Diet

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

Quoted message said:

Loco~Motion said:

Are you guaranteeing that people lose weight lifting weights? The lady
trainer at the YMCA told me weight lifting is for toning, not weight
loss. She said the energy burnt by the few lbs of muscle you put on is
negligible and recommended I see a Dietitian or find some way to do
calorie burning exercise for weight loss.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Please see above. She also told me women my age don't tend to gain the
muscle the young person would.

Quoted message said:

At a personal trainer at a a YMCA I find it hard to believe that another
trainer would say the above. It goes against even the most basic training
knowledge and against the training certification the YMCA provides its
trainers.

Then why would she tell me this? It also made sense to me. A woman of 23 or
43 would surely gain more muscle than a woman of 63. She also knew I was
looking to lose weight - burn calories, not get fit or toned. That would be
a concern afterward.

Quoted message said:

1) Trainers don't use the word "toning". The popular press use that that
word to mean seeing muscle definition on someone with a low bodyfat
percentage. Muscle tone technically is the unconscious nerve impulses
that maintain a partially contracted state. People with hypertonicity
(Parkinsons for example) have problems with muscle tone.

She didn't mention anything about this. ?!?!?!

Quoted message said:

2) Even small amounts of added muscle mass can aid bodyfat loss -- why
would a trainer tell you turn your back on that fact.

Yes, I know this and she mentioned it as I said. But the weight loss of a
few pounds of added muscle would be minuscule compared to other exercises
she explained. I'm apparently having trouble making myself clear on this.
Let me say that as I understood her, I was not going to lose 1 to 2 lbs a
week by adding a few lbs of muscle from working out.

Quoted message said:

3) Young people usually gain and keep muscle mass due to their hormone
levels. As people age they increasing need to work toward just *keeping*
their muscle mass, let alone adding mass. Additionally women need to
strength train as they age to maintain bone density. Its shocking that a
trainer (a female one at that) would not be informed about this simple
fact.

Maybe because I was mainly interested in weight loss, not bone and muscle
issues. BTW, I've had the scan and there is no sign of osteoporosis.

In fact your doctor should have told you

Quoted message said:

to strength train for your bone density. (I haven't been reading all of
your post, but seem to remember you have a leg problem -- is it a broken
leg? You may want to have ask for bone density test.)

I already had that. The breaks were from a serious fall, not osteoporosis.

Quoted message said:

In all, the person you spoke with needs to be educated and possibly
re-certified.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

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

Quoted message said:

RRzVRR said:

Loco~Motion said:

The lady trainer at the YMCA told me weight lifting is for toning, not
weight loss.

Quoted message said:

In all, the person you spoke with needs to be educated and possibly
re-certified.

Probably not. Loco~Motion has misunderstood Atkins and the other posters
in this thread, so likely misunderstood the Y trainer.

She was quite clear that to lose 1 to 2 lbs a week was going to take more
than lifting weights and gaining a few pounds of muscle. Lifting weights
itself doesn't burn that many calories she said. The extra muscle alone
wasn't going to take off 1 to 2 lbs a week. She also suggested brisk
walking. Osteoporosis isn't an issue as I was already scanned for that. So
I got the treadmill rather than pay to drive down there and use theirs. And
as I said, it worked great along with the low-carb diet and no weight
lifting or exercise machines.

Before anyone puts down the trainer there, remember, I told her I was
interested in weight-loss, not fitness, not getting toned or getting
definition, stronger bone etc.

Quoted message said:

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

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

Quoted message said:

Loco~Motion said:

I can't believe all you low-carbers are also lifting weights and using
balls
to lose weight. My Dr said walking was one of the best exercises a
person
can do to lose weight and help the cardio vascular system. I really
don't
have the money to but weights and balls with the medical bills we're now
faced with.

To actually do Atkins, you must exercise. You can see the chapter
entitled "Exercise, it's non-negotiable." Meanwhile, back in the real
world, not every LC adherent exercises. But a lot of them do.

And yes, I was. Faithfully. On top of all else I was walking on the
treadmill 4 to 5 times a week. The weight was coming off.

Quoted message said:

I got my Swiss Ball for maybe $15 bucks. It came with a DVD I've
never looked at. My current cube is too small, but I put up with a
year's worth of jokes ("You're really on the ball!" "It takes balls to
sit on that"😉 at work and maybe it helped. I dunno. I got it to work
on my posture. It helped with that. I'm now regressing in my knock-off
Herman Miller chair.

???

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

So you can guarantee if I can find the ball and weights somewhere cheap
I'll
lose weight?

No. If you find them somewhere cheap, it doesn't imply purchase.
Further,
purchase doesn't imply regular use. Lastly, regular use doesn't imply
useful activity.

Given purchase (look for a "Play it Again" franchise near you. You
don't
need new weights. A good swiss ball should be <$20, brand new. They
sell them at Borders, Target, probably Wal*Mart, and lots of other
places.)
Given purchase, regular, useful activity with these, I still cannot
guarantee
a moving scale. Muscle is heavier than fat. If you are diligent, you
will move
the tape measure and the bodyfat percentage. Maybe the scale as well,
but
I can't guarantee that.

It amazes me I could burn as many calories with a ball and weights as
walking briskly for 2 to 3 miles. Now if you're going to say the new muscle
is going to burn the fat off... how much muscle must I put on to burn 1 to 2
lbs of fat a week?

Quoted message said:

That said, you can do wonders with bodyweight. And all that requires
is a
body. Last I checked, you are free to use your own body for less than
even
the cheapest dumbbells.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

See above. I have too many medical bills to pay to go out and buy weights
and some kind of balls.

Again, get down with the bodyweight exercises. Prisoner squats,
pushups,
etc. Use your own home gym, the one you were born with.

I'm not sure what a bodyweight exercise is. I tried pushups. I can't do
them. I can't push myself off the floor. Squats kill my old knees. Remember
I'm 63 years old.

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Are you guaranteeing that people lose weight lifting weights? The lady
trainer at the YMCA told me weight lifting is for toning, not weight
loss.
She said the energy burnt by the few lbs of muscle you put on is
negligible
and recommended I see a Dietitian or find some way to do calorie burning
exercise for weight loss.

Quoted message said:

This question is meant with the best intentions.
"Is it more important to move the scale or the mirror?"

