 |
 | 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 / September 2005Curious--
I suppose many of us have had this experience---you "fall off", eat something carby and the scale registers a two pound gain the next day....? Mu question....what IS that weight gain? I mean...clearly it's not a 'real" gain of two pounds of body fat.....but what IS it? water? or...what? and why? Just curious-- ---in the aftermath of eating a chimichanga day before yesterday. LassChance :>I suppose many of us have had this experience---you "fall off", eat :> something carby and the scale registers a two pound gain the next :> day....? Water weight, provided you didn't eat a ton of food as you fell off. Then it could be "food gain" as well. :> Mu question.... Are you asking a question of Mu? Why, oh why, oh why? Be happy he isn't posting here lately. what IS that weight gain? I mean...clearly it's not a :> 'real" gain of two pounds of body fat.....but what IS it? water? :> or...what? and why? If you just ate some plain sugar, way less than that needed to gain weight or make you over eat calories, those carbs get converted to glucose and stored as glycogen in your muscles and liver. Along with them come water molecules, as they attach to glycogen. Hence, you gain what is called "water weight." It's difficult to say exactly how much is water weight because when you fall off a LC diet, after you've been eating so much fat, it's possible that they extra carbs will bring out insulin and result in stored bodyfat, if you overeat (assuming you're not lifting and trying to gain muscle - then the insulin will tend to promote muscle growth too, if you're getting sufficient protein). If you don't overeat, then the water weight will fade if you resume your LC diet. Anyway, just a quickie response....someone else may have more time to wax poetic. On 27/9/05 12:26 AM, in article 11jg18lt5a6csb7@news.supernews.com, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: > :>I suppose many of us have had this experience---you "fall off", eat > :> something carby and the scale registers a two pound gain the next [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > molecules, as they attach to glycogen. Hence, you gain what is called "water > weight." This is often proposed as a reason for rapid i.e. overnight weight gain but it doesn't stand up to close examination because it also happens with people who are not in ketosis, not in fact on any form of low carb diet. I am not in ketosis, though I avoid pasta and potatoes, white bread etc., but still eat plenty of carbs. I am not over weight but can still find that after a few days of excess, for example after a weekend away, I have gained two or three pounds. It goes away as rapidly as it comes, but it isn't water weight as I am not in ketosis, it isn't muscle glycogen stores, not in the normal sense as I haven't exercised although I usually do, and it certainly isn't fat as my excess does not even approach seven thousand or more calories. It isn't related to menstrual cycles and although indicated on several scales, - and so not a scale error - doesn't seem to alter clothing sizes - nothing seems appreciably tighter. None of the "pat" answers seem to apply. I have some theories, one is that on these occasions I am drinking less tea and coffee (diuretics) and so retain more water, and that the rest from exercise allows the muscles to regenerate more than normal and so bulks them a little more than normal. Sort of like when you load with Creatine, the added muscle bulk is rapid and not real growth. Also in my case, I tend to drink more alcohol, dehydrating me and causing me to drink more liquids. A lot more needs to learned about human metabolism, we aren't remotely close to knowing it all yet. It isn't as simple as 3500 calories = one extra pound of fat. SS If you are eating more stuff you are likely ingesting more salt as well. That can make a big difference in water retention and has nothing to do with glycogen. | This is often proposed as a reason for rapid i.e. overnight weight | gain but it doesn't stand up to close examination because it also [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] | | SS On 27/9/05 2:24 AM, in article ZgVZe.217$OH3.118@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net, > If you are eating more stuff you are likely ingesting more salt as well. > That can make a big difference in water retention and has nothing to do with [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > | > | SS This another pat answer that people give but don't think through. Salt absorbs water, yes, but it can't hold more than it's own weight in water so to put on a couple of pounds of water weight, purely as retained by extra salt, you would need to eat several extra POUNDS of salt. Not possible. I eat, at all times, an enormous amount of salt. I do not have high blood pressure and so have no need to minimize salt. I exercise a lot, and need to replace salt lost to sweat. It never makes any difference to my normal day to day weight, although if I am in a situation where I am forced to eat low salt meals - as has happened at some resort seminars etc. - I do experience a loss of energy and poor digestion until I can replace the salt. Low salt products are like low cholesterol products, great if you have a genuine problem with hypertension or high cholesterol but not great for a normal healthy person. Avoiding excess salt is a good thing, trying to avoid all salt is a bad thing, but you can't convince many people of that. If all necessary salt is obtained from natural foods, why do animals, cattle, horses, etc. need salt licks to maintain health? Why has salt always been a very valuable trading commodity all through history? The body needs salt. SS That's nonsense, several pounds of salt. I know that if I eat things like a lot of ham or salty bacon I will be up a couple of pounds the next day, back down when I don't eat it. Your body maintains a certain balance of salt/water, if you have more salt than you can rapidly excrete you will retain water to dilute it. | This another pat answer that people give but don't think through. Salt | absorbs water, yes, but it can't hold more than it's own weight in [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] | | SS The ham and bacon are most likely sugar cured.  SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW > That's nonsense, several pounds of salt. I know that if I eat things like > a [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > | > | SS || On 27/9/05 2:24 AM, in article || ZgVZe.217$OH3.118@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net, "FOB" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] || retained by extra salt, you would need to eat several extra POUNDS || of salt. Not possible. Are you for real? This is just plain stupid. Of course you don't have to eat two pounds of salt to cause two pounds of water retention. High concentrations of electrolytes (sodium and potassium) in our bloodstream trigger our thirst mechanism to ensure that we consume adequate amounts of water to maintain proper concentrations of electrolytes. This is one of the reasons bars provide free salty snacks like pretzels and peanuts. The salt causes us to become thirsty and purchase more drinks. Where did you get the crazy idea that you have to eat two pounds of salt to retain two pounds of water? Sodium triggers a metabolic mechanism, it's not a sponge. The water also moves beyond our bloodstream. Through the process of osmosis, water flows from a lower salinity environment to a higher one in an attempt to make the levels of salinity equal. After we consume large amounts of salt, it's the water moving from our bloodstream into our skin that gives us that "puffy" look and makes it hard to get our rings off. Then, when we consume lesser amounts of salt, the same process works in reverse to remove excess water from our bodies. Look it up. You have Google. SignaturePeter Website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo On 27/9/05 3:21 AM, in article C6WZe.6614$GK2.4117@lakeread07, "Marengo" <garcondenc@yahoo.com> wrote: > || On 27/9/05 2:24 AM, in article > || ZgVZe.217$OH3.118@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net, "FOB" [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > one of the reasons bars provide free salty snacks like pretzels and peanuts. > The salt causes us to become thirsty and purchase more drinks. Are you for real or just plain stupid? Anyone who is conscious of their health, fitness and diet will ALWAYS hydrate properly. I know, as do most of my friends, EXACTLY how much I liquid I consume. No amount of salt will cause me to drink more. If it does for you then you are not hydrating properly. I drink far more than more thirst requires, and anyone who really wants to be fully healthy should do the same. I have a very well practised routine with regard to food and drink, I drink only bottled water, the same number of cups of tea and espresso every day and would know instantly if I was to "become thirsty and purchase more drinks". > Where did you get the crazy idea that you have to eat two pounds of salt to > retain two pounds of water? Sodium triggers a metabolic mechanism, it's not > a sponge. Because there is no way that an increase in water "retention" caused purely by salt holds credibility. Is is just more "fat people" doubletalk to explain their weight. I agree that drinking or eating salty products increases thirst in someone who is not fully hydrated, but that IS NOT SALT RETENTION!. The salt may have increased thirst, the person may have responded to the increased thirst, but the extra water is not magically held by the body in any way, it goes the way of all water, excreted or passed in urine. If I sit down and force myself to drink an EXTRA gallon of water today, tomorrow I will weigh exactly the same. The water is NOT retained. Many people who are trying to lose weight are amazed when convinced to dramatically increase their water consumption in that they LOSE weight. They gain for a day or so as the body stabilizes, then start to lose as their diet and exercise program becomes efficient, often for the first time. > The water also moves beyond our bloodstream. Through the process of osmosis, > water flows from a lower salinity environment to a higher one in an attempt > to make the levels of salinity equal. Even in this you are wrong, osmosis is the opposite, the molecules flow from a high to a low concentration. > After we consume large amounts of > salt, it's the water moving from our bloodstream into our skin that gives us > that "puffy" look and makes it hard to get our rings off. When we are fully hydrated our sweat glands are fully functioning. They are then doing what they are supposed to at all times, regulate our body temperature. > Then, when we > consume lesser amounts of salt, the same process works in reverse to remove > excess water from our bodies. Rubbish. > Look it up. You have Google. Google, the ultimate resource for misinformation. I have both tertiary training plus personal and observed experience. No amount of extra salt has ever put so much as an ounce of weight on me, nor on people close to me. If it puts weight on a person, that person was in a state of constant dehydration, a very common occurrence. SS : Anyone who is conscious of their health, fitness and diet will ALWAYS : hydrate properly. I know, as do most of my friends, EXACTLY how much I : liquid I consume. No amount of salt will cause me to drink more. If it does : for you then you are not hydrating properly. Your train just went off track. Try eating a pizza and then see if you don't get much thirstier. He was right about the salt. : I drink far more than more thirst requires, and anyone who really wants to : be fully healthy should do the same. I have a very well practised routine : with regard to food and drink, I drink only bottled water, the same number : of cups of tea and espresso every day and would know instantly if I was to : "become thirsty and purchase more drinks". You might tell that to the people who have gotten themselves into a condition called hyponatremia.... : > Where did you get the crazy idea that you have to eat two pounds of salt to : > retain two pounds of water? Sodium triggers a metabolic mechanism, it's not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : by salt holds credibility. Is is just more "fat people" doubletalk to : explain their weight. http://www.caloriesperhour.com/faqs_salt.html http://home.epix.net/~tcannon1/Physioweek5.htm http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch09/thirst.mhtml Cells in the lateral preoptic area of the hypothalamus called osmoreceptors are sensitive not only to the relative amount of water in the blood, but, more particularly, to cellular dehydration due to the amount of salt that becomes concentrated as the body dehydrates from loss of water (Peck & Novin, 1971). An increase in the amount of salt in the blood will thus cause the anterior hypothalamus to signal the pituitary gland to secrete antidiuretic hormone (ADH), which causes the kidneys to slow down their production of urine. This restores body fluid. At the same time, the hypothalamus signals the brain's cortex to create a thirst drive to force the increased water intake needed to restore the normal salt level (Epstein, 1982). Really! This was TOO easy. You should learn to look up the problem before you make some definitive statement that "there is no way that an increase in water retention is caused purely by salt". These scientists seem to think that it does! Imagine that! : I agree that drinking or eating salty products increases thirst in someone : who is not fully hydrated, but that IS NOT SALT RETENTION!. The salt may : have increased thirst, the person may have responded to the increased : thirst, but the extra water is not magically held by the body in any way, it : goes the way of all water, excreted or passed in urine. See above cites. Tsk Tsk. : I have both tertiary training plus personal and observed experience. No : amount of extra salt has ever put so much as an ounce of weight on me, nor [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : : SS Geez, too bad about that bad training you claim to have received. It surely didn't "take". And that's the pat answer. Pat in TX > This another pat answer that people give but don't think through. Salt > absorbs water, yes, but it can't hold more than it's own weight in water so > to put on a couple of pounds of water weight, purely as retained by extra > salt, you would need to eat several extra POUNDS of salt. Not possible. Sea water does NOT have 50% of its weight or volume in salt. It is under 10% mineral content. So the above it false. > I eat, at all times, an enormous amount of salt. I do not have high blood > pressure and so have no need to minimize salt. Humans are evolved to eject large amounts of salt. > I exercise a lot, and need to > replace salt lost to sweat. It never makes any difference to my normal day [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > problem with hypertension or high cholesterol but not great for a normal > healthy person. The body has a fairly effective mechanism for keeping its salt percentage steady, but that is not the same thing as keeping its salt amount steady. Hence water retention from eating more salt than you excrete. For the short time until it is excreted. > Avoiding excess salt is a good thing, trying to avoid all salt is a bad > thing, but you can't convince many people of that. Salt is not fat. Water dissolving the salt is not fat. But both register with gravity and thus effect the scale. Folks who haven't taken the time to think through the above often want to fight every ounce of *scale reading* without regard to whether it reflects *fat loss*. > If all necessary salt is > obtained from natural foods, why do animals, cattle, horses, etc. need salt > licks to maintain health? Why has salt always been a very valuable trading > commodity all through history? The body needs salt. > > SS On 27/9/05 4:31 AM, in article 1127759494.352245.317650@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote: >> This another pat answer that people give but don't think through. Salt >> absorbs water, yes, but it can't hold more than it's own weight in water so [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sea water does NOT have 50% of its weight or volume in salt. > It is under 10% mineral content. So the above it false. Are you for real? What has seawater to do with anything? Seawater consists of water with salts dissolved in it, no one has suggested that it consists of salt retaining water as is under discussion here. >> I eat, at all times, an enormous amount of salt. I do not have high blood >> pressure and so have no need to minimize salt. > > Humans are evolved to eject large amounts of salt. This is meaningless nonsense. >> I exercise a lot, and need to >> replace salt lost to sweat. It never makes any difference to my normal day [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > salt percentage steady, but that is not the same thing as > keeping its salt amount steady. Since when is a percentage not an amount? Hence water retention > from eating more salt than you excrete. For the short > time until it is excreted. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Salt is not fat. Wow. You figure this out without any help from your parents? You do have parents don't you? I mean, you didn't escape from a comic book or something did you? Water dissolving the salt is not fat. > But both register with gravity and thus effect the scale. Not too sure now - I am beginning to lean toward that comic book idea. > Folks who haven't taken the time to think through the > above often want to fight every ounce of *scale reading* > without regard to whether it reflects *fat loss*. Folks who HAVE taken the time to read through the above haven't stopped shaking their heads yet. Well at least I haven't. SS : > | None of the "pat" answers seem to apply. : > | [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : salt, you would need to eat several extra POUNDS of salt. Not possible. : SS Neither one of those was one of my answers. Pat in TX > This another pat answer that people give but don't think through. Salt > absorbs water, yes, but it can't hold more than it's own weight in water > so > to put on a couple of pounds of water weight, purely as retained by extra > salt, you would need to eat several extra POUNDS of salt. Not possible. No, I think you misunderstand what is going on. Salt doesn't absorb water, it affects its saltiness. Your body maintains a certain degree of salinity. To make "physiological saline", that is saline that is the same as your body's salinity, you need only 7 g of salt for each liter of water. http://www.msu.edu/user/eisthen/lab/methods/physiology/APShica.html One liter of water weighs 2.2 lbs. So if you eat an extra 7 g of salt you body will need to retain 2.2 lbs. of water in order to maintain the same salt concentration. Rich On 27/9/05 12:26 PM, in article r52_e.13122$y64.227@trnddc06, "rich" <dummyaddress@nothere.net> wrote: >>This another pat answer that people give but don't think through. Salt >>absorbs water, yes, but it can't hold more than it's own weight in water [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No, I think you misunderstand what is going on. *I* don't understand what is going on? Do you think that the human body is just some sort of open container full of liquid and if you add salt or any other mineral, chemical etc. that the entire fluid content of the body is immediately raised or lowered accordingly? It is a little more complicated than that. I was addressing the popular claim that "salt" causes water retention. It doesn't. Salt consumed by a person who is not fully hydrated will cause them to require/desire (not retain) more water *TEMPORARILY*. This is not a weight gain. Salt consumed by a fully hydrated person has little or no effect on water needs. What is happening is that the person is drinking more water because thirst has been stimulated not that the salt is "holding or retaining" water. If that person was looking after themselves properly then they wouldn't need the stimulation of increased thirst to hydrate properly. Drink more water is a mantra quoted in almost every text on healthy nutrition, and one that is probably among the most often ignored. Salt doesn't absorb water, > it affects its saltiness. Your body maintains a certain degree of salinity. > To make "physiological saline", that is saline that is the same as your > body's salinity, you need only 7 g of salt for each liter of water. > > http://www.msu.edu/user/eisthen/lab/methods/physiology/APShica.html What has a formula for High-Calcium Amphibian Physiological Saline got to do with the issue? Do you know what the proposed purpose is of that formula from the site you cited? > One liter of water weighs 2.2 lbs. So if you eat an extra 7 g of salt you > body will need to retain 2.2 lbs. of water in order to maintain the same > salt concentration. That is NOT how it works. The body can excrete salt without first adding it to the body's total "salinity balance". What you are saying is that if I took four 2500mg salt tablets, such as issued by the military in tropical areas, that I would immediately retain an extra three pounds or so of water? Doesn't work that way. I often take salt tablets when competing in an endurance event, and I *ALWAYS* add a heaped teaspoon of salt to most things that I cook. That heaped teaspoon is approximately your seven grams, and I cook several dishes per day. My weight doesn't vary in response, it doesn't retain more water. Back in the dim dark ages, before I became aware of proper hydration, my love of salt WOULD result in increased thirst and corresponding weight fluctuations - now that I drink sufficient fluids it never does. The only thing that is indicated by a person claiming to "retain" water when increasing salt consumption is that that they are under-hydrated, that they do not drink sufficient fluids. SS > What you are saying is that if I took four 2500mg salt tablets, such as > issued by the military in tropical areas, that I would immediately retain > an > extra three pounds or so of water? No, that isn't what I am saying at all, but it is clear that you really aren't interested in doing anything but spouting off so I'm done. Rich :> On 27/9/05 12:26 AM, in article 11jg18lt5a6csb7@news.supernews.com, :> "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] :> happens with people who are not in ketosis, not in fact on any form :> of low carb diet. I'm not sure if it is proposed as a reason fo rapid weight gain for everyone, but it is definitely a reason for those on a LC diet who have depleted glycogen stores - and it is very repeatable. Also, it is not proposed as the only reason for rapid weight gain. :> I am not in ketosis, though I avoid pasta and potatoes, white bread :> etc., but still eat plenty of carbs. I am not over weight but can :> still find that after a few days of excess, for example after a :> weekend away, I have gained two or three pounds. AFter a few days of excess, you might have extra "stuff" in your intestines, festering around :) It goes away as :> rapidly as it comes, but it isn't water weight as I am not in :> ketosis, it isn't muscle glycogen stores, not in the normal sense as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :> :> None of the "pat" answers seem to apply. None that you considered, that is... :> I have some theories, one is that on these occasions I am drinking :> less tea and coffee (diuretics) and so retain more water, Possible...extreme changes might have an effect... and that :> the rest from exercise allows the muscles to regenerate more than :> normal and so bulks them a little more than normal. I don't know what you mean by "regenerate more than normal". That sounds a bit like hooyie to me... :> Sort of like :> when you load with Creatine, the added muscle bulk is rapid and not :> real growth. Also in my case, I tend to drink more alcohol, :> dehydrating me and causing me to drink more liquids. With creatine, it is water weight if i recall correctly. :> A lot more needs to learned about human metabolism, we aren't :> remotely close to knowing it all yet. It isn't as simple as 3500 :> calories = one extra pound of fat. It's that simple under the appropriate conditions...but trying to apply that logic to every change on the scale is not appropriate. On 27/9/05 2:34 AM, in article 11jg8potllo25fc@news.supernews.com, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: > :> On 27/9/05 12:26 AM, in article 11jg18lt5a6csb7@news.supernews.com, > :> "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > AFter a few days of excess, you might have extra "stuff" in your intestines, > festering around :) Festering around? Delightful image that brings to mind. No, that is not the cause. > It goes away as > :> rapidly as it comes, but it isn't water weight as I am not in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > None that you considered, that is... I would hardly be discussing something that I hadn't considered - would I? > :> I have some theories, one is that on these occasions I am drinking > :> less tea and coffee (diuretics) and so retain more water, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I don't know what you mean by "regenerate more than normal". That sounds a > bit like hooyie to me... What do I mean be "regenerate more than normal"? I guess that what I mean is "regenerate more than normal." Yes, that's it. Muscles do not grow or strengthen during exercise, that happens during the "rest" periods between bouts of exercise. If they have a longer rest period than normal, perhaps they regenerate more than normal. I don't exercise to build muscle, I exercise to stay fit, and so don't normally have rest days. I exercise every day, except for the times under discussion. > :> Sort of like > :> when you load with Creatine, the added muscle bulk is rapid and not > :> real growth. Also in my case, I tend to drink more alcohol, > :> dehydrating me and causing me to drink more liquids. > > With creatine, it is water weight if i recall correctly. Not water weight in the sense that being proposed here, (dropping out of ketosis) although yes, it is added water molecules. > :> A lot more needs to learned about human metabolism, we aren't > :> remotely close to knowing it all yet. It isn't as simple as 3500 > :> calories = one extra pound of fat. > > It's that simple under the appropriate conditions...but trying to apply that > logic to every change on the scale is not appropriate. Like BMI, it merely a yardstick, not a valid formula. There are many exceptions. In my gym people often go to elaborate lengths to work out just how efficient their metabolism is, many very fit people who are as much a gym junkie as I am have widely differing responses to the same amounts and types of food. If 3500 calories always equalled a pound in weight, I would probably weight about two hundred pounds more than I do. I eat more food than many guys, even when they are athletes. I have a VERY efficient metabolism. If I use the 3500 in the conventional manner to calculate my daily needs it comes out at far less than I actually eat. More than a thousand calories per day less. I still don't vary by more than a two or three pounds, year in, year out always between 105 and 108. If however, I cut back on fat and eat more carbs from bread pasta and potatoes, within just a few weeks I can go to 120 even if I don't increase the overall calorie intake. In order to lose that weight again just cutting the carbs back to the previous level isn't enough, I have to cut overall calories. My 'ideal' carb level is about 125-160. If I go over 190-200 I start to gain weight regardless of calories. Like I said, it isn't that simple. I have been keeping detailed records for quite a few years, on myself and on a number of other gym members. We all vary in our responses to the same food values. There are differences in what allows weight loss and weight gain and in weight maintenance. Some people find that alcohol has a major effect on weight maintenance, with others they are just calories like any other. Some gym members eat very high carb and still keep a good body fat ratio. It certainly isn't 'one size fits all' when it comes to ideal diets. SS SS :> On 27/9/05 2:34 AM, in article 11jg8potllo25fc@news.supernews.com, :> "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] :> Festering around? Delightful image that brings to mind. No, that is :> not the cause. And what makes you so sure? You did say "a few days of excess", right? Yet, you dismiss this out of hand with no discussion? :>> It goes away as :>> :> rapidly as it comes, but it isn't water weight as I am not in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] :> I would hardly be discussing something that I hadn't considered - :> would I? Of course you might....are we supposed to assume you are a fount of wisdom or something? Knower or all things, perhaps? :) :>> :> I have some theories, one is that on these occasions I am :>> :> drinking [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] :> I guess that what I mean is "regenerate more than normal." Yes, :> that's it. :) :> Muscles do not grow or strengthen during exercise, that happens :> during the "rest" periods between bouts of exercise. If they have a :> longer rest period than normal, perhaps they regenerate more than :> normal. I don't exercise to build muscle, I exercise to stay fit, :> and so don't normally have rest days. I exercise every day, except :> for the times under discussion. Well, I can assure you that growing muscles won't increase weight by a couple of pounds over night....folks would be so happy for such results. No, it's definitely not due to extra regeneration. And there is nothing wrong with a regular rest day...they won't hurt your fitness... :>> :> Sort of like :>> :> when you load with Creatine, the added muscle bulk is rapid and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :> Not water weight in the sense that being proposed here, (dropping :> out of ketosis) although yes, it is added water molecules. Water weight is water weight....the sense is always the same...the reasons for it might differ. :>> :> A lot more needs to learned about human metabolism, we aren't :>> :> remotely close to knowing it all yet. It isn't as simple as 3500 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :> are as much a gym junkie as I am have widely differing responses to :> the same amounts and types of food. I can accept this....however, I do have issues about gym junkies really understanding all the reasons for these widely differing responses...there is a lot of mis-info being passed around in gyms....certainly in mine.... :> If 3500 calories always equalled a pound in weight, I would probably :> weight about two hundred pounds more than I do. I eat more food than :> many guys, even when they are athletes. I have a VERY efficient :> metabolism. What does "efficient metabolism" mean, exactly? Some use that term to imply that whatever they eat turns to fat, as the food is quickly metabolized. :> If I use the 3500 in the conventional manner to :> calculate my daily needs it comes out at far less than I actually [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :> level is about 125-160. If I go over 190-200 I start to gain weight :> regardless of calories. 125 to 160 could be a typical maintenance carb level for a very active person on Atkins. Increase beyond that could result in greater glycogen stores in the liver and muscle, and could eventually lead to fat gain if one consumes too many calories. :> Like I said, it isn't that simple. I have been keeping detailed :> records for quite a few years, on myself and on a number of other :> gym members. That would be very interesting to see, those records. Why not scan them and post them on the web somewhere? It would make for some interesting discussions, if they are detailed enough. Also, it would allow us to see just how good your personal observations are. Because, as you know, you have to account for exercise and other daily activiy in the energy balance. Depending on where you got your data, your statements about calories in/out could be way, way off. We all vary in our responses to the same food values. :> There are differences in what allows weight loss and weight gain and :> in weight maintenance. Some people find that alcohol has a major :> effect on weight maintenance, with others they are just calories :> like any other. Some gym members eat very high carb and still keep a :> good body fat ratio. It certainly isn't 'one size fits all' when it :> comes to ideal diets. Most who gain from high carbs do so because they have issues with carbs - like wanting to eat too many of them. Others don't have those issues. So yeah, we all vary in our responses to food. On 27/9/05 4:38 AM, in article 11jgg1i52t5tt47@news.supernews.com, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: > :> Festering around? Delightful image that brings to mind. No, that is > :> not the cause. > > And what makes you so sure? You did say "a few days of excess", right? > Yet, you dismiss this out of hand with no discussion? Why would I wish to discuss an issue that where I already have full knowledge? In order to have something remain within, festering or not, there would have to be other very readily noticeable health factors involved. No discussion required, certainly not with Usenet denizens. > :>> It goes away as > :>> :> rapidly as it comes, but it isn't water weight as I am not in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Of course you might....are we supposed to assume you are a fount of wisdom > or something? Knower or all things, perhaps? :) It is IMPOSSIBLE to discuss something that one has not considered. If you don't consider it, you can't have sufficient awareness of it to discuss it. > :>> :> I have some theories, one is that on these occasions I am > :>> :> drinking [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Well, I can assure you that growing muscles won't increase weight by a > couple of pounds over night....folks would be so happy for such results. I didn't suggest that they did, merely that - as when adding creatine to the diet - they retain more water as against "salt" being the cause of retaining more water. > No, it's definitely not due to extra regeneration. And there is nothing > wrong with a regular rest day...they won't hurt your fitness... You don't seem very adept at following a thread do you Roger? Where did I suggest that there is anything wrong with a regular rest day? Where did I suggest that one might hurt my fitness? I simply stated that as I had no interest in muscle building, I didn't see the need to "rest". I enjoy exercise and so I exercise every day. > :>> :> Sort of like > :>> :> when you load with Creatine, the added muscle bulk is rapid and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Water weight is water weight....the sense is always the same...the reasons > for it might differ. Water weight is NOT water weight if it has different causes. > :>> :> A lot more needs to learned about human metabolism, we aren't > :>> :> remotely close to knowing it all yet. It isn't as simple as 3500 > :>> :> calories = one extra pound of fat. > :>> > :>> It's that simple under the appropriate conditions...but trying to > :>> apply that logic to every change on the scale is not appropriate. Name appropriate conditions? There are always factors that vary to some degree. > :> Like BMI, it merely a yardstick, not a valid formula. There are many > :> exceptions. In my gym people often go to elaborate lengths to work [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > understanding all the reasons for these widely differing responses...there > is a lot of mis-info being passed around in gyms....certainly in mine.... There is misinformation being passed around in every area of life, Usenet in particular. Your issues aside, people who are defined as junkies do tend to have a more intense interest in a subject and a likely a better appreciation of its subtleties than those who remain disinterested. > :> If 3500 calories always equalled a pound in weight, I would probably > :> weight about two hundred pounds more than I do. I eat more food than [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What does "efficient metabolism" mean, exactly? Some use that term to imply > that whatever they eat turns to fat, as the food is quickly metabolized. You are referring to constructive metabolism (anabolism,) where the cells combine molecules to assemble new materials (fat), and destructive metabolism (catabolism) where they burn the stored fat. An efficient metabolism is one that does both quickly and effectively. Creates and stores fat and then burns it off on demand. There are a lot of things that can interfere with the efficiency of a person's metabolism aside from physical fitness issues. Food preservatives that slow down the oxidisation of fats being one. I eat nothing at all with preservatives added. > :> If I use the 3500 in the conventional manner to > :> calculate my daily needs it comes out at far less than I actually [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 125 to 160 could be a typical maintenance carb level for a very active > person on Atkins. Or not on Atkins. You are hardly likely to be in in ketosis at more than 150 grams of carb per day. > Increase beyond that could result in greater glycogen > stores in the liver and muscle, and could eventually lead to fat gain if one > consumes too many calories. Too many calories leads to fat gain regardless of the breakdown, high fat, high protein or high carb. > :> Like I said, it isn't that simple. I have been keeping detailed > :> records for quite a few years, on myself and on a number of other > :> gym members. > > That would be very interesting to see, those records. Why not scan them and > post them on the web somewhere? More to the point - why do it? It is a project of mine with a potentially rewarding outcome when published. I don't mind peer review, but Usenet misinterpretation is something I don't need. It would make for some interesting > discussions, if they are detailed enough. Also, it would allow us to see > just how good your personal observations are. That is condescending and rather rude. In the same vein, how would I know that you had sufficient intellect and an adequate background or experience to evaluate my work? Because, as you know, you > have to account for exercise and other daily activiy in the energy balance. Once again your logic in following a thread seen to be somewhat off. The whole issue is gym oriented. You know - exercise an all that stuff. Of course it is taken into account, > Depending on where you got your data, your statements about calories in/out > could be way, way off. They aren't. > We all vary in our responses to the same food values. > :> There are differences in what allows weight loss and weight gain and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > like wanting to eat too many of them. Others don't have those issues. So > yeah, we all vary in our responses to food. Responses to food has nothing to do with LIKING or not liking the food. Carb cravings etc., aren't what I was referring to when taking about responses to food. I was referring to the differing physiological & nutritional responses that different people have when eating exactly the same kind of food under similar conditions. SS :> On 27/9/05 4:38 AM, in article 11jgg1i52t5tt47@news.supernews.com, :> "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :> Why would I wish to discuss an issue that where I already have full :> knowledge? ?? You don't make any sense. Why would you not wish to discuss something where you have full knowledge, assuming you can have full knowledge of anything? In order to have something remain within, festering or :> not, there would have to be other very readily noticeable health :> factors involved. No discussion required, certainly not with Usenet :> denizens. Non so. There can be more-than-normal waste material inside you as a result of "a few days of excess." That could case temporary weight gain. :>> :>> It goes away as :>> :>> :> rapidly as it comes, but it isn't water weight as I am not in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] :> If you don't consider it, you can't have sufficient awareness of it :> to discuss it. This is bullshit. You even sound like Mu. If you indeed "considered" something, then you have thought of it carefully. You haven't considered this one bit, as you apparently assume you know everything. :>> :>> :> I have some theories, one is that on these occasions I am :>> :>> :> drinking [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] :> creatine to the diet - they retain more water as against "salt" :> being the cause of retaining more water. You said this: -- "What do I mean be "regenerate more than normal"? I guess that what I mean is "regenerate more than normal." Yes, that's it. Muscles do not grow or strengthen during exercise, that happens during the "rest" periods between bouts of exercise. If they have a longer rest period than normal, perhaps they regenerate more than normal. I don't exercise to build muscle, I exercise to stay fit, and so don't normally have rest days. I exercise every day, except for the times under discussion." -- There was no mention of creatine or salt at this point, dear. Also, I'm not on the salt wagon, that you with others. Also, if your muscles need "regeneration" as the result of your exercise and you're not allowing it, then you might be losing muscle mass. If they don't need regeneration, then I find it hard to believe they would "regenerate more than normal" after a few days way eating in excess. No, if you gain a couple of pounds after a weekend away and on excess, and it drops quickly after you resume, then either it is glycogen take up or "extra" sh.t. And just because you drinking plenty of fluid doesn't necessary mean that your body can't still hold extra water sometimes - under appropriate conditions (ie, those conditions which cause it to hold more water). :>> No, it's definitely not due to extra regeneration. And there is :>> nothing wrong with a regular rest day...they won't hurt your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :> did I suggest that there is anything wrong with a regular rest day? :> Where did I suggest that one might hurt my fitness? I never said you said those things. I, like you, simply added that part. You done that during this entire thread, so don't get all holy now. I simply stated :> that as I had no interest in muscle building, I didn't see the need :> to "rest". I enjoy exercise and so I exercise every day. There may be a need regardless of whether you see one or not. :>> :>> :> Sort of like :>> :>> :> when you load with Creatine, the added muscle bulk is rapid [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] :> :> Water weight is NOT water weight if it has different causes. If it's weight gain brought on my holding more water, then it's water weight. The reasons don't matter. Good grief. :>> :>> :> A lot more needs to learned about human metabolism, we aren't :>> :>> :> remotely close to knowing it all yet. It isn't as simple as [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] :> likely a better appreciation of its subtleties than those who remain :> disinterested. But that doesn't mean they have accurate information as to the reasons why things happen. I agree that they have appreciation of subtleties compared to those who have no interest, but that ain't saying much. :>> :> If 3500 calories always equalled a pound in weight, I would :>> :> probably weight about two hundred pounds more than I do. I eat [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] :> An efficient metabolism is one that does both quickly and :> effectively. Creates and stores fat and then burns it off on demand. So if you overeat then you should be gaining fat, right? Quickly, too, right? :> There are a lot of things that can interfere with the efficiency of :> a person's metabolism aside from physical fitness issues. Food :> preservatives that slow down the oxidisation of fats being one. I :> eat nothing at all with preservatives added. You should like the you have attained the holy grail of fitness, honey. :>> :> If I use the 3500 in the conventional manner to :>> :> calculate my daily needs it comes out at far less than I actually [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] :> Or not on Atkins. You are hardly likely to be in in ketosis at more :> than 150 grams of carb per day. Atkins has 4 phases....you don't need to be in ketosis always to be on Atkins. :>> Increase beyond that could result in greater glycogen :>> stores in the liver and muscle, and could eventually lead to fat :>> gain if one consumes too many calories. :> :> Too many calories leads to fat gain regardless of the breakdown, :> high fat, high protein or high carb. And did I say otherwise? I'm referring to a carb controled situation. But at another point you said it had to do with carb levels, not calories. Which is it? "If 3500 calories always equalled a pound in weight, I would probably weight about two hundred pounds more than I do. I eat more food than many guys, even when they are athletes. I have a VERY efficient metabolism. If I use the 3500 in the conventional manner to calculate my daily needs it comes out at far less than I actually eat. More than a thousand calories per day less. I still don't vary by more than a two or three pounds, year in, year out always between 105 and 108. If however, I cut back on fat and eat more carbs from bread pasta and potatoes, within just a few weeks I can go to 120 even if I don't increase the overall calorie intake. In order to lose that weight again just cutting the carbs back to the previous level isn't enough, I have to cut overall calories. My 'ideal' carb level is about 125-160. If I go over 190-200 I start to gain weight regardless of calories." :>> :> Like I said, it isn't that simple. I have been keeping detailed :>> :> records for quite a few years, on myself and on a number of other [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :> potentially rewarding outcome when published. I don't mind peer :> review, but Usenet misinterpretation is something I don't need. Well, you can get misinterpretation in places other than Usenet. I'm certain none beyond those on usenet would have much interest in your records, BTW. :> It would make for some interesting :>> discussions, if they are detailed enough. Also, it would allow us [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :> know that you had sufficient intellect and an adequate background or :> experience to evaluate my work? You sound like Mu again.... :> Because, as you know, you :>> have to account for exercise and other daily activiy in the energy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :> The whole issue is gym oriented. You know - exercise an all that :> stuff. Of course it is taken into account, You didn't mention it. Perhaps you logic in responding and making relevent points is somewhat off. :>> Depending on where you got your data, your statements about :>> calories in/out could be way, way off. :> :> They aren't. How can you be so sure? And why should anyone believe you? :>> We all vary in our responses to the same food values. :>> :> There are differences in what allows weight loss and weight gain [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] :> Responses to food has nothing to do with LIKING or not liking the :> food. :> Carb cravings etc., aren't what I was referring to when taking :> about responses to food. I was referring to the differing :> physiological & nutritional :> responses that different people have when eating exactly the same :> kind of food under similar conditions. What do you think carb craving are? > > what IS that weight gain? I mean...clearly it's not a > > :> 'real" gain of two pounds of body fat.....but what IS it? water? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it doesn't stand up to close examination because it also happens with people > who are not in ketosis, not in fact on any form of low carb diet. This part is true enough. Random water retention swing happens. With or without obvious cause. If the amount of the swing is within the random range, no amount of effort at creating a cause out of thin air will actually result in a true cause. Castles in the air are low carb, so there is a consolation prize. > but it isn't water > weight as I am not in ketosis, it isn't muscle glycogen stores, not in the > normal sense as I haven't exercised although I usually do This part misses. If you are not in ketosis your body is more subject to storing carbs in the form of glycogen, complete with the water it takes to dissolve that glycogen. Being in ketosis makes it harder for glycogen storage - the body will normally drop out of ketosis before starting to store dissolved glycogen whereever it stores it. thanks, everybody--- it is a weird phenom--clearly, ONE chimichanga cant create a 'real" gain of two pounds...but, there it is, according to the scale. Interesting stuff, metabolism. Most of the two lbs is gone, already,...which is pretty interesting, too. Onward and upward..... Lass 202/178/160 > I suppose many of us have had this experience---you "fall off", eat > something carby and the scale registers a two pound gain the next [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > LassChance Glycogen stores: http://www.primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/library/weight/scale.htm Cheers! SignatureOm. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson > I suppose many of us have had this experience---you "fall off", eat > something carby and the scale registers a two pound gain the next [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 'real" gain of two pounds of body fat.....but what IS it? water? > or...what? and why? Answer 1: The body stores carbs as glycogen, and glycogen dissolves in water. It is the stored carbs and the water it is dissolved in. Answer 2: Only two pounds of swing? My random swing is 6 pounds, so that doesn't count *at all* as gain. It is far under the amount to qualify as "having a cause". Never look at a random event and then drive yourself to finding a cause. First figure out if it is within the range of random swing. Inside the range of random swing no cause at all is needed so no amount of effort at creating a cause is going to do anything but confuse you. :> Lass Chance_2 wrote: :>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] :> amount to qualify as "having a cause". Never look at a :> random event and then drive yourself to finding a cause. I disagree with you here, Doug. It's not a random event because she went off plan. The 2 lbs may be because she didn't deviate much or perhaps she simply didn't eat a lot but had some carbs. I've had weight swings from a pound or two to 15 lbs as a result of carbing. Also, if one is steady in diet an actively engaged in weight loss, then upwards jumps are generally less likely (however, flatlining is likely). Under those conditions extra carbs can quickly drive weight up and the degree is dictated by the amount of carbs consumed. :> First figure out if it is within the range of random :> swing. Inside the range of random swing no cause at all :> is needed so no amount of effort at creating a cause is :> going to do anything but confuse you. It's always a good idea for a LCer to know what to expect as a result of going off plan. None will ever be able to pinpoint the exact cause in all cases, but knowing the possibilities gives one power. Chimichangas are not low carb, webtv idiot. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >I suppose many of us have had this experience---you "fall off", eat > something carby and the scale registers a two pound gain the next [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > LassChance |
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
|
©2009 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.