I'm now boycotting any food product that says anything about "Carbs"

The BBQ Pit
261

My friend? A fantastic effort. Well done and I sincerely hope the rate of body fat loss continues. At some point you’ll start seeing little hints of definition regarding veins and tendons which you had forgotten were there. That’s a great thing when that starts happening.

Personally, I’d contend that your general state of well being is probably more due to your increasingly enjoyable levels of fitness, as averse to your diet. Although I’ll gladly concede that if you’re drinking shitloads of booze and eating tons of junk food, yeah sure, anything which steers you away from that is gonna be an improvement. One thing’s for sure - anything which oxygenates you for at least half an hour at a time at least three times per week is DEFINITELY going to give you a feeling of “vitality” if you weren’t doing that before.

Now here’s where it gets quite ironic actually - my diet, and that of most all of the riders I have known over the years has essentially been the same. Sometimes, during super intensive tour racing we’d go for ultra-rich muffins and stuff like that - only to get more calories in - but only during uber racing intensity. My point here is that none of us have ever consciously said we’re going on an Atkins diet - merely, we chose to eat this way to avoid “cheap calories” - that is, calories which were nutritionally empty by their nature. I agree such a philosophy is so similar to now be arguing over semantics - except to say that we also knew to carbo load before major races - say, 3 pasta meals in the preceding 48 hours if you know what I mean.

Read my link earlier about how many calories are burnt per hour. Hit the road on your bike Rick! You’ll burn even more if you sit on 16mph for 90 minutes.

262

Boo Boo Foo, you are the newest posterboy for cognitive dissonance. Congratulations.

263

Well, that does sort of ignore the metabolism boosting effects of increased muscle mass which is easier to achieve with weight lifting than aerobics sports. Don’t know how you quantify the effect tho’…

I find this list of “calories expended” to be somewhat suspect. They have rowing burning fewer calories than biking and running. And they use the exact same values for “Rowing, stationary, very vigorous effort” as for “Canoeing, rowing, >6 mph, vigorous effort” and “Canoeing, rowing, crewing, competition”. (BTW, canoeing and rowing are so not the same thing) It looks like a lot of extrapolating was done on a small number of tests and probably didn’t use trained rowers. It’s much more difficult for untrained people to use the rowing machines correctly. Have you seen any info on how they (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, The Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine) collected the data?

Anyway, just to add to the dabate: study which connects a high complex carbohydrate, vegetable based diet to lower body mass.

264

Ah, such a response. I will say, I have a great interest in normal nutrition and getting regular folk down the path of healthy lifestyles whom I deal with more often than athetic types, I just have a special interest in sports and fitness health, and I did address that there are special needs for disease conditions, that warrant a special dietary consideration, otherwise, there is a structured way to eat that will promote health and wellness for most folks. Parroting and clucking? Okay, if you say so. I will not waste my time on this subject any longer, when there is someone here who obviously has such extensive training and background of your caliber. Let’s see, you are an RN? RN versus RD. Silly me to not know that RNs have the same if not more education and background than an RD. My mistake.

265

Boo Boo Foo You can remove the question mark in the first line of your post. I would be proud to call you my friend. I respect the hell out of your accomplishments, and abilities. If we ever wind up in the same part of the world, I would love to ride with you. I have a couple of cinderblocks to tie to the back of your bike, so that I can remain in the same zip code as you during the ride. :smiley: Thanks for the encouragement.

The only nit I would pick here is that the increased energy came before the exercise program started, now since I started working out again, the energy level has gone up several more notches.

Ding we have a winner! boiled down the Atkins program is all about eating whole foods, and avoiding so called empty calories such as sugar, and flour etc. I just have to leave out the pasta and muffins.

::: sigh::: I’m on the road this week, so it has to be the hotel gym. Believe me given the choice I would much prefer either my road bike or my mountain bike to a stationary bike in the gym. (FTR I did 30 minutes on the stationary bike, and 35 minutes on the treadmill since my last post. Eight hundred calories burned according to my heart rate monitor.)

266

In the interests of fairness, when the facts change, my mind changes too - and tonight, on Australia’s version of the BBC, the ABC, a fantastic science program called “Catalyst” concluded it’s two part story on 2 years of British and Danish research into the Atkin’s diet.

Click here to read the transcript of Part One. Part Two (tonight’s conclusion will be up in 24 hours)

In short, after having watched this documentary, it would seem that the single most compelling research into the Atkin’s Diet has been two separate but complimentary year long research trials in the UK and Denmark. The British trial over 12 months compared the success rate of 4 different well known diets - of which one was the Atkins Diet.

The trial used 158 respondents with utterly detailed diet journals and the research found the following - the Atkins subjects lost no more nor less weight than the strict calorie controlled dieters. However, the Atkins subjects were allowed to eat as much as they wanted so long as it fell under the guidelines of the Atkins program. The 3 quarters of subjects who were on traditional low cal diets lost weight over 12 months for the obvious reason - they were simply eating less calories. But interestingly, after analysing the diet journals of the Atkins subjects, it was discovered that they too were eating the same amount of calories per average subject - and yet they were allowed to eat as much as they wanted if they wished. Hence, the question became thus… “What is it about the Atkins Diet which seemingly suppresses appetite?”

The British study then performed a trial over 480 meals between 12 men to ascertain if it was “unlimited fat” in the diet which was suppressing hunger. Their meals were doped with saturated fats during the cooking phase into pasta sauces and stuff like that. 50% of the trial ate the hi-fat doped meals and the other 50% ate the low-fat meals. All subjects were allowed to eat as much as they wanted. And that study found that the men who were eating the doped hi-fat meals were actually going back asking for more than the lo-fat guys. Ergo, it was deemed that unlimited fat is not the trigger which makes the Atkins Diet seemingly suppress hunger.

And the answer it would appear has been found by a concurrent Danish study by Copenhagen University which included 120 subjects over 12 months. The university opened a supermarket specifically for the trial subjects and each and every food item was bar coded based on carbohydrate, protein, and fat breakdown. 120 people were asked to eat whatever they wanted, they just had to promise that for one year that 100% of their food was purchased for free from the special supermarket. After 12 months the research was in… and a wonderful discovery has been made. About 60 subjects who were consistently losing weight were found to be choosing an unusually high protein diet. No elevated fat or carbohydrate levels, nor decreased carbohydrate levels. It would seem that the success behind the Atkins Diet is actually due NOT to the myth of ketosis, or the myth of peeing out calories via ketones, or the myth of zero carbohydrates - it would seem almost beyond doubt that Dr Atkins unknowingly stumbled upon a diet which naturally suppresses hunger - which in turn reduces the net total of calories being consumed. And the magic bullet it seems is lots of protein.

Now, I’m happy to concede I might not have paraphrased everything in the documentary correctly here, but that’s why I provided the link. Make sure to read the transcript to Part Two over the next few days. Most enlightening stuff.

In short, those of us who have been arguing all this time that the reason why Atkin’s Dieters lose weight is because of fewer calories have been vindicated. However, to be fair, what we also didn’t see coming is conclusive proof that the Atkin’s Diet has also stumbled upon a natural appetite suppressant in people who raise their amounts of protein. In future, I’ll make a point of noting this finding at every opportunity. It would seem that certain sorts of food actually DO suppress appetite, and they need to be very high protein in their nature.

However, what we don’t know is what an elevated protein diet will do to the human body over a prolonged period of time. To this end, I’d personally still prefer to let high exercise be the reason for MY weight control because I get to eat a balanced diet over all the food groups. But hey, the research is what it is. I can’t argue with it.

267

I mentioned carbo-loading earlier, and on page 3, in post 145, 5que said no serious athlete carbo-loads anymore. Any reponse to that?

(Sorry, I don’t know how to link directly to a specific post)

268

Well… certainly I don’t carbo-load anymore because I’m almost 42 years old and my days in the sun are long past. I merely coach the Olympic standard dudes these days - and as often as possible, try to keep up with them in training! :smiley:

However, cycling is a different sport to most insofar as you can get to some insanely dizzying calorie expenditures during the Grand Tours. On the ultra tough mountain stages in le Tour, you often burn 9,000 calories in just the day’s stage alone - let alone the rest of the 24 hours in your day when your metabolism is cranked up through the roof. Essentially, when I rode in major tours in the mid 1980’s, at those times, it was almost impossible to overeat - no matter how much, or what you ate. As a rule of thumb, we used to throw liberal dollops of mayonnaise on EVERYTHING - except corn flakes - simply because it was so high in calories.

As for traditional carbo-loading before a major race? Nowadays? Like a National Championship? Or a World Championship? Well, you have to remember such a race is at least 220klm long. The rule of thumb is this - rest, rest, rest in the the 3 days before the race and eat merrily but not gratuitously. Eat your fave foods but not so much that you feel unnecessarily bloated. The 3 days of rest will ensure your glycogen stores are totally stocked up. And after doing 25,000 + klms of training in the preceding 12 months, 3 days of sitting around watching TV is not going to make one bit of difference to your fitness levels. Lots of sleep is probably the single most important factor after making sure you’ve topped up on your happy foods like pizza etc. Avoid junk food obviously but go hard on your favourite Italian food for sure.

269

A couple points:

Weight training may have a lower caloric expenditure during the workout than some other forms of exercise, but it can induce a rise in resting metabolic rate much more easily than those other forms. No matter who you are, you spend the majority of your time not exercising, so that rise is important for weight loss.

Second, aerobic training isn’t going to work for me in the long run because I absolutely hate it. I’ve tried to stick with it, but I always end up completely miserable.

Third, a high carbohydrate diet just isn’t necessary for in a strength training phase. One of my most intense workouts is only 49 reps. There’s just no need for a lot of readily-available fuel there. In fact, it’s more important that I get a decent amount of sleep the night before.

It is adequate. But that doesn’t settle the question of whether it’s optimal.

A lot of them are crap, but post-workout nutrition can make a huge difference in recovery. Read this (part 2).

Is there someone here arguing that a low carbohydrate diet is the only way to lose weight? If so, they’re wrong. If not, why do you keep bringing up this point?

270

A correction if I may… you’ve misrepresented our position there - rather, what we’re saying is that lowered calorie diets are the reason for successful weight loss. However, it has been suggested by various folks here that ONLY a low carbo diet will result in ketosis, or exhausted glycogen stores - and I’m arguing that ketosis is a function of reduced calories, and the research would agree with this.

In my post last night about the comprehensive Copenhagen and Surrey University studies into the Atkins Diet, it would seem inarguably that high levels of protein in one’s diet does indeed reduce one’s appetite - which in turn results in fewer calories ingested. Which in turn results in weight loss. The Atkins Diet, it seems, has inadvertently stumbled across a natural form of appetite suppression and the research is inarguable on this part. However, the research also argues that the reason for the inevitable weight loss is due to lowered calories, and not the mythical claims associated with Atkin’s proponents.

In closing, gym workouts are better than nothing, granted. However, the claim that heightened metabolic states exist for greater lengths of time, or greater intensity after a gym workout compared to say an Olympic swimmer in training, or even myself after a 35 mile ride, are well… bogus. In my considered opinion, any (and all forms) of hard exercise induces this metabolic state… whether it be soccer training, or rugby training, or weight training, or running - it’s why all exercise gives you that “feel great feeling” for 2 or 3 hours after finishing it. Now, I understand differenct strokes for different folks, but mark my words… that metabolic calorie burning you’re doing after a heavy gym session? Aerobic athletes go through that too. And certainly, in my instance, the 3 visits a week that I do to a gym for strength work allows me the best of both worlds.

271

2-3 hours? EPOC can be elevated for up totwo days after intense resistance training, and full recovery can take five to seven days. Does aerobic exercise offer that?

272

Oh for fuck’s sake… ok I’ll say what you want me to say…

GYM TRAINING IS THE MOST AMAZING, “SUPERIOR TO EVERYTHING ELSE” FORM OF EXERCISE IN THE WORLD AND NOBODY CAN ARGUE WITH THAT STATEMENT - LIKE EVAH!

Whatever… all I know is shitloads more people with weight problems go to the gym than get involved in endurance sports. You do the math…

273

If you want us to agree that endurance training is the best way to go for weight loss, you need to show that it’s better than the alternatives. If you can’t answer this one objection, then the question remains open. Can you answer it, or must you resort to sarcasm?

