 |
 | 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 / General Topics / May 2004Feeling great, losing weight!
This is 2nd week since returning to LC2 (low cal, lower carbs). While technically I only lost a net 0.5 kg (1.1 lb) this past week compared to last Friday's scale measurement, last Friday was, as I suspected, a one day fluctuation due to unusually high activity and almost no eating the day before. In fact, Saturday showed an uptick of 1 kg, meaning the real net loss for the first week was really only 1.5 kg and not 2.5 kg, as I first thought. Then the weight continued to drop on schedule over this week. So it really was 1.5 kg the first week and 1.5 kg this week. At any rate, no matter how you calculate it, it is a total loss of 3.0 kg (6.6 lb) the past two weeks. And I feel great! Very energetic! And hunger is under control. I'm keeping calories to an average of 1500 or less and "being mindful" of carbs, avoiding high-glycemic carbs that I know cause hunger cravings. This usually means I am eating about 60 carbs a day or so, plug/minus 10. doug Day 457 lb: 288.2 / 238.7 kg: 131 / 108.5 Body mass loss: 17.2% goal: undecided Sadly, if you continue at that rate, you're going to lose too much muscle mass and end up being flabby when you get to an acceptable weight. You might want to slow the rate of loss down a bit. :: This is 2nd week since returning to LC2 (low cal, lower carbs). :: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] :: Body mass loss: 17.2% :: goal: undecided I've had so many stalls this past year and a half, I'd like to enjoy at least a couple of months of decent weight loss before worrying about stuff like that. :) What I *am* doing, to be proactive about this, is increasing exercise. I use the bullworker every morning. And have added situps to my morning routine. Also, I believe weight loss will naturally slow down as 1500 calories turns out to be closer and closer to maintenance intake for my reducing body weight. In fact, at some point weight loss should naturally slow to a crawl. doug On 5/21/04 12:00 PM, in article 10aqs5mqradr0cc@corp.supernews.com, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: > Sadly, if you continue at that rate, you're going to lose too much muscle > mass and end up being flabby when you get to an acceptable weight. You [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > :: Body mass loss: 17.2% > :: goal: undecided :: I've had so many stalls this past year and a half, I'd like to enjoy :: at least a couple of months of decent weight loss before worrying :: about stuff like that. :) Why can't you enjoy losing 5 lbs a month, instead of 6.6 lbs in two weeks? You're wrecking your body for no good reason. :: What I *am* doing, to be proactive about this, is increasing :: exercise. I use the bullworker every morning. And have added situps :: to my morning routine. Is there no other option than the bullworker? Can you not at least get a good set of dumbells / barbells and an adjustable bench, or better yet, join a gym? ARe you doing situps are crunches? :: Also, I believe weight loss will naturally slow down as 1500 :: calories turns out to be closer and closer to maintenance intake for :: my reducing body weight. In fact, at some point weight loss should :: naturally slow to a crawl. At which point you will have lost much valuable muscle mass. Not good. Not being fat should not be your only concern, doug. :: doug :: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] ::::: Body mass loss: 17.2% ::::: goal: undecided On 5/21/04 12:34 PM, in article 10aqu76mf51d9dd@corp.supernews.com, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: > :: I've had so many stalls this past year and a half, I'd like to enjoy > :: at least a couple of months of decent weight loss before worrying > :: about stuff like that. :) > > Why can't you enjoy losing 5 lbs a month, instead of 6.6 lbs in two weeks? > You're wrecking your body for no good reason. First, I appreciate your messages and your concern. But I don't understand why you think this particular amount of weight loss is so much at my weight. We are talking about aiming for 2-3 lb per week or so. I always thought that was considered a very normal, well-paced diet. I am extremely overweight, after all! Even by conservative estimates I am about 90 lb overweight! If I lost 5 lb per month it would still take me a year and a half to get down to goal. I'd be almost 50 by then. :) I too am against radically rapid weight loss. But starting like this, and realizing that slowdown will inevitably occur along the way seemed like a reasonable, practical pace. If I started with the goal of losing just 5 lb per month and then had it slow down from there it could take *years* to get down to goal. Is that really necessary? Isn't it reasonable for an extremely obese person like me to lose a bit on the rapid side, at least to start with? > :: What I *am* doing, to be proactive about this, is increasing > :: exercise. I use the bullworker every morning. And have added situps [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > good set of dumbells / barbells and an adjustable bench, or better yet, join > a gym? ARe you doing situps are crunches? I could get a set of dumbells. But why are they any better than the bullworker? The bullworker seems to do everything! As for an adjustable bench, you are obviously not well-aquainted with the size of typical Japanese dwellings. :) I've tried joining a gym before, but the problem is that I have to go out of my way, by moped or train, to get there. So it becomes so much of a nuisance it's not something I can readily add to my daily routine. I don't understand the question about situps or crunches. I don't know what crunches are. > :: Also, I believe weight loss will naturally slow down as 1500 > :: calories turns out to be closer and closer to maintenance intake for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > At which point you will have lost much valuable muscle mass. Not good. Not > being fat should not be your only concern, doug. I'm eating sufficient protein though. Shouldn't that help? doug > On 5/21/04 12:34 PM, in article 10aqu76mf51d9dd@corp.supernews.com, "Roger > Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Isn't it reasonable for an extremely obese person like me to lose a bit on > the rapid side, at least to start with? I don't see a problem with your weight loss plan. Whatever works. I have lost muscle in my upper body from running and I really wanted to. IMHO, was too big for the sports I want to enjoy into my 50's. You can always put the muscle back on later and if you shrink your body enough your skin will be tighter when you do start lifting again or at least that is my thoughts. Curt  SignatureStarted low carb May '03 this time. 211/182/180 . . 6'2" 15.78% BF? Age 38 Highest weight 250 5+ years ago ::: On 5/21/04 12:34 PM, in article 10aqu76mf51d9dd@corp.supernews.com, ::: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] :: body enough your skin will be tighter when you do start lifting :: again or at least that is my thoughts. It will be very hard for a 50 year old to add any significant muscle. Also, at his age he will have a lot of extra skin and losing muscle with just make it worse for him, not better. Finally, you have no idea how much mucsle this guy has now, so recommending that he lose it is just irresponsible. There are things that work well and there are thing that have adverse effects. If the guy has been LCing and then turns around and loses 6.6 lbs in two weeks, he's running at a big calorie deficit (1650 kcal per day). He's just not that heavy for those kinds of numbers, imo. :: Curt :: -- :: Started low carb May '03 this time. :: 211/182/180 . . 6'2" 15.78% BF? :: Age 38 :: Highest weight 250 5+ years ago >It will be very hard for a 50 year old to add any significant muscle. Oh, who told you that? Define significant. > Also, >at his age he will have a lot of extra skin and losing muscle with just make >it worse for him, not better. Finally, you have no idea how much mucsle >this guy has now, so recommending that he lose it is just irresponsible. How much is about muscle and how much is about mobility? http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960222.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. :: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:22:34 -0400, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: :: Oh, who told you that? Define significant. Compared to what you can add when you're young, like 16 to 25... I have huge quads....I have them because when I was a teenager, I followed the Charles Atlas program. he had me doing 75 squats everyday. Adding muscle then was almost an after thought and before I knew it, I had these cut up legs with muscle everywhere. While I definitely can add muscle now, it ain't that kind of easy. It is significantly harder. Very hard doesn't mean impossible. ::: Also, ::: at his age he will have a lot of extra skin and losing muscle with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: :: How much is about muscle and how much is about mobility? doug can move... :: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960222.html :: Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. >:: Oh, who told you that? Define significant. > >Compared to what you can add when you're young, like 16 to 25... I'll agree with that. This ageing = inability to significantly (Zoulie Dictionary) add muscle mass appears to be most linked to protein utilization. >:: How much is about muscle and how much is about mobility? > >doug can move... Not the question. Which is more important? The amount of muscle or the ability to move in all planes of motion adequately? http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960222.