How to cycle for weight loss

[Daniel Crispin]

> Well, it's been a few years since then, but here's how I did it:
>
> 1) Eat a purely vegetarian diet, vegan if possible.

What? The most vegetables I eat are in my tomato sauce for spaghetti
Seriously I don't understand how people can like without meat.

> 2) Don't own any kind of motor vehicle.
Already done. Started commuting by bike today, will actually save on
bus passes, great thing.

> 3) Don't have a regular job or any daily commitments.
Well wish it was that easy

> 4) Keep your perspective limber by taking LSD once a week or so.
I never touched drugs and never will. Too bad, most drug addicts are
really slim

 

[David Reuteler]

Daniel Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 1) Eat a purely vegetarian diet, vegan if possible.
>
> What? The most vegetables I eat are in my tomato sauce for spaghetti
> Seriously I don't understand how people can like without meat.

oh, hey, it's pretty easy, thanks. & with BSE gettin' easier all the time.
bon apetit!
--
david reuteler
[email protected]

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Daniel Crispin" <[email protected]> writes:

>> Sheldon Brown has an article on 'The Evils of Coasting'; it's
>> an interesting read. I'd post the link here, but I'm offline
>> right now. But at least it's easy to find.

I thought it was easy to find, but upon re-investigating I find his
diatri-, errm, opinions on the topic are embedded in a discourse
on fixed-gear. Maybe I also semi-recall reading one of his
UseNet posts in r.b.tech about why coasting is bad. Or maybe
I dreamed it(?)

> Coasting? Who's coasting? When I hit a hill I go to the highest gear and
> pedal the
> heck out of my bike. I try to the get the highest speed possible. Not
> doing so good
> yet, my max is 60 Km/H but I suspect that might be the limit of my Cat Eye
> computer...

Well then, you're doing better than me. I have to struggle to top
50 km/h, and my ride weighs lots. But I don't have the best
wheels in the world, and except for an occasional indulgent
exuberance, I tend to baby them. My Cheng Shin tires will
amplify every subtle bump and dip in the road surface -- above
about 48 Km/h, I'll start collecting 'air miles' on an uneven
road surface. Whether I want to or not.

But still, have you tried spinning smoothly while undergeared and
there's little tension on the chain (pedaling while coasting)? It
feels funny at first, as it amplifies the jerkier sectors of the
pedal strokes.

I /think/ it's a good way to smooth out one's spin, anyway.
But, maybe I'm wrong and Jobst Brandt will prove that I am.
It doesn't hurt to try it, though.

I'll hunt around for the manual for my Cateye computer and
see if it says anything about the highest speed it'll read,
and post it here. Unless someone beats me to the punch.


cheers,
Tom


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

 

[Bernie]

Daniel Crispin wrote:

>>Pedaling rather than coasting on downhills, regardless of whether
>>or not your getting any chain tension, might also be an effective
>>way to work towards a smooth spin. I find it can actually be more
>>challenging to get a smooth spin going when there's no chain tension.
>>
>>Sheldon Brown has an article on 'The Evils of Coasting'; it's
>>an interesting read. I'd post the link here, but I'm offline
>>right now. But at least it's easy to find.
>>
>
>Coasting? Who's coasting? When I hit a hill I go to the highest gear and
>pedal the
>heck out of my bike. I try to the get the highest speed possible. Not
>doing so good
>yet, my max is 60 Km/H but I suspect that might be the limit of my Cat Eye
>computer...
>anyone knows? I was sure flying when I did this.... had to slow down
>because the road was in bad shape at the bottom too...
>hitting a pothole at 60 Km/H is not something I want to try
>
I do the same. Max speed attained on my hybrid was 67 kph, but I didn't
have a computer on it for long...
I haven't put a computer on my touring bike yet, but suspect I've broken
that speed many times already. I seriously doubt your speedo stops at
60. More likely 120 or something.

