If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Atkins = ? (should i start this again?)
"Ignoramus6554" wrote in message ... Exactly. They want to lose weight and not work at it. Or, they refuse to think rationally. We have a couple of people here in alt.support.diet who refuse to acknowledge that they have a high chance of regaining weight. Believe it or not. One woman was a 300 pounder a little while ago, lost 51.5% of her weight by drinking special diet shakes (good job), and who now gets irate if she is reminded that weight maintenance is a struggle and that chances are high that she will regain weight if she is not vigilant. Most people can get past the acknowledgement part, admitting they do have a problem. The hardest part, then come, is sacrificing. The want to go on diet but they don't want to be devoided of the joy of food. They want to work out but they don't work to sweat. That's why all these fad diets and excercise methods like the Pilates have a lifespan of three months. Soon another effotless diet and excercise method will come to town and people will go gaga about them. Case in point, I have seen a lot of people in my gym riding an excericse bike or working on the treadmill with a headphone on, reading a magazine, barely breaking a sweat. That's real cute, maybe the gym should start serving Pina Colada to them becasue they are really enjoying themselves on the bikes. Don't kid yourself, they are not getting anything in return except an excuse to console their guilty conscience that they did work out to combat their problems. It all goes back to the old saying of no pain no gains. A marathon runner does not run a marathon race becasue he enjoys it and Lance Armstrong doesn't have a enjoyable training routine. When it comes to weigth loss, it's easier than you though but you need perseverance and will power. Watch you diet and run the hard miles. You need to push yourself to your threshold and then some. If you are panting hard at the end of a run, if your body is sore the next day that it feel, you've done yourself some good. Otherwise, you're just fooling yourself. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Atkins = ? (should i start this again?)
In article , William Brink wrote:
In article , (Vegetarian) wrote: In article , JC Der Koenig wrote: Look at your BMI. At 5'6" and 190, you are over 30, which is categorized as obese. And if he is at 12% bodyfat? Still obese? Idiot. I highly doubt that having this pile of useless, worthless muscles is doing anything good for his health. Typical brain dead vege eater says what? Supply your data for that please. Hey! Watch it! This topic comes up all the time, so it's worth addressing. I hope the following clarifies the issues, especially for those who still believe that BMI 32 at 12% body fat is "obese". Note the last sentence in results section. http://www.halls.md/bmi/mort.htm Title: Differential associations of body mass index and adiposity with all-cause mortality among men in the first and second National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES I and NHANES II) follow-up studies Authors: Allison DB, Zhu SK, Plankey M, FaithMS, Heo M. Journal: Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord, Mar 2002;26(3):410- OBJECTIVE: The frequently observed U-shaped relationship between body mass index (BMI; kg/m(2)) and mortality rate may be due to the opposing effects of fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) components of BMI on mortality rate. The purpose is to test the hypothesis stated above. .... RESULTS: BMI had a U-shaped relationship with mortality, with a nadir of approximately 27 kg/m(2). However, when indicators of FM and FFM were added to the model, the relationship between BMI and mortality became more nearly monotonic increasing. Moreover, the relationship between FM indicator and mortality was monotonic increasing and the relationship between FFM indicator ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and mortality was monotonic decreasing. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Cheers, -- Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Atkins = ? (should i start this again?)
"Donovan Rebbechi" wrote in message ... In article , William Brink wrote: In article , (Vegetarian) wrote: In article , JC Der Koenig wrote: Look at your BMI. At 5'6" and 190, you are over 30, which is categorized as obese. And if he is at 12% bodyfat? Still obese? Idiot. I highly doubt that having this pile of useless, worthless muscles is doing anything good for his health. Typical brain dead vege eater says what? Supply your data for that please. Hey! Watch it! This topic comes up all the time, so it's worth addressing. I hope the following clarifies the issues, especially for those who still believe that BMI 32 at 12% body fat is "obese". Note the last sentence in results section. http://www.halls.md/bmi/mort.htm Title: Differential associations of body mass index and adiposity with all-cause mortality among men in the first and second National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES I and NHANES II) follow-up studies Authors: Allison DB, Zhu SK, Plankey M, FaithMS, Heo M. Journal: Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord, Mar 2002;26(3):410- OBJECTIVE: The frequently observed U-shaped relationship between body mass index (BMI; kg/m(2)) and mortality rate may be due to the opposing effects of fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) components of BMI on mortality rate. The purpose is to test the hypothesis stated above. ... RESULTS: BMI had a U-shaped relationship with mortality, with a nadir of approximately 27 kg/m(2). However, when indicators of FM and FFM were added to the model, the relationship between BMI and mortality became more nearly monotonic increasing. Moreover, the relationship between FM indicator and mortality was monotonic increasing and the relationship between FFM indicator ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and mortality was monotonic decreasing. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ it is an interesting piece of research, but have you actually looked at the paper, have you seen their indicators of fat mass and fat free mass? 2 skinfolds for FM and upper arm measurement for FFM (becuase everyone knows, to have lotsa muscle, you gotta have buff arms plus a whole **** load of statistics but it doesnt say that theres an increased risk of having massive amounts of lean mass still being ronnie coleman cant be fun -- Aaron |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Atkins = ? (should i start this again?)
In article , Aaron wrote:
"Donovan Rebbechi" wrote in message ... it is an interesting piece of research, but have you actually looked at the paper, have you seen their indicators of fat mass and fat free mass? 2 skinfolds for FM and upper arm measurement for FFM (becuase everyone knows, to have lotsa muscle, you gotta have buff arms They're just looking for variables that will have good correlation with FM and FFM. Of course there will be a fair amount of noise (variance unaccounted for by their measuring techniques) but that's fine as long as (a) you can get enough inferential power through size of subject pool, and (b) the noise really is random (not systematic). My guess is that the researchers wanted to be able to take the measurements as quickly and unintrusively as possible. Makes it easier to get permission to proceed with the study, and easier to conduct it. Cheers, -- Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Atkins = ? (should i start this again?)
"Christine O" wrote in message om... Different things work for different folks. People want a magic cure without having to work at it. If you just diet and dont excercise you are doomed from the start. Cut out all processed foods, pop/sugar, eat lots of fruit, vege's, meat for proteins and fats, learn the GI index, excercise, and you will succeed, but it will take time, something people arent willing to commit to. If people are too lazy to excercise, do you really think they can stick with a rigid "diet"? |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Atkins = ? (should i start this again?)
"Wayne S. Hill" wrote in message ...
Vegetarian wrote: JC Der Koenig wrote: Look at your BMI. At 5'6" and 190, you are over 30, which is categorized as obese. And if he is at 12% bodyfat? Still obese? Idiot. I highly doubt that having this pile of useless, worthless muscles is doing anything good for his health. Having a BMI of 32 is bad. Being fat at BMI 32 is horrible, being muscular at BMI 32 is not that great either. References? Can you point to any peer-reviewed studies that indicate that "excess" muscle mass raises health risk? BMI is used as a simple-minded proxy for BF% because, in the broad cross-section of society, people with high BMI have high BF. It is an unwarranted leap to conclude that high BMI with low BF% causes health risk. I don't have a study, but have seen a reference to the data in a well-respected exercise physiology book by Willmore, etc. There is probably a reference to such a study there. Some dumbo bodybuilders think that by growing muscles, they are doing themselves a favor. One needs to only look at their IQ to realize that it is not the case and that they are not benefitting. Fascinating. Please describe the process by which you conflated an interest in hypertropy with a lack of IQ. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Atkins = ? (should i start this again?)
Steven C \(Doktersteve\) wrote:
The thing is, the diet has been around for years (what, 30 years?), however it is a fad lately, I will agree. The book was first published in 1972. It was not the first low carb book, just the most popular one. That is why I asked about how much back to "normal" a person gets after the initial phase of Atkins. Atkins is a *process* not a *menu*, so literally no one can say where that process will lead you. The first phase, the first 14 days are menu based. But OWL starts with increasing your carbs by a system to find your own unique body's best level to lose. And maintenance starts with increasing your carbs again to find another limit set by your own unique body. Folks can guess what your maintenance phase might look like based on their own maintenance phase, but that's a guess. Figure maybe 100 grams per day with plenty of all sorts of veggies. But it also depends on what you think "normal" is. If you think "normal" is eating the junk food that got you unhappy with your weight, you will eventually go off the plan and back to your high weight again. No matter how you ever lose fat, you need to redefine normal to keep it off. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Atkins = ? (should i start this again?)
i hate the attachment of african how about just "black' unless of course
he/she is african born which i doubt David Cohen wrote: "Robert Schuh" wrote Learn the difference between humor and bigotry. Q: What do you call an African-American neurosurgeon? A: ******. Hmmm....could be both David |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Atkins = ? (should i start this again?)
yea weight watchers hehehehe got a bull dyke lez at work wanting to
smell my sausage and egg mcmuffin how about sniffing my asshole i said all they talk about is wt watchers it is a cult Christine O wrote: If you think promoting Atkins makes you competent, you are wrong. Mad hatter is correct. You MUST exercise, and you MUST have a proper diet. It is that simple. People fail at these fad diets because they are just that, fads. Words of wisdom :-) Akins maintains a Cult like following, so I am guessing my words will fall on deaf ears. That's true of any weight loss plan, really. We went to Weight Watchers and lost a combined 70lbs. We reached and exceeded our 10% goal and have kept the weight off for over a year. Some WW members were pretty fanatical about keeping track of everything, but I don't think it's a fault of the program. I guess it is easy to get obsessed with what you eat. The group leader was a hoot and it was nice to get out and chat with other people trying to lose weight. We don't go anymore because we don't need the support so much. WW was really eye-opening and it was mostly about changing behaviour - like finding something to do if you're bored instead of eating, or find another way to deal with a personal problem rather than drowning it in a bag of chips. There are no bad foods on WW :-) It really teaches restraint and moderation. OTOH, a friend of ours keeps touting Atkins as the greatest thing since apple pie. He was always putting down WW and said it was a waste of money. He rallies on and on about ketosis, but, the fact of the matter is, two years later, we met our weight loss goals and he hasn't lost a pound. I think WW was money well spent. I'm not bashing Atkins, but I think too many people fall into the rah! rah! rah! trap and then are not able to follow or commit to their weight-loss plan at all. If Atkins works for you, great :-) Different things work for different folks. Best, Christine |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AIDS, Anthrax, Atkins: The Scarlett A's.. Eat Carbs Stay Alive. | Steve Randy Shilts Bayt | General Discussion | 7 | June 25th, 2004 09:24 PM |
AIDS, Anthrax, Atkins: The Scarlett A's.. Eat Carbs Stay Alive. | Steve Randy Shilts Bayt | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 10 | June 25th, 2004 09:24 PM |
You want PROOF - Here's Quackery Proof. | marengo | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 173 | April 17th, 2004 11:26 PM |
Dr. ATKINS IS A QUACK | Irv Finkleman | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | March 31st, 2004 12:37 PM |
Atkins = ? (should i start this again?) | Steven C \(Doktersteve\) | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 98 | December 8th, 2003 04:27 PM |