" isn't starch but refined carbohydrates that
metabolize too fast.

>
> I saw Atkins interviewed on TV once and he said that his diet was primarily designed to compensate
> for the sedentary lifestyle of the average American. He gave some plausible reasons why the diet
> would work for people who take negligible amounts of exercise - but that's a characterisation
> which fits very few regular cylists, so it's quite possible Atkins is not the best route to go for
> a cyclist. Some swear by Montignac, others Pritkin, and some suggest that since we managed to
> survive as a race for a few hundred million years before any of these people existed maybe we
> should look at the food mix our bodies are biologically adapted for.

In his book, he gives notes for people who regularly exercise. He seems to be trying to change the
way people look at carbohydrates, especially the refined carbs with high glycemic index that put a
lot of glucose into the bloodstream. I think our bodies were biologically adapted for complex carbs
as well as meat.

>
> Some suggest that you "modify" atkins by adding carbs, which I suspect is a bit like "modifying" a
> detox diet to add alcohol and coffee ;-)

But, that's not the Atkins approach--his died does contain carbs, and you continue to add more of
them until you stop losing weight. Then, you continue with that amount as a maintenance diet. This
is NOT a "no carbohydrate" diet.

> But what do I know? I lost 30lb in 3 months and have kept it off ever since, but I eat pizza and
> drink beer - my solution was to exercise a lot, to lose it, and now to maintain it I commute by
> bike 16 miles round trip every day.
>
> [1] I don't suggest Atkins necessarily fits that description
>
> Guy

I am glad for you. I just wanted to try something different because what I was doing was not
working. I have lost 5# in 6 days, mostly water, I am sure, but maybe--just maybe--a pound or
two of fat.

Pat in Texas

 

[Slider2699]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 17:27:05 GMT, "Slider2699" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Our teeth clearly place us in the carnivore category.
>
> Omnivore, I think. We have teeth adapted for grinding as well.
>
Of course, but the previous poster was claiming that our cuspids were not designed for meat eating.
Preposterous.

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I started to get this idea about fat while riding the Hotter 'n' Hell Hundred. At the 50 mile rest
> stop, there were some good ol' boys grilling up sausages for people.

> Then I got on my bike for the next part of the ride and as I went down the road I started feeling
> better and better. It was as if I had eaten a hot lunch and started the ride over again. As the
> miles went on, I actually felt stronger. At the 90 mile point, there were some poor souls taking
> IVs in the medic tent and here I was feeling as if I'd only ridden 20 miles.
>
> At the Waco Wild West Hundred I took along a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for my fat snack.
> This didn't turn out to be such a hot idea. I kept it in my back pocket for 50 miles and it was
> ugly and mashed when I tried to eat it.

Hm. Not pretty. I took a PBJ with me on a metric century, but made in a bagel. The chewy bagel was
tough enough to retain structural integrity at the 50 km mark. Then I ate it.

Now PB and banana, nothing would help that...
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

>
> But, that's not the Atkins approach--his died does contain carbs, and you continue to add more of
> them until you stop losing weight. Then, you continue with that amount as a maintenance diet. This
> is NOT a "no carbohydrate" diet. Pat in Texas

Sorry--typo there. I meant "diet does contain carbs."

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:16:15 -0500, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In his book, he gives notes for people who regularly exercise.

Ah, you see, there's the problem: having seen him in an interview say that his is a diet
fundamentally designed for couch-potatoes I, as a person with a very active lifestyle including
cycling 16 miles round trip to work, am unlikely to buy the book, not least because my activity
levels mean I have no weight problem

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.

 

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

> >In his book, he gives notes for people who regularly exercise.
>
> Ah, you see, there's the problem: having seen him in an interview say that his is a diet
> fundamentally designed for couch-potatoes I, as a person with a very active lifestyle including
> cycling 16 miles round trip to work, am unlikely to buy the book, not least because my activity
> levels mean I have no weight problem
>
> Guy

It's not my normal activity level that's the problem--it's the couple of operations I've had in the
past couple of years that have reduced my activity level drastically. Last year, I had my right arm
in a cast up past my elbow for 3 months and people actually told me I should get on the bike anyway.
(tip: don't get wrist operations in June. You won't enjoy the hot weather.)

I needed a jump start to get rid of the weight. I swim 1 1/4 miles 3 days a week, but that
didn't help. Just riding wasn't doing it because I would burn the carbs readily but not the fat.
This way, without the carbs, the fat is going. I don't think any of us on this newsgroup are
couch potatoes--maybe just people who, for one reason or another, need help in getting rid of
the weight.

Sure, his diet is designed for the great majority of fat people who don't exercise, but that doesn't
mean the rest of us can't take something from his research and use it to our benefit. If nothing
else, it makes us look into the whole simple vs. complex carbohydrate topic, glycemic index, and
over-processed foods, and that's worthwhile.

Pat in Texas

 

[Fabrizio Mazzol]

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:rcousine->
> Hm. Not pretty. I took a PBJ with me on a metric century, but made in a bagel. The chewy bagel was
> tough enough to retain structural integrity at the 50 km mark. Then I ate it.

Ryan, how come you were eating solid food for that short a distance? A few guys working together
should knock off a metric century in just over 2 hours depending on the type of route.

For that short of event you just need something like a PowerGel or Clif Shot package. You don't need
feed zones until you do events like euro road races over distances like 180 km and up.

For sub anaerobic threshold ride that you may do on an Wednesday evening after work when you go out
for 80 -100 km you can eat solid food on the bike, as your pace will be quite moderate.

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 02:13:16 GMT, "Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <[email protected]> from Shaw Residential
Internet wrote:

>For sub anaerobic threshold ride that you may do on an Wednesday evening after work when you go out
>for 80 -100 km you can eat solid food on the bike, as your pace will be quite moderate.

But cycling *is* work. After work, I'm settling into a nice massage and looking forward to a good
dinner of risoto milanese with rosemary grilled chicken and maybe some fresh bread with just a bit
of pesto. Our team chef is the best! The other day he put the best cream cheese sandwiches in our
musettes. I asked him what he did different from the others, and he said he mixes it with cantaloupe
and prosciutto. It was delicious, and we all really needed it before scouting out the Col de Ramaz
with the ones who will ride the Tour this July.
--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace Clear the laundromat!! This whirl-o-matic
just had a nuclear meltdown!!
11:48:27 PM 15 June 2003

 

[Stephen Harding]

Chris Phillipo wrote:

> Actually for these people, tell them to read "Protien Power" by Dr. Michael R. Eades and Dr. Mary
> Dan Eades, all of the proven science, none of the Oprah hype. These doctors have been practicing
> what they preach for 20 years with hundreds of their patients. To me Atkins always came off as the
> snake oil salesmen, not that he was but since he didn't really have a current practice you could
> walk into and be treated by him and he was pushing all sorts of Atkins brand foods that weren't
> actually that low in carbs he didn't have the credibility in my eyes that the Eades's do.

Very recent studies (within the last month or two I think) all seem to say Atkin's diet does work
better than other diets.

None of the studies looked in to longer term health costs though. That's being done know I believe.

Seems the guy was on to something.

SMH

 

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

> But cycling *is* work. After work, I'm settling into a nice massage and
looking
> forward to a good dinner of risoto milanese with rosemary grilled chicken
and
> maybe some fresh bread with just a bit of pesto. Our team chef is the
best! The
> other day he put the best cream cheese sandwiches in our musettes. I asked
him
> what he did different from the others, and he said he mixes it with
cantaloupe
> and prosciutto. It was delicious, and we all really needed it before
scouting
> out the Col de Ramaz with the ones who will ride the Tour this July.
> --

Great, just great! Loved it. Hope Fabs did, too!

Pat in Texas

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, Kevan Smith
<[email protected]/\/\> says...
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:03:59 -0300, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> from
> Ramsay's wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Kevan Smith <[email protected]/\/\>
> >says...
> >> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 06:10:24 GMT, "Duffy Pratt" <[email protected]> from Road Runner - Texas
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >We weren't evolved to farm or to eat a whole lot of grains or refined foods either.
> >>
> >> Oh? You have the inside track on how humans evolved?
> >
> >What are you, a creationist?
>
> No. Evolution happens at the genetic level. There is no someone can start with out set of
> genes and go back to history and sya with any certainty what was selected for and what was
> discarded. The saying "we weren't evolved for X" is patently unprovable. Even the obverse
> statement faces major skepticism just by its nature, aside from the obvious like "Humans
> evolved to walk on two legs."
> --

We could not have evolved in response to something that was not present during our evolution, that
is refined foods and grains. Unless you read somewhere that evolutionary changes can happen in
hundreds of years rather than thousands or millions.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Archer]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, Kevan Smith
> <[email protected]/\/\> says...
> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:03:59 -0300, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> from Ramsay's
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <[email protected]>, Kevan Smith
> > ><[email protected]/\/\> says...
> > >> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 06:10:24 GMT, "Duffy Pratt" <[email protected]> from Road Runner -
> > >> Texas wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >We weren't evolved to farm or to eat a whole lot of grains or refined foods either.
> > >>
> > >> Oh? You have the inside track on how humans evolved?
> > >
> > >What are you, a creationist?
> >
> > No. Evolution happens at the genetic level. There is no someone can start with out set of genes
> > and go back to history and sya with any certainty what was selected for and what was discarded.
> > The saying "we weren't evolved for X" is patently unprovable. Even the obverse statement faces
> > major skepticism just by its nature, aside from the obvious like "Humans evolved to walk on two
> > legs."
> > --
>
> We could not have evolved in response to something that was not present during our evolution, that
> is refined foods and grains. Unless you read somewhere that evolutionary changes can happen in
> hundreds of years rather than thousands or millions.

However, a specific characteristic may be a side-effect of something which _was_ selected for by
evolution, which just by chance does something else as well.

>

--
David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:11:53 -0300, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> from
Ramsay's wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Kevan Smith
><[email protected]/\/\> says...
>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:03:59 -0300, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> from
>> Ramsay's wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, Kevan Smith <[email protected]/\/\>
>> >says...
>> >> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 06:10:24 GMT, "Duffy Pratt" <[email protected]> from Road Runner - Texas
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >We weren't evolved to farm or to eat a whole lot of grains or refined foods either.
>> >>
>> >> Oh? You have the inside track on how humans evolved?
>> >
>> >What are you, a creationist?
>>
>> No. Evolution happens at the genetic level. There is no someone can start with out set of
>> genes and go back to history and sya with any certainty what was selected for and what was
>> discarded. The saying "we weren't evolved for X" is patently unprovable. Even the obverse
>> statement faces major skepticism just by its nature, aside from the obvious like "Humans
>> evolved to walk on two legs."
>> --
>
>We could not have evolved in response to something that was not present during our evolution, that
>is refined foods and grains. Unless you read somewhere that evolutionary changes can happen in
>hundreds of years rather than thousands or millions.

You don't know that a part of the genome was capable of producing proteins able to process "refined"
(whatever that means) foods and grains before modern society. OR are you just defining "refined" as
anything we didn't have more than ten thousand years ago?
--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace I just heard the SEVENTIES were over!! And I
was just getting in touch with my LEISURE SUIT!!
2:28:33 PM 16 June 2003