 |
 | 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 / March 2004Metabolism Crash: Fact or Fiction?
Here's the deal.....I had a Sunday "food-up" that consisted of lots of carbs and fat. Went way over my 1700-1800 kcals per day limit. To keep the weight loss going, I decided to basically not eat much for a couple of days. So, on Monday I ate 500 kcals worth of food and did 500 kcals worth of exercise on my stationary (I won't comment on the accuracy of that, but I know I lose weight doing that level of cardio consistently IF I control diet). Today I've eaten 560 kcals worth of food and did 825 kcals worth of cardio on the bike, plus a solid hour of lifting at the gym (I use short rest intervals -- less than 1 minute -- going from station to station -- deadlifts, bench, lat pulls, squats -- since my gym is not crowded after 8pm). Fitday claims that's about 385 kcals worth of exercise, even though I don't believe that (I think the cardio numbers are more accurate since that is steady continuous exercise). In terms of intake and just estimated exercise expenditure, I was even yesterday and right now I'm at a deficit today (1210-560=650). Also, I did quite a bit of walking up and down 4 flights of stairs today, and I weigh about 245 or so... So, is my metabolism going to crash? Am I going to lose some muscle mass here, or do you all expect me to go on a hellish binge in a few minutes? That thought seems to be lurking in the back of my head somewhere :) Surprisingly, I'm not that hungry. I do plan to go back to normal calorie intake tomorrow... In two days you're not going to lose much muscle or have your metabolism crash. The whole idea is absurd.  SignatureMost of us probably aren't in danger of eating too little. :) Becky P. > Here's the deal.....I had a Sunday "food-up" that consisted of lots of carbs > and fat. Went way over my 1700-1800 kcals per day limit. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Surprisingly, I'm not that hungry. I do plan to go back to normal calorie > intake tomorrow... :: In two days you're not going to lose much muscle or have your :: metabolism crash. The whole idea is absurd. That's what I think.... :: -- :: Most of us probably aren't in danger of eating too little. :) [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] ::: Surprisingly, I'm not that hungry. I do plan to go back to normal ::: calorie intake tomorrow... ||| In two days you're not going to lose much muscle or have your ||| metabolism crash. The whole idea is absurd. | | That's what I think.... That's what I think too. Roger, Buddy! You're usually the one that's giving rock-solid, level headed advice. You panicked like a schoolgirl who forgot to use a condom on her date. Sounds as if the measures you took after just one day of eating a bit too much was overkill! You'll be just fine. You have to be; we need you to be. :) SignaturePeter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo >||| In two days you're not going to lose much muscle or have your >||| metabolism crash. The whole idea is absurd. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > measures you took after just one day of eating a bit too much was > overkill! It was not unreasonable to skip one day of eating. > You'll be just fine. You have to be; we need you to be. :) This Roger seems more knowledgeable or level-headed than he really is. He simply adapted to his shortcomings to put up an impressive front. i :: In article <04b7ee0c0b51817276fc64f9adcb1459@news.teranews.com>, :: marengo wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] :: is. He simply adapted to his shortcomings to put up an impressive :: front. The word according to Ig. BTW, I'm glad I can adapt to my shortcomings. :) :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: JC Der Koenig wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: measures you took after just one day of eating a bit too much was :: overkill! :) Actually, though it may seem like a panic, it really was not. It really comes down to seeing what works. I've been noticing that my carb ups slow weight loss. I did two weeks of UD2 back in early January, and on the depletion days you're suppose to really cut calories, and then towards the end of the week you're supposed to up them (carb up style). And the idea is fat loss, mind you. I came through two weeks of that will no net change in weight, even though I did see a big increase after the carb ups. I suspected that I didn't drop calories enough. In Feb. I started reducing calories and bypassing carbs up. Steady weight loss. After the recent unplanned carb up, I just thought to myself -- look, those calories are in me and there has got to be come finite amount of time before they land on my butt as fat. What can I do to prevent that? Well, as i don't believe that a couple of days of low food intake ought to be a big deal, I just decided: my body, my science experiment (MBMSE). I was curious to see if I could hold out on eating AND workout. And guess what I found out? I can. So, just as report, on Sunday morning I weighed 245 lbs. After going off plan Sunday night, on Monday morning I was at 248 lbs. After a day of netting zero intake, I was back at 245 lbs on Tuesday morning. After upping the activity even more on Wednesday, and generating a deficit relative to exercise and intake, I found myself slightly over 240 lbs this morning. I don't believe that's real fat loss, so we'll see where I'm at toward the end of the week. BTW, felt great in the gym last night. I assure you I'm not about to go nuts....hmm....nuts....maybe I should get some... :: You'll be just fine. You have to be; we need you to be. :) :: -- :) > I did two weeks of UD2 back in early January, and on the depletion > days you're suppose to really cut calories, and then towards the end > of the week you're supposed to up them (carb up style). And the > idea is fat loss, mind you. I came through two weeks of that will > no net change in weight, even though I did see a big increase after > the carb ups. I'm on week six of UD2. My weight is still the same, but my %bf has been dropping pretty consistently. I suspect the partitioning trick in UD2 really works for me. Note: I added up all the calories in the plan, and it averages out to about maintenance for me. I guess the whole point is to decide where those calories go. OTOH, UD2 isn't designed for guys with more than 12% bf or so anyway :-P Anyway, after eight weeks of UD2 I'll probably go back to plain old fat loss for a while. :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> writes: ::: I did two weeks of UD2 back in early January, and on the depletion [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] :: OTOH, UD2 isn't designed for guys with more than 12% bf or so anyway :: :-P The way I understood Lyle's point, was that UD2 is not intended for folks with more than 12% bf....I'm not sure that it won't work. And I've never bothered measuring %bf....how do you do it so that you know it is accurate? How can you be sure even the trends are accurate? I can easily accept a scale weight change, a size/measurements change, or visual changes via looking in a mirror. Maybe I'll get some calipers, though. :: Anyway, after eight weeks of UD2 I'll probably go back to plain old :: fat loss for a while. Why? It's working right? > The way I understood Lyle's point, was that UD2 is not intended for > folks with more than 12% bf....I'm not sure that it won't work. Well, it works for me and I'm at 19%. He just claims that it's not optimal above 12%, suggesting instead an isocaloric diet with slightly reduced calories. > And I've never bothered measuring %bf....how do you do it so that > you know it is accurate? How can you be sure even the trends are > accurate? I've got Slimguide calipers. Pat does all the measurements on me, plus circumferences, every week. > :: Anyway, after eight weeks of UD2 I'll probably go back to plain > :: old fat loss for a while. > > Why? It's working right? Like you, I can lose fat faster without the carb-ups. It's doing what it's supposed to be doing, but it's not optimal for my goals. And the diet gets boring pretty quickly ;-) :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> writes: ::: The way I understood Lyle's point, was that UD2 is not intended for [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] :: what it's supposed to be doing, but it's not optimal for my goals. :: And the diet gets boring pretty quickly ;-) And I think to some degree, maybe even a large one, I'm getting tired of dieting. Hence, getting way from carbups, especially massive ones, is going to be part of my plan. But I couple of days of low-calorie eating every once in a while will probably be part of it too. > And I think to some degree, maybe even a large one, I'm getting tired of > dieting. Hence, getting way from carbups, especially massive ones, is going > to be part of my plan. But I couple of days of low-calorie eating every > once in a while will probably be part of it too. What is the difference between a "carb up" and a binge. What kind of food are you overeating on your "carb up" days. You say you are tired of dieting. This makes me confused, as I supposed that you will have to be dieting forever. That makes it a bit too early to be tired of dieting if you are still 245 lbs. i :: In article <c2nn67$1us4dd$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>, Roger :: Zoul wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :: What is the difference between a "carb up" and a binge. What kind of :: food are you overeating on your "carb up" days. A carb up is basically low fat eating, not junk food. So a typical day would be stuff like rice, bread, oatmeal, potatoes...protein foods, but I would avoid lots of fat...so no cookies, potato chips, ice cream, etc. A carb up has a purpose. typically, the carb up is more than maintenance calories, BTW. But one can certainly question how much is enough. What I did that lead to this was not a carb up. :: You say you are tired of dieting. This makes me confused, as I :: supposed that you will have to be dieting forever. Good point. I should have said I'm tired of trying to lose weight. That doesn't mean I'm going stop trying to lose weight, btw. I'm basically saying "let's get on with it". I plan to diet for the rest of my life. :: That makes it a :: bit too :: early to be tired of dieting if you are still 245 lbs. One is tired when one is tired. However, being tired of doing something, at least for me, doesn't necessarily imply quitting. In this case, it implies working harder. > What is the difference between a "carb up" and a binge. What kind of > food are you overeating on your "carb up" days. A carb up is 12-16 g/kg of glucose and glucose polymers over a 24-36 hour period (amounts and times vary). Sources include both high GI (glucose candies, breads) and low GI (pasta, starchy veggies) sources. Protein is kept at 1g/lbm, fat at a healthy minimum. The purpose of a carb up is to infuse glucose directly into fat and muscle cells to stimulate beneficial metabolic changes. A binge is when you eat whatever gets too close to your mouth. >> What is the difference between a "carb up" and a binge. What kind of >> food are you overeating on your "carb up" days. > > A carb up is 12-16 g/kg of glucose and glucose polymers over a 24-36 > hour period (amounts and times vary). Thanks DJ. So, for a 245 lbs (110kg) person such as Roger, a carb up is equivalent to 1.32 to 1.76 kg of carbs. Let's assume the middle number, 1.5 kg of carbs,or about 3 lbs of carbs. That is equivalent to 6,000 calories. For me, at 173 lbs, a carb up would be 1170 grams of carbs, or 4,600 calories. It is an enormous amount, as my normal maintenance level calorie intake is 2,400 calories. I have not eaten this much in a very long time and cannot imagine what would happen to me if I tried. Probably nothing good. Such a carb up is what I call a bad binge. > Sources include both high GI (glucose candies, breads) and low GI > (pasta, starchy veggies) sources. Protein is kept at 1g/lbm, fat at > a healthy minimum. The purpose of a carb up is to infuse glucose > directly into fat and muscle cells to stimulate beneficial metabolic > changes. What are those beneficial changes, stemming from eating 6,000 calories in one day? > A binge is when you eat whatever gets too close to your mouth. If eating 6,000 calories in one day is not a binge, I do not know what is a binge. i >>> What is the difference between a "carb up" and a binge. What kind of >>> food are you overeating on your "carb up" days. >> >> A carb up is 12-16 g/kg of glucose and glucose polymers over a 24-36 >> hour period (amounts and times vary). Is it really 12g/kg? That's obscene! For me, that's about 4,600 calories in one day (and just carbs -- you're going to get some protein and fat). > Thanks DJ. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > i Although it could be over 36 hours, or 4k cals one day and 2k calls the first 12 hours of the next. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply > Is it really 12g/kg? That's obscene! For me, that's about 4,600 > calories in one day (and just carbs -- you're going to get some > protein and fat). Sorry, 12-16g/kg lean body mass (LBM). It still seems obscene, and it's HARD to eat that much of the proper foods, but I've been lowering %bf so it seems to be doing what it claims. > Although it could be over 36 hours, or 4k cals one day and 2k cals > the first 12 hours of the next. Ideally, you could spread it over a 48 hour period, but UD2 is trying to fit the whole cycle into a week so it gets compressed. There are alternate plans for an 8 day cycle with a 48 hour carb-up. The UD2 7 day plan starts the carb-up Thursday night (with a workout) and ends it Saturday morning (with another, different, workout). > Ideally, you could spread it over a 48 hour period, but UD2 is trying > to fit the whole cycle into a week so it gets compressed. There are > alternate plans for an 8 day cycle with a 48 hour carb-up. The UD2 7 > day plan starts the carb-up Thursday night (with a workout) and ends > it Saturday morning (with another, different, workout). DJ, I personally read UD2 (and sold my copy through amazon used book sales program thereafter). It is for people who already have low to normal (under 15%) bodyfat percentage and want to go even lower. Perhaps someone will correct me, but it says that much pretty explicitly. It is not for fat people trying to lose weight. It is for not fat people trying to become very lean. Roger is not quite there yet. i > DJ, I personally read UD2 (and sold my copy through amazon used book > sales program thereafter). It is for people who already have low > to normal (under 15%) bodyfat percentage and want to go even lower. Yes. I mentioned that before. :: In article <xnbrn4h063.fsf@delorie.com>, DJ Delorie wrote: ::: Ideally, you could spread it over a 48 hour period, but UD2 is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] :: explicitly. It is not for fat people trying to lose weight. It is for :: not fat people trying to become very lean. It says it probably won't work any better for the overfat than a regular weight loss diet. That does not imply that it won't work in either furthering fat loss or maintaining or increasing muscle mass. The latter two items are important to me. While my weight didn't change after doing UD2 for two weeks (it did change wildly over that period, up 10 lbs after a carb up (done right) -- and gone before the end of the next week), I did feel stronger and it is my notion that I have more mass in my legs, chest, and arms. But since I don 't measure bodyfat, I can't say that with any confidence. The other thing that factors in is that it presents something new. Different training (glycogen depletion is hard work) and different eating (LF vs LC). If I were to do UD2 again, I'd cut calories ever further over the depletion days (also LC days) and not increase them as much over the carb up days. And that is based on having gone through these last two very low calorie days. I believe I could produce weight loss over the span of a week this way. BTW, I did UD2 back in January. I haven't done any carb ups since then, with the exception of the Sunday binge. :: Roger is not quite there yet. My body, my science experiment. > So, for a 245 lbs (110kg) person such as Roger, a carb up is Oops, I left out a key fact - all the numbers are for LBM, not total weight. If Roger has 150 lbs LBM, that's 800-1100 g of carbs. I, for example, have 130 lbs LBM. That's 710g to 945g of carbs, plus 130g protein and 50g fat, for a total of 3810 to 4750 calories over a 36 hour period. > equivalent to 1.32 to 1.76 kg of carbs. Let's assume the middle > number, 1.5 kg of carbs,or about 3 lbs of carbs. That is equivalent to > 6,000 calories. 3200-4400, plus another 1200 or so from protein and fats. > For me, at 173 lbs, a carb up would be 1170 grams of carbs, or 4,600 > calories. It is an enormous amount, as my normal maintenance level > calorie intake is 2,400 calories. I have not eaten this much in a > very long time and cannot imagine what would happen to me if I > tried. Probably nothing good. You'd gain about 6-8 lbs of water and you'd do freakishly well at the gym. > Such a carb up is what I call a bad binge. No, the key is that it's not BAD when done right. It's specifically designed to do certain things, and you have to be strict about it. A BAD binge is one with too much fructose or too much fat, or not enough protein, or too LITTLE fat. Doing it right is harder than you'd think, especially as you have to prepare for it days in advance. > What are those beneficial changes, stemming from eating 6,000 > calories in one day? 1. You can supersaturate muscle glycogen. Combined with creatine loading, you can get substantial increases in strength, allowing you to stress muscles more and thus (hopefully) cause more muscle growth. My strength has gone up every week for the last 6 weeks. My chest press, for example, went from 130lbs to 170lbs (yup, finally pressing bodyweight!). 