To move the scale. I want to get back to my normal weight of 125 to 130.
The mirror is second at my age. ;-)

Quoted message said:

For me, the mirror is #1, the scale is a way to measure progress in
the mirror.
And in overall health. Resistance exercise, Interval Training and
controlled
carb dieting are the way to move the mirror. The scale will move with
it, but
the three create a synergy that will move the fat off your body and
replace it
with lean muscle. Not steroid muscles. But toned, lean muscle.

First I want the excess weight off and then I'll worry about the mirror. If
I gained 5 lbs of muscle would it burn off 1 to 2 lbs of fat a week? The
trainer said no, that I would have to do cardio like walking briskly to burn
that much fat. The damn accident screwed everything up. I could have kept
walking I would now be at my goal weight.

Quoted message said:

Your trainer is part right. Lifting little light weighs is for toning.
The energy burnt
by extra ounces of muscle is small (it's real, but it's small). You
should NOT
see a dietician. They are mostly trained with information that is 20
years out of
date and it wasn't particuarly solid twenty years ago. You should go
back to
reread protein power. And find someway to incorporate LC dieting and
resistance
exercises. That's the key.

If I should find a way to do resistance exercise - how much weight would
those extra muscles burn in a week? If it's only ounces I may be better off
eating one less egg a day. How many ounces or pounds does your extra
muscles burn in a week? A rough figure is OK.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have his "New Diet Revolution" book. Allow me to repeat that I was
losing 1 to 2 lbs a week when I was exercising therefore I was doing
something right by omitting almost all refined carbs from my diet and
walking. When I started I did the all-meat thing for the 1st 2 weeks,
then started to add the veggies and nuts.

You are living in the past. You are NOW injured, right? Your thinking
needs to adapt to this new reality. If you want to be successful with your
new reality, you are going to have to alter some aspects.

Yes, this is true. At least until I can walk on the treadmill again.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can't believe all you low-carbers are also lifting weights and using
balls to lose weight. My Dr said walking was one of the best exercises a
person can do to lose weight and help the cardio vascular system. I
really don't have the money to but weights and balls with the medical
bills we're now faced with.

Quoted message said:

Well, we are. And it's not just to lose weight. It's to build a better,
more fitter body. Walking is excellent, but you can't walk, right? So, you
need to temporarily change to something you CAN do. And, BTW, those
dumbbells don't cost so much. You can get a 5# dumbbell for about $4. You
can go to the Second Hand Sports store and get the basic dumbbells for
really cheap. The balls? Around $24. Don't want to spend money on a pair
of $10 dumbells? Use cans of food. Lift a gallon of milk. There are things
around your house that you can use.

I'll check out WalMart as I think I saw dumbbells there. How many ounces or
pounds a week would the extra muscle from lifting them burn? How many
pounds of muscle does it take to burn off a pound of fat? How many times do
I have to lift them to develop a lb of muscle? I think I will look strange
if the muscle grows in my arms and not the rest of my upper torso. And
these arm muscles will burn off the fat...... It sounds odd somehow.

Quoted message said:

Nobody said anything about exercising 4 hours a day. Let me ask you this:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is what you are presently doing working or have you gained 10 pounds?

So you can guarantee if I can find the ball and weights somewhere cheap
I'll lose weight?

So, you are saying that unless you get a "guarantee" you won't do anything
at all but----gain weight?

OK so buying some weights and lifting them will develop arm muscles and
these muscles will burn off the fat I need to lose. Am I understanding you
correctly? How many times will I have to lift them to grow a pound of
muscle and how many pounds of fat will this muscle burn off each week? How
long does it take to develop a pound of muscle in each arm? Will this take
weeks or months? And what weight/dumbbell should I buy?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are you guaranteeing that people lose weight lifting weights? The lady
trainer at the YMCA told me weight lifting is for toning, not weight
loss. She said the energy burnt by the few lbs of muscle you put on is
negligible and recommended I see a Dietitian or find some way to do
calorie burning exercise for weight loss.

Quoted message said:

If you belong to the UMCA, use THEIR weights. Sheesh! You can afford to
join a health club but can't afford some cheapo dumbbells? It is sounding
as if you just want to complain, but not actually take any action.

Uh, I never said I joined a health club. The lady works at the YMCA. I don't
belong there because I can't afford it and it's not close to where I live.
The action to lift weights and grow muscles to burn the fat goes against
what I was told, that's why I question it. She said muscle would burn some
calories but it would be negligible. Resistance training is not for weight
loss she said. She said the muscle I may gain would not burn off 1 to 2 lbs
a week. Are you saying they will? How many pounds of muscles does it take
to burn off 1 to 2 pounds of fat a week? Forget fitness and the mirror.
That's not my concern at the moment.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You may have "read" the book, but you missed several key ingredients.
You have been looking at those books as menus to pick and choose from.
That is where you are going off on a tangent. You aren't following any
plan at all. You are making it up as you go along.

Making what up? I was losing up to 2 lbs a week!!!

Would you quit living in the past? You WERE......look at today and where
you are, right now. You wrote that you were gaining weight. You won't lose
any by repeating "I was losing up to 2 lbs a week!" Talking doesn't use
THAT many calories.

Pat in TX

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

Quoted message said:

Loco~Motion said:

I have his "New Diet Revolution" book.

Having the book and claiming to have read it is not the same thing
as understanding any of the content. Consider that you claim that
the fat fast consists of drinking oil, which is completely false. The
fat fast is 1000 calories at 90% fat and he suggests recipes like
cream cheese mixed with fish roe to acheive those numbers with
food that tastes good.

OK so I confused it with another book or a website. I spent weeks reading
all over the place before starting the diet and getting the treadmill and
walking. Forgive my error.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... When I
started I did the all-meat thing for the 1st 2 weeks, then started to add
the veggies and nuts.

Quoted message said:

That doesn't even slightly resemble the directions in the book.
Yet another indication that the way you read the book did not
lead to understanding the content.

Quoted message said:

Making what up? I was losing up to 2 lbs a week!!!

This is a point with some interesting implications.

The rate of loss is proportional to the amount a person has to lose,
but you were losing at 2 pounds per week for several months in a
row. Most of the people who lose at that rate still have 100+ pounds
to lose. Do you recall mention of "suseptibility" in the book? Your
loss rate of 2 pounds per week suggests that you have an extremely
high suseptibility to lose by low carb. That might sound like good
news, but it also means that you also have an extremely high
suseptibility to regain by even slightly going off plan.

This may be true, especially when I was so incapacitated by the brace and
then the walking boot. I will have to read the book again. I read it almost
a year ago.

Quoted message said:

Atkins is not and never was about eating a lot of food and being
able to lose like magic. No matter that you actually did lose like
magic for a while. Atkins is about right-sizing carb intake to
trigger
ketosis and using the appetite suppression of ketosis to be able to
adjust your portion sizes without hunger.

I have the sticks and never went in to this ketosis while losing.

Quoted message said:

Now that you know of your suseptibility you know you will be able
to resume loss by getting back into ketosis (you have not mentioned
if you are still in ketosis and ketosis is the keystone of the 2
weight
loss phases of the process) and reducing your portions carefully.
Don't wildly reduce your portions in half, just taper them down a bit
at a time.

See above. I have the sticks but that never happened. Since I continued to
lose I didn't get upset that ketosis never happened for me. I was checking
my urine twice a day for awhile. I think they were called Keto sticks.

Quoted message said:

But having discovered your suseptibility you also know just how
easy it will be to regain should you ever go off-plan. You had no
idea what the plan actually is and you drifted enough to trigger
regain, so your danger of regain by going off-plan is extremely high.

Having high suseptibility like that is a double edged sword - It can
trigger loss at a rate that seems so magical it seems like you don't
even need to know what the process really is to be able to lose with
it. And it can also trigger rapid regain when you have reached a
level
anywhere near your ideal weight. Easy loss makes for over confidence.
Over confidence makes for very tough maintenance. That's a stuation
I know far too well. I lost over 1 pound per week for a while ending
up at 40 down in 52 weeks and near 10 pounds from my ideal weight.
But the ease of that loss also led me to lose interest in following
what
the directions really said and I had a tough second year and I have
struggled with maintenance ever since.

Oh, that is a bummer.

Quoted message said:

So read the book again. Get that Induction is about entering ketosis.
Get that OWL is about being just barely in ketosis to trigger loss by
using the appetite suppression to make it painless to carefully
adjust your portion sizes as the "metabolic advantage" drops as you
have less and less to lose. Get that pre-maint and maintenance are
deliberately out of ketosis but that they are also sufficiently low
carb
that the cravings are not turned on. Get that the carb ladder is
about
discovering previously unknown food intolerances and that it is used
to discover foods you should avoid no matter what their carb count.
Then use that knowledge to get back on the plan and lose. But
know how easy it is going to be to regain based on how easy it was
to lose. Double edged sword ...

Damn.... I didn't know these things or have forgotten them. My memory is
not what it was 10 yrs ago. I have the Atkins book here and will re-read
it. But honestly, I am getting weary of just meat, fish, eggs and low-carb
vegetables with an occasional piece of fruit.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

I'm having a JC moment...

Loco~Motion said:

I have his "New Diet Revolution" book. Allow me to repeat that I was
losing 1 to 2 lbs a week when I was exercising therefore I was doing
something right by omitting almost all refined carbs from my diet and
walking. When I started I did the all-meat thing for the 1st 2 weeks,
then started to add the veggies and nuts.

Nothing wrong with what you were doing, but it's not the Atkins program.

Several people have suggested that you follow or at least read Atkins.
It's pretty clear you have no idea what his program is. "Omitting almost
all refined carbs" is not Atkins neither is an "all-meat thing." While
I''ve really never done Atkins myself, but I can't see how anyone can come
away from his book and say stuff that they can't do Atkins cause they're
not into "sipping oil". None of this has anything to do with anything
Atkins said.

The oil sipping was to break a stall or plateau. Maybe I read it in anther
low-carb book. I read several books and many websites at the time.

Quoted message said:

It has been suggested repeatedly that you read his book and you have
posted several times saying that you have. I can therefore only conclude
that your reading comprehension is very poor. So spending a lot of time
typing up answers to your questions seems rather a waste of my time.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I have the book and will reread it. I
thought I was following a successful plan when the fat was dropping off as
it was........

Quoted message said:

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

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

Quoted message said:

Loco~Motion said:

Low calorie diets are so hard to stick to whereas the low-carb diet isn't
bad at all. I seldom feel hungry. I remember trying low-calorie dieting
before I was diagnosed with hypothyroidism. I was starving all the time,
irritable, tired, obsessed with food, and just plain [censored]...... 🙁

I just want to make it clear to anyone else reading this thread now or
archived in the future... I never recommended a low-calorie diet to this
person.

I don't remember anyone saying you did.

Quoted message said:

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

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

Quoted message said:

The only place I recall the advice to "sip" or "drink" oil was here, by
that guy Lee who used to post a lot.

Susan

Where did he get the idea from? I may have read the same book or website he
did.

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

Quoted message said:

Loco~Motion said:

"Pat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> I've never cut back on carbs to lose weight and I know that every
> person is different. Has anyone lost any weight off just cutting carbs
> alone?

Quoted message said:

Get to the library, used book store, or new book store and get a copy
of
Dr. Atkins' book. Once you've read it, you will understand the concept.
It's not just cutting back on carbs. It's an entire system.

What about those of us who can't get out there and walk several miles a
day
anymore. Since my accident I've stuck to low carbing and already GAINED
back 10 lbs. Now what?

Please take this in the vein it is offered, as help not criticism.

You were walking several miles a day, uphill on the treadmill, and
losing
weight doing it, while eating low carb in the Atkins/Protein Power
manner.

You then stopped walking (regardless of cause) and have not replaced
it
with any physical activity.

For almost 8 weeks I couldn't do much more than hobble around the house. I
have been getting around more normally these past few weeks.

Quoted message said:

I would guess that you have not scaled back your eating to your new
lower
level of activity. In a protein power world, you would cut your
protein requirement
from maybe .7 times your lean body mass to .5 times your lean body
mass.

I don't know what my lean body mass is. You mean what I weighed before the
weight gain at menopause? That would be 125 lbs. I don't understand
fractions, sorry. Can you use ounces and pounds? This is very frustrating
when I don't understand something. I haven't been weighing the protein I
eat according to my original body weight... I'm confused. I just made
dinner with meat and low-carb veggies and ate until I felt comfortable. I
didn't measure or weigh anything.

Quoted message said:

That would result in a decrease in protein calories of nearly 30%,
moving your
total calories anywhere from 10-30%. That might be something useful.

So I should eat less protein by 30% then and cut all other calories by 10 to
30% - what's left beside veggie calories and the nuts? That would leave me
very little food.

Quoted message said:

You might also have lost your way a little and had some carb creep.
Take a few
days to restart, with the proper amount of food, and you should see a
return to
results.

I don't know what the proper amount would be. If I cut all calories by 30%
that leaves me very little food.

Quoted message said:

Lastly, you mentioned an accident. Are you on any meds? They might be
causing
the weight gain or inhibiting the diet. I wouldn't suggest dumping,
but rather,
refinement of your expectations.

No new meds, just my thyroid medication.

Quoted message said:

Good luck.

I'll read Atkins again but I'm already eating nothing but low-carb veggies,
meat and the 2 oz of nuts a day plus the glass of milk. I'm so limited
already if I give up the nuts and milk and eat even less meat I'll be on a
near starvation diet of low-carb vegetables.

Quoted message said:

Loco~Motion said:

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

Quoted message said:

Loco~Motion said:

Are you guaranteeing that people lose weight lifting weights? The
lady trainer at the YMCA told me weight lifting is for toning, not
weight loss. She said the energy burnt by the few lbs of muscle you
put on is negligible and recommended I see a Dietitian or find some
way to do calorie burning exercise for weight loss.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Please see above. She also told me women my age don't tend to gain
the muscle the young person would.

Quoted message said:

At a personal trainer at a a YMCA I find it hard to believe that
another trainer would say the above. It goes against even the most
basic training knowledge and against the training certification the
YMCA provides its trainers.

Then why would she tell me this? It also made sense to me. A woman of 23
or 43 would surely gain more muscle than a woman of 63. She also knew I
was looking to lose weight - burn calories, not get fit or toned. That
would be a concern afterward.

Quoted message said:

1) Trainers don't use the word "toning". The popular press use that
that word to mean seeing muscle definition on someone with a low
bodyfat percentage. Muscle tone technically is the unconscious nerve
impulses that maintain a partially contracted state. People with
hypertonicity (Parkinsons for example) have problems with muscle tone.

She didn't mention anything about this. ?!?!?!

Quoted message said:

2) Even small amounts of added muscle mass can aid bodyfat loss -- why
would a trainer tell you turn your back on that fact.

Yes, I know this and she mentioned it as I said. But the weight loss of
a few pounds of added muscle would be minuscule compared to other
exercises she explained. I'm apparently having trouble making myself
clear on this. Let me say that as I understood her, I was not going to
lose 1 to 2 lbs a week by adding a few lbs of muscle from working out.

Either the trainer gave you bad advice or possibly you had
selective hearing. Discouraging you from starting strength
training is against all training principles. Its
unfortunate because people who gain muscle mass have do have
higher resting metabolism and that has an accumulated effect
toward less bodyfat.

Unfortunately it seems that most of your focus is on scale
numbers. I suggest you read more about strength training,
metabolism, low carb eating and try to take a wider view of
what fitness means to your health. I think that change of
viewpoint will aid you in dropping your excess bodyfat in a
healthier way.

I'm going to be traveling for several days and won't be able
to continue discussing this with you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3) Young people usually gain and keep muscle mass due to their hormone
levels. As people age they increasing need to work toward just
*keeping* their muscle mass, let alone adding mass. Additionally
women need to strength train as they age to maintain bone density.
Its shocking that a trainer (a female one at that) would not be
informed about this simple fact.

Maybe because I was mainly interested in weight loss, not bone and
muscle issues. BTW, I've had the scan and there is no sign of osteoporosis.

In fact your doctor should have told you

Quoted message said:

to strength train for your bone density. (I haven't been reading all
of your post, but seem to remember you have a leg problem -- is it a
broken leg? You may want to have ask for bone density test.)

I already had that. The breaks were from a serious fall, not osteoporosis.

Quoted message said:

In all, the person you spoke with needs to be educated and possibly
re-certified.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

Loco~Motion said:

And yes, I was. Faithfully. On top of all else I was walking on the
treadmill 4 to 5 times a week. The weight was coming off.

Great.

Quoted message said:

It amazes me I could burn as many calories with a ball and weights as
walking briskly for 2 to 3 miles. Now if you're going to say the new muscle
is going to burn the fat off... how much muscle must I put on to burn 1 to 2
lbs of fat a week?

It's NOT all about the CALORIES. It's NOT as simple as calories in/
calories
out. As soon as you process this, you will be better off. I'm sorry
for the tone
but you have a frustratingly defeatist attitude that is completely
useless
to your current endeavor. You have limitations, move on with it.

If you are still hung on the calories, you might try eating 200-400
calories
less a day. That would make up for your treadmill sessions, easily.

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure what a bodyweight exercise is. I tried pushups. I can't do
them. I can't push myself off the floor. Squats kill my old knees. Remember
I'm 63 years old.

You actually do know what a body weight exercise is. Try a modified
pushup,
from your knees. Try one where you are standing and pushing away from
a wall.
Google "bodyweight exercise bad knees" and you might find something
useful
for you. Excuses are old. Solutions are useful.

Quoted message said:

To move the scale. I want to get back to my normal weight of 125 to 130.
The mirror is second at my age. ;-)

I wouldn't value judge, but if the scale read 125 and you looked like
you
currently do, would that be a win? I would hazzard no. If your scale
read whatever
it currently does and you looked 20 lbs lighter, perhaps that wouldn't
be a
win either. But it makes you read ridiculous.

I'm gonna paraphrase a well known business scholar here and say,
"The Scale is a Moron."

It doesn't tell you anything but weight. Not water, not muscle, not
fat, not
anything really useful. It certainly doesn't tell you if you are
healthy or better
off.

You might want to look into your obsession with moving the scale. It
reads
like an eating disorder.

Quoted message said:

First I want the excess weight off and then I'll worry about the mirror. If
I gained 5 lbs of muscle would it burn off 1 to 2 lbs of fat a week? The
trainer said no, that I would have to do cardio like walking briskly to burn
that much fat. The damn accident screwed everything up. I could have kept
walking I would now be at my goal weight.

You don't think it would have slowed down? That's kind of the natural
progression
with weightloss. The first pounds come off fast, the last ones are the
hard ones.
Less margin for error. I suspect, in that universe we cannot explore,
you would
not be at goal yet. You certainly wouldn't have continued to burn 1-2
lbs of
weight a week. And you have no way of knowing that it was fat and not
muscle.
Treadmill without high intensity intervals is not protective of lean
body mass.

Quoted message said:

If I should find a way to do resistance exercise - how much weight would
those extra muscles burn in a week? If it's only ounces I may be better off
eating one less egg a day. How many ounces or pounds does your extra
muscles burn in a week? A rough figure is OK.

Why such focus on time? Did you focus on time when putting the weight
on?
I'm not gonna rehash the rant against the scale. But I feel so much
better at my
current weight with exercise than I did the first time I was here
without. And
maybe it's because I'm not 63 and consider my life mostly over, but
that's
important, in and of itself. For the record, I have lost 58 lbs since
August 20, 2006.
That's a wee bit better than a pound a week. For more than a year. I
can also
say, with reasonable certainty that I have built about 5 lbs of lean
body mass in
that time, so really, I've lost 63 lbs of fat. You're a 63 year old
woman with bad
knees, a foot brace and a defeatist attitude. I cannot suggest that
any course of
action will net you any set of results. The best move for you would be
an attitude
adjustment. Instead of focusing on what you cannot do, focus on what
is open
to you, and go there, and do that. That's the difference between wins
and whines.

Loco~Motion said:

Doug Freyburger said:

"Loco~Motion" <[email hidden]> wrote:

I have the sticks and never went in to this ketosis while losing.

Just to check - Any change in color from biege towards pink
is a positive reading. Once there is some color change, any
color change, how dark the reading is becomes almost
completely irrelevant* Ketosis/ketonuria is all or nothing more
like a pregancy test than like counting calories. Like so many
points, Dr A's use of the word "purple" is just another example
of his writing skills being so bad. (* Note that the sticks are
manufactured for diabetics to detect potentially fatal
ketoacidosis where the sticks turn black. Darker is *not*
better with the sticks).

Quoted message said:

... Since I continued to
lose I didn't get upset that ketosis never happened for me ...

Folks lose without being in ketonuria. The time scale becomes
different - The sticks let you know if you have been in ketonuria this
week, but the accuracy of carb counts and the inaccuracy of
sticks can't give a measurement closer than a week. The scale
lets you know if you have seen a new low in the last month, but
the inaccuracy of scales and the fact of water retention swings
can't give a measurement closer than a month except for any
new lows.

So if the sticks never show anything but biege, you could march
up the carb ladder and increase your carb quota for a month
before you know your loss rate has dropped to zero, and it can't
be the second month either because the first month includes water
loss. So with the sticks you can determine your CCLL to the
nearest 10 in a week then experiment later to get down to the
nearest 5 in the next 2-3 weeks but never more accurate than that.
But with the scale you can only determine your CCLL to the
nearest 20 in a month then experiment later to get down to the
nearest 5 in the next 3-4 months.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Having high suseptibility like that is a double edged sword - It can
trigger loss at a rate that seems so magical it seems like you don't
even need to know what the process really is to be able to lose with
it. And it can also trigger rapid regain when you have reached a
level
anywhere near your ideal weight. Easy loss makes for over confidence.

Oh, that is a bummer.

My view - Turnabout is fair play. The price of easy loss is harder
maintenance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So read the book again. Get that Induction is about entering ketosis.
Get that OWL is about being just barely in ketosis to trigger loss by
using the appetite suppression to make it painless to carefully
adjust your portion sizes as the "metabolic advantage" drops as you
have less and less to lose. Get that pre-maint and maintenance are
deliberately out of ketosis but that they are also sufficiently low
carb
that the cravings are not turned on. Get that the carb ladder is
about
discovering previously unknown food intolerances and that it is used
to discover foods you should avoid no matter what their carb count.
Then use that knowledge to get back on the plan and lose. But
know how easy it is going to be to regain based on how easy it was
to lose. Double edged sword ...

Damn.... I didn't know these things or have forgotten them.

They are the core concepts of the Atkins process.

Quoted message said:

But honestly, I am getting weary of just meat, fish, eggs and low-carb
vegetables with an occasional piece of fruit.

Which is more important? Keeping off the fat or eating un-food
[censored] made out of grass? Hint - See the mental attitude I display
there. It helps me a *lot* in deciding what to eat and in not getting
bored from eating yummy veggies cooked different ways on
different days and dusted with different herbs on different days,
as opposed to noodles shaped like bow ties vs noodles shaped
like string thinking different shape equals variety ...

Celebrate what we can eat, not lament what we can't. One
attitude leads to keeping it off the other attitude leads to falling
off.

"Hollywood" , thanks for saying what I've been trying to say over and over.

Pat in TX

Hollywood said:

Instead of focusing on what you cannot do, focus on what
is open
to you, and go there, and do that. That's the difference between wins
and whines.

Great quote!

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

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

Quoted message said:

Loco~Motion said:

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

Quoted message said:

Loco~Motion wrote:

> Are you guaranteeing that people lose weight lifting weights? The lady
> trainer at the YMCA told me weight lifting is for toning, not weight
> loss. She said the energy burnt by the few lbs of muscle you put on is
> negligible and recommended I see a Dietitian or find some way to do
> calorie burning exercise for weight loss.
>
<snip>
>
> Please see above. She also told me women my age don't tend to gain the
> muscle the young person would.
>

Quoted message said:

At a personal trainer at a a YMCA I find it hard to believe that another
trainer would say the above. It goes against even the most basic
training knowledge and against the training certification the YMCA
provides its trainers.

Then why would she tell me this? It also made sense to me. A woman of 23
or 43 would surely gain more muscle than a woman of 63. She also knew I
was looking to lose weight - burn calories, not get fit or toned. That
would be a concern afterward.

Quoted message said:

1) Trainers don't use the word "toning". The popular press use that
that word to mean seeing muscle definition on someone with a low bodyfat
percentage. Muscle tone technically is the unconscious nerve impulses
that maintain a partially contracted state. People with hypertonicity
(Parkinsons for example) have problems with muscle tone.

She didn't mention anything about this. ?!?!?!

Quoted message said:

2) Even small amounts of added muscle mass can aid bodyfat loss -- why
would a trainer tell you turn your back on that fact.

Yes, I know this and she mentioned it as I said. But the weight loss of
a few pounds of added muscle would be minuscule compared to other
exercises she explained. I'm apparently having trouble making myself
clear on this. Let me say that as I understood her, I was not going to
lose 1 to 2 lbs a week by adding a few lbs of muscle from working out.

Either the trainer gave you bad advice or possibly you had selective
hearing. Discouraging you from starting strength training is against all
training principles.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. She didn't discourage me from
resistance training, she simply told me I was not going to get that kind of
weight loss with that kind or type of exercise.

Its

Quoted message said:

unfortunate because people who gain muscle mass have do have higher
resting metabolism and that has an accumulated effect toward less bodyfat.

Unfortunately it seems that most of your focus is on scale numbers.

Because at this point I want the weight off already. Who wouldn't be
interested in scale numbers?

I suggest you read more about strength training,

Quoted message said:

metabolism, low carb eating and try to take a wider view of what fitness
means to your health. I think that change of viewpoint will aid you in
dropping your excess bodyfat in a healthier way.

First I want to lose the weight as I have been walking, then I'll concern
myself with muscle and fitness. Try to understand how I feel about this.
Once the weight is off I can concentrate on something else.

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

Quoted message said:

Loco~Motion said:

And yes, I was. Faithfully. On top of all else I was walking on the
treadmill 4 to 5 times a week. The weight was coming off.

Great.

Quoted message said:

It amazes me I could burn as many calories with a ball and weights as
walking briskly for 2 to 3 miles. Now if you're going to say the new
muscle
is going to burn the fat off... how much muscle must I put on to burn 1
to 2
lbs of fat a week?

It's NOT all about the CALORIES. It's NOT as simple as calories in/
calories
out. As soon as you process this, you will be better off. I'm sorry
for the tone
but you have a frustratingly defeatist attitude that is completely
useless
to your current endeavor. You have limitations, move on with it.

It's not defeatist. Before I spend money on this Ball and weights I want to
know they'll work. I have medical bill up the kazoo and can't be spending
money to find I'm losing 1 oz a week or nothing at all. Put yourself in my
place for a minute.

Quoted message said:

If you are still hung on the calories, you might try eating 200-400
calories
less a day. That would make up for your treadmill sessions, easily.

That's what I started doing yesterday. I'll weigh myself in a few days. I
was very active today and yesterday... so maybe I can get off this stall or
plateau.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure what a bodyweight exercise is. I tried pushups. I can't do
them. I can't push myself off the floor. Squats kill my old knees.
Remember
I'm 63 years old.

Quoted message said:

You actually do know what a body weight exercise is. Try a modified
pushup,
from your knees. Try one where you are standing and pushing away from
a wall.
Google "bodyweight exercise bad knees" and you might find something
useful
for you. Excuses are old. Solutions are useful.

OK.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To move the scale. I want to get back to my normal weight of 125 to 130.
The mirror is second at my age. ;-)

Quoted message said:

I wouldn't value judge, but if the scale read 125 and you looked like
you
currently do, would that be a win?

How could I look the same at 125/130 than I do at 168 or 169?

I would hazzard no. If your scale

Quoted message said:

read whatever
it currently does and you looked 20 lbs lighter, perhaps that wouldn't
be a
win either. But it makes you read ridiculous.

Sorry, that makes no sense to me.

Quoted message said:

I'm gonna paraphrase a well known business scholar here and say,
"The Scale is a Moron."

It doesn't tell you anything but weight. Not water, not muscle, not
fat, not
anything really useful. It certainly doesn't tell you if you are
healthy or better
off.

This is true. So far I'm healthy except I have to take thyroid medication. I
have none of the health issues that plague people my age.

Quoted message said:

You might want to look into your obsession with moving the scale. It
reads
like an eating disorder.

Better than a "gym" disorder thinking everyone should be weight lifting and
putting down those not interested.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

First I want the excess weight off and then I'll worry about the mirror.
If
I gained 5 lbs of muscle would it burn off 1 to 2 lbs of fat a week? The
trainer said no, that I would have to do cardio like walking briskly to
burn
that much fat. The damn accident screwed everything up. I could have
kept
walking I would now be at my goal weight.

Quoted message said:

You don't think it would have slowed down? That's kind of the natural
progression
with weightloss. The first pounds come off fast, the last ones are the
hard ones.
Less margin for error. I suspect, in that universe we cannot explore,
you would
not be at goal yet. You certainly wouldn't have continued to burn 1-2
lbs of
weight a week. And you have no way of knowing that it was fat and not
muscle.

LOL!!!! Now low-carbing causes people to lose muscle and not fat while
exercising? If I lifted weights for 2 hr. a day there would be no way to
tell if my arms were burning muscle either. If my legs walking briskly were
burning muscle, then my arms would do the same thing - please make sense!
:-D

Quoted message said:

Treadmill without high intensity intervals is not protective of lean
body mass.

So walking the threamill burns muscle and the fat doesn't get burned.....
that's a new one to me. If I burnt off over 50 lbs of muscle I would be too
weak to type this message.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If I should find a way to do resistance exercise - how much weight would
those extra muscles burn in a week? If it's only ounces I may be better
off
eating one less egg a day. How many ounces or pounds does your extra
muscles burn in a week? A rough figure is OK.

Quoted message said:

Why such focus on time? Did you focus on time when putting the weight
on?

I had no choice, no one knew what the problem was until I had gained 75 lbs.
How many months or years do you figure lifting barbells would take to burn
off these last 30 to 40 lbs?

Quoted message said:

I'm not gonna rehash the rant against the scale. But I feel so much
better at my
current weight with exercise than I did the first time I was here
without.

But that doesn't mean everyone else is the same and is going to enjoy the
exercises you enjoy. Also, how much weight are you losing each week? I'm
interested in weight loss, not fitness at this point. That can come later.
If fitness was the big deal I'd be on a fitness NG.

And

Quoted message said:

maybe it's because I'm not 63 and consider my life mostly over, but
that's
important, in and of itself. For the record, I have lost 58 lbs since
August 20, 2006.
That's a wee bit better than a pound a week. For more than a year. I
can also
say, with reasonable certainty that I have built about 5 lbs of lean
body mass in
that time, so really, I've lost 63 lbs of fat. You're a 63 year old
woman with bad
knees, a foot brace and a defeatist attitude.

Asking questions is a defeatist attitude because I didn't jump right on the
barbell thing? And you apparently didn't even read my messages since the
brace/walking boot has been off for over a week now.

I cannot suggest that

Quoted message said:

any course of
action will net you any set of results. The best move for you would be
an attitude
adjustment. Instead of focusing on what you cannot do, focus on what
is open
to you, and go there, and do that. That's the difference between wins
and whines.

You're just ticked off because I don't believe buying barbells and lifting
them is going to take the weight off. Older women don't quickly develop
muscle like men and younger women do. You should know this before giving
advice. I get the feeling you're pushing fitness here when this is a diet
group, not a fitness or weight lifting group.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Loco~Motion said:

Doug Freyburger said:

"Loco~Motion" <[email hidden]> wrote:

I have the sticks and never went in to this ketosis while losing.

Just to check - Any change in color from biege towards pink
is a positive reading. Once there is some color change, any
color change, how dark the reading is becomes almost
completely irrelevant* Ketosis/ketonuria is all or nothing more
like a pregancy test than like counting calories. Like so many
points, Dr A's use of the word "purple" is just another example
of his writing skills being so bad. (* Note that the sticks are
manufactured for diabetics to detect potentially fatal
ketoacidosis where the sticks turn black. Darker is *not*
better with the sticks).

Quoted message said:

... Since I continued to
lose I didn't get upset that ketosis never happened for me ...

Folks lose without being in ketonuria. The time scale becomes
different - The sticks let you know if you have been in ketonuria this
week, but the accuracy of carb counts and the inaccuracy of
sticks can't give a measurement closer than a week. The scale
lets you know if you have seen a new low in the last month, but
the inaccuracy of scales and the fact of water retention swings
can't give a measurement closer than a month except for any
new lows.

I checked every day for while but as I said, since I was losing I didn't pay
much attention to the sticks.

Quoted message said:

So if the sticks never show anything but biege, you could march
up the carb ladder and increase your carb quota for a month
before you know your loss rate has dropped to zero, and it can't
be the second month either because the first month includes water
loss. So with the sticks you can determine your CCLL to the
nearest 10 in a week then experiment later to get down to the
nearest 5 in the next 2-3 weeks but never more accurate than that.
But with the scale you can only determine your CCLL to the
nearest 20 in a month then experiment later to get down to the
nearest 5 in the next 3-4 months.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Having high suseptibility like that is a double edged sword - It can
trigger loss at a rate that seems so magical it seems like you don't
even need to know what the process really is to be able to lose with
it. And it can also trigger rapid regain when you have reached a
level
anywhere near your ideal weight. Easy loss makes for over confidence.

Oh, that is a bummer.

My view - Turnabout is fair play. The price of easy loss is harder
maintenance.

I don't think I'll have a problem maintaining once the weight is off because
I'm very active and will weight myself weekly. I should have weighed myself
with the brace/boot to make sure I wasn't gaining. I didn't think I would
gain sticking to the low-carb diet. But the enforced inactivity and
probably the same amount of food.... put the lbs back on. :o(

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So read the book again. Get that Induction is about entering ketosis.
Get that OWL is about being just barely in ketosis to trigger loss by
using the appetite suppression to make it painless to carefully
adjust your portion sizes as the "metabolic advantage" drops as you
have less and less to lose. Get that pre-maint and maintenance are
deliberately out of ketosis but that they are also sufficiently low
carb
that the cravings are not turned on. Get that the carb ladder is
about
discovering previously unknown food intolerances and that it is used
to discover foods you should avoid no matter what their carb count.
Then use that knowledge to get back on the plan and lose. But
know how easy it is going to be to regain based on how easy it was
to lose. Double edged sword ...

Damn.... I didn't know these things or have forgotten them.

They are the core concepts of the Atkins process.

Quoted message said:

But honestly, I am getting weary of just meat, fish, eggs and low-carb
vegetables with an occasional piece of fruit.

Quoted message said:

Which is more important? Keeping off the fat or eating un-food
[censored] made out of grass? Hint - See the mental attitude I display
there. It helps me a *lot* in deciding what to eat and in not getting
bored from eating yummy veggies cooked different ways on
different days and dusted with different herbs on different days,
as opposed to noodles shaped like bow ties vs noodles shaped
like string thinking different shape equals variety ...

I know, I know..... I know I have to keep at it and keep at it. The took
X-rays yesterday and I should know in a few days if I can start to walk on
the TM now. They also took my blood, for not just thyroid, but cholesterol
also. This should be interesting.

Quoted message said:

Celebrate what we can eat, not lament what we can't. One
attitude leads to keeping it off the other attitude leads to falling
off.

This is true. Thank you for the encouragement.

Loco~Motion said:

"Hollywood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Oct 2, 11:36 pm, "Loco~Motion" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

It's not defeatist. Before I spend money on this Ball and weights I want to
know they'll work. I have medical bill up the kazoo and can't be spending
money to find I'm losing 1 oz a week or nothing at all. Put yourself in my
place for a minute.

When you find all the things that you cannot do, and do not explore
any
thing you might do, you are defeatist. More than 50% of the time, your
posts in this thread seem like your looking for an excuse to add ten
pounds rather than a solution.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you are still hung on the calories, you might try eating 200-400
calories
less a day. That would make up for your treadmill sessions, easily.

That's what I started doing yesterday. I'll weigh myself in a few days. I
was very active today and yesterday... so maybe I can get off this stall or
plateau.

That's the spirit.

Quoted message said:

How could I look the same at 125/130 than I do at 168 or 169?

Lose 40 lbs of muscle. I'm not saying it's likely, but this is at the
extreme end of the example.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You might want to look into your obsession with moving the scale. It
reads
like an eating disorder.

Better than a "gym" disorder thinking everyone should be weight lifting and
putting down those not interested.

Gym disorder. Whatever. I spend maybe 3 hours a WEEK at the gym. I
lift
for no more than 40 minutes a session, and no more than 4 times a
week,
usually only <30 minutes and 3 times a week. I bike for 20 minutes
twice
a week.

You are not being put down because you are disinterested. You asked
for
suggestions then proceeded to shoot every suggestion down for health,
money,
age, or results focused reasons. If you aren't interested, you
wouldn't ask. You
asked, you got advice. You're welcome to ignore the advice and do what
you've
always done. Be very surprised when you get the same results you've
always
gotten. It is, after all, your science experiment. You are welcome to
proceed
with it any way you like.

Gym disorder? HA!

Quoted message said:

LOL!!!! Now low-carbing causes people to lose muscle and not fat while
exercising? If I lifted weights for 2 hr. a day there would be no way to
tell if my arms were burning muscle either. If my legs walking briskly were
burning muscle, then my arms would do the same thing - please make sense!
:-D

Here's some sense. I never suggested that your walking was muscle
protective.
Low carb, with appropriate protein, ala protein power (think fat 45,
pro 45, cho 10
as percentage of calories, roughly, since you only count protein and
carbs), is
muscle protective. It helps to do some resistance exercise. Reread
protein power
or better yet, get the Protein Power Life Plan. It's simplified and
updated. Chapter
12, "Born to Be Fit" would be useful. If you don't like that, maybe
Atkins New Diet
Revolution, the chapter entitled "Exercise: It's non-negotiable". What
I'm saying is
that LC is generally protective of muscle, though it's possible to
lose LBM while
doing it, though not as bad as low fat/low cal approaches. If you
actually do some
thing protective, like interval cardio, it's a near zero loss. If you
do resistance
exercise, it's possible to build.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Treadmill without high intensity intervals is not protective of lean
body mass.

So walking the threamill burns muscle and the fat doesn't get burned.....
that's a new one to me. If I burnt off over 50 lbs of muscle I would be too
weak to type this message.

Don't be obtuse. Or do. Whatever. Let's suggest you maybe burned 5 lbs
of
muscle and 45 of fat. Or probably more accurately, 10 of water, 35 of
fat, 5 of
muscle. Nothing to be ashamed of.

Quoted message said:

I had no choice, no one knew what the problem was until I had gained 75 lbs.
How many months or years do you figure lifting barbells would take to burn
off these last 30 to 40 lbs?

How long did it take to add the 75? Why would you expect it to
disappear faster
than it came? But beyond that issue, it's not just the resistance
exercise. It's
the total package of diet and exercise, supplementation and fluids.
The diet is the
20% that moves the 80%. The exercise is the 16% that moves the next
16%.

The problem is, you were doing something useful to you in that 16%,
and getting
results. Now, you're limited. And you're trying to figure out how to
get that 96%
result with only 20% of the action. It doesn't really work like that.

Quoted message said:

But that doesn't mean everyone else is the same and is going to enjoy the
exercises you enjoy. Also, how much weight are you losing each week? I'm
interested in weight loss, not fitness at this point. That can come later.
If fitness was the big deal I'd be on a fitness NG.

On average, for 13 months, I have lost over a pound a week. I didn't
start the
exercise at the beginning. I started it about 3 months in. It's slower
now than it
was as the start. It should be. I've been carrying the last pounds for
over 15 years.
If you think it's 1-2 lbs a week until goal, you were probably in for
a rude
awakening at some point (either your goal would be disappointing or
you'd slow
your loss).

You want some diet advice. Fine. Eat smaller meals. Eat more of them,
like 5-6
a day. Drink green tea. Caffeinated. Take 10 minute walks every couple
of hours.
Eat more protein. Eat breakfast every day. All that will ramp your
metabolism up.
Make sure you take your thyroid med. If it's not adjusted properly,
it's going to be
a real hard slog.

Alternatively, look into Intermittent Fasting. You can google it.
Something like a
19/5 plan. If you think it's the calories, doing IF with LC can result
in you cutting
about 15% of your calories, maybe more, and get a lot of advantage.
I'm not a
calorie person (They count, but they are not all created equal, second
law of
thermodynamics being the relevant law), so I'm in the five meals a day
camp.

Oh yeah, last thing. Protein shakes. Damn easy. Great protein. Low
cal, low
carb, filling and pretty good once you get used to the idea.

Quoted message said:

Asking questions is a defeatist attitude because I didn't jump right on the
barbell thing? And you apparently didn't even read my messages since the
brace/walking boot has been off for over a week now.

I have a life beyond you. Congrats on losing the brace. But don't get
barbells.
Google the bodyweight exercises, figure what you can do, and maybe do
that.
Or don't.

Defeat isn't in asking questions. It's in the negative assumptions
behind the
questions. All of them. Search for solutions, not problems, and you'll
be
ahead of where you are.

Quoted message said:

I cannot suggest that

Quoted message said:

any course of
action will net you any set of results. The best move for you would be
an attitude
adjustment. Instead of focusing on what you cannot do, focus on what
is open
to you, and go there, and do that. That's the difference between wins
and whines.

You're just ticked off because I don't believe buying barbells and lifting
them is going to take the weight off. Older women don't quickly develop
muscle like men and younger women do. You should know this before giving
advice. I get the feeling you're pushing fitness here when this is a diet
group, not a fitness or weight lifting group.

I'm not ticked off because you don't want to buy barbells. I don't
have any
vested interest in you buying anything. I'm more annoyed with reading
you
shoot down everyone's every suggestion about how to achieve the
unrealistic
results you want to get (1-2 lbs a week, down 40+ already, without
exercise).

This is a low carb group. In the dominant milieu of low carb, Atkins,
exercise
is part of the program. In the milieu I do, protein power life plan,
it's part.

I talk to a lot of older women on the protein power board. The gap
isn't that
you're old physically. It's that you're confusing 63 with a foot in
the grave. You
will not develop like a man. You will not develop like a young woman.
I knew
all of this long before you stumbled along. Neither of these reasons
suggests
that you will not develop any muscle. And neither of these suggests
that you
will not be better off with some resistance element added to your
routine.

Last thing: Everyone has their own goals. If you want to move the
scale fast
and you can't do what you were doing, you need to reevaluate the goal
or
your notions about how to get there. I'm sorry that I confused your
desire to
lose weight with a desire to improve your level of fitness.

I stand by the suggestion that you need to improve your attitude,
adjust your
expectations, and open your mind to solutions.

You are more likely to have success if you reverse the priorities. That's
what people are trying to tell you, muscle and fitness aids in weight loss.

Loco~Motion wrote:
|
| First I want to lose the weight as I have been walking, then I'll
| concern myself with muscle and fitness. Try to understand how I feel
| about this. Once the weight is off I can concentrate on something
| else.

Quoted message said:

FOB said:

Yes.

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

| I've never cut back on carbs to lose weight and I know that every
| person is different. Has anyone lost any weight off just cutting carbs
| alone?

ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula
sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva
prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad ,
ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula
sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva
prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad ,
ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula
sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva
prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad ,
ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula
sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva
prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad ,
ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula
sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva
prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad ,
ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula
sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva
prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad ,
ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula
sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva
prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad ,
ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula
sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva
prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad ,
ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula
sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva
prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad ,
ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula
sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva
prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad ,
ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula
sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva
prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad ,
ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula
sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva
prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad ,
ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula
sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva
prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad ,
ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula
sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva
prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , ponnapula sanjeeva prasad , v

Wow. You have a very long name.

c

short name, tall girl