OP Update - 3000 miles in 10 months... so Why am I still fat?

Pbwalther wrote:

Apparantly, genetics has something to do with all of this, at
least in some people. The Pima Indians have the highest rates of
obesity ever observed. They were skinny little guys running
around the desert southwest. Their bodies were adapted to
periodic famine conditions. This meant their bodies are
extremely efficient at making fat and keeping it and burning fat
only when it was really needed i.e. famines. The problem is that
they are now exposed to a regular calorie rich diet and that
obviously is not a good combination.

The Pima Indians are genetically no different than any other group,
and they exhibit no different resting metabolic rates:

"Our present results indicate that Pima Indian children do not have
gross abnormalities in energy expenditure or substrate oxidation
that could account for this marked propensity for obesity. Measured
RMR in these children was similar to results obtained using the
gender-specific, weight-based Food and Agriculture
Organization/World Health Organization equations."
- Salbe et al, "Energy metabolism and physical activity - Assessing
risk factors for obesity between childhood and adolescence, part 2",
08/2002

The Pimas north of the border are morbidly obese because they have
embraced the American sedentary lifestyle and diet to the extreme.
The ones south of the border have not, and they are still quite thin.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

Well I was 223 in February. I am now 192. I don't even watch what I eat

Those calculators are a joke. I can ride 15mph and not even break
sweat and those calcs will tell me I am burning 900 calories an hour o
something for my weight

Go get a heart rate monitor...train at 80%. Or do what I sometimes do
go find a big hill, and go up and down it about 15-20 times. (1/4 mil
or longer

At any rate, I didn't read the entire thread posted here, but good luck
Losing weight on a bike can be done. I'm living proof...none of m
clothes fit! :


-

Do you have any sources you could cite for this assertion? Please provide
some links if you can.

Well Scientic American had an article quite a few years back about a "real"
starvation diet. That was no food at all and for months on end. They people's
metabolic rates sank to extremely low levels.

Now I bet that if you test people, some folks would lower their rates in
response to almost any decrease in calories ingested and other people would
not. The problem here is that measuring metabolic rate is pretty tricky and it
is not convenient at all. I doubt that anyone has done it.

But, I think the
caloric benefits of exercise vis-a-vis weight loss are overstated

It depends on what you mean by overstated. I recall reading somewhere that the
occupation that had the highest known rate of caloric expenditure per day was
being an old manual tool lumberjack and the calories burned per day were in
excess of 10,000.

I have read that even modest amounts of exercise, if done without increasing
calories ingested, can over time have a significant impact on body weight. The
problem is that most people go out and walk a couple of miles and then have a
hot fudge sundae to reward themselves and the end up worse off then before.

On 25 May 2004 13:19:52 GMT, (Pbwalther) wrote:

Well Scientic American had an article quite a few years back about a "real"
starvation diet. That was no food at all and for months on end. They people's
metabolic rates sank to extremely low levels.

Now I bet that if you test people, some folks would lower their rates in
response to almost any decrease in calories ingested and other people would
not. The problem here is that measuring metabolic rate is pretty tricky and it
is not convenient at all. I doubt that anyone has done it.

But, I think the
caloric benefits of exercise vis-a-vis weight loss are overstated

It depends on what you mean by overstated. I recall reading somewhere that the
occupation that had the highest known rate of caloric expenditure per day was
being an old manual tool lumberjack and the calories burned per day were in
excess of 10,000.

Good post. I have also heard some anecdotal comments about an old manual
tool lumberjack. One guy went out to try various professions and couldn't
hang with them for even an hour, IIRC...

Metabolic rates seem like something that would be hard to measure, and
unless you are in a special sealed room (everything measured in and out,
including watervapor, food, temp, etc.) then you might miss something when
doing the calorie calc and body weighing. Not sure how they measure
metabolism, though, just babbling. g

I tend to remain 'revved up' and heated up and jazzed for a couple hours
after exercising, incl weight training, jogging, biking, swimming, or combo
of those. I lose weight quickly when not jamming in the cake and pie and
pizza and beer, regardless of what I'm doing activity wise.