2. You can trick fat cells into producing more leptin, which (in theory) increases your metabolism and thus burns more fat during the low calorie days which follow. Not useful if %bf is high enough to keep leptin levels up there, though. 3. "Done properly" includes pre-training to deplete muscle glycogen, so that the incoming carbs will NOT be stored or used for weight gain or other things. The muscles will suck up nearly all of the available glucose. Some hits the fat cells for leptin, but effectively none should be converted to fat by the liver. You really need to read the book (UD2 by Lyle, or BodyOpus by Dan) to understand the biology behind it. > > A binge is when you eat whatever gets too close to your mouth. > > If eating 6,000 calories in one day is not a binge, I do not know what > is a binge. The difference is that a binge is indiscriminate, a carb up is not. :: Ignoramus21909 <ignoramus21909@NOSPAM.21909.invalid> writes: ::: So, for a 245 lbs (110kg) person such as Roger, a carb up is :: :: Oops, I left out a key fact - all the numbers are for LBM, not total :: weight. If Roger has 150 lbs LBM, that's 800-1100 g of carbs. I'd bet it's higher than that by a good bit. I used to lift when I was younger (did football and was on the wrestling team in HS) and developed quite powerful legs. I'm pretty wide across the shoulders, too. At very low bodyfat, I would never be little. I have a huge rib cage that shows no signs of getting smaller, either. :: I, for example, have 130 lbs LBM. That's 710g to 945g of carbs, plus :: 130g protein and 50g fat, for a total of 3810 to 4750 calories over a [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] :: :: The difference is that a binge is indiscriminate, a carb up is not. > :: Ignoramus21909 <ignoramus21909@NOSPAM.21909.invalid> writes: > ::: So, for a 245 lbs (110kg) person such as Roger, a carb up is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > signs > of getting smaller, either. 150 pounds isn't much. Roger, are you following any type of Body Opus or Ultimate Diet program? I'd buy one of these books, but I only plan on lifting two days a week and biking three, with biking beginning to take more and more time. I'm planning on riding two centuries this year (the first in June; the next one in September). I don't think that these diets are for bikers. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply > I'd buy one of these books, but I only plan on lifting two days a > week and biking three, with biking beginning to take more and more > time. UD2 has a page for endurance training, using intervals instead of weights for the workouts. Again, probably not optimal unless you're already leaner than average. >> I'd buy one of these books, but I only plan on lifting two days a >> week and biking three, with biking beginning to take more and more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > weights for the workouts. Again, probably not optimal unless you're > already leaner than average. No, in fact I've still about 40 pounds to lose, which hurts me in more ways than one (the main reason is that I'd like to go on some bike club rides, but I'm too slow to keep up with the better riders due to my weight but too in shape to go with the C riders as I ride too long for them). SignatureBob M in CT remove 'x.' to reply You sure make a lot of excuses. SignatureMost of us probably aren't in danger of eating too little. :) Becky P. > >> I'd buy one of these books, but I only plan on lifting two days a > >> week and biking three, with biking beginning to take more and more [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > rides, but I'm too slow to keep up with the better riders due to my weight > but too in shape to go with the C riders as I ride too long for them). :: On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 17:45:27 -0500, Roger Zoul :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] :: 150 pounds isn't much. Roger, are you following any type of Body :: Opus or Ultimate Diet program? I was doing UD2 back in January. Right now I'm just doing straight weight loss via LC and exercise. I'd buy one of these books, but I :: only plan on lifting two days a week and biking three, with biking :: beginning to take more and more time. I'm planning on riding two :: centuries this year (the first in June; the next one in September). :: I don't think that these diets are for bikers. I'm going to lift 3x per week and ride 3x-4x per week starting next week, hopefully. Rides will be tuesday, thursday, Sat and Sun (longer ones on weekends). I may change things depending on how they go... UD2 is geared toward weight loss, so generally speaking, getting lighter helps biking...and don't want to lose muscle mass by doing mainly cardio activities, even though I plan to do a lot. [cut] > I'm going to lift 3x per week and ride 3x-4x per week starting next week, > hopefully. Rides will be tuesday, thursday, Sat and Sun (longer ones on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > helps biking...and don't want to lose muscle mass by doing mainly cardio > activities, even though I plan to do a lot. One thing I used to find was that heavy legs (squatting, etc.) takes the "oomph" out of your legs for biking. What I plan on doing is having a day of rest on Friday so that I can ride a long distance on Saturday morning. SignatureBob M in CT remove 'x.' to reply :: On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:55:45 -0500, Roger Zoul :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :: having a day of rest on Friday so that I can ride a long distance on :: Saturday morning. I see...my plan is to just punch through it as best I can. My legs are definitely heavy, but on calorie restriction I don't think they'll be getting bigger, just stronger and lighter, hopefully. > I'd bet it's higher than that by a good bit. Hard telling, not knowing. This is where %bf measurements help a lot. > And I think to some degree, maybe even a large one, I'm getting > tired of dieting. Hence, getting way from carbups, especially > massive ones, is going to be part of my plan. But I couple of days > of low-calorie eating every once in a while will probably be part of > it too. Yup. A change is as good as a a rest. This is a big "it depends". On mfw there are stories of folks who have to carb up every few DAYS to keep their metabolism running at peak when they're trying to cut. But, they're extra lean. The more body fat you carry around, the less likely you'll crash that quickly, but the part of the leptin response that's keyed to calorie intake seems to respond pretty quickly to intake changes (few days). The key factor is whether the OTHER part of the leptin response (adipose stores) remains strong enough to keep the brain happy. I think you've got a couple days "free pass" from the Sunday carbs. Whether you lose muscle mass or not, I think depends on your protein intake and lifting - enough of those two and you should be OK. BTW I had a day like yours today. UD2 depletion day - two circuits, 9 exercises, 3x15 each (total 54 sets), followed by 800 kcals of cardio (65 minutes). All that and only 1200 kcals food intake. Subtract my BMR and I'm down half a pound! (yeah, right) :: This is a big "it depends". On mfw there are stories of folks who :: have to carb up every few DAYS to keep their metabolism running at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: key factor is whether the OTHER part of the leptin response (adipose :: stores) remains strong enough to keep the brain happy. Has this leptin thing really been fleshed out in the literature well? It all seems so complex and I can't help but wonder if all the variables that factor in are really well understood. But I'm certain I don't need to carb up, I mainly do it because I can relax a bit. However, if it's going to prevent further weight loss, I won't do it. :: I think you've got a couple days "free pass" from the Sunday carbs. :: Whether you lose muscle mass or not, I think depends on your protein :: intake and lifting - enough of those two and you should be OK. Well, as I said in my post to Peter, on Sunday morn I was at 245. On Monday, 248. On Tuesday, 245, and today, 240+ (slightly over). I don't want to post what I ate on Sunday, either (it was really okay up until Sunday night). If I end up at 244 or 43 tomorrow, I'm be pleased. :: BTW I had a day like yours today. UD2 depletion day - two circuits, :: 9 exercises, 3x15 each (total 54 sets), followed by 800 kcals of :: cardio (65 minutes). All that and only 1200 kcals food intake. :: Subtract my BMR and I'm down half a pound! (yeah, right) Okay -- see my post to Peter. I did two weeks of UD2 in January...I came out of it weighing the same. Now I know to drop calories more on the depletion days (and maybe limit the carb up time, too) -- and I know I can get through them, too. I had previously had concerns about getting crazy hungry on really low-cal days with heavy exercise, so now I may do UD2 for another couple of weeks. One thing I like about it is that I can eat in a more relaxed way on weekends (switching over to low fat days). This past Sunday I was on a date with a new lady and she wanted onion straws. Since she is an aerobics instructor, she has no issues with weight. I didn't want to not eat any as I felt that would make her uncomfortable. So, with a little more control applied to not go nuts, I can make UD2 work by following the weekend with some extra low calorie eating and heavy exercise (depletion workouts). > Has this leptin thing really been fleshed out in the literature well? Probably not, it still a pretty recent research topic. Anecdotal evidence is pretty strong though, but only in the really lean folks. The coming years will see more thorough research on it, but it seems to have a solid start. In a nutshell: leptin levels are controlled partly by diet and partly by body composition. The diet part changes pretty quickly. The brain only needs to see a certain level of leptin; more than that changes nothing. So, if the body comp part keeps it above that level, diet won't have any effect. The individual factor is where the line is drawn, and how lean you have to be for diet to start coming in play. > It all seems so complex and I can't help but wonder if all the > variables that factor in are really well understood. But I'm > certain I don't need to carb up, I mainly do it because I can relax > a bit. However, if it's going to prevent further weight loss, I > won't do it. Do you track your temperature? That might be a better indicator of metabolism changes than anything else. Unless you want to spend $1500 for a personal metabolism checker ;-) > One thing I like about it is that I can eat in a more relaxed way on > weekends (switching over to low fat days). I discovered that weekends are the days I need to watch the most. UD2 has a fixed amount of protein and fats each day, with only the carbs varying - and on the weekend, moderate carbs should add up to maintenance calories. That's the hardest part of the whole week! Especially since that's when we do restaurants and have the folks over for dinner, etc. :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> writes: ::: Has this leptin thing really been fleshed out in the literature [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :: individual factor is where the line is drawn, and how lean you have :: to be for diet to start coming in play. That's an interesting point. I should assume that my bf levels are high enough that I don't need to worry about the diet part. Not knowing bf levels has certain pros and cons :) ::: It all seems so complex and I can't help but wonder if all the ::: variables that factor in are really well understood. But I'm [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :: metabolism changes than anything else. Unless you want to spend :: $1500 for a personal metabolism checker ;-) Nope...I can easily start that....however, I'm not worried about it. If I control diet and exercise, I lose weight. ::: One thing I like about it is that I can eat in a more relaxed way on ::: weekends (switching over to low fat days). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :: Especially since that's when we do restaurants and have the folks :: over for dinner, etc. Right. And I've found that I can easily, even now after over 120 lbs lost, consume a boat load of calories -- no matter whether they be LC calories (high fat) or LF calories (high carb). So I need to learn to moderate my carb ups. > > Has this leptin thing really been fleshed out in the literature well? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > factor is where the line is drawn, and how lean you have to be for > diet to start coming in play. The context for this discussion is the lower end of BF%, but it works at the higher end as well. Folks with 100+ to lose rarely stall if they stay at 20 grams per day, so it appears that much extra BF will produce enough to statisfy the brain's minimum. Folks with less to loss often stall if they stay at 20 grams per day, so it appears they need the extra leptin triggered by dietary carbs to trigger the brain's minimum. The trouble is both thresholds are statistical trends and have exceptions. Some folks with 100+ to lose DO stall if they stay at 20, just not many. Some folks with as little as 20 to lose do NOT stall if they stay at 20, just not many. Pointing out an exception to the rule doesn't disprove a statistical trend, but very many people want absolute certainty and they freak out at any exceptions. > Folks with less to loss often stall if they stay at 20 grams per > day, so it appears they need the extra leptin triggered by dietary > carbs to trigger the brain's minimum. Given that it takes a kilogram or more of dietary carbs to effect the leptin output of fat cells (based on carb-up recommendations), I doubt this effect has anything to do with the difference between 20g or 100g of carbs/day. Note that people on low fat diets have leptin problems too, and do carb ups. It's not just a low carb thing. > :: This is a big "it depends". On mfw there are stories of folks who > :: have to carb up every few DAYS to keep their metabolism running at [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > up, I mainly do it because I can relax a bit. However, if it's going to > prevent further weight loss, I won't do it. I've played guinea pig in a couple for medical research over the last few years. So I'm always looking for studies to sign up for. One that I really wanted recently was a full body MRI scan for a body composition study, but because I work out more than 3 days a week I was excluded. Anyway... I looked into being apart of a leptin study. Check out the details at: http://www.rucares.org/clinicalstudies/protocol.php?id=63 I could do the shots, its the 6-8 weeks of in hospital baseline time that I couldn't do. When good leptin studies do finally come out, knowing what some people had to go through to provide the information might make you value it even more. SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm Rudy, Interesting. The leptin study is being conducted by one of the researcher whose work is profiled at length in the "Fat: Fighting the Obesity Epidemic" book. His techniques are so much more rigorous than the usual "we asked people what they ate and concluded that eating our product led to weight loss" garbage that you are always reading in the medical news. I look forward to learning what they find out! -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > > :: This is a big "it depends". On mfw there are stories of folks who > > :: have to carb up every few DAYS to keep their metabolism running at [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: DJ Delorie wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] :: people had to go through to provide the information might make you :: value it even more. Interesting....I'd never be able to follow something like that....I would hope that they'd at least pay students something....but you're right...such studies would be important and those who allow themselves to be part of the study provide a big help that could lead to valuable information. Roger, If you are doing huge carb ups, how do you control your diabetic blood sugars or don't you? -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > ::: DJ Delorie wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > studies would be important and those who allow themselves to be part of the > study provide a big help that could lead to valuable information. :: Roger, :: :: If you are doing huge carb ups, how do you control your diabetic :: blood sugars or don't you? Well, I don't eat a pile of sugar and I workout hard. Also, I'm not really doing that many carbup these days. I did two in January (one lasted 1.5 days and the other only 1 day) and had that binge last Sunday night. The two in January consisted of low fat eating -- stuff like rice and bread, potatos, veggies, protein foods, etc. No sugar junk, either. I was a good low-fat poster body. At my current weight and exercise level, I maintain good control. Now, if I were to spin out of control and stay that way for longer than a day or two, with no cardio and lifting, I expect I'd be in trouble. I simply have no plans to do that. Roger, You mustn't be very diabetic, or are you on meds? My body doesn't distinguish between sugar and starch when it comes to boosting blood sugars. If I eat 60 grams of bagel, I'm going to see a blood sugar in the 200s, which is something I avoid at all costs because it feels like death warmed over now that I'm usually under 120. I wonder if it is possible to do a refeed in smaller bits--15 gram doses every hour and a half rather than all at once? I like the idea of boosting the leptin if possible. Though perhaps I am getting some of this when I cycle back and forth between my 80 gram weeks and 40 gram weeks. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > :: Roger, > :: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > with no cardio and lifting, I expect I'd be in trouble. I simply have no > plans to do that. > I wonder if it is possible to do a refeed in smaller bits--15 gram > doses every hour and a half rather than all at once? I like the > idea of boosting the leptin if possible. Though perhaps I am getting > some of this when I cycle back and forth between my 80 gram weeks > and 40 gram weeks. Refeeds are normally spread out like that anyway, but it's more like 100g carbs every two hours "by the book". You could do 50g an hour, I suppose, and low GI is fine. I don't think you'll see any leptin related changes without taking in enough carbs to overflow into fat cells, and that's a lot of carbs. But experimenting with smaller carb-ups is probably a good idea for diabetics, and it might do something useful anyway. One never knows. One experiment every two weeks is probably a reasonable schedule. > Refeeds are normally spread out like that anyway, but it's more like > 100g carbs every two hours "by the book". You could do 50g an hour, I > suppose, and low GI is fine. I don't think you'll see any leptin > related changes without taking in enough carbs to overflow into fat > cells, and that's a lot of carbs. I'm pretty clueless about leptin. Would someone kindly point me to a webpage that has a leptin primer? TIA, Chakolate SignatureNot to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality. --Bertrand Russell > I'm pretty clueless about leptin. Would someone kindly point me to a > webpage that has a leptin primer? http://www.delorie.com/health/ See the box in the upper right. DJ, I checked out your daily calorie calculator, but the results it returns are W-A-Y off for me. For starters, the lean body mass it gives me is 9 pounds lower (9%) than what I get when they do body fat measurements with calipers. . Also the target weight the calculator sets for me would be downright anorexic. The calories it set me are what I eat to maintain, not lose. You really need to factor in gender and age. They make a big difference. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > > I'm pretty clueless about leptin. Would someone kindly point me to a > > webpage that has a leptin primer? > > http://www.delorie.com/health/ > > See the box in the upper right. > I checked out your daily calorie calculator, but the results it returns are > W-A-Y off for me. For starters, the lean body mass it gives me is 9 pounds > lower (9%) than what I get when they do body fat measurements with calipers. They're way off for me too. I need to add spaces for the user to enter their own %bf and a few other things, for when they measured them themselves. Body frame size is probably another one. > Also the target weight the calculator sets for me would be downright > anorexic. ;-) > The calories it set me are what I eat to maintain, not lose. Me too. > You really need to factor in gender and age. They make a big difference. Send me the math! I can make it happen, but until I know what the correction factors are, I'm stuck. DJ, I don't know what the correction factors are, but the guy at the Y who did my last BF analysis had a book full of tables that he used to look up an age and gender correction once he had done the measurements and done some calculations. Maybe Rudy can help? -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > > I checked out your daily calorie calculator, but the results it returns are > > W-A-Y off for me. For starters, the lean body mass it gives me is 9 pounds [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Send me the math! I can make it happen, but until I know what the > correction factors are, I'm stuck. > I don't know what the correction factors are, but the guy at the Y > who did my last BF analysis had a book full of tables that he used > to look up an age and gender correction once he had done the > measurements and done some calculations. If you're doing caliper measurements, yeah, there's standard corrections. The thing is, I'm NOT doing caliper measurements on the web page. It just uses the BMI to figure ideal weight, for example. Very crude. Maybe I'll just apply the caliper adjustments to the guess and hope it's closer ;-) >> I checked out your daily calorie calculator, but the results it returns are >> W-A-Y off for me. For starters, the lean body mass it gives me is 9 pounds [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >enter their own %bf and a few other things, for when they measured >them themselves. Body frame size is probably another one. Whoa! It told me that my ideal body weight is 30837 pounds! I'm 5'1.5'' tall, and I didn't want to lose "credit" for that extra half inch, so I put my height in in centimeters (156). It gave me some bizarre results. I tried 5'1 and 5'2 in feet/inches, and they looked much more reasonable. Then I realized that it was using the 156 as _meters_, not centimeters. (I tried 1.56 "centimeters" and it worked.) It was odd being told that my lean body mass was higher than my total weight -- but it was fun having a negative body fat percentage :-) Em > Whoa! It told me that my ideal body weight is 30837 pounds! That's the fun part of this job ;-) > I'm 5'1.5'' tall, and I didn't want to lose "credit" for that extra half > inch, so I put my height in in centimeters (156). It gave me some bizarre > results. I tried 5'1 and 5'2 in feet/inches, and they looked much more > reasonable. Then I realized that it was using the 156 as _meters_, not > centimeters. (I tried 1.56 "centimeters" and it worked.) Both fixed. You can type in 5'1.5 for height if you want (without losing the half inch), and centimeters is now really centimeters. > It was odd being told that my lean body mass was higher than my total > weight -- but it was fun having a negative body fat percentage :-) The math is naive. >Both fixed. You can type in 5'1.5 for height if you want (without >losing the half inch), and centimeters is now really centimeters. Thanks. That half inch is important to us shorties. :-) Em >> I'm pretty clueless about leptin. Would someone kindly point me to a >> webpage that has a leptin primer? > > http://www.delorie.com/health/ > > See the box in the upper right. Thanks! Chak SignatureNot to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality. --Bertrand Russell DJ, Fifty grams of carbs an hour would push my blood sugar up into the 300s after a couple hours. Very dangerous! The most I can handle (still with a significant rise in blood sugars) is about 30 grams an hour--one time--and then I have to wait for 3 hours for that to clear before taking in any more. One thing people don't realize is that if you go over a certain blood sugar threshold (somewhere between 200 and 300 mg/dl) your insulin resistance goes way up, which makes it much harder for the body to bring the blood sugar back down again. So if you are diabetic, you can mess up your blood sugar, literally, for days, if you overdo the carbs too badly. Why this is relevant to dieters here is that probably half of them are undiagnosed diabetics who have been told they are normal based on a fasting blood sugar test that only diagnoses people with diabetes when they have reached blood sugar levels that correspond to the beginning of diabetic blindness. (That is how it was set, to avoid "misdiagnosing" people as diabetic who still had a chance to reverse the process.) Carb loading often when your blood sugar is capable of going over 200 mg/dl would damage your beta cells and could reduce your beta cell mass, making you more diabetic, much more quickly. And it does damage eyes, kidneys and nerves. So if that's what it takes to do a leptin refeed, it looks like I'll have to try something else. The most carbs I've eaten in a day this past 15 months is 120 grams and it was not a fun experience. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > > I wonder if it is possible to do a refeed in smaller bits--15 gram > > doses every hour and a half rather than all at once? I like the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > diabetics, and it might do something useful anyway. One never knows. > One experiment every two weeks is probably a reasonable schedule. > Fifty grams of carbs an hour would push my blood sugar up into the > 300s after a couple hours. Very dangerous! I didn't say it was a good idea. The problem with refeeds is that most of the talk about them happens between lean healthy people, not diabetics or the overweight. So, not much of it (aside from the fundamental biology) is going to be useful. The purpose of a refeed is to elevate blood glucose levels high enough and long enough to force glucose into fat cells. Since your BG is abnormal, you'll have to figure out what to do yourself. > One thing people don't realize is that if you go over a certain > blood sugar threshold (somewhere between 200 and 300 mg/dl) your > insulin resistance goes way up, In UD2, most of the week is spent preparing for the carb up. Four days of low carb, low fat, long workouts, results in your body being very insulin sensitive. From the time you start carbing to the time the sensitivity drops is the "window of opportunity" for the carb-up. > Why this is relevant to dieters here is that probably half of them are ... overweight enough that the carb-up trick just isn't useful, either. Even among the lean and fit, carb-ups are a YMMV thing. > So if that's what it takes to do a leptin refeed, it looks like I'll > have to try something else. I think we all agree to that. We just don't know what the "something else" is for diabetics. You'd have to ask Lyle if it's total carbs, or prolonges BG elevation, which is key. >> Fifty grams of carbs an hour would push my blood sugar up into the >> 300s after a couple hours. Very dangerous! [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > very insulin sensitive. From the time you start carbing to the time > the sensitivity drops is the "window of opportunity" for the carb-up. Low carb and low fat? There's no way I'm doing that diet, regardless of how good it is for working out. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply > Low carb and low fat? There's no way I'm doing that diet, regardless > of how good it is for working out. For reference, the LC days are 1-1.5 g/lb lbm protein (130-190g for me), no more than 60g carbs, and sufficient fat to get to 1200 kcals or 50% maintenance, whichever is higher (20-50g for me). They are the least exciting days of the week, yes. :: Roger, :: :: You mustn't be very diabetic, or are you on meds? With me, it has always been weight related -- the heavier I am, the more problems I have with diabetes. When I get the weight under a certain amount, my BG is more controllable. I've been off meds for a good while now. I was under the impression that this was true for a lot of really heavy people.... My body doesn't :: distinguish between sugar and starch when it comes to boosting blood :: sugars. If I eat 60 grams of bagel, I'm going to see a blood sugar :: in the 200s, which is something I avoid at all costs because it :: feels like death warmed over now that I'm usually under 120. Yeah, I could eat a bunch of bagels without problems. :: I wonder if it is possible to do a refeed in smaller bits--15 gram :: doses every hour and a half rather than all at once? Sure. I'm not sure if it would be "optimal" or not...but not everything has to be optimal. I like the :: idea of boosting the leptin if possible. Though perhaps I am getting :: some of this when I cycle back and forth between my 80 gram weeks [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] ::: than a day or two, with no cardio and lifting, I expect I'd be in ::: trouble. I simply have no plans to do that. Roger, If you were able to reverse your diabetes with weight loss (which a very small number of people can do) you are fortunate. However, the fact that you could become diabetic when your body is stressed (in your case by weight) means that you need to keep monitoring and restricting carbs because the underlying defect still exists and over time it will whittle away more of your beta cells. I was only diabetic while pregnant and 50 pounds heavier than usual in my 30s. I'm diabetic now no matter what I weigh. In fact, one of the most depressing things about this last stint of weight loss was that I was so sure that if I could get back to my old non-diabetic weight, I wouldn't be diabetic. But at 137 lbs I still had rotten blood sugar response. That's because I no longer have anywhere near as many living beta cells as I had when I was younger, because high blood sugars in the intervening 18 years gradually killed them off, though I was not running diabetic level blood sugars, just moderately elevated ones. So if you eat a ton of carbs you should monitor. If you are going over 140 mg/dl at 2 hours after intake, you are still lowly destroying your beta cells. There's been some discussion about this on alt.support.diabetes, and I've been doing some research lately reading old studies to see what truly normal blood sugars looks like, and what I'm coming up with suggests that 2-h post meal numbers over 140 mg/dl spell big trouble over time. In fact, even numbers over 120 mg/dl might be. The way that it works, which most people don't realize, is that in an insulin resistant person blood sugar response stays fairly level for many, many years, until 85% of beta cells die. At that point there's a "whoosh" upwards and within 3 years you can go from almost normal blood sugar to diabetic as the next 5 and 10% of the cells die off. Since you've already been diabetic, you know that your beta cells aren't normal. A normal obese person simply makes more beta cells. An obese person with early diabetes starts losing cells when they try to divide. This seems to be one of the early defects of diabetes. So it is likely that you've already lost some of your beta cells already. However, with less weight you need less beta cells to keep your blood sugar under control. But exposure to post-meal high blood sugars can destroy more of those cells without your realizing it. So I hope you do monitor your after meal numbers when you carb up and don't let them get high enough to work slow damage. 140 mg/dl at 2 hours is a wake up call. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > :: Roger, > :: [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > ::: than a day or two, with no cardio and lifting, I expect I'd be in > ::: trouble. I simply have no plans to do that. > Roger, > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > when you carb up and don't let them get high enough to work slow damage. > 140 mg/dl at 2 hours is a wake up call. Is there a book that summarizes it all? I ordered _Dr Bernstein's diabetes solution_, but have not received it yet. i You can't do better than Dr. B's book. I just spent the last day rereading it for the fourth time and still found new things I hadn't noticed before. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > > Roger, > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > i :: Roger, :: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: restricting carbs because the underlying defect still exists and :: over time it will whittle away more of your beta cells. I agree. In fact, I don't consider my diabetes reversed...I consider it to be "under control". And I do monitor, though not during carbups since typically I'm eating all the time. :: I was only diabetic while pregnant and 50 pounds heavier than usual :: in my 30s. I'm diabetic now no matter what I weigh. In fact, one of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :: So if you eat a ton of carbs you should monitor. If you are going :: over 140 mg/dl at 2 hours after intake, Yeah, that would be hard....since on a carb up I'd probably eat something within two hours... you are still lowly :: destroying your beta cells. There's been some discussion about this :: on alt.support.diabetes, and I've been doing some research lately :: reading old studies to see what truly normal blood sugars looks :: like, and what I'm coming up with suggests that 2-h post meal :: numbers over 140 mg/dl spell big trouble over time. In fact, even :: numbers over 120 mg/dl might be. What does 'over time' mean? Other than January this year, when I did UD2, it has been rare that I'd carb up more than once in a month. I don't need to. And prior to that I'd be watching carbs strictly and working out hard. Does any of your data track people who really *try* to burn calories hard with cardio and weight training? :: The way that it works, which most people don't realize, is that in :: an insulin resistant person blood sugar response stays fairly level :: for many, many years, until 85% of beta cells die. At that point :: there's a "whoosh" upwards and within 3 years you can go from almost :: normal blood sugar to diabetic as the next 5 and 10% of the cells :: die off. Is there a test for remaining beta cells? :: Since you've already been diabetic, you know that your beta cells :: aren't normal. A normal obese person simply makes more beta cells. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: cells already. However, with less weight you need less beta cells to :: keep your blood sugar under control. Right. :: But exposure to post-meal high blood sugars can destroy more of :: those cells without your realizing it. So I hope you do monitor :: your after meal numbers when you carb up and don't let them get high :: enough to work slow damage. 140 mg/dl at 2 hours is a wake up call. No, I haven't been doing that. I typically monitor the day after when my levels might be 90- 100 (usually 80), since usually I'm eating all the time. I'm still wondering what 'slow damage' and 'over time' means, though. But you're right, at 45 I don't want to lose any more beta cells and risk having more severe control issues down the road. That definitely would not be worth carbing up for -- and the line must be drawn somewhere! Not only that, but I don't have to do a day carb up either. In fact, I'll do a single meal carb up (just a normal meal with carbs) at the end of March and track at one hour intervals afterwards. i'm going to have a A1c test done next Friday, too. I get two a year. My last one was 4.8, as you know. :: -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 :: diabetes, hba1c 5.2. [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] :::::: longer than a day or two, with no cardio and lifting, I expect :::::: I'd be in trouble. I simply have no plans to do that. Roger, There are bits and pieces scattered around medical journals describing how blood sugar control deteriorates. Nothing ties it all together yet. A couple important things: some people lose fasting blood sugar control but maintain their 2-hr glucose tolerance. I.e. they don't spike to 200 mg/dl after a lot of carbs but wake up over 126 mg/dl. . These tend to be heavy people with intense insulin resistance.The way diabetes is diagnosed in the US--using the fasting test--these are the main group of folks getting diagnosed. There is another group, more common in some European populations and among older women, who are not necessarily fat and may not be terribly insulin resistant, but who see deteriorated 2-hr glucose response but maintain normal or near normal fasting blood sugar. That's the group I fall into. We seem to be the folks who have a problem with our beta cells dying off for some reason. Eventually when enough beta cells go, our fasting control goes too. Finally, there are folks who fit both categories--lousy fasting blood sugar and lousy post-meal values. This happens to obese insulin resistant people after a long time of elevated fasting blood sugars. Whatever your path, when you have lost both 2-hr response and fasting response, you probably have said good bye to 85% of your beta cells and blood sugar control can deteriorate from mildly diabetic to utterly screwed (300 mg/dl and over) in a matter of just a few years. There is still a huge debate in the research world about what exactly it is that kills off the beta cells in type 2s. High blood sugar levels, high levels of circulating FFA, some defect in the cells that causes them to self-destruct when they reproduce, Amyloid deposits in the pancreas catalyzed by apolipoprotein-e, etc etc. But there is some very good evidence that high circulating blood sugar levels will kill healthy beta cells implanted into otherwise completely normal mice. Which is why you want to avoid high post meal blood sugar levels at all times. The only way to estimate how many beta cells you have is to have a C-Peptide test done which shows how much circulating insulin you have. If there's a huge amount, then you still have cells. As the cells die off, the C-peptide levels come down, until when you are completely insulin dependent, you have none left. I've got a bunch of stuff to read on this subject and not a lot of time to read it right now, but I will report back when I get to it. --Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > :: Roger, > :: [quoted text clipped - 153 lines] > :::::: longer than a day or two, with no cardio and lifting, I expect > :::::: I'd be in trouble. I simply have no plans to do that. :: Roger, :: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] :: cells die off, the C-peptide levels come down, until when you are :: completely insulin dependent, you have none left. Is this a common test? I'm going to the doctor next friday so maybe I ought to see about getting this one done. I also need to check my records as it may have been part of the tests they do. :: I've got a bunch of stuff to read on this subject and not a lot of :: time to read it right now, but I will report back when I get to it. Thanks for the info, Jenny! :: --Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 :: diabetes, hba1c 5.2. [quoted text clipped - 179 lines] ::::::::: longer than a day or two, with no cardio and lifting, I expect ::::::::: I'd be in trouble. I simply have no plans to do that. Roger, C-Peptide is not unusual, but it isn't often done by family doctors. It is usually used to determine whether a diabetic patient is producing insulin and hence is truly type 2 or is instead an adult-onset type 1. I have been wanting to get one done since the more research I do, the more I'm starting to think I have one of the genetic variant types of type 2 diabetes that result in beta cell death rather than the more common kind where people develop insulin resistance from being overweight. Nothing else explains how I could have developed the first signs (gestational diabetes) long before I had a significant weight problem. Or why weight loss seems to have no effect on it. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > :: Roger, > :: [quoted text clipped - 234 lines] > ::::::::: longer than a day or two, with no cardio and lifting, I expect > ::::::::: I'd be in trouble. I simply have no plans to do that. Roger, FWIW, the research into metabolic rate that was cited in the Pool book (required reading for anyone interested in the science of dieting) showed that the metabolism drop occurs when people lose 10% of starting body weight and does NOT decline after that. It was measured at about 16%. Obviously there is lots more diet research to be done, but I wouldn't worry if I were you. My own observations have been that when I eat under 1000 calories for a few days (which happens only when I get a bad stomach virus) I naturally compensate in the upcoming week once I feel better. But my other observation has been that I can gain real fat weight, not water, by boosting my calories for as little as a week and the gain does not correspond to the 3,500 calories = a pound theory. I don't know what the explanation is, but it has happened not once but twice since I hit my goal weight. And it's incredibly hard to get those new pounds to go away once they appear. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > Here's the deal.....I had a Sunday "food-up" that consisted of lots of carbs > and fat. Went way over my 1700-1800 kcals per day limit. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Surprisingly, I'm not that hungry. I do plan to go back to normal calorie > intake tomorrow... Roger, Having had a really nasty metabolic slowdown from chronic undereating-- that required medical intervention -- my guess, which is JMO, is that cycling your calories is not going to be catabolic unless you 1. don't eat enough protein (think Dave Draper) 2. do too much cardio and not enough lifting (cardio is catabolic) and 3. don't go up enough on your high days. When I was studying canine nutrition before I started preparing my own dogfood, I had a professor tell me the most sensible thing I had ever heard in any classroom setting. He expanded Dr. Billinghurst's two week balance into almost a life philosophy. Basically, he said that you shouldn't worry about *daily* food, diet, water, exercise, insert topic of concern here, everything needs to be added up and averaged over a two period. With the exception of studying his course material, which should be done daily with no exceptions<G> :)Robyn > Basically, he said that you shouldn't worry about *daily* food, diet, water, > exercise, insert topic of concern here, everything needs to be added up and > averaged over a two period. Two what? Days? Weeks? Years? >From: DJ Delorie dj@delorie.com >> Basically, he said that you shouldn't worry about *daily* food, diet, >water, >> exercise, insert topic of concern here, everything needs to be added up and >> averaged over a two period. > >Two what? Days? Weeks? Years? Whoops -- I meant to say "two week." Anyway, the theory being that your dog's body (or your own) has a variety of different hormonal and metabolic cycles and that if you obsess over perfect balance at all times you are never going to get it 100% perfect, but if you total up two weeks worth of food (or whatever) & divide it by 14 it should work out to proper balance by the day. I know I am not explaining it as well as he did -- that's why he's the Prof:)Robyn ::: From: DJ Delorie dj@delorie.com :: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] :: I know I am not explaining it as well as he did -- that's why he's :: the Prof:)Robyn I got the point. :) :: Roger, :: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: much cardio and not enough lifting (cardio is catabolic) and 3. :: don't go up enough on your high days. I had 35 grams of protein on Monday, and 34 on Tuesday. That doesn't seem like enough. However, that's coming up today. I'm not going to bring calories back any higher than what I was shooting at for weight loss -- around 1800 to 2000 per day. I can get plenty of protein at that level. I'm obvouisly going to continue lifting, and I'm going to do regular cardio -- at least 40 minutes per day on WT days and 80 minutes on non WT days -- with a day off on weekends. I'm not doing any HIIT in cardio right now...just long slow cardio...The deadlifting and squats I do at the beginning of my workouts gets my HR up there. :: When I was studying canine nutrition before I started preparing my :: own dogfood, I had a professor tell me the most sensible thing I had [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: diet, water, exercise, insert topic of concern here, everything :: needs to be added up and averaged over a two period. Two-week period? If so, that would seem to make some sense as we know the body has to have some finite response time to input/output in terms of eating and exercising. That reasoning was part of my thinking in doing this. :: With the exception of studying his course material, which should be :: done daily with no exceptions<G> :: :: :)Robyn > :: When I was studying canine nutrition before I started preparing my > :: own dogfood, I had a professor tell me the most sensible thing I had [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > body has to have some finite response time to input/output in terms of > eating and exercising. Conveniently enough, Induction lasts two weeks on the Atkins core process, and very many types of plan start out with an initial two weeks that are more extreme than the rest of the plan. Two weeks appears *all over* the place. It makes sense in that context. The one I can think of off hand is the T3 drop in VLCD that happens after a two week delay: http://www.lowcarb.org/josh_yelon/topic3.html There are 3 listed studies. The first explains the biochemical basis for the standard post-Induction pause, the reason that most folks lose best near that CCLL not at 20, why so many stall if they stay at 20, and hints why folks who stay low over 6 months can fall out of ketosis Eskimo-style. > Serum T4 was not significantly affected during the VLCD. This implies that low carbing is not bad for the thyriod. The thyroid serves as a throttle, but it does not appear to be harmed by low carbing if T4 levels are any indication. > Although serum T3 decreased during the VLCD for both groups, > the decrease occurred faster and to a greater magnitude in > LC (34.6% mean decrease) than HC (17.9% mean decrease). This shows that thyroid is *how* weight loss gets throttled while low carbing. As the level of thyroid decreases, the general metabolic rates goes down as well. > Both groups exhibited similar progressive decreases in RMR > during treatment (12.4% for LC and 20.8% for HC) This explains why no matter what plan you follow, early loss rates are higher than later loss rates. > but values were not significantly lower than baseline until > week 3 of the VLCD. Bingo. This study has located the metabolic cause of the standard post-Induction pause in week 3. *Extremely* interesting. The initial loss during Induction is fast because the body has not had time to become more efficient. The sticks test dark early on then and then move towards light in week 3 just as the study predicts. > dietary carbohydrate content had an influence on the > magnitude of fall in serum T3 ... Folks, HERE is the CORE of why less is not more. Eat too little carbs, and your thyroid turns down its output. Eat enough carbs and the thyroid does not turn down its output. This is why finding your CCLL works better for most than staying low. > RMR declined similarly for both dietary treatments. Something similar happens to low fat folks, but the study did not identify what it was. Here is the entire text of the abstract. The effect of varying carbohydrate content of a very-low-caloric diet on resting metabolic rate and thyroid hormones. Mathieson RA, Walberg JL, Gwazdauskas FC, Hinkle DE, Gregg JM Metabolism 1986 May;35(5):394-398 Twelve obese women were studied to determine the effects of the combination of an aerobic exercise program with either a high carbohydrate (HC) very-low-caloric diet (VLCD) or a low carbohydrate (LC) VLCD diet on resting metabolic rate (RMR), serum thyroxine (T4), 3,5,3'-triiodothyronine (T3), and 3,5,3'-triiodothyronine (rT3). The response of these parameters was also examined when subjects switched from the VLCD to a mixed hypocaloric diet. Following a maintenance period, subjects consumed one of the two VLCDs for 28 days. In addition, all subjects participated in thrice weekly submaximal exercise sessions at 60% of maximal aerobic capacity. Following VLCD treatments, participants consumed a 1,000 kcal mixed diet while continuing the exercise program for one week. Measurements of RMR, T4, T3, and rT3 were made weekly. Weight decreased significantly more for LC than HC. Serum T4 was not significantly affected during the VLCD. Although serum T3 decreased during the VLCD for both groups, the decrease occurred faster and to a greater magnitude in LC (34.6% mean decrease) than HC (17.9% mean decrease). Serum rT3 increased similarly for each treatment by the first week of the VLCD. Serum T3 and rT3 of both groups returned to baseline concentrations following one week of the 1,000 kcal diet. Both groups exhibited similar progressive decreases in RMR during treatment (12.4% for LC and 20.8% for HC), but values were not significantly lower than baseline until week 3 of the VLCD. Thus, although dietary carbohydrate content had an influence on the magnitude of fall in serum T3, RMR declined similarly for both dietary treatments. Comments: they split 12 women into two groups of 6. Half were given a 1000-calorie low-carb diet, the other half a 1000-calorie high-carb diet. The metabolic rate of the low-carbers declined by 12.4%, the metabolic rate of the high-carbers declined by 20.8%. > But my other observation has been that I can gain real fat weight, not > water, by boosting my calories for as little as a week and the gain does not > correspond to the 3,500 calories = a pound theory. I don't know what the > explanation is, but it has happened not once but twice since I hit my goal > weight. And it's incredibly hard to get those new pounds to go away once > they appear. one ounce of chocolate (unsweetened chocolate baking squares)reliably adds half a pound to my weight. Two ounces = 1 pound. This added weight is just as hard to get rid of, as if it was fat. That happens even though I do not notice any overeating on those chocolate days. As a result, eating chocolate is more trouble than it is worth. i :: Roger, :: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: of starting body weight and does NOT decline after that. It was :: measured at about 16%. Interesting. I was not aware of this. I'll have to look into the Pool book. Is that the author's name? :: Obviously there is lots more diet research to be done, but I :: wouldn't worry if I were you. Interesting that you all think I'm worried. I'm not. I've done the carb up thing many times before, and I know I could have simply resumed normal eating and eventually things would have settled out. But sometimes you've just got to take things to the next level one way or another. Well, I do, anyway. :: My own observations have been that when I eat under 1000 calories :: for a few days (which happens only when I get a bad stomach virus) I :: naturally compensate in the upcoming week once I feel better. Well, I'm not going to make up for undereating, since I overate before hand :) :: But my other observation has been that I can gain real fat weight, :: not water, by boosting my calories for as little as a week and the :: gain does not correspond to the 3,500 calories = a pound theory. I :: don't know what the explanation is, but it has happened not once but :: twice since I hit my goal weight. And it's incredibly hard to get :: those new pounds to go away once they appear. Interesting. All the morereason to get back on my normal plan and not try to compensate the other way. :: -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 :: diabetes, hba1c 5.2. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] ::: Surprisingly, I'm not that hungry. I do plan to go back to normal ::: calorie intake tomorrow... I've definitely reached the conclusion that, unless I believe a calorie increase or carb up to be absolutely necessary (such as riding my bike one day and trying to ride the next day), I don't want to do them. The weight that goes on after a day of carbing up takes a long time to come off, and it's more frustrating than anything else. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply :: I've definitely reached the conclusion that, unless I believe a :: calorie increase or carb up to be absolutely necessary (such as :: riding my bike one day and trying to ride the next day), I don't :: want to do them. The weight that goes on after a day of carbing up :: takes a long time to come off, and it's more frustrating than :: anything else. See my post to Peter! :) Not eating much for a couple of days is really not that hard. I never felt badly. Just a little hungry at times, but I would just drink some liquid or eat some lettuce and wait it out. Still, I can see your point. But as I said somewhere, there are times when not following the plan strictly has merit. So a compensation doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me. Roger, The book is Fat: Fighting the Obesity Epidemic by Robert Pool. It was published in 1998. I read it back then and just reread it and found it well worth rereading. It isn't a "how to" book, but is a look at the history of weight research and how the theories have changed over time in response to lab findings. He describes many of the important studies and more importantly their limitations. There is a lot about the Rockefeller lab where they fed people carefully mixed formulas, established their caloric needs, feed them for as long as a year and measured their metabolisms by recapturing everything. Intriguing stuff. It doesn't weigh in on the question of what to eat, but focuses on issues like discredited psychological theories, set points, the famous OB and Diabetes mice, the discovery of leptin, and the history of various diet medications. Your public library should have a copy. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > :: Roger, > :: [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > ::: Surprisingly, I'm not that hungry. I do plan to go back to normal > ::: calorie intake tomorrow... Thanks, Jenny....I'll check tomorrow.... :: Roger, :: :: The book is Fat: Fighting the Obesity Epidemic by Robert Pool. It :: was published in 1998. I read it back then and just reread it and :: found it well worth rereading. > FWIW, the research into metabolic rate that was cited in the Pool book How old is that research? Recent stuff that Lyle's found indicates that for some folks, the leptin drop can happen in just a few days of cutting calories, and that's aside from the weight-loss related changes. > Here's the deal.....I had a Sunday "food-up" that consisted of lots of carbs > and fat. Went way over my 1700-1800 kcals per day limit. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Surprisingly, I'm not that hungry. I do plan to go back to normal calorie > intake tomorrow... We were made to not eat once in a while. I would not worry over one day not eating. It is just a short break from food. I fast every Thursday and am gaining muscle mass. i :: In article <104svtt2eenr24c@corp.supernews.com>, Roger Zoul wrote: ::: Here's the deal.....I had a Sunday "food-up" that consisted of lots [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] :: day not eating. It is just a short break from food. I fast every :: Thursday and am gaining muscle mass. I'm aware that you fast every Thursday. I'm not worried in the least as I had off plan events many times and I know how to ride them out. I just wanted to generate discussion on the metabolic crash that people like to talk about a lot here. > So, is my metabolism going to crash? Am I going to lose some muscle mass > here, or do you all expect me to go on a hellish binge in a few minutes? > That thought seems to be lurking in the back of my head somewhere :) Is your metabolism going to crash and greatly lower you metabolism for the long haul? Probably not. Are you going to lose a pound of muscle mass? Maybe not. But there are two issues that I'll bring up regarding what you're doing and what I've had to learn the hard way. At your age and current training level, how much real muscle mass can you put on in a year? By real muscle mass (MM) I'm talking fiber change and not the numbers that go up due to creatine/glycogen loading. And let's make it to fit your current situation where you're trying to add/keep mass while not gaining too much BF -- unlike someone who's lean and more than willing to add on BF to gain LBM. OK, take that number and divid it by weeks. For myself, female, 43, been training hard for years... It would a dream for me to add 5 lbs of MM in a year while trying not to gain much BF -- 3 lbs might be more likely. That's with some hard training, watching my food intake, timing everything to optimize effect... all the lifestyle efforts combined. It comes out to around 1 oz. of MM a week. From my point of view, I'm not going to give up a weeks worth of work just to see the number on the scale (or caliper) change QUICKLY. Could you have covered you carb-up damage across several days and not risked losing an oz. of LBM? If you could have, yet choose to play a more risky hand, why? You know I've done TKD and CKD for many years and been LCing for a while now. I've done 60-120 min. of cardio after carb-ups or periods off plan eating to deplete my liver. But I make efforts to insure my protein levels are high and I'll eat and rest to aid recovery -- and yet I still worry about any LBM loss. Personally its been really tempting to tie myself to the exercise wiping post and punish myself by undereating as a way to cover whatever damage (real or perceived) that poor eating choices might have caused. But I've learned that it would be a one step back, and likely just a step forward -- basically running in place. I've also learned to place great value on recovery -- after having a soft tissue injury and repeated bouts overtraining, or even how easy it is to get colds during weeks where I've overstressed my body, the importance of recovery has finally sunk into my brain. As boring as it seems, and often is, moderate and measured dietary adjustments is what has ended up working for me to make progress both in gaining/keeping LBM and in losing BF. Woven into the above is the underlying reasons of why? Why go so overboard in over-eating/over-carbing? Then why feel like you have to make up ground on that damage so quickly and with the risk? I've been in maintenance for some time now and yet I have to work on not overeating, LC or not LC, all the time. While I have no problem exercising, I often have a hard time keeping my eating in line. After 9/11 I gained around 10-15lbs and just haven't been willing to work too hard on my eating plan to get it off. The last couple of years have been good for gaining some LBM, but not for leanness. This year I decided that I wanted to get back down into the BF% teens again by this summer (I've been hovering around 20-23% for most of the time). So it been food logs and watching for that .5 lb difference each week. No big WOW, no big dramatic numbers to validate my hard work. Yet in the last two months the accumulative effect has produced results. I think that if you did a survey of people who have long term success at being fit, having low BF% and who have stayed generally heathy you would be more likely to find a theme of moderation and consistence verse dramatic swings extreme eating and exercising. Just things for you to think about. SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm :: Roger Zoul wrote: :: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :: At your age and current training level, how much real muscle mass can :: you put on in a year? Good question. I like to think I'm gifted, but I'm probably dreaming :) By real muscle mass (MM) I'm talking fiber :: change and not the numbers that go up due to creatine/glycogen :: loading. And let's make it to fit your current situation where [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :: a weeks worth of work just to see the number on the scale (or :: caliper) change QUICKLY. Interesting. :: Could you have covered you carb-up damage across several days and not :: risked losing an oz. of LBM? If you could have, yet choose to play a :: more risky hand, why? Well, it wanted to see if I could 1) manage not eating, 2) avoid the fat gain associated with those extra calories. Others here have talked about fasting...how hard is that really to do? I think I learned something from it. :: You know I've done TKD and CKD for many years and been LCing for a :: while now. I've done 60-120 min. of cardio after carb-ups or periods [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :: would be a one step back, and likely just a step forward -- basically :: running in place. Yeah....believe it or not, I was lookin for the "running in place" solution. :: I've also learned to place great value on recovery :: -- after having a soft tissue injury and repeated bouts overtraining, :: or even how easy it is to get colds during weeks where I've :: overstressed my body, the importance of recovery has finally sunk :: into my brain. That's an interesting point. How does calorie intake over a two-day period affect recovery from exercise? In my case, I don't feel overtrained at all. :: As boring as it seems, and often is, moderate and measured dietary :: adjustments is what has ended up working for me to make progress both :: in gaining/keeping LBM and in losing BF. Sure. :: Woven into the above is the underlying reasons of why? Why go so :: overboard in over-eating/over-carbing? Then why feel like you have :: to make up ground on that damage so quickly and with the risk? Well, I don't think it is logical. The overeating part is easy to understand....the compensation part is due, in part I think, to my overall boredom with losing weight. But still there is a desire to test my limits, and that another reason for doing it. And believe it or not, the exercise part wasn't really risky. Also, two days of not eating much for someone my size is probably not risky either. Thirdly, I don't believe this metabolic crash theory, either, as I've said in another thread. :: I've been in maintenance for some time now and yet I have to work on :: not overeating, LC or not LC, all the time. While I have no problem :: exercising, I often have a hard time keeping my eating in line. Me too. :: After 9/11 I gained around 10-15lbs and just haven't been willing to :: work too hard on my eating plan to get it off. The last couple of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :: would be more likely to find a theme of moderation and consistence :: verse dramatic swings extreme eating and exercising. I certainly do not doubt that. I'll tell you this, though. I'd personally rather be starting from low BF% (or normal) and eating to gain muscle than trying to gain muscle while still being fat. That may seem all backwards, but getting to normal bf levels is something I want to do. Once I get there I feel it would be okay to actively try to gain mass, but not until. And I've gained a good bit of muscle since I started working out in Sept. 2002. Somehow I don't think two day of severe calorie restriction following one day of eat too much will have much impact on my muscle mass. But I guess that will be an unknown really, since I don't track bf%. :) > Well, it wanted to see if I could 1) manage not eating, 2) avoid the fat > gain associated with those extra calories. Others here have talked about > fasting...how hard is that really to do? I think I learned something from > it. For me, fasting is not very hard, as it turned out. I found that if I eat a fatty dinner on Wednesday, and eat less carbs on that meal, then it is relatively easy. Before my first fasting day, I was afraid as I never experienced not eating. It turned out to be not the end of the world. After a few times, it became even easier. i Roger, Why don't you track body fat percent? Because you have been so large in the past, it is quite possible you have more bone and muscle than you think. Bone grows to support all that weight, as does muscle. It doesn't go away when you lose. When I got tested, it was quite heartening. The standard charts and BMI numbers put me at the very top of "normal" but the body fat percentage (done a couple different times by different people) but me in a much more fit category. That's important psychologically. Plus it let me estimate my actual LBM which is useful for figuring out what I need to eat. Because you have lost such an enormous amount of weight, I wonder how much of the stuff you have left really is fat (as opposed to sagging skin and connective tissue?) It might just take some time for some of that stuff to reabsorb which it will do, if my experience after a 50 lb weight gain in pregnancy is anything to go by. It took about two years for all that stretched out stuff to go way and I never got back to the original weight even though I got back to the original body composition and clothing size because I did put on some extra bone etc (my feet are a size bigger now, for example.) -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > :: [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > have much impact on my muscle mass. But I guess that will be an unknown > really, since I don't track bf%. :) :: Roger, :: :: Why don't you track body fat percent? Because you have been so large :: in the past, it is quite possible you have more bone and muscle than :: you think. There is a natural tendency to over estimate. But barring that, I tend to get go by what I see in the mirror and what i can grab in my hand. I have a good bit of muscle in my legs, arms, and shoulders. :: Bone grows to support all that weight, as does muscle. It :: doesn't go away when you lose. right. :: When I got tested, it was quite heartening. The standard charts and :: BMI numbers put me at the very top of "normal" but the body fat [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :: how much of the stuff you have left really is fat (as opposed to :: sagging skin and connective tissue?) I don't know, but I do know I have more fat to lose. That's why I don't claim a goal weight. I figure i'll know once I get there. It might just take some time :: for some of that stuff to reabsorb which it will do, if my :: experience after a 50 lb weight gain in pregnancy is anything to go [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: did put on some extra bone etc (my feet are a size bigger now, for :: example.) I hope my feet don't get any bigger :) I'd hate to have to buy new shoes, too. :) I probably will get a body fat test done once I get to where I think I'm in a "normal" or healthy range. Until then, I don't see the point. :: -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 :: diabetes, hba1c 5.2. [quoted text clipped - 135 lines] ::: much impact on my muscle mass. But I guess that will be an unknown ::: really, since I don't track bf%. :) > There is a natural tendency to over estimate. But barring that, I tend to > get go by what I see in the mirror and what i can grab in my hand. I have a > good bit of muscle in my legs, arms, and shoulders. > I probably will get a body fat test done once I get to where I think I'm in > a "normal" or healthy range. Until then, I don't see the point. Because, while you might be able to notice some degree of BF levels going down, what's harder to see is the ratio of how much MM your losing in the process. Even a slightly inaccurate gage could catch you before you've done too much harm. I often have a hard time convincing some people to get a caliper BF% test. Some have never heard of it or don't understand the concept. Some are just afraid due to the physical exposure or the personal contact it requires when some else test. But I think there are a few who understand the whole process and rationale but don't want to get it done because because of control issues. They don't want another person to tell them a number -- they they can't trust a person to be correct, but can trust a machine. But I think quiet a few know that they can't manipulate the BF% number the same way they can the scale. Get a bad scale weight and there are all sorts of things you can do to make it change to give you number better to your liking. You can't manipulate the BF% in the same way. Its not it 100% accurate but your can see acceptable ranges. When I test people I often show them how close they are to other estimates -- i.e. if they're just recently out of an age category, or it the total millimeter number is just one away from the next level. Usually its not more than a .2 difference (24.6% vs. 24.2%). SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm :: Roger Zoul wrote: :: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] :: losing in the process. Even a slightly inaccurate gage could catch :: you before you've done too much harm. Good point. :: I often have a hard time convincing some people to get a caliper BF% :: test. Some have never heard of it or don't understand the concept. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: because of control issues. They don't want another person to tell :: them a number -- they they can't trust a person to be correct, I do admit that the trust thing is a part of it...I don't want to waste money when I'm obviously fat. but :: can trust a machine. I guess it would depend on teh machine...one of those BF scales -- no way would I trust them. But I think quiet a few know that they can't :: manipulate the BF% number the same way they can the scale. Get a bad :: scale weight and there are all sorts of things you can do to make it :: change to give you number better to your liking. You can't :: manipulate the BF% in the same way. :) Well, I don't think that applies to me. I know I'm fat. What I probably don't want to know if that I'm 25% fat. See, ignorance is bliss... :: Its not it 100% accurate but your can see acceptable ranges. When I :: test people I often show them how close they are to other estimates :: -- i.e. if they're just recently out of an age category, or it the :: total millimeter number is just one away from the next level. :: Usually its :: not more than a .2 difference (24.6% vs. 24.2%). Well, I'd trust you to do it, but not some random person who might be doing them here....not until I got a feel for how careful they are. :: -- :: Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: :: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > :: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > I guess it would depend on teh machine...one of those BF scales -- no way > would I trust them. I think mine Tanita is actually pretty accurate in the sense that it doesn't vary a lot per day. It's also very good for monitoring over time your bodyfat. I also think it's relatively accurate in the sense that if you weigh yourself at night, the BF reading will be darn close to your real BF reading. With a scale, you could use the calipers, determine a baseline and see how this compares to the scale, then use the scale for tracking in the interim. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply > > Well, it wanted to see if I could 1) manage not eating, 2) avoid the fat > gain associated with those extra calories. Others here have talked about > fasting...how hard is that really to do? I think I learned something from > it. Avoiding some fat gain is good. Jeopardizing your ability to make some muscle mass (MM) gains maybe not so good. I just have a strong focus on making and keeping MM and I'm just not willing it for a speedy BF loss. I also think that while not eating much for a couple of days and exercising could be difficult, sticking to a set moderate calorie range every day without any variation for over a month is HARD -- that's a real test of day-in, day-out fortitude. I can just do around 3 weeks before I go for some variation -- that's my human flaw. > :: Personally its been really > :: tempting to tie myself to the exercise wiping post and punish myself > :: by undereating as a way to cover whatever damage (real or perceived) > :: that poor eating choices might have caused. But I've learned that it > :: would be a one step back, and likely just a step forward -- basically > :: running in place. > > Yeah....believe it or not, I was lookin for the "running in place" solution. From another post: > Funny thing...Sunday I > was at 245, Monday (after the binge) I was at 248, Tuesday, at 245, and > Wednesday, at 240-1 (between). I get the impression that maybe you didn't run in place, but that you could have lost some ground. If you were 245 on Sunday AM (before any glycogen restock,etc.) then ended up at 241-240 on Wednesday AM -- I would wouldn't be surprised if you did use up some of your protein resources. Using a 4lbs loss, do you believe that you burned off 14,000 of stored FFA in 2 days without your body tapping into your MM in the least? We cann't know for sure exactly, but makes me suspect that you did. But I had wanted my original post in total to be more concerning how dieting frustration would lead to repeated cycles of food indulgences followed by drastic calories reduction coupled with intense exercise. How many cycles would it take to have an larger more measurable impact on your MM and metabolism? Its a hard question, but my answer is that I wouldn't be willing to intentionally risk losing even an once MM because its too hard to make/keep. > :: I've also learned to place great value on recovery > :: -- after having a soft tissue injury and repeated bouts overtraining, > :: or even how easy it is to get colds during weeks where I've > :: overstressed my body, the importance of recovery has finally sunk > :: into my brain. > > That's an interesting point. How does calorie intake over a two-day period > affect recovery from exercise? In my case, I don't feel overtrained at all. Overtraining comes from weeks/months of hard training and not allowing the body to adequately recover, or not giving it enough to recover with. If you were someone who hadn't been working out much or hadn't been dieting at all, then I'd say you'd suffer little from your two day bout. However, as I understand it form your past post, you've been training almost daily an hour and half(plus), doing HIIT and dieting. (I haven't been reading very many post lately -- maybe you've changed your workout.) But, yes, I do think that you have already had your body exposed to high levels of cortisol for some time now and that you immune (and nervous) system might be hit harder from a two-day period of high stress... more so than someone else. Plus, its not like you just wake up one day and feel overtrained. Its a slow process that you often see upon reflection... "oh yea, I've had more colds this season", "yea, I don't feel like doing as much as I use to", or worse "why did my tendon tear"? Just FYI, one of the signs of overtraining is feelng fatigue but having a hard time sleeping. That's usually my big clue. > :: Woven into the above is the underlying reasons of why? Why go so > :: overboard in over-eating/over-carbing? Then why feel like you have > :: to make up ground on that damage so quickly and with the risk? > > Well, I don't think it is logical. The overeating part is easy to > understand....the compensation part is due, in part I think, to my overall > boredom with losing weight. But still there is a desire to test my limits, > and that another reason for doing it. I can understand that. Of course you know that I'd be the last person so say that you shouldn't train hard and test yourself, I put my body through marathon training. But you know what, it didn't really help much in keeping me lean. In fact I believe it cost me too much muscle and therefore set me back. That's probably were this rant comes from. Unfortunately hard work and sacrifice don't always pay off, sometimes it takes working smarter and having great patience. You tested your limits on a very short term attempt that could have been motivated by dieting frustration. Frustration can get the best of you. I just think now might be a good time to step back and look at the bigger picture. > And believe it or not, the exercise part wasn't really risky. Also, two > days of not eating much for someone my size is probably not risky either. > Thirdly, I don't believe this metabolic crash theory, either, as I've said > in another thread. I don't believe there's a large crash for short periods of undereating. But I do ~believe~ that the body is amazing at adaptation. That sending it stress signals frequently, consistently and combining it with inadequate nutrition and it learns to store and use fuel more efficiently. Unfortunately no body knows exactly what that effect is, or how to avoid it. But I do know is that I've never met anyone who said the last few pounds of BF loss were as easy to lose as the first. I also have learned that friends/co-worker who seem to have an easier time keeping BF% low are those with higher than average amounts of MM. So keeping and building MM is a personal priority, higher than that of BF loss. Again, its not a "crash" that I'm concerned about after a couple of days. Its the accumulative effect of poor training and dieting due to general dieting frustration. So you maybe you lost an ounce or two of MM, or maybe just the ability to make an ounce this week, in the course of a if year you make more gambles and risk more, yada, yada, yada... you end up wasting your MM and ultimately your time/effort. That's the running in place I'm harping about. > I'll tell you this, though. I'd personally rather be starting from low BF% > (or normal) and eating to gain muscle than trying to gain muscle while still > being fat. That may seem all backwards, but getting to normal bf levels is > something I want to do. Once I get there I feel it would be okay to > actively try to gain mass, but not until. And I've gained a good bit of > muscle since I started working out in Sept. 2002. Somehow I don't think two > day of severe calorie restriction following one day of eat too much will > have much impact on my muscle mass. But I guess that will be an unknown > really, since I don't track bf% Don't take this wrong, but maybe you've been reading too much about people who are body building and who are already at lower BF% levels. I thought we were talking about you losing BF and getting fit, right? I'm talking about valuing every ounce of muscle you have in your body right now, while you lose small, but consistent amounts of BF. Working hard just to keep that what MM you have being is worth the effort. If you're extremely lucky you might be able to gain just a couple of pounds of MM over the course of a year simply by consistent truing. I don't think you should be thinking about going through cycles of "mass gains" and dieting the same way a body build would. For people that have a lot of BF to lose, I don't buy into the, "I'm going to diet and exercise down to a normal weight then work on adding muscle," mode of thinking. It strikes me as counter productive and not the path that works for me. The loss of a few ounces of MM here and there might not seem like a big deal or even noticeable at the time. But when you multiple the small losses across time it adds up: waste just 2lbs of muscle in the course of one year and in 5 years and those 2 lbs will cost your the ability to burn 109500 cals or around 31 pounds (I use 30 cals per pound, even being stingy and only giving MM 15 cals per pound that's 15.5 pounds). So I'm not willing to risk even an ounce. I can't image how much BF I would have gained back these last couple of years if I didn't have the MM have have now. > And I've gained a good bit of > muscle since I started working out in Sept. 2002. Somehow I don't think two > day of severe calorie restriction following one day of eat too much will > have much impact on my muscle mass. But I guess that will be an unknown > really, since I don't track bf%. :) Right you don't know from where your body pulled resources to met your glucose or rebuilding needs during those two day, but I'm very willing to bet that if pulled some from the AA pool at worse and hindered you're possibility of any building during at best. Did you lose pounds of muscle and now suffer from a much slower metabolism now. Probably not. But I think you could have keep from regaining BF from your one-day uptake, and not caused yourself any setback. It would have just taken a longer time period to do so. SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm > > Well, it wanted to see if I could 1) manage not eating, 2) avoid the fat > gain associated with those extra calories. Others here have talked about > fasting...how hard is that really to do? I think I learned something from > it. Avoiding some fat gain is good. Jeopardizing your ability to make some muscle mass (MM) gains maybe not so good. I just have a strong focus on making and keeping MM and I'm just not willing it for a speedy BF loss. I also think that while not eating much for a couple of days and exercising could be difficult, sticking to a set moderate calorie range every day without any variation for over a month is HARD -- that's a real test of day-in, day-out fortitude. I can just do around 3 weeks before I go for some variation -- that's my human flaw. > :: Personally its been really > :: tempting to tie myself to the exercise wiping post and punish myself > :: by undereating as a way to cover whatever damage (real or perceived) > :: that poor eating choices might have caused. But I've learned that it > :: would be a one step back, and likely just a step forward -- basically > :: running in place. > > Yeah....believe it or not, I was lookin for the "running in place" solution. From another post: Funny thing...Sunday I was at 245, Monday (after the binge) I was at 248, Tuesday, at 245, and Wednesday, at 240-1 (between). I get the impression that maybe you didn't run in place, but that you could have lost some ground. If you were 245 on Sunday AM (before any glycogen restock,etc.) then ended up at 241-240 on Wednesday AM -- I would wouldn't be surprised if you did use up some of your protein resources. Using a 4lbs loss, do you believe that you burned off 14,000 of stored FFA in 2 days without your body tapping into your MM in the least? We cann't know for sure exactly, but makes me suspect that you did. But I had wanted my original post in total to be more concerning how dieting frustration would lead to repeated cycles of food indulgences followed by drastic calories reduction coupled with intense exercise. How many cycles would it take to have an larger more measurable impact on your MM and metabolism? Its a hard question, but my answer is that I wouldn't be willing to intentionally risk losing even an once MM because its too hard to make/keep. > :: I've also learned to place great value on recovery > :: -- after having a soft tissue injury and repeated bouts overtraining, > :: or even how easy it is to get colds during weeks where I've > :: overstressed my body, the importance of recovery has finally sunk > :: into my brain. > > That's an interesting point. How does calorie intake over a two-day period > affect recovery from exercise? In my case, I don't feel overtrained at all. Overtraining comes from weeks/months of hard training and not allowing the body to adequately recover, or not giving it enough to recover with. If you were someone who hadn't been working out much or hadn't been dieting at all, then I'd say you'd suffer little from your two day bout. However, as I understand it form your past post, you've been training almost daily an hour and half(plus), doing HIIT and dieting. (I haven't been reading very many post lately -- maybe you've changed your workout.) But, yes, I do think that you have already had your body exposed to high levels of cortisol for some time now and that you immune (and nervous) system might be hit harder from a two-day period of high stress... more so than someone else. Plus, its not like you just wake up one day and feel overtrained. Its a slow process that you often see upon reflection... "oh yea, I've had more colds this season", "yea, I don't feel like doing as much as I use to", or worse "why did my tendon tear"? Just FYI, one of the signs of overtraining is feelng fatigue but having a hard time sleeping. That's usually my big clue. > :: Woven into the above is the underlying reasons of why? Why go so > :: overboard in over-eating/over-carbing? Then why feel like you have > :: to make up ground on that damage so quickly and with the risk? > > Well, I don't think it is logical. The overeating part is easy to > understand....the compensation part is due, in part I think, to my overall > boredom with losing weight. But still there is a desire to test my limits, > and that another reason for doing it. I can understand that. Of course you know that I'd be the last person so say that you shouldn't train hard and test yourself, I put my body through marathon training. But you know what, it didn't really help much in keeping me lean. In fact I believe it cost me too much muscle and therefore set me back. That's probably were this rant comes from. Unfortunately hard work and sacrifice don't always pay off, sometimes it takes working smarter and having great patience. You tested your limits on a very short term attempt that could have been motivated by dieting frustration. Frustration can get the best of you. I just think now might be a good time to step back and look at the bigger picture. > And believe it or not, the exercise part wasn't really risky. Also, two > days of not eating much for someone my size is probably not risky either. > Thirdly, I don't believe this metabolic crash theory, either, as I've said > in another thread. I don't believe there's a large crash for short periods of undereating. But I do ~believe~ that the body is amazing at adaptation. That sending it stress signals frequently, consistently and combining it with inadequate nutrition and it learns to store and use fuel more efficiently. Unfortunately no body knows exactly what that effect is, or how to avoid it. But I do know is that I've never met anyone who said the last few pounds of BF loss were as easy to lose as the first. I also have learned that friends/co-worker who seem to have an easier time keeping BF% low are those with higher than average amounts of MM. So keeping and building MM is a personal priority, higher than that of BF loss. Again, its not a "crash" that I'm concerned about after a couple of days. Its the accumulative effect of poor training and dieting due to general dieting frustration. So you maybe you lost an ounce or two of MM, or maybe just the ability to make an ounce this week, in the course of a if year you make more gambles and risk more, yada, yada, yada... you end up wasting