Staying in Trim

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

Quoted message said:

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,2198879,00.html

a facinating if slightly depressing article for anyone trying hard to
get/stay lean.

Long, but worth the effort.

You were beaten to it Tony already discusses. I'm not depressed because I'm
not trying hard ;-)

-=V=-

vernon said:

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

news:[email hidden]...>http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,2198879,00.html

Quoted message said:

a facinating if slightly depressing article for anyone trying hard to
get/stay lean.

Quoted message said:

Long, but worth the effort.

You were beaten to it Tony already discusses. I'm not depressed because I'm
not trying hard ;-)

-=V=-

I don't agree that burning more calories will inevitably man you will
end up consuming more. I think a decent workout suppresses your
appetite. Of course you'll feel hungry a little later. Working out and
eating sensibly WILL lose weight. It's yet another example of so-
called experts backtracking on time-honoured opinions. One week eggs
are bad for you the next they're to be eaten with every meal. Daft
innit?
Right then, back to the couch in front of the telly with a few beers
and some crisps :-)

Quoted message said:

I don't agree that burning more calories will inevitably man you will
end up consuming more.

The trick is to make sure if you do consume more, it's still less than
the fuel taken on board if you're going to shed excess fat. In which
case you can eat more, but still have a net energy deficit.

Quoted message said:

I think a decent workout suppresses your appetite.

Not something I've ever found!

Quoted message said:

Working out and eating sensibly WILL lose weight.

As long as you use more energy than you take in you'll lose excess fat,
yes. But there is indeed a degree of idiocy at large about how this
simple relationship works. A pal reported going for lunchtime runs and
being joined by a colleague who wanted to lose weight. Colleague was
seen eating a Mars and this was remarked upon as not being very
weight-loss friendly, but he explained he needed the mars to make up for
all that running he was doing...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

I don't agree that burning more calories will inevitably man you will
end up consuming more.

The trick is to make sure if you do consume more, it's still less than
the fuel taken on board if you're going to shed excess fat. In which
case you can eat more, but still have a net energy deficit.

Quoted message said:

I think a decent workout suppresses your appetite.

Not something I've ever found!

Quoted message said:

Working out and eating sensibly WILL lose weight.

As long as you use more energy than you take in you'll lose excess fat,
yes. But there is indeed a degree of idiocy at large about how this
simple relationship works. A pal reported going for lunchtime runs and
being joined by a colleague who wanted to lose weight. Colleague was
seen eating a Mars and this was remarked upon as not being very
weight-loss friendly, but he explained he needed the mars to make up for
all that running he was doing...

This article seems to forget that 1) the type of calories you eat are
important (burger at lunch and cycle home not as effective as brown
bread sandwich and an apple and a ride home) 2) your metabolic rate
overall changes with fitness, so a fit person burns more calories
watching the TV than a lazy bones.

Anecdotal evidence from me - cycled all my life, gave up at 22, put on
two stone, started cycling again two years ago and lost it all. The
only difference to my diet was to change some fast-carbs for slow ones
to keep me going. Of course the increase in muscle mass also helps me
burn more calories too.

Some of the latest health advice worries me. According to the press I
can get away with a few half hour 'work outs' in the garden and if I
put on weight, it is the government's fault and they should send a
doctor to help me out.

Quoting <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I don't agree that burning more calories will inevitably man you will
end up consuming more.

Indeed. I don't believe all those wiry old men on distance rides were
drawn exclusively from a population of wiry middle-aged men; I'm sure some
of them got wiry by cycling lots.

If I may produce the singular of data, my weight has correlated quite nicely
with my yearly total distance ever since the end of adolescence.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!
Today is Sunday, October - a weekend.

of urlhttp://groups.google.com/url said:

This article seems to forget that 1) the type of calories you eat are
important (burger at lunch and cycle home not as effective as brown
bread sandwich and an apple and a ride home) 2) your metabolic rate
overall changes with fitness, so a fit person burns more calories
watching the TV than a lazy bones.

The calories consumed watching TV will be more for a larger person, so
actually the lazy bones if fat may be burning more calories! I have noticed
that I've lost enough weight now that I need to reduce my food intake again,
or increase the amount of exercise I do, in order to continue losing weight.
Having less weight to carry around on the bike makes it easier to go faster
and further, but I burn less calories to do it.
--
Steph Peters
Chorlton Wanderers Cycling Group
Monthly slow and easy rides from South Manchester
http://www.sandbenders.demon.co.uk/cycling/chwan.htm

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

I don't agree that burning more calories will inevitably man you will
end up consuming more.

The trick is to make sure if you do consume more, it's still less than
the fuel taken on board if you're going to shed excess fat. In which
case you can eat more, but still have a net energy deficit.

You also need to take account of how the metabolism changes in
response to reduced food intake and increased exercise. As with
famine, the body changes to store more fuel as fat. IME the only way
to lose weight is by continually increasing energy expenditure thereby
staying one step ahead of a slowing metabolic rate. Unfortunately this
is very difficult to achieve in the long term.

Thin people say that it is simply a question of eating fewer calories
than you burn. Fat people know that it is much more complicated than
that.

raisethe said:

You also need to take account of how the metabolism changes in
response to reduced food intake and increased exercise. As with
famine, the body changes to store more fuel as fat. IME the only way
to lose weight is by continually increasing energy expenditure thereby
staying one step ahead of a slowing metabolic rate. Unfortunately this
is very difficult to achieve in the long term.

Thin people say that it is simply a question of eating fewer calories
than you burn.

This is entirely consistent with what you wrote in the first paragraph,
and probably true as well.

It's just that "simple" and "easy" are not the same thing

-dan

David Damerell said:

Quoting <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I don't agree that burning more calories will inevitably man you will
end up consuming more.

Quoted message said:

Indeed. I don't believe all those wiry old men on distance rides were
drawn exclusively from a population of wiry middle-aged men; I'm sure some
of them got wiry by cycling lots.

For me there is a time factor as well: time spent is exercising is not
time spent comfort eating.

Roos

Roos Eisma said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I don't agree that burning more calories will inevitably man you will
end up consuming more.

Quoted message said:

Indeed. I don't believe all those wiry old men on distance rides were
drawn exclusively from a population of wiry middle-aged men; I'm sure some
of them got wiry by cycling lots.

For me there is a time factor as well: time spent is exercising is not
time spent comfort eating.

If my weight is ballooning it's because I'm snacking too much, and I
really enjoy snacking. Being at home just puts a kitchen full of
temptation in my way, and being away from it really does make a tangible
difference to my eating habits.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

vernon said:

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

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...>http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,2198879,00.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a facinating if slightly depressing article for anyone trying hard to
get/stay lean.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Long, but worth the effort.

Quoted message said:

You were beaten to it Tony already discusses. I'm not depressed because I'm
not trying hard ;-)

Quoted message said:

-=V=-

I don't agree that burning more calories will inevitably man you will
end up consuming more. I think a decent workout suppresses your
appetite. Of course you'll feel hungry a little later. Working out and
eating sensibly WILL lose weight. It's yet another example of so-
called experts backtracking on time-honoured opinions. One week eggs
are bad for you the next they're to be eaten with every meal. Daft
innit?
Right then, back to the couch in front of the telly with a few beers
and some crisps :-)

I think there is a big important point being missed in the article,
that is that those of us who pay attension to our exercise levels will
be more likey to pay attension to the quality of our dietary intake.
That is to say, we eat more of the RIGHT stuff, rather than eating
more of ANY stuff. The stuff we eat will tend to be low G.I., when
compared to the diet of your average couche potato. The affect of
eating more low G.I. would be to give us sustained energy, and to
supress our appetites.

David Lloyd

Quoted message said:

vernon said:

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

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...>http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,2198879,00.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a facinating if slightly depressing article for anyone trying hard to
get/stay lean.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Long, but worth the effort.

Quoted message said:

You were beaten to it Tony already discusses. I'm not depressed because I'm
not trying hard ;-)

Quoted message said:

-=V=-

I don't agree that burning more calories will inevitably man you will
end up consuming more. I think a decent workout suppresses your
appetite. Of course you'll feel hungry a little later. Working out and
eating sensibly WILL lose weight. It's yet another example of so-
called experts backtracking on time-honoured opinions. One week eggs
are bad for you the next they're to be eaten with every meal. Daft
innit?
Right then, back to the couch in front of the telly with a few beers
and some crisps :-)

Having spent a good part of my life training in one way or another I
can say with some certainty that a moderate exercise session, say 1 to
1.5 hours running at 10 to 12 kph will not increase ones appetite but
will burn approx 900 to 1000 calories. A cycle ride which is 5 times
more efficient will clearly burn less, hence to stay fit I cycle - to
lose weight I run and to maintain upper body muscle I use body mass
exercises.

Manic exercise as in 30 milers will invariably either need a large
intake of calories to complete or leave one bonking but then that's
hardly the remit of your average fitness junkie.

Sniper8052

On 1 Nov, 10:03, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Oct 30, 6:50?am, "vernon" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...>http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,2198879,00.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> a facinating if slightly depressing article for anyone trying hard to
> get/stay lean.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Long, but worth the effort.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You were beaten to it Tony already discusses. I'm not depressed because I'm
not trying hard ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

-=V=-

Quoted message said:

I don't agree that burning more calories will inevitably man you will
end up consuming more. I think a decent workout suppresses your
appetite. Of course you'll feel hungry a little later. Working out and
eating sensibly WILL lose weight. It's yet another example of so-
called experts backtracking on time-honoured opinions. One week eggs
are bad for you the next they're to be eaten with every meal. Daft
innit?
Right then, back to the couch in front of the telly with a few beers
and some crisps :-)

Having spent a good part of my life training in one way or another I
can say with some certainty that a moderate exercise session, say 1 to
1.5 hours running at 10 to 12 kph will not increase ones appetite but
will burn approx 900 to 1000 calories. A cycle ride which is 5 times
more efficient will clearly burn less, hence to stay fit I cycle - to
lose weight I run and to maintain upper body muscle I use body mass
exercises.

Manic exercise as in 30 milers will invariably either need a large
intake of calories to complete or leave one bonking but then that's
hardly the remit of your average fitness junkie.

Sniper8052

Oh yes I meant to say being fit is something completely different from
exercising to stay slim or lose weight.
Fat people can be fit - they may not however be healthy.

David Lloyd said:

I think there is a big important point being missed in the article,
that is that those of us who pay attension to our exercise levels will
be more likey to pay attension to the quality of our dietary intake.

Did you actually read the article?

"As for those people who insist that exercise has been the key to their
weight-loss programmes, the one thing we'd have to wonder is whether
they changed their diets as well. Rare is the person who decides the
time has come to lose weight and doesn't also decide perhaps it's time
to eat fewer sweets, drink less beer, switch to diet drinks, and maybe
curtail the kind of carb-rich snacks - the potato chips and the candy
bars - that might be singularly responsible for driving up their insulin
and so their fat."

Source:
http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,2198879,00.html

--
Membrane

Quoting Membrane <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

they changed their diets as well. Rare is the person who decides the
time has come to lose weight and doesn't also decide perhaps it's time
to eat fewer sweets, drink less beer, switch to diet drinks, and maybe
curtail the kind of carb-rich snacks - the potato chips and the candy
bars - that might be singularly responsible for driving up their insulin
and so their fat."

If carbohydrates make you fat, we're all screwed.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Gloucesterday, October.

On 1 Nov, 13:53, David Damerell <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoting Membrane <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

they changed their diets as well. Rare is the person who decides the
time has come to lose weight and doesn't also decide perhaps it's time
to eat fewer sweets, drink less beer, switch to diet drinks, and maybe
curtail the kind of carb-rich snacks - the potato chips and the candy
bars - that might be singularly responsible for driving up their insulin
and so their fat."

If carbohydrates make you fat, we're all screwed.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Gloucesterday, October.

Calories make you fat! - Doesn't matter what they come from either :
( Carbohydrates give you energy. Protein builds muscle. Who wrote
this rubbish anyway? [Rhetorical question]

Sniper8052

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

Quoted message said:

of urlhttp://groups.google.com/url said:

This article seems to forget that 1) the type of calories you eat are
important (burger at lunch and cycle home not as effective as brown
bread sandwich and an apple and a ride home) 2) your metabolic rate
overall changes with fitness, so a fit person burns more calories
watching the TV than a lazy bones.

The calories consumed watching TV will be more for a larger person, so
actually the lazy bones if fat may be burning more calories! I have
noticed
that I've lost enough weight now that I need to reduce my food intake
again,
or increase the amount of exercise I do, in order to continue losing
weight.
Having less weight to carry around on the bike makes it easier to go
faster
and further, but I burn less calories to do it.

Aye, this is true. The basic WeightWatchers guidelines are that for every
stone you lose, you drop a point from your daily points intake. It's a major
bummer... this last half-stone is taking an age to shift!

Quoted message said:

On 1 Nov, 13:53, David Damerell <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoting Membrane <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

they changed their diets as well. Rare is the person who decides the
time has come to lose weight and doesn't also decide perhaps it's time
to eat fewer sweets, drink less beer, switch to diet drinks, and maybe
curtail the kind of carb-rich snacks - the potato chips and the candy
bars - that might be singularly responsible for driving up their insulin
and so their fat."

If carbohydrates make you fat, we're all screwed.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Gloucesterday, October.

Calories make you fat! - Doesn't matter what they come from either :

an excess of calories makes you fat. I think you must have been rubbing
shoulders with Mr Brunstrom and picked up his way of presenting ideas! :-)