-B

In article ,
says...
On 25 May 2004 13:19:52 GMT, (Pbwalther) wrote:

Well Scientic American had an article quite a few years back about a "real"
starvation diet. That was no food at all and for months on end. They people's
metabolic rates sank to extremely low levels.

Now I bet that if you test people, some folks would lower their rates in
response to almost any decrease in calories ingested and other people would
not. The problem here is that measuring metabolic rate is pretty tricky and it
is not convenient at all. I doubt that anyone has done it.

But, I think the
caloric benefits of exercise vis-a-vis weight loss are overstated

It depends on what you mean by overstated. I recall reading somewhere that the
occupation that had the highest known rate of caloric expenditure per day was
being an old manual tool lumberjack and the calories burned per day were in
excess of 10,000.

Good post. I have also heard some anecdotal comments about an old manual
tool lumberjack. One guy went out to try various professions and couldn't
hang with them for even an hour, IIRC...

RAAM riders have been known to consume 10,000 to 15,000 calories per day
as well, and not gain any weight.



--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

Badger_South wrote:

Metabolic rates seem like something that would be hard to measure

A simple VO2 test, done at rest, produces a good estimate of resting
metabolic rate. You can have this done at clinics around the country:

http://www.korr.com/applications/indirect.htm

--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

On Tue, 25 May 2004 08:28:23 -0700, Terry Morse wrote:

Badger_South wrote:

Metabolic rates seem like something that would be hard to measure

A simple VO2 test, done at rest, produces a good estimate of resting
metabolic rate. You can have this done at clinics around the country:

http://www.korr.com/applications/indirect.htm

Guess I should have said 'changes in metabolic rate', as in BMR. But good
link. I'm learning more about VO2max, doing some reading now. Thanks!

BTW, I've estimated mine at about 50-51ml.kg.min using formula in an
article in the British Mag "220 Triathlon".

-B

Metabolic rates seem like something that would be hard to measure, and
unless you are in a special sealed room (everything measured in and out,
including watervapor, food, temp, etc.) then you might miss something when

Well, you can do this with small animals. You stick a mouse into an erlenmeyer
flask (wonder if I spelled that right) with a little chemical to absorb the CO2
the critter breathes out. You have a glass tube that is calibrated with water
in it. And the tube is seals. As the animal breathes out C02, the C02 is
absorbed and the animal has consumed 02. So the movement of water along the
tube corresponds to the oxygen consumption. The problem is that if the animal
is burning fat, you get a different value of calories consumption then you get
if the animal is burning carbohydrate.

Now to really measure metabolic rate in people, you should measure oxygen
consumption and C02 consumption for your subject (or victim depending on your
point of view) and even that will not be exact. I suppose you could determine
how much carbohydrate, fat and protein was being burnt by using radio isotopes
but I think most people would think that was a tad bit over the top.

By the way, the caloric content in foods is often measured by a bomb
calorimeter. You get the sample you want the caloric content of. You dry it
and grind it up. You mix it with a material that you know the energy content
of that will burn. The bomb calorimeter is a big old metal sphere. You put
the sample inside of it. You fill the sphere with oxygen. You immerse the
sphere in water. You measure the temperature of the water. You use your handy
dandy little electric coil to ignite the sample (you know the caloric input
from this). Then it is a simple thing to measure the change in temperature of
the water bath and calculate the calories. Of course, this can give inflated
results because people are not bomb calorimeters. People can not digest
cellulose, for example, but a bomb calorimeter sure can.

It is amazing what you can pick up poking around the right scientific
laboratories.

In article ,
"Doug Cook" writes:

... I keep a ride dairy
...

Maybe that's the problem :-)



cheers,
Tom


--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca