|
jt512
Jul 28, 2004, 3:35 PM
Post #176 of 417
(87666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: And finally; JT, My wife forbids mayonaise in the house, but I am allowed miracle whip. Excuse my ignorance, but is the difference between the two big enough? I love my miracle whip. I am a 4% body fat freak, eat a balanced diet and run, climb or kayak 6 days a week. My climbing has seen gradually improvement over a ten year career, but my weight has pretty much remained the same(145-ish/5'9") I wouldn't be concerned except for your "absolute" restriction on mayonaise. I don't eat a lot of it, but I don't hold back either.
With 4% body fat, you can eat a little Miracle Whip. For those trying to lose weight, I recommed avoiding all oil-based spreads.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bluesbro
Aug 11, 2004, 1:32 AM
Post #177 of 417
(87666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2004
Posts: 19
|
I believe Atkins is misunderstood. Doesn't carbs get converted to glucose? Isn't glucose a sugar? Doesn't your body convert glucose to glycogen? Can't your body use approx 8 grams of glycogen per day (average) before it (body) has to store the excess i.e. bread, pasta, potatos, any other food that is high in simple carbohydrates? Doesn't processed foods contain a high level of simple carbs that convert to gluclose, like as fast as the ground rises when you lob from a sugar coma? If you have actually read the complete book on Atkins you would find that he doesn't recommend mostly meat. He suggests you restrict the number of carbs so that your body doesn't have to store the excess carbs-to-glucose-to-fat conversion. He recommends eating complex carbs (green veggies) but to count the total number of carbs per day to get your body to start burning your stores of energy (the fat cells sitting there to pitch in when your body needs energy) Your body starts burning fat instead of robbing energy from your protein stores (muscle). What happens when you go on a low calorie-low fat diet? You feel hungry, your body senses a lack of energy intake and thinks its starving, so body says to self: i better slow things down and conserve energy cause i'm starving, better eat protein (muscle) until better times come along. I better slow my motabilism way down till the dude starts eating again. Atkins diet doesn't make you feel hungry so your body doesn't slow motabalism but does need to get its energy so it starts burning its fat stores. Atkins doesn't suggest radical or extreme diet. Someone earlier in the thread made a salient point - the first two weeks looks extreme, then it begins to add back in carbs under control til you hit your target weight then you go on the maintainence track which advocates you experiment with the number of carb grams per day you can intake without putting back on weight. He suggests you see your doctor and check all vitals before you go on it and you'd be surprised how your vitals fall in line. He recommends eating not just red meat, but fish, chicken and other healthy approaches. If you read and reflect on the science, it seems to be hard to refute... Lots of doctors, nutrishionists (sp?) and others with a stake in holding on to what they have preached has created a cottage industry to attack and discredit Atkins. Try reading his book before you reject it out of hand... :idea:
|
|
|
|
|
pywiak
Aug 11, 2004, 2:06 AM
Post #178 of 417
(87666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 105
|
I've found a low-carbohydrate meal plan to be effective for weight loss without losing lean muscle mass. In half a year I've shed ~45 pounds without going hungry, counting calories, or fretting about the process. I'm currently down at my college weight with a lower body-fat level. I recently did a week of bike touring including multiple century rides and over 20,000' of hill climbing. I added carbs during the physical activity to avoid the bonk, but otherwise kept it simple. I'm not climbing as hard as at my peak, but that's due more to a restricted activity and training schedule. Being ten pounds lighter than that period of my life almost makes up for it. Talking about the theory is well and good, but I'll speak from firsthand experience. Your results may vary.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 11, 2004, 2:18 AM
Post #179 of 417
(87666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: I believe Atkins is misunderstood. Doesn't carbs get converted to glucose? Isn't glucose a sugar? Doesn't your body convert glucose to glycogen?
Some of it. It burns the rest.
In reply to: Can't your body use approx 8 grams of glycogen per day (average) before it (body) has to store the excess i.e. bread, pasta, potatos, any other food that is high in simple carbohydrates?
Huh? Unless you have an abnormal metabolism, your body converts very little glucose to fat. The body responds to high carbohydrate intake by enhanced burning of carbohydrate, not by converting it to fat.
[Rest of gross misunderstanding of metabolism snipped.]
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
pushsendnorcal
Aug 31, 2004, 6:15 PM
Post #180 of 417
(87666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 15, 2003
Posts: 207
|
jt512
Just wondering if you knew of any diet/training books or websites that offer a lot of information about metabolism.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 31, 2004, 8:20 PM
Post #181 of 417
(87666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: jt512 Just wondering if you knew of any diet/training books or websites that offer a lot of information about metabolism. Thanks
"Metabolism" is a pretty broad subject. Specifically, what aspect of metabolism are you interested in reading about?
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
metakinjo
Aug 31, 2004, 8:53 PM
Post #182 of 417
(87666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 56
|
ROFL, How to lose wieght to climb better.
PUT DOWN THE FORK
|
|
|
|
|
bluesbro
Aug 31, 2004, 9:10 PM
Post #183 of 417
(87666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2004
Posts: 19
|
If you're skinny and in good shape - sure, you probably burn a lot of carbs, but if you're overweight and you don't exercise as much (maybe you're older) your body can't burn every gram of carb if you are taking in more than your body can use at that moment - where does the extra go? It has to be stored somehow, right?. However, but cutting the carbs - even if you have a slow motab or more sedentary lifestyle - your body can kick into Ketosis and burn fat cells to get energy while getting plenty of calories from protein & fat - without gaining weight... Most of the climbers I see are skinny, sinewy, in shape young full of vim & vigor - they really don't need to know how to lose weight - it's the bigger, overwieght, tiredish, slower mo that are interested in reducing carbs and losing weight...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 31, 2004, 9:21 PM
Post #184 of 417
(87666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: If you're skinny and in good shape - sure, you probably burn a lot of carbs, but if you're overweight and you don't exercise as much (maybe you're older) your body can't burn every gram of carb if you are taking in more than your body can use at that moment - where does the extra go?
Where does the fat you eat go? Right into your fat cells.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
glowering
Aug 31, 2004, 9:54 PM
Post #185 of 417
(87666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2002
Posts: 386
|
To jump all the way back to Dingus' points on the first page.
For a diet to work you actually have to stay on it. You just need a calorie deficit to lose weight. For competetive athletes it's worth it to track everything you eat and monitor percentages. But for the average person how long would that last? Cutting down on the junk food and portion size is enough for most people (along with exercise, for me I can't lose weight without exercise without totally starving myself).
No matter how much (or what) I eat, I'm hungry in 2-3 hours again. So I eat 5-6 small meals a day. I'd hate being hungry, and 3 small/medium meals a day would leave me hungry. If I don't eat for a long time it's very tough to be satisfied on a small meal.
I take one cheat day a week where I can eat anything I want. I've been told this can fool your metabolism into burning more calories. I've never read anything to back that up, so I don't know how much merit that has. But the main reason for cheat day is to be able to stay on a diet. It's much easier to have will power when I know I can eat that cookie on Saturday.
Everyone's body is different thought so YMMV.
|
|
|
|
|
bluesbro
Aug 31, 2004, 10:17 PM
Post #186 of 417
(15162 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2004
Posts: 19
|
about the Atkins diet:
Fallacy: The Atkins Nutritional ApproachTM is only effective for weight loss because calories are restricted.
Fact: While some people who do Atkins may eat fewer calories than before, it is certainly not because the program limits calorie intake. Instead, they may end up eating fewer calories because they are generally less hungry and no longer obsessed with food. This occurs for two reasons:
Stable blood sugar throughout the day ensures that you will have fewer food cravings and fewer false hunger pains.
The food eaten by a person doing Atkins (meat, fish, cheese, nuts, eggs and low-sugar/low-starch vegetables and fruits) is less processed and more nutritious than on the typical pre-Atkins menu. Give a body fewer empty calories and provide it with more nutrient-dense alternatives, and it will logically be satisfied sooner and require less food.
Let's look at the results of the study that supports these conclusions. Researchers at New York's Schneider Children's Hospital studied 40 obese patients, ages 12 to 18, who were split into two groups. The low-fat group lost half as much weight on 1,100 calories per day as did the controlled carbohydrate group, which was allowed unlimited calories and, on average, ate 1,830 calories per day. What's even more exciting is that the controlled carbohydrate group enjoyed further health benefits, far from suffering the dangers some warn of with the controlled carbohydrate nutritional approach. Lipid profiles (cholesterol and triglycerides) improved more than with those on the low-fat program.
Also, those on the controlled carbohydrate weight-loss program showed better long-term compliance than those on the low-fat diet. A year later, seven out of eight of those following the controlled carbohydrate approach were still involved with the program as opposed to none on the low-fat diet1.
By the way, is there only one type of fat?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 31, 2004, 10:56 PM
Post #187 of 417
(15162 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: about the Atkins diet: Fallacy: The Atkins Nutritional ApproachTM is only effective for weight loss because calories are restricted. Fact: While some people who do Atkins may eat fewer calories than before, it is certainly not because the program limits calorie intake. Instead, they may end up eating fewer calories because they are generally less hungry and no longer obsessed with food. This occurs for two reasons: Stable blood sugar throughout the day ensures that you will have fewer food cravings and fewer false hunger pains. The food eaten by a person doing Atkins (meat, fish, cheese, nuts, eggs and low-sugar/low-starch vegetables and fruits) is less processed and more nutritious than on the typical pre-Atkins menu. Give a body fewer empty calories and provide it with more nutrient-dense alternatives, and it will logically be satisfied sooner and require less food. Let's look at the results of the study that supports these conclusions. Researchers at New York's Schneider Children's Hospital studied 40 obese patients, ages 12 to 18, who were split into two groups. The low-fat group lost half as much weight on 1,100 calories per day as did the controlled carbohydrate group, which was allowed unlimited calories and, on average, ate 1,830 calories per day. What's even more exciting is that the controlled carbohydrate group enjoyed further health benefits, far from suffering the dangers some warn of with the controlled carbohydrate nutritional approach. Lipid profiles (cholesterol and triglycerides) improved more than with those on the low-fat program. Also, those on the controlled carbohydrate weight-loss program showed better long-term compliance than those on the low-fat diet. A year later, seven out of eight of those following the controlled carbohydrate approach were still involved with the program as opposed to none on the low-fat diet1. By the way, is there only one type of fat?
Nice job of plagiarizing from Atkins.com: http://atkins.com/...01/12/18-934442.html
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bluesbro
Aug 31, 2004, 10:58 PM
Post #188 of 417
(15162 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2004
Posts: 19
|
I don't need the glory or the credit - just glad to know you are actually checking out the facts...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 31, 2004, 11:12 PM
Post #189 of 417
(15162 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: I don't need the glory or the credit...
Good, because when you plagiarize someone else's work, you don't deserve any.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bluesbro
Aug 31, 2004, 11:28 PM
Post #190 of 417
(15162 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2004
Posts: 19
|
Dude, chill - how is it plagerism? I merely did some research and cut and pasted in order to shed some light. I thought about writing that this came from Atkins site, but I also know many would have used that to say - "see, this is self serving" - I admit this is Atkins - now lets go back to every post you have ever made and let's see how many original ideas you have had and how many of the rest you have footnoted and sourced...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 31, 2004, 11:35 PM
Post #191 of 417
(15162 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Dude, chill - how is it plagerism? I merely did some research and cut and pasted...
You just answered your own question.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bluesbro
Aug 31, 2004, 11:38 PM
Post #192 of 417
(15162 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2004
Posts: 19
|
Okay, now you're pissing me off. Who cares... I have posted lots of stuff I read in his book - I don't give a rip if it bothers you. I am posting about the validity of the Atkins Diet - if I make a point that you don't agree with then discuss the point - don't move the goalposts... move on.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 31, 2004, 11:44 PM
Post #193 of 417
(15162 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Okay, now you're pissing me off. Who cares...
Atkins, for starters: In reply to: COPYRIGHTS Copyright (c) 2004 Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. All materials and contents contained in this Web site (including but not limited to the text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, digital downloads, data compilations and software), and the Web site itself, are copyrighted materials belonging exclusively to Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. or its content suppliers and are protected by United States and international copyright law. Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. enforces its copyright interests to the fullest extent permitted under the law, and shall seek civil and criminal remedies where appropriate, including the remedies provided for under sections 501 et seq. of Title 17 of the U.S. Code. All rights are reserved.
As do all reasonable people, who believe that it is wrong to present someone else's work as if it is your own.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bluesbro
Sep 1, 2004, 12:30 AM
Post #194 of 417
(15162 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2004
Posts: 19
|
okay, you win - sue me. now can you please move on...
|
|
|
|
|
bluesbro
Sep 1, 2004, 12:31 AM
Post #195 of 417
(15162 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2004
Posts: 19
|
by the way, by posting the copyright disclaimer - does that mean you just violated it?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 1, 2004, 12:37 AM
Post #196 of 417
(15162 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: by the way, by posting the copyright disclaimer - does that mean you just violated it?
No, because I attributed it, whereas you, tried to pass it off as your own writing.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Sep 1, 2004, 12:41 AM
Post #197 of 417
(87666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Phil has split off the possible copyrighted breach post and the subsequent discussion to rc.com archives. If and when this matter is resolved the post may be brought back. Sorry for any inconvenience. I hope that you will all understand why this was necessary. I am in no way wishing to stifle discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
pushsendnorcal
Sep 1, 2004, 3:39 PM
Post #198 of 417
(87666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 15, 2003
Posts: 207
|
"Metabolism" is a pretty broad subject. Specifically, what aspect of metabolism are you interested in reading about?
-Jay
I guess what I am looking for is a website/book that introduces the basic biology of metabolism along with the major effects it has on strength training. To be honest, I am not even sure of what the different aspects of metabolism are, besides it being one factor in burning stored body fat.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 1, 2004, 5:00 PM
Post #199 of 417
(87666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: "Metabolism" is a pretty broad subject. Specifically, what aspect of metabolism are you interested in reading about? -Jay I guess what I am looking for is a website/book that introduces the basic biology of metabolism along with the major effects it has on strength training. To be honest, I am not even sure of what the different aspects of metabolism are, besides it being one factor in burning stored body fat. Thanks
"Metabolism" consists of all the chemical changes that take place in the body's tissues for the build-up and breakdown of molecules used in the body. For instance, you consume a molecule of glucose. It's absorbed, and either burned for energy, combined with other glucose molecules and stored as glycogen, converted to fat for storage, converted to a non-essential amino acid for incorporation into a protein molecule, etc. Eventually, the fat, glycogen, or amino acid is broken down and burned for energy. That's metabolism in a nut shell. The best source for understanding metabolism, without getting into hardcore biochemistry, would be to pick up an introductory college nutrition textbook. I went the hardcore biochemistry route, myself, so I can't recommend a specific nutrition text. I'm not aware of any popular diet books that cover metabolism.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
pushsendnorcal
Sep 2, 2004, 6:15 PM
Post #200 of 417
(87666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 15, 2003
Posts: 207
|
Thanks
Also I have one other question for jt512
1) Have you heard of a new health book called 'eating for your blood type'. Or something to that affect. If so, what do you think of it. The basic concept seems good if their base information is legit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
