A weight loss plan that works for average cyclists? - Page 52 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

01-01-2005, 05:04 PM

Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
>news

g7Bd.5668596$yk.855912@news.easynews.com. ..
>> Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> >|| Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >||| Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> >||||| Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >|||||| Preston Crawford wrote:
>> >||||||||| Nothing is a "big problem" except total calories in minus
>> >||||||||| total calories out being a positive number.
>> >||||||||
>> >|||||||| I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps that's my problem and
>> >|||||||| perhaps keeping track is the answer. In the end, though, I
>> >|||||||| wonder about *what* I'm eating as well.
>> >||||||
>> >|||||| I've lost 125 lbs on LC and I count and track calories as well as
>> >|||||| carbs. It works.
>> >|||||
>> >||||| You've accelerated your rate of muscle loss by restricting your
>> >||||| carbs.
>> >|||
>> >||| That's funny. I have more muscle now than before.
>> >||
>> >|| You have less muscle than if you'd given your body the
>> >|| carbs it needs to anabolize muscle properly.
>> >
>> >1) I gave my body carbs
>>
>> Few carbs.
>
>Enough carbs.

Might as well have been 0 carbs.

> and your training intensity
>> suffers from lack of muscle glycogen (even on a "cyclical"
>> ketogenic diet).
>
>This can be true at the beginning. But one solutoin is to TKD or CKD and
>increase time between sets, if weight training.

What are TKD and CKD? I keep reading the latter as CJD,
and I know you don't want that...

>> Low carbs and high activity don't go well together.
>
>I won't argue this point. That why I get carbs if I expect to go high
>intensity. I vary my carb intake in proportion to my anticipated activity
>level. ON long rides with lots of climbing, I eat carbs.

So wait. You were doing low-carb...except when you were
doing high-carb?

That might explain a few things.

>> The worst side effect of the VLCD is one that few people
>> think of because it requires a long-term perspective and
>> most people are caught up in short term results:
>>
>> For the average non-competitor, it's very difficult to
>> permanently keep the fat off if it's lost through VLCD's.
>> VLCD's set you up for a big rebound.
>
>Nonsense. Total and complete.

Sense.

>> Bodybuilders often use VLCD's successfully before contests,
>> but bodybuilders are extreme athletes with incredible
>> discipline and willpower. I know bodybuilders who are so
>> "hard core" that they can eat nothing but tuna fish out of
>> the can for 12 weeks, then go back to a normal, balanced diet -
>> no problem - no bingeing. That's a rare feat.
>>
>> Lots of people lose weight on very low carb diets. Few keep
>> it off. I've seen people go on massive, uncontrollable binges
>> of doughnuts, pizza and Ben & Jerry's (Chunky Monkey!), gaining
>> 30 pounds in less than seven days after coming off a very
>> low carb diet.
>
>Listen at that. 30 lbs in less than 7 days. What incredible BS. You seem
>like a smart guy, Blair. I can't believe you didn't question this
>nonsense.

I've personlly gained 15 lbs in 21 days (expense account
+ trip to Dallas + excess free time = texas-BBQ pig-out...and
really, the expense account wasn't necessary, because
bobber-q is cheap...).

Casey Viator put on 68 lbs of "muscle mass" in 14 days, once.

30 lbs of rebound weight in a week? Not out of the realm
of possibility, just not a 3-sigma event. I doubt all
of it was stored lipids. Lots of water, carbs, and
in-process Big Macs add to it. And anyway, 30 is scary
copy; 5 lbs in a week would make most people cry, if they'd
just spent 8 weeks cutting it.

>> My friend, very low carb diets ain't the long term solution to
>> fat loss. To use one successfully without gaining everything
>> back, you have to know what you're doing and you must be
>> extremely disciplined. Even then, you should consider low carb
>> diets as "last chance" diets or short term "peaking" diets that
>> are fraught with side effects and disadvantages.
>
>Nonsense. This same BS he sent out in his e-mails.

Hard to argue with an Atkins adherent who says a balanced
approach is "BS".

--Blair
"Just put it down and let it
crawl away."

01-01-2005, 05:04 PM

Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
>news

g7Bd.5668596$yk.855912@news.easynews.com. ..
>> Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> >|| Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >||| Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> >||||| Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >|||||| Preston Crawford wrote:
>> >||||||||| Nothing is a "big problem" except total calories in minus
>> >||||||||| total calories out being a positive number.
>> >||||||||
>> >|||||||| I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps that's my problem and
>> >|||||||| perhaps keeping track is the answer. In the end, though, I
>> >|||||||| wonder about *what* I'm eating as well.
>> >||||||
>> >|||||| I've lost 125 lbs on LC and I count and track calories as well as
>> >|||||| carbs. It works.
>> >|||||
>> >||||| You've accelerated your rate of muscle loss by restricting your
>> >||||| carbs.
>> >|||
>> >||| That's funny. I have more muscle now than before.
>> >||
>> >|| You have less muscle than if you'd given your body the
>> >|| carbs it needs to anabolize muscle properly.
>> >
>> >1) I gave my body carbs
>>
>> Few carbs.
>
>Enough carbs.

Might as well have been 0 carbs.

> and your training intensity
>> suffers from lack of muscle glycogen (even on a "cyclical"
>> ketogenic diet).
>
>This can be true at the beginning. But one solutoin is to TKD or CKD and
>increase time between sets, if weight training.

What are TKD and CKD? I keep reading the latter as CJD,
and I know you don't want that...

>> Low carbs and high activity don't go well together.
>
>I won't argue this point. That why I get carbs if I expect to go high
>intensity. I vary my carb intake in proportion to my anticipated activity
>level. ON long rides with lots of climbing, I eat carbs.

So wait. You were doing low-carb...except when you were
doing high-carb?

That might explain a few things.

>> The worst side effect of the VLCD is one that few people
>> think of because it requires a long-term perspective and
>> most people are caught up in short term results:
>>
>> For the average non-competitor, it's very difficult to
>> permanently keep the fat off if it's lost through VLCD's.
>> VLCD's set you up for a big rebound.
>
>Nonsense. Total and complete.

Sense.

>> Bodybuilders often use VLCD's successfully before contests,
>> but bodybuilders are extreme athletes with incredible
>> discipline and willpower. I know bodybuilders who are so
>> "hard core" that they can eat nothing but tuna fish out of
>> the can for 12 weeks, then go back to a normal, balanced diet -
>> no problem - no bingeing. That's a rare feat.
>>
>> Lots of people lose weight on very low carb diets. Few keep
>> it off. I've seen people go on massive, uncontrollable binges
>> of doughnuts, pizza and Ben & Jerry's (Chunky Monkey!), gaining
>> 30 pounds in less than seven days after coming off a very
>> low carb diet.
>
>Listen at that. 30 lbs in less than 7 days. What incredible BS. You seem
>like a smart guy, Blair. I can't believe you didn't question this
>nonsense.

I've personlly gained 15 lbs in 21 days (expense account
+ trip to Dallas + excess free time = texas-BBQ pig-out...and
really, the expense account wasn't necessary, because
bobber-q is cheap...).

Casey Viator put on 68 lbs of "muscle mass" in 14 days, once.

30 lbs of rebound weight in a week? Not out of the realm
of possibility, just not a 3-sigma event. I doubt all
of it was stored lipids. Lots of water, carbs, and
in-process Big Macs add to it. And anyway, 30 is scary
copy; 5 lbs in a week would make most people cry, if they'd
just spent 8 weeks cutting it.

>> My friend, very low carb diets ain't the long term solution to
>> fat loss. To use one successfully without gaining everything
>> back, you have to know what you're doing and you must be
>> extremely disciplined. Even then, you should consider low carb
>> diets as "last chance" diets or short term "peaking" diets that
>> are fraught with side effects and disadvantages.
>
>Nonsense. This same BS he sent out in his e-mails.

Hard to argue with an Atkins adherent who says a balanced
approach is "BS".

--Blair
"Just put it down and let it
crawl away."

01-01-2005, 05:04 PM

Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
>news

g7Bd.5668596$yk.855912@news.easynews.com. ..
>> Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> >|| Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >||| Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> >||||| Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >|||||| Preston Crawford wrote:
>> >||||||||| Nothing is a "big problem" except total calories in minus
>> >||||||||| total calories out being a positive number.
>> >||||||||
>> >|||||||| I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps that's my problem and
>> >|||||||| perhaps keeping track is the answer. In the end, though, I
>> >|||||||| wonder about *what* I'm eating as well.
>> >||||||
>> >|||||| I've lost 125 lbs on LC and I count and track calories as well as
>> >|||||| carbs. It works.
>> >|||||
>> >||||| You've accelerated your rate of muscle loss by restricting your
>> >||||| carbs.
>> >|||
>> >||| That's funny. I have more muscle now than before.
>> >||
>> >|| You have less muscle than if you'd given your body the
>> >|| carbs it needs to anabolize muscle properly.
>> >
>> >1) I gave my body carbs
>>
>> Few carbs.
>
>Enough carbs.

Might as well have been 0 carbs.

> and your training intensity
>> suffers from lack of muscle glycogen (even on a "cyclical"
>> ketogenic diet).
>
>This can be true at the beginning. But one solutoin is to TKD or CKD and
>increase time between sets, if weight training.

What are TKD and CKD? I keep reading the latter as CJD,
and I know you don't want that...

>> Low carbs and high activity don't go well together.
>
>I won't argue this point. That why I get carbs if I expect to go high
>intensity. I vary my carb intake in proportion to my anticipated activity
>level. ON long rides with lots of climbing, I eat carbs.

So wait. You were doing low-carb...except when you were
doing high-carb?

That might explain a few things.

>> The worst side effect of the VLCD is one that few people
>> think of because it requires a long-term perspective and
>> most people are caught up in short term results:
>>
>> For the average non-competitor, it's very difficult to
>> permanently keep the fat off if it's lost through VLCD's.
>> VLCD's set you up for a big rebound.
>
>Nonsense. Total and complete.

Sense.

>> Bodybuilders often use VLCD's successfully before contests,
>> but bodybuilders are extreme athletes with incredible
>> discipline and willpower. I know bodybuilders who are so
>> "hard core" that they can eat nothing but tuna fish out of
>> the can for 12 weeks, then go back to a normal, balanced diet -
>> no problem - no bingeing. That's a rare feat.
>>
>> Lots of people lose weight on very low carb diets. Few keep
>> it off. I've seen people go on massive, uncontrollable binges
>> of doughnuts, pizza and Ben & Jerry's (Chunky Monkey!), gaining
>> 30 pounds in less than seven days after coming off a very
>> low carb diet.
>
>Listen at that. 30 lbs in less than 7 days. What incredible BS. You seem
>like a smart guy, Blair. I can't believe you didn't question this
>nonsense.

I've personlly gained 15 lbs in 21 days (expense account
+ trip to Dallas + excess free time = texas-BBQ pig-out...and
really, the expense account wasn't necessary, because
bobber-q is cheap...).

Casey Viator put on 68 lbs of "muscle mass" in 14 days, once.

30 lbs of rebound weight in a week? Not out of the realm
of possibility, just not a 3-sigma event. I doubt all
of it was stored lipids. Lots of water, carbs, and
in-process Big Macs add to it. And anyway, 30 is scary
copy; 5 lbs in a week would make most people cry, if they'd
just spent 8 weeks cutting it.

>> My friend, very low carb diets ain't the long term solution to
>> fat loss. To use one successfully without gaining everything
>> back, you have to know what you're doing and you must be
>> extremely disciplined. Even then, you should consider low carb
>> diets as "last chance" diets or short term "peaking" diets that
>> are fraught with side effects and disadvantages.
>
>Nonsense. This same BS he sent out in his e-mails.

Hard to argue with an Atkins adherent who says a balanced
approach is "BS".

--Blair
"Just put it down and let it
crawl away."

01-01-2005, 05:05 PM

Sandor <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>There are three main types of 'diets'. Low fat, low calorie,
>and low carbohydrate. Isn't the key to choose what works best
>for you?

Unless you're a lemur or something, what works best for you
will be slightly different from what works best for me, not
completely on the other end of a nutritional scale.

>If you understand the science for being successful for
>each one, and pick the one that suits you - then what's to argue?

How sick it's going to make you.

>What is your understanding of the scientific basis for this
>low-fat diet?

It's not low-fat. I still eat 30-50 grams of fat a day.

--Blair
"It's not low anything."

01-01-2005, 05:05 PM

Sandor <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>There are three main types of 'diets'. Low fat, low calorie,
>and low carbohydrate. Isn't the key to choose what works best
>for you?

Unless you're a lemur or something, what works best for you
will be slightly different from what works best for me, not
completely on the other end of a nutritional scale.

>If you understand the science for being successful for
>each one, and pick the one that suits you - then what's to argue?

How sick it's going to make you.

>What is your understanding of the scientific basis for this
>low-fat diet?

It's not low-fat. I still eat 30-50 grams of fat a day.

--Blair
"It's not low anything."

01-01-2005, 05:05 PM

Sandor <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>There are three main types of 'diets'. Low fat, low calorie,
>and low carbohydrate. Isn't the key to choose what works best
>for you?

Unless you're a lemur or something, what works best for you
will be slightly different from what works best for me, not
completely on the other end of a nutritional scale.

>If you understand the science for being successful for
>each one, and pick the one that suits you - then what's to argue?

How sick it's going to make you.

>What is your understanding of the scientific basis for this
>low-fat diet?

It's not low-fat. I still eat 30-50 grams of fat a day.

--Blair
"It's not low anything."

01-01-2005, 05:05 PM

Sandor <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>There are three main types of 'diets'. Low fat, low calorie,
>and low carbohydrate. Isn't the key to choose what works best
>for you?

Unless you're a lemur or something, what works best for you
will be slightly different from what works best for me, not
completely on the other end of a nutritional scale.

>If you understand the science for being successful for
>each one, and pick the one that suits you - then what's to argue?

How sick it's going to make you.

>What is your understanding of the scientific basis for this
>low-fat diet?

It's not low-fat. I still eat 30-50 grams of fat a day.

--Blair
"It's not low anything."