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



D

Doug Cook

Guest
I know I asked for some thoughts, but come on, people! 170 responses in
48hrs? Maybe I should have asked a less controversial question like the
role of religion in politics or something. Or maybe you all should be
spending more time on your bikes and less in front of the computer! :)

Here are some generalized opinions culled from those replies
and my response to them.

1. I don't realize how much I'm really eating - Maybe, but
I've started keeping track again of everything that
enters my mouth (I've done this before). In the last two
days (two typical days to the best of my judgment) my
caloric intake has not exceeded 2700. I'll keep tracking
for a week or two to see if that changes, but I doubt it
will. I just can't eat that much. Maybe I'm binging on
the weekends.

2. I'm not burning as much as I think I am on my rides -
Maybe, but my computer is correctly set, and I do wear a
HRM. Every calculator I can find tells me I'm burning at
least 6400 calories a week on my rides, and some estimate
it as high as 10,000. I keep a ride dairy, so I know I'm
not over estimating my miles. Remember, I weigh 274.

3. I have a diabetic condition that is preventing me from
losing weight - This worried me. My family does have a
history of Type II when they get old and fat, but I have
had none of the symptoms. But I did get a HbA1c test.
4.7%. 7% is considered threshold level for some kind of
diabetic disorder.

So... after 170 posts (for which I'm grateful, don't get me
wrong), I'm back to beginning. I guess I'll go see a medical
pro. Get all the offiicial tests on the treadmill and all
that. Who do I see? A sports physiologist?

Thanks
 
On Thu, 20 May 2004 22:43:47 -0600, "Doug Cook" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I know I asked for some thoughts, but come on, people!
>170 responses in 48hrs? Maybe I should have asked a less
>controversial question like the role of religion in
>politics or something. Or maybe you all should be
>spending more time on your bikes and less in front of the
>computer! :)

Many ppl spent time trying to help you and this seems like a
butt-head thing to say.

You have not spent even one iota of energy to actually input
any data for the kind bikers who type very fast and have a
wealth of knowledge and experience and who have had their
lives transformed by what we have tried to offer you - and
not just 'do this do that' comments.

Have you said what kind of food you eat? no.

Have you said when you eat? no.

So you're on your own bucko. It's -all- about the diet;
first. Hypothyroid? Unlikely. Insulin resistance - very
likely. Pancreatic (benign?) tumor? who knows.

Upshot? One - quit stuffing your fat face with pasta and
doughnuts, and go

b/c the medical profession spends approximately ONE
freakin' hour on nutrition in first year med-school. And
Dietitions? They're complete morons, who have never
dieted, never thought for themselves. I know I worked
with them every day; I'm a pathologist (non-MD), and have
33 years in the field. Three - read the literature
suggested to you.

Best, -B
 
"Doug Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I know I asked for some thoughts, but come on, people! 170
> responses in 48hrs? Maybe I should have asked a less
> controversial question like the role of religion in
> politics or something.

Nothing controversial about it. Losing weight is NOT
complicated. Fat people like to think it is, but it isn't.
I'll say this again---if you burn more calories than you
intake, you will lose weight. Period. The body is kinda neat
in the way it follows the laws of physics. Yes, you can do
all sorts of tricks, like carbohydrate reduction and such,
but it all comes down to intake vs. output. You weigh 274
pounds, so you need to intake at least 2740 just to
maintain. Since you're riding a lot, you have to be eating a
lot of calories somewhere. You're on the right track by
monitoring what you eat, but make sure to keep portion
control. Measure your food if you have to. If you eat 2700
kcal/day and exercise, you will lose weight. Just remember
to keep yourself in calorie debt. Exercise is not an excuse
to pig out, until you get to racer-weight. :)
 
I told you to cut carbs. Maybe you didn't even read it. If
you want to lose weight cut carbs. Read the Atkins book,
probably too much work for you.

Curt
--
Started low carb May '03 this time.
211/182/180 . . 6'2" 15.78% BF? Age 38 Highest weight 250
5+ years ago

"Doug Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:JrudnQhuXq9gFTDdRVn-
[email protected]...
> I know I asked for some thoughts, but come on, people!
> 170 responses in 48hrs? Maybe I should have asked a less
> controversial question like the role of religion in
> politics or something. Or maybe you all should be
> spending more time on your bikes and less in front of the
> computer! :)
>
> Here are some generalized opinions culled from those
> replies and my
response
> to them.
>
> 1. I don't realize how much I'm really eating - Maybe, but
> I've started keeping track again of everything that
> enters my mouth (I've done this before). In the last
> two days (two typical days to the best of my
judgment)
> my caloric intake has not exceeded 2700. I'll keep
> tracking for a week or two to see if that changes, but I
> doubt it will. I just can't eat that much. Maybe I'm
> binging on the weekends.
>
> 2. I'm not burning as much as I think I am on my rides -
> Maybe, but my computer is correctly set, and I do wear
> a HRM. Every calculator I can
find
> tells me I'm burning at least 6400 calories a week on my
> rides, and some estimate it as high as 10,000. I keep a
> ride dairy, so I know I'm not
over
> estimating my miles. Remember, I weigh 274.
>
> 3. I have a diabetic condition that is preventing me from
> losing weight - This worried me. My family does have a
> history of Type II when they get
old
> and fat, but I have had none of the symptoms. But I did
> get a HbA1c test.
> 4.7%. 7% is considered threshold level for some kind of
> diabetic
disorder.
>
> So... after 170 posts (for which I'm grateful, don't get
> me wrong), I'm
back
> to beginning. I guess I'll go see a medical pro. Get all
> the offiicial tests on the treadmill and all that. Who do
> I see? A sports
physiologist?
>
> Thanks
 
Doug Cook wrote:
:: I know I asked for some thoughts, but come on, people!
:: 170 responses in 48hrs? Maybe I should have asked a less
:: controversial question like the role of religion in
:: politics or something. Or maybe you all should be
:: spending more time on your bikes and less in front of the
:: computer! :)
::
:: Here are some generalized opinions culled from those
:: replies and my response to them.
::
:: 1. I don't realize how much I'm really eating - Maybe,
:: but I've started keeping track again of everything
:: that enters my mouth (I've done this before). In the
:: last two days (two typical days to the best of my
:: judgment) my caloric intake has not exceeded 2700.
:: I'll keep tracking for a week or two to see if that
:: changes, but I doubt it will. I just can't eat that
:: much. Maybe I'm binging on the weekends.

Do you have a scale and measure and weigh what you eat?
I assume you're making your own meals and not eating
out, right?

::
:: 2. I'm not burning as much as I think I am on my rides -
:: Maybe, but my computer is correctly set, and I do wear
:: a HRM. Every calculator I can find tells me I'm
:: burning at least 6400 calories a week on my rides, and
:: some estimate it as high as 10,000. I keep a ride
:: dairy, so I know I'm not over estimating my miles.
:: Remember, I weigh 274.

I weigh 235. Yesterday I did 35 miles. My HRM said I burned
2741 kcals. Fitday.com said I burned 1697 kcals and
Cyclistat said I burned 1680 kcals. Now, you'd think the HRM
is more accurate since it know more about what I'm doing.
But that is quite a large variation in what I burned. I
wonder if any of them are right -- and a lot of people will
tell you that all of these are overestimates.

::
:: 3. I have a diabetic condition that is preventing me from
:: losing weight - This worried me. My family does have a
:: history of Type II when they get old and fat, but I
:: have had none of the symptoms. But I did get a HbA1c
:: test.
:: 4.7%. 7% is considered threshold level for some kind of
:: diabetic disorder.

I'm a T2. My resting GB is about 80 to 85 and my HbA1c was
5.1%.. I control my T2 with diet (low carb) and exercise. If
you're not on a LC diet, I doubt you're a T2.

::
:: So... after 170 posts (for which I'm grateful, don't get
:: me wrong), I'm back to beginning. I guess I'll go see a
:: medical pro. Get all the offiicial tests on the treadmill
:: and all that. Who do I see? A sports physiologist?
::

You can do that if you want...however, why don't you just
bump calories down to about 2200 for a couple of weeks. Keep
everything else the same. You'll lose weight. I don't see
why it is so hard for everyone to think that you're simply
eating too much to lose weight.
 
Badger_South wrote:
:: On Thu, 20 May 2004 22:43:47 -0600, "Doug Cook"
:: <[email protected]> wrote:
::
::: I know I asked for some thoughts, but come on, people!
::: 170 responses in 48hrs? Maybe I should have asked a less
::: controversial question like the role of religion in
::: politics or something. Or maybe you all should be
::: spending more time on your bikes and less in front of
::: the computer! :)
::
:: Many ppl spent time trying to help you and this seems
:: like a butt-head thing to say.
::
:: You have not spent even one iota of energy to actually
:: input any data for the kind bikers who type very fast and
:: have a wealth of knowledge and experience and who have
:: had their lives transformed by what we have tried to
:: offer you - and not just 'do this do that' comments.
::
:: Have you said what kind of food you eat? no.
::
:: Have you said when you eat? no.
::
:: So you're on your own bucko. It's -all- about the diet;
:: first. Hypothyroid? Unlikely. Insulin resistance - very
:: likely. Pancreatic (benign?) tumor? who knows.
::
:: Upshot? One - quit stuffing your fat face with pasta and
:: doughnuts, and go on a couple fluid fasts. Two - go see a
:: doctor and let him

:: freakin' hour on nutrition in first year med-school. And
:: Dietitions? They're complete morons, who have never
:: dieted, never thought for themselves. I know I worked
:: with them every day; I'm a pathologist (non-MD), and have
:: 33 years in the field. Three - read the literature
:: suggested to you.

I could not agree more, though I still think the guy is
worth trying to help. People get weird when it comes to
diet and weight loss. It's like talking about religion
or something. It's just taking him a while to get his
head wrapped around the notion that he's eating too
much. LC would be the best for him, but calorie
reduction will work too.

BTW, what does a pathologist do?
 
On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:24:36 GMT, "Gooserider"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Doug Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:JrudnQhuXq9gFTDdRVn-
>[email protected]...
>> I know I asked for some thoughts, but come on, people!
>> 170 responses in 48hrs? Maybe I should have asked a less
>> controversial question like the role of religion in
>> politics or something.
>
>Nothing controversial about it. Losing weight is NOT
>complicated. Fat people like to think it is, but it isn't.
>I'll say this again---if you burn more calories than you
>intake, you will lose weight. Period. The body is kinda
>neat in the way it follows the laws of physics. Yes, you
>can do all sorts of tricks, like carbohydrate reduction and
>such, but it all comes down to intake vs. output. You weigh
>274 pounds, so you need to intake at least 2740 just to
>maintain. Since you're riding a lot, you have to be eating
>a lot of calories somewhere. You're on the right track by
>monitoring what you eat, but make sure to keep portion
>control. Measure your food if you have to. If you eat 2700
>kcal/day and exercise, you will lose weight. Just remember
>to keep yourself in calorie debt. Exercise is not an excuse
>to pig out, until you get to racer-weight. :)

This just shows you how bone-headed gooserider is being.
Check out the issue of Time magazine (09/02/2002, pg 51) for
a good graphic on the exquisite and triple-redundant
mechanisms that the body has for maintaining its weight.

Ghrelin, alpha-protein, protein YY, brain hormone loops,
large and small intestine, leptin, insulin, and lots more.
All those things adjust your mood and your appetite to make
this DRIVE, the hardest to over-ride of almost every drive
the human body has, excepting perhaps the
fight/flight/survival drive.

If you are young and have high ability to put out hGH, and
other hormones, then it will be hard to move the set-point
to a higher level and gain fat and you can eat -way- over
calorie needs and still somehow burn it off. It's a fx of
the metabolism.

For those with additional -problems-, hypo or hyper
thyroid, insulin resistance, bad/damaged insulin receptors,
it's a pickle.

In addition we now are beginnning to understand the 'fat
cell' is not a static storage vessel, but is active and
putting out signals.

No slam on goose, b/c if he's fit and young, it -is-
simple for him.

-B I've attached a small .jpg file of a greatly simplified
diagram I put together that gives you some idea of the
redundant feedback loops. leptin1.jpg
 
On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>You can do that if you want...however, why don't you just
>bump calories down to about 2200 for a couple of weeks.
>Keep everything else the same. You'll lose weight. I don't
>see why it is so hard for everyone to think that you're
>simply eating too much to lose weight.

Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you do this
and don't sugar/carb restrict, that the Ghrelin will
increase to the point where you have almost -uncontrollable-
appetite!

In the chart I included, I didn't even function in age, hGH,
and exercise.

It ain't easy, but there are a couple ways that a person can
do it, without being on a Reality Series and only having
rats and a cup of rice to eat.

-B
 
Originally posted by Badger_south
Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you do this
and don't sugar/carb restrict, that the Ghrelin will
increase to the point where you have almost -uncontrollable-
appetite!

In the chart I included, I didn't even function in age, hGH,
and exercise.

It ain't easy, but there are a couple ways that a person can
do it, without being on a Reality Series and only having
rats and a cup of rice to eat.On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>You can do that if you want...however, why don't you just
>bump calories down to about 2200 for a couple of weeks.
>Keep everything else the same. You'll lose weight. I don't
>see why it is so hard for everyone to think that you're
>simply eating too much to lose weight.

-B
Click to expand...

I eat 2000 calories a day and maintain my weight just fine without feeling hungry. When I was trying to lose weight I dropped down to 1600 calories a day and continued to exercise without a problem. What I learned from this was that everybody is different in their caloric needs. I read books that said I needed more calories a day but when I ate that much I could never lose so I decided to lower my calories until the weight started to drop off. In my case I did this slowly and carefully by making only 100 calorie a day changes and checking my progress after 2 weeks. Eventually I learned what my body needed to lose and what it needed maintain my weight without feeling hungry.

Just common since, Worked for me.

Dan.
 
Badger_South wrote:
:: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: <[email protected]> wrote:
::
::: You can do that if you want...however, why don't you
::: just bump calories down to about 2200 for a couple of
::: weeks. Keep everything else the same. You'll lose
::: weight. I don't see why it is so hard for everyone to
::: think that you're simply eating too much to lose weight.
::
:: Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you do
:: this and don't sugar/carb restrict, that the Ghrelin will
:: increase to the point where you have almost -uncontrollable-
:: appetite!

2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating now. There
is a good chance he can do it -- it he wants too. Frankly,
with his performance on the bike, I'm not sure why he wants
to, other than to give into societal norms. And that his
choice to make..

::
:: In the chart I included, I didn't even function in age,
:: hGH, and exercise.
::
:: It ain't easy, but there are a couple ways that a person
:: can do it, without being on a Reality Series and only
:: having rats and a cup of rice to eat.

Well, LCing IS the best way for sure (IMO), but 2200 kcals
is possible. It's only 8x bodyweight. If he is currently
maintaining on 10x (with exercise) then moving to 8x won't
be impossible.
 
On Fri, 21 May 2004 10:05:06 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Badger_South wrote:
>:: On Fri, 21 May 2004 08:39:07 -0400, Badger_South
>:: <[email protected]> wrote:
>::
>::: On Fri, 21 May 2004 08:29:26 -0400, Badger_South
>::: <[email protected]> wrote:
>:::
>::
>:: doh...
>::
>::
>:: http://www.people.virginia.edu/~slj/leptin1.jpg
>
>Thanks....I don't think we're supposed to send binaries to
>this ng...servers don't want it....that causes problems.

Yeah, my bad. ;-{

Only 100K, but yeah...sorry.

So, um pardon my babbling of the last couple days...just
having fun with everyone.

-B
 
"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Badger_South wrote:
> :: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> :: <[email protected]> wrote:
> ::
> ::: You can do that if you want...however, why don't you
> ::: just bump calories down to about 2200 for a couple of
> ::: weeks. Keep everything else the same. You'll lose
> ::: weight. I don't see why it is so hard for everyone to
> ::: think that you're simply eating too much to lose
> ::: weight.
> ::
> :: Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you do
> :: this and don't sugar/carb restrict, that the Ghrelin
> :: will increase to the point where you have almost -uncontrollable-
> :: appetite!
>
> 2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating now.
> There is a good chance he can do it -- it he wants too.
> Frankly, with his performance on the bike, I'm not sure
> why he wants to, other than to give into societal norms.
> And that his choice to make..

Given that his current BMI is 34.2, and he is carrying a lot
of excess weight around his waist, he might want to lose
that weight for a much more important reason than "societal
norms". To be blunt, he might want to lose weight to ensure
he doesn't die any time soon. His weight, and his waist
size, are both very strong risk factors for mortality from
heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc.

Assuming he has a waist size greater than 40", the Centers
for Disease Control would put him at "Very High Risk" of
disease due to his weight and waist size. If his waist size
(measured at the navel) is 40" or less, his risk would be
"High Risk".

As for his performance on the bike...losing weight would
clearly allow him to go faster, especially up hill (although
he might lose some top-end speed on the downhills!).

GG http://www.WeightWare.com Your Weight and Health Diary

>
> ::
> :: In the chart I included, I didn't even function in age,
> :: hGH, and exercise.
> ::
> :: It ain't easy, but there are a couple ways that a
> :: person can do it, without being on a Reality Series and
> :: only having rats and a cup of rice to eat.
>
> Well, LCing IS the best way for sure (IMO), but 2200 kcals
> is possible. It's only 8x bodyweight. If he is currently
> maintaining on 10x (with exercise) then moving to 8x won't
> be impossible.
 
GaryG wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
:: news:[email protected]...
::: Badger_South wrote:
::::: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
::::: <[email protected]> wrote:
:::::
:::::: You can do that if you want...however, why don't you
:::::: just bump calories down to about 2200 for a couple of
:::::: weeks. Keep everything else the same. You'll lose
:::::: weight. I don't see why it is so hard for everyone to
:::::: think that you're simply eating too much to lose
:::::: weight.
:::::
::::: Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you do
::::: this and don't sugar/carb restrict, that the Ghrelin
::::: will increase to the point where you have almost -uncontrollable-
::::: appetite!
:::
::: 2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating now.
::: There is a good chance he can do it -- it he wants too.
::: Frankly, with his performance on the bike, I'm not sure
::: why he wants to, other than to give into societal norms.
::: And that his choice to make..
::
::
:: Given that his current BMI is 34.2, and he is carrying a
:: lot of excess weight around his waist, he might want to
:: lose that weight for a much more important reason than
:: "societal norms".

We need bodyfat % not BMI - it is fairly useless. His waist
to hip ratio might be fine, too.

To be
:: blunt, he might want to lose weight to ensure he doesn't
:: die any time soon. His weight, and his waist size, are
:: both very strong risk factors for mortality from heart
:: disease, diabetes, cancer, etc.
::
:: Assuming he has a waist size greater than 40", the
:: Centers for Disease Control would put him at "Very High
:: Risk" of disease due to his weight and waist size. If his
:: waist size (measured at the navel) is 40" or less, his
:: risk would be "High Risk".

One can argue with such simplistic factors for
prediction. Do they factor in activity level, muscle
mass, frame size, and age?

::
:: As for his performance on the bike...losing weight would
:: clearly allow him to go faster, especially up hill
:: (although he might lose some top-end speed on the
:: downhills!).
::
:: GG http://www.WeightWare.com Your Weight and Health Diary
::
::
:::
:::::
::::: In the chart I included, I didn't even function in
::::: age, hGH, and exercise.
:::::
::::: It ain't easy, but there are a couple ways that a
::::: person can do it, without being on a Reality Series
::::: and only having rats and a cup of rice to eat.
:::
::: Well, LCing IS the best way for sure (IMO), but 2200
::: kcals is possible. It's only 8x bodyweight. If he is
::: currently maintaining on 10x (with exercise) then moving
::: to 8x won't be impossible.
 
"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 20 May 2004 22:43:47 -0600, "Doug Cook"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I know I asked for some thoughts, but come on, people!
> >170 responses in 48hrs? Maybe I should have asked a less
> >controversial question like the role of religion in
> >politics or something. Or maybe you all should be
> >spending more time on your bikes and less in front of the
> >computer! :)
>
> Many ppl spent time trying to help you and this seems like
> a butt-head thing to say.
>
> You have not spent even one iota of energy to actually
> input any data for the kind bikers who type very fast and
> have a wealth of knowledge and experience and who have had
> their lives transformed by what we have tried to offer you
> - and not just 'do this do that' comments.
>

<snip>

Dude! My tongue was buried in my cheek! I thought that was
obvious! I even used the smiley face!
 
"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> GaryG wrote:
> :: "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> :: news:[email protected]...
> ::: Badger_South wrote:
> ::::: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> ::::: <[email protected]> wrote:
> :::::
> :::::: You can do that if you want...however, why don't
> :::::: you just bump calories down to about 2200 for a
> :::::: couple of weeks. Keep everything else the same.
> :::::: You'll lose weight. I don't see why it is so hard
> :::::: for everyone to think that you're simply eating too
> :::::: much to lose weight.
> :::::
> ::::: Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you
> ::::: do this and don't sugar/carb restrict, that the
> ::::: Ghrelin will increase to the point where you have
> ::::: almost -uncontrollable- appetite!
> :::
> ::: 2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating now.
> ::: There is a good chance he can do it -- it he wants
> ::: too. Frankly, with his performance on the bike, I'm
> ::: not sure why he wants to, other than to give into
> ::: societal norms. And that his choice to make..
> ::
> ::
> :: Given that his current BMI is 34.2, and he is carrying
> :: a lot of excess weight around his waist, he might want
> :: to lose that weight for a much more important reason
> :: than "societal norms".
>
> We need bodyfat % not BMI - it is fairly useless. His
> waist to hip ratio might be fine, too.

The overwhelming majority of folks with a BMI of 34.2 are
fat. The OP himself states:

"I carry almost all the weight around my waist. Personally,
I think I'm rather oddly shaped. Chest and butt look
normal... just a big fat gut in front."

This is a description of too much fat, carried around the
middle, a combination that has been linked to an increased
risk of disease in many studies.

BMI is not "useless". It's also not "perfect". It has the
advantage of being easy to calculate, and for most people it
correlates well with body fat (i.e., higher BMI = higher
body fat percentage). For a small percentage of the
population (e.g., body builders), the correlation may not
hold. But, I see a lot more fat folks than body builders
when I'm out and about.

>
>
> To be
> :: blunt, he might want to lose weight to ensure he
> :: doesn't die any time soon. His weight, and his waist
> :: size, are both very strong risk factors for mortality
> :: from heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc.
> ::
> :: Assuming he has a waist size greater than 40", the
> :: Centers for Disease Control would put him at "Very High
> :: Risk" of disease due to his weight and waist size. If
> :: his waist size (measured at the navel) is 40" or less,
> :: his risk would be "High Risk".
>
> One can argue with such simplistic factors for prediction.
> Do they factor in activity level, muscle mass, frame size,
> and age?

With a waist size > 40", I don't think muscle mass and frame
size are significant moderators of disease risk. It's the
fat that's the problem.

More research does need to be done on people with high BMI's
who are physically active - it would be very interesting to
see to what extent physical activity reduces disease risk
(some preliminary research indicates that it can reduce, but
not eliminate, disease risk). Unfortunately, the vast
majority of folks with high BMI's are *not* physcially fit.

>
> ::
> :: As for his performance on the bike...losing weight
> :: would clearly allow him to go faster, especially up
> :: hill (although he might lose some top-end speed on the
> :: downhills!).
> ::
> :: GG http://www.WeightWare.com Your Weight and Health
> :: Diary
> ::
> ::
> :::
> :::::
> ::::: In the chart I included, I didn't even function in
> ::::: age, hGH, and exercise.
> :::::
> ::::: It ain't easy, but there are a couple ways that a
> ::::: person can do it, without being on a Reality Series
> ::::: and only having rats and a cup of rice to eat.
> :::
> ::: Well, LCing IS the best way for sure (IMO), but 2200
> ::: kcals is possible. It's only 8x bodyweight. If he is
> ::: currently maintaining on 10x (with exercise) then
> ::: moving to 8x won't be impossible.
 
"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Cook wrote:
>
> Do you have a scale and measure and weigh what you eat?
> I assume you're making your own meals and not eating
> out, right?

Yes, I have a digital scale that weighs down to the gram.

::
> :: 2. I'm not burning as much as I think I am on my rides
> :: - Maybe, but my computer is correctly set, and I do
> :: wear a HRM. Every calculator I can find tells me I'm
> :: burning at least 6400 calories a week on my rides,
> :: and some estimate it as high as 10,000. I keep a
> :: ride dairy, so I know I'm not over estimating my
> :: miles. Remember, I weigh 274.
>
> I weigh 235. Yesterday I did 35 miles. My HRM said I
> burned 2741 kcals. Fitday.com said I burned 1697 kcals and
> Cyclistat said I burned 1680
kcals.
> Now, you'd think the HRM is more accurate since it know
> more about what
I'm
> doing. But that is quite a large variation in what I
> burned. I wonder if any of them are right -- and a lot of
> people will tell you that all of
these
> are overestimates.

That's exactly why I thought I'd go get tested. Isn't
hopping on the treadmill with all the tubes and blood-
lettings the most accurate way of determining Basal
Metebolic Rate, amount of calories burning during exercise,
Vo2Max, etc.?

> I'm a T2. My resting GB is about 80 to 85 and my HbA1c was
> 5.1%.. I control my T2 with diet (low carb) and exercise.
> If you're not on a LC
diet,
> I doubt you're a T2.
>
> ::
> :: So... after 170 posts (for which I'm grateful, don't
> :: get me wrong), I'm back to beginning. I guess I'll go
> :: see a medical pro. Get all the offiicial tests on the
> :: treadmill and all that. Who do I see? A sports
> :: physiologist?
> ::
>
> You can do that if you want...however, why don't you just
> bump calories
down
> to about 2200 for a couple of weeks. Keep everything else
> the same.
You'll
> lose weight. I don't see why it is so hard for everyone to
> think that you're simply eating too much to lose weight.

But raising the amount burned by 500 cals per day won't
accomplish the same thing? I'd love to be able to say,
"Sorry, I have to spend another half hour on the bike!"
 
GaryG wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
:: news:[email protected]...
::: GaryG wrote:
::::: "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
::::: news:[email protected]...
:::::: Badger_South wrote:
:::::::: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:::::::: <[email protected]> wrote:
::::::::
::::::::: You can do that if you want...however, why don't
::::::::: you just bump calories down to about 2200 for a
::::::::: couple of weeks. Keep everything else the same.
::::::::: You'll lose weight. I don't see why it is so hard
::::::::: for everyone to think that you're simply eating
::::::::: too much to lose weight.
::::::::
:::::::: Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you
:::::::: do this and don't sugar/carb restrict, that the
:::::::: Ghrelin will increase to the point where you have
:::::::: almost -uncontrollable- appetite!
::::::
:::::: 2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating
:::::: now. There is a good chance he can do it -- it he
:::::: wants too. Frankly, with his performance on the bike,
:::::: I'm not sure why he wants to, other than to give into
:::::: societal norms. And that his choice to make..
:::::
:::::
::::: Given that his current BMI is 34.2, and he is carrying
::::: a lot of excess weight around his waist, he might want
::::: to lose that weight for a much more important reason
::::: than "societal norms".
:::
::: We need bodyfat % not BMI - it is fairly useless. His
::: waist to hip ratio might be fine, too.
::
:: The overwhelming majority of folks with a BMI of 34.2 are
:: fat. The OP himself states:
::
:: "I carry almost all the weight around my waist.
:: Personally, I think I'm rather oddly shaped. Chest and
:: butt look normal... just a big fat gut in front."
::
:: This is a description of too much fat, carried around the
:: middle, a combination that has been linked to an
:: increased risk of disease in many studies.

Hey, I never said he wasn't fat, in fact, I've been talking
to him about losing weight. However, his date would seem to
indicate that at 275 lbs he is unusually fit. All these
numbers you quote don't say **** about fitness, assuming
that fatness is the only issue. I don't believe that. Being
sedentary is also a big issue and could be much more
important than how much fat one carries.

Blind faith in report research data is troublesome. In case
you haven't noticed, these people change directions very often--
based on new research findings. IMO, it is better to pay
attention to what a person does and what they can do, then
to simply look at numbers.

::
:: BMI is not "useless". It's also not "perfect". It has the
:: advantage of being easy to calculate,

How were the charts developed? Based on what data and what
group of people?

and for most people it
:: correlates well with body fat (i.e., higher BMI = higher
:: body fat percentage).

Sure, but two people with the same BMI can be very, very
different in terms of fitness and health, even beyond fat %.

For a small percentage of the population (e.g., body
:: builders), the correlation may not hold. But, I see a lot
:: more fat folks than body builders when I'm out and about.
::

A correlation is not everything. I too see a lot of fat
people and very few bodybuilders. But that still doesn't
mean you should lump the OP in with other people who have a
BMI of 34 given, without consideration of his info.

:::
:::
::: To be
::::: blunt, he might want to lose weight to ensure he
::::: doesn't die any time soon. His weight, and his waist
::::: size, are both very strong risk factors for mortality
::::: from heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc.
:::::
::::: Assuming he has a waist size greater than 40", the
::::: Centers for Disease Control would put him at "Very
::::: High Risk" of disease due to his weight and waist
::::: size. If his waist size (measured at the navel) is 40"
::::: or less, his risk would be "High Risk".
:::
::: One can argue with such simplistic factors for
::: prediction. Do they factor in activity level, muscle
::: mass, frame size, and age?
::
:: With a waist size > 40", I don't think muscle mass and
:: frame size are significant moderators of disease risk.
:: It's the fat that's the problem.

Prove it. I say it is the sedentary lifestyle that's the
problem, moreso than just being fat. I use myself as
evidence for that position. There are enough others who
report similar findings to lead me to believe, in spite of
what research says and what charts indicate, that there is
more to the story than the mere numbers cited above.

::
:: More research does need to be done on people with high
:: BMI's who are physically active - it would be very
:: interesting to see to what extent physical activity
:: reduces disease risk (some preliminary research indicates
:: that it can reduce, but not eliminate, disease risk).
:: Unfortunately, the vast majority of folks with high BMI's
:: are *not* physcially fit.

Agreed, however nothing is going to eliminate disease risk,
it can only be lessened. How do you define "physically fit?"

The OP can do 70-mile rides at 16 mph while weighing 275 on
hilly terrain. Are football players who run up and down the
field not fit? ARe 300 lbs bodybuilders not physically fit?

I do agree with you that there are many high BMI's people
who are definitely NOT physically fit by any standards. I'm
just saying that there are very real exceptions and applying
blanket notions and numbers is not useful in light of MORE
information.

::
:::
:::::
::::: As for his performance on the bike...losing weight
::::: would clearly allow him to go faster, especially up
::::: hill (although he might lose some top-end speed on the
::::: downhills!).
:::::
::::: GG http://www.WeightWare.com Your Weight and Health
::::: Diary
:::::
:::::
::::::
::::::::
:::::::: In the chart I included, I didn't even function in
:::::::: age, hGH, and exercise.
::::::::
:::::::: It ain't easy, but there are a couple ways that a
:::::::: person can do it, without being on a Reality Series
:::::::: and only having rats and a cup of rice to eat.
::::::
:::::: Well, LCing IS the best way for sure (IMO), but 2200
:::::: kcals is possible. It's only 8x bodyweight. If he is
:::::: currently maintaining on 10x (with exercise) then
:::::: moving to 8x won't be impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
OP Update - 3000 miles in 10 months... so Why am I still fat?
Replies
69
Views
3K
Road Cycling
Tom Keats
T
cyclintom
Update on helmets
Replies
34
Views
5K
Road Cycling
cyclintom
cyclintom
Rws3iii
When to get update shoes/pedals & fitting?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Road Cycling
CAMPYBOB
CAMPYBOB
S
Sub7bikes.co.uk Racing Team Update
Replies
0
Views
1K
Road Cycling
sub7bikes.co.uk
S
S
Sub7bikes.co.uk Racing Team Update
Replies
0
Views
2K
Road Cycling
sub7bikes.co.uk
S
Top Bottom Back