General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Atkins report #2

Started by Martin W. Smith · · Last activity · 21 posts · 1,360 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
14 September 2003
Last activity
14 September 2003
Original author
Martin W. Smith
Posts
21
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,360
Views / 30 days
3

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 21
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. It has now been four weeks. I had started with the goal of losing 8-12 kilos. I intended to lose at
    least 8, because that would put me at 89 kilos, which is where I was 13 years ago when I was
    breaking Masters age group records in South Australia. By last Friday, I had reached 89 kilos.
    Looking at myself in the mirror, I think I could lose the extra four kilos, but I'm not sure it
    would be worth it, and it might not be healthy. I intend to stay in the "Ongoing Weight Loss" phase,
    however, for a few more weeks to see what happens, but I intend to add in a "carb up" day on
    Staurdays, which is what I did this week as a sort of celebration.

    The most important result so far is that it is easy to lose weight on the Atkins diet. By that I
    mean that the weight comes off quickly, and the craving for sweets disappears along with
    stress-based hunger. In other words, the positive feedback begins almost immediately, and the
    negative feedback diminishes almoste entirely, at the same time. I assume these effects are what
    makes the diet so popular.

    Other results I have noticed but cannot measure include improved sleep pattern, improved mental
    alertness, improved concentration, increased

    arthritic pain in knees and ankles.

    In report #1, I indicated that there was a negative effect having to do with arm and leg weariness,
    which was measurable in my daily 1500 swim by the fact that my typical time had increased by 30
    seconds to one minute. There remains a bit of this weariness in my legs when I first start my
    exercise, but my 1500 time has come back down to what it was before. There remains a strange effect
    related to this, in which I know feel like I am going much faster than my time indicates. I
    attribute this to a degradation of stroke technique probably caused by a decrease in buoyancy, which
    I have not yet fully corrected. Time will tell.

    As a combination reward and experiment, I "forced" myself on Saturday to eat 3 glazed cake donuts, 3
    chocolate brownies, and 6 chocolate chip cookies over the whole day. I did not exercise on Saturday,
    and on Sunday I only had the one workout, which was one hour on the step machine. Saturday morning
    before the experiment/reward, my weigh-in was
    89.5 kilos. Monday morning, my weigh-in was 90.5 kilos. I'm guessing that this increase is due to
    the storing of glycogen in my muscles, which Larry claims is 8x heavier than fat. Had I been
    doing my usual two hours of exercise per day over the weekend, I expect there would have been no
    gain at all. Still, it shows that from now on, the price of fitness is eternal vigilence.

    martin

    --
    Martin Smith email: [email hidden] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
    P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway

  2. Martin W. Smith said:

    group records in South Australia. By last Friday, I had reached 89 kilos. Looking at myself in the
    mirror, I think I could lose the extra four kilos, but I'm not sure it would be worth it, and it
    might not be healthy. I intend to stay in the "Ongoing Weight Loss" phase, however,

    Why don't you think it would be healthy? What is your Body Mass Index at 89k?

  3. Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    due to the storing of glycogen in my muscles,


    which Larry claims is 8x heavier than fat<<

    Flatt, JP. Am J Clin Nutr 62:820-836, 1995 "Diet, Lifestyle, and Weight Maintenance"

    Larry Weisenthal

    Certitude is poison; curiosity is life

  4. Chris said:


    Martin W. Smith said:

    group records in South Australia. By last Friday, I had reached 89 kilos. Looking at myself in
    the mirror, I think I could lose the extra four kilos, but I'm not sure it would be worth it,
    and it might not be healthy. I intend to stay in the "Ongoing Weight Loss" phase, however,

    Why don't you think it would be healthy? What is your Body Mass Index at 89k?

    I don't know my BMI. I don't have a way to measure it. 4 kilos is 9 lbs. I could lose that much fat,
    but it would make me leaner than I've ever been in my life. I've never been that lean, so I assume
    my body is programmed not to be that lean. But like I said, I'm staying on the OWL phase for awhile
    to see what happens. I'm just saying I won't be bothered if I don't lose more weight.

    martin

    --
    Martin Smith email: [email hidden] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
    P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway

  5. Chris said:
    Martin W. Smith said:

    group records in South Australia. By last Friday, I had reached 89 kilos. Looking at myself in
    the mirror, I think I could lose the extra four kilos, but I'm not sure it would be worth it, and
    it might not be healthy. I intend to stay in the "Ongoing Weight Loss" phase, however,

    Why don't you think it would be healthy? What is your Body Mass Index at 89k?

    BMI has no place in a group for athletes, Chris. When I peaked in conditioning 2 years ago, my BMI
    got down to just marginal. Nevermind that I could string out a 10k run at under 7 mins/mile and had
    a BF level around 11-12%. All BMI knows is that I'm 6' tall and weighed 185lbs.

    Martin should be focusing on fat loss, not weight loss. And he may well be correct that he's hit a
    point that his body would be better remaining at. I definitely saw that barrier at the 11-12% level.

    Given how quickly he dropped it, the key now is on sustaining it. Then reevaluate in a few months.
    --
    Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

  6. Jason O'Rourke said:


    Chris said:
    Martin W. Smith said:

    group records in South Australia. By last Friday, I had reached 89 kilos. Looking at myself in
    the mirror, I think I could lose the extra four kilos, but I'm not sure it would be worth it,
    and it might not be healthy. I intend to stay in the "Ongoing Weight Loss" phase, however,

    Why don't you think it would be healthy? What is your Body Mass Index at 89k?

    BMI has no place in a group for athletes, Chris. When I peaked in conditioning 2 years ago, my BMI
    got down to just marginal. Nevermind that I could string out a 10k run at under 7 mins/mile and
    had a BF level around 11-12%. All BMI knows is that I'm 6' tall and weighed 185lbs.

    I agree the model is too simplistic, but it is another data point to keep track of. I'm at 89 kilos,
    and the BMI model says I'm a 25.2, which it says is overweight. It says my ideal weight is 82 kilos,
    which I expect would be too low for my bone structure. I have the big shoulders of a long time
    workout swimmer/softball player, and the stocky build of the first baseman, which hould have led me
    away from swimming. Still, I will continue with the Ongoing Weigh Loss phase of the diet, since I
    have all positive and no negative side effects at the moment.

    Quoted message said:

    Martin should be focusing on fat loss, not weight loss. And he may well be correct that he's
    hit a point that his body would be better remaining at. I definitely saw that barrier at the
    11-12% level.

    I need to measure body fat, but I've not seen any of those new body fat measuring scales in Norway
    yet. Maybe my health club can measure it.

    Quoted message said:

    Given how quickly he dropped it, the key now is on sustaining it. Then reevaluate in a few months.

    I suspect this will be a challenge. I suspect I will not find a steady state diet of x grams of
    protein, y grams of fat, and z grams of carbs. The Atkins book suggests that a definite value for z
    should be determined and stuck with, but I don't think that will work for me. I think I will be more
    inclined to use the method of using carb-up days with close monitoring, which seems to be a popular
    method for athletes.

    martin

    --
    Martin Smith email: [email hidden] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
    P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway

  7. The BMI web site tells me that my ideal weight should be 83kg, but I know from my body fat
    percentage measure that my lean body mass (i.e. 0% fat) is 81kg. It would be impossible for me to
    weigh 83 kg without losing muscle. So the BMI can be very misleading.

    "Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Jason O'Rourke said:


    Chris said:

    "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
    > group records in South Australia. By last Friday, I had reached 89 kilos. Looking at myself
    > in the mirror, I think I could lose the


    extra

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > four kilos, but I'm not sure it would be worth it, and it might not


    be

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > healthy. I intend to stay in the "Ongoing Weight Loss" phase,


    however,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Why don't you think it would be healthy? What is your Body Mass Index at 89k?

    BMI has no place in a group for athletes, Chris. When I peaked in conditioning 2 years ago, my
    BMI got down to just marginal. Nevermind that I could string out a 10k run at under 7 mins/mile
    and had a BF


    level

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    around 11-12%. All BMI knows is that I'm 6' tall and weighed 185lbs.

    I agree the model is too simplistic, but it is another data point to keep track of. I'm at 89
    kilos, and the BMI model says I'm a 25.2, which it says is overweight. It says my ideal weight is
    82 kilos, which I expect would be too low for my bone structure. I have the big shoulders of a
    long time workout swimmer/softball player, and the stocky build of the first baseman, which hould
    have led me away from swimming. Still, I will continue with the Ongoing Weigh Loss phase of the
    diet, since I have all positive and no negative side effects at the moment.

    Quoted message said:

    Martin should be focusing on fat loss, not weight loss. And he may well be correct that he's hit
    a point that his body would be better remaining at. I definitely saw that barrier at the 11-12%
    level.

    I need to measure body fat, but I've not seen any of those new body fat measuring scales in Norway
    yet. Maybe my health club can measure it.

    Quoted message said:

    Given how quickly he dropped it, the key now is on sustaining it. Then reevaluate in a few
    months.

    I suspect this will be a challenge. I suspect I will not find a steady state diet of x grams of
    protein, y grams of fat, and z grams of carbs. The Atkins book suggests that a definite value for
    z should be determined and stuck with, but I don't think that will work for me. I think I will be
    more inclined to use the method of using carb-up days with close monitoring, which seems to be a
    popular method for athletes.

    martin

    --
    Martin Smith email: [email hidden] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
    P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway

  8. Larry Weisenthal said:


    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I don't know my BMI. I don't have a way to measure it. <<

    www.intmed.mcw.edu/clincalc/body.html

    Good website, but according to the BMI calculation, I have to go to 82 kilos just to get to my ideal
    weight, and I was only planning on going to 85 in the first place. Well, we'll see how the next two
    weeks go. My morning weigh-in today was 89.8, so I'm already heading down again. I don't believe I
    could weigh only 82 though. That would be pretty close to my high school weight.

    martin

    --
    Martin Smith email: [email hidden] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
    P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway

  9. Larry Weisenthal said:

    Martin has never asked me for any advice and isn't doing so now, but I'd just like to agree with
    his strategy of declaring victory, keeping vigilant, and seeing what happens.

    It is a victory in more than one way. The weight loss itself is one victory, but the new
    understanding of how low quality carbs effect hunger and craving is a more important victory. Iwould
    also say that the improvements in the other facets, like mental alertness and concentration, and the
    reduction in arthritic pain, are also victories, although I can't be sure they are directly related.

    Quoted message said:

    Maybe, if he adapts well to his new and improved physique, he may, in a year or so, decide to try
    to go to the next level. But if "all" he's able to achieve is his achievements so far, and he's
    able to maintain this, then that's a real time feather in the posthumus cap of Dr. Atkins.

    The BMI measurement has probably made me more inclined to keep going, although I think it is too
    simplistic a model. I think I will continue to use a carb-up/reward day each week or two. A body
    builder once recommended this approach to me a few years ago, when he was trying to suggest a diet
    to me that I now realize was a modified Atkins diet. He implied that it is important to periodically
    "shock" the body chemistry out of the fat burning mode, but he didn't explain why. I suppose he
    meant it has something to do with avoiding insulin intolerence.

    martin

    --
    Martin Smith email: [email hidden] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
    P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway

  10. Martin W. Smith said:
    Larry Weisenthal said:
    Quoted message said:

    >I don't know my BMI. I don't have a way to measure it. <<

    www.intmed.mcw.edu/clincalc/body.html

    Good website, but according to the BMI calculation, I have to go to 82 kilos just to get to my
    ideal weight, and I was only planning on going to 85 in the first place. Well, we'll see how the
    next two weeks go. My morning weigh-in today was 89.8, so I'm already heading down again. I don't
    believe I could weigh only 82 though. That would be pretty close to my high school weight.

    martin

    Which is yet another data point on the -BMI-is-a-useless-POS curve. Unless you're rather overweight
    and still wonder "Am I in heart attack country?", or you've got a large group of people and simply
    have _no_ other measuring stick, don't bother with the BMI. It simply means nothing for active
    indivduals nearing 'ideal' weights.

    --Mike

  11. x-no-archive:yes

    Quoted message said:


    Which is yet another data point on the -BMI-is-a-useless-POS curve. Unless you're rather
    overweight and still wonder "Am I in heart attack country?", or you've got a large group of people
    and simply have _no_ other measuring stick, don't bother with the BMI. It simply means nothing for
    active indivduals nearing 'ideal' weights.

    --Mike

    I agree. My son was 6'2" and weighed 150 and was "overweight" according to the BMI. The kid had
    no body fat at all at that time, but if we went by the chart we would have thought he needed to
    lose weight.

    Pat in TX

  12. Pat said:

    x-no-archive:yes

    Quoted message said:


    Which is yet another data point on the -BMI-is-a-useless-POS curve. Unless you're rather
    overweight and still wonder "Am I in heart attack country?", or you've got a large group of
    people and simply have _no_ other measuring stick, don't bother with the BMI. It simply means
    nothing for active indivduals nearing 'ideal' weights.

    --Mike


    I agree. My son was 6'2" and weighed 150 and was "overweight" according to the BMI. The kid had
    no body fat at all at that time, but if we went by the chart we would have thought he needed to
    lose weight.

    Pat in TX

    Quoted message said:

    I'm by no means a BMI fan, but I think you must have miscalculated something. The first
    calculator I went to has your son at a BMI of 19.3 which is normal weight, nearing
    underweight. Me on the other hand at 5'7" and 155 ends up at 24.3 still normal but nearly
    overweight. The last body fat test I got was 10.2% not super lean but not near overweight.

    ~Matt

  13. 6'2" @ 150 and over weight? Something must be wrong. I thought you could weigh up to 190 and be in a
    good range at that height. I am 6'2" and I would be dead at 150. I am not kidding, I would not be
    here at that weight, period. I might get down to 180, but that might be too light. At 160 I think I
    would be in the hospital.

    Sounds like there is an error somewhere in this thing. Curt

    "Pat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    x-no-archive:yes

    Quoted message said:


    Which is yet another data point on the -BMI-is-a-useless-POS curve. Unless you're rather
    overweight and still wonder "Am I in heart attack country?", or you've got a large group of
    people and simply have _no_ other measuring stick, don't bother with the BMI. It simply means
    nothing for active indivduals nearing 'ideal' weights.

    --Mike

    I agree. My son was 6'2" and weighed 150 and was "overweight" according to the BMI. The kid had no
    body fat at all at that time, but if we went by


    the

    Quoted message said:

    chart we would have thought he needed to lose weight.

    Pat in TX

  14. MJuric wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Pat said:

    x-no-archive:yes

    Quoted message said:


    Which is yet another data point on the -BMI-is-a-useless-POS curve. Unless you're rather
    overweight and still wonder "Am I in heart attack country?", or you've got a large group of
    people and simply have _no_ other measuring stick, don't bother with the BMI. It simply means
    nothing for active indivduals nearing 'ideal' weights.

    --Mike


    I agree. My son was 6'2" and weighed 150 and was "overweight" according to the BMI. The kid had
    no body fat at all at that time, but if we went by the chart we would have thought he needed to
    lose weight.

    Pat in TX

    Quoted message said:

    I'm by no means a BMI fan, but I think you must have miscalculated something. The first
    calculator I went to has your son at a BMI of 19.3 which is normal weight, nearing
    underweight. Me on the other hand at 5'7" and 155 ends up at 24.3 still normal but nearly
    overweight. The last body fat test I got was 10.2% not super lean but not near overweight.

    They don't use the metric system down in Texas (except when giving speeding tickets out to tourists
    travelling to Big Bend National Park--"I thought it was _miles_ per hour, officer!?"😉.

    By the way, why are Pat's and a few others' posts not showing up in Google Groups? There seem to be
    certain posts that only appear if someone else responds to them.

  15. Chris said:

    By the way, why are Pat's and a few others' posts not showing up in Google Groups? There seem to
    be certain posts that only appear if someone else responds to them.

    Pat adds this line "x-no-archive:yes" at the top of the message, which tells google not to archive
    the message.

    martin

    --
    Martin Smith email: [email hidden] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
    P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway

  16. "Ross Bogue" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    In curt said:

    6'2" @ 150 and over weight? Something must be wrong.

    My son is 6'2" and 135 lb. He has no body fat and precious little body muscle either. He also
    cannot buy clothes that fit him in the regular stores. Wal-Mart doesn't stock pants with a 27"
    waist and a 34" inseam.

    Ross

    Wow, I don't know anyone that tall and that light. I hope he is ok.

    Curt

  17. "Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Chris said:

    By the way, why are Pat's and a few others' posts not showing up in Google Groups? There seem to
    be certain posts that only appear if someone else responds to them.

    Pat adds this line "x-no-archive:yes" at the top of the message, which tells google not to archive
    the message.

    Ah ...

    For a normal newsreader application that makes sense. For a web-based system, Google's
    interpretation means that nobody using the system will ever see them. A less drastic interpretation
    would be to keep the messages around for a few days before deleting them.

  18. Chris said:


    "Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Chris said:

    By the way, why are Pat's and a few others' posts not showing up in Google Groups? There seem
    to be certain posts that only appear if someone else responds to them.

    Pat adds this line "x-no-archive:yes" at the top of the message, which tells google not to
    archive the message.

    Ah ...

    For a normal newsreader application that makes sense. For a web-based system, Google's
    interpretation means that nobody using the system will ever see them. A less drastic
    interpretation would be to keep the messages around for a few days before deleting them.

    Why don't you use a normal news server? It would probably be more efficient.

    martin

    --
    Martin Smith email: [email hidden] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
    P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway

  19. Quoted message said:

    Which is yet another data point on the -BMI-is-a-useless-POS curve.

    --Mike

    I'm not sure that is true.

    As far as I can tell on reading about BMI, it's a statistical thing. In another words, they've
    looked at mortality rates and found at least a couple "knees" in the curve.

    If your BMI is 20-22, then you have the highest longevity potential of people at that height.
    Between 23-25 it falls off some but not much. 25-30 represents a discernible change in the slope of
    the death rate for a certain height and weight, and of course above a BMI of 30, you're probably
    taking years off your life.

    So can a big-boned, heavily muscled person get into the 20-22 catergory and stay there? Probably
    not. It's just a fact that such a person will, in general, not live as long as someone with the same
    height, but a smaller frame, and much more slender build.

    Most people have probably heard of the studies where scientists feed rats barely enough to survive.
    Their life spans increase significantly.

    So bottom line - the less we eat in a lifetime, the longer we will
    live. (assuming no car wreck, no cancer, etc.)

    Whew, all that typing has made me hungry. I'm going to go get those powdered sugar donuts out of the
    vending machine.

    Eric

  20. 4precious said:
    Quoted message said:

    Which is yet another data point on the -BMI-is-a-useless-POS curve.

    --Mike

    I'm not sure that is true.

    As far as I can tell on reading about BMI, it's a statistical thing. In another words, they've
    looked at mortality rates and found at least a couple "knees" in the curve.

    If your BMI is 20-22, then you have the highest longevity potential of people at that height.
    Between 23-25 it falls off some but not much. 25-30 represents a discernible change in the slope of
    the death rate for a certain height and weight, and of course above a BMI of 30, you're probably
    taking years off your life.

    BMI is relevent to the couch bound population, and in that realm the statistics may well be
    accurate. But so long as it ignore muscle mass, it's useless for athletes. It's not even entirely
    accurate for the sedentary types - you have people that are "thin fat" people. That is, their height
    weight ratio is good, but their BF percentage is relatively high. No muscle at all.

    And of course there is no consideration for cardio potential when you only look at weight
    and height.

    Quoted message said:

    So can a big-boned, heavily muscled person get into the 20-22 catergory and stay there? Probably
    not. It's just a fact that such a person will, in general, not live as long as someone with the
    same height, but a smaller frame, and much more slender build.

    I've tried to find out anything that answers the question here - does BMI reflect a view that a
    200lb person at 10% BF is less healthy that someone at 170 and 23% (the male average for BF).
    No luck. I've just concluded that this number was easier to deal with for GPs than a
    'complicated chart.'

    It's true as you note that lower calorie diets tend to lead to longer lives, though I wonder if the
    diminished quality of life makes up for it. But we also know that carrying extra fat and not
    exercising is a serious health deterrent.
    --
    Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·1 bot ·1 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

Anthropic (1)