Fat Vs Fit?

The bulk of the musical talk
fairweathertuba
3 valves
3 valves
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:34 pm
Location: Scottsdale Arizona

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by fairweathertuba »

bloke wrote:I suspect that more Americans - compared to three or four decades ago - are using cannabis/THC (which prompts eating food) as a sedative ...as well as using food itself as a sedative, and fewer Americans are using cigarettes/alcohol as sedatives (substances which discourage eating food)...

except that the use of "beer" (which requires a larger intake of calories to act as a sedative than other types of alcoholic beverages) seems to have gone up as well...
...ie. The average 12 oz. of beer today (particularly considering the increased consumption of expensive higher-calorie beers) is roughly 175, whereas 1 oz. of vodka (the same amount of alcohol/sedative as a typical 12 oz. glass of beer) is only about 75 calories.

bloke "who always has to ruin a discussion by shoehorning in the ugly truth" :(
It's not the calories, it really is the carbohydrates, or the sugars in food that causes people to gain weight. When humans take in a lot of carbs, for some people as few as 20 or 30 per day, others can have up to 100 or so, but when you go past your limit the amount of insulin (which is a hormone by the way) released into the body to bring the blood sugar down will cause the body to burn as much glucose or sugar as possible but sadly the insulin also triggers the body to store all excess calories as fat.

Even if you starve yourself half to death on a low calorie diet of between 1500-1800 calories you won't lose any weight or very little if you still are eating too many carbs. It's really as simple as that. Exercise does help speed the fat loss up if you are eating correctly but it won't magically overcome the insulin induced fat production if you eat a lot of bread, pizza, potatoes, bagels, cake etc. etc.

I haven't figured out exactly what my max carb intake is but I'm pretty sure it's not much over 50 grams a day, if that high. But I can still eat all the meats I wish to help fill me up, fat btw is not a bad thing to have on meat as it greatly helps with feelings of satiety and the body actually needs it for various functions and building blocks. Also there are plenty of different low carb vegetables to mix into the diet. It's a different way of eating for sure and I'm not very good at it still, once or twice a week I go off and binge on pizza or eat sandwiches with bread or some other high carb foods. Overall though the weight is still off, so it's a pretty forgiving diet.

One good thing that has come about is "light" beer, a decent light beer will have only about 3 carbs for every 12 ounces. By comparison 1 slice of bread will have between 20 to 25 carbs on average. So a typical sandwich might well have over 50 grams carbohydrates (more than I should probably have in a whole day) and a whole sixer of Miller light only has about 20 grams carbs, about the same as 1 slice of bread. A regular beer will have about 13 to 17 grams I think. And for Bloke, yes a shot of whiskey has maybe 1 gram, or perhaps 0, I can't remember.

So, whiskey and fat are OK, but scones from Starbuck's are a no-no. Alas, I used to love eating scones.
Happiness is a warm tuba.
fairweathertuba
3 valves
3 valves
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:34 pm
Location: Scottsdale Arizona

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by fairweathertuba »

Oops double post, but this gives me the chance to rant some more/ :D

On second thought, rant is over for today. :tuba:
Happiness is a warm tuba.
User avatar
Donn
6 valves
6 valves
Posts: 5977
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:58 pm
Location: Seattle, ☯

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by Donn »

fairweathertuba wrote: It's not the calories, it really is the carbohydrates, or the sugars in food that causes people to gain weight.
The restricted carbohydrate diet is intriguing, but just bear in mind, to billions of people today who live on mostly grains, as their ancestors have done for thousands of years, and aren't conspicuously prone to obesity, it may look like a fad.
User avatar
Uncle Buck
5 valves
5 valves
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:45 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Contact:

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by Uncle Buck »

Donn wrote:
fairweathertuba wrote: It's not the calories, it really is the carbohydrates, or the sugars in food that causes people to gain weight.
The restricted carbohydrate diet is intriguing, but just bear in mind, to billions of people today who live on mostly grains, as their ancestors have done for thousands of years, and aren't conspicuously prone to obesity, it may look like a fad.
I will chime in from my personal experience. Right now I'm about halfway in between my highest and lowest weights of my adult life. I've had periods of extreme obesity, and a few years ago I was very fit. I've gained some back, but I'm losing again for the past year.

