Low Carb Diet, Strength, Hr, Etc.

[old] kamdo · Post by **[old] kamdo** » June 11th, 2004, 8:25 pm

A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. Period, end of statement!! When one discovers what caloric threshold it is that they lose weight at, it matters not what is eaten. (Try using the BMR calculator on the UK site...this will help determine how many calories you need/day just to exist.) I say this to raise the issue that there are no magic foods, no magic diets, etc. Fad diets like Atkins, South Beach et. al., are simply not sustainable for long periods of time. People just don't eat like that long term. To make the point with an extreme example, if one's weight loss threshold is 1800 calories/day, one could literally lose weight eating that amount of calories in Hershey bars. Obviously that is not the least bit healthy from a balanced diet standpoint and would never be advocated, but it makes the point. Some woman just lost 5 pounds/month eating at McDonalds, and not just high protein foods like an Atkins diet. She limited her total daily caloric intake to around 1500 calories and mixed it up fairly well and lost her weight. Try the Total cereal diet...one bowl for breakfast with a fruit, one for lunch with a vegetable, then a sensible dinner. Try an Ensure diet...one can for breakfast, one for lunch, and a sensible dinner. Try a turkey, cauliflower, apple diet. Get the point? At the same time any diet can be both a success and a failure. Carbs are not the enemy...total calories/day are the enemy. In fact complex carbs, with a low glycemic index are the principal componenets of a well balanced diet. High glycemic carbs, like white rice, bleached breads, corn, potatoes, get into the system quickly and induce a rapid bolus of insulin which causes relatively more of the food to be stored as fat. Even this doesn't matter much if you exercise regularly! I have been between 6-8% body fat since age 18 and I'm currently 45. I eat whatever I want, though with a healthy mix of fruits, veggies, and plenty of carbs. I have gained 5-6 pounds during periods of lighter training and have easily lost it when trianing at higher levels. Burn more calories and eat less...ain't no other magic out there. Unfortunately most of the US suffers from lack of will power and the "oversized" mentality. 2/3 of the country is overweight, 1/3 is obese. Obesity is currently the number one preventable cause of death surpassing smoking, and is a global pandemic. Why is this the case? lBecause of lazy asses who eat too much period! Kevin

[old] eurofoot13 · Post by **[old] eurofoot13** » June 12th, 2004, 1:01 am

John - I'm not sure how tall top lightweights are. Looking at the college level in the US, they seem to be around 6'1 - 6'3, however that might not be the top end. If anyone could find this out, it would be of great interest of me, as I am 6'5" and 155, and wondering if I should go heavyweight or not. Secondly, how do I stay full? my nutrition problems all stem from snacking. I will eat a full breakfast, but by 10:00, I will feel as though I haven't eaten since last thursday. same with lunch, dinner, or any other meal for that matter. do I need to be eating 6 full meals a day?

[old] donm79 · Post by **[old] donm79** » June 12th, 2004, 6:40 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (eurofoot13 @ Jun 12 2004, 12:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> John - I'm not sure how tall top lightweights are. Looking at the college level in the US, they seem to be around 6'1 - 6'3, however that might not be the top end. If anyone could find this out, it would be of great interest of me, as I am 6'5" and 155, and wondering if I should go heavyweight or not. Secondly, how do I stay full? my nutrition problems all stem from snacking. I will eat a full breakfast, but by 10:00, I will feel as though I haven't eaten since last thursday. same with lunch, dinner, or any other meal for that matter. do I need to be eating 6 full meals a day?  </td></tr></table> I had a quick look at worldrowing.com's athlete profiles and the tallest lights seem to be about 187cm (6'2") but most are between 175cm and 185cm. I think any taller and the advantage of longer levers is offset by a lack of power to drive them.

[old] debs · Post by **[old] debs** » June 12th, 2004, 10:09 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (drkcgoh @ Jun 11 2004, 05:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>As a wise friend from New England once remarked, "I don't want to be the poorest healthy person around". KC62 </td></tr></table> Is your NE friend wise? I'd prefer poor and healthy than affluent and unhealthy. At least I think I would!

[old] drkcgoh · Post by **[old] drkcgoh** » June 12th, 2004, 4:03 pm

The silent majority form the poor healthy, but it is the affluent unhealthy who are the most vocal and influential. In the real World, the latter enjoy this life, while the former are only remembered posthumously if they ever succeed. KC62

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » June 12th, 2004, 5:02 pm

KC, Sad but true. Hopefully that situation will change. Ruling classes don't stay in power forever, though one seems to replace another. Eurofoot13, A friend of mine is 6'6 and 160 pounds. I think he fluctuates from 160 to 169. However, he is very strong --- certainly not weak at all. At age 60, he can still do around 30 pullups or so. And he is likewise very powerful on the erg. Really I would not worry about your weight so much, and would certainly not try to gain a lot of weight. On the other hand, if you can manage to stay lightweight then just consider yourself to be blessed.

[old] debs · Post by **[old] debs** » June 13th, 2004, 12:11 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (drkcgoh @ Jun 12 2004, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The silent majority form the poor healthy, but it is the affluent unhealthy who are the most vocal and influential. In the real World, the latter enjoy this life, while the former are only remembered posthumously if they ever succeed. KC62 </td></tr></table> Folks are remembered posthumously for many reasons. Emperor Nero is remembered posthumously for murdering his mother, kicking his pregnant wife to death, crucifying St Peter upside down and killing himself The columbine murderers have also been remembered posthumously for murdering dozens of people Psychologists show that money does not buy happiness! The extreme affluent fight mental illness, struggle with chemical addictions, deal with domestic violence and commit suicide. Having cash in one's pocket does not stop one's misery From what I've read, I believe that being socially connected is a better indicator of life happines than is having a big bank account balance. Please read: "One of the most thorough research projects on relationships is called the Alamdea County Study. Headed by a Harvard social scientist, it tracked the lives of 7,000 people over nine years. Researchers found that the most isolated people were THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DIE than those with strong relational connections. People who had bad health habits (such as smoking, poor eating habits, obesity or alcohol use) but strong social ties lived SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER than people who had great health habits but were isolated.... For another study, as reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 276 volunteers were infected with a virus that produces the common cold. The study found that people with strong emotional connections did four times better fighting off illness than those who were more isolated. These people were less susceptible to colds, had less virus and produced significantly less mucous than relationally isolated subjects)" From Everybody's Normal Till you Get to Know Them by John Ortberg

[old] Jim · Post by **[old] Jim** » June 14th, 2004, 3:52 pm

FYI, here's an update article from the Better Life Institute, www.blionline.com on Low-Carb Diets that I think everyone needs to be aware of. BLI is health-education company that examines the latest research and utilizes the best of technological advancements to make high-level scientific data on health and nutrition available in a variety of user-friendly formats, created to be easily understood by people of all ages, cultures, and nationalities... Enjoy Jim The BLI Letter Volume 4, Number 10 Low-Carbohydrate Diets: An Update The media are ablaze again with the publication of two studies on the effects of a low-carbohydrate diet. Scientists and physicians are again arguing about the benefits or hazards of this approach to losing weight. The problem seems to be that the pro-low-carb group is viewing the new studies as justification for this dietary approach, while the anti-low-carb group criticizes the research. This BLI Letter will review the papers and give you a perspective that seems to be missing in the media: common sense. Study 1: Low-Carb Versus Low-Fat In the first study, 120 subjects were divided randomly into two groups. One group ate a low-fat diet--less than 30% of their daily caloric intake as fat; the other group followed a low-carbohydrate diet--less than 20 grams of carbohydrate per day. Both groups followed the assigned diet until they were halfway to their weight goal. Subjects in the low-carb group could eat as much as they wanted of meat, fish, poultry, eggs, and shellfish. Those in the low-fat group were limited to about 1,000 calories less than they needed to sustain their weight. The study lasted 24 weeks. The people on the low-carb diet lost more weight, more fat, and had a better improvement in lowering triglycerides than their low-fat counterparts. Study 2: Low-Carb Versus Balanced The second paper was a follow-up of a study that compared a low-carbohydrate diet (less than 30 grams of carbohydrate per day) with a conventional and more balanced diet that reduced fat to less than 30% and reduced calories by 500 calories per day. The original study lasted six months; the follow-up study six months later examined whether people sustained, re-gained, or lost more weight. While not statistically significant, the low-carb group lost three more pounds over the year than the low-fat group: eleven pounds versus eight pounds. But look at the results in the time frame of the study: during the second six months, the low-fat group continued to lose weight, while the subjects in the low-carb group lost twelve pounds in the first six-month study and gained a pound back during the second six months. Although the initial weight loss on the low-fat diet was only four pounds in the first six months, the subjects lost another four pounds in the second six months. Blood lipids--cholesterol, triglycerides, etc.--were not significantly different between the two groups. Who Wins? The low-carb advocates view these studies as justification for their approach. The healthcare professionals who advocate a balanced or low-fat approach say the studies didn’t last long enough to prove the safety of the low-carb approach. Here’s what was reported in the journals but didn’t get reported in the headlines: Both studies reported significant loss of subjects. Whether low-carb or low-fat, almost half the subjects quit. Although a few more people completed the low-carb diet, it means that neither diet was satisfactory for the participants to sustain for a long time. That’s problematic for both approaches to weight loss. With the exception of triglyceride levels, neither diet did a good job of clinically improving serum lipids although that seemed to get a lot of attention in the press. Reporting reductions (or gains) in percentages always seems better than looking at the actual numbers. Part of the reason may be that cholesterol levels, on average, were not that high to begin with. What would have been interesting is to see how individual results improved for people with total cholesterol higher than 250 mg/dl over the course of the study. There were significant side effects to the low-carb approach versus the low-fat diet. Constipation, bad breath, muscle cramps, diarrhea, and weakness all occurred at much higher rates in the low-carb dietary groups. The negative side effects may explain the lack of adherence to the low-carb approach. Who’s right? The second study seems to indicate that a low-carb diet is better for losing weight fast but less effective for keeping it off, while a low-fat diet is slower but leads to a more lasting weight-loss effect. I’m sure more studies are underway to confirm or refute those conclusions. But neither approach seems to be satisfactory when one looks at the benefits versus the ability to sustain the diet: a weight loss of eight or eleven pounds a year isn’t enough to satisfy most dieters. It’s an oversimplification to say that weight loss is simply eating less and exercising more, and yet until a way is found that will help people do exactly that--permanently--no program can be deemed successful. The key to weight loss and better health is a change in lifestyle. As such, whichever way a person chooses to eat, it must be something that is palatable, provides enough energy to sustain activities, has few side effects, and still helps the individual lose weight and sustain it. Low-fat, low-carb, or balanced: it’s up to each individual to find the way that permanently fits into his or her lifestyle to achieve the desired results. References: Yancy WS, et al. A low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-fat diet to treat obesity and hyperlipidemia: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(10):769-77. Stern L, et al. The effects of low-carbohydrate versus conventional weight loss diets in severely obese adults: one-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(10):778-85. [/B]

Concept2 Forum

Low Carb Diet, Strength, Hr, Etc.

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness