|
bobtheboulderer
Dec 16, 2003, 5:55 AM
Post #101 of 417
(16280 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2002
Posts: 185
|
In reply to: What you need to realize is that the information he is passing along to you (abrasively perhaps) is for your own good.
If jay cares about being the moral compass for the young guys, maybe he should try not being so abrasive. This isn't the first time I have read a post where someone is extolling jay's virtues and in the same breath apologizing for his abrasiveness. I have trouble believing that someone who is constantly abrasive is actually a "good guy"... :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Dec 16, 2003, 12:41 PM
Post #102 of 417
(16277 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
In reply to: but from my little experience the way some people treat new people on here doesnt go far for adding to the climbers imiage. If some one is in the wrong tell them in an adult manner, yes im wrong at times but im not going to listen to some one calling me names.
This is unfortunately a fair statement, which is exactly why I posted again to this to clarify, as I did not want to pile it on you.
What 'climbs4fun' said is very true... Let me tell you a JTree story from 3 Thanksgivings ago in the park...
Long story short... Three 40 somethings, not climbers, were trying to be teens again, and were drunk as sh!t next to their RV in Jumbo. They were obnoxious, loud, and even howling all at 1:30 in the morning. I got out of my tent, and walked over to their fire, asking "if we all had to listen to them ???" They said they would be quiet. 2:30 I went back, as they were never quiet. I asked, "I asked you politly if the whole park had to listen to your drunken revelry in the middle of the night, and you guys said you would be quiet, what's it gonna take?" The drunkest guy told me, "I walked up the road and I couldn't hear myself at all...", I quickly started to talk to another, as this guy was toasted. Another told me, "hey, I know who you are... You're the hippie in the VW Bus..." I had blue hair at the time, and am a punker, so this did not sit well. I said, "Nope... Look at my hair... I'm into punk rock, murder, and mayhem, and I am about to dish some out if you mother f'ers don't shut the f#@$ up !!!", immediately followed by, "Yea !!! You tell em!!!" from three other campsites who had also been kept awake. They quieted down.
Point is... Inebriated people tend to have a skewed view of how drunk they are, and how loud they are, as their perception is a bit "altered". Many people, myself included, do not like to be kept up past 10-11PM by drunks, when I'm getting up at 6-7 to hit the rock. Some go to JTree to climb, and it is a spiritual place for them... Drunken revelry kinda ruins that "spiritual experience."
From your thread:
In reply to: You left out one small portion of the trip report… The idiotic battle over what path to use while drunkenly staggering to and from your tent with your loud newbie climber friends. Let me help you out here. For reference, your tents appear in the photos at the very rear of the campground. Note the two tents roughly 15 ft in front of them, one is navy blue. Day 1: Jeff and I show up in the dark wondering where to find a quite unobtrusive place to pitch our tents. Jeff notes that this side of the campground is usually more quiet, boy was he wrong. So as we choose our spot, two highly intoxicated people stagger up and ask why we’re pitching our tents in “their drunk path”. Hmmm, I thought this was a group campground? After a very long day, we settle in after inserting our earplugs to quiet the noise coming from the party. 12:43AM, literally outside my tent fly, a baffled yell cries “Blahhh Liz, C’mon!”, Jolting me out of my sleep. I think, “Who’s the F*cking primate standing on top of my tent yelling? How rude!” 1:20AM: Loud footsteps trudging back and forth as the primates repeatedly step over my tent fly, pulling one of the steaks out of the ground. This sucks - Day 2: After a long day climbing we settle in for some dinner and warmth by the campfire. It’s nice to see everyone again and there are even some new faces this year. After being slightly social, it’s time to crash. 11:10PM: More footsteps as the primates head back to their tents to retrieve more booze. 12:40AM: Up again, what the F*%K! Can’t these idiots walk around my tent? They obviously don’t know how to use their “night-time” voices! Damn primates! Day 3: Another long day of climbing and some good campfire conversation. 12:40AM, Footsteps over my tent fly: crunch, crunch, crunch. Yelling: “Hiccup, I wonder why he put this stuff in our way” says the female primate to the male. Apparently, they were referring to the fact that my camp stove and camp chair was in “their” way. That’s it, I was ready to kick some drunk primate ass! Not worth it, it’s too cold and the alpha male outweighed me by +40lbs. Day 4: The primates broke down their camp and actually walked around our tents. Apparently, the firewater had worn off. 10:30 PM: Despite the fact that there were still 15+ campers, the camprground noise was reasonable. Ahh peace and quiet, the primates have gone! Yaaaay!
Sounds similar doesn't it ???
You yourself wrote in tha thread:
In reply to: Hey sorry to wake you but it was vacation and quite time isnt till 2 am...
~Adam
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 17, 2003, 1:37 AM
Post #103 of 417
(16277 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: If some one is in the wrong tell them in an adult manner, yes im wrong at times but im not going to listen to some one calling me names
If you want to be treated like an adult, first you need to act like one.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 17, 2003, 1:42 AM
Post #104 of 417
(16277 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Adam is right. Jay can be harsh at times, but a good guy none the less. I told him one night at dinner that he wasn't very warm and fuzzy. He just smiled and wore it like a badge of honor.
Are you sure it wasn't just a margarita-induced blank stare with accompanying stupid grin?
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
climbs4fun
Moderator
Dec 17, 2003, 6:39 AM
Post #105 of 417
(16277 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2003
Posts: 9679
|
In reply to: In reply to: Adam is right. Jay can be harsh at times, but a good guy none the less. I told him one night at dinner that he wasn't very warm and fuzzy. He just smiled and wore it like a badge of honor. Are you sure it wasn't just a margarita-induced blank stare with accompanying stupid grin? -Jay
hmmmmmm. Hadn't thought of it that way since you were on your first Margarita. pfffft lightweight :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
mcbain
Jan 21, 2004, 12:04 PM
Post #106 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2003
Posts: 18
|
Great post jt,
Thanks for taking the time. I read in Eric Horsts climbing training book that he gets alot of his protien from drinking skim milk (claims to drink a quart a day). Que biology leason from school which said infants have an enzyme (or something) called pepsin (or something else lol) which curdles the milk and makes it easier to digest. Apparently this enzyme isnt there later in life. I really dont know now if skim milk is a waste of time or a good source of protien. Whats your opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 21, 2004, 6:54 PM
Post #107 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Great post jt, Thanks for taking the time. I read in Eric Horsts climbing training book that he gets alot of his protien from drinking skim milk (claims to drink a quart a day). Que biology leason from school which said infants have an enzyme (or something) called pepsin (or something else lol) which curdles the milk and makes it easier to digest. Apparently this enzyme isnt there later in life. I really dont know now if skim milk is a waste of time or a good source of protien. Whats your opinion?
It's a good source of protein, unless you are lactose intolerant.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
mcbain
Jan 27, 2004, 12:58 PM
Post #108 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2003
Posts: 18
|
I was looking up nutritional info on a random energy bar. I found this info :-
Energy - 235Kcal
Protein - 13g
Carbohydrates - 32g
-of which sugars - 25g
Fat - 8g
You get 235Kcal per bar, which only weighs 60 grams. Since the unit of energy is a calrorie i am assuming 235k is 235000 calories (which has to be wrong).
Very confused :(
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Jan 27, 2004, 2:05 PM
Post #109 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
mcbain
I am unfamiliar with the Kcal energy measurement you are speaking of but, I belive your energy bar should have around 252 calories. One gram of carbohydrate is four calories. One gram of protein is four calories. One gram of fat is nine calories.
13g protein x 4 = 52 cal
32g carb x 4 = 128 cal
8g fat x 9 = 72 cal
total calories = 252 cal
|
|
|
|
|
federicosuave
Jan 27, 2004, 3:09 PM
Post #110 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2003
Posts: 19
|
Here's what I remember from high school chem...
Energy is measured in calories (note the little "c"). A kilocalorie is 1,000 calories, which is the amount of enery that it takes to increase 1,000 grams of water by 1 degree C.
The energy content of food is described in Calories (note the uppercase "C"), which are equilivant to kilocalories.
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
Jan 27, 2004, 3:50 PM
Post #111 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15046
|
OK, another voice on the ATkins subject.
I have been on Atkins since Late Febuary of last year. I have lost ~60 lbs. I have been under a doctor's observation during the whole process. My blood pressure has dropped from 180/100 to 135/80, my cholesterol dropped from 240 to 190. My body fat as measured in an immersion tank has dropped from 37% to 25%. I'm still 225 lbs. but feeling better and have medical data to back that up. I absolutely have MORE energy and endurance than I ever did before.
As for the diet itself, all everyone thinks about is that it is the all you can eat steak and bacon diet and that is as far from the truth as it can possibly be. I eat red meat maybe 3 times a week. I eat LOTS of chicken, Turkey, canned tuna, some lean pork. I average about 3 cups a day of salad greens, a cup a day of green beans, another cup or so of peppers, onions, and similar low carb, non-starch veggies. True, I eat NO bread. Which I miss, no doubt. And I miss beer. but the long term benefits can't be denied for alot of people. Getting through the induction phase, that first two weeks everyone fixates on, is tough but if you read the book and take the time to understand it fully you will see that ATKINS himself admits the Induction phase would be unhealthy to maintain for a prolonged period. It IS NOT balanced enough. But when you start moving on to progressive weight loss you are encouraged to add veggies and select fruits to your diet.
The biggest thing with Atkins, and the thing that brings it in line with JT and everyone else so far, is that people following Atkins correctly eat many less calories than they did prior, but they do it without hunger. Protein satiates the hunger triggers much more effectively and for longer time than carbs. THAT affects weight loss, just like you'ld think.
Also, if you read Atkins book, he also admits that his diet may not be effective for high level athletes. He admits that for certain activity levels more carbs are required but those activity levels also USE those levels. Problem most people forget is that most of us AREN'T high level athletes. We're weekend duffers who do aerobic activity 2-3 times a week, 45 minutes a shot. For that we do not need to, and shouldn't eat like a marathoner or a professional mountaineer or a competitive cyclist.
Bottom line, the tides are changing, the AMA recently admitted after many years of study and debate that Low carb diets, and especially Atkins, are not only safe, but are effective. IF you do your homework and do it right.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 27, 2004, 7:42 PM
Post #112 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Here's what I remember from high school chem... Energy is measured in calories (note the little "c"). A kilocalorie is 1,000 calories, which is the amount of enery that it takes to increase 1,000 grams of water by 1 degree C. The energy content of food is described in Calories (note the uppercase "C"), which are equilivant to kilocalories.
That's basically correct, except the trend among dieticians seems to be to write "Calorie" as "calorie." That is, 1 dietetic calorie is equivalent to 1 kcal = 1000 calories. So, a 2000 calorie diet is actually a 2000 kcal diet.
Confusing, huh?
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 27, 2004, 7:46 PM
Post #113 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Bottom line, the tides are changing, the AMA recently admitted after many years of study and debate that Low carb diets, and especially Atkins, are not only safe, but are effective. IF you do your homework and do it right.
Actually, there has been little in the way of well-conducted research on low-carb diets. This year, NIH will fund several studies on the subject, so in a year or 2 we should see some meaningful research results.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Jan 27, 2004, 8:17 PM
Post #114 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
What’s a relatively easy calculation to use in determining the necessary caloric intake required to maintain ones current body weight.
What I’ve used in the past is:
Current weight x 14- sedentary folks
Current weight x 17 – moderately active folks
Therefore a person who weighs 160 lbs and was moderately active would require approximately 2,720 calories per day to maintain their desired weight.
Is there a more accurate calculation?
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Jan 27, 2004, 8:21 PM
Post #115 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
That cannot be right, Rob. I'm moderately active and I have to eat under 1,800 cal a day to maintain weight.
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
Jan 27, 2004, 8:30 PM
Post #116 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15046
|
In reply to: In reply to: Bottom line, the tides are changing, the AMA recently admitted after many years of study and debate that Low carb diets, and especially Atkins, are not only safe, but are effective. IF you do your homework and do it right. Actually, there has been little in the way of well-conducted research on low-carb diets. This year, NIH will fund several studies on the subject, so in a year or 2 we should see some meaningful research results. -Jay
I'll try to dig up some quotes for you. I don't know what studies they used but findings published by the AMA and in the NEw england Journal as well as several others cite studies they have conducted and/or extensively reviewed, including Atkins own which were overseen and scrutinized by the various medical "experts" covering hundreds of his patients over 20 years. In their new, and revised, statements that low carb diets are "safe and effective"
This isn't just guesswork.
|
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Jan 27, 2004, 8:34 PM
Post #117 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
Precisely why I'm searching for a more accurate calculation as this has no bearing on height or gender.
Male: 160: 5'10: mod active
160 x 17 = 2720 cal
http://www.negativecaloriefoods.com/cal-reqd.html
The above calculator has it as:
2611.5 cal...or 16.25 x current weight
Female: 130: 5’6: mod active
130 x 17 = 2210
The above calculator has it as:
2043 cal…or 15.75 x current weight
|
|
|
|
|
gat
Jan 27, 2004, 8:52 PM
Post #118 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2003
Posts: 420
|
Here is some information from a post I put up a couple months ago...
Following is the newest revision (some of it, anyway) that updates the 10th edition of the Recommended Dietary Allowances. All of my information for this post is taken from the American College of Sports Medicine's Health & Fitness Journal Volume 7/Number 1 (Jan Feb 2003).
Please note, the definition of moderate activity has changed. Moderate is now defined as 60 minutes of daily activity (4-5 miles/hr walking or jogging). This doubles the 1996 Surgeon General's reccomendations.
Caloric intake for moderately active individuals:
Males(over 18 ): 3067 calories; Women(over 18 ): 2403 calories
Subtact 10 cal/day for men and 7 cal/day for women for each year over 19 years of age
Pay close attention to the activity guidelines. A typical adult would be burning approximately 400 calories daily under these guidelines.
Of course, we are all different and these guidelines may not apply to each individual, but they will certainly get you close.
|
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Jan 27, 2004, 9:20 PM
Post #119 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
This would suggest that no matter what you weigh...
All 31 year old moderately active males should consume approx. 2,957 cal
And all 31 year old moderately active women should comsume approx. 2,326 cal
The elementary flaw in the accuracy of this is that it has no relation to the individual’s current/ desired weight.
I would presume that it takes more calories to sustain a 180 lb person than it does a 110 lb person with very little difference with regards to ones age.
|
|
|
|
|
gat
Jan 27, 2004, 9:34 PM
Post #120 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2003
Posts: 420
|
In reply to: This would suggest that no matter what you weigh... All 31 year old moderately active males should consume approx. 2,957 cal And all 31 year old moderately active women should comsume approx. 2,326 cal The elementary flaw in the accuracy of this is that it has no relation to the individual’s current/ desired weight. It takes more calories to sustain a 180 lb person than it does a 110 lb person.
You are exactly right. I am embarassed to have not noticed this in the beginning. All I can guess is that they meant to be vague?.
Anyway, I found the information you are looking for. I copied this infor from a website (http://www.weight-loss-i.com/calorie-needs.htm) after searching for information on the Katch-McArdle Formula (remembered it from somewhere).
Katch-McArdle Formula
Calories/BMR - Katch-McArdle Formula
If you know your body fat and lean body mass (body muscle) percentage, you can obtain a fairly precise estimate of your BMR. For example, the formula from Katch & McArdle takes into account lean mass and therefore is more accurate than a formula based on total body weight.
The Katch-McArdle formula applies equally to men and women As Follows:
BMR = 370 + (21.6 X lean mass in kg)
BMR Example
You are female
You weigh 140 pounds (63.6 kilos)
Your body fat percentage is 25 percent (35 pounds fat, 105 lean)
Your lean mass is 105 pounds (47.7 kilos)
Your BMR = 370 + (21.6 X 47.7) = 1400 calories
To determine your total daily calorie needs, now multiply your BMR by the appropriate activity factor, as follows:
If you are Sedentary - little or no exercise
Calorie-Calculation = BMR X 1.2
If you are Lightly Active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week)
Calorie-Calculation = BMR X 1.375
If you are Moderately Active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/week)
Calorie-Calculation = BMR X 1.55
If you are Very Active = BMR X 1.725 (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/week)
Calorie-Calculation = BMR X 1.725
If you are Extra Active (very hard daily exercise/sports & physical job or 2X day training)
Calorie-Calculation = BMR X 1.9
BMR Example
Your BMR is 1400
Your activity level is moderately active
Your activity factor is 1.55
Your total = 1.55 X 1400 = 2170 calories
Your total daily calorie requirement is therefore 2170 calories.
This is the total number of calories you need in order to MAINTAIN your current weight.
Source:
Katch, Frank, Katch, Victor, McArdle, William. Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition, and Human Performance, 4th edition. Williams & Wilkins, 1996.
Of course, this requires you know your body fat %. I am guessing not everyone has calipers to measure themselves (like me :wink: ), so go to the site I mentioned and look at the Benedict-Harris formula. It doesn't require knowing your body fat %, but will underestimate needs for very lean individuals and overestimate for the very heavy.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 27, 2004, 9:40 PM
Post #121 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Bottom line, the tides are changing, the AMA recently admitted after many years of study and debate that Low carb diets, and especially Atkins, are not only safe, but are effective. IF you do your homework and do it right. Actually, there has been little in the way of well-conducted research on low-carb diets. This year, NIH will fund several studies on the subject, so in a year or 2 we should see some meaningful research results. -Jay I'll try to dig up some quotes for you.
Please don't dig up quotes. Instead dig up citations to original studies published in peer review journals.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
winter
Feb 3, 2004, 8:25 PM
Post #122 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2003
Posts: 2961
|
Wow, great thread guys, am I ever confused now!
I had thought that sugars were the main culprit, expecially refined ones like white sugar.
I want to be lean, nothing more frustrating than being able to feel the muscles under the fat but not see them. GRRR. THe thing is I LOVE butter and 2% milk and basically all dairy. Are there other ways to cut fat without cutting these? I dont' eat fast food or pop.
Also, I know there are dangers for women to have too low body fat, is anyone (JT?) aware of these and why that might be?
Hey finally, is anyone aware of the benefits of walking? Does it do anything or is it not aerobic enough. I walk to work every day 20 min each way at a good clip.
(Guess I'll just have to run that extra 10 minutes for my butter) :)
|
|
|
|
|
ihuang
Feb 3, 2004, 9:12 PM
Post #123 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 6, 2002
Posts: 194
|
Here's an article from Scientific American on the proper diet and why too much carb is bad: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007C5B6-7152-1DF6-9733809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1
This was published before Atkin's Diet became ever so popular.
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
Feb 3, 2004, 9:18 PM
Post #124 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
This has probably been said, but:
Quit your job, live out of your van/car and dirtbag around climbing areas. You'll be slim and climbing Vsickhard in no time ;)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 3, 2004, 10:00 PM
Post #125 of 417
(88565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Here's an article from Scientific American on the proper diet and why too much carb is bad: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007C5B6-7152-1DF6-9733809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1 This was published before Atkin's Diet became ever so popular.
Two sentences, both misleading. Nice post.
The article in question is a good one. It's co-authored by Walter Willett, Chair of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. The article does not say "why too much carb is bad." Rather, it discusses, among other issues, health risks associated with consumption of high amounts of starch from refined carbohydrates and potatoes, that is, high glycemic index carbohydrates.
The article was written a year ago, and the Atkins Diet was certainly popular then. Of course, the diet recommended in the article bears no resemblence to the Atkins Diet, so why you are trying to tie the two together, is unclear.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