For me at least, carbohydrates make a small difference, but much less difference than total calories. I've never been successful unless I simply lower my total calories.

Also for me, I've never been able to use exercise to make up for eating too much. I've never trained for an Ironman, either. But in my experience, having a desk job and trying to squeeze in a 60 to 90 minute workout on most days, will not make up for overeating. It will help the pounds come off easier, though, if I'm watching my diet right.
Last edited by Uncle Buck on Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Donn
6 valves
6 valves
Posts: 5977
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:58 pm
Location: Seattle, ☯

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by Donn »

Donn wrote: It may not be as simple as total inputs minus outputs, summed over a 24 hour day, though. I suspect certain activity patterns set up a metabolic level that's disproportionate to their immediate caloric requirements, and if you just run the numbers on calories, workouts and weight loss, they don't need to add up.
Uncle Buck wrote: Also for me, I've never been able to use exercise to make up for eating too much.
So I spent a minute surfing the web on this topic, and the leads I found were few but interesting. The technical term for it is resting metabolism, and of course we are looking for a high resting metabolism so that we can eat lots while getting the rest we deserve. One of the theories is that you can get all the aerobic exercise you have time for and not lose much weight, but hard `resistance training' (i.e., weights) will leave metabolism at an elevated level that lasts for hours. This isn't at all the answer I expected, but who knows, maybe there's something to it.

(What I do know for sure, by the way, is that the idea is to "LOSE" weight, not "LOOSE" it. "Loose" is a word, so your spelling checker will never know, but it's a different word, that rhymes with "goose". Nothing about the post I'm responding to, just thought I'd mention it in case anyone might be about to commit this unfortunately common error.)
User avatar
Uncle Buck
5 valves
5 valves
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:45 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Contact:

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by Uncle Buck »

Chuck Jackson
5 valves
5 valves
Posts: 1811
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:33 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by Chuck Jackson »

The mantra I see missing here is: "Eat less, Move more".

4 years ago I peaked at 230 lbs. I was lethargic and had a poor self image. I decided to lose weight. The number one reason I lost 30 lbs besides adhering to the simple mantra above? EAT BREAKFAST. Used to be that I would grab a Diet Coke and a cup of coffee, go to work, and hit the gedunk machines. Bad idea. When my cholesterol hit 350, my Doctor simply said "Eat a big bowl of Honey Nut Cherrios every morning". I did and found that I was good until lunch. I reverted back to my military training ans started moving, parked the car as far away from school as was safe, took the stair whenever practicable, and made myself walk a MINIMUM of 30 minutes a day. I then started jogging in intervals within that 30 minutes, then jogging all of it. I accepted small monthly gains in my weight loss while all the time taking things out of my diet that were "Bad", pizza, cookies, processed lunch meat, snacks, etc. While I don't deny myself the rare guilty pleasure, I no longer make that pleasure a daily habit. I don't worry about carb intake or other such "fads", I merely eat until I'm full and don't eat again until I'm actually hungry. I do consume an inordinate amount of Diet Coke, but other than that, my eating choices a generally quite healthy.

Playing the tuba should be no excuse for being fat. When your fat, your body doesn't work to peak efficiency, thus your tuba playing probably will suffer. Get fit for YOURSELF AND YOUR LOVED ONES. They probably would rather have a healthy partner/parent than a fat one. You'll feel better, look better (well in some cases you'll just feel better), and have more energy for EVERYTHING that matters in life, tuba playing being the least of them.

My $.02, your mileage may vary.

Chuck "lean and not so mean"Jackson

P.S.- At last check, my cholesterol was 156, and the best news since losing weight? ALL my body parts are functioning like a teenager. I let you take from that what you will.
I drank WHAT?!!-Socrates
User avatar
sloan
On Ice
On Ice
Posts: 1827
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:34 pm
Location: Nutley, NJ

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by sloan »

carbs vs fat
silver vs lacquer
pistons vs rotaries

It's good to see that the level of discourse, and knowledge, remains the same even when tuba experts stray into other fields.
Kenneth Sloan
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 6650
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:18 am
Contact:

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by Rick Denney »

sloan wrote:carbs vs fat
silver vs lacquer
pistons vs rotaries

It's good to see that the level of discourse, and knowledge, remains the same even when tuba experts stray into other fields.
That's bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!

Rick "fill yer hands, you..." Denney
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 6650
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:18 am
Contact:

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by Rick Denney »

Chuck Jackson wrote:The mantra I see missing here is: "Eat less, Move more".
I was thinking exactly that and then I read your post.

We think in terms of macro-nutrients (carbs, fat, protein), but health is more based on micro-nutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc.) that we should get by eating good food, not by supplementing bad food with bad chemicals.

The mantra I give to people is: Exercise to be fit, eat to be healthy, and you'll weigh what you're supposed to weigh. Fit people who eat well are rarely fat, and they are also rarely sallow in the way lots of excessive-health-food geeks and ketogenic-diet proponents often become.

Rick "who'd like to be less pudgy, but who still has a resting heart rate of about 50" Denney
Chuck Jackson
5 valves
5 valves
Posts: 1811
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:33 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by Chuck Jackson »

Rick Denney wrote:The mantra I give to people is: Exercise to be fit, eat to be healthy, and you'll weigh what you're supposed to weigh. Fit people who eat well are rarely fat, and they are also rarely sallow in the way lots of excessive-health-food geeks and ketogenic-diet proponents often become.
+1 Rick. I have the same argument with Vegans/Vegetarians. We, as humans, are carnivores and require the nutrients in flesh to sustain a proper balance in our diet. I have many Vegan/Vegetarian friends who complain of being cold all the time (body heat is generated by digestion if I know my science correctly), look like the living dead, and lack sufficient energy ON THEIR OWN to do moderate to mildly stressful workouts, they always seem to be eating some whey based protien something or others to sustain their bodies. While not a huge proponent of eating alot of red meat, the amount I take in is sufficient to sustain me through a 5 mile run without the necessity of an added protien/carb/whey boost. For extreme workouts, I need the replenishment AFTERWARDS. I will say that processed meats, lunch meats, hot dots, etc, are HORRIBLE for you due to their incredibly high sodium content. I am also careful of chicken, but have found that it isn't as bad as I thought. Basically, anything in a can is chock full of salt.

I am not a health nut, but think healthily. As I said, I allow myself my bete-noirs. With Baseball season starting tomorrow, I have Hebrew National hot dogs, MGD Lite (I know, wussy beer, but hey, I actually like it) and pretzels. It is something to look forward to.

On a VERY PERSONAL side note, I think my ED was due to a high cholesterol count. I am living proof that after losing 40 lbs. (yes, my math was off in an earlier post, I went from 235 to 192) and cutting my cholesterol in half, Viagra is a thing of the past. At 51, I count that as a blessing. Just something to ponder.

Being fit is a state of mind. Move more, eat less. You don't have to run a marathon, just take a brisk walk everyday.

Chuck
I drank WHAT?!!-Socrates
User avatar
Donn
6 valves
6 valves
Posts: 5977
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:58 pm
Location: Seattle, ☯

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by Donn »

Chuck Jackson wrote:I have the same argument with Vegans/Vegetarians. We, as humans, are carnivores and require the nutrients in flesh to sustain a proper balance in our diet.
Go have that argument with Scott Jurek, vegan ultramarathon champion. I'm sure there are other examples.

Humans are very adaptable omnivores.
fairweathertuba
3 valves
3 valves
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:34 pm
Location: Scottsdale Arizona

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by fairweathertuba »

If the calorie count is low enough, in a modern traditional sort of diet sure you will lose weight eventually. But what happens when you want to try to eat "normally" again? I would dread having to maintain a lifestyle of eating 1300 calories a day for the rest of my life!

I am now at 6' 185 pound, never feel hungry, don't easily feel tired, exercise mildly a couple times a week, or sometimes only once a week. Cholesterol, fats, blood pressure, etc all nearly perfect. Maybe I am just luckily suited for a "paleolithic" type diet?

