m. w. smith said:MJuric said:m. w. smith said:On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:46:18 GMT, <MJuric> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:44:10 +0100, "m. w. smith" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:20:34 GMT, <MJuric> wrote:
>>> I also suspect, don't know, that the swimmer that does not replinish there glycogen stores
>>> will in fact suffer in the area of performance.
>>
>> I said that was my experience, but that the difference was negligible for the case of a person
>> who is trying to lose weight. It is irrelevant for a person who is trying to compete, because
>> he wouldn't be competing while trying to lose weight.
>
> I guess I'm not 100% what the point of the above is. Weight loss is simply a matter of burning
> more than you bring in.
Well that's it then. The Nobel Prize to you. Weight loss is simply a matter of burning more than
you bring in. What is everybody's problem? Don't they know how simple it is?
Uhhhh yes simple as that. I think most people truely do know how simple it is. It's just
that making it that simple gives them no reason for being overweight. No one said it was
easy to lose weight and no said that everyone can lose wweight as easy as others. however
for the majority of individuals its as simple as that.
...which leaves everyone nowhere. It is of no use. That's the point. It is just another definition
of being overweight. You are overweight if you consume more than you burn.
I'm really quite confused by your confusion here. Yes if you eat more than you burn you will
be overweight. Simple as that.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:You would probably tell a depressed person to "Snap out of it." It's as simple as that. Just
snap out of it. What's the big deal?
No Depression has a "tendancy" to be more of a chemical imbalance, yet I'm no expert there.
But you just said being overweight is a chemical imbalance. Consuming more than you burn *is* a
chemical imbalance. Burning more than you consume *is* a chemical imbalance. In fact, nothing
happens in the body except by chemical imbalance.
As I said no expert on depression but my understanding is depression is caused by a chemical
imblance isn't necessarily controlled by what is generally available to the depressed. Thus
drugs like Zoloft are made ot counteract the chemical imbalance. Of course drugs can be made
to help lose weight or maybe liposuction. I guess I'm more interested in simple self control
than taking a pill.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:However I can certainly speak from experinace on the weight issue. And yes it's as simple as not
eating so much.
Do you understand that simplicity is not the issue? It is irrelevant. Travelling to the moon is
simply a matter of covering the distance to the moon. To get to the moon, all you have to do is
go from here to the moon. It is as simple as that. Here's another one. Breaking the world record
in the 1500 is simply a matter of swimming 1500m in under 14:43, or whatever it is. It is as
simple as that.
None of this has anything to do with trying to lose weight while trying to compete, which is what
we were talking about. I'm willing to bet that there has never been a case where a swimmer broke a
world record while on a diet to lose 20 kilos. What do you think?
Again extremes. You like to do that don't you? Yes I can find an extreme value for nearly
anything said by anyone concerning nearly anything that makes the statement untrue. The fact
is an Olympiad is at near Peak perfomraning values period not simply performing at current
peak values. The olympiad is in the best possible shape that ANYONE could be at. Not simply
you or me or average Joe trying to lose 20 kilo's. The fact remains nearly anyone can
operate at peak performance and make performance gains on a 100-300 caloric deficit a day. A
deficit that will cause healthy weightloss reguardless of excercise performed and nearly
reguardless of what they eat.
Quoted message said:
You asked why would anyone want to use a diet that adversely affected performance in the pool.
The answer is another simple one: The diet works. What that means is the diet is one that the
swimmer can stick with. And what that means is that while on the diet, the swimmer's hunger and
cravings are either eliminated or reduced significantly, thus removing the major obstacle to
staying on the diet.
Liposuction works to. So does cutting off your arm or leg. Hows that for extremes. Maybe
taking pills. Just because it works doesn't mean it's good for you. Oh what about a gastric
bipass. That'll do it. I can play Mr. extremes to.
Quoted message said:
In my case, that doesn't happen on a low-fat, high-carb diet like the Pritikin diet. I have used
the Pritikin diet successfully. While on the Pritikin diet, I was hungry all the time. 24/7 hungry.
When I am losing weight on the Atkins diet, I can eliminate hunger and craving by eating a piece of
cheese. So, in my case, of these two diets, only the Atkins diet works, because what I mean, when I
say a diet works, is that I lose weight *and* I can control my hunger and cravings.
Great! wonderfull I'm glad it works for YOU. Don't believe I said it wouldn't. The argument was
about sacraficing performance and losing weight of which you claimed was impossible.
Quoted message said:
Both diets work, if you only require that they cause you to lose weight. Pretty much any diet will
do that. But that requirement isn't enough for most people, which is why being overweight is such
a difficult situation to be in, and why the requirement to reduce or eliminate hunger and cravings
is included. I suspect that what makes the Atkins diet work for me while the Pritikin diet does
not is genetic. I suspect that the Pritikin diet works for some people (Larry), where the Atkins
diet does not.
I do agree that genetics plays a role no doubt. I also agree it's very difficult to lose
weight. I also agree that if it works and your happy with by all means stick with it.
Personally in my case it was much less to do with cravings and genetics than it did
lifestyle changes and choices.
Quoted message said:
So when you say losing weight is as simple as consuming less than you burn, you actually aren't
talking about the real problem.
No I am talking about the real problem. People use Atkins, Pritkins, Carb blocker etc as an
excuse to not lose weight. I.E." I haven't found the right diet for me". Again, IMO, and I
think this is where we seperate ways, it is much less about the diet than it is about
changing ones mentalty toward food. Please correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth,
and I'm sure you will. You are of the believe that it's 80% about finding the right
combination of foods that will make you lose weight and only 20% about controlling how much
of it you eat. IOW if you find the right combo you'll just be able to eat right. I'm the
other way around 20% belief that the right combo makes the weightloss eaiser and 80% about
controlling how much you eat. To me it's about controlling your life, lifestyle, choices
rather than what you eat.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:My point was that top performance is only important to a swimmer who is competing,
IMO top performace is important to anyone training for any other reason than simple health
reasons.
But it isn't. It is important to people who want to compete.
And people who simply want to get faster or want to reach the next level of health or make
general gains period.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Each session builds upon the next so continued low performance will lead to lower gains than
before.
Gains in what? Well... performance, of course. So performance is important to people for whom
performance is important. That isn't saying much. And gains in performance are higher
performance, so you are saying continued low performance leads to low performance, which isn't
saying anything at all.
Again if you don't care about performance we don't have an argument.
Quoted message said:
My point still remains. If you have decided to lose 20 kilos, then losing 20 kilos is more
important to you than winning a few races. On the other hand, if top swimming performance is what
motivates you, then you are extremely unlikely to be 20 kilos overweight. So the set of people who
want to lose 20 kilos and expect to set personal bests while losing it is probably very small.
Again flattly wrong. I know ALOT of people that race while overweight. Are they going to
Olympics? No. But they compete. And to say that there desire to compete at there current
personally peak is less important than the olympiad is belittling IMO. Most of not all of
these people look at losing weight as secondary and competing as primary.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Of course if teh whole purpose of your training is simple for health non of that matters.
Why can't a purpose of my training be that I like training? In fact, that is my main purpose.
Another purpose is I like the fellowship. Another purpose is I like the way I feel right after a
workout, the beta endorphin glow.
Well generally "Training" means "your Training your body" for something. What are you
training for? Training has a purpose. Training to train is as you said earlier " isn't
saying anything at all." OTOH excersising for health generally means I'm Training for
health. Again if your purpose for excericise is unrelated to performance, by all means do
what works for you.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:<Snip>
Quoted message said:People who are trying to lose weight (ie because they are overweight, not because they are
trying to "make weight" like a wrestler) are not competing while they are trying to lose weight.
Or they shouldn't be. So the fact that they can't sprint very well while they are on a low-carb
diet to lose weight isn't important.
> What you burn 3000 cal of fat or 3000 cal of carbs makes no difference.
Yes, it does. According to Larry's article, if I spend forty minutes in HIIT as running and
biking, I will burn more fat than if I spend the same forty minutes in HIIT in the pool. In the
pool, I will lose weight due to burning glycogen, which doesn't count as real weight loss. If I
do the forty minutes in the pool, and then I choose not to replenish my glycogen with fruit and
pasta and bread, I will lose real weight as my body converts muscle from protein to glucose. But
I don't want to lose muscle, so if I don't replenish my glycogen with carbs (difficult to resist
after a hard swimming session), then I must eat or have already eaten sufficient protein to
prevent my body from canabalizing my own muscles.
To lose weight, what I want to do is burn fat, so, according to Larry, I should do more running,
biking, and other land-based HIIT than swimming.
I believe that your belief is a bit unrealistic. It's very important to look at the body as
a system. Simply stated if I burn 1000 calories of glycogen in a workout and only replace
900 calories of glycogen, let say thru a sports drink, the body is at a 100 calorie deficit.
Since the body is full well capabale of creating 100 calories of glycogen via other systems
that is what it will do. The creation of glycogen is probably from glucogenesis at that
point. However that means the body must find calories for other daily activities, lets say
sitting here typing this, from another source other than glycogen which generaly is fat. So
a 100 calorie deficit is in fact a 100 calorie deficit.
You didn't say what was unrealistic about my belief, which, by the way, is the conclusion of
Larry's report, not mine.
As stated above "burning glycogen, which doesn't count as real weight loss"
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:> Your statement of "It is irrelevant for a person who is trying to compete, because he wouldn't
> be competing while trying to lose weight." simply makes no since to me. We are talking about
> what is a safe diet, in the sense of everyday eating.
No, we are talking about losing weight. That isn't an everyday diet.
Again IMO, losing weight IS an everday diet.
But it isn't. If it were, then everybody on an everyday diet would starve to death.
No you wouldn't once you reached your "goal weight" you wouldn't change a thing and you
would no longer lose weight. Becasue calories in matched calories out.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Having a differnet method for losing weight and maintaining weight leads to failure because as
soon as the person "reachs there goal weight" they stray from the eating habits that have
succesfully made them reach that weight.
That isn't failure. Adding low glycemic carbohydrates back in is not straying. Read what I write,
and stop interpreting what you want to hear into it.
Basically it works this way. If you spend 2 years eating a certain way you create
"succesfull" habits that allow you to eat at a healthly level. Making changes to those
habits once you've reached your goal weight opens the door to break those "succesfull"
habits. The more drastic the change the higher the likely hood of failure. Adding low
glycemic carbohydrtaes back is not failure, however it is a change from teh eating habits
that have caused you to lose weight, thus opening the door to creating new habits that will
cause you to gain weight back. Again My opinion nothing more.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Simply stated being a certain weight means eating a certain amount of calories. The reason a
person weighs 300lbs is because they eat enough calories to maintain that weight. If I want
to weigh a certain weight I should they way that person woudl eat and always eat that way,
for teh rest of my life. They only catch here is that a person taht weighs 300lbs and wants
to weigh 150 shoudln't jsut start eating like a 150 lb'r. To drastic of a lifestyle change.
However eating like 250-275 lb'r may be more realistic.
Why don't you read the Atkins book? Or read the Pritikin book. Both doctors disagree with you.
Do I have to read everybook that disagrees with me in order to have a good idea that I'm correct. If
someone came out with a book tomorrow that stated the world was flat and everyone said "hey the
worlds flat" do I have to read that book to know that they are in correct?
No I've not read either book, of course they diagree with me. However some people agree with me. And
since I've experianced teh weight lose and have maintained the weightloss I KNOW my method works.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:<Snip Atkins menu>
Quoted message said:
While I am trying to lose weight, losing weight is what is important to me, not competing. I
choose to lose weight, and in making that choice I recognize that while i am losing weight, I
will not be functioning at 100%, regardless of whose diet I am on, and so competing better not
be high on my priority list. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Pun intended.
That is your choice. However I know from both experinace and by speaking with others that
this is not acceptbale to many. Many, dare I even say most, athletes gain smoe weight in the
off season. Most lose it while training and most care about performance. A caloric defict of
100-300 calories a day should not adversely effect performance when combined with an
otehrwise healthy diet.
You do know I have stated repeatedly that we are not talking about those people, right?
Quoted message said:<Sniped Repeat or agreed>
Quoted message said:>
> Depends. I suspect that we probably did alot of intermitant sprinting. Either away from
> preditors or later on after preditors while hunting. Also without doubt a great deal of our
> activities were at a much higher HR than what we do today. Climbing trees, mountains etc.
> Whether this was at 70%MHR + I don't know but to say we never burned glycogen is a bit of
> stretch.
But who said we never burned glycogen? Why do you raise that strawman?
Ok shouldn't have used never. Just making the point that we can speculate that we coudl have
possibly have been as dependant on gylcogen as cavemen as we are now.
...and now, as then, we don't have to eat a lot of carbohydrates, especially not refined ones, to
satisfy that need. Nuts and berries were pretty much the only carbohydrates we ate, since they
would have been the only ones available. Both are recommended for Atkins dieters.
What about fruits and vegatables many are high GI foods.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:> Not to mention that the brain and some organs burn ONLY glycogen. Also mister caveman was much
> more active than I probably spending many hours just gather food, not a 15 minute drive by at
> the local grocer. All in all I think glycogen depletion was a great problem for mister cave man
> as even slow movement burns a certain percentage of glycogen.
...and so, if he was not a meat eater, he would need to eat continuously to get enough calories.
Don't follow the logic.
We would essentially be plant eaters, like buffalo. We would have to graze all day long to get
enough calories. Plant eating animals spend most of their time looking for food. They breed
frequently. their young mature quickly. They survive by the law of large numbers. None of these
applies to humans.
Why not? Not sure how we are so differnet from buffalo or Elephants. Other than the problem of our
young not being able to walk, nearly out of the womb. However this seperates us from nearly all
animals, meat eater or not so I'd say a rather specious argument.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>> The safeguards you are talking about are the normal operating mode for the body most of the
>> time. You might sprint through your day, but I don't.
>
> Sprinting is not the only means or need for Glycogen. Gylcogen is burnt constantly. However
> mister caveman woudl be lion lunch if he HAD to sprint and didn't have any. The option to not
> performing well was death...not just simply slower lap times.
...and that is why the body can make its own carbohydrate.
Yes but had mister caveman been on an Atkinsman diet, and had spent the day climbing trees
and hills, which depleted his only partially replenished muscles due to an already low
glycogen storage and as he decended the last tree of teh day to meet up with mister
Sabertootch tiger. Again kitty snacks..
Our predators were bears, lions, tigers, panthers, mountain lions, cheetahs. Humans can't outrun
any of these animals. Even the fastest sprinters of today would be easily run down by a lion or
even a bear. We didn't escape from these predators by running.
This is true however whatever the situation the slowest dude, running, climbing etc always
became kitty meat. Survival of the fittest, not the thinest.
Quoted message said:
And I remind you that I have used the Atkins diet to lose 10 kilos. I swam, rode, and did aerobics
and weights throughout the entire process. I had no trouble doing the work, and I trained for
between two and three hours per day. The only adverse effect was that my top speed was reduced
somewhat. However, my strength increased significantly. I reported both
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:<Snipped as I hope we can simply agree to disagree that some even many people compete and lose
weight at the same time I know I do and I knwo alot of others that do. Low performance is not an
option>
We don't agree. We aren't talking about losing the 5 lbs of baby fat you put on over Christmas.
Serious competitive swimmers train almost all year round. If they get fat, there is a problem to be
worked out, and their coach would help them with it. He would not expect them to be at their best
while trying to correct that problem.
Like I said earlier we agree to disagree. I know MANY people that are overweight and many more than
a few pounds and compete. Of course you can say I'm a liar what ever. Many are coming back from a
prolong injury, or just getting into the sport(s) or are returning athletes. Heck in my masters
class about 50% of the competitive swimmers, teh ones that compete in the master meets are
overweight REALLY overweight 20kilos easy overweight. They almost all lose weight while training for
the competitions. Of course they also expect to perform
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>> The problem for overweight people is precisely that they eat them faster than they are needed.
>
> No the problem is THEY EAT TO MUCH.
That is what I just said! Eating carbs faster than they are needed is eating too much!
> Not carbs not fat not protein. They eat to many calories PERIOD.
You should write a book about this fantastic new discovery that overweight people don't know
about and have never heard before. You'll be rich.
Unfortunately it's already been done. Weight Watchers for one.
If you read their book, you will find it contains a lot more than just: Eat less than you burn.
My wife works at Weight Watchers. There entire system is based on a point system based on how much
you weigh. Yes they do do a few "fancy things" with fiber an dfat grams, but for the most part its
"eat less points(calories) than you weigh" IMO if they didn't have to try and sell this to the
masses it woudl be even closer to "Eat less than you do know"
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Although they have some variant on watchiong fat grams. Seattle Sutton I believe is based on the
same idea of simply eating less. Unfortunately it has been ingrained into people that being
overweight is some sort of disease that we have no control over. When someone show's a simple
method that works such as "Quite eating so much Fat Ass" The title of my book, people just can't
believe it. Both I and my wife lost a considerable amount of weight. When asked "How did you do
it" or "What's your secret" about 95% of the people wouldn't believe us when when answered "jsut
quite eating so much". Abou the only people that did believe us were people that either did it
themselves or people that have never had a weight problem. Simply eat like a thin person and you
be one.
