Not Losing

[[old] DavidW]

<!--QuoteBegin-Citroen+Dec 30 2005, 01:13 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Citroen @ Dec 30 2005, 01:13 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-DavidW+Dec 30 2005, 12:51 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(DavidW @ Dec 30 2005, 12:51 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->hjs is correct, but don't take my word for it. Set the monitor to 500m (or whatever) and row slowly, then do the same distance fast. You will burn more calories doing it fast <br /><br />(eg. my 500m in 2:30.8 theoretically burned 27 calories, whereas my 500m in 1:51.2 theoretically burned 38 calories) <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Define "slowly"? <br /><br />a] low rate, low pace [eg. 20spm @ 2:30.8]<br />b] high rate, low pace [eg. 30spm @ 2:30.8]<br /><br />Define "fast"? <br /><br />a] high rate, high pace [eg. 30spm @ 1:51.2]<br />b] low rate, high pace [eg. 20spm @ 1:51.2]<br /><br />It doesn't make sense to quote pace without rate in this comparison. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Oh I see. But I didn't think stroke rate was important though as the pace is just a watts conversion, and one can achieve a higher wattage by either applying a higher force to the handle or upping the rate.<br /><br />I would have thought that if my "slow" pace and "fast" pace were both done at the same stroke rate, and for the same distance, more calories would be burned doing the 500m fast?<br /> <br /><br />

[[old] DavidW]

<!--QuoteBegin-mpukita+Dec 30 2005, 02:43 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 30 2005, 02:43 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's pretty simple.  The erg will give one calories expended. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes, but does a higher pace for the SAME distance equal more calories expended?<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-hjs+Dec 30 2005, 02:53 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 30 2005, 02:53 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Running a 100 meters flat out can cost as much of 13 x more energie than joging that same 100 meters. [right] </td></tr></table><br />If that's true, then why are sprinters by far the heaviest runners.<br />

[[old] hjs]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 30 2005, 05:14 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 30 2005, 05:14 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-hjs+Dec 30 2005, 02:53 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 30 2005, 02:53 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Running a 100 meters flat out can cost as much of 13 x more energie than joging that same 100 meters. [right] </td></tr></table><br />If that's true, then why are sprinters by far the heaviest runners. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />the 13 times more energie is an average. So take 100 people let them jog 100 meter and than run a full blast 100 meter. This has nothing to do with bodyweight. <br /><br /><br />And don't ask questions for which you know the answer already. <br />I have have respect for long distance as for short distance athletes. <br /><br />You also know that a top marathonrunner has the same % of bodyfat as a sprinter or a jumper. Topathlets have between 3/5 % in topform. The differance in bodyweight is the amount of muscle they need for their event. <br /><br />I can't believe you are even something which is so obvious like this are trying to turn and bent in your favor. <br />

[[old] tomhz]

<!--QuoteBegin-DavidW+Dec 30 2005, 02:55 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(DavidW @ Dec 30 2005, 02:55 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-mpukita+Dec 30 2005, 02:43 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 30 2005, 02:43 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's pretty simple.  The erg will give one calories expended. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes, but does a higher pace for the SAME distance equal more calories expended? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />No, it won't. The higher the pace the higher the calories. 10K at pace 1:50 expends more calories than at pace 2:00. <br /><br />Why is that? When rowing at a 10% <b>faster</b> pace, your time will be 10% shorter but you power (wattage, energy per second, calories per hour) is 30% higher. In the end you have used about 20% <b>more</b> energy for the total distance.<br /><br />Tom

[[old] jamesg]

The C2 monitor uses an equation something like kCal/h = 300 + 4 x 0.85 x W.<br />300 is a guess at what we burn just moving the seat and ourselves, swearing, breathing, pumping blood etc, and 4 evidently is our efficiency** if we are considered as fuel cells. 0.848 is the conversion rate W to kCal.<br /><br />If we double the Wattage, the pace does not double, due to the cube law; so doubling the Wattage does NOT halve the time. So pulling harder even over a fixed distance uses more kCal, tho' the 300 kCal/h constant would fall slightly in the shorter time.<br /><br /><br />** This is worth a thread on its own account: if our energy conversion efficiency is not constant at all workloads, there could be an influence on race strategy... maybe I can find a scientific reason for going slow, i.e. at the workload that offers best energy conversion and hence leaves me a bit more to spend as from -400m.