your MM and ultimately your time/effort. That's the running in place I'm harping about. > I'll tell you this, though. I'd personally rather be starting from low BF% > (or normal) and eating to gain muscle than trying to gain muscle while still > being fat. That may seem all backwards, but getting to normal bf levels is > something I want to do. Once I get there I feel it would be okay to > actively try to gain mass, but not until. And I've gained a good bit of > muscle since I started working out in Sept. 2002. Somehow I don't think two > day of severe calorie restriction following one day of eat too much will > have much impact on my muscle mass. But I guess that will be an unknown > really, since I don't track bf% Don't take this wrong, but maybe you've been reading too much about people who are body building and who are already at lower BF% levels. I thought we were talking about you losing BF and getting fit, right? I'm talking about valuing every ounce of muscle you have in your body right now, while you lose small, but consistent amounts of BF. Working hard just to keep that what MM you have being is worth the effort. If you're extremely lucky you might be able to gain just a couple of pounds of MM over the course of a year simply by consistent truing. I don't think you should be thinking about going through cycles of "mass gains" and dieting the same way a body build would. For people that have a lot of BF to lose, I don't buy into the, "I'm going to diet and exercise down to a normal weight then work on adding muscle," mode of thinking. It strikes me as counter productive and not the path that works for me. The loss of a few ounces of MM here and there might not seem like a big deal or even noticeable at the time. But when you multiple the small losses across time it adds up: waste just 2lbs of muscle in the course of one year and in 5 years and those 2 lbs will cost your the ability to burn 109500 cals or around 31 pounds (I use 30 cals per pound, even being stingy and only giving MM 15 cals per pound that's 15.5 pounds). So I'm not willing to risk even an ounce. I can't image how much BF I would have gained back these last couple of years if I didn't have the MM have have now. > And I've gained a good bit of > muscle since I started working out in Sept. 2002. Somehow I don't think two > day of severe calorie restriction following one day of eat too much will > have much impact on my muscle mass. But I guess that will be an unknown > really, since I don't track bf%. :) Right you don't know from where your body pulled resources to met your glucose or rebuilding needs during those two day, but I'm very willing to bet that if pulled some from the AA pool at worse and hindered you're possibility of any building during at best. Did you lose pounds of muscle and now suffer from a much slower metabolism now. Probably not. But I think you could have keep from regaining BF from your one-day uptake, and not caused yourself any setback. It would have just taken a longer time period to do so. SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm > :: Could you have covered you carb-up damage across several days and not > :: risked losing an oz. of LBM? If you could have, yet choose to play a [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > have much impact on my muscle mass. But I guess that will be an unknown > really, since I don't track bf%. :) SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm :: Roger Zoul wrote: :: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :: focus on making and keeping MM and I'm just not willing it for a :: speedy BF loss. But you're only 15 or so pounds over where you want to be, and you've been maintaining for years. I'm still trying to get to normal bodyfat levels. I'm hungry for it. I also think that while not eating much for a couple :: of days and exercising could be difficult, sticking to a set moderate :: calorie range every day without any variation for over a month is :: HARD -- that's a real test of day-in, day-out fortitude. I can just :: do :: around 3 weeks before I go for some variation -- that's my human :: flaw. Mine too. Hey, I'm not Ig and don't want to be. I enjoy eating something that appeals to my taste buds mainly once in a while. Just because I intend to gain control over my weight doesn't mean I've died and gone to hell. As long as it represents the except rather than the rule, I'm happy, provided I keep losing weight. :: > :: Personally its been really :: > :: tempting to tie myself to the exercise wiping post and punish [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] :: in the least? We cann't know for sure exactly, but makes me suspect :: that you did. Yeah, I've been puzzling over it. I upped calories on Wed. to a little under 1700 w/ 34 g of carbs. Today I was basically at the same weight (240-241) even though I ate my last meal after 10 pm. So, I'm having a hard time believing I could have burned off 14,000 kcals any kind of way. I'm thinking I must have depleted glycogen, even though that's hard to believe, too. So it comes down to which do I believe more, fat/muscle loss or glycogen lost. I take the the latter. :: But I had wanted my original post in total to be more concerning how :: dieting frustration would lead to repeated cycles of food :: indulgences followed by drastic calories reduction coupled with :: intense exercise. But hey, those are fun -- if you like to exercise! I understand where you're coming from and even though right now I'm locked in a heat battle with my body to lose fat (I think it's brought on my spring time), I'm not going to get too crazy :) I hope. How many cycles would it take to have an larger :: more measurable impact on your MM and metabolism? Its a hard :: question, but my answer is that I wouldn't be willing to :: intentionally risk losing even an once MM because its too hard to :: make/keep. See...every since I started lifting I've been basically on calorie restriction....so any gains I've achieve are the result of newbieism in training. I think I've leveled off on gains, too. I'm fortunate though in that my definition is improving greatly as the pounds drop. :: > :: I've also learned to place great value on recovery :: > :: -- after having a soft tissue injury and repeated bouts [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] :: dieting. (I haven't been reading very many post lately -- maybe :: you've changed your workout.) Yes, it has changed...and it varyies. For example, right now, I'm not doing any formal HIIT. I'm doing more normal cardio but for longer periods. I had gotten so into the HIIT mode that I could not right the stationary without doing HIIT. I has taken me a while to get back to just normal cardio. In the meantime, I've doing lots of squats and deadlifts in the gym, and I think this is sufficent to boost the metabolism. So right now it normal cardio and HST-style workouts (full body, 3x/week). The cardio comes according to energy. Today I won't do any (I got up late, and have a date tonight), but I've done several bouts this week....including 40 minute sessions right before lifting. On non WT days I like to do 80 minutes, half in the am and half in the pm. Part of this is just to get ready for riding my road bike. I'll start that anew next week since its spring break. But, yes, I do think that you have :: already had your body exposed to high levels of cortisol for some :: time now and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :: of overtraining is feelng fatigue but having a hard time sleeping. :: That's usually my big clue. Okay...luckly, I've not had any colds this season. and I have noted in the past that I will definite get more colds when I'm working out too hard. Also, I have felt that I've been feeling some fatigue. I was describing myself just last week as being in a low-energy state. and I do sometimes wake up in the middle of the night unable to sleep. However, I think that mainly due to the fact that I generally get back from the gym at 10 pm...and go to bed after that. Those deadlifts and squats..... But, I do get your point. I pay attention and I do rest up. You know on HST you take a week off from the gym every 8 weeks. So during that time I don't even do cardio. :: > :: Woven into the above is the underlying reasons of why? Why :: go so > :: overboard in over-eating/over-carbing? Then why feel [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] :: muscle and therefore set me back. That's probably were this rant :: comes from. Yeah, I don't want to go counter to my overall goals. But I want to get lean. Unfortunately hard work and sacrifice don't always pay :: off, :: sometimes it takes working smarter and having great patience. You :: tested your limits on a very short term attempt that could have been :: motivated by dieting frustration. Frustration can get the best of :: you. I just think now might be a good time to step back and look at :: the bigger picture. Yeah. Mu warned me a while back that at the 2-year point, I'm in the danger zone for failure. But somehow I don't think I'll fail :) :: > And believe it or not, the exercise part wasn't really risky. :: Also, two [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :: seem to have an easier time keeping BF% low are those with higher :: than average amounts of MM. Right. :: So keeping and building MM is a personal :: priority, higher than that of BF loss. But do you think once can be on calorie restriction and keep building MM indefinitely? Conventional wisdom says it ain't gonna happen. I've always been good at gaining weight. I'm betting I'll be good at gaining muscle too. :: Again, its not a "crash" that I'm concerned about after a couple of :: days. Its the accumulative effect of poor training and dieting due to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: yada... you end up wasting your MM and ultimately your time/effort. :: That's the running in place I'm harping about. Right. I won't allow myself to lose significant MM -- that's completely counter to my goals, as if fat gain, mind you. If you check the records on the monthy challenge, you'll see periods of several months where I simply maintain. So I'm in a period of weight loss right now, brought on by my favorite of year. :: > I'll tell you this, though. I'd personally rather be starting :: from low BF% [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] :: people who are body building and who are already at lower BF% levels. :: I thought we were talking about you losing BF and getting fit, right? Losing BF and getting muscular. IMO, I'm already fit. :: I'm talking about valuing every ounce of muscle you have in your :: body right now, while you lose small, but consistent amounts of BF. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: truing. I don't think you should be thinking about going through :: cycles of "mass gains" and dieting the same way a body build would. Well, the cycles would only start after I achieve normal bodyfat levels. Then, I plan to allow myself to gain weight -- but only up to a point. Then, i'll diet the fat back down. Unfortunately, I have to go now....so the rest will come later. I have to pay attention to what you're saying because it seems directly related to my stated goals. I don't see how I can get to where I want to be if I don't cycle. I'm not willing to gain weight when I'm already at 24x....that to me is counterproductive. And I dont' see how I can gain mass while constantly eating below maintenance. Bye for now. :: For people that have a lot of BF to lose, I don't buy into the, :: "I'm going to diet and exercise down to a normal weight then work on [quoted text clipped - 138 lines] :: Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: :: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm > Mine too. Hey, I'm not Ig and don't want to be. I enjoy eating something > that appeals to my taste buds mainly once in a while. Just because I intend > to gain control over my weight doesn't mean I've died and gone to hell. As > long as it represents the except rather than the rule, I'm happy, provided I > keep losing weight. You are confused. I eat only what appeals to my taste buds. Of course, these days, pretty much everything appeals to my taste buds. I have never been a picky eater to begin with. Like Jenny, I would question suitability of carb-ups and UD2 for a diabetic. i :: In article <c2qlk8$1vrujg$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>, Roger :: Zoul wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :: Of course, these days, pretty much everything appeals to my taste :: buds. I have never been a picky eater to begin with. What about sweets? Aren't you on a kick where you don't like sweet stuff that you call junk food? :: Like Jenny, I would question suitability of carb-ups and UD2 for a :: diabetic. Okay...question it. >:: In article <c2qlk8$1vrujg$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>, Roger >:: Zoul wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > What about sweets? Aren't you on a kick where you don't like sweet stuff > that you call junk food? No, I do not want them anymore. >:: Like Jenny, I would question suitability of carb-ups and UD2 for a >:: diabetic. > > Okay...question it. Well, explain me how your enormous "carb ups" do not damage your diabetic health. i >> :: In article <c2qlk8$1vrujg$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>, Roger >> :: Zoul wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > i The theory is that the insulin release is good in that it pushes carbs into the muscles. You train specifically so that the glycogen is out of the muscles and so that the muscles suck up the carbs during a carb up. This is opposite of a "normal," untrained person, where the sugar has nowhere to go. Does this affect insulin resistance? Hopefully not. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply >> Well, explain me how your enormous "carb ups" do not damage your >> diabetic health. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > This is opposite of a "normal," untrained person, where the sugar has > nowhere to go. Would a lean 10-12% bodyfat bodybuilder (the targeted reader of UD2) whose insulin production is impaired, respond in the same way as an obese diabetic whose insulin production is impaired? Insulin release is good if there is an insulin release. I am not pretending to be a big expert on diabetes, but to me, a carb up for diabetics does not appear to be a safe or even a sane thing to do. i :: In article <opr4q62x0yrjctj4@news.snet.sbcglobal.net>, Bob in CT :: wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] :: whose insulin production is impaired, respond in the same way as an :: obese diabetic whose insulin production is impaired? Probably....but not even all diabetics are the same. :: Insulin release is good if there is an insulin release. Many T2s produce insulin. :: I am not pretending to be a big expert on diabetes, but to me, a carb :: up for diabetics does not appear to be a safe or even a sane thing to :: do. Not only are you not an expert, but you paint with a very broad brush. :: i :: In article <10530ef7663v8f0@corp.supernews.com>, Roger Zoul wrote: ::: Ignoramus16578 wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] :: Well, explain me how your enormous "carb ups" do not damage your :: diabetic health. 1) my carb ups are not as enormous as you may think. Those numbers DJ posted are not what I typically do. 6000 kcals is about 3 days worth of food for me. Mine are more like 15x bodyweight but mainly carbs with low amounts of fat and adequate protein. I don't follow Lyle's numbers because I don't know my LBM, and so I try to err on the low side. 2) I workout leading up to a carb up. (typically one a month, but for UD2 in Jan 04, when I did two, about once a week for two weeks). They don't happen just because I want to do them. They happen because I was following strict LC eating (30 g of carbs per day -- less than Lyle recommends) and lots of exercise. You see, if you're not doing the first part there is no point in doing the second part other than to get fat. 3) my last A1c was 4.8. I get them twice a year. I probably did 12 carbups in 2003 (monthly). > 1) my carb ups are not as enormous as you may think. Those numbers > DJ posted are not what I typically do. Heck, they're not even what *I* do. Mine top out at around 4600 kcals total (c+f+p) over a 30 hour period, which is just over twice maintenance. :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> writes: ::: 1) my carb ups are not as enormous as you may think. Those numbers [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: kcals total (c+f+p) over a 30 hour period, which is just over twice :: maintenance. I tend to think of mine as going to maintenaince kcals, but shifting the % kcals to carbs and away from fat. It may not be optimal a la Lyle, but I'm happy for the change of pace and a bit of a boost in energy. CKDs seem to work better for that for me than do TKDs. It seems that people here seem to think of "carb ups" as a free-roaming food binge. That totally defeats the purpose of partitioning, imo. Of course, I too had to learn that carbups are NOT reason to eat whatever (I remember a Rudy lecture on that, too), so I guess it's par for the course. > It seems that people here seem to think of "carb ups" as a > free-roaming food binge. That totally defeats the purpose of > partitioning, imo. Right, those are "food ups". Raising calories to maint+10% or so for a few days, "anything goes" style. Heck, it works for some people. A properly done carb-up is just as hard, if not harder, to do than other types of dieting. > But you're only 15 or so pounds over where you want to be, and you've been > maintaining for years. I'm still trying to get to normal bodyfat levels. > I'm hungry for it. Just to clear up where I'm at currently, I was 15lbs over at my peak, right now I'm around 6lbs from my past average maintenance weight, but I'm around 4-5 points higher in my BF% than I'd like... sigh... > Yeah, I've been puzzling over it. I upped calories on Wed. to a little under > 1700 w/ 34 g of carbs. Today I was basically at the same weight (240-241) > even though I ate my last meal after 10 pm. > > So, I'm having a hard time believing I could have burned off 14,000 kcals > any kind of way. I'm thinking I must have depleted glycogen, even though > that's hard to believe, too. So it comes down to which do I believe more, > fat/muscle loss or glycogen lost. I take the the latter. It was definitely a mix of fat/muslce/glycoge/water, the question is how much of each, and if the ratio of MM to the rest was worth it. > See...every since I started lifting I've been basically on calorie > restriction....so any gains I've achieve are the result of newbieism in > training. I think I've leveled off on gains, too. I'm fortunate though in > that my definition is improving greatly as the pounds drop. Right, again I don't expect that you would be able to gain "mass" while restricting calories, I'm talking more in the range of keeping/making ounces of MM over a long period of time. > Okay...luckly, I've not had any colds this season. and I have noted in the > past that I will definite get more colds when I'm working out too hard. > Also, I have felt that I've been feeling some fatigue. I was describing > myself just last week as being in a low-energy state. and I do sometimes > wake up in the middle of the night unable to sleep. However, I think that > mainly due to the fact that I generally get back from the gym at 10 pm...and > go to bed after that. Those deadlifts and squats..... You're probably not overtrained currently (in fact few people do -- I think it probably less then 10% of those who train ever overtrain. But it certainly can happen. Just read up on overtraining and be aware of the signals. > Yeah, I don't want to go counter to my overall goals. But I want to get > lean. > Yeah. Mu warned me a while back that at the 2-year point, I'm in the danger > zone for failure. > But somehow I don't think I'll fail :) Yea, and I don't think that you'll fail at all. I do think that frustration can sometimes cloud the big picture. A couple of days aren't going to be a big problem for you, but I'd hate to see you get sidetracked on to unproductive idea. > But do you think once can be on calorie restriction and keep building MM > indefinitely? Conventional wisdom says it ain't gonna happen. I've always > been good at gaining weight. I'm betting I'll be good at gaining muscle > too. Again I'm talking more about keeping ounces of MM. We're not having a bodybuilding discussion about gaining "mass" or "cycling" to prepare for contest. When body building people are talking about gaining "mass" its usually in the range of 5-25+ pounds of muscle in a few months, and no that sort of gain is not going to happen while you're dieting. I was being hopeful and generous to suggest that after a year of really hard training, and because you probably get more than enough protein daily, and who knows maybe you'll be blessed, to get an additional couple of pounds of added MM **over the course of a year**. Most people are more likely to lose a pound of two of MM due to dieting over the course of a year, even with some WT if they're also dieting. I just think that since you train hard and eat well you might get a very small gain in then next year while losing small reasonable amounts of BF. Keep in mind that my experience has been with TKD, so yes I think you can lose BF and gain very small amounts of MM over time. But this discussion was started because I suspected that you risked losing a few ounces MM to see a short term change on the scale. Could you still be such a-glow with your newbie gains that you don't know how hard it can be to gain MM? Not that you can't gain MM better when you're no longer dieting. But you might what to keep in mind that it might not be as easy for you as it is for those who are in their hormonal prime... spoken by a 43 year old woman who has two battles toward gaining any MM. > Right. I won't allow myself to lose significant MM -- that's completely > counter to my goals, as if fat gain, mind you. If you check the records on > the monthy challenge, you'll see periods of several months where I simply > maintain. So I'm in a period of brought on by my > favorite of year. I think were we're not insyne within the idea of what "significant" MM loss is. Since I'm in a weight loss right now myself, I'll tell you that for me the answers are mostly in the food choices and keeping to a stable calorie plan -- moderation, my personal hell. So its very few, very small amounts of deviation in the calorie levels to see progress if I want to see some BF loss. Training with just a little more volume than usual. Not that I'm perfect in either area, but I'm working hard to tow the line as much as possible. > :: Don't take this wrong, but maybe you've been reading too much about > :: people who are body building and who are already at lower BF% levels. > :: I thought we were talking about you losing BF and getting fit, right? > > Losing BF and getting muscular. IMO, I'm already fit. Right, sorry. I do believe that your probably much fitter than many at a lower BF%. > :: I'm talking about valuing every ounce of muscle you have in your > :: body right now, while you lose small, but consistent amounts of BF. > :: Working hard just to keep that what MM you have being is worth the > :: effort. If you're extremely lucky you might be able to gain just a > :: couple of pounds of MM over the course of a year simply by consistent > :: truing. I don't think you should be thinking about going through > :: cycles of "mass gains" and dieting the same way a body build would. > > Well, the cycles would only start after I achieve normal bodyfat levels. > Then, I plan to allow myself to gain weight -- but only up to a point. Then, > i'll diet the fat back down. And I believe that for you to achieve normal BF levels the more MM you can wisely hold onto the better off you'll be in the long run. > I have to pay attention to what you're saying because it seems directly > related to my stated goals. I don't see how I can get to where I want to be > if I don't cycle. I'm not willing to gain weight when I'm already at > 24x....that to me is counterproductive. And I dont' see how I can gain mass > while constantly eating below maintenance. Again I don't think that your hearing what I'm trying to get across. I'm not suggesting that you can gain sizable amounts of "mass" while dieting. I'm trying to get across the value of current MM and not risk losing even a small portion of it in a risky manner. Worrying and working on keeping MM makes losing BF slower, but personally it seems worth the effort. From my point of view, gaining MM back is much harder than the effort of being slow an cautious to prevent losing it. SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm > But you're only 15 or so pounds over where you want to be, and you've been > maintaining for years. I'm still trying to get to normal bodyfat levels. > I'm hungry for it. Just to clear up where I'm at currently, I was 15lbs over at my peak, right now I'm around 6lbs from my past average maintenance weight, but I'm around 4-5 points higher in my BF% than I'd like... sigh... > Yeah, I've been puzzling over it. I upped calories on Wed. to a little under > 1700 w/ 34 g of carbs. Today I was basically at the same weight (240-241) > even though I ate my last meal after 10 pm. > > So, I'm having a hard time believing I could have burned off 14,000 kcals > any kind of way. I'm thinking I must have depleted glycogen, even though > that's hard to believe, too. So it comes down to which do I believe more, > fat/muscle loss or glycogen lost. I take the the latter. It was definitely a mix of fat/muslce/glycoge/water, the question is how much of each, and if the ratio of MM to the rest was worth it. > See...every since I started lifting I've been basically on calorie > restriction....so any gains I've achieve are the result of newbieism in > training. I think I've leveled off on gains, too. I'm fortunate though in > that my definition is improving greatly as the pounds drop. Right, again I don't expect that you would be able to gain "mass" while restricting calories, I'm talking more in the range of keeping/making ounces of MM over a long period of time. > Okay...luckly, I've not had any colds this season. and I have noted in the > past that I will definite get more colds when I'm working out too hard. > Also, I have felt that I've been feeling some fatigue. I was describing > myself just last week as being in a low-energy state. and I do sometimes > wake up in the middle of the night unable to sleep. However, I think that > mainly due to the fact that I generally get back from the gym at 10 pm...and > go to bed after that. Those deadlifts and squats..... You're probably not overtrained currently (in fact few people do -- I think it probably less then 10% of those who train ever overtrain. But it certainly can happen. Just read up on overtraining and be aware of the signals. > Yeah, I don't want to go counter to my overall goals. But I want to get > lean. > Yeah. Mu warned me a while back that at the 2-year point, I'm in the danger > zone for failure. > But somehow I don't think I'll fail :) Yea, and I don't think that you'll fail at all. I do think that frustration can sometimes cloud the big picture. A couple of days aren't going to be a big problem for you, but I'd hate to see you get sidetracked on to unproductive idea. > But do you think once can be on calorie restriction and keep building MM > indefinitely? Conventional wisdom says it ain't gonna happen. I've always > been good at gaining weight. I'm betting I'll be good at gaining muscle > too. Again I'm talking more about keeping ounces of MM. We're not having a bodybuilding discussion about gaining "mass" or "cycling" to prepare for contest. When body building people are talking about gaining "mass" its usually in the range of 5-25+ pounds of muscle in a few months, and no that sort of gain is not going to happen while you're dieting. I was being hopeful and generous to suggest that after a year of really hard training, and because you probably get more than enough protein daily, and who knows maybe you'll be blessed, to get an additional couple of pounds of added MM **over the course of a year**. Most people are more likely to lose a pound of two of MM due to dieting over the course of a year, even with some WT if they're also dieting. I just think that since you train hard and eat well you might get a very small gain in then next year while losing small reasonable amounts of BF. Keep in mind that my experience has been with TKD, so yes I think you can lose BF and gain very small amounts of MM over time. But this discussion was started because I suspected that you risked losing a few ounces MM to see a short term change on the scale. Could you still be such a-glow with your newbie gains that you don't know how hard it can be to gain MM? Not that you can't gain MM better when you're no longer dieting. But you might what to keep in mind that it might not be as easy for you as it is for those who are in their hormonal prime... spoken by a 43 year old woman who has two battles toward gaining any MM. > Right. I won't allow myself to lose significant MM -- that's completely > counter to my goals, as if fat gain, mind you. If you check the records on > the monthy challenge, you'll see periods of several months where I simply > maintain. So I'm in a period of brought on by my > favorite of year. I think were we're not insyne within the idea of what "significant" MM loss is. Since I'm in a weight loss right now myself, I'll tell you that for me the answers are mostly in the food choices and keeping to a stable calorie plan -- moderation, my personal hell. So its very few, very small amounts of deviation in the calorie levels to see progress if I want to see some BF loss. Training with just a little more volume than usual. Not that I'm perfect in either area, but I'm working hard to tow the line as much as possible. > :: Don't take this wrong, but maybe you've been reading too much about > :: people who are body building and who are already at lower BF% levels. > :: I thought we were talking about you losing BF and getting fit, right? > > Losing BF and getting muscular. IMO, I'm already fit. Right, sorry. I do believe that your probably much fitter than many at a lower BF%. > :: I'm talking about valuing every ounce of muscle you have in your > :: body right now, while you lose small, but consistent amounts of BF. > :: Working hard just to keep that what MM you have being is worth the > :: effort. If you're extremely lucky you might be able to gain just a > :: couple of pounds of MM over the course of a year simply by consistent > :: truing. I don't think you should be thinking about going through > :: cycles of "mass gains" and dieting the same way a body build would. > > Well, the cycles would only start after I achieve normal bodyfat levels. > Then, I plan to allow myself to gain weight -- but only up to a point. Then, > i'll diet the fat back down. And I believe that for you to achieve normal BF levels the more MM you can wisely hold onto the better off you'll be in the long run. > I have to pay attention to what you're saying because it seems directly > related to my stated goals. I don't see how I can get to where I want to be > if I don't cycle. I'm not willing to gain weight when I'm already at > 24x....that to me is counterproductive. And I dont' see how I can gain mass > while constantly eating below maintenance. Again I don't think that your hearing what I'm trying to get across. I'm not suggesting that you can gain sizable amounts of "mass" while dieting. I'm trying to get across the value of current MM and not risk losing even a small portion of it in a risky manner. Worrying and working on keeping MM makes losing BF slower, but personally it seems worth the effort. From my point of view, gaining MM back is much harder than the effort of being slow an cautious to prevent losing it -- it just makes BF loss slower. SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm Did you know that rats lived nearly twice as long when they were on a calorie restricted diet? And were much healthier of course. MM is a red herring. Losing MM is much healthier and will increase your life span considerably along with improving your health. Pj > > But you're only 15 or so pounds over where you want to be, and >you've been [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >right now I'm around 6lbs from my past average maintenance weight, but >I'm around 4-5 points higher in my BF% than I'd like... sigh... > Did you know that rats lived nearly twice as long when they were on a > calorie restricted diet? And were much healthier of course. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pj First, we're not rats. Second, they lived longer. That's all. We don't know whether they lived "healthier." (It's a rat in a cage.) Third, I don't know about you, but I'll give up a day of life for a beer every once in a while. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply > > Did you know that rats lived nearly twice as long when they were on a > calorie restricted diet? And were much healthier of course. Thank you for bringing this up. Calorie restriction is a fascinating topic. > MM is a red herring. Losing MM is much healthier and will increase > your life span considerably along with improving your health. If by MM you are referring to muscle mass, then please note that it is a question of degree, not absolutes. i > Here's the deal.....I had a Sunday "food-up" that consisted of lots of carbs > and fat. Went way over my 1700-1800 kcals per day limit. > > To keep the weight loss going, I decided to basically not eat much for a > couple of days. So, on Monday I ate 500 kcals worth of food ... ... > So, is my metabolism going to crash? Am I going to lose some muscle mass > here, or do you all expect me to go on a hellish binge in a few minutes? In my opinion calories, fat and protein can be averaged across several days just fine. You went way over one day, way under another day. You acheived parity, so you'll do fine. Even with carbs, the time scale really isn't every-single-day with any amount of consistancy. Folks go over their limit once and don't fall out of ketosis on a regular basis as long as they don't go extremely over. If you keep up the 500 calorie level for a bunch of days, then it will become a different story. But now, you averaged out so you're fine. :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] :: will :: become a different story. But now, you averaged out so you're fine. I hope so....I kept it up for two days and increased exercise, since I could not be sure exactly how many calories I consumed. Funny thing...Sunday I was at 245, Monday (after the binge) I was at 248, Tuesday, at 245, and Wednesday, at 240-1 (between). I don't know what this 240 business is....maybe the scale broke, but that's the lowest number I've seen on a scale with me standing on it since my adulthood. |
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
|
©2012 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.