What Works

I was reading up on Olympic athletes and their diet plans and it seems
the athletes with high energy outputs (soccer, runners etc.) ate just
about whatever they wanted without strict guidelines and still remained
lean. My question is: Isn't activity level only 'slightly' behind
nutrition in importance and one without the other is less than 100% of
what could be done for weight control?

Rusty wrote in message ...
I was reading up on Olympic athletes and their diet plans and it seems
the athletes with high energy outputs (soccer, runners etc.) ate just
about whatever they wanted without strict guidelines and still remained
lean. My question is: Isn't activity level only 'slightly' behind
nutrition in importance and one without the other is less than 100% of
what could be done for weight control?

I ran 45 miles per week for 8 years and did resistance exercise once
per week. With this program and eating anything I wanted my weight
stabilized right around 205. At this weight I was above the obese
level for my height of 6'0". On this level of exercise, every time I
changed my shoes I was so sore I often had to limp for weeks until my
new shoe soles wore into the right shape. The exercise helped, but it
was not a complete solution for me.

Rusty wrote in message ...
I was reading up on Olympic athletes and their diet plans and it seems
the athletes with high energy outputs (soccer, runners etc.) ate just
about whatever they wanted without strict guidelines and still remained
lean. My question is: Isn't activity level only 'slightly' behind
nutrition in importance and one without the other is less than 100% of
what could be done for weight control?

I ran 45 miles per week for 8 years and did resistance exercise once
per week. With this program and eating anything I wanted my weight
stabilized right around 205. At this weight I was above the obese
level for my height of 6'0". On this level of exercise, every time I
changed my shoes I was so sore I often had to limp for weeks until my
new shoe soles wore into the right shape. The exercise helped, but it
was not a complete solution for me.

Rusty wrote:
:: I was reading up on Olympic athletes and their diet plans and it
:: seems the athletes with high energy outputs (soccer, runners etc.)
:: ate just about whatever they wanted without strict guidelines and
:: still remained lean. My question is: Isn't activity level only
:: 'slightly' behind nutrition in importance and one without the other
:: is less than 100% of what could be done for weight control?

Are you an olympic athlete? Do you do serious amounts of exercise on a
weekly basis? Why do you seem think that "athletes eat whatever they want"
means they want to get crap? Just because they don't have strict guidelines
doesn't mean they aren't mindful of their diet. They know that if they
overeat that they too can and will gain weight.

The bottom line for weight control is that diet plays the primary role.
Exercise can be a big benefit in some instances, but that depends greatly on
the person and the situation. When I did low fat over 10 years ago to lose
100 lbs, I was in a position were I could do a LOT of exercise. Basically
40 miles a day on a stationary bike, gym work, and walking, too. Since I
was really big, yet able to do all of this exercise, I could eat mountd of
low fat (and low sugar) foods and still lose 8 to 10 lbs per month.
However, that level of exercise is extremely hard fo the average person to
keep up on a consistant basis (I could not do it now). I did fine at first,
but once I got hurt and then got extremely busy, I started slipping. The
high carb diet worked against me as it drove my appetite. Before I knew it,
all of that hard work was undone.

I can easily consume in a minute what would take over an hour to work off
via exercise. Just speaking for myself, here.

Weight loss and weight maintenance are much easier controlled if you learn
to manage your diet first and foremost. Exercise is benefical and several
ways. It does let you eat more and have high calorie foods on occasion. It
can improve and maintain cardiovascular health. It can improve strength,
bone density, and make you look better and expand your quality of life. So
the bottom line is that those who can put effort in to exercise will see
definite benefits. But weight loss and control can both be achieved with
little or no exercise.

Rusty wrote:
:: I was reading up on Olympic athletes and their diet plans and it
:: seems the athletes with high energy outputs (soccer, runners etc.)
:: ate just about whatever they wanted without strict guidelines and
:: still remained lean. My question is: Isn't activity level only
:: 'slightly' behind nutrition in importance and one without the other
:: is less than 100% of what could be done for weight control?

Are you an olympic athlete? Do you do serious amounts of exercise on a
weekly basis? Why do you seem think that "athletes eat whatever they want"
means they want to get crap? Just because they don't have strict guidelines
doesn't mean they aren't mindful of their diet. They know that if they
overeat that they too can and will gain weight.

The bottom line for weight control is that diet plays the primary role.
Exercise can be a big benefit in some instances, but that depends greatly on
the person and the situation. When I did low fat over 10 years ago to lose
100 lbs, I was in a position were I could do a LOT of exercise. Basically
40 miles a day on a stationary bike, gym work, and walking, too. Since I
was really big, yet able to do all of this exercise, I could eat mountd of
low fat (and low sugar) foods and still lose 8 to 10 lbs per month.
However, that level of exercise is extremely hard fo the average person to
keep up on a consistant basis (I could not do it now). I did fine at first,
but once I got hurt and then got extremely busy, I started slipping. The
high carb diet worked against me as it drove my appetite. Before I knew it,
all of that hard work was undone.

I can easily consume in a minute what would take over an hour to work off
via exercise. Just speaking for myself, here.

Weight loss and weight maintenance are much easier controlled if you learn
to manage your diet first and foremost. Exercise is benefical and several
ways. It does let you eat more and have high calorie foods on occasion. It
can improve and maintain cardiovascular health. It can improve strength,
bone density, and make you look better and expand your quality of life. So
the bottom line is that those who can put effort in to exercise will see
definite benefits. But weight loss and control can both be achieved with
little or no exercise.

I would venture to say there is no one on here that gets exercise like an
Olympic athlete. I train pretty hard for me, but it is nothing compared to
a person that makes a life out of it and is at a level of an Olympic
athlete. For example, Lance Armstrong eats 5-6000 cals a day in the on
season, mostly carbs. That is a lot of food in a day to say the least.
They also carry more muscle than the average person, so they can eat more
when idle.

Most of the elite athletes eat tons of carbs for fuel. It is a different
way of life. I can not eat tons of carbs and lose weight it seems, but that
may change if I go for becoming an Ironman. I hope to do it at 40.

Just my thoughts,
Curt


"Rusty" wrote in message
...
I was reading up on Olympic athletes and their diet plans and it seems
the athletes with high energy outputs (soccer, runners etc.) ate just
about whatever they wanted without strict guidelines and still remained
lean. My question is: Isn't activity level only 'slightly' behind
nutrition in importance and one without the other is less than 100% of
what could be done for weight control?

I would venture to say there is no one on here that gets exercise like an
Olympic athlete. I train pretty hard for me, but it is nothing compared to
a person that makes a life out of it and is at a level of an Olympic
athlete. For example, Lance Armstrong eats 5-6000 cals a day in the on
season, mostly carbs. That is a lot of food in a day to say the least.
They also carry more muscle than the average person, so they can eat more
when idle.

Most of the elite athletes eat tons of carbs for fuel. It is a different
way of life. I can not eat tons of carbs and lose weight it seems, but that
may change if I go for becoming an Ironman. I hope to do it at 40.

Just my thoughts,
Curt


"Rusty" wrote in message
...
I was reading up on Olympic athletes and their diet plans and it seems
the athletes with high energy outputs (soccer, runners etc.) ate just
about whatever they wanted without strict guidelines and still remained
lean. My question is: Isn't activity level only 'slightly' behind
nutrition in importance and one without the other is less than 100% of
what could be done for weight control?

"curt"

writes:

I would venture to say there is no one on here that gets exercise like an
Olympic athlete. I train pretty hard for me, but it is nothing compared to
a person that makes a life out of it and is at a level of an Olympic
athlete. For example, Lance Armstrong eats 5-6000 cals a day in the on
season, mostly carbs. That is a lot of food in a day to say the least.
They also carry more muscle than the average person, so they can eat more
when idle.

Exactly. I think it was Frank Shorter (?), a marathon runner in the 1970s, who
was asked about the hardest part of his training regimen and responded with
"the hardest part is finding enough time to eat."

I've got an 8-hour, very demanding backpacking trip planned for late October
and have been told that I can expect to burn 3,000 calories during the hike.
That's as extreme as I'll get (except next April, when I do that same hike
twice in 3 days). There's no way I'll be eating whatever I want -- I'll not
only be watching carbs, but I'll also need to replenish potassium and sodium,
and drink lots of water. Of course, watching carbs then will be ensuring I get
enough. Dr. Agastson, who wrote SB, said in an article in Backpacker magazine
that a person watching their carbs should still eat about 30 per hour on a
backpacking trip, although he recommended a lot of fruits, nuts, and whole
grains.

Anyway, the point is that I seriously doubt high-performance athletes can
literally eat anything they want. They have to eat to replenish electrolytes,
and to keep their muscles properly fueled. I don't believe that Lance
Armstrong sits down and has an entire chocolate cake, for example. I suspect
he eats a good balance of meat and fish, grains, vegetables, and fruit in order
to keep his body functioning well. Then if he wants two pieces of chocolate
cake, he can have them.

Daria
166/under 145/under 145
sugar-free since 2/1/04
low-carb since 2/17/04

On 10 Sep 2004 19:50:14 GMT, DG511 wrote:

"curt"

writes:

I would venture to say there is no one on here that gets exercise like
an
Olympic athlete. I train pretty hard for me, but it is nothing
compared to
a person that makes a life out of it and is at a level of an Olympic
athlete. For example, Lance Armstrong eats 5-6000 cals a day in the on
season, mostly carbs. That is a lot of food in a day to say the least.
They also carry more muscle than the average person, so they can eat
more
when idle.

Exactly. I think it was Frank Shorter (?), a marathon runner in the
1970s, who
was asked about the hardest part of his training regimen and responded
with
"the hardest part is finding enough time to eat."

I've got an 8-hour, very demanding backpacking trip planned for late
October
and have been told that I can expect to burn 3,000 calories during the
hike.
That's as extreme as I'll get (except next April, when I do that same
hike
twice in 3 days). There's no way I'll be eating whatever I want -- I'll
not
only be watching carbs, but I'll also need to replenish potassium and
sodium,
and drink lots of water. Of course, watching carbs then will be
ensuring I get
enough. Dr. Agastson, who wrote SB, said in an article in Backpacker
magazine
that a person watching their carbs should still eat about 30 per hour on
a
backpacking trip, although he recommended a lot of fruits, nuts, and
whole
grains.

Anyway, the point is that I seriously doubt high-performance athletes can
literally eat anything they want. They have to eat to replenish
electrolytes,
and to keep their muscles properly fueled. I don't believe that Lance
Armstrong sits down and has an entire chocolate cake, for example. I
suspect
he eats a good balance of meat and fish, grains, vegetables, and fruit
in order
to keep his body functioning well. Then if he wants two pieces of
chocolate
cake, he can have them.

Daria
166/under 145/under 145
sugar-free since 2/1/04
low-carb since 2/17/04


No, but he does eat a lot of cookies (or at least did for the camera when
filming The Lance Chronicles).

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

On 10 Sep 2004 19:50:14 GMT, DG511 wrote:

"curt"

writes:

I would venture to say there is no one on here that gets exercise like
an
Olympic athlete. I train pretty hard for me, but it is nothing
compared to
a person that makes a life out of it and is at a level of an Olympic
athlete. For example, Lance Armstrong eats 5-6000 cals a day in the on
season, mostly carbs. That is a lot of food in a day to say the least.
They also carry more muscle than the average person, so they can eat
more
when idle.

Exactly. I think it was Frank Shorter (?), a marathon runner in the
1970s, who
was asked about the hardest part of his training regimen and responded
with
"the hardest part is finding enough time to eat."

I've got an 8-hour, very demanding backpacking trip planned for late
October
and have been told that I can expect to burn 3,000 calories during the
hike.
That's as extreme as I'll get (except next April, when I do that same
hike
twice in 3 days). There's no way I'll be eating whatever I want -- I'll
not
only be watching carbs, but I'll also need to replenish potassium and
sodium,
and drink lots of water. Of course, watching carbs then will be
ensuring I get
enough. Dr. Agastson, who wrote SB, said in an article in Backpacker
magazine
that a person watching their carbs should still eat about 30 per hour on
a
backpacking trip, although he recommended a lot of fruits, nuts, and
whole
grains.

Anyway, the point is that I seriously doubt high-performance athletes can
literally eat anything they want. They have to eat to replenish
electrolytes,
and to keep their muscles properly fueled. I don't believe that Lance
Armstrong sits down and has an entire chocolate cake, for example. I
suspect
he eats a good balance of meat and fish, grains, vegetables, and fruit
in order
to keep his body functioning well. Then if he wants two pieces of
chocolate
cake, he can have them.

Daria
166/under 145/under 145
sugar-free since 2/1/04
low-carb since 2/17/04


No, but he does eat a lot of cookies (or at least did for the camera when
filming The Lance Chronicles).

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply