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

[Doug Cook]

"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:
> ::
Snip

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..
>

Society be damned! I want to ride faster, farther, and more
comfortably on the bike! Power to weight ratio.... that's
all I'm really concerned with!

 

[Garyg]

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

The BMI issue has been researched reasonably well. In
general, higher BMI's are associated with higher rates of
mortality across broad populations.

As for "Are football players who run up and down the field
not fit?" Yes, they are. But, does that mean they have a
lower risk of disease/mortality? I kind of doubt that it
does - I've read that pro football players tend to die quite
a bit earlier than others.

Clearly, there are exceptions, and more research needs to
be done, but across large populations, in many studies,
high BMI has been shown to be a risk factor. Do you have
any cites that disprove the link between BMI/fatness and
mortality in "physically fit" people with high BMI's? I
would be most interested in any published studies you
could cite.

Here's an abstract from the New England Journal of
Medicine (Volume
341:1097-1105 October 7, 1999 Number 15) that did a study of
1 million adults, comparing BMI to mortality and
filtering for smoking status, age, and race. They found
that the lowest risk of mortality was associated with
BMI's of 23.5 to 24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women.

Body-Mass Index and Mortality in a Prospective Cohort of
U.S. Adults

Eugenia E. Calle, Ph.D., Michael J. Thun, M.D., Jennifer
M. Petrelli,
M.P.H., Carmen Rodriguez, M.D., M.P.H., and Clark W.
Heath, M.D.

ABSTRACT

Background Body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided
by the square of the height in meters) is known to be
associated with overall mortality. We

disease on the relation between body-mass index and
mortality.

Methods In a prospective study of more than 1 million adults
in the United States (457,785 men and 588,369 women),
201,622 deaths occurred during 14 years of follow-up. We
examined the relation between body-mass index and the risk
of death from all causes in four subgroups categorized
according to smoking status and history of disease. In
healthy people who had never smoked, we further examined
whether the relation varied according to race, cause of
death, or age. The relative risk was used to assess the
relation between mortality and body-mass index.

Results The association between body-mass index and the risk
of death was substantially modified by smoking status and
the presence of disease. In healthy people who had never
smoked, the nadir of the curve for body-mass index and
mortality was found at a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9 in
men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women. Among subjects with the
highest body-mass indexes, white men and women had a
relative risk of death of 2.58 and 2.00, respectively, as
compared with those with a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9.
Black men and women with the highest body-mass indexes had
much lower risks of death (1.35 and 1.21), which did not
differ significantly from 1.00. A high body-mass index was
most predictive of death from cardiovascular disease,
especially in men (relative risk, 2.90; 95 percent
confidence interval, 2.37 to 3.56). Heavier men and women in
all age groups had an increased risk of death.

Conclusions The risk of death from all causes,
cardiovascular disease, cancer, or other diseases
increases throughout the range of moderate and severe
overweight for both men and women in all age groups. The
risk associated with a high body-mass index is greater for
whites than for blacks.

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

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:53:29 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>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.

Is LC not a form of calorie reduction? I thought the whole
point of LC was to make it easy to reduce calories without
having to count them.
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Badger_south]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:19:15 -0600, "Doug Cook" <[email protected]>
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:
>> ::
>Snip
>
>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..
>>
>
>Society be damned! I want to ride faster, farther, and more
>comfortably on the bike! Power to weight ratio.... that's
>all I'm really concerned with!
>

Infidel! If that's the up with which you could not put, ye'd
ne'er end the plea with propositions such as much!

Ya know this whole last badinage has been like jockeying for
position on a jolly good ride up the pair oh knees!

So throw another logarithym on the fire and pass me that
freakin' gatorade ya bandit!

-B

 

[Gooserider]

"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:24:36 GMT, "Gooserider" <gooserider@mouse-
> potato.com> 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.

I don't want to call BS on you, but are you claiming that
people DON'T lose weight in calorie deficit? Hogwash. There
isn't a person on the face of the earth who, given a long
enough period of aerobic exercise and caloric deficit, will
not lose weight. It's simple. That's why morbidly obese
people lose weight when placed on caloric restriction.
That's why famine victims are thin. It's why Chinese
peasants, who eat mainly carbohydrates, are thin. They
exercise all day and burn off what they eat. I know you're
on the low carb bandwagon, and that's great. It's a nice
trick to lose weight, but it's not the only way. It's not
even the best way. It's just another way. I guarantee you if
Mister Cook eats 2000 calories a day of ANYTHING and
continues to exercise as he is, he will experience massive
weight loss. He's eating too many calories, evidently.

 

[Badger_south]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 19:38:17 GMT, "Gooserider"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:24:36 GMT, "Gooserider" <gooserider@mouse-
>> potato.com> 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.
>
>I don't want to call BS on you, but are you claiming that
>people DON'T lose weight in calorie deficit? Hogwash. There
>isn't a person on the face of the earth who, given a long
>enough period of aerobic exercise and caloric deficit, will
>not lose weight. It's simple. That's why morbidly obese
>people lose weight when placed on caloric restriction.
>That's why famine victims are thin. It's why Chinese
>peasants, who eat mainly carbohydrates, are thin. They
>exercise all day and burn off what they eat. I know you're
>on the low carb bandwagon, and that's great. It's a nice
>trick to lose weight, but it's not the only way. It's not
>even the best way. It's just another way. I guarantee you
>if Mister Cook eats 2000 calories a day of ANYTHING and
>continues to exercise as he is, he will experience massive
>weight loss. He's eating too many calories, evidently.

Naw man, I was just blinding you with science...

You're all good.

-B

 

[Badger_south]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 19:38:17 GMT, "Gooserider"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:24:36 GMT, "Gooserider" <gooserider@mouse-
>> potato.com> 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.
>
>I don't want to call BS on you, but are you claiming that
>people DON'T lose weight in calorie deficit? Hogwash. There
>isn't a person on the face of the earth who, given a long
>enough period of aerobic exercise and caloric deficit, will
>not lose weight. It's simple. That's why morbidly obese
>people lose weight when placed on caloric restriction.
>That's why famine victims are thin. It's why Chinese
>peasants, who eat mainly carbohydrates, are thin. They
>exercise all day and burn off what they eat. I know you're
>on the low carb bandwagon, and that's great. It's a nice
>trick to lose weight, but it's not the only way. It's not
>even the best way. It's just another way. I guarantee you
>if Mister Cook eats 2000 calories a day of ANYTHING and
>continues to exercise as he is, he will experience massive
>weight loss. He's eating too many calories, evidently.

Naw man, I was just blinding you with science...

You're all good.

-B

 

[Garyg]

"Gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:24:36 GMT, "Gooserider" <gooserider@mouse-
> > potato.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"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.
> >
> > This just shows you how bone-headed gooserider is being.
>
> I don't want to call BS on you, but are you claiming that
> people DON'T lose weight in calorie deficit? Hogwash.
> There isn't a person on the face
of
> the earth who, given a long enough period of aerobic
> exercise and caloric deficit, will not lose weight. It's
> simple. That's why morbidly obese
people
> lose weight when placed on caloric restriction. That's why
> famine victims are thin. It's why Chinese peasants, who
> eat mainly carbohydrates, are
thin.
> They exercise all day and burn off what they eat. I know
> you're on the low carb bandwagon, and that's great. It's a
> nice trick to lose weight, but
it's
> not the only way. It's not even the best way. It's just
> another way. I guarantee you if Mister Cook eats 2000
> calories a day of ANYTHING and continues to exercise as he
> is, he will experience massive weight loss.
He's
> eating too many calories, evidently.
>

Good post...the law of thermodynamics has not (AFAIK)
been repealed.

Personally, I think low-cal works for some folks because
protein and fats provide our bodies with stuff that tastes
good and makes us feel "satisfied". I'm not an Atkins fan
because I work out a lot and need enough carbs to train, but
I have found more success with a "higher lean protein +
veggies + good fats" approach than I did on a low-fat
regimen. On low-fat I had more cravings and would often find
myself hungry 2 hours after a meal. Plus, I would get sleepy
in the afternoons more often.

People are different and some folks can be successful on low-
carb and others on low-fat. The trick is finding out what
works for you.

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

 

[Garyg]

"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. 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 - one possibility that I haven't seen mentioned in
other posts...

How much alcohol do you consume? Your description of a
normal body except for a big gut sounds suspiciously like
a "beer gut" (aka, an alcoholic's gut). If you're
knocking back a 6-pack most evenings, that could account
for your shape.

GG

 

[Garyg]

"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. 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 - one possibility that I haven't seen mentioned in
other posts...

How much alcohol do you consume? Your description of a
normal body except for a big gut sounds suspiciously like
a "beer gut" (aka, an alcoholic's gut). If you're
knocking back a 6-pack most evenings, that could account
for your shape.

GG

 

[Roger Zoul]

Doug Cook wrote:
:: "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.

Good.

::
::::
::::: 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.?

Oh, I didn't get that you meant this kind of test....I think
that's an excellent idea. Go for it!

::
::: 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!"

Okay, that'll work! However, you might want to spend that
extra time lifting weights -- that will prevent muscle
loss and help with bone density issues that are *supposed*
to be a problems with cyclist (I have no idea how true
that is, however).

 

[Gooserider]

"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 19:38:17 GMT, "Gooserider" <gooserider@mouse-
> potato.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:24:36 GMT, "Gooserider" <gooserider@mouse-
> >> potato.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"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.
> >>
> >> This just shows you how bone-headed gooserider is
> >> being.
> >
> >I don't want to call BS on you, but are you claiming that
> >people DON'T lose weight in calorie deficit? Hogwash.
> >There isn't a person on the face
of
> >the earth who, given a long enough period of aerobic
> >exercise and caloric deficit, will not lose weight. It's
> >simple. That's why morbidly obese
people
> >lose weight when placed on caloric restriction. That's
> >why famine victims are thin. It's why Chinese peasants,
> >who eat mainly carbohydrates, are
thin.
> >They exercise all day and burn off what they eat. I know
> >you're on the
low
> >carb bandwagon, and that's great. It's a nice trick to
> >lose weight, but
it's
> >not the only way. It's not even the best way. It's just
> >another way. I guarantee you if Mister Cook eats 2000
> >calories a day of ANYTHING and continues to exercise as
> >he is, he will experience massive weight loss.
He's
> >eating too many calories, evidently.
>
> Naw man, I was just blinding you with science...
>
> You're all good.
>
Your "science" is specious, at best. It also doesn't hold up
to the light of day. You still haven't answered the obvious
question----do people lose weight in caloric deficit? Yes or
no? It's a simple question.

 

[Roger Zoul]

GaryG wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
:: news:[email protected]...
::: 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.
:::
:::
::
:: The BMI issue has been researched reasonably well. In
:: general, higher BMI's are associated with higher rates of
:: mortality across broad populations.

I don't disagree with that.

::
:: As for "Are football players who run up and down the
:: field not fit?" Yes, they are. But, does that mean they
:: have a lower risk of disease/mortality? I kind of doubt
:: that it does - I've read that pro football players tend
:: to die quite a bit earlier than others.

I think it does. I think the reasons pro football players
die early is many reasons. 1) they quit being active but
keep other bad habits (probably the most telling reason), 2)
they get beat down during their careers, just for two.

::
:: Clearly, there are exceptions, and more research needs to
:: be done, but across large populations, in many studies,
:: high BMI has been shown to be a risk factor. Do you have
:: any cites that disprove the link between BMI/fatness and
:: mortality in "physically fit" people with high BMI's? I
:: would be most interested in any published studies you
:: could cite.

I'm currently reading (okay, about to read - i just got this
today) the book "The Obesity Myth: Why America's Obsession
with Weight is Hazardous to your Health" by Pal Campos. I'll
let you know what I find out here.

::
:: Here's an abstract from the New England Journal of
:: Medicine (Volume
:: 341:1097-1105 October 7, 1999 Number 15) that did a study
:: of 1 million adults, comparing BMI to mortality and
:: filtering for smoking status, age, and race. They
:: found that the lowest risk of mortality was
:: associated with BMI's of 23.5 to 24.9 in men and 22.0
:: to 23.4 in women.

See -- this is one point that the author of that book makes.
Look at the BMI of the lowest risk -- those are pretty high
numbers for men -- heck, that's almost fat! So it certainly
doesn't follow that lower BMI = longer life.

::
::
:: Body-Mass Index and Mortality in a Prospective Cohort of
:: U.S. Adults
::
:: Eugenia E. Calle, Ph.D., Michael J. Thun, M.D., Jennifer
:: M. Petrelli,
:: M.P.H., Carmen Rodriguez, M.D., M.P.H., and Clark W.
:: Heath, M.D.
::
:: ABSTRACT
::
:: Background Body-mass index (the weight in kilograms
:: divided by the square of the height in meters) is known
:: to be associated with

:: smoking status, and history of disease on the relation
:: between body-mass index and mortality.
::
:: Methods In a prospective study of more than 1 million
:: adults in the United States (457,785 men and 588,369
:: women), 201,622 deaths occurred during 14 years of follow-
:: up. We examined the relation between body-mass index and
:: the risk of death from all causes in four subgroups
:: categorized according to smoking status and history of
:: disease. In healthy people who had never smoked, we
:: further examined whether the relation varied according
:: to race, cause of death, or age. The relative risk was
:: used to assess the relation between mortality and body-
:: mass index.
::
:: Results The association between body-mass index and the
:: risk of death was substantially modified by smoking
:: status and the presence of disease. In healthy people who
:: had never smoked, the nadir of the curve for body-mass
:: index and mortality was found at a body-mass index of
:: 23.5 to 24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women. Among
:: subjects with the highest body-mass indexes, white men
:: and women had a relative risk of death of 2.58 and 2.00,
:: respectively, as compared with those with a body-mass
:: index of 23.5 to 24.9. Black men and women with the
:: highest body-mass indexes had much lower risks of death
:: (1.35 and 1.21), which did not differ significantly from
:: 1.00. A high body-mass index was most predictive of death
:: from cardiovascular disease, especially in men (relative
:: risk, 2.90; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.37 to
:: 3.56). Heavier men and women in all age groups had an
:: increased risk of death.
::
:: Conclusions The risk of death from all causes,
:: cardiovascular disease, cancer, or other diseases
:: increases throughout the range of moderate and severe
:: overweight for both men and women in all age groups. The
:: risk associated with a high body-mass index is greater
:: for whites than for blacks.
::
:: GG http://www.WeightWare.com Your Weight and Health Diary

 

[Gooserider]

"GaryG" <garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:24:36 GMT, "Gooserider" <gooserider@mouse-
> > > potato.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"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.
> > >
> > > This just shows you how bone-headed gooserider is
> > > being.
> >
> > I don't want to call BS on you, but are you claiming
> > that people DON'T lose weight in calorie deficit?
> > Hogwash. There isn't a person on the
face
> of
> > the earth who, given a long enough period of aerobic
> > exercise and
caloric
> > deficit, will not lose weight. It's simple. That's why
> > morbidly obese
> people
> > lose weight when placed on caloric restriction. That's
> > why famine
victims
> > are thin. It's why Chinese peasants, who eat mainly
> > carbohydrates, are
> thin.
> > They exercise all day and burn off what they eat. I know
> > you're on the
low
> > carb bandwagon, and that's great. It's a nice trick to
> > lose weight, but
> it's
> > not the only way. It's not even the best way. It's just
> > another way. I guarantee you if Mister Cook eats 2000
> > calories a day of ANYTHING and continues to exercise as
> > he is, he will experience massive weight loss.
> He's
> > eating too many calories, evidently.
> >
>
> Good post...the law of thermodynamics has not (AFAIK) been
> repealed.
>
> Personally, I think low-cal works for some folks because
> protein and fats provide our bodies with stuff that tastes
> good and makes us feel "satisfied". I'm not an Atkins fan
> because I work out a lot and need
enough
> carbs to train, but I have found more success with a
> "higher lean protein
+
> veggies + good fats" approach than I did on a low-fat
> regimen. On low-fat
I
> had more cravings and would often find myself hungry 2
> hours after a meal. Plus, I would get sleepy in the
> afternoons more often.
>
> People are different and some folks can be successful on
> low-carb and
others
> on low-fat. The trick is finding out what works for you.
>
Precisely. If carbs (and that includes vegetables, grains,
and the "evil" pasta and bread) were as bad as the LC people
make them out to be, could Clarence Bass have achieved sub
3% bodyfat, eating all of them, including peanut butter
sandwiches on wheat bread? Who's Clarence Bass?

http://www.cbass.com

Body For Life (in case anyone doesn't know) is a diet and
exercise program which is hugely popular and successful. A
staple of the program is carbohydrate---pasta, potatoes,
rice, bread.

http://www.bodyforlife.com

 

[Badger_south]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 13:27:46 -0700, "GaryG"
<garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com> wrote:

>Good post...the law of thermodynamics has not (AFAIK) been
>repealed.
>
>Personally, I think low-cal works for some folks because
>protein and fats provide our bodies with stuff that tastes
>good and makes us feel "satisfied". I'm not an Atkins fan
>because I work out a lot and need enough carbs to train,
>but I have found more success with a "higher lean protein +
>veggies + good fats" approach than I did on a low-fat
>regimen. On low-fat I had more cravings and would often
>find myself hungry 2 hours after a meal. Plus, I would get
>sleepy in the afternoons more often.
>
>People are different and some folks can be successful on
>low-carb and others on low-fat. The trick is finding out
>what works for you.
>
>GG http://www.WeightWare.com Your Weight and Health Diary
>

Equally good post, Gary. There are, I believe a couple of
good tricks and tips out there and we've more than covered
them in this unique and massive posting, and amid the jibing
and joking and maybe proselytizing, and passion, it all
comes down to 'what works for you'.

Good newz for me to report, though...

I just got up from my hGH productive mid-day 45min nap, and
grabbed a pair of jeans to go drive my daughter to work, and
they were Gap Easy Fit 38x34, and they went on and were
loose, didn't need a belt, and no "sucking in".

I have lost about 15-20lbs additional since about March 5th,
and have eaten well, including some instinctive 'carbing
up', rarely, but effectively, and have doubled my biking
since then going from a 45mile week to 108miles per week,
and have been surprised several times that the weight is
coming off.

May be that as you get good at catching the 'way of eating',
and applying internalized principles that does it for you,
plus Roger's and DRS commentary about how the biking keeps
you from going into 'starvation mode', which is happening,
that I'm hitting a sustained "sweet spot" (no, not glucose,
but as the "middle of the raquet" (props to The Inner Game
of Tennis), with this approach.

Finally, I've not consumed a lot of food during this time,
but perhaps "just the right meal at just the right time".

Today I've eaten a two egg omlette, with sliced ham, two
cups of coffee, diet ginger ale, and one salmon slab, (plus
lots of water) and I'm good to go for the night, energy is
high, and I feel my digestive system is not bloated or
overloaded.

I had a little bit of bonk on the am ride, in which the
mind was good, the energy systems were good, but at mile
8-9.5, my arms and legs just lost 'steam', which is the
best way to put it.

However at mile 9.5 I got a hyooge surge of power, and
surged home through 14miles at a very brisk spin, and in
some kind of turbo boost mode.

This is what I live for.

I did miss a moment of Zen this morning, b/c at 05:40, the
daylight was appearing and I was working on a project and
looked out the window and the mists were swirling - I went
out on the porch and listened and the morning bird sounds
were starting up.

I should have gotten on the bike and ridden then, b/c I try
to catch these moments of stillness within the vortex, but
for some reason I wanted to finish the project module and
didn't get out until 08:40.

Won't miss the "Zen" again (I hope), but here's the thing.
If you are primed to access these when they happen around
you, that's the confluence of everything you know and do,
and for me it happens on the bike in this morning swirl of
fog more often than any other time. All the cogitation and
intellectualization and physical struggle and body tuning
drop away, and there's just you and the 'stream'.

At that time, I want to be able to 'step off into space',
and just do/be!

Hope that makes sense...

-B doobie?

 

[Garyg]

"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... [snipped]
> :::
> :::
> ::
> :: The BMI issue has been researched reasonably well. In
> :: general, higher BMI's are associated with higher rates
> :: of mortality across broad populations.
>
> I don't disagree with that.
>
> ::
> :: As for "Are football players who run up and down the
> :: field not fit?" Yes, they are. But, does that mean they
> :: have a lower risk of disease/mortality? I kind of doubt
> :: that it does - I've read that pro football players tend
> :: to die quite a bit earlier than others.
>
> I think it does. I think the reasons pro football players
> die early is
many
> reasons. 1) they quit being active but keep other bad
> habits (probably the most telling reason), 2) they get
> beat down during their careers, just for two.
>
> ::
> :: Clearly, there are exceptions, and more research needs
> :: to be done, but across large populations, in many
> :: studies, high BMI has been shown to be a risk factor.
> :: Do you have any cites that disprove the link between
> :: BMI/fatness and mortality in "physically fit" people
> :: with high BMI's? I would be most interested in any
> :: published studies you could cite.
>
> I'm currently reading (okay, about to read - i just got
> this today) the
book
> "The Obesity Myth: Why America's Obsession with Weight is
> Hazardous to
your
> Health" by Pal Campos. I'll let you know what I find
> out here.
>

I've read some excerpts...witholding judgement for now,
but I admit to being skeptical. Campos is a law professor,
not an MD.

>
> ::
> :: Here's an abstract from the New England Journal of
> :: Medicine (Volume
> :: 341:1097-1105 October 7, 1999 Number 15) that did a
> :: study of 1 million adults, comparing BMI to
> :: mortality and filtering for smoking status, age,
> :: and race. They found that the lowest risk of
> :: mortality was associated with BMI's of 23.5 to 24.9
> :: in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women.
>
> See -- this is one point that the author of that book
> makes. Look at the BMI of the lowest risk -- those are
> pretty high numbers for men -- heck, that's almost fat! So
> it certainly doesn't follow that lower BMI = longer life.

The study does indicate that lower BMI=longer life...up to
a point. Those with very low BMI's (<23.5) showed a
moderate increase in risk. The study states that this
upward curve in risk for low BMI is considered somewhat
controversial and may simply reflect people with pre-
existing health issues (this is another area where
additional research would prove useful).

Not sure what you mean by "pretty high numbers for
men...almost fat!". Men with BMI 23.5-24.9 would probably be
considered "trim", if not "thin". A 6 foot tall man would
weigh 173.3 lbs at 23.5 BMI, and 183.6 at BMI 24.9. A 50
year old 6' male at BMI 24.9 would be in the 31st percentile
for weight (69% of 6' tall US men weigh more than that).

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

> ::
> ::
> :: Body-Mass Index and Mortality in a Prospective Cohort
> :: of U.S. Adults
> ::
> :: Eugenia E. Calle, Ph.D., Michael J. Thun, M.D.,
> :: Jennifer M. Petrelli,
> :: M.P.H., Carmen Rodriguez, M.D., M.P.H., and Clark W.
> :: Heath, M.D.
> ::
> :: ABSTRACT
> ::
> :: Background Body-mass index (the weight in kilograms
> :: divided by the square of the height in meters) is known
> :: to be associated with

> :: smoking status, and history of disease on the relation
> :: between body-mass index and mortality.
> ::
> :: Methods In a prospective study of more than 1 million
> :: adults in the United States (457,785 men and 588,369
> :: women), 201,622 deaths occurred during 14 years of follow-
> :: up. We examined the relation between body-mass index
> :: and the risk of death from all causes in four subgroups
> :: categorized according to smoking status and history of
> :: disease. In healthy people who had never smoked, we
> :: further examined whether the relation varied according
> :: to race, cause of death, or age. The relative risk was
> :: used to assess the relation between mortality and body-
> :: mass index.
> ::
> :: Results The association between body-mass index and the
> :: risk of death was substantially modified by smoking
> :: status and the presence of disease. In healthy people
> :: who had never smoked, the nadir of the curve for body-
> :: mass index and mortality was found at a body-mass index
> :: of 23.5 to 24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women. Among
> :: subjects with the highest body-mass indexes, white men
> :: and women had a relative risk of death of 2.58 and
> :: 2.00, respectively, as compared with those with a body-
> :: mass index of 23.5 to 24.9. Black men and women with
> :: the highest body-mass indexes had much lower risks of
> :: death (1.35 and 1.21), which did not differ
> :: significantly from 1.00. A high body-mass index was
> :: most predictive of death from cardiovascular disease,
> :: especially in men (relative risk, 2.90; 95 percent
> :: confidence interval, 2.37 to 3.56). Heavier men and
> :: women in all age groups had an increased risk of death.
> ::
> :: Conclusions The risk of death from all causes,
> :: cardiovascular disease, cancer, or other diseases
> :: increases throughout the range of moderate and severe
> :: overweight for both men and women in all age groups.
> :: The risk associated with a high body-mass index is
> :: greater for whites than for blacks.
> ::
> :: GG http://www.WeightWare.com Your Weight and Health
> :: Diary

 

[Badger_south]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 22:29:26 GMT, "Gooserider"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Your "science" is specious, at best. It also doesn't hold
>up to the light of day. You still haven't answered the
>obvious question----do people lose weight in caloric
>deficit? Yes or no? It's a simple question.

It depends...

-B $1 to Lyle.

 

[Drs]

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

[...]

> May be that as you get good at catching the 'way of
> eating', and applying internalized principles that does it
> for you, plus Roger's and DRS commentary about how the
> biking keeps you from going into 'starvation mode',

I've said no such thing. Starvation mode will kick in when
your calorific intake is too far below maintenance. Any
exercise, by virtue of increasing calorific expenditure, is
therefore capable in principle of hastening that happening,
not stopping it.

--

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

 

[Drs]

"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 22:29:26 GMT, "Gooserider" <gooserider@mouse-
> potato.com> wrote:
>
>> Your "science" is specious, at best. It also doesn't hold
>> up to the light of day. You still haven't answered the
>> obvious question----do people lose weight in caloric
>> deficit? Yes or no? It's a simple question.
>
> It depends...
>
> -B $1 to Lyle.

Lyle knows when to say that. In this case he wouldn't. The
correct answer to the question is, "Yes." What complicates
matters somewhat is that both sides of the equation can and
do change. Neither calories in or out is static. That
sometimes makes it harder to pin down exactly what's going
on but at the end of the day the laws of thermodynamics
don't disappear just because you or anyone else find them
inconvenient.

--

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

 

[David Kerber]

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

...

> Okay, that'll work! However, you might want to spend that
> extra time lifting weights -- that will prevent muscle
> loss and help with bone density issues that are *supposed*
> to be a problems with cyclist (I have no idea how true
> that is, however).

From what I've read, it's really only an issue for people
who spend a *lot* of time (6 hrs per day, every day) on the
bike, at a sufficient intensity to sweat a lot. If I
understood the articles correctly, it's the sweating which
takes the calcium out of your body, and the cycling which
doesn't give it the loading it needs to rebuild the bones.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return
address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.