 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / February 2005Swimming not good for weightloss?
Hi everyone, Ive been swimming twice a week and really enjoying it but a dietician recently told me that swimming is not good for weightloss. I did a bit of googling and found this article which is really interesting: http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/swimming.htm There are many other sites out there with similar info. Im also treadmilling a couple of days per week, but now Im thinking my swimming is more a hinderance than a help on my weightloss journey. On the other hand I guess *any* excercise is better than none, especially if Im watching my food intake. What's your opinion? Caitlin  SignatureBlueSun kgs: 115/89/70 lbs: 253/195.8/154.3 height: 5'8", 173cms > Hi everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Caitlin Interesting article. Now, if it's really the cold that makes people hungry, wouldn't a hot shower or sauna afterwards cure it? SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. > http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/swimming.htm This article totally ignores the fact that, while immersed in water, you're bleeding heat about 20 times as fast as you would in air of the same temperature. (They do say that it "keeps you cool" more than running, which isn't my point.) You burn one HELL of a lot of calories while swimming, surfing, diving, or just ditzing around in the pool. This is basal rate, quite apart from whatever you burn from the activity. If your other activities are the same, and your intake is the same, you'll definitely burn more calories swimming that almost anything else, and should lose weight faster. That study incorporates a lot of other variables that may be at work. KeS In a similar note, drinking a pint of diet soda is a net loss of around 15 calories - if you figure it goes in at 0 Celsius and comes out at close to 50. ;) :: In article <4209a66c$1@yorrell.saard.net>, :: "BlueSun" <bluesun@SPAMdodo.com.au> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :: else, and should lose weight faster. That study incorporates a lot :: of other variables that may be at work. You'll only lose weight faster IF you are able to control diet. If the swimming itself stimulates appetite ( and I think all sustained strenuous activitity does) weight loss may not occur. :: KeS :: :: In a similar note, drinking a pint of diet soda is a net loss of :: around 15 calories - if you figure it goes in at 0 Celsius and comes :: out at close to 50. ;) > :: If your other activities are the same, and your intake is the same, > :: you'll definitely burn more calories swimming that almost anything [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > swimming itself stimulates appetite ( and I think all sustained strenuous > activitity does) weight loss may not occur. Yes, you just recapitulated what I said: "if your intake is the same", "other variables may be at work". KeS :: On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Roger Zoul wrote: :: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :: Yes, you just recapitulated what I said: "if your intake is the :: same", "other variables may be at work". Ah...but I also said something very different. Sustained strenous activity can very definitely stimulate appetite... :: KeS > Hi everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/swimming.htm There are many > other sites out there with similar info. In a word, nonsense. I went from 97kg to 72 kg swimming 4 days/week in the 1980s. Took me 6 months. > Im also treadmilling a couple of days per week, but now Im thinking my > swimming is more a hinderance than a help on my weightloss journey. On the > other hand I guess *any* excercise is better than none, especially if Im > watching my food intake. What's your opinion? > > Caitlin I lose more weight with the treadmill than with swimming. But both lead to weight loss. gtoomey :: BlueSun wrote: :: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] :: I lose more weight with the treadmill than with swimming. But both :: lead to weight loss. You only lost weight because you didn't overconsume food as a result of your exercise. Exercise does not automatically ensure weight loss. > You only lost weight because you didn't overconsume food as a result of your > exercise. Exercise does not automatically ensure weight loss. Sometimes the body gets hungrier during prolonged exercise simply because you're working your body more than you used to. Your body thinks that because you're working out more, you must need more food energy - so it sends you hunger signals. During this event I remind my body that no thank you, I ate that excess energy years ago and it's residing on my hips. Disclaimer: the above is my opinion and I make no claims that it is a universal fact ;) > Sometimes the body gets hungrier during prolonged exercise simply because > you're working your body more than you used to. Your body thinks that > because you're working out more, you must need more food energy - so it > sends you hunger signals. During this event I remind my body that no > thank you, I ate that excess energy years ago and it's residing on my hips. I wish there was a way to direct my body to use it's stored fat from my stomach, butt, and thighs and to leave my boobs the hell alone for now. Do they even make bras in size 'Long.' SignatureNo Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes > :: BlueSun wrote: > :: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > your > exercise. Exercise does not automatically ensure weight loss. Thanks for your miraculous observation. gtoomey :: Roger Zoul wrote: :: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] :: :: Thanks for your miraculous observation. Yeah....it's a shame it had to be made... Swimming is great for weight loss, as long as you eat less. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW > Hi everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Caitlin My view is that you have to pick something that you find interesting to do. If you find treadmilling more interesting than swimming - although I doubt it - then do more treadmilling. If the only thing you want out of exercise is to burn the max amount of calories, then I suggest that you change whatever exercise you're doing every week. They say you become more and more efficient in doing what you're doing because you're becoming better and better, that you can manage to do the same with fewer calories. > Hi everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Caitlin I think the points of the article will apply to any phyiscal activity that is very stenuous and done long enough. For me, cycling long distances (at high heart rate due to hills) and for many hours didn't help with weight loss. The reason for that is because doing so made me very hungry and ended up with me eating way more food to replace the burnt calories...and also, and even a much bigger problem than just being hungry, I'd go hypoglycemic afterwards (after doing about 50 miles or so of cycling). Then, eating LC food just didn't help...my body needed carbs or I'd be zonked for hours and hours. Trying to balance expenditure with intake when you're doing extreme levels of exercise is really hard OTOH, if I scale back the cycling to say 20 to 30 miles at a time, none of that stuff happens, meaning: I can eat normally and don't find that I go hypo and need all of those carbs. I'm not a swimmer....but I have am impression that swimming is a hard activity...so my guess is that if you want to use it to lose weight, you must do it in such a way as to be able to control your diet. That may mean controlling the amount of time you spend swimming while you're working on weight loss. Also, incorporate other activities in too, such as weight lifting. :: Hi everyone, :: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] :: lbs: 253/195.8/154.3 :: height: 5'8", 173cms > I think the points of the article will apply to any phyiscal activity > that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > extreme > levels of exercise is really hard Interesting. While I lost some weight last year cycling, I didn't lose as much as I thought I would. I had the same problem -- I got really hungry and would eat more than I normally would, and I also had to have higher amounts of carbs on the days before and after a longer ride. (Shorter rides don't seem to be that bad.) I also think that riding long and hard is just physically exhausting. I'd be exhausted the day of my ride and for a day or so afterward. The day of the century I did was unbelievable -- my girlfriend was worried because I was so tired after the ride that she called my house several times to make sure I got home. I think that trying to lose weight and perform high intensity aerobic exercise is hard because the calculations are hard -- how much do you eat, when do you eat, and how many carbs do you eat? On the other hand, I might ride two centuries this year, so we'll see. SignatureBob in CT => =>Interesting. While I lost some weight last year cycling, I didn't lose as =>much as I thought I would. I had the same problem -- I got really hungry =>and would eat more than I normally would, and I also had to have higher =>amounts of carbs on the days before and after a longer ride. (Shorter IMHP, hungry could caused by blood sugar and insulin. I would suggest you to increase good oil/fat intake and lower your carb, unless you are low in your body fat. =>rides don't seem to be that bad.) I also think that riding long and hard =>is just physically exhausting. I'd be exhausted the day of my ride and =>for a day or so afterward. The day of the century I did was unbelievable =>-- my girlfriend was worried because I was so tired after the ride that =>she called my house several times to make sure I got home. => =>I think that trying to lose weight and perform high intensity aerobic =>exercise is hard because the calculations are hard -- how much do you eat, =>when do you eat, and how many carbs do you eat? On the other hand, I =>might ride two centuries this year, so we'll see. Don't know how to swim. So I start reading and practice Snorkeling couple months ago. <http://www.seaforyourself.com/Articles/SDsep97art.html> Also swimming is one of the few exercises that won't hurt your joints. Now I know how to swim, but don't know how to "breath" in the water. Back to the original topic, the latest month, I have been swimming about 2000 yards per day and 5 days per week. It was struggling and painful in the begriming. Now I can swim faster with ease. Never feel hungry, because I am in full cal extreme low carb diet. In average, I loose about 1 to 2 pounds per week. Very often I need to force myself to eat in order to loose weight and to feel healthy and happy. Well, it is miserable to force myself to eat, since I don't cook and my wife's cooking skill worse than mine. Read Atkins' web site or books and you should know there is no "low cal" in their dictionary. Personally, I believe "any exercise" is to make one's body healthy and it should not be a way to loose weight and then you can do it forever for the cause of healthy. If Atkins is giving you a way to eat fat to loose fat, why not follow it accordingly. > => > =>Interesting. While I lost some weight last year cycling, I didn't [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > your > body fat. Um, how do you take oils and fat with you on a bike ride? Nuts, maybe. But there's also a train of thought that says that you need carbs to ride -- the harder you ride, the more carbs you burn; after a certain point, you're burning 100% carbs. Blood sugar is definitely a problem, but one that I'm not sure how to solve given the need for carbs. SignatureBob in CT > > => > > =>Interesting. While I lost some weight last year cycling, I didn't [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > you're burning 100% carbs. Blood sugar is definitely a problem, but one > that I'm not sure how to solve given the need for carbs. I believe it is mainly carbs before the first hour or so, then past that point you are burning more fat as a percentage. After a few hours it would be almost all fat. > -- > Bob in CT > > > => > > > =>Interesting. While I lost some weight last year cycling, I didn't [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > point you are burning more fat as a percentage. After a few hours it would > be almost all fat. I don't think so. AFAIK, the body's choice of fuel depends mostly on intensity level of the exercise. At higher intensities, the body burns mostly glycogen (i.e., carbs). And, even at lower intensities, it takes a certain level of glycogen to allow the fat-burning processes occur. A few years ago, some folks were promoting "bonk training" as a way of forcing the body to burn more fat. The theory sounded reasonable - basically, it said to go out and exercise first thing in the morning, without eating breakfast. At that time of day, your glycogen stores are naturally depleted, and thus (in theory) your body would be forced to burn mostly fat. But, it was found that this is a bad way to train, and led to bonking (which is painful, and doesn't help promote weight loss or athletic performance). GG > > -- > > Bob in CT > > > > => > > > > =>Interesting. While I lost some weight last year cycling, I didn't [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > mostly glycogen (i.e., carbs). And, even at lower intensities, it takes a > certain level of glycogen to allow the fat-burning processes occur. The intensity does have a lot to do with it. If the pace is slow, more fat is burned. If it's quite fast, it is mainly glycogen(sprinting would be almost 100%). After an hour or so in a marathon and using mainly carbs, the glycogen stores are getting low. The body would prefer to burn carbs, but it is difficult to ingest enough to keep up, and the muscles and liver can only store a limited amount. More and more fat by % is used the longer the run because there is not enough carbs. Regulating intensity would make the carb stores last longer, as fat is not the best fuel for running. > A few years ago, some folks were promoting "bonk training" as a way of > forcing the body to burn more fat. The theory sounded reasonable - [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > -- > > > Bob in CT >> > > On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:37:51 GMT, Moon Shooter <ROOT@Hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] >> >> GG My problem is that I ride in the morning and that I live in a hilly area. There are no non-hilly routes. When I ride in the afternoon, my performance improves tremendously (I can take 20 minutes off a ride of two hours). However, I find afternoon rides hard to do particularly when I start riding 4-6 hours. If I can start riding at 8am, I'm done at 12-2pm. I still have time to do things during the day. On the other hand, if I start at 12pm, I won't do anything in the morning, and then the day is pretty much wasted. SignatureBob in CT > >> > > On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:37:51 GMT, Moon Shooter <ROOT@Hotmail.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > -- > Bob in CT I know what you mean. My strength peaks in afternoon or evening. The morning is best to workout by time schedule for me, but I seldom feel like doing it then because my strength is lower. Afternoons are busier with other duties. So I basically do shorter workouts. If my workouts are too long, I get lazy and don't want to spend the time if I have other things to do as well. > > >> > > On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:37:51 GMT, Moon Shooter <ROOT@Hotmail.com> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > get lazy and don't want to spend the time if I have other things to do as > well. Many of us find it difficult to find the time for long-distance efforts. They're important if you're training for something like a century, but for general fitness the saying is, "If you can't go long, go hard" (meaning, if you don't have time for a long ride, do a short, intense ride instead). GG > > > >> > > On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:37:51 GMT, Moon Shooter <ROOT@Hotmail.com> > > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] > > GG Absolutely. Short duration workouts fit well with my fitness goals and my lifestyle. Tom I told you a long time ago that endurance cardio and low carb don't mix well. But do carry on. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >> I think the points of the article will apply to any phyiscal activity >> that [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > when do you eat, and how many carbs do you eat? On the other hand, I > might ride two centuries this year, so we'll see. > I told you a long time ago that endurance cardio and low carb don't mix > well. Read Stu Mittleman's _Slow Burn_. Weather permitting, I run quite often on low carb. Maybe I am not unning as fast as some other athletes (I am not an athlete), but I am happy. Signature223/173.0/180 > I think the points of the article will apply to any phyiscal activity that > is very stenuous and done long enough. For me, cycling long distances (at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > hours. Trying to balance expenditure with intake when you're doing extreme > levels of exercise is really hard Not to open a can of worms, but that is one reason why most cycling coaches recommend against LC. Any form of endurance exercise requires carbs, and if you deplete your glycogen stores, you'll get the dreaded "bonk". We all fall into this nasty state from time to time (typically from trying to go too far on too little fuel, or simply not eating enough for the level of effort). But, it would seem to be an even more prevalent problem with LC'ers. Did you consume any carbs on your 50 mile rides? If you're riding 50 miles of hills, there's really no way to do that without taking on carbs during the ride (most recommend around 200-300 calories per hour, for rides over 90 minutes or so). > OTOH, if I scale back the cycling to say 20 to 30 miles at a time, none of > that stuff happens, meaning: I can eat normally and don't find that I go > hypo and need all of those carbs. True - on a short ride, your natural glycogen levels won't be depleted even if you don't consume carbs during the ride. However, for weight loss, you'll burn more calories by riding longer distances. GG > I'm not a swimmer....but I have am impression that swimming is a hard > activity...so my guess is that if you want to use it to lose weight, you [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > :: lbs: 253/195.8/154.3 > :: height: 5'8", 173cms >> I think the points of the article will apply to any phyiscal activity >> that [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > over 90 > minutes or so). I took in about 20g carbs per hour of riding, along with protein before and after (and during, if the ride was long). At no time did I ever feel burnt because of biking. Note, however, that I ate fruit the day before long rides. I also took in extra carbs immediately after finishing the ride. While it's true that most cycling coaches don't recommend low carb, I've found that I can get by with way, way less (fewer?) carbs than recommended. Most carb amounts are driven by athletes who ride daily. As I ride 3-4 days per week (with 2 days lifting), relatively low carb still works well. I'd typically be low carb for Mon, Tues, Wed, Thurs, then I'd eat some fruit Friday and Saturday I'd be relatively high carb (no plates of pasta but other carbs). Sunday, I tried to have a moderate carb day. >> OTOH, if I scale back the cycling to say 20 to 30 miles at a time, none >> of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > GG Hmmm...I'm not sure about this. During my riding season last year, I really didn't lose much weight at all. I was actually quite shocked. This year, I'm going to watch the amount I eat after riding, with an emphasis on getting enough carbs but not too many and fewer calories. SignatureBob in CT > >> I think the points of the article will apply to any phyiscal activity > >> that [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > This year, I'm going to watch the amount I eat after riding, with an > emphasis on getting enough carbs but not too many and fewer calories. That's actually a fairly common experience, regardless of LC. I've communicated with quite a few cyclists who put in 100-200 miles per week, and still can't seem to lose any weight. Given that those distances should burn 4000-8000 calories per week, I have to assume that they are overeating. Whether this is due to a hunger response from the exercise itself, or from an illusory "reward" mode of thinking ("I just rode my bike 30 miles, so now I can have a burger and fries"), or poor food choices (e.g., drinking Gatorade all day long) is hard to say. FWIW, I lost 10 lbs pretty easily last season with cycling as my primary exercise. But, I stopped "rewarding" myself for each ride, and became much more aware of what I was eating, and how much. I suspect my weight loss was about 50-50 (exercise-diet). GG [cut] >> Hmmm...I'm not sure about this. During my riding season last year, I >> really didn't lose much weight at all. I was actually quite shocked. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > GG Well, I rarely eat junk food (other than pizza and the occasional ice cream), never eat Gatoraid (I take my own glucose with me). It's weird, because a 60 mile ride with hills takes a lot out of me. My appetite goes way up (as does Roger's). It's definitely a case of eating too much for the amount of exercise, but it's also a hard balancing act -- eat too little and you'll not have the energy to ride; too much and you don't lose weight as fast. SignatureBob in CT > [cut] > >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > little and you'll not have the energy to ride; too much and you don't lose > weight as fast. Are you replenshing electrolytes (sodium and potassium, primarily) as you ride? You really need to do so on longer rides. I wonder if a low level of electrolytes would stimulate appetite post-exercise? Seems reasonable, but I have no evidence. And, yes...it's definitely a balancing act. Most pro cyclists trying to lose weight aim to do so during the very early season, before they start racing and training with intensity. It's very difficult to lose weight when training at high intensities - either the exercise, or the weight loss, is likely to be compromised. GG >> [cut] >> >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > but > I have no evidence. I only do so for long rides -- I spike my carbs with lite salt. Last year was a particularly wimpy year in CT, so there weren't many rides that were hot. > And, yes...it's definitely a balancing act. Most pro cyclists trying to > lose weight aim to do so during the very early season, before they start [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > GG Well, with each year I learn a little more. As biking + low carb is basically uncharted territory (and there seem to be differences between people in this area too), it's a learning exercise for all. SignatureBob in CT That's why you're still fat. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >>> [cut] >>> >> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > basically uncharted territory (and there seem to be differences between > people in this area too), it's a learning exercise for all. ::: [cut] ::::: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] :: difficult to lose weight when training at high intensities - either :: the exercise, or the weight loss, is likely to be compromised. See....I think for me, I was more interested in teh exercise than the weight loss. I really wanted to get that century done in my first year of riding. But now that that's past, I'm going to work on weight loss first and then I'll get the centuries done in the fall (there are several of them around here). The added benefit for me, I hope, is that I'll be able to complete them faster as I'll weigh less. So, a goal for me, cycling wise, is to increase my speed significantly on a century. I was something like 7 hours on the Charleston ride. I need to beat that by a lot. > ::: [cut] > ::::: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > increase my speed significantly on a century. I was something like 7 hours > on the Charleston ride. I need to beat that by a lot. Is it hilly where you ride? If so, losing some weight can make a pretty big difference in performance on the bike. Less so, if it's mostly flat. For increasing raw speed - doing intervals a couple of times per week helps, by improving your anabolic threshold. For decreasing century times, learning how to draft in a group can help a lot, and makes the century more of a "social" activity (though somewhat more dangerous). GG [cut] >> See....I think for me, I was more interested in teh exercise than the > weight [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > GG I think it is hilly where Roger rides, and it's hilly also where I ride. Supposedly, the century I rode is one of the harder centuries in New England (there are some ridiculously hard centuries, with tons of "real" climbing, unlike here where you just gain and lose the same 800 feet). I find that my speed picks up tremendously when I'm around other people. However, the century I rode is routed incorrectly. What happens is that you're with the metric century people for about 15-20 miles. After that, the century route goes somewhere else for a large loop, then returns to the same route that the metric century people are doing (for me, it should be the other way around -- you do the same loop as the metric century people, then split off). What this means is for relatively slow people like me, I ride with people for part of the first 15-20 miles, then I rode with no one. I spent the vast majority of time riding alone. And the bad thing about being heavy is that it's impossible to keep up with most bicyclists, many of whom weigh 60+ pounds less than I do. Every time the road points uphill, I get left behind. However, this has pretty much always been the case, as I've always been heavy relative to good (where that's a relative term) cyclists. For instance, even when I was in great shape, I had too many muscles, which do nothing but slow you down on a bike. Another problem here is that September is the last riding month. The planned centuries go away after that, so you have to start earlier and end