[[old] hjs]

<!--QuoteBegin-jamesg+Dec 30 2005, 06:32 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(jamesg @ Dec 30 2005, 06:32 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The C2 monitor uses an equation something like kCal/h = 300 + 4 x 0.85 x W.<br />300 is a guess at what we burn just moving the seat and ourselves, swearing, breathing, pumping blood etc, and 4 evidently is our efficiency** if we are considered as fuel cells. 0.848 is the conversion rate W to kCal.<br /><br />If we double the Wattage, the pace does not double, due to the cube law; so doubling the Wattage does NOT halve the time. So pulling harder even over a fixed distance uses more kCal, tho' the 300 kCal/h constant would fall slightly in the shorter time.<br /><br /><br />** This is worth a thread on its own account: if our energy conversion efficiency is not constant at all workloads, there could be an influence on race strategy... maybe I can find a scientific reason for going slow, i.e. at the workload that offers best energy conversion and hence leaves me a bit more to spend as from -400m. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Hi james,<br /><br />How will JR this very clear post turn around to his very strangs way of thinking. <br />But I have no doubt he will try (and fail again)<br /><br />The point your making is clear. You could conclude that pacing as even as possible is always the best way to go. Even the start has to be fairly slow, not a sprint but settle in een few strokes on you goalsplit.

[[old] DavidW]

I give up

[[old] mpukita]

<!--QuoteBegin-DavidW+Dec 30 2005, 10:55 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(DavidW @ Dec 30 2005, 10:55 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-mpukita+Dec 30 2005, 02:43 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 30 2005, 02:43 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's pretty simple.  The erg will give one calories expended. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes, but does a higher pace for the SAME distance equal more calories expended? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />David:<br /><br />Good question ... I don't know, but someone may have already answered this. Using my limited scientific approach, I'd get on and row two identical pieces, at two different rates, and see the result. Not real scientific, but we'd get the answer!<br /><br />-- Mark

[[old] Steelhead]

<!--QuoteBegin-Orli12+Dec 20 2005, 04:04 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Orli12 @ Dec 20 2005, 04:04 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->     I have been erging for at least five weeks.  I do at least 30 minutes per day sometimes 45 or 50.  I have not lost a pound.  I exercise six days per week. My diet remains the same; it has never been over the top.  I am alway tired after my workout. I weigh 188lbs and am 5"6"" and female. What  can I do to lose the weight? <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Here's an excerpt from an article I read that may help answer your question, and bring this back on topic. A lot has been stated about restricting the number of calories and increasing the calorie expenditures, so this may be helpful:<br /><br />Ironically, the more we slash our calories, the more our metabolism slows down. In fact, very low calorie diets can actually make us fatter! It’s physiologically impossible to achieve permanent fat loss by starving ourself. When we eat less, our body burns less. When we eat more, our body burns more. It’s the ultimate paradox. Very low calorie diets not only slow our metabolism so we burn fewer calories, they can also cause muscle loss. Eventually, they shut down our metabolism completely. When this happens, the weight loss stops and any increase in calories that follows will cause immediate fat gain. This “rebound effect” is inevitable, because no one can stay on low calories forever. <br /><br />“Dieting is not effective in controlling weight. You can get a temporary weight loss with a diet, but each scheme ultimately gives way to weight gain, and subsequent losses become increasingly difficult. Worst of all, you get progressively fatter on less food. Dieting actually makes you fatter! - Dr. Lawrence Lamb, Author of The Weighting Game<br /><br />Any diet program that’s extremely low in calories will cause weight loss in the beginning – but it will never work for long. The human body is very “smart” - it always strives to maintain a magnificent state of equilibrium: metabolism, body temperature, blood sugar, hormone levels, acid-alkaline balance and every other system in the body, are all regulated within a narrow range that our body finds safe and comfortable. When we subject ourself to drastic measures in an attempt to create sudden changes such as rapid weight loss, our metabolism cybernetically adjusts itself to maintain equilibrium in energy balance, much the same way as a thermostat maintains the temperature of our home within a desirable range. As soon as we’re in danger of starving, our body will quickly adjust our metabolic rate downward like a thermostat, so we burn fewer calories. This is often referred to as “the starvation response.” <b>The only way to lose fat and keep it off permanently is to reduce our calories slightly and increase our activity greatly. It’s always better to burn the fat than try to starve the fat.</b><br /><br />If we are eating poorly and not exercising, then we can lose fat very quickly and very easily, relative to our previous disappointing results. All we have to do is improve our nutrition and exercise habits and a quantum leap can be made. <b>With that distinction made, however, permanent fat loss is never “easy.” There is always effort and discipline involved, as there is with any worthwhile achievement. </b>Endlessly searching for an easier way, a magic bullet, miracle cure, a holy grail, is a misguided quest. Losing fat is simple, but for most people it is NOT easy. There's a big difference between simple and easy: "Simple" means there is nothing complicated about the process - it's like algebra; just plug in the numbers where the X's and Y's are, and the formula always produces the correct result. "Easy" implies that something can be done with little or no effort. Anyone who tells us they've discovered an “easy” way to lose fat is lying or is stupid. <br /><br />Getting a lean and muscular body requires two things: <br /><br />1) We must be willing to work hard. <br />2) We must be patient. <br /><br /><b>To lose body fat, there must be a calorie deficit. </b> Such are the laws of thermodynamics and energy balance. However, there’s more than one way to create a calorie deficit. <br /><br /><b>One way is to decrease your calorie intake from food. The other is to increase the amount of calories you burn though exercise.</b> Of the two ways to create a calorie deficit, <b>burning the calories is the superior method.</b> This is because large calorie deficits cause muscle loss and trigger the starvation response. Ironically, most people do the opposite: They slash their calories to starvation levels and exercise too little or not at all. This causes a decrease in lean body mass and invokes the “starvation response.” <b>Paradoxical as it seems, the most effective approach to fat loss is to eat more (keep the calorie reduction small) and let the exercise burn the fat. You don’t have to starve yourself – you just have to choose the right foods and make exercise a part of your lifestyle. </b> <br /><br /><b>Here are the reasons why exercise - not dieting - is the superior method of losing body fat:</b><br /><br />1. Exercise – aerobic and weight training - raises your metabolic rate. Dieting decreases your metabolic rate. <br />2. Exercise creates a caloric deficit without triggering the starvation response. <br />3. Exercise is good for your health. Dieting is harmful to your health. <br />4. Exercise, especially weight training, signals your body to keep your muscle and not burn it for energy. Dieting without exercise can result in up to 50% of the weight loss to come from lean body mass. <br />5. Exercise increases fat-burning enzymes and hormones. Dieting decreases fat burning hormones and increases fat storing hormones. <br />6. Exercise increases the cells sensitivity to insulin so that carbohydrates are burned for energy and stored as glycogen rather then being stored as fat.<br /><br />End of excerpt.<br /><br />Importantly, using the Erg we can use it aerobically and at the same time enjoy similar benefits of weight training, depending on how we choose to row. I think the above confirms what everyone (except for John) has stated so far. <br /><br />To "erg" is human.<br /><br /><br /><br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-hjs+Dec 30 2005, 08:47 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 30 2005, 08:47 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the 13 times more energie is an average. So take 100 people let them jog 100 meter and than run a full blast 100 meter. This has nothing to do with bodyweight. <br /><br />And don't ask questions for which you know the answer already. </td></tr></table><br /> <br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You also know that a top marathonrunner has the same % of bodyfat as a sprinter or a jumper. </td></tr></table><br />I would say that is not the case, and marathoners have much less body fat. The higher muscle mass of sprinters tends to greatly underestimate their percentage of body fat.<br /><br />More importantly for performance, distance athletes have a far greater percentage of their fat IN the muscle fibers, where this energy can be used for the exercise. Sprinters have their fat outside the muscles, around them and elsewhere, the same as those who are sedentary.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can't believe you are even something which is so obvious like this are trying to turn and bent in your favor.     [right] </td></tr></table><br />Why not. <br />