So you had a partner to work with? Someone to keep you honest? Someone you had to compete with or
measure yourself against? Another person? Then it wasn't just "quit eating so much," was it.
What? Of course it's easier to make any change in your life whith support. Quite smoking,
start excersing, quite drinking whatever all the same. In the end the responsibilty is still
squarely on your shoulders to do it, no one else can make you do it. Yes I had support but I
still did it by "not eating so much" I didn't even follow the Weight Watchers Points that
much. I simply counted calories, changed what I ate and got used to what a normal portion
size was. I QUITE EATING SO MANY CALORIES.
<Snip>
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:No not a weight loss program, but as stated earlier I don't believe in "weight loss
programs" I believe in a healthy diet. A diet that will result in being the weight you
desire. So shoudl a coach put an athlete on a healthy diet... Yes say yes.
Matt, a diet that causes you to lose weight is not a healthy diet. It will cause you to starve
to death.
Again Flatty wrong. If I weigh 200 lbs and eat the calories necessary to maintain 175 lbs I
will lose weight until I reach 175lbs. I will not starve to death.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Because one can't perform at one's best while trying to lose weight. We are talking about
overweight people, people with 20, 40, 60 kilos to lose, not the guy who ate too much over
Christmas.
This is flattly wrong. As stated earlier a persons performance is not affected my a 100-300
caloric deficit a day. Will I say a person cannot perform on a "radical weightloss program"
of 500-1000 calorie deficit a day, then yes. however I woudl not say that that is teh proper
way to lose weight.
Wait a minute. We are talking about a person who has a significant amount of weight to lose. That
person's success will inevitably depend on receiving positive feedback early and often. A 100
calorie per day deficit, which is almost impossible to achieve reliably while swimming 6k workouts
and doing a half our of weights and running and biking five to seven days per week, will give very
little positive feedback. Weight loss will be glacially slow. The hunger experienced after a 6k
swimming workout will be excruciating to resist. Everything will have to be measured. Calories
burned will have to be computed. What you are suggesting is almost impossible to achieve, and when
a fat person decides to lose weight, he wants to see results.
Frankly I have no idea at what levels of caloric deficits start to effect performance. I do
know that many nutritionist reccommend the 500 claories a day defict as a good level for
weight loss. I doubt this level of caloric deficit would effect performance either if still
eating a balanced healthy diet. 500 calories a day is a lb a week. This is probbaly still
excrutiating slow for most. Again in my opinion what is most important while losing the
weight is not losing the weight but retraining oneself in the methods they eat. Most people
don't gain the weight at a rate of a lb a week. And they have spent Years training
themselves to eat to gain weight. Retraining to learn to eat properly doesn't happen
overnight. This, again IMO, is why most diets have a very low success rate, not because of
teh type of food involved. I will admit I didn't follow this to the "T" during my weightloss
Particulalry in the beggining. However my excuse is I was shooting in the dark just like
everyone else and had no idea what I was doing. The more I realized that it was as simple as
eating less food, the easier it became to make proper choices, excercise self control and
make lifestyle changes that supported that.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:As far as performing at peak and losing weight. Again from personaly esperiance you're
flattly wrong. My 5K PB went from 29 minutes to 20 minutes over a period of 8-10 months in
which I also lost 15 Kilos. Prior to that I lost an additional 22 kilos, simply by not
eating so much. No Atkins, No Zone, No pills, no Grapefruit. Simply by accepting the fact
that I needed to make some lifestyle changes and then did it.
Either you are swimming 4 minute 1000s or you are talking about running! Read Larry's original post
again. The whole point of this discussion was that we were talking about swimming, not running.
Swimming burns lots of glycogen and not much fat, running burns lots of fat and not so much
glycogen.
martin
I used running as an example as I never compete in swimming only events so I have no "posted
times" to back up my claims. However a 5K running event is not a "Fat burning" event. Had I
suffered from low glycogen levels I would have been unable to sustain pace throughout those
events and more than likely not made nearly the progress I did. Of course that is purely
speculative as there is no control group to compare to.
I can say that my swimming times did improve during the same period. However during the period I was
using swimming as cross training. However being of a competitive nature I did generally keep track
of times. Never did my performance suffer and I had significant speed as well as endurance gains
during the same period. I rarely if ever felt my performance was limited by "lack of calories"
~Matt