earlier. SignatureBob in CT :: On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:31:18 -0800, GaryG <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> :: wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] ::: week helps, ::: by improving your anabolic threshold. Yeah, that's what I'm going to focus on come spring....or as soon as the saturday mornings get consistently up to 50 deg or so. For decreasing century times, ::: learning how to draft in a group can help a lot, and makes the ::: century more ::: of a "social" activity (though somewhat more dangerous). Yeah...definitely more dangerous. ::: GG :: :: I think it is hilly where Roger rides, and it's hilly also where I :: ride. Yep. Supposedly, the century I rode is one of the harder centuries :: in New England (there are some ridiculously hard centuries, with :: tons of "real" climbing, unlike here where you just gain and lose [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: me, I ride with people for part of the first 15-20 miles, then I :: rode with no one. I spent the vast majority of time riding alone. Same exact thing when I di the Ride for Raptors. Except, the two routes split at mile 40 and rejoined at mile 80. I had to quite at mile 80 due to quad lockup. Somehow I don't mine riding alone, but it's harder to maintain your best pace that way. :: And the bad thing about being heavy is that it's impossible to keep :: up with most bicyclists, many of whom weigh 60+ pounds less than I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: instance, even when I was in great shape, I had too many muscles, :: which do nothing but slow you down on a bike. Boy, that sounds familiar! I want to change it up a bit, though. :: Another problem here is that September is the last riding month. The :: planned centuries go away after that, so you have to start earlier :: and end earlier. Well, I've got you beat there! :) things just get started here....almost a Century every weekend until late November. Some of the ones in North Georgia have 10,000+ ft of elevation gain, so I hear. ::: GaryG wrote: ::::: "Bob M" <ctviggen.y@adelphia.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] :: pretty big difference in performance on the bike. Less so, if it's :: mostly flat. Yes, it is hilly. There are some nice ones around here, too. I'm going to try to make a point of driving to some onf the nice ones just to practice climbing. Most of the charity events that I ride have more climbing that I can easily get to from my front door. That was a problem last year.....I didn't do enough climbing on my training rides....so when I went on a several charity rides, I'd get shocked by the additional climbing I had to do. And, one the first one I did, I was foolish enough to try to race some guy (I doubt he was aware I was trying to beat him) who must have been 50 lbs lighter up a hill. Well, I got there first, but I didn't complete the metric (I only got 50miles). :: For increasing raw speed - doing intervals a couple of times per :: week helps, by improving your anabolic threshold. For decreasing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: :: GG > ::: GaryG wrote: > ::::: "Bob M" <ctviggen.y@adelphia.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > the > metric (I only got 50miles). I invariably find that I increase the pace while I'm near people (although I try not to keep up with people on hills). I've learned to try to go my own pace. SignatureBob in CT > way less (fewer?) carbs fewer. "Fewer/less Joy from the Words to the Wise forum mentioned this one, and it's another one of my eye-rollers as well. All together now: if countable items are involved, the word to use is fewer. If a non-countable quantity is involved, it's less. Or, to employ the simple mnemonic device I've been using since I was about seven: fewer apples, less milk. And speaking of edibles, my eyes well up with tears of admiration every time I go to my local grocery store and see the "15 items or fewer" placard hanging over the register. "Someone got it right," I usually whisper through my smile. Sometimes I break into a celebratory Steve Martin-circa-1978-like jig right then and there, or turn a couple of cartwheels. Then the manager asks me to leave, and I don't, and the police get called...but I digress. To be fair, there is one situation I can think of where the fewer/less distinction blurs a bit, and that's the quantifying of time. If it's 8:55 PM CST on a Thursday night, do you have less than five minutes or fewer than five minutes to get settled with a White Russian and some circus peanuts before ER starts? The short answer: either word works. Here's why: Yes, minutes are items, and thus countable. But when we discuss a specific, "counted-out" chunk of time, we're almost always (consciously or not) picturing that chunk of time as a whole, as a thing unto itself. When we hear the phrase "five minutes," we know that that's five counts of sixty seconds each, or 300 seconds total. But we also think of "five minutes" as a single block of time, just like we do with an hour or a day or a year. And since time is intangible and invisible, we get the sense that despite the numerous units that we've come up with to mark off its passing, time is more like milk than apples. Time flows, like liquid, and that means that we tend to view its progression as the depletion of a quantity more than the subtraction of items. Or, to put it another way: fewer minutes, less time." source: http://chicklit.com/words/words4_page2.html ::: I think the points of the article will apply to any phyiscal ::: activity that is very stenuous and done long enough. For me, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] :: simply not eating enough for the level of effort). But, it would :: seem to be an even more prevalent problem with LC'ers. Right. I learned the hard way. However, I will point out that some here can apparently ride on much less carbs taht I can. Pat in TX is one example. Perhaps he is simply better adapted to LC than I. But for me, LC will be a way of life. I'm a type 2 diabetic and LC allows me to control BG levels. :: Did you consume any carbs on your 50 mile rides? I do now, mainly because I don't like what happens if I don't. If you're riding :: 50 miles of hills, there's really no way to do that without taking :: on carbs during the ride (most recommend around 200-300 calories per :: hour, for rides over 90 minutes or so). I don't think I consume that much. That would be like a Clif bar every hour or so. If I'm riding 6 hours on a Saturday, I don't think I eat 6 clif bars :). Maybe one before leaving home and another at the mid point. But I do carry glucose tablets as a "just in case" measure against the bonk. ::: OTOH, if I scale back the cycling to say 20 to 30 miles at a time, ::: none of that stuff happens, meaning: I can eat normally and don't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: for weight loss, you'll burn more calories by riding longer :: distances. But, after a short ride I can control my subsequent eating much better than after a longer 60+ mile ride. Even using your cyclistat program, my polar 720i, and fitday to estimate calories, it is still hard to get intake matched to outtake. And, I just want to eat, eat, eat. On the shorter rides, I can just eat normally. Hence, this year, I'm on going to start out with shorter rides and work on increasing intensity. Then, after I've made progress with that, later on in summer, I'll start ramping up distance. I hope to do 3 or 4 centuries this year. :: GG :: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] ::::: lbs: 253/195.8/154.3 ::::: height: 5'8", 173cms > ::: I think the points of the article will apply to any phyiscal > ::: activity that is very stenuous and done long enough. For me, [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > :). Maybe one before leaving home and another at the mid point. But I do > carry glucose tablets as a "just in case" measure against the bonk. Another way to really mess up a ride, especially on hard, hilly and/or hot rides, is to not take on board enough fluids and/or electrolytes., so you might want to carry Gatorade too. On longer rides I normally have one bottle with water only, and one with regular strength Gatorade (others don't like that concentration and dilute it down to half strength). Gatorade provides some sugars for energy (150 calories per bottle at full strength), plus sodium and potassium for electrolyte replenishment. I find that it also helps me by encouraging me to drink more frequently than just plain water. > ::: OTOH, if I scale back the cycling to say 20 to 30 miles at a time, > ::: none of that stuff happens, meaning: I can eat normally and don't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > matched to outtake. And, I just want to eat, eat, eat. On the shorter > rides, I can just eat normally. Interesting...wonder if this is an LC thing, or just individual response? Perhaps your glycogen levels get so low that your body is screaming for carbs? Sometimes I find my appetite is actually somewhat suppressed after really hard rides, which is a bad thing because for muscle recovery you need to eat right afterwards. Do you include protein in your post-ride meal? Most studies I've seen recommend protein and carbs post-ride, in a 1-4 ratio. I typically mix some protein powder into a tall glass of OJ. I hadn't realized that you were a CycliStats user...hope you're enjoying the program. Do you manually enter your ride info, or do you import the .hrm files from your Polar? GG > Hence, this year, I'm on going to start out with shorter rides and work on > increasing intensity. Then, after I've made progress with that, later on in [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > ::::: lbs: 253/195.8/154.3 > ::::: height: 5'8", 173cms ::: GaryG wrote: :::::: I think the points of the article will apply to any phyiscal [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] :: replenishment. I find that it also helps me by encouraging me to :: drink more frequently than just plain water. Well, I started out last year taking two bottles of Fruit20. Then, after I started doing longer rides I switched over to Gatarade, but mixed to my own ratio. I thought that was important because on two occasions I had to take the sag wagon due to my quads locking on me. The first time it was at mile 50 on a metric and the second time it was at mile 80 on a full century. Both of those rides had more climbing that I had ever done, with the 80 being my max. I was even carrying Gatormix with me, but on charity rides i don't need it (just on my weekend rides). :::::: OTOH, if I scale back the cycling to say 20 to 30 miles at a :::::: time, none of that stuff happens, meaning: I can eat normally [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] :: response? Perhaps your glycogen levels get so low that your body is :: screaming for carbs? I think it just me, really. Or somehow related to me being a type 2. :: Sometimes I find my appetite is actually somewhat suppressed after :: really hard rides, which is a bad thing because for muscle recovery :: you need to eat right afterwards. I found that I do get suppressed appetite after exercise, up to a point. But I think it depend on how much you weight vs how hard to work to complete your ride. That makes comparisons difficult because you and I don't weigh the same and we both ride on different routes. :: Do you include protein in your post-ride meal? Most studies I've :: seen recommend protein and carbs post-ride, in a 1-4 ratio. I :: typically mix some protein powder into a tall glass of OJ. Yes. I think it was Bob M who pointed this out to be before, so I have tried to incorporate the 4-1 thing into my recovery meals. I won't drink OJ, though :) :: I hadn't realized that you were a CycliStats user...hope you're :: enjoying the program. Do you manually enter your ride info, or do :: you import the .hrm files from your Polar? I think it's a great program. I have been manually entering my ride info, though, but only because I have not fully hooked up my Polar to the bike (speed and cadence). I still get some info from the cyclocomputer I had before I got the polar. Proabably I'll get around to ii soon..so I can get full info without having to enter it...but i'll have to bypass using the Polar's calorie numbers as they are typically way too high. . :: GG :: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] :::::::: lbs: 253/195.8/154.3 :::::::: height: 5'8", 173cms > > :: Interesting...wonder if this is an LC thing, or just individual > :: response? Perhaps your glycogen levels get so low that your body is > :: screaming for carbs? > > I think it just me, really. Or somehow related to me being a type 2. If you're on Metformin, doesn't that suppress somewhat glucose release from the liver? SignatureNo Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes >> > :: Interesting...wonder if this is an LC thing, or just individual >> :: response? Perhaps your glycogen levels get so low that your body [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you're on Metformin, doesn't that suppress somewhat glucose > release from the liver? I'm not on any meds. > Hi everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Caitlin BS I've been swimming 20 laps a day for the past two weeks with great results. You just have to be aware all the time of how hard you're working. Often I catch myself just kinda cruising and that's when I have to push myself. When I catch my heart rate, I'm working (almost!) as hard as I was on the stairmaster. Other benefits: no sweat, no impact, and I can swim when I'm sore from doing squats ;) That explains well why I LOSE weight when I swim, usually 4 or 5 days a week in my backyard pool! I always prepare lunch before swimming and have a platter of meat, deviled eggs, cheese, fresh veggies and fruit and iced sf peach tea ready. I've always been too tired to fix a proper lunch after swimming. My now 4 year old daughter and I swim for about an hour and spend another 30-45 minutes playing. We take a warm shower put our shorts on and sit on the lanai to have lunch. Can't wait till April when we can get back into the pool again:) I've lost over 60 pounds on low carb and have kept it off for a year. One thing the article didn't mention is that swimming is a great all over exercise, easy on the joints and tones the body beautifully. My skin always looks fabulous when I swim:) Nancy J > Hi everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Caitlin > Hi everyone, > > Ive been swimming twice a week and really enjoying it but a dietician > recently told me that swimming is not good for weightloss. I did a bit of > googling and found this article which is really interesting: > http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/swimming.htm I never noticed that the swim team had any problem with being lean -- it is a matter of intensity as a former swimmer I was never so lean that I had strong muscle definition, but I was never fat either. In my 30's I swam a lot and lost that few "extra" 10- 15 pounds a woman gains as she ages and gets less active. I only wish I could swim now, I would no care about weight loss, only about the conditioning aspects of it. Susan more or less low carb since 1996 im honestly not sure where your dietician is coming from. swimming is the best cardio you can get that doesnt stress any of your joints. okay, if you just play in it, thats one thing, but if you can do 1000 meters like i did back in the day, id like to argue that point face to face with your misinformed friend.. then again, most nutritionists recoil in horror when i tell them im on low carb... so.. how much do they really know anyway. Signature_____________________________ This be Tia's SIG!!! YAY! >> Hi everyone, >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Susan > more or less low carb since 1996 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.