Atkins report #4



M

Martin W. Smith

Guest
I have decided to put my stake in the sand and declare that I have reached my goal weight. I have
been as low as 85.5 kilos, which is a loss of 12 kilos, and I seem to be "wanting" to stay in the
86.5 to 87.5 kilo range, which is a loss of 10+ kilos, which was my original goal. At least three
people have commented that I appear to have lost too much weight, which might be true, given that
when I look at myself in the mirror, naked, I look very thin. Given my hopefully standard level of
vanity, the fact that even I think I am a bit too thin probably indicates I should stop trying to
lose weight.

Still, my BMI is 24.6-24.8, which is in the normal range near the top but well above the ideal
range, according to the BMI page, which says I should be at 22 and weight 82 kilos. One (supposed)
MD on the low-carb diet newsgroup said I should be at 20!. When I replied that at 74 inches cm I
would have to weigh 156 lbs to have a BMI of 20, and that I haven't weighed 156 lbs since before my
growth spurt as a teenager, the doctor said that 20 is still what he would recommend. So I guess you
can't really trust advice you get on the internet after all.

I have not yet remeasured my body fat percent. The one time I did measure it using the electrical
impedence method, it registered 19%, which I think is too high. But the electronic impedance method
is dependent on the body's state of hydration, so I will wait until I can buy my own body fat scale
to resume BF measurements. I would like to get it down to 15% or so, but I don't see a lot of fat,
so if I really am at 19%, maybe I will have to stay there.

Officially, I am now in the Pre-mantenance phase of the Atkins diet, which is a phase in which you
are no longer trying to lose weight. Rather, you are adding carbs back into your diet, 10 grams of
daily carbs per week, until you reach a total carb weight at which you no longer lose weight. Well,
I haven't been that precise about following the rules in either of the first two phases, and I don't
plan to measure carbs to that level of accuracy. I will eyeball it as I have been doing. I plan to
add some fruit (maybe a second banana and one or two apples, etc), some higher gi cereal (maybe some
granola instead of All Bran Plus), and a weekly sushi dinner (rice). I plan to reduce fat a little
by reducing cheese and red meat. I will also probably drink more fruit juice (unsweetened) and
sample the occasional chocolate chip cookie.

We'll see how that goes. If it goes well, then I might try an experiment in which I switch to the
Pritikin diet for at least part of the Autumn, which is when I would still be on that diet naturally
anyway, if I were a hunter-gatherer.

I have increased my total amount of exercise per week, because my fitness club has just begun its
fall class schedule, and they have increased the number babe-fest aerobics classes. I am doing two
one-hour aerobics or spinners classes of fairly high intensity four days per week now, in addition
to my 1500m swim each weekday morning. Some days I do a longer swim session with another guy who
swims an actual workout. He's a lot faster than I am, but he adjusts his intervals to suit me. So I
suppose I am doing 12 to 15 hours of high quality exercise per week, which is a bit over the top,
but I enjoy it. I think the Atkins diet is better attempted in conjunction with a vigorous exercise
regiment, and the book recommends it be done that way.

martin

--
Draft Wesley Clark for President! www.DraftWesleyClark.com

Martin Smith email: [email protected]
 
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:54:39 +0200, "Martin W. Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Still, my BMI is 24.6-24.8, which is in the normal range near the top but well above the ideal
>range, according to the BMI page, which says I should be at 22 and weight 82 kilos.

These figures are ridiculous for an athlete. I have a BMI of 25.3 (180cm, 82kg or 5'11", 181 lbs)
and my fat is about 12-14%
 
BMI has ZERO value for individuals.

What is your BF%?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I measure success by the degree to which I ruin other people's lives."
 
Helgi Briem wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:54:39 +0200, "Martin W. Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Still, my BMI is 24.6-24.8, which is in the normal range near the top but well above the ideal
>>range, according to the BMI page, which says I should be at 22 and weight 82 kilos.
>
>
> These figures are ridiculous for an athlete. I have a BMI of 25.3 (180cm, 82kg or 5'11", 181 lbs)
> and my fat is about 12-14%
>

Not only are they ridiculous for an athlete, BMI is not considered accurate for very muscular
people, who will always seem to weigh more than they "should."

Helgi--you know men seem to think all women should weigh 125 pounds or less, no matter what their
height. However, I seem to remember that Gabrielle Reese sometimes weighed 175 for her bikini shots.

Madelaine
 
"Helgi Briem" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:54:39 +0200, "Martin W. Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Still, my BMI is 24.6-24.8, which is in the normal range near the top but well above the ideal
> >range, according to the BMI page, which says I should be at 22 and weight 82 kilos.
>
> These figures are ridiculous for an athlete. I have a BMI of 25.3 (180cm, 82kg or 5'11", 181 lbs)
> and my fat is about 12-14%
>
yeap, very true. It's the lean mass vs. the fat mass that counts, along with bone density and water
retention figures. I like the test my weight doctor does periodically, it gives you all of those
figures. You get to figure out how may pounds of water your'e retaining, how much fat you have, how
much lean body mass, another 3 or 4 figures. I don't recall off the top of my head what they are. I
usually focus on the first three, fat, lean mass and water.
 
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 11:12:00 -0400, Madelaine <[email protected]> wrote:

>Helgi Briem wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:54:39 +0200, "Martin W. Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Still, my BMI is 24.6-24.8, which is in the normal range near the top but well above the ideal
>>>range, according to the BMI page, which says I should be at 22 and weight 82 kilos.
>>
>> These figures are ridiculous for an athlete. I have a BMI of 25.3 (180cm, 82kg or 5'11", 181 lbs)
>> and my fat is about 12-14%
>>
>Not only are they ridiculous for an athlete, BMI is not considered accurate for very muscular
>people, who will always seem to weigh more than they "should."

Well, I'm not "very muscular" although I am fairly fit and used to be extremely fit. More muscular
than average perhaps. When I say "athlete" I basically mean someone who works out a bit. Although
long-distance runners seem to burn away any muscle they might have had. Ridiculous waste to my mind.

>Helgi--you know men seem to think all women should weigh 125 pounds or less, no matter what
>their height. However, I seem to remember that Gabrielle Reese sometimes weighed 175 for her
>bikini shots.

I don't know who she is and she doesn't look familiar if I look for her pictures on the web. She
looks athletic.

I certainly know many beautifully built women who weigh 160 lbs plus.
 
"Madelaine" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Helgi Briem wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:54:39 +0200, "Martin W. Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Still, my BMI is 24.6-24.8, which is in the normal range near the top but well above the ideal
> >>range, according to the BMI page, which says I should be at 22 and weight 82 kilos.
> >
> >
> > These figures are ridiculous for an athlete. I have a BMI of 25.3 (180cm, 82kg or 5'11", 181
> > lbs) and my fat is about 12-14%
> >
>
> Not only are they ridiculous for an athlete, BMI is not considered accurate for very muscular
> people, who will always seem to weigh more than they "should."
>
> Helgi--you know men seem to think all women should weigh 125 pounds or less, no matter what
> their height. However, I seem to remember that Gabrielle Reese sometimes weighed 175 for her
> bikini shots.
>
> Madelaine

My boyfriend is 6-1 and 240 pounds, bench presses over 300 pounds and has not even 10% body fat. His
BMI puts him close to the 'obese' segment. HA!
 
"Madelaine" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Helgi Briem wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:54:39 +0200, "Martin W. Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Still, my BMI is 24.6-24.8, which is in the normal range near the top but well above the ideal
> >>range, according to the BMI page, which says I should be at 22 and weight 82 kilos.
> >
> >
> > These figures are ridiculous for an athlete. I have a BMI of 25.3 (180cm, 82kg or 5'11", 181
> > lbs) and my fat is about 12-14%
> >
>
> Not only are they ridiculous for an athlete, BMI is not considered accurate for very muscular
> people, who will always seem to weigh more than they "should."
>
> Helgi--you know men seem to think all women should weigh 125 pounds or less, no matter what
> their height. However, I seem to remember that Gabrielle Reese sometimes weighed 175 for her
> bikini shots.
>
> Madelaine

At 5'-9" when I'm in a really good shape, I can weigh 150lb, have 14% body fat and wear a size 2-4
I've also been at 140lb with 29% body fat, and need a size 6.
 
DaKitty wrote:
> "Helgi Briem" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:54:39 +0200, "Martin W. Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Still, my BMI is 24.6-24.8, which is in the normal range near the top but well above the ideal
>>>range, according to the BMI page, which says I should be at 22 and weight 82 kilos.
>>
>>These figures are ridiculous for an athlete. I have a BMI of 25.3 (180cm, 82kg or 5'11", 181 lbs)
>>and my fat is about 12-14%
>>
>
> yeap, very true. It's the lean mass vs. the fat mass that counts, along with bone density and
> water retention figures. I like the test my weight doctor does periodically, it gives you all of
> those figures. You get to figure out how may pounds of water your'e retaining, how much fat you
> have, how much lean body mass, another 3 or 4 figures. I don't recall off the top of my head what
> they are. I usually focus on the first three, fat, lean mass and water.
>
>
>

Is this one test, or several different tests with the data taken together?
 
"Madelaine" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> DaKitty wrote:
> > "Helgi Briem" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:54:39 +0200, "Martin W. Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Still, my BMI is 24.6-24.8, which is in the normal range near the top but well above the ideal
> >>>range, according to the BMI page, which says I should be at 22 and weight 82 kilos.
> >>
> >>These figures are ridiculous for an athlete. I have a BMI of 25.3 (180cm, 82kg or 5'11", 181
> >>lbs) and my fat is about 12-14%
> >>
> >
> > yeap, very true. It's the lean mass vs. the fat mass that counts, along with bone density
and
> > water retention figures. I like the test my weight doctor does periodically, it gives you all of
> > those figures. You get to figure out how may pounds of water your'e retaining, how much
fat
> > you have, how much lean body mass, another 3 or 4 figures. I don't
recall
> > off the top of my head what they are. I usually focus on the first three, fat, lean mass and
> > water.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Is this one test, or several different tests with the data taken together?
>
My doc has some snazzy high end gadget, it's like an electronic scale, you step on it with bare feet
(like you would on a regular body fat analyzing scale), then he puts little clamps on your fingers
(almost like pulse monitors)... I forget exactly how it goes, couple more electrodes or something...
then keys in your height, and bzzt... takes it's measurements and makes a printout. I suspect it'
ultrasounds based, but there may be more to it. I'll pay more attention to what it is when I'm there
next time. It's big, looks like a hospital piece of equipment. Nothing like the body fat analyzers I
saw at a gym, even the high end ones.

One day we were joking.. that I should have gone to the bathroom (pee) before he made the
measurements. He said, go ahead, then I'll take another one, and compare the results... and I'll be
darn, it picked up on the difference.
 
"Kobe AnyHoleWillDo Bryant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> BMI has ZERO value for individuals.
>
> What is your BF%?

I'm not sure if it's me you're asking... from the way the thread is laid out seems like you
might be..

My BF has relatively low body fat%, I'm gonna guess in high teens.. He hasn't checked it in a long
time, several years. Like most guys in their 40's, he's little bit soft in the mid section, but the
rest of him, arms, legs, back chest... is pretty ripped. So it couldn't be much. He was actually
bragging few months ago, he saw in some magazine Evender Hollifield's measurements, arms, legs chest
waist etc... and his are almost the same.
 
"Helgi Briem" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:54:39 +0200, "Martin W. Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Still, my BMI is 24.6-24.8, which is in the normal range near the top but well above the ideal
> >range, according to the BMI page, which says I should be at 22 and weight 82 kilos.
>
> These figures are ridiculous for an athlete. I have a BMI of 25.3 (180cm, 82kg or 5'11", 181 lbs)
> and my fat is about 12-14%
>
Yep, I consider the BMI totally useless because it doesn't distingush what the source of the body
mass is. Look at the stats for NHL hockey players who are 5'11". Usually they're around 190 lbs. And
hockey players are known for having a low percentage of body fat.