Fatty IM'ers

"Jason/Tina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Just wondering with the amount of training that goes into an IM why is it that some competitors
still carry a substantially amount of bodyfat? Is it that the body shuts down the ability to burn
fat so that it can prioritise what the body really needs.

One must learn to choose their parents very carefully. : )

Others are in the "hell I'm just glad to be here" portion of the crowd.

My body is a poor prototype for triathlon success, but that doesn't diminish my enjoyment. I am
happy to be fit, even if I never win my age group.

rsquared

I think you are a [censored]. I really do.

Jason/Tina said:

Just wondering with the amount of training that goes into an IM why is it that some competitors
still carry a substantially amount of bodyfat?

Some people train more than others some people eat more than others. Some eat more and
train less.

Quoted message said:

Is it that the body shuts down the ability to burn fat so that it can prioritise what the body
really needs.

Although I've actually read some articles that say this is possible, I think it would
work teh opposite for IM training as a good deal is long and slow, exactly what promotes
fat burning.

Quoted message said:

And i dont believe in the calorie in calorie out hypothesis unless you were totally inactive and
have been eating an excess of calories to begin with in the first place.

You don't have to believe it and in some cases you'd be correct, however for the most part
it's true. Some studies point to the idea that teh body regulates itself at a certain
weight. IOW words you'll lose weight up to "x" weight on so many calories, However further
decreases in calories may not result in more weight loss. OTOH most people's "natural"
weight certainly isn't 30,50 150lbs overweight.

Quoted message said:

I myself monitor everything that goes in my mouth and also calculate calories burned through HR
monitor. For the last 15 weeks on every day i had a negative energy balance of around 250-500 cals
a day and guess what? No loss - just that my body fluctuates between 1-3kg daily (i know thats just
due to the heavy demands of training and subsequent replacement of energy)

I'm not a real big supportor of HR monitoring for calorie expenditure. To many thing effect
HR that IMHO don't effect energy consumption. Lets say a mile run on a nice cool day vs on
very hot and humid day. HR is definately effected but calories burnt aren't as nearly as
effected. The extra heart beats are used to pump more blood to the skin, yes this uses
calories but not nearly what is used due to higher heart rate for muscle exertion. Another
example would be something like caffeine intake may raise HR, but not significantly raise
caloric intake. Fitness is also an issue here. The reason that a persons resting HR goes
down is that it pumps more blood per beat. Thus a person that is fit, technically pumps more
calories per beat than an unfit person. IMO a much better approach is to get some sort of
base metabolism test and then figure out what you burn during excercise via work done,
miles/yards etc ratehr than average HR.

Quoted message said:

Maybe you can only really successfully diet in the offseason when training is not so intense. Im
not overweight in the least however i would like to be 3-5kg lighter. My wife seems to think i have
a body issue problem.

Most of the people I know lose weight during the early season and generally stabalize mid
season depending how much they want or need to lose. Alot I know that are on a periodized
schedule take time off around Thanksgiving or Christmas. Of course the combination of
lowered workout volume and increased food volume means more pounds. They almost always lose
these pounds during the early training period.

~Matt

"Jason/Tina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just wondering with the amount of training that goes into an IM why is it that some competitors
still carry a substantially amount of bodyfat? Is it that the body shuts down the ability to burn
fat so that it can prioritise what the body really needs.

I've never considered my self overweight - and I've never tried to loose weight. But I was asked
during my IM training if I had lost any weight - and it struck me that no - I had not. This was just
prior to my peak in total weekly volume.

Three weeks later during my taper the pounds - again not that I was trying - literally
just fell off.

So the question was - did I finally hit an intensity level that stripped my body of excess
weight? Or was it the taper that told the body to - "relax there's plenty of fuel - stop trying
to store it"?

-CF

"Jason/Tina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

And i dont believe in the calorie in calorie out hypothesis unless you

were

Quoted message said:

totally inactive and have been eating an excess of calories to begin with

in

Quoted message said:

the first place. I myself monitor everything that goes in my mouth and also calculate calories
burned through HR monitor. For the last 15 weeks on every day i

had

Quoted message said:

a negative energy balance of around 250-500 cals a day and guess what? No loss - just that my body
fluctuates between 1-3kg daily

If you're not losing weight, then you're not in a negative energy balance as you claim, period.
Don't feel badly, though...even nutritional scientists doing studies under carefully-controlled
laboratory conditions have a hard time measuring energy intake/expenditure to w/in the 250-300
kcal/d that you mistakenly think you are in deficit.

