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

[El Calaverada]

Doug, You're taking a beating, man! Some of these bozos come
down on you hard. That's harsh! I love the one post where
you said you have a diabetic

that! Does he pull some crystal ball out of his ass that
tells him all about you? Total negative criticism. Then when
you return fire they get all bent out of shape. Let them
whine and argue with each other about their special diets
and low carb ****. Who gives a ****!

Anyway, being a big guy ain't bad. A couple big guys in my
group, when they get up front and pull they'll put a hurtin'
on ya. Their like a locomotive!

of these guys. Go with it, man! There's a lot of numbers and
opinions floating around here. Good or bad? Beats the hell
outa me. I read an article a while back from the American
Heart Assoc. that said nearly half of all people who died
from sudden massive heart attack had normal cholesterol.

and I read this. Does anyone really understand this ****?
You see people on TV who are 102 years old and their secret
is a shot of rye and two cigars a day. Then you read in the
paper about some poor ******* who's the picture of health
and he drops dead at 53. How's that work? My contribution to
this brew is just chill and live your life. You're a big
guy. If someone else

that) Eat smart and stay active. Go out, pull hard, and make
these whiney bastards who like to talk **** beg you for
mercy. Peace -

Doug Cook <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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!"

 

[Badger_south]

On Sat, 22 May 2004 09:23:43 +1000, "DRS" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"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.

Oops..."Roger or", but correction noted.

'it depends' was not a correct comment. Apologies.

If you just say caloric deficit, intake less than
expenditure, Yes.

If you're couching that as 'caloric deficit of a small
amount held nearly constant, over a long period of time (say
a day, week, month)...then "yes" is an answer.

If the caloric deficit means something that a human being is
doing, and prepping his own food, calcing his own food
weight/portion, counting everything that is eaten, and if
those are correct, then guarded "yes".

But, let's say it's not as simple as "will power" that
allows you to stay in caloric deficit.

If you have a chef who is cooking all your food and you just
retrieve the baggies and cups, then obviously it's
completely simple. Yes, again.

Some people may go into 'starvation mode' and some may not.
I don't have a problem with this and don't seem to have
that. My metabolisim is such that if I stop eating as a
'carbo addict', then I'm naturally inclined to be muscular,
and not very fat.

Lyle has recently said, 'it doesn't matter what time of day
you eat', IOW, small study didn't find this.

So sorry for those transgressions, you're certainly right.

Given this, what's the reason that 99.99% of diets fail one
wonders? I have some ideas...

-B

 

[Roger Zoul]

Rick Onanian wrote:
:: 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.

Sure....mostly....but one can restrict calories on other
approaches....LF works by removing calorie dense fat from
the diet, even though many find they are hungry. LC works by
removing carbs, which, for most, causes appetite reduction,
so people just naturally eat less.

 

[Roger Zoul]

David Kerber wrote:
:: 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.

Thanks for the clarification, Dave. I've not read anything
about it other than comments here. I guess I need more time
and the "bicycle reading" saddle

 

[Roger Zoul]

Gooserider wrote:
:: "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,

LC people don't make carbs out to be evil.....the claim is
that excessive carbs are evil

Get that straight. The term is LOW carb, not NO carb.

One can definitely lose weight eating a calorie restricted
diet with lots of carbs. I did. however, i perfer LC eating
as it is easier to control appetite.

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

 

[Roger Zoul]

Badger_South wrote:
:: On Sat, 22 May 2004 09:23:43 +1000, "DRS"
:: <[email protected]> wrote:
::
::: "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.

Funny, I don't remember saying that either....biking keeps
you from going inot 'starvation mode'? Why would it do that?

::
:: Oops..."Roger or", but correction noted.
::
:: 'it depends' was not a correct comment. Apologies.
::
:: If you just say caloric deficit, intake less than
:: expenditure, Yes.
::
:: If you're couching that as 'caloric deficit of a small
:: amount held nearly constant, over a long period of time
:: (say a day, week, month)...then "yes" is an answer.
::
:: If the caloric deficit means something that a human being
:: is doing, and prepping his own food, calcing his own food
:: weight/portion, counting everything that is eaten, and if
:: those are correct, then guarded "yes".
::
:: But, let's say it's not as simple as "will power" that
:: allows you to stay in caloric deficit.
::
:: If you have a chef who is cooking all your food and you
:: just retrieve the baggies and cups, then obviously it's
:: completely simple. Yes, again.
::
:: Some people may go into 'starvation mode' and some may
:: not. I don't have a problem with this and don't seem to
:: have that. My metabolisim is such that if I stop eating
:: as a 'carbo addict', then I'm naturally inclined to be
:: muscular, and not very fat.
::
:: Lyle has recently said, 'it doesn't matter what time of
:: day you eat', IOW, small study didn't find this.

My body doesn't seem to care when I eat -- as long as I
maintain a calorie deficit, I lose weight.

::
:: So sorry for those transgressions, you're certainly
:: right.
::
:: Given this, what's the reason that 99.99% of diets fail
:: one wonders? I have some ideas...

Diets don't fail, dieters fail because they usually quit or
don't follow the plan.

 

[Roger Zoul]

El Calaverada wrote:
:: Doug, You're taking a beating, man! Some of these bozos
:: come down on you hard. That's harsh! I love the one post
:: where you said you have a diabetic condition and this one
:: clown says he doubts it. What the

:: that tells him all about you? Total negative criticism.
:: Then when you return fire they get all bent out of shape.
:: Let them whine and argue with each other about their
:: special diets and low carb ****. Who gives a ****!
::
:: Anyway, being a big guy ain't bad. A couple big guys in
:: my group, when they get up front and pull they'll put a
:: hurtin' on ya. Their

:: it sounds like you're one of these guys. Go with it, man!
:: There's a lot of numbers and opinions floating around
:: here. Good or bad? Beats the hell outa me. I read an
:: article a while back from the American Heart Assoc. that
:: said nearly half of all people who died from

:: over! They've been beating this cholesterol **** in our
:: heads and I read this. Does anyone really understand this
:: ****? You see people on TV who are 102 years old and
:: their secret is a shot of rye and two cigars a day. Then
:: you read in the paper about some poor ******* who's the
:: picture of health and he drops dead at 53. How's that
:: work? My contribution to this brew is just chill and live
:: your life.

:: the exception of your wife, don't say that) Eat smart and
:: stay active. Go out, pull hard, and make these whiney
:: bastards who like to talk **** beg you for mercy. Peace -

Given that it was Doug himself who came in here saying he
was fat, and now you're telling HIM that if he doesn't like
the fact that HE is a big guy,

pot....kettle....black.

And the fact is, based on his numbers, it is very likely
that he is NOT diabetic.

::
:: Doug Cook <[email protected]> wrote in message
:: news:[email protected]...
:::
::: "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!"

 

[Roger Zoul]

Doug Cook 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!

Me too!

 

[Gooserider]

"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.

Even Lyle McDonald would admit that people lose weight in
caloric deficit. Notice I didn't say caloric "reduction".
If people use more calories than they intake, they will
lose weight.

 

[Badger_south]

On Sat, 22 May 2004 10:52:18 GMT, "Gooserider"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"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.
>
>Even Lyle McDonald would admit that people lose weight in
>caloric deficit. Notice I didn't say caloric "reduction".
>If people use more calories than they intake, they will
>lose weight.

You are correct on all counts. Apologies.

Best,

-B

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Sat, 22 May 2004 05:01:00 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Rick Onanian wrote:
>:: <[email protected]> wrote:
>::: 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
>
>Sure....mostly....but one can restrict calories on other
>approaches....LF

A more clear and accurate way to say it would have been: "LC
would be best for him, but other forms of calorie reduction
will work too." or "LC would be best for him, but calorie-
counting will work too."

Note: The above is reformation of sentences, not an
endorsement or suggestion of LC or any other type of
special diet.
--
Rick "Pedant" Onanian

 

[Roger Zoul]

Rick Onanian wrote:
:: On Sat, 22 May 2004 05:01:00 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: <[email protected]> wrote:
::: Rick Onanian wrote:
::::: <[email protected]> wrote:
:::::: 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
:::
::: Sure....mostly....but one can restrict calories on other
::: approaches....LF
::
:: A more clear and accurate way to say it would have been:
:: "LC would be best for him, but other forms of calorie
:: reduction will work too." or "LC would be best for him,
:: but calorie-counting will work too."

True....but this is usenet....that means you get what you
pay for

Of course, they way I was thinking when I wrote that is
rather than suggesting he switch to LC (which, is
controversial to many and would undoubtedly impact his
cycling performace at least in the short term) I was
thinking he could just reduce his consumption of food in
general, which is what I've suggested he do most than once
in the two threads on this topic.

 

[Pbwalther]

>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.

You are right if you want to lose weight you need to
burn more calories then you ingest. The problem is that
doing that is relatively easy for some people and not
easy for others.

Many researchers initially thought the answer was as
simplistic as you suggest but they found that many obese
people followed their diets quite well and still had great
difficulty losing any weight. When many people diet, their
bodies lower the metabolic rate. So lowering the calories in
lowers the rate at which calories are burnt so you are back
where you started from. This is one of the big rationales
for using both exercise and diet to lose weight. If you
exercise, the body can not scale back the metabolic rate and
you have a decent chance of losing weight.

The beat goes on too. It seems from my reading that there is
a pretty wide reaction to carbohydrate metabolism. In some
people, ingesting anything but really complex carbohydrates
causes a spike in blood sugar followed by really low blood
sugar. Other people do not seem to have this problem.

If you read these boards about riding, you will find that
many people have to eat something to do a ride. I can get up
in the morning and crank out 50 miles on water alone. Now if
I want to do much more then 50, I need to eat something. But
I can do 50 with no problem. From reading other people's
accounts, I understand that most people can not do this and
I believe them. Different people do have different bodies
after all.

Apparantly, genetics has something to do with all of this,
at least in some people. The Pima Indians have the highest
rates of obesity ever observed. They were skinny little guys
running around the desert southwest. Their bodies were
adapted to periodic famine conditions. This meant their
bodies are extremely efficient at making fat and keeping it
and burning fat only when it was really needed i.e. famines.
The problem is that they are now exposed to a regular
calorie rich diet and that obviously is not a good
combination.

I suspect that there is no single diet strategy that will
work for everyone. I also think that anyone who wants to
lose weight just has to keep trying different approaches
until something works for them.

 

[Pbwalther]

>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.

You are right if you want to lose weight you need to
burn more calories then you ingest. The problem is that
doing that is relatively easy for some people and not
easy for others.

Many researchers initially thought the answer was as
simplistic as you suggest but they found that many obese
people followed their diets quite well and still had great
difficulty losing any weight. When many people diet, their
bodies lower the metabolic rate. So lowering the calories in
lowers the rate at which calories are burnt so you are back
where you started from. This is one of the big rationales
for using both exercise and diet to lose weight. If you
exercise, the body can not scale back the metabolic rate and
you have a decent chance of losing weight.

The beat goes on too. It seems from my reading that there is
a pretty wide reaction to carbohydrate metabolism. In some
people, ingesting anything but really complex carbohydrates
causes a spike in blood sugar followed by really low blood
sugar. Other people do not seem to have this problem.

If you read these boards about riding, you will find that
many people have to eat something to do a ride. I can get up
in the morning and crank out 50 miles on water alone. Now if
I want to do much more then 50, I need to eat something. But
I can do 50 with no problem. From reading other people's
accounts, I understand that most people can not do this and
I believe them. Different people do have different bodies
after all.

Apparantly, genetics has something to do with all of this,
at least in some people. The Pima Indians have the highest
rates of obesity ever observed. They were skinny little guys
running around the desert southwest. Their bodies were
adapted to periodic famine conditions. This meant their
bodies are extremely efficient at making fat and keeping it
and burning fat only when it was really needed i.e. famines.
The problem is that they are now exposed to a regular
calorie rich diet and that obviously is not a good
combination.

I suspect that there is no single diet strategy that will
work for everyone. I also think that anyone who wants to
lose weight just has to keep trying different approaches
until something works for them.

 

[Garyg]

"Pbwalther" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >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.
>
> You are right if you want to lose weight you need to burn
> more calories
then
> you ingest. The problem is that doing that is relatively
> easy for some
people
> and not easy for others.
>
> Many researchers initially thought the answer was as
> simplistic as you
suggest
> but they found that many obese people followed their diets
> quite well and
still
> had great difficulty losing any weight. When many people
> diet, their
bodies
> lower the metabolic rate. So lowering the calories in
> lowers the rate at
which
> calories are burnt so you are back where you started from.
> This is one of
the
> big rationales for using both exercise and diet to lose
> weight. If you exercise, the body can not scale back the
> metabolic rate and you have a
decent
> chance of losing weight.

Do you have any sources you could cite for this assertion?
Please provide some links if you can. I've heard this
before, and while I suspect it may be true for "starvation"
diets, I have my doubts about it having a significant impact
in most weight loss programs (where the average daily
caloric deficit is only around 500 calories per day).

BTW - I agree on the importance of the exercise component.
But, I think the caloric benefits of exercise vis-a-vis
weight loss are overstated (e.g., "get 6-pack abs with only
4 minutes per day..."). Unless folks are exercising at a
very high level for extended periods of time, the calories
burned while exercising are quite modest. Instead, I think
exercise is important for its other health benefits (e.g.,
cardio-vascular improvements), and for its psychological
benefits (feeling "stronger" is an important motivator in
successful weight loss).

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

>
> The beat goes on too. It seems from my reading that there
> is a pretty
wide
> reaction to carbohydrate metabolism. In some people,
> ingesting anything
but
> really complex carbohydrates causes a spike in blood sugar
> followed by
really
> low blood sugar. Other people do not seem to have this
> problem.
>
> If you read these boards about riding, you will find that
> many people have
to
> eat something to do a ride. I can get up in the morning
> and crank out 50
miles
> on water alone. Now if I want to do much more then 50, I
> need to eat something. But I can do 50 with no problem.
> From reading other people's accounts, I understand that
> most people can not do this and I believe
them.
> Different people do have different bodies after all.
>
> Apparantly, genetics has something to do with all of this,
> at least in
some
> people. The Pima Indians have the highest rates of obesity
> ever observed. They were skinny little guys running around
> the desert southwest. Their
bodies
> were adapted to periodic famine conditions. This meant
> their bodies are extremely efficient at making fat and
> keeping it and burning fat only when
it
> was really needed i.e. famines. The problem is that they
> are now exposed
to a
> regular calorie rich diet and that obviously is not a good
> combination.
>
> I suspect that there is no single diet strategy that will
> work for
everyone. I
> also think that anyone who wants to lose weight just has
> to keep trying different approaches until something works
> for them.

 

[Terry Morse]

Pbwalther wrote:

> Apparantly, genetics has something to do with all of this,
> at least in some people. The Pima Indians have the highest
> rates of obesity ever observed. They were skinny little
> guys running around the desert southwest. Their bodies
> were adapted to periodic famine conditions. This meant
> their bodies are extremely efficient at making fat and
> keeping it and burning fat only when it was really needed
> i.e. famines. The problem is that they are now exposed to
> a regular calorie rich diet and that obviously is not a
> good combination.

The Pima Indians are genetically no different than any
other group, and they exhibit no different resting
metabolic rates:

"Our present results indicate that Pima Indian children do
not have gross abnormalities in energy expenditure or
substrate oxidation that could account for this marked
propensity for obesity. Measured RMR in these children was
similar to results obtained using the gender-specific, weight-
based Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health
Organization equations."
- Salbe et al, "Energy metabolism and physical activity -
Assessing risk factors for obesity between childhood and
adolescence, part 2",
08/2002

The Pimas north of the border are morbidly obese because
they have embraced the American sedentary lifestyle and diet
to the extreme. The ones south of the border have not, and
they are still quite thin.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
"GaryG" <garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com> wrote:

> "Pbwalther" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:20040524102123.09153.00001349@mb-
> m19.aol.com...
> > >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.

> > This is one of the big rationales for using both
> > exercise and diet to lose weight. If you exercise, the
> > body can not scale back the metabolic rate and you have
> > a decent chance of losing weight.
>
> Do you have any sources you could cite for this assertion?
> Please provide some links if you can. I've heard this
> before, and while I suspect it may be true for
> "starvation" diets, I have my doubts about it having a
> significant impact in most weight loss programs (where the
> average daily caloric deficit is only around 500 calories
> per day).
>
> BTW - I agree on the importance of the exercise component.
> But, I think the caloric benefits of exercise vis-a-vis
> weight loss are overstated (e.g., "get 6-pack abs with
> only 4 minutes per day..."). Unless folks are exercising
> at a very high level for extended periods of time, the
> calories burned while exercising are quite modest.
> Instead, I think exercise is important for its other
> health benefits (e.g., cardio-vascular improvements), and
> for its psychological benefits (feeling "stronger" is an
> important motivator in successful weight loss).
>
> GG http://www.WeightWare.com Your Weight and Health Diary

Calorie deficits are calorie deficits. Leave aside any
putative metabolic changes: I ride my bike to work and back,
which takes 30 minutes each way. Depending on how hard I
push, that amounts to something like 400-600 calories/day
burned in exercise. (I go hard, and up hills)

Using the rule of thumb of 3000 kcal/lb, and taking the 400
kcal low estimate, that means I'll lose a pound every two
weeks with no other diet or lifestyle changes. And
interestingly enough, that's what happened.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected]
http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/ President, Fabrizio
Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[Garyg]

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "GaryG"
> <garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com> wrote:
>
> > "Pbwalther" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:20040524102123.09153.00001349@mb-
> > m19.aol.com...
> > > >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.
>
> > > This is one of the big rationales for using both
> > > exercise and diet to lose weight. If
you
> > > exercise, the body can not scale back the metabolic
> > > rate and you have
a decent
> > > chance of losing weight.
> >
> > Do you have any sources you could cite for this
> > assertion? Please
provide
> > some links if you can. I've heard this before, and while
> > I suspect it
may
> > be true for "starvation" diets, I have my doubts about
> > it having a significant impact in most weight loss
> > programs (where the average daily caloric deficit is
> > only around 500 calories per day).
> >
> > BTW - I agree on the importance of the exercise
> > component. But, I think
the
> > caloric benefits of exercise vis-a-vis weight loss are
> > overstated (e.g., "get 6-pack abs with only 4 minutes
> > per day..."). Unless folks are exercising at a very high
> > level for extended periods of time, the
calories
> > burned while exercising are quite modest. Instead, I
> > think exercise is important for its other health
> > benefits (e.g., cardio-vascular improvements), and for
> > its psychological benefits (feeling "stronger" is
an
> > important motivator in successful weight loss).
> >
> > GG http://www.WeightWare.com Your Weight and
> > Health Diary
>
> Calorie deficits are calorie deficits. Leave aside any
> putative metabolic changes: I ride my bike to work and
> back, which takes 30 minutes each way. Depending on how
> hard I push, that amounts to something like 400-600
> calories/day burned in exercise. (I go hard, and up hills)

I tend to agree re: calorie deficits, and I suspect that
most claims of "my diet slowed down my metabolism which is
why I'm not losing weight" are bogus. But, I'm not an
expert, and if there are studies indicating that metabolism
may change due to dieting, I'd like to read them.

> Using the rule of thumb of 3000 kcal/lb, and taking the
> 400 kcal low estimate, that means I'll lose a pound every
> two weeks with no other diet or lifestyle changes. And
> interestingly enough, that's what happened.

That assumes you don't eat more as a result of your riding.
For a lot of folks this is a problem that subverts the
benefits of exercise ("I rode the bike today, so I can have
that big hunk of chocolate cake this evening").

BTW - It's 3500 kcal/lb.

GG

>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau, [email protected]
> http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/ President, Fabrizio
> Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>,
garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com says...

...

> > Using the rule of thumb of 3000 kcal/lb, and taking the
> > 400 kcal low estimate, that means I'll lose a pound
> > every two weeks with no other diet or lifestyle changes.
> > And interestingly enough, that's what happened.
>
> That assumes you don't eat more as a result of your
> riding. For a lot of folks this is a problem that subverts
> the benefits of exercise ("I rode the bike today, so I can
> have that big hunk of chocolate cake this evening").

Or "That ride made me so hungry, I'll have a whole pizza
instead of just two pieces."

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

 

[mattp71]

Well I was 223 in February. I am now 192. I don't even watch what I eat.

Those calculators are a joke. I can ride 15mph and not even break a sweat and those calcs will tell me I am burning 900 calories an hour or something for my weight.

Go get a heart rate monitor...train at 80%. Or do what I sometimes do, go find a big hill, and go up and down it about 15-20 times. (1/4 mile or longer)

At any rate, I didn't read the entire thread posted here, but good luck. Losing weight on a bike can be done. I'm living proof...none of my clothes fit!