Yes, a person can lose weight in more than one way, but being thin isn't the only thing to consider when you want to evaluate overall health. I've yet to see study results that equal the health benefits gained by low carb dieting. Here in this youtube clip Steve Gardner from Stanford (he's a vegetarian btw) explains how his study has shown that the low carb diet actually is the healthiest, much to his chagrin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdM ... e=youtu.be He really still kinda glosses over how it works and why.

I really do recommend the book by Gary Taubes "Why We get Fat" he does a great job of explaining the historical aspects of our "modern" calorie counting way of dieting, and why the low carb diet has historically been recognized as the preferred method for health and weight loss.

A lot of people want to claim that the Atkins style diet is a "fad", but it's only possible to do so because of the modern context created by the USDA and the AMA and others promoting the crazy food pyramid type diet with calorie counting beginnning in the 60's sometime. Before the crazy food pyramid came along doctors routinely recommended low carb dieting, hmmm. So who is right? Well you just need to look at the obesity rates in the U.S. from the late sixties to the current day. Obesity and overweight percentages used to be in the 20 to 30 percent range but now today the combined overweight are at about 70% as of 2008. I'm pretty sure the numbers have gone up since then, and they sure haven't come down! Here are some facts from the center for disease control. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm Enjoy!

I don't claim to know everything about every kind of diet and sure there have been successfully thin groups that traditionally eat rice, (Think Asians here) But I haven't studied those diets at all to find out what percentage of carbs they eat/ have eaten historically or even now. I did live in China for two years from 2008 to 2010 and I can tell you they did seem to eat plenty of carbs, though they are now beginning to have obesity problems there as well.

I'd say that if you are confident with what you do with diet and exercise and it works for you please continue doing it! The real tale is told over several years, how does one's health hold up over time with a certain regimen. That's a good question for me as I've only been low carbbing for about a year now. I will probably actually have to continue with low carb eating because I was also beginning to see high blood sugar readings from the previous diet, and I surely don't want to go back to that.
Last edited by fairweathertuba on Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Happiness is a warm tuba.
fairweathertuba
3 valves
3 valves
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:34 pm
Location: Scottsdale Arizona

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by fairweathertuba »

bloke wrote:"Traditionally", I believe subsistence societies (regardless of WHAT they manage to find to eat) are "thin".

The CHALLENGE is for a people of plenty to somehow find the DISCIPLINE to overcome the INSTINCTUAL pressure to "get while the gettin's good" (as the "gettin' " continues to be "good" until "good" becomes "bad").

bloke "A very large mug of hot tea with about 20 calories of creamer and Splenda keeps me from prowling around in the kitchen. Additionally it prompts urination - which is the only way that humans can really 'lose weight'."
I am sure those groups of people never found sacks of potatoes or large bags of rice piled up inside a bakery at the local wal-mart. More likely they found land animals, sea animals year round and seasonally some leafy plants, fruits, nuts. And not the high sugar modern varieties of apples, berries etc. that have been developed over the last few centuries.
Happiness is a warm tuba.
fairweathertuba
3 valves
3 valves
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:34 pm
Location: Scottsdale Arizona

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by fairweathertuba »

Me either.
Happiness is a warm tuba.
User avatar
Uncle Buck
5 valves
5 valves
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:45 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Contact:

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by Uncle Buck »

bloke wrote:
bloke "A very large mug of hot tea with about 20 calories of creamer and Splenda keeps me from prowling around in the kitchen. Additionally it prompts urination - which is the only way that humans can really 'lose weight'."
That strategy works great for me too.


When I remember to do it . . :oops:
User avatar
Donn
6 valves
6 valves
Posts: 5977
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:58 pm
Location: Seattle, ☯

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by Donn »

bloke wrote:Many who choose the anti-omnivoracious path of veganism or vegetarianism seem to adapt themselves into pencil-necked geeks.
Just envy there, or does the hostility come with too much meat in the diet?
User avatar
JHardisk
pro musician
pro musician
Posts: 439
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 7:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by JHardisk »

Chuck Jackson wrote: +1 Rick. I have the same argument with Vegans/Vegetarians. We, as humans, are carnivores and require the nutrients in flesh to sustain a proper balance in our diet. I have many Vegan/Vegetarian friends who complain of being cold all the time (body heat is generated by digestion if I know my science correctly), look like the living dead, and lack sufficient energy ON THEIR OWN to do moderate to mildly stressful workouts, they always seem to be eating some whey based protien something or others to sustain their bodies. While not a huge proponent of eating alot of red meat, the amount I take in is sufficient to sustain me through a 5 mile run without the necessity of an added protien/carb/whey boost. For extreme workouts, I need the replenishment AFTERWARDS...

On a VERY PERSONAL side note, I think my ED was due to a high cholesterol count. I am living proof that after losing 40 lbs. (yes, my math was off in an earlier post, I went from 235 to 192) and cutting my cholesterol in half, Viagra is a thing of the past. At 51, I count that as a blessing. Just something to ponder.
I've managed to bite my tongue and not reply to this thread... until now.

For those who know me, I am vegan. I am also an athlete. I weight 200+lbs, and am in the process of getting my Crossfit certification. I have a regular practice of yoga with my wife who is an RYT 500E yoga teacher and nutritionist, and maintain about 15-20 miles/week of running. In 10 days, I will compete in an event called "Tough Mudder" http://www.toughmudder.com. I sure hope I'm not too puny and cold to be able to run 12 miles and get punished by 27 insane obstacles! My resting heart rate is right at about 50bpm. Oh, and our children are also vegan.

I strongly disagree with any claim of the body's "need for flesh." While I've chosen to be vegan for ethical reasons, the health benefits of a vegetarian/vegan diet are the number-one reason why people choose to follow this way of eating. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans support the benefit of a vegetarian diet: "Most Americans of all ages eat fewer than the recommended number of servings of grain products, vegetables, and fruits, even though consumption of these foods is associated with a substantially lower risk for many chronic diseases, including certain types of cancer." Research has shown that people who follow a vegetarian diet are at a lower risk for obesity, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, diverticulosis, renal disease, some cancers (including lung and breast), and gallstones. Vegetarian diets have also been shown to benefit people who already have type 2 diabetes. In one study, 43% of the people with type 2 diabetes who ate a low-fat vegan diet reduced their need for diabetes medications. I can attest to the validity of this as well. My mother-in-law was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. With our dietary guidance, she has managed to control her sugar count without the aid of medications. Oh, and she can eat almost anything she wants!

There are incredible benefits for the environment by the elimination of meat in one's diet as well. Did you know it takes 16 lbs of grain to produce 1 lb of beef? And there are so many people in the world starving... I'll save that rant for a different time...

The reason for these health benefits comes from the lower intakes of saturated fat and cholesterol and the higher intakes of complex carbohydrates, significantly more vitamins in the purest form, dietary fiber, certain minerals, and phytochemicals. Cholesterol is only found in animal foods, so vegan diets are completely cholesterol-free. Had a little issue with ED, at an early age, did you? Here's a way you could solve it... Not to mention the elimination of all the crap and chemicals they pump into, and feed the animals that are marked as "food." See any of the recent articles about "discoveries" of "pink slime" lately? The food service industry has been turned into a lab, and food is no longer being cultivated... it's a process now. Most of the food we eat at home is organic, and sometimes we even get to grow it ourselves! Raw food is at the top of our list!

Many high profile athletes are taking notice of the added health benefits of a vegetarian/vegan diet and adapting it for themselves. Additionally, with all the added vitamins and nutrients that the body is absorbing, post workout recovery times are diminished.

Back to the original topic:

With my students, one of the first things we talk about in lessons is fitness. We play the tuba. It uses a ton of air. Being out of shape, overweight, and generally unhealthy (i.e. smoking) is not a benefit to our cardiovascular system. I believe that taking care of one's body is just as important as practicing Arban, or Rochut. So, in addition to weekly musical lessons of listening and practicing, I give a physical assignment as well. A typical practice session includes some sort of warm up, right? So, we buzz our little lips into the shiny metal piece for a bit, do some tonguing, etc... Perhaps some breathing as well? I like include stretches, and some light cardio. A few sun salutations, and perhaps a couple dozen jumping jacks, or jump rope in place to get the blood flowing, and bingo!... air usage increased. I've actually got a pretty good routine that I do to limber up my tissue, and prepare myself for the physical demands of playing the tuba. Not to mention getting up and moving, helps combat the fact that we're about to sit on our butts for hours on end, blowing our guts out into a big pipe.

I don't advocate that every tuba player go out and become a marathoner or bodybuilder. But, for the sake of yourself and those who care for you, get off your butt and be active once in a while! Don't let that belly get in the way of your tuba. Be fit enough to lug around 2 tubas without breaking a sweat! Don't pollute the air of your colleagues with the stench of cigarettes and indigestive farts. Take care of your body, and it will take care of you by paying dividends when you're older and not falling apart, like your unhealthy counterparts!

End of my little rant... flame away. I like grilled veggies as much as raw ones! :oops:
~John Hardisky
User avatar
Donn
6 valves
6 valves
Posts: 5977
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:58 pm
Location: Seattle, ☯

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by Donn »

Good luck with the event. Also, good luck with Crossfit - I'm sure a lot of people benefit from that program, but read up on the injury issues, rhabdomyolosis etc. if you haven't already.

About vegetarian diet - lest I seem to be posing as a vegetarian here, we actually do stray from a strictly plant based diet, not only with dairy products but we eat some fish. You can't really live in Seattle and not eat fresh wild Pacific salmon, etc. I believe it will be tofu tonight, though. My point in mentioning it is that you don't have to choose between diets A or B in order to conform to some dietary label that you put on yourself. It's about living well - which does have an ethical dimension, but you have to sort that out for yourself.
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 6650
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:18 am
Contact:

Re: Fat Vs Fit?

Post by Rick Denney »

fairweathertuba wrote:
bloke wrote:I am sure those groups of people never found sacks of potatoes or large bags of rice piled up inside a bakery at the local wal-mart. More likely they found land animals, sea animals year round and seasonally some leafy plants, fruits, nuts. And not the high sugar modern varieties of apples, berries etc. that have been developed over the last few centuries.
Your skipping about two thousand years of human history when rice and other grains (like, for example, corn), and high-density carb sources like potatos and beans, have provided the subsistence diet. These people have never been fat except when they were rich, and even then only occasionally. And meat was "rich people food". Your paleolithic humans had a little different lifestyle than modern humans. They ate voraciously and opportunistically, feasting when the opportunity was there on whatever, and eating whatever they had to during famine. Okay, they didn't have Wal-Marts. Man has been agricultural for a very, very long time--enough generations to change the mix of population that responds in specific ways to different diets.

For any given eating strategy, someone has written a highly persuasive book explaining why that is THE answer to modern problems of obesity. I've read a bunch of them.

And I've done the diets. My recipe for exercise bars that follow the 40-30-30 mix of carbs, protein, and fat is still quite well-known in certain triathlon circles. You can find it on my web page, along with pictures of me doing endurance sports and articles I wrote on bicycle technology for Triathlete Magazine. I was thinner then, but I was never really thin.

When I lost the weight, I went from 280 to about 200 by cutting out fat and (oh, by the way) working out four days a week at the gym and riding 100-150 miles a week with the local cycling club. I then read a book about the Zone Diet, and started eating that way. I followed that diet carefully for about three years, and went from 200 to 195 to 205, with changes in muscle, but never dipping below 10% body fat no matter how hard I trained. After the Ironman, I got married and stopped training as much, and I started gaining weight, but I didn't change my diet at all. Now, my diet is "eat reasonably" and my exercise is pushups and a little weight-lifting and not much walking. I'm up to a stable 235--the balance my body finds with reasonable decisions. But my experience has as little meaning for what others should do as yours--the response to macronutrients is partly genetic, as is the metabolic rate, the oxygen uptake, general body size, the ratio of body fat percentage to body mass index (a measurement myth if there ever was one), and a range of other attributes. Our individual experiences are anecdotal and what works for one person may not work at all for someone else.

It's good that you have found your formula and that it works for you. You should keep doing it.

Rick "wary of extrapolation" Denney
Post Reply