Low carb diets

Lyle McDonald wrote:
this depends on a host of factors such as

duration/intensity
length of adaptation

Quite true.


your argument is simplistic at best. You're using fairly active
individuals to your average obese person.

Of course I am because exercise MUST be used in tandem with food to
control weight. Those that try to control their weight by food alone
have at best short term results. If you sit in on a name_the_sport
forum, the primary reason they start a program is some state of
extra weight.

When I was 39 I had a 38 inch waist. I took to running because I
could do it all year around. At 40 my mid line was 34 and I now
hover at 32-33 depending on my training level. My caloric content
remains fairly constant all year to include my Heineken.

True they're active but they did this knowing they needed take some
action which is the first step. This in not unlike AA where you must
admit you are an alcoholic before any corrective action can happen.
When people like tcomeau suggests stagnation and Atkins, I find it
very poor if not dangerous advice. It's a form of denial.


Forget about runners (or athletes of any color), what about the average
person who may be exercising not at all or only minimal amounts (either
because they are unwilling, or because they are too heavy)?

It's impossible to maintain weight without exercise and to try
usually leads to the notorious yo-yo effect. I'm suggesting that
exercise is not an option but a necessity if one cares about quality
of life.

Say walking briskly for 30' three times per week.

30 minutes X 3 is a great start. If one is too heavy a walking
program is one of the best exercises. Biking, swimming are also good
but hard to maintain all year in most states/countries.

How many carbs do they need on a daily basis to sustain that?

It's still a calorie game. If you walk 30 minutes and average 15 mph
you are burning off roughly 200 calories. Now 200 is better than
zero but a cookie or two and you have broke even or possibly lost
ground. One needs to work up to 45 or an hour a day AND take some
necessary steps to eliminate some calories. I'm not suggesting
elimination of fat but to cut it DOWN to maybe 30%. If your also
health conscious and not just weight conscious then can the bad
fats. Simple carbs is a good place to start, with bad fat a good
second choice.

Understand that while doing your exercise all at once may be easiest
but there are lots of ways to include it during the day. Park your
car in the far corner of the lot, or take the stairs, rake your
leaves not blow them, go for walk at lunch time. In all honesty,
most people know what they need to do to lose weight yet hold out
for the magic pill or the next fad diet with the remote control in
their hand.

It's not so much a diet or exercise change but a lifestyle change
that includes diet and exercise. Once you adapt to an active
lifestyle you can then play with carb/pro/fat ratio. Even as an
exerciser one still has to be careful of what they eat. I can
exercise enough to stay thin and live on pure simple carbs. This
makes me thin but not necessarily healthy.

The newer pyramid as noted in
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio.../pyramids.html
with exercise at the bottom and brandishes balance IMO is way to go.
Then again as some contend the Harvard folks are part of this evil
conspiracy paid for by big money. Probably funded by Osama...

--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"

Lyle McDonald wrote:


runner are a bunch of pussies?

Meow.


--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"

On 12/16/2003 5:19 PM, tcomeau wrote:
I've noticed that since I've been pointing out on-going and consistent
conflicts of interests on the part of researchers that consistently
publish studies that attack low-carb diets, people conveniently omit
the names of researchers whenever they reference any studies or
research. How strange.

References and likes were conveniently provided for your reading
pleasure. How strange that you missed them!

--
jmk in NC

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:


runner are a bunch of pussies?


See ya at the endurance weenie Christmas party, Lyle. Keep an eye out for us
runner -- we're the guys with hairy legs who are eating your portion of Xmas
pudding while you agonise over the carbs in the apple sauce that comes with
your serve of pork(-;


Didn't you just tell me to be nice to Lyle? The ? at the end
suggests Lyle was busting on TC.


--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:33:00 GMT, Doug Freese
wrote:

Lyle McDonald wrote:
this depends on a host of factors such as

duration/intensity
length of adaptation

Quite true.


your argument is simplistic at best. You're using fairly active
individuals to your average obese person.

Of course I am because exercise MUST be used in tandem with food to
control weight. Those that try to control their weight by food alone
have at best short term results.

Bull****. Those that try to control their weight by food alone just
fine if they have any willpower.


If you sit in on a name_the_sport
forum, the primary reason they start a program is some state of
extra weight.


Non sequitur.

When I was 39 I had a 38 inch waist. I took to running because I
could do it all year around. At 40 my mid line was 34 and I now
hover at 32-33 depending on my training level. My caloric content
remains fairly constant all year to include my Heineken.

True they're active but they did this knowing they needed take some
action which is the first step. This in not unlike AA where you must
admit you are an alcoholic before any corrective action can happen.
When people like tcomeau suggests stagnation and Atkins, I find it
very poor if not dangerous advice. It's a form of denial.


Forget about runners (or athletes of any color), what about the average
person who may be exercising not at all or only minimal amounts (either
because they are unwilling, or because they are too heavy)?

It's impossible to maintain weight without exercise and to try
usually leads to the notorious yo-yo effect. I'm suggesting that
exercise is not an option but a necessity if one cares about quality
of life.

Quality of life is one thing, and I'd agree with you that being
physically active is ideal. Weight control is something completely
different, and has very little to do with physical activity.


Say walking briskly for 30' three times per week.

30 minutes X 3 is a great start. If one is too heavy a walking
program is one of the best exercises. Biking, swimming are also good
but hard to maintain all year in most states/countries.

How many carbs do they need on a daily basis to sustain that?

It's still a calorie game. If you walk 30 minutes and average 15 mph
you are burning off roughly 200 calories.

That walker must have incredibly long legs.

Anglea Woollcombe wrote:

I have the atkins book and was thinking about giving it a try. I have read
it and he does have some good ideas and points in it. Don't let any one who
has been on the diet or read his book tell u that it no good there a support
gorup u can check out to more advice here it is alt.support.diet. low-carb
alot of the people there are on the diet and have lost alot of weight and
can give u advice on it. hope this helps

this is *super* advice coming from someone who couldn't manage to follow
atkins for more than a day or two and who cried like a baby when the
asdl-c meanyheads told her to clean up her spelling.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:33:00 GMT, Doug Freese
wrote:

It's still a calorie game. If you walk 30 minutes and average 15 mph
you are burning off roughly 200 calories. Now 200 is better than
zero but a cookie or two and you have broke even or possibly lost
ground. One needs to work up to 45 or an hour a day AND take some
necessary steps to eliminate some calories. I'm not suggesting
elimination of fat but to cut it DOWN to maybe 30%. If your also
health conscious and not just weight conscious then can the bad
fats. Simple carbs is a good place to start, with bad fat a good
second choice.

Alternatively, you could lift weights, add a little muscle,
and burn more calories all the time, even happily sitting in
front of the TV.

Beats the hell out of running 45 minutes a day. That sounds
awful.

If you walk 30 minutes and average 15 mph


walking?

On 12/17/2003 9:36 AM, rosie wrote:
If you walk 30 minutes and average 15 mph



walking?

:-)

I missed that one. Good catch! tee hee!

--
jmk in NC

In article , Chupacabra wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:33:00 GMT, Doug Freese
wrote:

Lyle McDonald wrote:
this depends on a host of factors such as

duration/intensity
length of adaptation

Quite true.


your argument is simplistic at best. You're using fairly active
individuals to your average obese person.

Of course I am because exercise MUST be used in tandem with food to
control weight. Those that try to control their weight by food alone
have at best short term results.

Bull****. Those that try to control their weight by food alone just
fine if they have any willpower.

"If they have any willpower" is the bit that gets most of them (-;

The ideal weight loss/maintenance program shouldn't demand enormous amounts
of willpower.

It's still a calorie game. If you walk 30 minutes and average 15 mph
you are burning off roughly 200 calories.

That walker must have incredibly long legs.

I think he meant 15 minutes per mile. If you can hold 15mph for 4 minutes,
you're a 4-minute miler.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/