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. :: On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:03:47 -0400, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] :: Not the question. Which is more important? The amount of muscle or :: the ability to move in all planes of motion adequately? I'd say the latter...but that's not reason to lose more muscle mass than one needs to for adequate mobility. We're not talking bulking up here, just hanging on to what one has....and keeping control into the future. >:: Not the question. Which is more important? The amount of muscle or >:: the ability to move in all planes of motion adequately? > >I'd say the latter... Correct answer. >but that's not reason to lose more muscle mass than one >needs to for adequate mobility. If mobility is impaired, nothing else matters. > We're not talking bulking up here, just >hanging on to what one has....and keeping control into the future. Yes but this is the point. too much emphasis is placed on muscular size in training programs not on neuromuscular use. After a certain level of hypertrophy is met, what use is more? none. Do you see training programs shifting to power programs over ranges of motion? hardly ever. Look at your local fitness club. Except for the cardio rooms, there are no open spaces to accomplish movements over space and time. Once your "pretty" and buffy and cutesy, what happens then that is valuable? Not much. I may potentially be strong enough to pick up my grandson but if I can't squat when he runs p to me, what value, practically, are those cute buns of mine? http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960222.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. :: On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:59:32 -0400, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :: :: If mobility is impaired, nothing else matters. If mobility is impaired. Doug has said nothing about that. Just because someone is overweight doesn't mean they've lost mobility. ::: We're not talking bulking up here, just ::: hanging on to what one has....and keeping control into the future. :: :: Yes but this is the point. too much emphasis is placed on muscular :: size in training programs not on neuromuscular use. But that is completely not the point I was making, this is just something you brought in. I'm not trying to make him bigger and he'll get neuromuscular gains too. :: After a certain :: level of hypertrophy is met, what use is more? none. And what level is that and how does that apply to Doug? Again, we're not talking about bulking phases. - we're talking minimizing muscle loss. Do you see :: training programs shifting to power programs over ranges of motion? :: hardly ever. Look at your local fitness club. Except for the cardio :: rooms, there are no open spaces to accomplish movements over space :: and time. There are at my gym (if I understand you). The issue with powerlifting has more to do with sheer ignorance than anything else. :: Once your "pretty" and buffy and cutesy, what happens then that is :: valuable? Not much. Somehow, I don't think doug has got to worry about that. I may potentially be strong enough to pick up my :: grandson but if I can't squat when he runs p to me, what value, :: practically, are those cute buns of mine? None, but if doug joins a gym and does some squatting, then he'll find it easier to squat down and pick up his grandson. >:: If mobility is impaired, nothing else matters. > >If mobility is impaired. Doug has said nothing about that. Just because >someone is overweight doesn't mean they've lost mobility. I never mentioned Doug . >::: We're not talking bulking up here, just >::: hanging on to what one has....and keeping control into the future. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >you brought in. I'm not trying to make him bigger and he'll get >neuromuscular gains too. Not necessarily. Depends entirely upon the methods used to hypertrophy. Many methods are counterproductive to coordinative activities. >:: After a certain >:: level of hypertrophy is met, what use is more? none. > >And what level is that and how does that apply to Doug? Beats me. I don't know Doug and it would take me a few sessions to find out. > Again, we're not >talking about bulking phases. - we're talking minimizing muscle loss. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >There are at my gym (if I understand you). The issue with powerlifting has >more to do with sheer ignorance than anything else. Squat bench deads are not the fundamental movements that enhance acceleration and coordination. Or enjoin and challenge the neuromuscular system. What I meant was simple things that utilize acceleartion/deceleration (run.stop/squat to heels for instance). and full movement in all planes at =varying speeds. the athleticism of life. Like sprinting, stopping, goring to a knee and making a close call on a batter-runner double from the "a" slot. > I may potentially be strong enough to pick up my >:: grandson but if I can't squat when he runs p to me, what value, >:: practically, are those cute buns of mine? > >None, but if doug joins a gym and does some squatting, then he'll find it >easier to squat down and pick up his grandson. Don't know. Don't know enough about Doug and neither do you. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960222.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. On 5/22/04 2:21 AM, in article 10asekhkefsu9ca@corp.supernews.com, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: > If mobility is impaired. Doug has said nothing about that. Just because > someone is overweight doesn't mean they've lost mobility. Sorry - I'm drowning a bit in the thread here. :) What was the question? My mobility seems just fine. And seems even finer since I've lost 49.5 lb! Everybody has mentioned how much quicker I seem to walk up hills, etc. doug On 5/22/04 2:21 AM, in article 10asekhkefsu9ca@corp.supernews.com, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: > None, but if doug joins a gym and does some squatting, then he'll find it > easier to squat down and pick up his grandson. Or my dog. I don't have children, grandchildren - or a wife for that matter. Lordy! I mention I'll be 50 in a few years and now I'm a grandfather on this list. :) I have just a few comments to add: I have been neglecting exercise for years. No, for decades. I know it's important and that is why I'm trying to add it back in so it becomes a regular part of my daily routine. To make this work for me, I have to make it somewhat painless to start with, so it becomes something I look forward to doing, rather than something I make excuses about putting off. That is why I like using the bullworker. Roger mentioned that he thought it was dangerous, but it is clearly not. It's a very flexible, safe piece of equipment that naturally provides more resistance the more you use it. And while I have no illusions that it will turn me into some adonis - I know more is needed to do that! - it DEFINITELY is effective. For the first time in my entire life I have noticeable, hard, obvious muscle definition forming - particularly in my arms and chest. I can't believe it! I can flex my arms in front of a mirror and they look cool! And the muscle feels like - muscle! This is entirely due to the bullworker. So what this is accomplishing is leading me into *enjoying* exercise. I figure as I get used to this I can add more complex things and equipment as time goes by and I find out I like exercising. Some bullworker, some cycling, dog walks, some simple twist-and-turn calesthenics - things I can do at home and in my neighborhood... it seems best for me right now. And since it is measurably helping. So isn't that a good thing? The bullworker also does pull and push resistance, so you get to strain your muscles all sorts of ways. And there is no risk of a hernia, like you might get from yanking on weights. Surely there are various ways of approaching exercise and one size doesn't fit all, right? doug :: On 5/22/04 2:21 AM, in article 10asekhkefsu9ca@corp.supernews.com, :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] :: something I look forward to doing, rather than something I make :: excuses about putting off. I knew it, that's why I push you. :: That is why I like using the bullworker. Roger mentioned that he :: thought it was dangerous, but it is clearly not. It's a very [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :: and they look cool! And the muscle feels like - muscle! This is :: entirely due to the bullworker. Good. :: So what this is accomplishing is leading me into *enjoying* :: exercise. I figure as I get used to this I can add more complex :: things and equipment as time goes by and I find out I like :: exercising. True....good. :: Some bullworker, some cycling, dog walks, some simple twist-and-turn :: calesthenics - things I can do at home and in my neighborhood... it :: seems best for me right now. And since it is measurably helping. So :: isn't that a good thing? Nope, that's great. Try pushups, dips between chairs, bodyweight squats, squats on a swiss ball, etc. :: The bullworker also does pull and push resistance, so you get to :: strain your muscles all sorts of ways. :: :: And there is no risk of a hernia, like you might get from yanking on :: weights. ??? What? :: Surely there are various ways of approaching exercise and one size :: doesn't fit all, right? Well, weights fit all, but there are other approaches :) > Isn't it reasonable for an extremely obese person like me to lose a bit on > the rapid side, at least to start with? It is normal for someone extremely obese to lose quickly at first as you have more water to lose. It's not a bad thing in that it's motivating. In most cases you don't want to continue at a rapid pace if you can help it. There are times when rapid loss, in spite of the drawbacks, are the best course to follow (immediate health concern, motivation problems, etc.). If that's not the case then after a few weeks, try to settle in at 2 lb/wk max to minimize LBM loss. On the plus side, you'll get to eat more than a very restricted diet and closer to what you need to do for maintenance. > > At which point you will have lost much valuable muscle mass. Not good. Not > > being fat should not be your only concern, doug. > > I'm eating sufficient protein though. Shouldn't that help? > > doug It helps, but still doesn't solve the problem if the deficiency is too great. I lost a lot of weight in a short period of time - 50% of my body weight and only 25% of it was LBM loss because I was eating a lot of protein and doing resistance training. It still wreaked some havoc with my metabolism - but I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Jenn Hello Doug, Yes you should lose more weight up front especially if your obese or morbidly obese. By the way I was 125 pounds overweight, and lost 120 pounds in under 9 months. These last 5/6 pounds seems to be coming off slow, but I am trying to get them off by June 30th. I started at 300 pounds last August 27th and am currently 181 pounds by changing my eating habits and exercise. I hope you make it where you want to go with minimum effort and maximum results. Paul 300/181/175 > On 5/21/04 12:34 PM, in article 10aqu76mf51d9dd@corp.supernews.com, "Roger > Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > doug > Sadly, if you continue at that rate, you're going to lose too much muscle > mass and end up being flabby when you get to an acceptable weight. You > might want to slow the rate of loss down a bit. Do you have any studies you could cite to bolster this claim? I've been thinking about this "losing too much muscle mass" issue lately because I hear it often stated but have yet to find any studies as to whether or not it's a real issue. I suspect it may be overblown - it seems to me that a person who is obese will have excess body fat, but also excess muscle mass (to allow them to move the fat around). So, presumably during the normal weight loss process an obese person would lose both fat AND muscle...and, that would be OK because that excess muscle mass is no longer required. Of course, you don't want to give up too much muscle mass, and that's why regular exercise is an important component of a healthy lifestyle. But, if someone is exercising regularly and losing weight, worrying about lost muscle mass seems like a non-issue to me. GG > :: This is 2nd week since returning to LC2 (low cal, lower carbs). > :: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > :: Body mass loss: 17.2% > :: goal: undecided ::: Sadly, if you continue at that rate, you're going to lose too much ::: muscle mass and end up being flabby when you get to an acceptable [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: because I hear it often stated but have yet to find any studies as :: to whether or not it's a real issue. Well, go ask over in misc.fitness.weights....also, the types of studies that exist will depend greatly on a perceived need for them....but I have seen such studies which deal with the notion of not losing muscle mass via resistance training, I just can't cite them. I have not seen any slanted to the notion of "losing too much muscle mass" specifically. That notion stem from the obvious logic that muscle is what makes the body look good, move well, and function well metabolically. One could certainly argue that one doesn't need extra muscle, but frankly I'd say you'd be nuts :) :: I suspect it may be overblown - it seems to me that a person who is :: obese will have excess body fat, but also excess muscle mass (to :: allow them to move the fat around). See....they have lots of excess bodyfat, but no excess muscle mass (have you ever heard of excess muscle being harmful to health?)...they have some extra compared to a non fat person perhaps (and it really depends on how active they've been -- those who are or have been very sedentary may not have much extra muscle mass, and the point is to keep as much of that as possible so they when they lose weight the muscle makes them look nicer than otherwise while allowing them to have more "engine" to burn calories. Also, a lot of very overweight people may have very little upper body muscle -- the extra will be in the lower body. Strengthwise, they can be relatively weak in the upper body but stronger in the lower body. So, presumably during the :: normal weight loss process an obese person would lose both fat AND :: muscle...and, that would be OK because that excess muscle mass is no :: longer required. Nope, why in the world would extra (not excess) muscle mass not be required? You can run faster, pick up more, move better, look better, and it will burn more calories......I could see if being fat made you have so much extra muscle that it somehow caused problems, but that is plainly not the case. :: Of course, you don't want to give up too much muscle mass, and :: that's why regular exercise is an important component of a healthy :: lifestyle. But, if someone is exercising regularly and losing :: weight, worrying about lost muscle mass seems like a non-issue to me. And the rate of weight loss matters not? And they type of exercise matters not? Not all exercise is the same, Gary. Some will promote greater mass loss (both muscle and fat) and some will promote greater fat loss. The latter is best. Commonsensical reasoning will only go so far. :: GG :: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] ::::: Body mass loss: 17.2% ::::: goal: undecided [snip] > Not all exercise is the same, Gary. Some will promote > greater mass loss (both muscle and fat)... What exercise promotes muscle loss? SignatureJJ. > [snip] > > > > Not all exercise is the same, Gary. Some will promote > > greater mass loss (both muscle and fat)... > > What exercise promotes muscle loss? Marathons. >> [snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Marathons. Thanks. (Of course, after I posted the question, I realized correct answers might have been swimming with sharks or crocodile training :-) SignatureJJ. On 5/23/04 11:05 AM, in article xFTrc.98173$xw3.5785522@attbi_s04, "JJ" <jj@a.b> wrote: > (Of course, after I posted the question, I realized > correct answers might have been swimming with sharks or > crocodile training :-) haha! doug :: Roger Zoul wrote: :: [snip] [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: :: What exercise promotes muscle loss? What I meant was exercising in such a way as to create serious calorie deficit. Lots of biking, running, too much cardio, even too much weight lifting. >>> Roger Zoul wrote: >>> [snip] [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > too much > weight lifting. Thanks. I wasn't implying that this was not correct, or even that I didn't agree with you. I had just read this as being in the context of a type of exercise, as opposed to a quantity of exercise. I guess that, technically, muscle wasting is a reality in any serious calorie deficit mode, even if the exercise were just sitting around watching your heart beat. Have a great (remainder of the) weekend. It's truly a beautiful day, at least here in North Georgia. I think I'll drive up and hike to the top of Amicalola Falls again this afternoon...assuming I can talk my wife into it. SignatureJJ. > ::: Sadly, if you continue at that rate, you're going to lose too much > ::: muscle mass and end up being flabby when you get to an acceptable [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > more calories......I could see if being fat made you have so much extra > muscle that it somehow caused problems, but that is plainly not the case. I guess it depends on your goals. If I even look at a set of weights, I start to build muscle mass...but, during the spring and summer this is not what I want because I am a cyclist. Although I might look better with more upper body bulk, it hampers my ability to ride fast uphill. So, I lay off the weights until the fall and winter. Many runners and cyclists are in the same boat on this issue. Even squats and lower body resistance exercises can be counter-productive - they tend to add lower body bulk, without contributing to increased performance on the bike. GG > :: Of course, you don't want to give up too much muscle mass, and > :: that's why regular exercise is an important component of a healthy [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > ::::: Body mass loss: 17.2% > ::::: goal: undecided > I guess it depends on your goals. If I even look at a set of weights, I > start to build muscle mass... I bet you're huge. > > I guess it depends on your goals. If I even look at a set of weights, I > > start to build muscle mass... > > I bet you're huge. LOL. My SO sure thinks so... GG http://www.WeightWare.com Your Weight and Health Diary ::: GaryG wrote: :::::: Sadly, if you continue at that rate, you're going to lose too [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] :: counter-productive - they tend to add lower body bulk, without :: contributing to increased performance on the bike. Runners and cyclist should (mostly) train for strength, not bulk. That's easily done by controlling calorie intake. I agree completely with your point about extra mass hindering performance in those sports (well, sprinters typically are well-muscled from my observations, anyway). Finally, most people don't need excessive amounts of muscle bulk, but most ex-extremely-overweight folks won't be in the catagory if they can manage to keep as much much as possible while losing fat. :: GG :: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] :::::::: Body mass loss: 17.2% :::::::: goal: undecided > Do you have any studies you could cite to bolster this claim? I've been > thinking about this "losing too much muscle mass" issue lately because I > hear it often stated but have yet to find any studies as to whether or not > it's a real issue. One word: cortisol. I've read in serveral places that the body prefers carbs, protein, and fat, in that order. Whether or not this is true it does make sense that the body would prefer protein over fat, since energy reserves are more important, evolutionariy speaking, than body strength. > I suspect it may be overblown - it seems to me that a person who is obese > will have excess body fat, but also excess muscle mass (to allow them to > move the fat around). So, presumably during the normal weight loss process > an obese person would lose both fat AND muscle...and, that would be OK > because that excess muscle mass is no longer required. Having lost 10%+ of my body weight in just 3 months, I do feel a lot thinner in my upper-chest and upper arms. A lot of this was fat, but not all of it. > This is 2nd week since returning to LC2 (low cal, lower carbs). > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > loss for the first week was really only 1.5 kg and not 2.5 kg, as I first > thought. As I've posted here many times, what I do to avoid these swings is follow the advice from _The Hacker's Diet_, namely to monitor daily weight readings via a smoothing function. The formula is relatively simple: Today's average = Yesterday's average + (Today's weight - Yesterday's average) * 0.25. This really cuts out the random noise of daily weighings, while giving you a good estimate of your true current weight each day, since sustained measurements under the average will pull it down at a pleasant enough pace. What's also cool as that even if I stall for 3-4 days, as long as the scale weight is less than the average, the average WILL still go down. This is "virtual" progress, but it's all the same if you ignore the scale and think of the averaged weight as your "real" weight. Eg even if I stay at 200.5 (today's measured weight) for the next 4 days my averaged weight will drop a full pound over that time, from 202.0 to 201.0. I maintain an excel spreedsheet, one row for each day. In addition to the averaged weight number, I also calculate my daily loss (yesterday's average - today's average), how many lbs to go (20.0 for today), how far along I am (58.3%), and my current BMI (26.65), and mass lost (12.4%). I also have weekly entries for pounds lost that week, and pounds lost total, and pounds lost from 4 weeks prior. I like numbers! > Then the weight continued to drop on schedule over this week. So it really > was 1.5 kg the first week and 1.5 kg this week. At any rate, no matter how [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > carbs, avoiding high-glycemic carbs that I know cause hunger cravings. This > usually means I am eating about 60 carbs a day or so, plug/minus 10. Sounds like my diet plan. It seems that 3 lbs/week is my natural loss rate, too. What with the rather low carb and high exercise diet I've got going, I'm getting very faint "eat now!" stomach messages throughout the day, much fainter than the growling I'd get after downing 16oz Mt Dews and pasta for lunch. Today I bought some whey protein powder, a box of cliff bars, and some instant oatmeal to beef up my eating regimen, to try to keep the loss at 2lbs/week. Trader Joes and Whole Foods -- now there's 2 stores I'd like to see in Japan. National Azabu is somewhat close to that experience I guess -- the koukyuu grocery stores have pretty good quality... Heywood On 5/21/04 3:40 PM, in article dd5de929.0405202240.16a66c19@posting.google.com, "Heywood Mogroot" <imouttahere@mac.com> wrote: > The formula is relatively simple: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I like numbers! Me too. Some people here seem to think it is obsessive to dwell on them. But I think it's fun and interesting to set up spreadsheets like that, create graphs, track trends, etc. doug > On 5/21/04 3:40 PM, in article > dd5de929.0405202240.16a66c19@posting.google.com, "Heywood Mogroot" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I think it's fun and interesting to set up spreadsheets like that, create > graphs, track trends, etc. Also it keeps one distracted from food. :) i On 5/21/04 10:30 PM, in article c8l09l$obn$1@pita.alt.net, "Ignoramus29346" <ignoramus29346@NOSPAM.29346.invalid> wrote: >> On 5/21/04 3:40 PM, in article >> dd5de929.0405202240.16a66c19@posting.google.com, "Heywood Mogroot" [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Also it keeps one distracted from food. :) It's true! Sometimes when I get caught up in stuff like that and people ask me what I'm doing I say, "I'm dieting." :) doug That's great that keep a daily log and watch the average. I do the same. Here's the bash function to save today's weight: weight() { if [ "x$1" != "x" ] ; then echo `date '+%b %d':` $@ `date '+%a'` >> $HOME/misc/life/weightl\ oss.txt fi running-average-weight.pl } running-average-weight.pl: ====================================================================== #!/usr/bin/perl use CGI::Pretty; my $html = 0; my $fn = "/home/ichudov/misc/life/weightloss.txt"; open( F, $fn ) || die "cannot open $fn"; my @que = (); my $maxsize = 7; my $line = 0; while( <F> ) { next unless / \d+: \d+/; my ($mon, $day, $weight, @dummy) = split; shift @que if $#que >= $maxsize-1; push @que, $weight; my $sum = 0; foreach my $w (@que) { $sum += $w; } my $avg = $sum / ($#que+1); if( $line > 15 ) { print sprintf( "%03s %02d: %.1f, 7 day running average == %.3f ", $mon, $day, $weight, $avg ) . join(" ", @dummy ). "\n"; } else { print $_; } $line++; } close( F ); |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.