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.

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.

Having a BMI of 32 is bad.

Incorrect. Supply data please.

Being
fat at BMI 32 is horrible,

Only correct thing you have said.

being muscular at BMI 32 is not that great
either.

Data please. Your idiotic statements are based on zero knowledge of the
topic.


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.

Make your parents proud, move out...


John.

--
Will Brink

http://www.brinkzone.com/
http://musclebuildingnutrition.com/
http://www.aboutsupplements.com/

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/

"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

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/

"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"?

"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.

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.

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

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