Andy Coggan

It is a fact. If you are not losing weight you are eating to much. No other answer. Some folks like
to look fort an excise but sorry, there is none. Eat less and you will weigh less. Burn more
calories than you stick in your gut and I guarantee you will lose weight. If you don't believe me,
then weigh every ounce of nutrition you consume, count the calories honestly and it will be evident.

Forget about genes, it is food that puts fat on your bones. Cruel but true.

Ken

"Jason/Tina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just wondering with the amount of training that goes into an IM why is it that some competitors
still carry a substantially amount of bodyfat? Is it that the body shuts down the ability to burn
fat so that it can prioritise what the body really needs. And i dont believe in the calorie in
calorie out hypothesis unless you

were

Quoted message said:

totally inactive and have been eating an excess of calories to begin with

in

Quoted message said:

the first place. I myself monitor everything that goes in my mouth and also calculate calories
burned through HR monitor. For the last 15 weeks on every day i

had

Quoted message said:

a negative energy balance of around 250-500 cals a day and guess what? No loss - just that my body
fluctuates between 1-3kg daily (i know thats just due to the heavy demands of training and
subsequent replacement of energy) Maybe you can only really successfully diet in the offseason
when training is not so intense. Im not overweight in the least however i would like to

be

Quoted message said:

3-5kg lighter. My wife seems to think i have a body issue problem.

In article <[email hidden]>,

IMKen said:

It is a fact. If you are not losing weight you are eating to much. No other answer. Some folks
like to look fort an excise but sorry, there is none. Eat less and you will weigh less. Burn more
calories than you stick in your gut and I guarantee you will lose weight. If you don't believe me,
then weigh every ounce of nutrition you consume, count the calories honestly and it will be
evident.

Forget about genes, it is food that puts fat on your bones. Cruel but true.

While in some sense you're probably right about needing to burn more calories than you take in to
lose weight, you can't deny that there is SOME genetic component to obesity (if only that some
people are predisposed to have a low metabolism and hence burn fewer calories).

I have a friend that EATS. He eats tons of high calorie foods, all day. He doesn't work out, and he
doesn't gain weight. Sure, maybe his body is burning it off somehow, but I'm sure there are obese
people who eat less and exercise more than he does and still gain weight.

I think your basic message is right, but the overall picture is more complicated than you imply.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

I had heard that when you are training a lot your body retains more water, so when you went into
your taper your body dropped some of your water weight.

I finished my heavy training the end of August at 182, now I am at 172. Figure that!

Next week I start training for my 1st 1/2 IM, I am wondering what my weight will do now.

"ChronoFish" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:r4BPb.4622$Ue.2776@lakeread03...

Quoted message said:

"Jason/Tina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just wondering with the amount of training that goes into an IM why is

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that some competitors still carry a substantially amount of bodyfat? Is it that the body shuts
down the ability to burn fat so that it can prioritise what the body really needs.

I've never considered my self overweight - and I've never tried to loose

weight. But I was asked during my IM training if I had

Quoted message said:

lost any weight - and it struck me that no - I had not. This was just

prior to my peak in total weekly volume.

Quoted message said:

Three weeks later during my taper the pounds - again not that I was

trying - literally just fell off.

Quoted message said:

So the question was - did I finally hit an intensity level that stripped

my body of excess weight? Or was it the taper that told

Quoted message said:

the body to - "relax there's plenty of fuel - stop trying to store it"?

-CF

I did not mean to imply that we are all exactly the same. We are not. It is a matter of honestly
measuring intake each day for a couple weeks of maintaining static weight to determine your daily
calorie need. Once done all one has to do is decrease the intake or add work to burn more and a
negative weight gain will commence. Only muscle will burn energy. Fat will not. People with low
percentage of body fat compared to percentage of muscle do burn more calories than a person with a
high fat ratio.

Most folks tend to understate intake. It is necessary to measure accurately rather than guess.

Ken

"Harold Buck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:no_one_knows-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article said:

It is a fact. If you are not losing weight you are eating to much. No other answer. Some folks
like to look fort an excise but sorry, there

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

none. Eat less and you will weigh less. Burn more calories than you

stick

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in your gut and I guarantee you will lose weight. If you don't

believe

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

me, then weigh every ounce of nutrition you consume, count the calories honestly and it will be
evident.

Forget about genes, it is food that puts fat on your bones. Cruel but true.

While in some sense you're probably right about needing to burn more calories than you take in to
lose weight, you can't deny that there is SOME genetic component to obesity (if only that some
people are predisposed to have a low metabolism and hence burn fewer calories).

I have a friend that EATS. He eats tons of high calorie foods, all day. He doesn't work out, and
he doesn't gain weight. Sure, maybe his body is burning it off somehow, but I'm sure there are
obese people who eat less and exercise more than he does and still gain weight.

I think your basic message is right, but the overall picture is more complicated than you imply.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

When I am in heavy training I tend to become dehydrated. My weight will go up during taper do to
stored energy and fluid not being burned off. I generally add two to 4 pounds during taper.

Ken

"Lenny Kersten" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I had heard that when you are training a lot your body retains more water, so when you went into
your taper your body dropped some of your water weight.

I finished my heavy training the end of August at 182, now I am at 172. Figure that!

Next week I start training for my 1st 1/2 IM, I am wondering what my

weight

Quoted message said:

will do now.

"ChronoFish" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:r4BPb.4622$Ue.2776@lakeread03...

Quoted message said:

"Jason/Tina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just wondering with the amount of training that goes into an IM why is

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that some competitors still carry a substantially amount of bodyfat? Is it that the body shuts
down the ability to burn fat so that it can prioritise what the body really needs.

I've never considered my self overweight - and I've never tried to loose

weight. But I was asked during my IM training if I had

Quoted message said:

lost any weight - and it struck me that no - I had not. This was just

prior to my peak in total weekly volume.

Quoted message said:

Three weeks later during my taper the pounds - again not that I was

trying - literally just fell off.

Quoted message said:

So the question was - did I finally hit an intensity level that stripped

my body of excess weight? Or was it the taper that told

Quoted message said:

the body to - "relax there's plenty of fuel - stop trying to store it"?

-CF

IMKen said:

It is a fact. If you are not losing weight you are eating to much. No other answer. Some folks
like to look fort an excise but sorry, there is none. Eat less and you will weigh less. Burn
more calories than you stick in your gut and I guarantee you will lose weight. If you don't
believe me, then weigh every ounce of nutrition you consume, count the calories honestly and it
will be evident.

Forget about genes, it is food that puts fat on your bones. Cruel but true.

Ken

Actually not 100% true. Noakes reffered to a couple of studies on the subject. In one
prisoners were given the opportunity to eat as many calories as desired, some went up to
9000 calories a day. In some instances the people quite gaining weight at a certain level of
caloric intake and did not gain anymore weight reguardless of caloric intake. He also
reffered to a similar studies working in reverse were people hit a certain weight and any
further weight loss did not match the caloric value that continued to be removed from the
diet. In the end it appears that most or many of us have an upper and lower weight limit
that it is "natural" to maintain. The studies did not say that it was impossible to go above
or below these values just that the typical 1:1 ratio no longer applied. I think many of us
can relate as I think all of us hit a point that seems very difficult to get past and very
easy to return to. In many cases people actually perform better at a higher weight, possibly
due to this "natural" weight effect. In the end however I mostly agree with you. In almost
every case this "natural" weight is something on the order of slim not closer to 50% BF.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

"Jason/Tina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just wondering with the amount of training that goes into an IM why is it that some competitors
still carry a substantially amount of bodyfat? Is it that the body shuts down the ability to burn
fat so that it can prioritise what the body really needs. And i dont believe in the calorie in
calorie out hypothesis unless you

were

Quoted message said:

totally inactive and have been eating an excess of calories to begin with

in

Quoted message said:

the first place. I myself monitor everything that goes in my mouth and also calculate calories
burned through HR monitor. For the last 15 weeks on every day i

had

Quoted message said:

a negative energy balance of around 250-500 cals a day and guess what? No loss - just that my
body fluctuates between 1-3kg daily (i know thats just due to the heavy demands of training and
subsequent replacement of energy) Maybe you can only really successfully diet in the offseason
when training is not so intense. Im not overweight in the least however i would like to

be

Quoted message said:

3-5kg lighter. My wife seems to think i have a body issue problem.

This might happen but it would have to be related to the body reducing some function. It is known
that starving people will cause certain body systems to slow or to divert energy to critical areas.
These are rather extreme situations and probably do not apply to most of us.

I do believe that we go through an adaptation process when involved in heavy daily training
schedules. I think that our bodies become a bit more efficient with calorie expenditure and weight
loss is less but it still is relative to intake and effort.

We are all individuals and have different metabolisms. some burn more energy running a mile than
another person may. Some have higher heart rates, breathing rates and thinking rates. I am a little
slow in all three so must consume few calories in order to maintain a lean body.

Ken @ Kauai

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

IMKen said:

It is a fact. If you are not losing weight you are eating to much. No other answer. Some folks
like to look fort an excise but sorry, there is none. Eat less and you will weigh less. Burn more
calories than you

stick

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in your gut and I guarantee you will lose weight. If you don't believe me, then weigh every ounce
of nutrition you consume, count the calories honestly and it will be evident.

Forget about genes, it is food that puts fat on your bones. Cruel but true.

Ken

Actually not 100% true. Noakes reffered to a couple of studies on the subject. In one prisoners
were given the opportunity to eat as many calories as desired, some went up to 9000 calories a
day. In some instances the people quite gaining weight at a certain level of caloric intake and
did not gain anymore weight reguardless of caloric intake. He also reffered to a similar studies
working in reverse were people hit a certain weight and any further weight loss did not match the
caloric value that continued to be removed from the diet. In the end it appears that most or many
of us have an upper and lower weight limit that it is "natural" to maintain. The studies did not
say that it was impossible to go above or below these values just that the typical 1:1 ratio no
longer applied. I think many of us can relate as I think all of us hit a point that seems very
difficult to get past and very easy to return to. In many cases people actually perform better at
a higher weight, possibly due to this "natural" weight effect. In the end however I mostly agree
with you. In almost every case this "natural" weight is something on the order of slim not closer
to 50% BF.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

"Jason/Tina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just wondering with the amount of training that goes into an IM why is

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that some competitors still carry a substantially amount of bodyfat? Is it that the body shuts
down the ability to burn fat so that it can prioritise what the body really needs. And i dont
believe in the calorie in calorie out hypothesis unless you

were

Quoted message said:

totally inactive and have been eating an excess of calories to begin

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in

Quoted message said:

the first place. I myself monitor everything that goes in my mouth and also calculate calories
burned through HR monitor. For the last 15 weeks on every day

i

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

had

Quoted message said:

a negative energy balance of around 250-500 cals a day and guess what? No loss - just that my
body fluctuates between 1-3kg daily (i know

thats

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just due to the heavy demands of training and subsequent replacement of energy) Maybe you can
only really successfully diet in the offseason when

training

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is not so intense. Im not overweight in the least however i would like

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be

Quoted message said:

3-5kg lighter. My wife seems to think i have a body issue problem.

IMKen said:

This might happen but it would have to be related to the body reducing some function. It is known
that starving people will cause certain body systems to slow or to divert energy to critical areas.
These are rather extreme situations and probably do not apply to most of us.

I do believe that we go through an adaptation process when involved in heavy daily training
schedules. I think that our bodies become a bit more efficient with calorie expenditure and weight
loss is less but it still is relative to intake and effort.

We are all individuals and have different metabolisms. some burn more energy running a mile than
another person may. Some have higher heart rates, breathing rates and thinking rates. I am a little
slow in all three so must consume few calories in order to maintain a lean body.