I am trying to cool it tho, as these rides are on city streets with too
many wild cards in the deck for reasonable safety.
Wear your safety glasses, stay well. Grit or a bug in your eye at speed
might really mess you up.
Bernie

>
>
>
>

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Bernie <[email protected]> writes:

> I am trying to cool it tho, as these rides are on city streets with too
> many wild cards in the deck for reasonable safety.

It seems at the bottom (or even mid-way) of every decent
slope in the Lower Mainland, there's a stale green light.

Feel lucky?


cheers,
Tom

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

 

[Bernie]

Tom Keats wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Bernie <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>I am trying to cool it tho, as these rides are on city streets with too
>>many wild cards in the deck for reasonable safety.
>>
>
>It seems at the bottom (or even mid-way) of every decent
>slope in the Lower Mainland, there's a stale green light.
>
>Feel lucky?
>
>
>cheers,
> Tom
>
At least traffic lights are predictable. It's the cross traffic doing
'taxi stops' at stop signs, drivers who barely slow down at red lights
because they are turning right, uphill traffic turning left... (need I
go on?)
That's what makes me feel a bit twitchy.
Best regards, Bernie

>

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Bernie <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bernie <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>I am trying to cool it tho, as these rides are on city streets with too
>>>many wild cards in the deck for reasonable safety.
>>>
>>
>>It seems at the bottom (or even mid-way) of every decent
>>slope in the Lower Mainland, there's a stale green light.
>>
>>Feel lucky?
>>
>>
>>cheers,
>> Tom
>>
> At least traffic lights are predictable.

Well, there's the iffy-ness of stale greens while approaching
them at speed. Especially if the light has a different cycle
timing than most. I've bombed through the one at Knight & 33rd
more times than I care to remember, but I think I've grown out
of that now. For the most part. Sometimes it's sporting, and
sometimes it's discretionary about making the decision to shoot
the light or not. Thrills & screams, vs safe & secure. I
generally opt for the latter. But then, I've already had my fill
of thrills & screams. For the most part.

We're not getting older; we're getting wiser

> It's the cross traffic doing
> 'taxi stops' at stop signs, drivers who barely slow down at red lights
> because they are turning right, uphill traffic turning left... (need I
> go on?)

No, I hear ya, and I agree.

> That's what makes me feel a bit twitchy.

Yer durn tootin'.

I've only begun to appreciate the unleashed joy of /real/
descending on terrainous highways, up-country. It's a lot
different from city streets, that's for sure. And I guess
that's where that approach belongs, not where you're running
the risk of getting T-boned or otherwise clobbered.

City riding is nice, too. I guess neither style requires
more care than the other -- it's just where you have to
focus your care.

In the city, intersections sure have a way of governing
one's approach to riding. In the country, car speeds are
higher, but so are bike speeds. It's an whole new world
for me. I like it.

It's been a most interesting experience for me to taste
both urban and rural riding.


cheers,
Tom


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

 

[Roger Zoul]

Daniel Crispin wrote:
:: Well I don't eat much bread, I seldom use margarine and never use
:: butter. I buy olive oil margarine but 1 pound lasts
:: me about a year. Adding fat to reduce sugar absorbtion sounds
:: ridiculous. Adding 200 calories is not the way to go!

Not true. What happens is that the reduced carb intake results in decreased
appetite...so while someone may have added 200 calories, they still ate less
than otherwise, and hence ended up restricting calories (relative to
maintenance energy needs). Done long enough, this produces weight loss.

 

[Roger Zoul]

Calories are calories, but not all calories are the same. Some types of
foods will stimulate hunger due to BG swings, whereas other types of foods
won't. Many people can lose weight simply by restricting the amount of
certain foods (they eat way too much of these foods, usually carbs) which
then results in eatng less, i.e, calorie restriction. That brings fat loss.

Daniel Crispin wrote:
:: Ha yes that Glycemic Index thing. Well can't say I believe in that.
:: Calories are calories, but whole grain is healtier... I was thinking
:: of getting spinach pasta as well. For now I will try lower pasta
:: and switch to a little rice with tofu, chicken and tuna.
::
:: "Mike Schwab" <[email protected]> wrote in message
:: news:[email protected]...
::: With the whole grain bread / pasta, the sugar is consumed with the
::: fiber and is absorbed slower.
::: With the white bread, the sugar is absorbed very quickly.
::: This difference wass measured by having testing persons eating a
::: quantity of food then testing their blood surar.
:::
::: This is from Dr. Arthur Agaston's book South Beach diet.
:::
::: http://www.southbeachdiet.com/
::: http://www.glycemicindex.com/
:::
::: Badger_South wrote:
::::
:::: On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:53:09 -0500, Mike Schwab
:::: <[email protected]> wrote:
::::
::::: Look for breads and pastas made with whole grain. Check health
::::: food stores.
::::
:::: Why? It's still going to spike your insulin. Tch; even the LC
:::: people tout this, but it's still bread.
::::
:::: -Badger
:::: "World's most dangerous City Bike Path Rider"

 

[Roger Zoul]

Terry Morse wrote:
:: Badger_South wrote:
::
::: Terry Morse wrote:
:::
:::: Badger_South wrote:
::::
::::: Mike Schwab wrote:
:::::
:::::: Look for breads and pastas made with whole grain. Check health
:::::: food stores.
:::::
::::: Why? It's still going to spike your insulin. Tch; even the LC
::::: people tout this, but it's still bread.
::::
:::: Google "glycemic index" and "whole grain bread". Contrast with
:::: "white bread". Note the difference.
:::
::: Ah, thus the highly successful "whole grain bread" diet.
::
:: It's worked in the western and middle eastern world for a few
:: thousand years.
::
:::
::: Again, it still spikes insulin in many ppl, and it throws 'em out of
::: ketosis, and back into carb addiction, and it's still bread.
::
:: You write that as if it were true and universal. Here's what the
:: American Heart Association has to say about "carb addiction":
::
:: "Some people advocate severely reducing carbohydrate intake to
:: reduce the insulin response and cravings. Others suggest that
:: choosing carbohydrate-containing foods with a lower glycemic
:: (gli-SE'mik) index also can lower insulin response and appetite.
:: There isn't enough research in this area for us to know what's
:: right. Also, individual responses may vary considerably."

Yet, they give recommendations....

::
:: And what they say about what constitutes a healthy diet:
::
:: "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy products,
:: most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55 percent of calories
:: from carbohydrates."

And people following their advice get fatter and fatter. Too many American
(at least) just don't get enough exercise to be eating 50-55 % of calories
from carbs. Maybe those here do, since we like to move, but most don't.

As it occurred to you, Terry, that their advice is based on committee work
and not any sound scientific research?

 

[Roger Zoul]

Terry Morse wrote:
:: DRS wrote:
::
::: "Terry Morse" wrote:
:::
:::: You write that as if it were true and universal. Here's what the
:::: American Heart Association has to say about "carb addiction":
:::
::: Thanks to retards like the AHA the Western world is more obese than
::: at any time in history.
::
:: Yeah, that's it. The AHA's to blame. Let's take 'em outside and
:: shoot 'em.

I would if I could...

 

[Roger Zoul]

Daniel Crispin wrote:
:: Actually my personal guess about so many people being over weight is
:: this:
::
:: Fast food + lack of physical activity X time = lots of extra fat on
:: you.
::
:: If you make your own food and don't over eat, and have an active
:: lifestyle you will not be overweight. When you consider the caloric
:: intake of a single
:: meal at McDonalds there is no wonder people are overweight. 1800
:: calories per meal is a great way to die young.

There is a lot of truth in what you say...fast food is both full of carb and
full of unhealthy fats...and people are too sedentary.

But there is still a question of how to correct the imbalance of overfat.


::
::
::
:: "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
:: news:[email protected]...
::: "Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
::: news:[email protected]
:::: DRS wrote:
::::
::::: "Terry Morse" wrote:
:::::
:::::: You write that as if it were true and universal. Here's what the
:::::: American Heart Association has to say about "carb addiction":
:::::
::::: Thanks to retards like the AHA the Western world is more obese
::::: than
::::: at any time in history.
::::
:::: Yeah, that's it. The AHA's to blame. Let's take 'em outside and
:::: shoot 'em.
:::
::: I didn't say they were the whole problem. I said they were part of
::: the problem and they are. Their high carb low fat diets are
::: retarded and so are they. If you want to suppress appetite you
::: lower your intake of simple carbs as far as you can and you
::: increase your protein intake. You also do not reduce your intake
::: of EFAs as these retards would have you do. That way lies lots of
::: health problems, everything from poor skin and hair to immune
::: system deficiencies. EFAs are not any sort of cardio threat, as
::: any nutritionist with a clue knows full well, and low fat diets are
::: not healthy.
:::
::: --
:::
::: A: Top-posters.
::: Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

....

> :: And what they say about what constitutes a healthy diet:
> ::
> :: "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy products,
> :: most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55 percent of calories
> :: from carbohydrates."
>
> And people following their advice get fatter and fatter. Too many American
> (at least) just don't get enough exercise to be eating 50-55 % of calories
> from carbs. Maybe those here do, since we like to move, but most don't.

NO! They just don't get enough exercise to be eating as many total
calories as they do. It doesn't much matter what the calories are from.


> As it occurred to you, Terry, that their advice is based on committee work
> and not any sound scientific research?

Not true; there has been plenty of research indicating that high fat
diets are bad for your heart and weight. Like most research, though, it
was looking at too narrow of a question to find the real answer they
were looking for.

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

 

[Roger Zoul]

Daniel Crispin wrote:
:: Well technically carbs are the lowers calories per gram you know. 4
:: calories per gram compared to fat that is 9 calories per gram.
:: Problem is that pasta contains lots of carbs

For many people, eating pasta will increase appetite. So restricting
calories will be hard to impossible. Their bodies say eat, they think they
are hungry, so they eat...and probably more carby stuff, which leads to more
eating. And probably some fatty stuff, which leads to fat gain (due to too
many calories).


My usual serving is
:: about 600 calories just for the pasta, and about 400 more for sauce.
:: I think you are right that I should eat less of it. Chicken and
:: tuna are the way to go. I will see if I can convince my will

One you remove BG swings from the equation, much will power isn't needed.
All you need then is a desire to lose...

::
::
::
:: "curt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
:: news:[email protected]...
::: Bicycling is a great way to lose weight! I think most important is
::: to ride long and steady to lose. I don't use a HR monitor, so I
::: can't help you there, but there is an effective HR for weight loss,
::: but it is different for everyone and we would need to know more
::: information about you.
:::
::: If you like pasta, it will be harder to lose, unless you don't eat
::: that much. Sorry, that is just the way it is. A high carb diet
::: makes it harder to lose, it is just the facts. It can certainly be
::: done and is done all the time, but you need to cut calories, unless
::: you are going to ride very long distances 4+ days a week. I
::: suggest lower fat if you are going high carb. If you want to lose
::: faster, then bag the pasta and eat chicken, fish, etc.
:::
::: JMHO,
::: Curt
:::
:::
::: "Daniel Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
::: news:[email protected]...
:::: Hello,
::::
:::: I am wondering if there is an easy way to dose my efforts toward
:::: weight loss. I could buy
:::: a HRM but I have already spent 600$ on my bike this month and
:::: would like to stop spending
:::: for a while.
::::
:::: Any trick that can tell me I am using the right effort for weight
:::: loss? Someone told me that if I cannot
:::: speak without feeling a little out of breath that is the right
:::: zone... is that true?
::::
:::: Also I am been trying to pedal faster. I used to pedal slow and
:::: hard but after reading some books
:::: I now understand it's a really bad way to do it. I have no idea
:::: what my current cadence is since my
:::: computer doesn't have that feature but I think I am at around 1.25
:::: turn per second... that is of course
:::: an approximate... it would mean 75 turns per minute which is close
:::: to what is recommanded... I cannot
:::: see myself pedaling faster, already feels like I am spinning way
:::: too fast How do you guys do 100 turns
:::: per minute? Must be a mental issue, the legs don't seems to mind
:::: but geez at a 100 I am not sure I could
:::: even keep my balance hehehe!
::::
:::: Last thing... what should I eat before and during training? I
:::: love pasta. I know they contain a lot of calories
:::: but that is the food I like. On the other hand they give lots of
:::: carbs so that can't be bad while training right?
:::: Should I eat something different the days I train?
::::
:::: How about during training? I normal bring a Nutribar which is an
:::: meal replacement designed for weight loss.
:::: I has a balance of carbs, fats and proteins. Should I use
:::: something with more carbs?

 

[DRS]

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...

[...]

>>>> "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy products,
>>>> most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55 percent of calories
>>>> from carbohydrates."
>>
>> And people following their advice get fatter and fatter. Too many
>> American (at least) just don't get enough exercise to be eating
>> 50-55 % of calories from carbs. Maybe those here do, since we like
>> to move, but most don't.
>
> NO! They just don't get enough exercise to be eating as many total
> calories as they do. It doesn't much matter what the calories are
> from.

It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb diets they
naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually why Atkins works). High carb
diets tend to stimulate appetite which is exactly what you don't want if you
want to avoid obesity.

>> As it occurred to you, Terry, that their advice is based on
>> committee work and not any sound scientific research?
>
> Not true; there has been plenty of research indicating that high fat
> diets are bad for your heart and weight. Like most research, though,

Only if you eat the wrong kind of fats. Stick to the EFAs and they're no
threat to your heart in the slightest. As for your weight, you are
confusing the fact that fat is the most energy dense macronutrient with
eating excess calories. It is the latter which causes problems with weight,
not the former. Failing to distinguish between good and bad fats is simply
inexcusable in the 21st century. You must get an adequate supply of good
fats to be healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are simply
retarded.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
>
> [...]
>
> >>>> "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy products,
> >>>> most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55 percent of calories
> >>>> from carbohydrates."
> >>
> >> And people following their advice get fatter and fatter. Too many
> >> American (at least) just don't get enough exercise to be eating
> >> 50-55 % of calories from carbs. Maybe those here do, since we like
> >> to move, but most don't.
> >
> > NO! They just don't get enough exercise to be eating as many total
> > calories as they do. It doesn't much matter what the calories are
> > from.
>
> It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb diets they
> naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually why Atkins works). High carb
> diets tend to stimulate appetite which is exactly what you don't want if you
> want to avoid obesity.

All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it doesn't
matter where they come from.


> >> As it occurred to you, Terry, that their advice is based on
> >> committee work and not any sound scientific research?
> >
> > Not true; there has been plenty of research indicating that high fat
> > diets are bad for your heart and weight. Like most research, though,
>
> Only if you eat the wrong kind of fats. Stick to the EFAs and they're no
> threat to your heart in the slightest. As for your weight, you are
> confusing the fact that fat is the most energy dense macronutrient with
> eating excess calories. It is the latter which causes problems with weight,
> not the former. Failing to distinguish between good and bad fats is simply
> inexcusable in the 21st century. You must get an adequate supply of good

Like I said, the research was not properly designed to come up with the
answers they were looking for.


> fats to be healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are simply
> retarded.

No more so than low carb; some people do better on one, and others do
better on other diets. Even "low fat" diets give you enough fats for
good health.

As usual, more research is tending to reduce the claims of the early
researchers. A recent study compared low carb diets to low fat diets,
and found that people on low carb diets tended to lose more weight in
the first 6 months, but after 12 months, they were essentially equal in
their results.


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

 

[DRS]

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...

[...]

>> It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb diets they
>> naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually why Atkins works).
>> High carb diets tend to stimulate appetite which is exactly what you
>> don't want if you want to avoid obesity.
>
> All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it
> doesn't matter where they come from.

In an absolute sense that's right. However, reducing sugars and increasing
protein makes it easier.

[...]

>> Only if you eat the wrong kind of fats. Stick to the EFAs and
>> they're no threat to your heart in the slightest. As for your
>> weight, you are confusing the fact that fat is the most energy dense
>> macronutrient with eating excess calories. It is the latter which
>> causes problems with weight, not the former. Failing to distinguish
>> between good and bad fats is simply inexcusable in the 21st century.
>> You must get an adequate supply of good
>
> Like I said, the research was not properly designed to come up with
> the answers they were looking for.
>
>> fats to be healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are simply
>> retarded.
>
> No more so than low carb;

Not so. They are inherently retarded for reasons already outlined. You
*must* get enough good fats to be healthy. Low fat is inherently unhealthy.

> some people do better on one, and others do
> better on other diets. Even "low fat" diets give you enough fats for
> good health.

No, they don't. That's why they're retarded. Even when aiming to lose
weight you should not be dropping your fats targets to 20% or less, which is
what the low fats diets tell you to do. It's ********.

> As usual, more research is tending to reduce the claims of the early
> researchers. A recent study compared low carb diets to low fat diets,
> and found that people on low carb diets tended to lose more weight in
> the first 6 months, but after 12 months, they were essentially equal
> in their results.

In weight, yes. In that strict sense calories are calories and fat still
has about 3,500 of them. But in a nutritional sense the low carbers are way
better off. You can always tell long term low fat dieters because their
skin looks like ****.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[Badger_South]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 22:58:46 +1000, "DRS" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>
>[...]
>
>>>>> "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy products,
>>>>> most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55 percent of calories
>>>>> from carbohydrates."
>>>
>>> And people following their advice get fatter and fatter. Too many
>>> American (at least) just don't get enough exercise to be eating
>>> 50-55 % of calories from carbs. Maybe those here do, since we like
>>> to move, but most don't.
>>
>> NO! They just don't get enough exercise to be eating as many total
>> calories as they do. It doesn't much matter what the calories are
>> from.
>
>It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb diets they
>naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually why Atkins works). High carb
>diets tend to stimulate appetite which is exactly what you don't want if you
>want to avoid obesity.
>
>>> As it occurred to you, Terry, that their advice is based on
>>> committee work and not any sound scientific research?
>>
>> Not true; there has been plenty of research indicating that high fat
>> diets are bad for your heart and weight. Like most research, though,
>
>Only if you eat the wrong kind of fats. Stick to the EFAs and they're no
>threat to your heart in the slightest. As for your weight, you are
>confusing the fact that fat is the most energy dense macronutrient with
>eating excess calories. It is the latter which causes problems with weight,
>not the former. Failing to distinguish between good and bad fats is simply
>inexcusable in the 21st century. You must get an adequate supply of good
>fats to be healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are simply
>retarded.

Just babbling here, but I'm wondering if the "plenty of research indicating
that high fat diets are bad for your heart and weight" were actually done
on diets that were also high carb?

Since the researchers had ignored the 'insulin connection', they may have
glossed over the fairly high carb content. As we all know a high carb high
fat diet -is- a recipe for disaster.

Just wondering...

-Badger

 

[Badger_South]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:09:41 -0400, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net>
wrote:

>All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it doesn't
>matter where they come from.

Fair enough. But it's -very- hard to "watch" you calorie intake, heh, as in
"I watched it go up as I ate more and more, and the hunger pangs increased
with each doughnut". OK, kidding, but if there was a 'magic bullet' and
people could just plan out their meals and then eat that and only that,
sheesh, it would be easy and we'd all be thin and happy.

It seems to require a 'trick', be it 'fad diet', or drugs, or stomach
stapling/gastro-bypass, or imprisonment on an island with only rats and
rice to eat. Given those, I'll chose BDK and the concommittant appetite
suppression that I experience.

Ya know ppl here are now saying 'ok you can cycle on LC, but even though it
seems like you're going fast and hard and long, you're really just pushing
it at a moderate pace'. Heck a couple years ago, they weren't even allowing
for that concession.

>> >> As it occurred to you, Terry, that their advice is based on
>> >> committee work and not any sound scientific research?
>> >
>> > Not true; there has been plenty of research indicating that high fat
>> > diets are bad for your heart and weight. Like most research, though,
>>
>> Only if you eat the wrong kind of fats. Stick to the EFAs and they're no
>> threat to your heart in the slightest. As for your weight, you are
>> confusing the fact that fat is the most energy dense macronutrient with
>> eating excess calories. It is the latter which causes problems with weight,
>> not the former. Failing to distinguish between good and bad fats is simply
>> inexcusable in the 21st century. You must get an adequate supply of good
>
>Like I said, the research was not properly designed to come up with the
>answers they were looking for.
>
>
>> fats to be healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are simply
>> retarded.
>
>No more so than low carb; some people do better on one, and others do
>better on other diets. Even "low fat" diets give you enough fats for
>good health.

Well, that's fair, but IMO, low fat diets are hard to deal with, b/c it
requires too much planning and stuff. When you're ravenous, the brain tends
to get a little dicey and you mess it up. I'm prepared to agree that all
the diets would work -if- you had your own chef, and if you only ate the
prepared meals, and somehow were prevented from cheating.

Hell, I'd love to go vegetarian, but it's so hard to do and still get
adequate protein if you're just 'a guy' buying veggies at the market, IMO.
<g> Also, I think a lot of vegs tend to eat junk food, with the though
'it's all ok, b/c it's not meat'. Oh well.

>As usual, more research is tending to reduce the claims of the early
>researchers. A recent study compared low carb diets to low fat diets,
>and found that people on low carb diets tended to lose more weight in
>the first 6 months, but after 12 months, they were essentially equal in
>their results.

I have strong doubts about any 'diet research'. It's just too hard to
control, even in a semi-quarantined environment. My first though was 'hey,
the Low fat group saw what success the LC group had and (consciously or
unconsciously) started limiting carbs and adding back some fat'. Wouldn't
that be funny.

It'll be interesting to see where all the 'LC fad' takes us in another
year. Maybe people will end up leaning towards a targetted ketogenic diet,
or cycling off on weekends, or getting really good at adding carbs during
the 'exercise window', and the serious recreational/fitness cyclers will
start looking a lot leaner and meaner.

-Badger

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

....

> >Only if you eat the wrong kind of fats. Stick to the EFAs and they're no
> >threat to your heart in the slightest. As for your weight, you are
> >confusing the fact that fat is the most energy dense macronutrient with
> >eating excess calories. It is the latter which causes problems with weight,
> >not the former. Failing to distinguish between good and bad fats is simply
> >inexcusable in the 21st century. You must get an adequate supply of good
> >fats to be healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are simply
> >retarded.
>
> Just babbling here, but I'm wondering if the "plenty of research indicating
> that high fat diets are bad for your heart and weight" were actually done
> on diets that were also high carb?

Considering that "high" in this context usually refers to *percentages*
of calorie intake, that's kind of hard to do. They were watching total
calories as well. But as with most studies, they were designed to get
the answer they expected, and didn't sufficiently examine confounding
factors. Later studies always find weaknesses in earlier ones, and that
includes LC.


> Since the researchers had ignored the 'insulin connection', they may have
> glossed over the fairly high carb content. As we all know a high carb high
> fat diet -is- a recipe for disaster.

If it were possible, it would be, but you can't have over 50% of your
calories from fat, *and* over 50% of your calories from carbs.

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