[[old] Steelhead]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 30 2005, 11:38 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 30 2005, 11:38 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can't believe you are even something which is so obvious like this are trying to turn and bent in your favor.     [right] </td></tr></table><br />Why not. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Here's an excerpt from an article I read that may help answer your question, and bring this back on topic. A lot has been stated about restricting the number of calories and increasing the calorie expenditures, so this may be helpful:<br /><br />Ironically, the more we slash our calories, the more our metabolism slows down. In fact, very low calorie diets can actually make us fatter! It’s physiologically impossible to achieve permanent fat loss by starving ourself. When we eat less, our body burns less. When we eat more, our body burns more. It’s the ultimate paradox. Very low calorie diets not only slow our metabolism so we burn fewer calories, they can also cause muscle loss. Eventually, they shut down our metabolism completely. When this happens, the weight loss stops and any increase in calories that follows will cause immediate fat gain. This “rebound effect” is inevitable, because no one can stay on low calories forever.<br /><br />“Dieting is not effective in controlling weight. You can get a temporary weight loss with a diet, but each scheme ultimately gives way to weight gain, and subsequent losses become increasingly difficult. Worst of all, you get progressively fatter on less food. Dieting actually makes you fatter! - Dr. Lawrence Lamb, Author of The Weighting Game<br /><br />Any diet program that’s extremely low in calories will cause weight loss in the beginning – but it will never work for long. The human body is very “smart” - it always strives to maintain a magnificent state of equilibrium: metabolism, body temperature, blood sugar, hormone levels, acid-alkaline balance and every other system in the body, are all regulated within a narrow range that our body finds safe and comfortable. When we subject ourself to drastic measures in an attempt to create sudden changes such as rapid weight loss, our metabolism cybernetically adjusts itself to maintain equilibrium in energy balance, much the same way as a thermostat maintains the temperature of our home within a desirable range. As soon as we’re in danger of starving, our body will quickly adjust our metabolic rate downward like a thermostat, so we burn fewer calories. This is often referred to as “the starvation response.” The only way to lose fat and keep it off permanently is to reduce our calories slightly and increase our activity greatly. It’s always better to burn the fat than try to starve the fat.<br /><br />If we are eating poorly and not exercising, then we can lose fat very quickly and very easily, relative to our previous disappointing results. All we have to do is improve our nutrition and exercise habits and a quantum leap can be made. With that distinction made, however, permanent fat loss is never “easy.” There is always effort and discipline involved, as there is with any worthwhile achievement. Endlessly searching for an easier way, a magic bullet, miracle cure, a holy grail, is a misguided quest. Losing fat is simple, but for most people it is NOT easy. There's a big difference between simple and easy: "Simple" means there is nothing complicated about the process - it's like algebra; just plug in the numbers where the X's and Y's are, and the formula always produces the correct result. "Easy" implies that something can be done with little or no effort. Anyone who tells us they've discovered an “easy” way to lose fat is lying or is stupid.<br /><br />Getting a lean and muscular body requires two things:<br /><br />1) We must be willing to work hard.<br />2) We must be patient.<br /><br />To lose body fat, there must be a calorie deficit. Such are the laws of thermodynamics and energy balance. However, there’s more than one way to create a calorie deficit.<br /><br />One way is to decrease your calorie intake from food. The other is to increase the amount of calories you burn though exercise. Of the two ways to create a calorie deficit, burning the calories is the superior method. This is because large calorie deficits cause muscle loss and trigger the starvation response. Ironically, most people do the opposite: They slash their calories to starvation levels and exercise too little or not at all. This causes a decrease in lean body mass and invokes the “starvation response.” Paradoxical as it seems, the most effective approach to fat loss is to eat more (keep the calorie reduction small) and let the exercise burn the fat. You don’t have to starve yourself – you just have to choose the right foods and make exercise a part of your lifestyle.<br /><br />Here are the reasons why exercise - not dieting - is the superior method of losing body fat:<br /><br />1. Exercise – aerobic and weight training - raises your metabolic rate. Dieting decreases your metabolic rate.<br />2. Exercise creates a caloric deficit without triggering the starvation response.<br />3. Exercise is good for your health. Dieting is harmful to your health.<br />4. Exercise, especially weight training, signals your body to keep your muscle and not burn it for energy. Dieting without exercise can result in up to 50% of the weight loss to come from lean body mass.<br />5. Exercise increases fat-burning enzymes and hormones. Dieting decreases fat burning hormones and increases fat storing hormones.<br />6. Exercise increases the cells sensitivity to insulin so that carbohydrates are burned for energy and stored as glycogen rather then being stored as fat.<br /><br />End of excerpt.<br /><br />Importantly, using the Erg we can use it aerobically and at the same time enjoy similar benefits of weight training, depending on how we choose to row. I think the above confirms what everyone (except for John) has stated so far.<br /><br />To "erg" is human.<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-mpukita+Dec 30 2005, 10:11 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 30 2005, 10:11 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Using my limited scientific approach, I'd get on and row two identical pieces, at two different rates, and see the result.  Not real scientific, but we'd get the answer!<br /><br />-- Mark[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Row 70 km at 2:24 pace each day for 3 days in a row.<br /><br />Rest a day.<br /><br />Now set out to row 70 km at 1:50 pace each day for 3 days in a row.<br /><br />Which one burns more calories?<br /><br />Answer: The first one, because you didn't compete even the first 7 minutes of the second three days.<br /><br />This is the entire point of this issue.<br /><br />The pace you row for 30 minutes doesn't matter except in the sense that if you do it intensely at your all out pace, for example, then you are not going to be able to maintain that rate of calorie expenditure through the day.<br /><br />However if you take 40 minutes to row the same distance, then you will be able to continue on and do more. Even if you don't row any more that day, your calorie expenditure the rest of the day will be higher,<b> because you will be able to maintain that level of activity</b> and are very likely to do so.<br /><br />This is why 800 meter runners are leaner than sprinters. 1500 meter runners are leaner than 800 meter runners, and so on.<br />

[[old] Steelhead]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 30 2005, 11:45 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 30 2005, 11:45 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[snip of irrelevant absurdities <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin-Orli12+Dec 20 2005, 04:04 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Orli12 @ Dec 20 2005, 04:04 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->     I have been erging for at least five weeks.  I do at least 30 minutes per day sometimes 45 or 50.  I have not lost a pound.  I exercise six days per week. My diet remains the same; it has never been over the top.  I am alway tired after my workout. I weigh 188lbs and am 5"6"" and female. What  can I do to lose the weight? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Here's an excerpt from an article I read that may help answer your question, and bring this back on topic. A lot has been stated about restricting the number of calories and increasing the calorie expenditures, so this may be helpful:<br /><br />Ironically, the more we slash our calories, the more our metabolism slows down. In fact, very low calorie diets can actually make us fatter! It’s physiologically impossible to achieve permanent fat loss by starving ourself. When we eat less, our body burns less. When we eat more, our body burns more. It’s the ultimate paradox. Very low calorie diets not only slow our metabolism so we burn fewer calories, they can also cause muscle loss. Eventually, they shut down our metabolism completely. When this happens, the weight loss stops and any increase in calories that follows will cause immediate fat gain. This “rebound effect” is inevitable, because no one can stay on low calories forever.<br /><br />“Dieting is not effective in controlling weight. You can get a temporary weight loss with a diet, but each scheme ultimately gives way to weight gain, and subsequent losses become increasingly difficult. Worst of all, you get progressively fatter on less food. Dieting actually makes you fatter! - Dr. Lawrence Lamb, Author of The Weighting Game<br /><br />Any diet program that’s extremely low in calories will cause weight loss in the beginning – but it will never work for long. The human body is very “smart” - it always strives to maintain a magnificent state of equilibrium: metabolism, body temperature, blood sugar, hormone levels, acid-alkaline balance and every other system in the body, are all regulated within a narrow range that our body finds safe and comfortable. When we subject ourself to drastic measures in an attempt to create sudden changes such as rapid weight loss, our metabolism cybernetically adjusts itself to maintain equilibrium in energy balance, much the same way as a thermostat maintains the temperature of our home within a desirable range. As soon as we’re in danger of starving, our body will quickly adjust our metabolic rate downward like a thermostat, so we burn fewer calories. This is often referred to as “the starvation response.” The only way to lose fat and keep it off permanently is to reduce our calories slightly and increase our activity greatly. It’s always better to burn the fat than try to starve the fat.<br /><br />If we are eating poorly and not exercising, then we can lose fat very quickly and very easily, relative to our previous disappointing results. All we have to do is improve our nutrition and exercise habits and a quantum leap can be made. With that distinction made, however, permanent fat loss is never “easy.” There is always effort and discipline involved, as there is with any worthwhile achievement. Endlessly searching for an easier way, a magic bullet, miracle cure, a holy grail, is a misguided quest. Losing fat is simple, but for most people it is NOT easy. There's a big difference between simple and easy: "Simple" means there is nothing complicated about the process - it's like algebra; just plug in the numbers where the X's and Y's are, and the formula always produces the correct result. "Easy" implies that something can be done with little or no effort. Anyone who tells us they've discovered an “easy” way to lose fat is lying or is stupid.<br /><br />Getting a lean and muscular body requires two things:<br /><br />1) We must be willing to work hard.<br />2) We must be patient.<br /><br />To lose body fat, there must be a calorie deficit. Such are the laws of thermodynamics and energy balance. However, there’s more than one way to create a calorie deficit.<br /><br />One way is to decrease your calorie intake from food. The other is to increase the amount of calories you burn though exercise. Of the two ways to create a calorie deficit, burning the calories is the superior method. This is because large calorie deficits cause muscle loss and trigger the starvation response. Ironically, most people do the opposite: They slash their calories to starvation levels and exercise too little or not at all. This causes a decrease in lean body mass and invokes the “starvation response.” Paradoxical as it seems, the most effective approach to fat loss is to eat more (keep the calorie reduction small) and let the exercise burn the fat. You don’t have to starve yourself – you just have to choose the right foods and make exercise a part of your lifestyle.<br /><br />Here are the reasons why exercise - not dieting - is the superior method of losing body fat:<br /><br />1. Exercise – aerobic and weight training - raises your metabolic rate. Dieting decreases your metabolic rate.<br />2. Exercise creates a caloric deficit without triggering the starvation response.<br />3. Exercise is good for your health. Dieting is harmful to your health.<br />4. Exercise, especially weight training, signals your body to keep your muscle and not burn it for energy. Dieting without exercise can result in up to 50% of the weight loss to come from lean body mass.<br />5. Exercise increases fat-burning enzymes and hormones. Dieting decreases fat burning hormones and increases fat storing hormones.<br />6. Exercise increases the cells sensitivity to insulin so that carbohydrates are burned for energy and stored as glycogen rather then being stored as fat.<br /><br />End of excerpt.<br /><br />Importantly, using the Erg we can use it aerobically and at the same time enjoy similar benefits of weight training, depending on how we choose to row. I think the above confirms what everyone (except for John) has stated so far.<br /><br />To "erg" is human.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Steelhead+Dec 30 2005, 10:57 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Steelhead @ Dec 30 2005, 10:57 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here's an excerpt from an article I read that may help answer your question </td></tr></table><br /><br />Why don't you answer my question.<br /><br />What is your height and how much do you weigh?