Ken @ Kauai

I think we mostly agree. For the most part I think people "overthink" weightloss. The simple
formula eat less move more works wonders. OTOH those that find themselves running up against
a wall in weight loss, particularly those one the low end of the BF%, may be running up
against what I call the "natural" weight effect. As with those that try to remove to many
calories from there diet and end up not losing weight, often simply by adding a few calories
back the body then "feels" a bit more free to allow fat burning again. I think ChronoFish
may have noticed this effect while training. During hard training he lost no weight, however
when training was cut back he lost weight. Obviously there is more than one explnation for
this, but one would be that the body, under heavy training, felt it was not getting enough
calories and held on to the fat. When training was cut back it let the fat go. An
interesting experiment may have been to add calories to CF's diet during hard training to
see if weight came off. If teh weight did come off it quite possibly could have been that he
was underestimating his caloric needs. Off course most of the above is speculation, but
interesting none the less.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

IMKen said:

It is a fact. If you are not losing weight you are eating to much. No other answer. Some folks
like to look fort an excise but sorry, there is none. Eat less and you will weigh less. Burn
more calories than you

stick

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in your gut and I guarantee you will lose weight. If you don't believe me, then weigh every
ounce of nutrition you consume, count the calories honestly and it will be evident.

Forget about genes, it is food that puts fat on your bones. Cruel but true.

Ken

Actually not 100% true. Noakes reffered to a couple of studies on the subject. In one prisoners
were given the opportunity to eat as many calories as desired, some went up to 9000 calories a
day. In some instances the people quite gaining weight at a certain level of caloric intake and
did not gain anymore weight reguardless of caloric intake. He also reffered to a similar studies
working in reverse were people hit a certain weight and any further weight loss did not match the
caloric value that continued to be removed from the diet. In the end it appears that most or many
of us have an upper and lower weight limit that it is "natural" to maintain. The studies did not
say that it was impossible to go above or below these values just that the typical 1:1 ratio no
longer applied. I think many of us can relate as I think all of us hit a point that seems very
difficult to get past and very easy to return to. In many cases people actually perform better at
a higher weight, possibly due to this "natural" weight effect. In the end however I mostly agree
with you. In almost every case this "natural" weight is something on the order of slim not closer
to 50% BF.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

"Jason/Tina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> Just wondering with the amount of training that goes into an IM why is

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> that some competitors still carry a substantially amount of bodyfat? Is it that the body shuts
> down the ability to burn fat so that it can prioritise what the body really needs. And i dont
> believe in the calorie in calorie out hypothesis unless you
were
> totally inactive and have been eating an excess of calories to begin

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in
> the first place. I myself monitor everything that goes in my mouth and also calculate calories
> burned through HR monitor. For the last 15 weeks on every day

i

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

had
> a negative energy balance of around 250-500 cals a day and guess what? No loss - just that my
> body fluctuates between 1-3kg daily (i know

thats

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> just due to the heavy demands of training and subsequent replacement of energy) Maybe you can
> only really successfully diet in the offseason when

training

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> is not so intense. Im not overweight in the least however i would like

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be
> 3-5kg lighter. My wife seems to think i have a body issue problem.
>
>

Weight loss and training can be miss-leading. If one has a slightly high body fat ratio and begins
exercise it is normal to put on muscle mass, which is weight. The fat loss and muscle mass increase
might balance so no body weight loss occurs. Now if the same person decreases exercise he might lose
weight with the normal demand for less food. His body now is made of fuel burning muscle rather than
inert fat so weight loss might be possible. I better be careful here, all this thinking is
shriveling me up and I may disappear.

Ken

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

IMKen said:

This might happen but it would have to be related to the body reducing

some

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

function. It is known that starving people will cause certain body systems to slow or to
divert energy to critical areas. These are rather extreme situations and probably do not apply
to most of us.

I do believe that we go through an adaptation process when involved in

heavy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

daily training schedules. I think that our bodies become a bit more efficient with calorie
expenditure and weight loss is less but it still

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

relative to intake and effort.

We are all individuals and have different metabolisms. some burn more energy running a mile than
another person may. Some have higher heart rates, breathing rates and thinking rates. I am a
little slow in all three so must consume few calories in order to maintain a lean body.

Ken @ Kauai

I think we mostly agree. For the most part I think people "overthink" weightloss. The simple
formula eat less move more works wonders. OTOH those that find themselves running up against a
wall in weight loss, particularly those one the low end of the BF%, may be running up against what
I call the "natural" weight effect. As with those that try to remove to many calories from there
diet and end up not losing weight, often simply by adding a few calories back the body then
"feels" a bit more free to allow fat burning again. I think ChronoFish may have noticed this
effect while training. During hard training he lost no weight, however when training was cut back
he lost weight. Obviously there is more than one explnation for this, but one would be that the
body, under heavy training, felt it was not getting enough calories and held on to the fat. When
training was cut back it let the fat go. An interesting experiment may have been to add calories
to CF's diet during hard training to see if weight came off. If teh weight did come off it quite
possibly could have been that he was underestimating his caloric needs. Off course most of the
above is speculation, but interesting none the less.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:07:30 GMT, "IMKen" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>It is a fact. If you are not losing weight you are eating to much.

No

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>other answer. Some folks like to look fort an excise but sorry, there

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>none. Eat less and you will weigh less. Burn more calories than you

stick

Quoted message said:

>in your gut and I guarantee you will lose weight. If you don't

believe

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>me, then weigh every ounce of nutrition you consume, count the

calories

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>honestly and it will be evident.
>
>Forget about genes, it is food that puts fat on your bones. Cruel

but

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>true.
>
>
>Ken

Actually not 100% true. Noakes reffered to a couple of studies on the subject. In one prisoners
were given the opportunity to eat as many calories as desired, some went up to 9000 calories a
day. In some instances the people quite gaining weight at a certain level of caloric intake and
did not gain anymore weight reguardless of caloric intake. He also reffered to a similar
studies working in reverse were people hit a certain weight and any further weight loss did not
match the caloric value that continued to be removed from the diet. In the end it appears that
most or many of us have an upper and lower weight limit that it is "natural" to maintain. The
studies did not say that it was impossible to go above or below these values just that the
typical 1:1 ratio no longer applied. I think many of us can relate as I think all of us hit a
point that seems very difficult to get past and very easy to return to. In many cases people
actually perform better at a higher weight, possibly due to this "natural" weight effect. In
the end however I mostly agree with you. In almost every case this "natural" weight is
something on the order of slim not closer to 50% BF.

~Matt

>
>
>
>
>
>"Jason/Tina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>"]news:[email hidden]...
>> Just wondering with the amount of training that goes into an IM why

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it

Quoted message said:

>> that some competitors still carry a substantially amount of bodyfat? Is it that the body
>> shuts down the ability to burn fat so that it

can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> prioritise what the body really needs. And i dont believe in the calorie in calorie out
>> hypothesis unless

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>were
>> totally inactive and have been eating an excess of calories to begin

with

Quoted message said:

>in
>> the first place. I myself monitor everything that goes in my mouth and also calculate
>> calories burned through HR monitor. For the last 15 weeks on every

day

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

i

Quoted message said:

>had
>> a negative energy balance of around 250-500 cals a day and guess

what?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> No loss - just that my body fluctuates between 1-3kg daily (i know

thats

Quoted message said:

>> just due to the heavy demands of training and subsequent replacement

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> energy) Maybe you can only really successfully diet in the offseason when

training

Quoted message said:

>> is not so intense. Im not overweight in the least however i would

like

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to

Quoted message said:

>be
>> 3-5kg lighter. My wife seems to think i have a body issue problem.
>>
>>
>
>

In article <[email hidden]>,

IMKen said:

Weight loss and training can be miss-leading. If one has a slightly high body fat ratio and begins
exercise it is normal to put on muscle mass, which is weight. The fat loss and muscle mass
increase might balance so no body weight loss occurs. Now if the same person decreases exercise he
might lose weight with the normal demand for less food. His body now is made of fuel burning
muscle rather than inert fat so weight loss might be possible. I better be careful here, all this
thinking is shriveling me up and I may disappear.

In any case, I've heard reports that they now believe you are much better off being overweight and
in shape than thin and a couch potato. Just because you're thin doesn't mean you're healthy. Thus,
if you're training and not losing weight, you're still better off.

Of course, being of normal weight AND in shape is probably the best of all.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

Harold Buck said:

In article said:

Weight loss and training can be miss-leading. If one has a slightly high body fat ratio and
begins exercise it is normal to put on muscle mass, which is weight. The fat loss and muscle mass
increase might balance so no body weight loss occurs. Now if the same person decreases exercise
he might lose weight with the normal demand for less food. His body now is made of fuel burning
muscle rather than inert fat so weight loss might be possible. I better be careful here, all this
thinking is shriveling me up and I may disappear.

In any case, I've heard reports....

I've also heard reports that the fewer the calories you eat the longer you'll live. Of
course taken to extreme.....

~Matt

Quoted message said:

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson