Stroke Length & CHO Useage

[MJuric]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:19:21 +0100, "m. w. smith"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:46:18 GMT, <MJuric> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:44:10 +0100, "m. w. smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:20:34 GMT, <MJuric> wrote:
>>>> I also suspect, don't know, that the swimmer that does not replinish there glycogen stores
>>>> will in fact suffer in the area of performance.
>>>
>>> I said that was my experience, but that the difference was negligible for the case of a person
>>> who is trying to lose weight. It is irrelevant for a person who is trying to compete, because he
>>> wouldn't be competing while trying to lose weight.
>>
>> I guess I'm not 100% what the point of the above is. Weight loss is simply a matter of burning
>> more than you bring in.
>
>Well that's it then. The Nobel Prize to you. Weight loss is simply a matter of burning more than
>you bring in. What is everybody's problem? Don't they know how simple it is?

Uhhhh yes simple as that. I think most people truely do know how simple it is. It's just
that making it that simple gives them no reason for being overweight. No one said it was
easy to lose weight and no said that everyone can lose wweight as easy as others. however
for the majority of individuals its as simple as that.

>
>You would probably tell a depressed person to "Snap out of it." It's as simple as that. Just snap
>out of it. What's the big deal?

No Depression has a "tendancy" to be more of a chemical imbalance, yet I'm no expert there.
However I can certainly speak from experinace on the weight issue. And yes it's as simple as
not eating so much.

>
>My point was that top performance is only important to a swimmer who is competing,

IMO top performace is important to anyone training for any other reason than simple health reasons.
Each session builds upon the next so continued low performance will lead to lower gains than before.
Of course if teh whole purpose of your training is simple for health non of that matters.

<Snip>

>People who are trying to lose weight (ie because they are overweight, not because they are trying
>to "make weight" like a wrestler) are not competing while they are trying to lose weight. Or they
>shouldn't be. So the fact that they can't sprint very well while they are on a low-carb diet to
>lose weight isn't important.
>
>> What you burn 3000 cal of fat or 3000 cal of carbs makes no difference.
>
>Yes, it does. According to Larry's article, if I spend forty minutes in HIIT as running and biking,
>I will burn more fat than if I spend the same forty minutes in HIIT in the pool. In the pool, I
>will lose weight due to burning glycogen, which doesn't count as real weight loss. If I do the
>forty minutes in the pool, and then I choose not to replenish my glycogen with fruit and pasta and
>bread, I will lose real weight as my body converts muscle from protein to glucose. But I don't want
>to lose muscle, so if I don't replenish my glycogen with carbs (difficult to resist after a hard
>swimming session), then I must eat or have already eaten sufficient protein to prevent my body from
>canabalizing my own muscles.
>
>To lose weight, what I want to do is burn fat, so, according to Larry, I should do more running,
>biking, and other land-based HIIT than swimming.

I believe that your belief is a bit unrealistic. It's very important to look at the body as
a system. Simply stated if I burn 1000 calories of glycogen in a workout and only replace
900 calories of glycogen, let say thru a sports drink, the body is at a 100 calorie deficit.
Since the body is full well capabale of creating 100 calories of glycogen via other systems
that is what it will do. The creation of glycogen is probably from glucogenesis at that
point. However that means the body must find calories for other daily activities, lets say
sitting here typing this, from another source other than glycogen which generaly is fat. So
a 100 calorie deficit is in fact a 100 calorie deficit.

>
>> Your statement of "It is irrelevant for a person who is trying to compete, because he wouldn't be
>> competing while trying to lose weight." simply makes no since to me. We are talking about what is
>> a safe diet, in the sense of everyday eating.
>
>No, we are talking about losing weight. That isn't an everyday diet.

Again IMO, losing weight IS an everday diet. Having a differnet method for losing weight and
maintaining weight leads to failure because as soon as the person "reachs there goal weight"
they stray from the eating habits that have succesfully made them reach that weight. Simply
stated being a certain weight means eating a certain amount of calories. The reason a person
weighs 300lbs is because they eat enough calories to maintain that weight. If I want to
weigh a certain weight I should they way that person woudl eat and always eat that way, for
teh rest of my life. They only catch here is that a person taht weighs 300lbs and wants to
weigh 150 shoudln't jsut start eating like a 150 lb'r. To drastic of a lifestyle change.
However eating like 250-275 lb'r may be more realistic.

<Snip Atkins menu>
>
>While I am trying to lose weight, losing weight is what is important to me, not competing. I choose
>to lose weight, and in making that choice I recognize that while i am losing weight, I will not be
>functioning at 100%, regardless of whose diet I am on, and so competing better not be high on my
>priority list. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Pun intended.

That is your choice. However I know from both experinace and by speaking with others that
this is not acceptbale to many. Many, dare I even say most, athletes gain smoe weight in the
off season. Most lose it while training and most care about performance. A caloric defict of
100-300 calories a day should not adversely effect performance when combined with an
otehrwise healthy diet.

<Sniped Repeat or agreed>

>>
>> Depends. I suspect that we probably did alot of intermitant sprinting. Either away from preditors
>> or later on after preditors while hunting. Also without doubt a great deal of our activities were
>> at a much higher HR than what we do today. Climbing trees, mountains etc. Whether this was at
>> 70%MHR + I don't know but to say we never burned glycogen is a bit of stretch.
>
>But who said we never burned glycogen? Why do you raise that strawman?

Ok shouldn't have used never. Just making the point that we can speculate that we coudl have
possibly have been as dependant on gylcogen as cavemen as we are now.

>
>> Not to mention that the brain and some organs burn ONLY glycogen. Also mister caveman was much
>> more active than I probably spending many hours just gather food, not a 15 minute drive by at the
>> local grocer. All in all I think glycogen depletion was a great problem for mister cave man as
>> even slow movement burns a certain percentage of glycogen.
>
>...and so, if he was not a meat eater, he would need to eat continuously to get enough calories.

Don't follow the logic.

>
>>> The safeguards you are talking about are the normal operating mode for the body most of the
>>> time. You might sprint through your day, but I don't.
>>
>> Sprinting is not the only means or need for Glycogen. Gylcogen is burnt constantly. However
>> mister caveman woudl be lion lunch if he HAD to sprint and didn't have any. The option to not
>> performing well was death...not just simply slower lap times.
>
>...and that is why the body can make its own carbohydrate.

Yes but had mister caveman been on an Atkinsman diet, and had spent the day climbing trees
and hills, which depleted his only partially replenished muscles due to an already low
glycogen storage and as he decended the last tree of teh day to meet up with mister
Sabertootch tiger. Again kitty snacks..

<Snipped as I hope we can simply agree to disagree that some even many people compete and lose
weight at the same time I know I do and I knwo alot of others that do. Low performance is not
an option>

>
>>> The problem for overweight people is precisely that they eat them faster than they are needed.
>>
>> No the problem is THEY EAT TO MUCH.
>
>That is what I just said! Eating carbs faster than they are needed is eating too much!
>
>> Not carbs not fat not protein. They eat to many calories PERIOD.
>
>You should write a book about this fantastic new discovery that overweight people don't know about
>and have never heard before. You'll be rich.

Unfortunately it's already been done. Weight Watchers for one. Although they have some
variant on watchiong fat grams. Seattle Sutton I believe is based on the same idea of simply
eating less. Unfortunately it has been ingrained into people that being overweight is some
sort of disease that we have no control over. When someone show's a simple method that works
such as "Quite eating so much Fat Ass" The title of my book, people just can't believe it.
Both I and my wife lost a considerable amount of weight. When asked "How did you do it" or
"What's your secret" about 95% of the people wouldn't believe us when when answered "jsut
quite eating so much". Abou the only people that did believe us were people that either did
it themselves or people that have never had a weight problem. Simply eat like a thin person
and you be one.

>
>>>> And the systems your depending on when working out in a glycogen depleted state are no
>>>> diffenret than any other athlete. However by not having glycogen availabale you have eliminate
>>>> done system being available to you. Probably not good for performance.
>>>
>>> But we are talking about weight loss, not performance.
>>
>> I'm talking about diet. Diet as in what one should eat all of the time to lose weight, to
>> maintain weight, to live.
>
>But they aren't the same, even according to you.
>
>> I frankly workout and need to perform while I'm working out. If I'm trying to lose weight I still
>> need to perform. I'm quite surprised that in a swimming forum you would think the two are
>> exclusive.
>
>They are pretty much exclusive. If you were training for the Olympics, or for your city high school
>champinships, do you think your coach would put you on a weight loss program a month before the
>meet? Say no.

No not a weight loss program, but as stated earlier I don't believe in "weight loss
programs" I believe in a healthy diet. A diet that will result in being the weight you
desire. So shoudl a coach put an athlete on a healthy diet... Yes say yes.

>
>Because one can't perform at one's best while trying to lose weight. We are talking about
>overweight people, people with 20, 40, 60 kilos to lose, not the guy who ate too much over
>Christmas.

This is flattly wrong. As stated earlier a persons performance is not affected my a 100-300
caloric deficit a day. Will I say a person cannot perform on a "radical weightloss program"
of 500-1000 calorie deficit a day, then yes. however I woudl not say that that is teh proper
way to lose weight. As far as performing at peak and losing weight. Again from personaly
esperiance you're flattly wrong. My 5K PB went from 29 minutes to 20 minutes over a period
of 8-10 months in which I also lost 15 Kilos. Prior to that I lost an additional 22 kilos,
simply by not eating so much. No Atkins, No Zone, No pills, no Grapefruit. Simply by
accepting the fact that I needed to make some lifestyle changes and then did it.

>
>> If we are disreguarding performance than yes, eat anything just as long as it's less than what
>> you burn.
>
>Thanks for staightening me out.
>
>martin

Your welcome. Glad I could help.

~Matt
>
>--
>If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote, because we badly need a new
>president.

 

[M. W. Smith]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:31:54 GMT, <MJuric> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:19:21 +0100, "m. w. smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:46:18 GMT, <MJuric> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:44:10 +0100, "m. w. smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:20:34 GMT, <MJuric> wrote:
>>>>> I also suspect, don't know, that the swimmer that does not replinish there glycogen stores
>>>>> will in fact suffer in the area of performance.
>>>>
>>>> I said that was my experience, but that the difference was negligible for the case of a person
>>>> who is trying to lose weight. It is irrelevant for a person who is trying to compete, because
>>>> he wouldn't be competing while trying to lose weight.
>>>
>>> I guess I'm not 100% what the point of the above is. Weight loss is simply a matter of burning
>>> more than you bring in.
>>
>> Well that's it then. The Nobel Prize to you. Weight loss is simply a matter of burning more than
>> you bring in. What is everybody's problem? Don't they know how simple it is?
>
> Uhhhh yes simple as that. I think most people truely do know how simple it is. It's just
> that making it that simple gives them no reason for being overweight. No one said it was
> easy to lose weight and no said that everyone can lose wweight as easy as others. however
> for the majority of individuals its as simple as that.

...which leaves everyone nowhere. It is of no use. That's the point. It is just another definition
of being overweight. You are overweight if you consume more than you burn.

>> You would probably tell a depressed person to "Snap out of it." It's as simple as that. Just snap
>> out of it. What's the big deal?
>
> No Depression has a "tendancy" to be more of a chemical imbalance, yet I'm no expert there.

But you just said being overweight is a chemical imbalance. Consuming more than you burn *is* a
chemical imbalance. Burning more than you consume *is* a chemical imbalance. In fact, nothing
happens in the body except by chemical imbalance.

> However I can certainly speak from experinace on the weight issue. And yes it's as simple as not
> eating so much.

Do you understand that simplicity is not the issue? It is irrelevant. Travelling to the moon is
simply a matter of covering the distance to the moon. To get to the moon, all you have to do is
go from here to the moon. It is as simple as that. Here's another one. Breaking the world record
in the 1500 is simply a matter of swimming 1500m in under 14:43, or whatever it is. It is as
simple as that.

None of this has anything to do with trying to lose weight while trying to compete, which is what we
were talking about. I'm willing to bet that there has never been a case where a swimmer broke a
world record while on a diet to lose 20 kilos. What do you think?

You asked why would anyone want to use a diet that adversely affected performance in the pool. The
answer is another simple one: The diet works. What that means is the diet is one that the swimmer
can stick with. And what that means is that while on the diet, the swimmer's hunger and cravings are
either eliminated or reduced significantly, thus removing the major obstacle to staying on the diet.

In my case, that doesn't happen on a low-fat, high-carb diet like the Pritikin diet. I have used the
Pritikin diet successfully. While on the Pritikin diet, I was hungry all the time. 24/7 hungry. When
I am losing weight on the Atkins diet, I can eliminate hunger and craving by eating a piece of
cheese. So, in my case, of these two diets, only the Atkins diet works, because what I mean, when I
say a diet works, is that I lose weight *and* I can control my hunger and cravings.

Both diets work, if you only require that they cause you to lose weight. Pretty much any diet will
do that. But that requirement isn't enough for most people, which is why being overweight is such
a difficult situation to be in, and why the requirement to reduce or eliminate hunger and cravings
is included. I suspect that what makes the Atkins diet work for me while the Pritikin diet does
not is genetic. I suspect that the Pritikin diet works for some people (Larry), where the Atkins
diet does not.

So when you say losing weight is as simple as consuming less than you burn, you actually aren't
talking about the real problem.

>> My point was that top performance is only important to a swimmer who is competing,
>
> IMO top performace is important to anyone training for any other reason than simple health
> reasons.

But it isn't. It is important to people who want to compete.

> Each session builds upon the next so continued low performance will lead to lower gains
> than before.

Gains in what? Well... performance, of course. So performance is important to people for whom
performance is important. That isn't saying much. And gains in performance are higher
performance, so you are saying continued low performance leads to low performance, which isn't
saying anything at all.

My point still remains. If you have decided to lose 20 kilos, then losing 20 kilos is more important
to you than winning a few races. On the other hand, if top swimming performance is what motivates
you, then you are extremely unlikely to be 20 kilos overweight. So the set of people who want to
lose 20 kilos and expect to set personal bests while losing it is probably very small.

> Of course if teh whole purpose of your training is simple for health non of that matters.

Why can't a purpose of my training be that I like training? In fact, that is my main purpose.
Another purpose is I like the fellowship. Another purpose is I like the way I feel right after a
workout, the beta endorphin glow.

> <Snip>
>
>
>> People who are trying to lose weight (ie because they are overweight, not because they are trying
>> to "make weight" like a wrestler) are not competing while they are trying to lose weight. Or they
>> shouldn't be. So the fact that they can't sprint very well while they are on a low-carb diet to
>> lose weight isn't important.
>>
>>> What you burn 3000 cal of fat or 3000 cal of carbs makes no difference.
>>
>> Yes, it does. According to Larry's article, if I spend forty minutes in HIIT as running and
>> biking, I will burn more fat than if I spend the same forty minutes in HIIT in the pool. In the
>> pool, I will lose weight due to burning glycogen, which doesn't count as real weight loss. If I
>> do the forty minutes in the pool, and then I choose not to replenish my glycogen with fruit and
>> pasta and bread, I will lose real weight as my body converts muscle from protein to glucose. But
>> I don't want to lose muscle, so if I don't replenish my glycogen with carbs (difficult to resist
>> after a hard swimming session), then I must eat or have already eaten sufficient protein to
>> prevent my body from canabalizing my own muscles.
>>
>> To lose weight, what I want to do is burn fat, so, according to Larry, I should do more running,
>> biking, and other land-based HIIT than swimming.
>
> I believe that your belief is a bit unrealistic. It's very important to look at the body as
> a system. Simply stated if I burn 1000 calories of glycogen in a workout and only replace
> 900 calories of glycogen, let say thru a sports drink, the body is at a 100 calorie deficit.
> Since the body is full well capabale of creating 100 calories of glycogen via other systems
> that is what it will do. The creation of glycogen is probably from glucogenesis at that
> point. However that means the body must find calories for other daily activities, lets say
> sitting here typing this, from another source other than glycogen which generaly is fat. So
> a 100 calorie deficit is in fact a 100 calorie deficit.

You didn't say what was unrealistic about my belief, which, by the way, is the conclusion of Larry's
report, not mine.

>>> Your statement of "It is irrelevant for a person who is trying to compete, because he wouldn't
>>> be competing while trying to lose weight." simply makes no since to me. We are talking about
>>> what is a safe diet, in the sense of everyday eating.
>>
>> No, we are talking about losing weight. That isn't an everyday diet.
>
> Again IMO, losing weight IS an everday diet.

But it isn't. If it were, then everybody on an everyday diet would starve to death.

> Having a differnet method for losing weight and maintaining weight leads to failure because as
> soon as the person "reachs there goal weight" they stray from the eating habits that have
> succesfully made them reach that weight.

That isn't failure. Adding low glycemic carbohydrates back in is not straying. Read what I write,
and stop interpreting what you want to hear into it.

> Simply stated being a certain weight means eating a certain amount of calories. The reason a
> person weighs 300lbs is because they eat enough calories to maintain that weight. If I want
> to weigh a certain weight I should they way that person woudl eat and always eat that way,
> for teh rest of my life. They only catch here is that a person taht weighs 300lbs and wants
> to weigh 150 shoudln't jsut start eating like a 150 lb'r. To drastic of a lifestyle change.
> However eating like 250-275 lb'r may be more realistic.

Why don't you read the Atkins book? Or read the Pritikin book. Both doctors disagree with you.

> <Snip Atkins menu>
>>
>> While I am trying to lose weight, losing weight is what is important to me, not competing. I
>> choose to lose weight, and in making that choice I recognize that while i am losing weight, I
>> will not be functioning at 100%, regardless of whose diet I am on, and so competing better not be
>> high on my priority list. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Pun intended.
>
> That is your choice. However I know from both experinace and by speaking with others that
> this is not acceptbale to many. Many, dare I even say most, athletes gain smoe weight in the
> off season. Most lose it while training and most care about performance. A caloric defict of
> 100-300 calories a day should not adversely effect performance when combined with an
> otehrwise healthy diet.

You do know I have stated repeatedly that we are not talking about those people, right?

> <Sniped Repeat or agreed>
>
>>>
>>> Depends. I suspect that we probably did alot of intermitant sprinting. Either away from
>>> preditors or later on after preditors while hunting. Also without doubt a great deal of our
>>> activities were at a much higher HR than what we do today. Climbing trees, mountains etc.
>>> Whether this was at 70%MHR + I don't know but to say we never burned glycogen is a bit of
>>> stretch.
>>
>> But who said we never burned glycogen? Why do you raise that strawman?
>
> Ok shouldn't have used never. Just making the point that we can speculate that we coudl have
> possibly have been as dependant on gylcogen as cavemen as we are now.

...and now, as then, we don't have to eat a lot of carbohydrates, especially not refined ones, to
satisfy that need. Nuts and berries were pretty much the only carbohydrates we ate, since they would
have been the only ones available. Both are recommended for Atkins dieters.

>>> Not to mention that the brain and some organs burn ONLY glycogen. Also mister caveman was much
>>> more active than I probably spending many hours just gather food, not a 15 minute drive by at
>>> the local grocer. All in all I think glycogen depletion was a great problem for mister cave man
>>> as even slow movement burns a certain percentage of glycogen.
>>
>> ...and so, if he was not a meat eater, he would need to eat continuously to get enough calories.
>
> Don't follow the logic.

We would essentially be plant eaters, like buffalo. We would have to graze all day long to get
enough calories. Plant eating animals spend most of their time looking for food. They breed
frequently. their young mature quickly. They survive by the law of large numbers. None of these
applies to humans.

>>>> The safeguards you are talking about are the normal operating mode for the body most of the
>>>> time. You might sprint through your day, but I don't.
>>>
>>> Sprinting is not the only means or need for Glycogen. Gylcogen is burnt constantly. However
>>> mister caveman woudl be lion lunch if he HAD to sprint and didn't have any. The option to not
>>> performing well was death...not just simply slower lap times.
>>
>> ...and that is why the body can make its own carbohydrate.
>
> Yes but had mister caveman been on an Atkinsman diet, and had spent the day climbing trees
> and hills, which depleted his only partially replenished muscles due to an already low
> glycogen storage and as he decended the last tree of teh day to meet up with mister
> Sabertootch tiger. Again kitty snacks..

Our predators were bears, lions, tigers, panthers, mountain lions, cheetahs. Humans can't outrun any
of these animals. Even the fastest sprinters of today would be easily run down by a lion or even a
bear. We didn't escape from these predators by running.

And I remind you that I have used the Atkins diet to lose 10 kilos. I swam, rode, and did aerobics
and weights throughout the entire process. I had no trouble doing the work, and I trained for
between two and three hours per day. The only adverse effect was that my top speed was reduced
somewhat. However, my strength increased significantly. I reported both

> <Snipped as I hope we can simply agree to disagree that some even many people compete and lose
> weight at the same time I know I do and I knwo alot of others that do. Low performance is not
> an option>

We don't agree. We aren't talking about losing the 5 lbs of baby fat you put on over Christmas.
Serious competitive swimmers train almost all year round. If they get fat, there is a problem to be
worked out, and their coach would help them with it. He would not expect them to be at their best
while trying to correct that problem.

>>>> The problem for overweight people is precisely that they eat them faster than they are needed.
>>>
>>> No the problem is THEY EAT TO MUCH.
>>
>> That is what I just said! Eating carbs faster than they are needed is eating too much!
>>
>>> Not carbs not fat not protein. They eat to many calories PERIOD.
>>
>> You should write a book about this fantastic new discovery that overweight people don't know
>> about and have never heard before. You'll be rich.
>
> Unfortunately it's already been done. Weight Watchers for one.

If you read their book, you will find it contains a lot more than just: Eat less than you burn.

> Although they have some variant on watchiong fat grams. Seattle Sutton I believe is based on
> the same idea of simply eating less. Unfortunately it has been ingrained into people that being
> overweight is some sort of disease that we have no control over. When someone show's a simple
> method that works such as "Quite eating so much Fat Ass" The title of my book, people just
> can't believe it. Both I and my wife lost a considerable amount of weight. When asked "How did
> you do it" or "What's your secret" about 95% of the people wouldn't believe us when when
> answered "jsut quite eating so much". Abou the only people that did believe us were people that
> either did it themselves or people that have never had a weight problem. Simply eat like a thin
> person and you be one.

So you had a partner to work with? Someone to keep you honest? Someone you had to compete with or
measure yourself against? Another person? Then it wasn't just "quit eating so much," was it.

>>>>> And the systems your depending on when working out in a glycogen depleted state are no
>>>>> diffenret than any other athlete. However by not having glycogen availabale you have eliminate
>>>>> done system being available to you. Probably not good for performance.
>>>>
>>>> But we are talking about weight loss, not performance.
>>>
>>> I'm talking about diet. Diet as in what one should eat all of the time to lose weight, to
>>> maintain weight, to live.
>>
>> But they aren't the same, even according to you.
>>
>>> I frankly workout and need to perform while I'm working out. If I'm trying to lose weight I
>>> still need to perform. I'm quite surprised that in a swimming forum you would think the two are
>>> exclusive.
>>
>> They are pretty much exclusive. If you were training for the Olympics, or for your city high
>> school champinships, do you think your coach would put you on a weight loss program a month
>> before the meet? Say no.
>
> No not a weight loss program, but as stated earlier I don't believe in "weight loss
> programs" I believe in a healthy diet. A diet that will result in being the weight you
> desire. So shoudl a coach put an athlete on a healthy diet... Yes say yes.

Matt, a diet that causes you to lose weight is not a healthy diet. It will cause you to
starve to death.

>> Because one can't perform at one's best while trying to lose weight. We are talking about
>> overweight people, people with 20, 40, 60 kilos to lose, not the guy who ate too much over
>> Christmas.
>
> This is flattly wrong. As stated earlier a persons performance is not affected my a 100-300
> caloric deficit a day. Will I say a person cannot perform on a "radical weightloss program"
> of 500-1000 calorie deficit a day, then yes. however I woudl not say that that is teh proper
> way to lose weight.

Wait a minute. We are talking about a person who has a significant amount of weight to lose. That
person's success will inevitably depend on receiving positive feedback early and often. A 100
calorie per day deficit, which is almost impossible to achieve reliably while swimming 6k workouts
and doing a half our of weights and running and biking five to seven days per week, will give very
little positive feedback. Weight loss will be glacially slow. The hunger experienced after a 6k
swimming workout will be excruciating to resist. Everything will have to be measured. Calories
burned will have to be computed. What you are suggesting is almost impossible to achieve, and when a
fat person decides to lose weight, he wants to see results.

> As far as performing at peak and losing weight. Again from personaly esperiance you're
> flattly wrong. My 5K PB went from 29 minutes to 20 minutes over a period of 8-10 months in
> which I also lost 15 Kilos. Prior to that I lost an additional 22 kilos, simply by not
> eating so much. No Atkins, No Zone, No pills, no Grapefruit. Simply by accepting the fact
> that I needed to make some lifestyle changes and then did it.

Either you are swimming 4 minute 1000s or you are talking about running! Read Larry's original
post again. The whole point of this discussion was that we were talking about swimming, not
running. Swimming burns lots of glycogen and not much fat, running burns lots of fat and not so
much glycogen.

martin

--
If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote, because we badly need a new
president.

 

[Mjuric]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:09:10 +0100, "m. w. smith"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:31:54 GMT, <MJuric> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:19:21 +0100, "m. w. smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:46:18 GMT, <MJuric> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:44:10 +0100, "m. w. smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:20:34 GMT, <MJuric> wrote:
>>>>>> I also suspect, don't know, that the swimmer that does not replinish there glycogen stores
>>>>>> will in fact suffer in the area of performance.
>>>>>
>>>>> I said that was my experience, but that the difference was negligible for the case of a person
>>>>> who is trying to lose weight. It is irrelevant for a person who is trying to compete, because
>>>>> he wouldn't be competing while trying to lose weight.
>>>>
>>>> I guess I'm not 100% what the point of the above is. Weight loss is simply a matter of burning
>>>> more than you bring in.
>>>
>>> Well that's it then. The Nobel Prize to you. Weight loss is simply a matter of burning more than
>>> you bring in. What is everybody's problem? Don't they know how simple it is?
>>
>> Uhhhh yes simple as that. I think most people truely do know how simple it is. It's just
>> that making it that simple gives them no reason for being overweight. No one said it was
>> easy to lose weight and no said that everyone can lose wweight as easy as others. however
>> for the majority of individuals its as simple as that.
>
>...which leaves everyone nowhere. It is of no use. That's the point. It is just another definition
>of being overweight. You are overweight if you consume more than you burn.

I'm really quite confused by your confusion here. Yes if you eat more than you burn you will
be overweight. Simple as that.

>
>>> You would probably tell a depressed person to "Snap out of it." It's as simple as that. Just
>>> snap out of it. What's the big deal?
>>
>> No Depression has a "tendancy" to be more of a chemical imbalance, yet I'm no expert there.
>
>But you just said being overweight is a chemical imbalance. Consuming more than you burn *is* a
>chemical imbalance. Burning more than you consume *is* a chemical imbalance. In fact, nothing
>happens in the body except by chemical imbalance.

As I said no expert on depression but my understanding is depression is caused by a chemical
imblance isn't necessarily controlled by what is generally available to the depressed. Thus
drugs like Zoloft are made ot counteract the chemical imbalance. Of course drugs can be made
to help lose weight or maybe liposuction. I guess I'm more interested in simple self control
than taking a pill.

>
>> However I can certainly speak from experinace on the weight issue. And yes it's as simple as not
>> eating so much.
>
>Do you understand that simplicity is not the issue? It is irrelevant. Travelling to the moon is
>simply a matter of covering the distance to the moon. To get to the moon, all you have to do is
>go from here to the moon. It is as simple as that. Here's another one. Breaking the world record
>in the 1500 is simply a matter of swimming 1500m in under 14:43, or whatever it is. It is as
>simple as that.
>
>None of this has anything to do with trying to lose weight while trying to compete, which is what
>we were talking about. I'm willing to bet that there has never been a case where a swimmer broke a
>world record while on a diet to lose 20 kilos. What do you think?

Again extremes. You like to do that don't you? Yes I can find an extreme value for nearly
anything said by anyone concerning nearly anything that makes the statement untrue. The fact
is an Olympiad is at near Peak perfomraning values period not simply performing at current
peak values. The olympiad is in the best possible shape that ANYONE could be at. Not simply
you or me or average Joe trying to lose 20 kilo's. The fact remains nearly anyone can
operate at peak performance and make performance gains on a 100-300 caloric deficit a day. A
deficit that will cause healthy weightloss reguardless of excercise performed and nearly
reguardless of what they eat.

>
>You asked why would anyone want to use a diet that adversely affected performance in the pool.
>The answer is another simple one: The diet works. What that means is the diet is one that the
>swimmer can stick with. And what that means is that while on the diet, the swimmer's hunger and
>cravings are either eliminated or reduced significantly, thus removing the major obstacle to
>staying on the diet.

Liposuction works to. So does cutting off your arm or leg. Hows that for extremes. Maybe
taking pills. Just because it works doesn't mean it's good for you. Oh what about a gastric
bipass. That'll do it. I can play Mr. extremes to.

>
>In my case, that doesn't happen on a low-fat, high-carb diet like the Pritikin diet. I have used
>the Pritikin diet successfully. While on the Pritikin diet, I was hungry all the time. 24/7 hungry.
>When I am losing weight on the Atkins diet, I can eliminate hunger and craving by eating a piece of
>cheese. So, in my case, of these two diets, only the Atkins diet works, because what I mean, when I
>say a diet works, is that I lose weight *and* I can control my hunger and cravings.

Great! wonderfull I'm glad it works for YOU. Don't believe I said it wouldn't. The argument was
about sacraficing performance and losing weight of which you claimed was impossible.

>
>Both diets work, if you only require that they cause you to lose weight. Pretty much any diet will
>do that. But that requirement isn't enough for most people, which is why being overweight is such
>a difficult situation to be in, and why the requirement to reduce or eliminate hunger and cravings
>is included. I suspect that what makes the Atkins diet work for me while the Pritikin diet does
>not is genetic. I suspect that the Pritikin diet works for some people (Larry), where the Atkins
>diet does not.

I do agree that genetics plays a role no doubt. I also agree it's very difficult to lose
weight. I also agree that if it works and your happy with by all means stick with it.
Personally in my case it was much less to do with cravings and genetics than it did
lifestyle changes and choices.

>
>So when you say losing weight is as simple as consuming less than you burn, you actually aren't
>talking about the real problem.

No I am talking about the real problem. People use Atkins, Pritkins, Carb blocker etc as an
excuse to not lose weight. I.E." I haven't found the right diet for me". Again, IMO, and I
think this is where we seperate ways, it is much less about the diet than it is about
changing ones mentalty toward food. Please correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth,
and I'm sure you will. You are of the believe that it's 80% about finding the right
combination of foods that will make you lose weight and only 20% about controlling how much
of it you eat. IOW if you find the right combo you'll just be able to eat right. I'm the
other way around 20% belief that the right combo makes the weightloss eaiser and 80% about
controlling how much you eat. To me it's about controlling your life, lifestyle, choices
rather than what you eat.

>
>>> My point was that top performance is only important to a swimmer who is competing,
>>
>> IMO top performace is important to anyone training for any other reason than simple health
>> reasons.
>
>But it isn't. It is important to people who want to compete.

And people who simply want to get faster or want to reach the next level of health or make
general gains period.

>
>> Each session builds upon the next so continued low performance will lead to lower gains than
>> before.
>
>Gains in what? Well... performance, of course. So performance is important to people for whom
>performance is important. That isn't saying much. And gains in performance are higher
>performance, so you are saying continued low performance leads to low performance, which isn't
>saying anything at all.

Again if you don't care about performance we don't have an argument.

>
>My point still remains. If you have decided to lose 20 kilos, then losing 20 kilos is more
>important to you than winning a few races. On the other hand, if top swimming performance is what
>motivates you, then you are extremely unlikely to be 20 kilos overweight. So the set of people who
>want to lose 20 kilos and expect to set personal bests while losing it is probably very small.

Again flattly wrong. I know ALOT of people that race while overweight. Are they going to
Olympics? No. But they compete. And to say that there desire to compete at there current
personally peak is less important than the olympiad is belittling IMO. Most of not all of
these people look at losing weight as secondary and competing as primary.

>
>> Of course if teh whole purpose of your training is simple for health non of that matters.
>
>Why can't a purpose of my training be that I like training? In fact, that is my main purpose.
>Another purpose is I like the fellowship. Another purpose is I like the way I feel right after a
>workout, the beta endorphin glow.

Well generally "Training" means "your Training your body" for something. What are you
training for? Training has a purpose. Training to train is as you said earlier " isn't
saying anything at all." OTOH excersising for health generally means I'm Training for
health. Again if your purpose for excericise is unrelated to performance, by all means do
what works for you.

>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>
>>> People who are trying to lose weight (ie because they are overweight, not because they are
>>> trying to "make weight" like a wrestler) are not competing while they are trying to lose weight.
>>> Or they shouldn't be. So the fact that they can't sprint very well while they are on a low-carb
>>> diet to lose weight isn't important.
>>>
>>>> What you burn 3000 cal of fat or 3000 cal of carbs makes no difference.
>>>
>>> Yes, it does. According to Larry's article, if I spend forty minutes in HIIT as running and
>>> biking, I will burn more fat than if I spend the same forty minutes in HIIT in the pool. In the
>>> pool, I will lose weight due to burning glycogen, which doesn't count as real weight loss. If I
>>> do the forty minutes in the pool, and then I choose not to replenish my glycogen with fruit and
>>> pasta and bread, I will lose real weight as my body converts muscle from protein to glucose. But
>>> I don't want to lose muscle, so if I don't replenish my glycogen with carbs (difficult to resist
>>> after a hard swimming session), then I must eat or have already eaten sufficient protein to
>>> prevent my body from canabalizing my own muscles.
>>>
>>> To lose weight, what I want to do is burn fat, so, according to Larry, I should do more running,
>>> biking, and other land-based HIIT than swimming.
>>
>> I believe that your belief is a bit unrealistic. It's very important to look at the body as
>> a system. Simply stated if I burn 1000 calories of glycogen in a workout and only replace
>> 900 calories of glycogen, let say thru a sports drink, the body is at a 100 calorie deficit.
>> Since the body is full well capabale of creating 100 calories of glycogen via other systems
>> that is what it will do. The creation of glycogen is probably from glucogenesis at that
>> point. However that means the body must find calories for other daily activities, lets say
>> sitting here typing this, from another source other than glycogen which generaly is fat. So
>> a 100 calorie deficit is in fact a 100 calorie deficit.
>
>You didn't say what was unrealistic about my belief, which, by the way, is the conclusion of
>Larry's report, not mine.

As stated above "burning glycogen, which doesn't count as real weight loss"

>
>>>> Your statement of "It is irrelevant for a person who is trying to compete, because he wouldn't
>>>> be competing while trying to lose weight." simply makes no since to me. We are talking about
>>>> what is a safe diet, in the sense of everyday eating.
>>>
>>> No, we are talking about losing weight. That isn't an everyday diet.
>>
>> Again IMO, losing weight IS an everday diet.
>
>But it isn't. If it were, then everybody on an everyday diet would starve to death.

No you wouldn't once you reached your "goal weight" you wouldn't change a thing and you
would no longer lose weight. Becasue calories in matched calories out.

>
>> Having a differnet method for losing weight and maintaining weight leads to failure because as
>> soon as the person "reachs there goal weight" they stray from the eating habits that have
>> succesfully made them reach that weight.
>
>That isn't failure. Adding low glycemic carbohydrates back in is not straying. Read what I write,
>and stop interpreting what you want to hear into it.

Basically it works this way. If you spend 2 years eating a certain way you create
"succesfull" habits that allow you to eat at a healthly level. Making changes to those
habits once you've reached your goal weight opens the door to break those "succesfull"
habits. The more drastic the change the higher the likely hood of failure. Adding low
glycemic carbohydrtaes back is not failure, however it is a change from teh eating habits
that have caused you to lose weight, thus opening the door to creating new habits that will
cause you to gain weight back. Again My opinion nothing more.

>
>> Simply stated being a certain weight means eating a certain amount of calories. The reason a
>> person weighs 300lbs is because they eat enough calories to maintain that weight. If I want
>> to weigh a certain weight I should they way that person woudl eat and always eat that way,
>> for teh rest of my life. They only catch here is that a person taht weighs 300lbs and wants
>> to weigh 150 shoudln't jsut start eating like a 150 lb'r. To drastic of a lifestyle change.
>> However eating like 250-275 lb'r may be more realistic.
>
>Why don't you read the Atkins book? Or read the Pritikin book. Both doctors disagree with you.

Do I have to read everybook that disagrees with me in order to have a good idea that I'm correct. If
someone came out with a book tomorrow that stated the world was flat and everyone said "hey the
worlds flat" do I have to read that book to know that they are in correct?

No I've not read either book, of course they diagree with me. However some people agree with me. And
since I've experianced teh weight lose and have maintained the weightloss I KNOW my method works.

>
>> <Snip Atkins menu>
>>>
>>> While I am trying to lose weight, losing weight is what is important to me, not competing. I
>>> choose to lose weight, and in making that choice I recognize that while i am losing weight, I
>>> will not be functioning at 100%, regardless of whose diet I am on, and so competing better not
>>> be high on my priority list. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Pun intended.
>>
>> That is your choice. However I know from both experinace and by speaking with others that
>> this is not acceptbale to many. Many, dare I even say most, athletes gain smoe weight in the
>> off season. Most lose it while training and most care about performance. A caloric defict of
>> 100-300 calories a day should not adversely effect performance when combined with an
>> otehrwise healthy diet.
>
>You do know I have stated repeatedly that we are not talking about those people, right?
>
>> <Sniped Repeat or agreed>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Depends. I suspect that we probably did alot of intermitant sprinting. Either away from
>>>> preditors or later on after preditors while hunting. Also without doubt a great deal of our
>>>> activities were at a much higher HR than what we do today. Climbing trees, mountains etc.
>>>> Whether this was at 70%MHR + I don't know but to say we never burned glycogen is a bit of
>>>> stretch.
>>>
>>> But who said we never burned glycogen? Why do you raise that strawman?
>>
>> Ok shouldn't have used never. Just making the point that we can speculate that we coudl have
>> possibly have been as dependant on gylcogen as cavemen as we are now.
>
>...and now, as then, we don't have to eat a lot of carbohydrates, especially not refined ones, to
>satisfy that need. Nuts and berries were pretty much the only carbohydrates we ate, since they
>would have been the only ones available. Both are recommended for Atkins dieters.
>

What about fruits and vegatables many are high GI foods.

>>>> Not to mention that the brain and some organs burn ONLY glycogen. Also mister caveman was much
>>>> more active than I probably spending many hours just gather food, not a 15 minute drive by at
>>>> the local grocer. All in all I think glycogen depletion was a great problem for mister cave man
>>>> as even slow movement burns a certain percentage of glycogen.
>>>
>>> ...and so, if he was not a meat eater, he would need to eat continuously to get enough calories.
>>
>> Don't follow the logic.
>
>We would essentially be plant eaters, like buffalo. We would have to graze all day long to get
>enough calories. Plant eating animals spend most of their time looking for food. They breed
>frequently. their young mature quickly. They survive by the law of large numbers. None of these
>applies to humans.

Why not? Not sure how we are so differnet from buffalo or Elephants. Other than the problem of our
young not being able to walk, nearly out of the womb. However this seperates us from nearly all
animals, meat eater or not so I'd say a rather specious argument.

>
>>>>> The safeguards you are talking about are the normal operating mode for the body most of the
>>>>> time. You might sprint through your day, but I don't.
>>>>
>>>> Sprinting is not the only means or need for Glycogen. Gylcogen is burnt constantly. However
>>>> mister caveman woudl be lion lunch if he HAD to sprint and didn't have any. The option to not
>>>> performing well was death...not just simply slower lap times.
>>>
>>> ...and that is why the body can make its own carbohydrate.
>>
>> Yes but had mister caveman been on an Atkinsman diet, and had spent the day climbing trees
>> and hills, which depleted his only partially replenished muscles due to an already low
>> glycogen storage and as he decended the last tree of teh day to meet up with mister
>> Sabertootch tiger. Again kitty snacks..
>
>Our predators were bears, lions, tigers, panthers, mountain lions, cheetahs. Humans can't outrun
>any of these animals. Even the fastest sprinters of today would be easily run down by a lion or
>even a bear. We didn't escape from these predators by running.

This is true however whatever the situation the slowest dude, running, climbing etc always
became kitty meat. Survival of the fittest, not the thinest.

>
>And I remind you that I have used the Atkins diet to lose 10 kilos. I swam, rode, and did aerobics
>and weights throughout the entire process. I had no trouble doing the work, and I trained for
>between two and three hours per day. The only adverse effect was that my top speed was reduced
>somewhat. However, my strength increased significantly. I reported both

>
>> <Snipped as I hope we can simply agree to disagree that some even many people compete and lose
>> weight at the same time I know I do and I knwo alot of others that do. Low performance is not an
>> option>
>
>We don't agree. We aren't talking about losing the 5 lbs of baby fat you put on over Christmas.
>Serious competitive swimmers train almost all year round. If they get fat, there is a problem to be
>worked out, and their coach would help them with it. He would not expect them to be at their best
>while trying to correct that problem.

Like I said earlier we agree to disagree. I know MANY people that are overweight and many more than
a few pounds and compete. Of course you can say I'm a liar what ever. Many are coming back from a
prolong injury, or just getting into the sport(s) or are returning athletes. Heck in my masters
class about 50% of the competitive swimmers, teh ones that compete in the master meets are
overweight REALLY overweight 20kilos easy overweight. They almost all lose weight while training for
the competitions. Of course they also expect to perform

>
>>>>> The problem for overweight people is precisely that they eat them faster than they are needed.
>>>>
>>>> No the problem is THEY EAT TO MUCH.
>>>
>>> That is what I just said! Eating carbs faster than they are needed is eating too much!
>>>
>>>> Not carbs not fat not protein. They eat to many calories PERIOD.
>>>
>>> You should write a book about this fantastic new discovery that overweight people don't know
>>> about and have never heard before. You'll be rich.
>>
>> Unfortunately it's already been done. Weight Watchers for one.
>
>If you read their book, you will find it contains a lot more than just: Eat less than you burn.

My wife works at Weight Watchers. There entire system is based on a point system based on how much
you weigh. Yes they do do a few "fancy things" with fiber an dfat grams, but for the most part its
"eat less points(calories) than you weigh" IMO if they didn't have to try and sell this to the
masses it woudl be even closer to "Eat less than you do know"

>
>> Although they have some variant on watchiong fat grams. Seattle Sutton I believe is based on the
>> same idea of simply eating less. Unfortunately it has been ingrained into people that being
>> overweight is some sort of disease that we have no control over. When someone show's a simple
>> method that works such as "Quite eating so much Fat Ass" The title of my book, people just can't
>> believe it. Both I and my wife lost a considerable amount of weight. When asked "How did you do
>> it" or "What's your secret" about 95% of the people wouldn't believe us when when answered "jsut
>> quite eating so much". Abou the only people that did believe us were people that either did it
>> themselves or people that have never had a weight problem. Simply eat like a thin person and you
>> be one.
>
>So you had a partner to work with? Someone to keep you honest? Someone you had to compete with or
>measure yourself against? Another person? Then it wasn't just "quit eating so much," was it.

What? Of course it's easier to make any change in your life whith support. Quite smoking,
start excersing, quite drinking whatever all the same. In the end the responsibilty is still
squarely on your shoulders to do it, no one else can make you do it. Yes I had support but I
still did it by "not eating so much" I didn't even follow the Weight Watchers Points that
much. I simply counted calories, changed what I ate and got used to what a normal portion
size was. I QUITE EATING SO MANY CALORIES.

<Snip>

>> No not a weight loss program, but as stated earlier I don't believe in "weight loss
>> programs" I believe in a healthy diet. A diet that will result in being the weight you
>> desire. So shoudl a coach put an athlete on a healthy diet... Yes say yes.
>
>Matt, a diet that causes you to lose weight is not a healthy diet. It will cause you to starve
>to death.

Again Flatty wrong. If I weigh 200 lbs and eat the calories necessary to maintain 175 lbs I
will lose weight until I reach 175lbs. I will not starve to death.

>
>>> Because one can't perform at one's best while trying to lose weight. We are talking about
>>> overweight people, people with 20, 40, 60 kilos to lose, not the guy who ate too much over
>>> Christmas.
>>
>> This is flattly wrong. As stated earlier a persons performance is not affected my a 100-300
>> caloric deficit a day. Will I say a person cannot perform on a "radical weightloss program"
>> of 500-1000 calorie deficit a day, then yes. however I woudl not say that that is teh proper
>> way to lose weight.
>
>Wait a minute. We are talking about a person who has a significant amount of weight to lose. That
>person's success will inevitably depend on receiving positive feedback early and often. A 100
>calorie per day deficit, which is almost impossible to achieve reliably while swimming 6k workouts
>and doing a half our of weights and running and biking five to seven days per week, will give very
>little positive feedback. Weight loss will be glacially slow. The hunger experienced after a 6k
>swimming workout will be excruciating to resist. Everything will have to be measured. Calories
>burned will have to be computed. What you are suggesting is almost impossible to achieve, and when
>a fat person decides to lose weight, he wants to see results.

Frankly I have no idea at what levels of caloric deficits start to effect performance. I do
know that many nutritionist reccommend the 500 claories a day defict as a good level for
weight loss. I doubt this level of caloric deficit would effect performance either if still
eating a balanced healthy diet. 500 calories a day is a lb a week. This is probbaly still
excrutiating slow for most. Again in my opinion what is most important while losing the
weight is not losing the weight but retraining oneself in the methods they eat. Most people
don't gain the weight at a rate of a lb a week. And they have spent Years training
themselves to eat to gain weight. Retraining to learn to eat properly doesn't happen
overnight. This, again IMO, is why most diets have a very low success rate, not because of
teh type of food involved. I will admit I didn't follow this to the "T" during my weightloss
Particulalry in the beggining. However my excuse is I was shooting in the dark just like
everyone else and had no idea what I was doing. The more I realized that it was as simple as
eating less food, the easier it became to make proper choices, excercise self control and
make lifestyle changes that supported that.

>
>> As far as performing at peak and losing weight. Again from personaly esperiance you're
>> flattly wrong. My 5K PB went from 29 minutes to 20 minutes over a period of 8-10 months in
>> which I also lost 15 Kilos. Prior to that I lost an additional 22 kilos, simply by not
>> eating so much. No Atkins, No Zone, No pills, no Grapefruit. Simply by accepting the fact
>> that I needed to make some lifestyle changes and then did it.
>
>Either you are swimming 4 minute 1000s or you are talking about running! Read Larry's original post
>again. The whole point of this discussion was that we were talking about swimming, not running.
>Swimming burns lots of glycogen and not much fat, running burns lots of fat and not so much
>glycogen.
>
>martin

I used running as an example as I never compete in swimming only events so I have no "posted
times" to back up my claims. However a 5K running event is not a "Fat burning" event. Had I
suffered from low glycogen levels I would have been unable to sustain pace throughout those
events and more than likely not made nearly the progress I did. Of course that is purely
speculative as there is no control group to compare to.

I can say that my swimming times did improve during the same period. However during the period I was
using swimming as cross training. However being of a competitive nature I did generally keep track
of times. Never did my performance suffer and I had significant speed as well as endurance gains
during the same period. I rarely if ever felt my performance was limited by "lack of calories"

~Matt

 

[M. W. Smith]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:00:03 GMT, MJuric <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:09:10 +0100, "m. w. smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:31:54 GMT, <MJuric> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:19:21 +0100, "m. w. smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:46:18 GMT, <MJuric> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:44:10 +0100, "m. w. smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:20:34 GMT, <MJuric> wrote:
>>>>>>> I also suspect, don't know, that the swimmer that does not replinish there glycogen
>>>>>>> stores will in fact suffer in the area of performance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I said that was my experience, but that the difference was negligible for the case of a
>>>>>> person who is trying to lose weight. It is irrelevant for a person who is trying to compete,
>>>>>> because he wouldn't be competing while trying to lose weight.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess I'm not 100% what the point of the above is. Weight loss is simply a matter of burning
>>>>> more than you bring in.
>>>>
>>>> Well that's it then. The Nobel Prize to you. Weight loss is simply a matter of burning more
>>>> than you bring in. What is everybody's problem? Don't they know how simple it is?
>>>
>>> Uhhhh yes simple as that. I think most people truely do know how simple it is. It's just
>>> that making it that simple gives them no reason for being overweight. No one said it was
>>> easy to lose weight and no said that everyone can lose wweight as easy as others. however
>>> for the majority of individuals its as simple as that.
>>
>> ...which leaves everyone nowhere. It is of no use. That's the point. It is just another
>> definition of being overweight. You are overweight if you consume more than you burn.
>
> I'm really quite confused by your confusion here. Yes if you eat more than you burn you will
> be overweight. Simple as that.

But I'm not confused. Everyone knows that you have to burn more than you eat. It doesn't solve
the problem. It is a truism. It is of no value to people who are trying to lose weight. It also
has absolutely nothing to do with whether you can do your best times while losing 20 kilos.
Nothing at all.

>>
>>>> You would probably tell a depressed person to "Snap out of it." It's as simple as that. Just
>>>> snap out of it. What's the big deal?
>>>
>>> No Depression has a "tendancy" to be more of a chemical imbalance, yet I'm no expert there.
>>
>> But you just said being overweight is a chemical imbalance. Consuming more than you burn *is* a
>> chemical imbalance. Burning more than you consume *is* a chemical imbalance. In fact, nothing
>> happens in the body except by chemical imbalance.
>
> As I said no expert on depression but my understanding is depression is caused by a chemical
> imblance isn't necessarily controlled by what is generally available to the depressed. Thus
> drugs like Zoloft are made ot counteract the chemical imbalance. Of course drugs can be made
> to help lose weight or maybe liposuction. I guess I'm more interested in simple self control
> than taking a pill.

But your point was that depression is a chemical imbalance and being overweight is not. That's
false. They are both chemical imbalanses, and they are both much more. Neither is simple.

>>> However I can certainly speak from experinace on the weight issue. And yes it's as simple as not
>>> eating so much.
>>
>> Do you understand that simplicity is not the issue? It is irrelevant. Travelling to the moon is
>> simply a matter of covering the distance to the moon. To get to the moon, all you have to do is
>> go from here to the moon. It is as simple as that. Here's another one. Breaking the world record
>> in the 1500 is simply a matter of swimming 1500m in under 14:43, or whatever it is. It is as
>> simple as that.
>>
>> None of this has anything to do with trying to lose weight while trying to compete, which is what
>> we were talking about. I'm willing to bet that there has never been a case where a swimmer broke
>> a world record while on a diet to lose 20 kilos. What do you think?
>
> Again extremes. You like to do that don't you? Yes I can find an extreme value for nearly
> anything said by anyone concerning nearly anything that makes the statement untrue. The fact
> is an Olympiad is at near Peak perfomraning values period not simply performing at current
> peak values. The olympiad is in the best possible shape that ANYONE could be at. Not simply
> you or me or average Joe trying to lose 20 kilo's. The fact remains nearly anyone can
> operate at peak performance and make performance gains on a 100-300 caloric deficit a day. A
> deficit that will cause healthy weightloss reguardless of excercise performed and nearly
> reguardless of what they eat.

How do you know? What do you mean "Again extremes."? You are the one who keeps trying to restrict
the issue so that it fits your argument. Nobody who needs to lose weight for health reasons needs to
win swimming races. Competitive swimmers don't need to lose weight. I've never seen a top swimmer
who needs to lose weight for health reasons. Which reminds me, you have been talking about running
all along. I have been talking about swimming. Larry just posted another article which concludes
that swimming is *not* good for losing weight, while biking and running *are*. That was the point I
originally posed. Apparently, that point is correct, and losing weight is *not* simply a matter of
burning more than you consume.

>> You asked why would anyone want to use a diet that adversely affected performance in the pool.
>> The answer is another simple one: The diet works. What that means is the diet is one that the
>> swimmer can stick with. And what that means is that while on the diet, the swimmer's hunger and
>> cravings are either eliminated or reduced significantly, thus removing the major obstacle to
>> staying on the diet.
>
> Liposuction works to. So does cutting off your arm or leg. Hows that for extremes. Maybe
> taking pills. Just because it works doesn't mean it's good for you. Oh what about a gastric
> bipass. That'll do it. I can play Mr. extremes to.

Keep playing. Read Larry's latest, then get back to me with your revised position.

>> In my case, that doesn't happen on a low-fat, high-carb diet like the Pritikin diet. I have used
>> the Pritikin diet successfully. While on the Pritikin diet, I was hungry all the time. 24/7
>> hungry. When I am losing weight on the Atkins diet, I can eliminate hunger and craving by eating
>> a piece of cheese. So, in my case, of these two diets, only the Atkins diet works, because what I
>> mean, when I say a diet works, is that I lose weight *and* I can control my hunger and cravings.
>
> Great! wonderfull I'm glad it works for YOU. Don't believe I said it wouldn't. The argument was
> about sacraficing performance and losing weight of which you claimed was impossible.

No, I didn't. I claimed that swimming is not the right exercise if you want to lose weight, and that
running and biking and other leg-based exercises are. When you started to argue about that, saying
you couldn't see any reason to use the Atkins diet and lose performance, I claimed that peopole who
want to lose weight are more concerned with losing weight than with doing their best times in the
pool. You didn't dispute that; you just argued that you don't have to sacrifice doing your best
swimming times if you don't use the Atkins diet, to which I said, well, the people who use the
Atkins diet do so because it works for them and the other diets don't.

>> Both diets work, if you only require that they cause you to lose weight. Pretty much any diet
>> will do that. But that requirement isn't enough for most people, which is why being overweight is
>> such a difficult situation to be in, and why the requirement to reduce or eliminate hunger and
>> cravings is included. I suspect that what makes the Atkins diet work for me while the Pritikin
>> diet does not is genetic. I suspect that the Pritikin diet works for some people (Larry), where
>> the Atkins diet does not.
>
> I do agree that genetics plays a role no doubt. I also agree it's very difficult to lose
> weight. I also agree that if it works and your happy with by all means stick with it.
> Personally in my case it was much less to do with cravings and genetics than it did
> lifestyle changes and choices.

But it isn't difficult to lose weight on the Atkins diet. Haven't you been listening to the
people who use it? It is easy to lose weight on the Atkins diet. It is so powerful that if it is
not used correctly, it is dangerous. So deciding to use the Atkins diet is also about lifestyle
changes and choices.

>> So when you say losing weight is as simple as consuming less than you burn, you actually aren't
>> talking about the real problem.
>
> No I am talking about the real problem. People use Atkins, Pritkins, Carb blocker etc as an
> excuse to not lose weight.

Who? I used it and lost ten kilos. Pat has used it and has lost even more. There is another guy here
using it as well, and he has lost a lot too. I don't think there is anyone here, who has owned up to
dieting, who is using their diet as an excuse not to lose weight. Now that you have revealed your
true "Fat people are losers" attitude, let's call it a day.

> I used running as an example as I never compete in swimming only events so I have no "posted
> times" to back up my claims.

That's what I thought.

> However a 5K running event is not a "Fat burning" event.

Argue with Larry's references about that, will you, because apparently the science says it is a fat
burning event.

martin

--
If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote, because we badly need a new
president.

 

[Mjuric]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:00:22 +0100, "m. w. smith"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:00:03 GMT, MJuric <[email protected]> wrote:
>
<Big Snippage>

I Started to respond but frankly don't think it would do any good.

A few points and I'll be on my way.

1) If you want to use Atkins and it works for you by all means go for it. I applaud any effort
towards a healthier lifestyle.

2) We agree that Atkins affects performance. Thus anyone wanting to lose weight and compete should
not use Atkins.

3) Larry's Original Post stated that Swimmers burn more Glycogen per work unit than Does a runner or
cyclist. I don't dispute that. However:
a)It is entirely possible to lose weight by burning Glycogen only
b) The study does not say that the swimmer burnt NO fat just significantly less than
the runners and cyclists.

4) Losing weight IMO, IS as simply as eating less food.
a) I've done it
b) Many succesfull "diet plans" are based on it

5) Any diet plan that states "If used incorrectly may be dangerous" Ain't a diet plan I want to use.

As Always I enjoyed our little spat. Frankly someday I hope to meet you as I've yet to meet
a person who thinks on such a completely different plain than I. It's actually rather
refreshing, frustrating at times but refreshing.

~Matt

 

[M. W. Smith]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:45:24 GMT, MJuric <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:00:22 +0100, "m. w. smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:00:03 GMT, MJuric <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
> <Big Snippage>
>
> I Started to respond but frankly don't think it would do any good.
>
> A few points and I'll be on my way.
>
> 1) If you want to use Atkins and it works for you by all means go for it. I applaud any effort
> towards a healthier lifestyle.
>
> 2) We agree that Atkins affects performance. Thus anyone wanting to lose weight and compete should
> not use Atkins.

...and we agree that it is foolish to expect personal bests while trying to lose a lot of weight.

> 3) Larry's Original Post stated that Swimmers burn more Glycogen per work unit than Does a runner
> or cyclist. I don't dispute that.

...and his second post stated that running and riding are better than swimming for losing weight.

> However:
> a)It is entirely possible to lose weight by burning Glycogen only
> b) The study does not say that the swimmer burnt NO fat just significantly less than
> the runners and cyclists.
>
> 4) Losing weight IMO, IS as simply as eating less food.
> a) I've done it
> b) Many succesfull "diet plans" are based on it

Yes, and winning a gold medal in the 1500 at the olympics is as simple as winning the race. Simple
and easy are not the same.

> 5) Any diet plan that states "If used incorrectly may be dangerous" Ain't a diet plan I want
> to use.

How about the swimming pool? If the swimming pool is used incorrectly, it may be dangerous. Or your
car? How about the drugs prescribed by your doctor? You don't use those either?

> As Always I enjoyed our little spat. Frankly someday I hope to meet you as I've yet to meet
> a person who thinks on such a completely different plain than I. It's actually rather
> refreshing, frustrating at times but refreshing.

I always enjoy meeting the people I talk with on the internet. I've never met one I didn't like,
although Donald Graft might prove to be the exception that proves the rule.

martin

--
If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote, because we badly need a new
president.

 

[Mjuric]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 07:47:31 +0100, "m. w. smith"
<[email protected]> wrote:

<Snippage>
>>
>> What are you talking about? The article says "brisk walking" My suggestion was that if it
>> was "running" not "brisk walking" the people "running" group would have lost more weight,
>> simply by burning more calories. The article never mentions Running.
>
>Your suggestion is the conclusion, namely that running and riding are better than swimming for
>losing weight, because they burn more fat than glycogen, while swimming burns more glycogen than
>fat, which was the point of this discussion.
>
>martin

My suggestion was that running burns more calories than walking. Thusly swimming burns more
calories than sitting on the couch. Thusly if the comparison was between sitting on the
couch, swimming and or sleeping for an additional 60 minutes a day that swimming would have
been better for weight loss. My explanation for swimmers not losing any weight was due to
the fact that the study was run under the "no dietry restricitions" clause meaning people
went on the honor system rather than having the actual calories they consumed controled or
accounted for. We all agreed that swimmers come out of the water generally more hungry than
runners or cyclists. We disagreed on the reason for the hunger but not that they were
hungry. Swimmers with "uncontrolled dietary intake, more than likely will eat more because
tehy are hungry more thus no weight loss.

~Matt

 

[Donal Fagan]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:46:47 GMT, MJuric
<[email protected]> wrote:

>We all agreed that swimmers come out of the water generally more hungry than runners or cyclists.

I always came out of swim team practice very hungry. And if I practiced hard, like on swim team, I
got hungry. But if I swam long, slow and steady, what you might call 'swim-jogging', I found that it
suppressed my appetite much like jogging itself.

Donal Fagan AIA Donal@DonalO'Fagan.com (Anglicise the name to reply by e-mail)

 

[Mjuric]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 07:59:05 +0100, "m. w. smith"
<[email protected]> wrote:

<Snip>
>>
>> 2) We agree that Atkins affects performance. Thus anyone wanting to lose weight and compete
>> should not use Atkins.
>
>...and we agree that it is foolish to expect personal bests while trying to lose a lot of weight.

I'll leave the rest alone. But no I do not agree with you. IMO, a healthy balanced diet that
allows gradual healthy weightloss should have little or no effect on performance. Simply
stated I think while losing weight it become easier to set PB's as you are no longer carring
the weight, not a real factor in the pool, nor pumping the extra blood needed to support the
fat. Generally if a training regime is carried out while losing weight, combined with a
healthy diet performance should increase. Of course IMO...

~Matt

>
<Snip>
>
>martin

 

[Mjuric]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:20:01 GMT, Donal Fagan <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:46:47 GMT, MJuric <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>We all agreed that swimmers come out of the water generally more hungry than runners or cyclists.
>
>I always came out of swim team practice very hungry. And if I practiced hard, like on swim team, I
>got hungry. But if I swam long, slow and steady, what you might call 'swim-jogging', I found that
>it suppressed my appetite much like jogging itself.
>
>
>Donal Fagan AIA Donal@DonalO'Fagan.com (Anglicise the name to reply by e-mail)

I'm much the opposite. Both in Running, Cycling and Swimming. The higher the intensity the
more suppresion there is to my appetite. After some really hard races I can't even look at
solid food for a couple of hours. After long slow easy runs, rides or swims I'm usually
starving. OTOH the only time I get hungry on a any short easy workout is in the pool. Again
I believe medium related.

~Matt

 

[Diablo]

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

OTOH the only time I get hungry on a any short easy workout
> is in the pool. Again I believe medium related.

you're all on the wrong side of the deck...i just came back from a meet in chicago where the
Coaches Hospitality was so well catered, i didn't even mind staying through all the 1650's which
ran til 11pm.

just watching all those miles made me absolutely famished...my poor stop-watch thumb hurt like
a *****...

 

[M. W. Smith]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:46:47 GMT, MJuric <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 07:47:31 +0100, "m. w. smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <Snippage>
>>>
>>> What are you talking about? The article says "brisk walking" My suggestion was that if it
>>> was "running" not "brisk walking" the people "running" group would have lost more weight,
>>> simply by burning more calories. The article never mentions Running.
>>
>> Your suggestion is the conclusion, namely that running and riding are better than swimming for
>> losing weight, because they burn more fat than glycogen, while swimming burns more glycogen than
>> fat, which was the point of this discussion.
>>
>> martin
>
> My suggestion was that running burns more calories than walking. Thusly swimming burns more
> calories than sitting on the couch. Thusly if the comparison was between sitting on the
> couch, swimming and or sleeping for an additional 60 minutes a day that swimming would have
> been better for weight loss. My explanation for swimmers not losing any weight was due to
> the fact that the study was run under the "no dietry restricitions" clause meaning people
> went on the honor system rather than having the actual calories they consumed controled or
> accounted for. We all agreed that swimmers come out of the water generally more hungry than
> runners or cyclists. We disagreed on the reason for the hunger but not that they were
> hungry. Swimmers with "uncontrolled dietary intake, more than likely will eat more because
> tehy are hungry more thus no weight loss.

...and hence the reason for using the Atkins diet. It eliminates, or reduces significantly, that
hunger problem.

I also note that, in my experience with both groups of athletes, runners and riders are more lean
than swimmers.

martin

--
If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote, because we badly need a new
president.

 

[Andres Muro]

That is pretty accurate. Professional cyclists use racing to loose weight and achieve peak fitness.
In fact, it is not uncomon for cyclist to get to the tour slightly overweight, and lose the extra
weight while imnproving their form. Pro cylists may reach ridiculosly low body fat levels by th end
of the season. During xmas, they may party a little too much and add some body fat. They loose it
while racing.

Of course I am sure none of us would think of comparing ourselves with pro-cyclists.

Andres

MJuric <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 07:59:05 +0100, "m. w. smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <Snip>
> >>
> >> 2) We agree that Atkins affects performance. Thus anyone wanting to lose weight and compete
> >> should not use Atkins.
> >
> >...and we agree that it is foolish to expect personal bests while trying to lose a lot of weight.
>
> I'll leave the rest alone. But no I do not agree with you. IMO, a healthy balanced diet that
> allows gradual healthy weightloss should have little or no effect on performance. Simply
> stated I think while losing weight it become easier to set PB's as you are no longer carring
> the weight, not a real factor in the pool, nor pumping the extra blood needed to support the
> fat. Generally if a training regime is carried out while losing weight, combined with a
> healthy diet performance should increase. Of course IMO...
>
> ~Matt
>
> >
> <Snip>
> >
> >martin

 

[Helgi Briem]

On 15 Feb 2004 21:03:07 -0800, [email protected] (andres muro) wrote:

>That is pretty accurate. Professional cyclists use racing to loose weight and achieve peak fitness.
>In fact, it is not uncomon for cyclist to get to the tour slightly overweight, and lose the extra
>weight while imnproving their form. Pro cylists may reach ridiculosly low body fat levels by th end
>of the season. During xmas, they may party a little too much and add some body fat. They loose it
>while racing.

"Lose" not "loose". Please. Pretty please.

 

[M. W. Smith]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:30:51 GMT, MJuric <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 07:59:05 +0100, "m. w. smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>>>
>>> 2) We agree that Atkins affects performance. Thus anyone wanting to lose weight and compete
>>> should not use Atkins.
>>
>> ...and we agree that it is foolish to expect personal bests while trying to lose a lot of weight.
>
> I'll leave the rest alone. But no I do not agree with you. IMO, a healthy balanced diet that
> allows gradual healthy weightloss should have little or no effect on performance.

ok, if you redefine healthy diet to mean losing weight is healthy, then you can say
anything you want.

> Simply stated I think while losing weight it become easier to set PB's as you are no longer
> carring the weight, not a real factor in the pool, nor pumping the extra blood needed to support
> the fat. Generally if a training regime is carried out while losing weight, combined with a
> healthy diet performance should increase. Of course IMO...

Yes, but, you said 100 to 300 calories per day. If I choose to restrict my calories by 100 per day,
it will take more than a month for me to lose one pound. Even if I drop 300 calories per day, I will
lose less than 3 pounds per month. That won't be fast enough to supply positive feedback, plus it
requires measuring food amounts carefully and adding up calories accurately and trying to measure
energy burned accurately, which is quite difficult.

With a low-carb diet, you don't have to count calories, you only count grams of carbohydrates, and
the basic strategy in the early phases is to not eat much carb at all, so there is nothing you
really need to compute.

You make a choice, Do I want to lose 10 kilos or win races? well, if I have 10 kilos to lose, I
might not be winning races anyway, but more than likely, I'm not a competitor. Most swimmers aren't,
so performance doesn't matter all that much to most of us.

I'm in a different situation where I have to choose. I do about two hours per day of hard training,
mostly not in the pool, owing to there not being a masters team to train with, and I don't like
swimming by myself. But my problem is that the training really tires me out, and I am trying to
write a pilot for a TV series. I can't do both, so I have to choose, either train less and have the
energy to write, or write less and never finish the script.

If I want to lose ten pounds, I have to decide whether to lose two pounds a week and be done with it
after about six or eight weeks, which I can easily do on the Atkins diet (but I'll have no top end
while losing the weight), or should I use a restricted calorie diet and take most of a whole year to
lose the same ten pounds (but still be able to sprint). It's an easy choice for me, since I'm not a
sprinter anyway and I'm not competing anyway. I can train just as hard on the Atkins diet, and I'll
be finished losing weight in about six weeks. Plus I won't have to keep track of anything, just
don't eat any carbs except All Brann, berries, nuts, and raw veggies. Bob's your uncle.

martin

--
If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote, because we badly need a new
president.

 

[M. W. Smith]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:20:20 +0000, Helgi Briem <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On 15 Feb 2004 21:03:07 -0800, [email protected] (andres muro) wrote:
>
>> That is pretty accurate. Professional cyclists use racing to loose weight and achieve peak
>> fitness. In fact, it is not uncomon for cyclist to get to the tour slightly overweight, and lose
>> the extra weight while imnproving their form. Pro cylists may reach ridiculosly low body fat
>> levels by th end of the season. During xmas, they may party a little too much and add some body
>> fat. They loose it while racing.
>
> "Lose" not "loose". Please. Pretty please.

I've seen triathletes "loose" a lot of weight during the run.

martin

--
If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote, because we badly need a new
president.

 

[Curt]

> I also note that, in my experience with both groups of athletes, runners and riders are more lean
> than swimmers.
>
> martin

Hmm, maybe leaner, but swimmers have a much better looking build than a runner or a rider. They have
an upper body.

> --
> If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote, because we badly need a new
> president.

AGREED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bush=debt, war for oil, air pollution, water pollution, making our country the least liked country
in the world, arrogance, the worst president ever!

 

[Rtk]

m. w. smith wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:20:20 +0000, Helgi Briem <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 15 Feb 2004 21:03:07 -0800, [email protected] (andres muro) wrote:
>>
>>> ............... During xmas, they may party a little too much and add some body fat. They loose
>>> it while racing.
>>
>>
>> "Lose" not "loose". Please. Pretty please.
>
>
> I've seen triathletes "loose" a lot of weight during the run.
>

losely speaking, that is.

rtk

 

[M. W. Smith]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:42:38 GMT, curt <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> I also note that, in my experience with both groups of athletes, runners and riders are more lean
>> than swimmers.
>>
>> martin
>
> Hmm, maybe leaner, but swimmers have a much better looking build than a runner or a rider. They
> have an upper body.

I don't think anyone will argue that point, except for the case of sprinters, who do have
upper bodies.

martin

--
If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote, because we badly need a new
president.

 

[MJuric]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:43:39 +0100, "m. w. smith"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:46:47 GMT, MJuric <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 07:47:31 +0100, "m. w. smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> <Snippage>
>>>>
>>>> What are you talking about? The article says "brisk walking" My suggestion was that if it
>>>> was "running" not "brisk walking" the people "running" group would have lost more weight,
>>>> simply by burning more calories. The article never mentions Running.
>>>
>>> Your suggestion is the conclusion, namely that running and riding are better than swimming for
>>> losing weight, because they burn more fat than glycogen, while swimming burns more glycogen than
>>> fat, which was the point of this discussion.
>>>
>>> martin
>>
>> My suggestion was that running burns more calories than walking. Thusly swimming burns more
>> calories than sitting on the couch. Thusly if the comparison was between sitting on the
>> couch, swimming and or sleeping for an additional 60 minutes a day that swimming would have
>> been better for weight loss. My explanation for swimmers not losing any weight was due to
>> the fact that the study was run under the "no dietry restricitions" clause meaning people
>> went on the honor system rather than having the actual calories they consumed controled or
>> accounted for. We all agreed that swimmers come out of the water generally more hungry than
>> runners or cyclists. We disagreed on the reason for the hunger but not that they were
>> hungry. Swimmers with "uncontrolled dietary intake, more than likely will eat more because
>> tehy are hungry more thus no weight loss.
>
>...and hence the reason for using the Atkins diet. It eliminates, or reduces significantly, that
>hunger problem.

So does a mixture of Carbs and whey protein. And or carbs alone. In my experiance Carbs
alone of the same caloric value of a mixture of carbs and protein quenches hunger quicker
and more thouroughly than a mixture of Protein and carbs. However the mixture seems to
quench the hunger for longer. Again just my experinace. OTOH If I know that I've been in the
pool and not burnt many calories, I simply take a warm shower get dressed and in 30-40
minutes the hunger goes away. Unlike if I have done a hard workout were the hunger goes from
bad to worse.

>
>I also note that, in my experience with both groups of athletes, runners and riders are more lean
>than swimmers.
>
>martin
>--
>If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote, because we badly need a new
>president.

Actually I would say in order of leanness Runners, cyclist, swimmers. In my experiance
cyclist only are generally far from lean. Check out soem of the "cycling" groups. Most of
them have "breakfast" rides and alot of them... Well... won't be riding on 16 spoke rims.
The first reason, as stated before running and cycling burns more calories per time unit
than swimming. (Note this statement has been proven false at soem elite level of swimming)
Two running and cycling don't involve a medium that absorbs heat as quickly as air (Note I
think it was Steve on this forum had some argument here too) In my experiance If I'm really
hot my appetite is generally surpressed. (Note except for ice cream) Three for the most part
swimming is a non weight bearing activity. It's very difficult to run, plus you burn even
more calories if your carring around an extra 20 kilo's while running. Not nearly the same
problem in the pool.

~Matt