Of course they do. The gym is a smaller time commitment. This comment is either ignorant or disingenuous; I’ll let you pick which one.

274

If you want to deny the accuracy of the list of calories burnt per hour in the link I provided, fine go ahead. However, the little myth about gym workouts having some extra magic bullet attached is just fucking bullshit. I provided a list of empirical evidence regarding calorie burn rates. It’s a list which most gym junkies don’t like to see because it actually puts their energy efforts into a true scale of just how hard their workouts really are. So, to make up for that, they (and people like you) then throw in the unproveable - “Ahhh, but a gym workout and strength training makes you chew up calories for hours AFTER a workout”.

Blah I say. The reality is that gym workouts are at the lower end of calorie consumption. They’re better than nothing, but they’re also at the “easy end” of intensity levels, all theings being said. I tried being polite and magnanimous but noooooooooo… you wouldn’t take the hint. So now I’m being blunt. Gym training is just 1/3rd of cross-country skii-iing or jai-alai or road racing or 10k running in terms of heart rate and energy expenditure. And the claim that post exercise heightened metabolic rates makes up for the shortfall because your muscles are now bigger is just bunkum. Rare is the athlete who does not ALSO have larger muscles too. What remains is the difference in calorie expenditure, and you can accept that, or deny it. Your decision has no bearing on my life. But note something… you go to a gym Ultrafilter. Great. So do I. But I ALSO do 400klm a week in racing and training and you don’t. Hence, I make my comments from an objective angle, but I don’t see that in you at the moment.

275

EPOC is a direct measure of increased metabolism. The fact that EPOC is significantly elevated for 48 hours post-exercise is evidence that metabolism is raised after intense resistance training. What more do you want?

You know, you might have picked up on the fact that I’m not talking about standard workouts when I made this comment:

But of course you chose to ignore that, because it didn’t make sense to you. Yeah, you cycle 400 km a week. Give me an hour of your time and I’ll have you walking funny for days.

I’m really not interested in continuing this discussion with you. I’m not going to offer the olive branch; you’ve shown that you’re only interested in being right and not willing to consider anyone else’s views, no matter the evidence. Good riddance.

276

[QUOTE=ultrafilter]
You know, you might have picked up on the fact that I’m not talking about standard workouts when I made this comment:But of course you chose to ignore that, because it didn’t make sense to you. Yeah, you cycle 400 km a week. Give me an hour of your time and I’ll have you walking funny for days.
QUOTE]

Trust me on this, do one of Boo Boo Foo’s workouts, and you may not walk for a week. Much less 400 Km worth. We are talking a sustained 100% of your maximun heart rate. Brutal is an apt description.

Been there done that, got the saddle sores to show for it.

277

It didn’t make sense to me? Man, you’re making some assumptions there, are you not? Consider this… I first started doing workouts in gyms to supplement my cycling in 1982 shortly after the Commonwealth Games of that year. Since that time, I’ve met and spoken to thousands of gym dudes in gyms around the world. Olympic swimmers (fond memories of Matt Biondi here), through to pro footballers - (more fond memories of the Bill’s Jim Kelly). You sit, you trade notes, you chat, you chew the fat etc etc etc.

Unless you, Ultrafilter, have discovered something miraculous that all those other dudes haven’t let me in on, then your assumption is on shaky ground.

So as to your claim of bravura there? First bear in mind I’m 6’1" tall… and like you, I also do strength training 3 times a week. To be fair, I have no interest in being a body builder because that’s not where I need to be, but don’t assume I’m not pushing decent weights. Perhaps more reps oriented than sheer bulk oreinted, perhaps because I just don’t have a desire to be competitive about the levels. Nonetheless, I’d back me over you as to who’s gonna be less sore if we swapped sports for a day. I’m used to flushing huge amounts of lactic acid. And that, ultimately, is what the soreness is.

Hence, I really, really, REALLY doubt that I’d be the sore one if we swapped sports for a day. Perhaps somebody who doesn’t go to a gym or exercise at all? Yeah, definitely… but so long as we’re not talking about steroids doped weights, nah… that claim is crap I rather think. However, the reverse claim is probably true. Most people are lucky if they “max” out on their maximum heart rate maybe once or twice a year. Certainly, I rarely if ever hear of body builders doing it. But to hit 180 beats a minute and to process 25 liters of blood a minute? And to hold it for 60 minutes or more at a time? Only the toughest can maintain that.

Come on… you should know better than that. That’s not the way the SDMB works. There’s no moral high ground in attempting to have the last word and then storm off in a huff after having said what you wanted to say. That’s what people do in a stormy marriage arguement. To do such a thing merely reflects that you’re actually concerned about what I think after all. If you weren’t you wouldn’t have bothered to post. Ergo, read this… you don’t have to respond…

We agree that calories burnt versus calories eaten determines weight loss or gain. In my personal experience, and all of the research I’ve ever read, weight training does not, I repeat NOT, result in any greater or any longer lasting heightened metabolic rate than any other form of exercise which raises the heart rate for a minimum of 30 minutes above double that of the normal resting heart rate. A lot of gym junkies look at their muscle bulk and swear black and blue it’s something amazing and out of this world, but it’s not rocket science. I admire any human who is fit and strong. It’s a cool thing. But to argue that body building somehow miraculously makes up for a shortfall of 800-1000 calories per hour compared to more intense sports by virtue of the after-workout EPOC rating is just a fallacy - a very self-serving and convenient fallacy, but a fallacy nonetheless.

Nonetheless, if you’re body fat is low Ultrafilter, that’s great. It means you’re working hard and more power to ya. I don’t have a problem conceding that.

278

What research is that? From your cite:

Now, here’s what I actually claimed:

Do you even read your own cites?

Again, from your cite (my emphasis):

I am familiar with Astrup’s study, and it is quite promising, but it has yet to be reproduced or confirmed. Again, here is what I said:

I’ll second ultrafilter’s sentiment now. Good riddance.

Silly me for asking a question, huh? I’ve never presented myself as an “expert” on these boards about anything - unlike yourself. But, IMHO, an RD who considers himself above answering a question (regardless of the “status” of the questioner) is a crap RD. Good luck to those who consult with you.

279

If you had asked me a question politely, then perhaps you wouldn’t have been offended and continued to be rude, for I would have answered you differently. However, accusing me of parroting and clucking and addressing me as babe (Professor, if you please) and you brayed your ignorance forth in a challenging and annoying manner…and instead of asking or offering your views, you discount and challenge in an ignorant manner. I can claim I am an expert, for I am, in multiple areas regarding diet, exercise, and general health. If I enter a discussion about something for which I am knowledgable beyond common knowledge, beliefs, and superficial self studies, then, isn’t that what experts do…offer their knowledge. And goddamn it, I do not feel superior, nor imply that I am superior … but I worked hard to get where I am, and I stand by what I have learned, continue to learn, and practice. As I said, I’m not going to offer any more into this thread, beyond following up with what I knew would inflame a few people (so predictable), as obviously this thread is hopeless.

280

You realise this is the pit, right? I can think of worse appellations than “babe” (My husband is an MD researcher and I call him "babe, among other things. Don’t even ask what I’ve addressed some doctors I’ve worked with…). Anyway, my “rudeness” was in the spirit of your originial post here:

I’d ask you to cite where the “strongest goal” posted here was to lose weight by “the fastest way possible and at any cost”. That was a strawman, and you came on here with an attitude and admitted prejudice. You want polite? - try setting an example.

Of course it’s true that “quick weight loss” is a bad idea. But the feeling behind it is perfectly understandable. You come on a thread where people are reporting losing weight, feeling better, showing improved labs, and some with their doctors blessing noted, and you say… what exactly? That they are ignorant?!!

Ever consider that people want to “lose weight quickly” to avoid having to hear the kind of smug patronising remarks you’ve posted?

As for myself, I asked for the science. Should I assume you can’t provide it, and are now trying to save face by feigning insult that I “dared” to ask in a less than deferential way? There are no “experts” on messageboards, and no one should give or take advice on that basis without questioning it. But hey, I’m glad you “worked hard to get where you are”. That makes you different from the rest of us/ worthy of special treatment how, exactly?