Atkins report #2



M

Martin W. Smith

Guest
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 protected] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway
 
"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 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?
 
>>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
 
Chris wrote:
>
> "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 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 protected] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway
 
Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>"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 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
 
Jason O'Rourke wrote:
>
> Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"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 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.

> 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.

> 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 protected] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway
 
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 protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Jason O'Rourke wrote:
> >
> > Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >"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
> > >> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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 protected] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
> P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway
 
Larry Weisenthal wrote:
>
> >>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 protected] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway
 
Larry Weisenthal wrote:
> 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.

> 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 protected] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway
 
Martin W. Smith wrote:
> Larry Weisenthal wrote:
>
>>>>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
 
x-no-archive:yes

>
> 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
 
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:12:55 -0500, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote:

>x-no-archive:yes
>
>>
>> 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
>>

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
 
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 protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> >
> > 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
>
 
MJuric wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:12:55 -0500, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >x-no-archive:yes
> >
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
>
> 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.
 
Chris wrote:
> 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 protected] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway
 
"Ross Bogue" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In <[email protected]> curt wrote:
> > 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
 
"Martin W. Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Chris wrote:
> > 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.
 
Chris wrote:
>
> "Martin W. Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Chris wrote:
> > > 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 protected] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway
 
> 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
 
4precious <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.

>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