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

Badger_south wrote:
Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you do this and don't
sugar/carb restrict, that the Ghrelin will increase to the point where
you have almost -uncontrollable- appetite!
In the chart I included, I didn't even function in age, hGH, and
exercise.
It ain't easy, but there are a couple ways that a person can do it,
without being on a Reality Series and only having rats and a cup of rice
to eat.On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:
You can do that if you want...however, why don't you just bump calories
down to about 2200 for a couple of weeks. Keep everything else the
same. You'll lose weight. I don't see why it is so hard for everyone to
think that you're simply eating too much to lose weight.
-B


I eat 2000 calories a day and maintain my weight just fine withou
feeling hungry. When I was trying to lose weight I dropped down to 160
calories a day and continued to exercise without a problem. What
learned from this was that everybody is different in their calori
needs. I read books that said I needed more calories a day but when
ate that much I could never lose so I decided to lower my calories unti
the weight started to drop off. In my case I did this slowly an
carefully by making only 100 calorie a day changes and checking m
progress after 2 weeks. Eventually I learned what my body needed to los
and what it needed maintain my weight without feeling hungry

Just common since, Worked for me

Dan


-

Badger_South wrote:
:: On Fri, 21 May 2004 08:39:07 -0400, Badger_South
:: wrote:
::
::: On Fri, 21 May 2004 08:29:26 -0400, Badger_South
::: wrote:
:::
::
:: doh...
::
::
:: http://www.people.virginia.edu/~slj/leptin1.jpg

Thanks....I don't think we're supposed to send binaries to this ng...servers
don't want it....that causes problems.

Badger_South wrote:
:: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: wrote:
::
::: You can do that if you want...however, why don't you just bump
::: calories down to about 2200 for a couple of weeks. Keep everything
::: else the same. You'll lose weight. I don't see why it is so hard
::: for everyone to think that you're simply eating too much to lose
::: weight.
::
:: Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you do this and don't
:: sugar/carb restrict, that the Ghrelin will increase to the point
:: where you have almost -uncontrollable- appetite!

2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating now. There is a good
chance he can do it -- it he wants too. Frankly, with his performance on
the bike, I'm not sure why he wants to, other than to give into societal
norms. And that his choice to make..

::
:: In the chart I included, I didn't even function in age, hGH, and
:: exercise.
::
:: It ain't easy, but there are a couple ways that a person can do it,
:: without being on a Reality Series and only having rats and a cup of
:: rice to eat.

Well, LCing IS the best way for sure (IMO), but 2200 kcals is possible.
It's only 8x bodyweight. If he is currently maintaining on 10x (with
exercise) then moving to 8x won't be impossible.

On Fri, 21 May 2004 10:05:06 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:

Badger_South wrote:
:: On Fri, 21 May 2004 08:39:07 -0400, Badger_South
:: wrote:
::
::: On Fri, 21 May 2004 08:29:26 -0400, Badger_South
::: wrote:
:::
::
:: doh...
::
::
:: http://www.people.virginia.edu/~slj/leptin1.jpg

Thanks....I don't think we're supposed to send binaries to this ng...servers
don't want it....that causes problems.

Yeah, my bad. ;-{

Only 100K, but yeah...sorry.

So, um pardon my babbling of the last couple days...just having fun with
everyone.

-B

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
Badger_South wrote:
:: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: wrote:
::
::: You can do that if you want...however, why don't you just bump
::: calories down to about 2200 for a couple of weeks. Keep everything
::: else the same. You'll lose weight. I don't see why it is so hard
::: for everyone to think that you're simply eating too much to lose
::: weight.
::
:: Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you do this and don't
:: sugar/carb restrict, that the Ghrelin will increase to the point
:: where you have almost -uncontrollable- appetite!

2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating now. There is a good
chance he can do it -- it he wants too. Frankly, with his performance on
the bike, I'm not sure why he wants to, other than to give into societal
norms. And that his choice to make..


Given that his current BMI is 34.2, and he is carrying a lot of excess
weight around his waist, he might want to lose that weight for a much more
important reason than "societal norms". To be blunt, he might want to lose
weight to ensure he doesn't die any time soon. His weight, and his waist
size, are both very strong risk factors for mortality from heart disease,
diabetes, cancer, etc.

Assuming he has a waist size greater than 40", the Centers for Disease
Control would put him at "Very High Risk" of disease due to his weight and
waist size. If his waist size (measured at the navel) is 40" or less, his
risk would be "High Risk".

As for his performance on the bike...losing weight would clearly allow him
to go faster, especially up hill (although he might lose some top-end speed
on the downhills!).

GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Your Weight and Health Diary



::
:: In the chart I included, I didn't even function in age, hGH, and
:: exercise.
::
:: It ain't easy, but there are a couple ways that a person can do it,
:: without being on a Reality Series and only having rats and a cup of
:: rice to eat.

Well, LCing IS the best way for sure (IMO), but 2200 kcals is possible.
It's only 8x bodyweight. If he is currently maintaining on 10x (with
exercise) then moving to 8x won't be impossible.

GaryG wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
:: ...
::: Badger_South wrote:
::::: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
::::: wrote:
:::::
:::::: You can do that if you want...however, why don't you just bump
:::::: calories down to about 2200 for a couple of weeks. Keep
:::::: everything else the same. You'll lose weight. I don't see why
:::::: it is so hard for everyone to think that you're simply eating
:::::: too much to lose weight.
:::::
::::: Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you do this and
::::: don't sugar/carb restrict, that the Ghrelin will increase to the
::::: point where you have almost -uncontrollable- appetite!
:::
::: 2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating now. There is a
::: good chance he can do it -- it he wants too. Frankly, with his
::: performance on the bike, I'm not sure why he wants to, other than
::: to give into societal norms. And that his choice to make..
::
::
:: Given that his current BMI is 34.2, and he is carrying a lot of
:: excess weight around his waist, he might want to lose that weight
:: for a much more important reason than "societal norms".

We need bodyfat % not BMI - it is fairly useless. His waist to hip ratio
might be fine, too.


To be
:: blunt, he might want to lose weight to ensure he doesn't die any
:: time soon. His weight, and his waist size, are both very strong
:: risk factors for mortality from heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc.
::
:: Assuming he has a waist size greater than 40", the Centers for
:: Disease Control would put him at "Very High Risk" of disease due to
:: his weight and waist size. If his waist size (measured at the
:: navel) is 40" or less, his risk would be "High Risk".

One can argue with such simplistic factors for prediction. Do they factor
in activity level, muscle mass, frame size, and age?

::
:: As for his performance on the bike...losing weight would clearly
:: allow him to go faster, especially up hill (although he might lose
:: some top-end speed on the downhills!).
::
:: GG
:: http://www.WeightWare.com
:: Your Weight and Health Diary
::
::
:::
:::::
::::: In the chart I included, I didn't even function in age, hGH, and
::::: exercise.
:::::
::::: It ain't easy, but there are a couple ways that a person can do
::::: it, without being on a Reality Series and only having rats and a
::::: cup of rice to eat.
:::
::: Well, LCing IS the best way for sure (IMO), but 2200 kcals is
::: possible. It's only 8x bodyweight. If he is currently maintaining
::: on 10x (with exercise) then moving to 8x won't be impossible.

"Badger_South" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 May 2004 22:43:47 -0600, "Doug Cook"
wrote:

I know I asked for some thoughts, but come on, people! 170 responses in
48hrs? Maybe I should have asked a less controversial question like the
role of religion in politics or something. Or maybe you all should be
spending more time on your bikes and less in front of the computer!

Many ppl spent time trying to help you and this seems like a butt-head
thing to say.

You have not spent even one iota of energy to actually input any data for
the kind bikers who type very fast and have a wealth of knowledge and
experience and who have had their lives transformed by what we have tried
to offer you - and not just 'do this do that' comments.


snip

Dude! My tongue was buried in my cheek! I thought that was obvious! I
even used the smiley face!

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
GaryG wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
:: ...
::: Badger_South wrote:
::::: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
::::: wrote:
:::::
:::::: You can do that if you want...however, why don't you just bump
:::::: calories down to about 2200 for a couple of weeks. Keep
:::::: everything else the same. You'll lose weight. I don't see why
:::::: it is so hard for everyone to think that you're simply eating
:::::: too much to lose weight.
:::::
::::: Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you do this and
::::: don't sugar/carb restrict, that the Ghrelin will increase to the
::::: point where you have almost -uncontrollable- appetite!
:::
::: 2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating now. There is a
::: good chance he can do it -- it he wants too. Frankly, with his
::: performance on the bike, I'm not sure why he wants to, other than
::: to give into societal norms. And that his choice to make..
::
::
:: Given that his current BMI is 34.2, and he is carrying a lot of
:: excess weight around his waist, he might want to lose that weight
:: for a much more important reason than "societal norms".

We need bodyfat % not BMI - it is fairly useless. His waist to hip ratio
might be fine, too.

The overwhelming majority of folks with a BMI of 34.2 are fat. The OP
himself states:

"I carry almost all the weight around my waist. Personally, I think I'm
rather oddly shaped.
Chest and butt look normal... just a big fat gut in front."

This is a description of too much fat, carried around the middle, a
combination that has been linked to an increased risk of disease in many
studies.

BMI is not "useless". It's also not "perfect". It has the advantage of
being easy to calculate, and for most people it correlates well with body
fat (i.e., higher BMI = higher body fat percentage). For a small percentage
of the population (e.g., body builders), the correlation may not hold. But,
I see a lot more fat folks than body builders when I'm out and about.



To be
:: blunt, he might want to lose weight to ensure he doesn't die any
:: time soon. His weight, and his waist size, are both very strong
:: risk factors for mortality from heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc.
::
:: Assuming he has a waist size greater than 40", the Centers for
:: Disease Control would put him at "Very High Risk" of disease due to
:: his weight and waist size. If his waist size (measured at the
:: navel) is 40" or less, his risk would be "High Risk".

One can argue with such simplistic factors for prediction. Do they factor
in activity level, muscle mass, frame size, and age?

With a waist size 40", I don't think muscle mass and frame size are
significant moderators of disease risk. It's the fat that's the problem.

More research does need to be done on people with high BMI's who are
physically active - it would be very interesting to see to what extent
physical activity reduces disease risk (some preliminary research indicates
that it can reduce, but not eliminate, disease risk). Unfortunately, the
vast majority of folks with high BMI's are *not* physcially fit.


::
:: As for his performance on the bike...losing weight would clearly
:: allow him to go faster, especially up hill (although he might lose
:: some top-end speed on the downhills!).
::
:: GG
:: http://www.WeightWare.com
:: Your Weight and Health Diary
::
::
:::
:::::
::::: In the chart I included, I didn't even function in age, hGH, and
::::: exercise.
:::::
::::: It ain't easy, but there are a couple ways that a person can do
::::: it, without being on a Reality Series and only having rats and a
::::: cup of rice to eat.
:::
::: Well, LCing IS the best way for sure (IMO), but 2200 kcals is
::: possible. It's only 8x bodyweight. If he is currently maintaining
::: on 10x (with exercise) then moving to 8x won't be impossible.

GaryG wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
:: ...
::: GaryG wrote:
::::: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
::::: ...
:::::: Badger_South wrote:
:::::::: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:::::::: wrote:
::::::::
::::::::: You can do that if you want...however, why don't you just bump
::::::::: calories down to about 2200 for a couple of weeks. Keep
::::::::: everything else the same. You'll lose weight. I don't see
::::::::: why
::::::::: it is so hard for everyone to think that you're simply eating
::::::::: too much to lose weight.
::::::::
:::::::: Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you do this and
:::::::: don't sugar/carb restrict, that the Ghrelin will increase to
:::::::: the point where you have almost -uncontrollable- appetite!
::::::
:::::: 2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating now. There is
:::::: a good chance he can do it -- it he wants too. Frankly, with his
:::::: performance on the bike, I'm not sure why he wants to, other than
:::::: to give into societal norms. And that his choice to make..
:::::
:::::
::::: Given that his current BMI is 34.2, and he is carrying a lot of
::::: excess weight around his waist, he might want to lose that weight
::::: for a much more important reason than "societal norms".
:::
::: We need bodyfat % not BMI - it is fairly useless. His waist to hip
::: ratio might be fine, too.
::
:: The overwhelming majority of folks with a BMI of 34.2 are fat. The
:: OP himself states:
::
:: "I carry almost all the weight around my waist. Personally, I think
:: I'm rather oddly shaped.
:: Chest and butt look normal... just a big fat gut in front."
::
:: This is a description of too much fat, carried around the middle, a
:: combination that has been linked to an increased risk of disease in
:: many studies.

Hey, I never said he wasn't fat, in fact, I've been talking to him about
losing weight. However, his date would seem to indicate that at 275 lbs he
is unusually fit. All these numbers you quote don't say dick about
fitness, assuming that fatness is the only issue. I don't believe that.
Being sedentary is also a big issue and could be much more important than
how much fat one carries.

Blind faith in report research data is troublesome. In case you haven't
noticed, these people change directions very often-- based on new research
findings. IMO, it is better to pay attention to what a person does and what
they can do, then to simply look at numbers.


::
:: BMI is not "useless". It's also not "perfect". It has the
:: advantage of being easy to calculate,

How were the charts developed? Based on what data and what group of people?

and for most people it
:: correlates well with body fat (i.e., higher BMI = higher body fat
:: percentage).

Sure, but two people with the same BMI can be very, very different in terms
of fitness and health, even beyond fat %.

For a small percentage of the population (e.g., body
:: builders), the correlation may not hold. But, I see a lot more fat
:: folks than body builders when I'm out and about.
::

A correlation is not everything. I too see a lot of fat people and very few
bodybuilders. But that still doesn't mean you should lump the OP in with
other people who have a BMI of 34 given, without consideration of his info.

:::
:::
::: To be
::::: blunt, he might want to lose weight to ensure he doesn't die any
::::: time soon. His weight, and his waist size, are both very strong
::::: risk factors for mortality from heart disease, diabetes, cancer,
::::: etc.
:::::
::::: Assuming he has a waist size greater than 40", the Centers for
::::: Disease Control would put him at "Very High Risk" of disease due
::::: to his weight and waist size. If his waist size (measured at the
::::: navel) is 40" or less, his risk would be "High Risk".
:::
::: One can argue with such simplistic factors for prediction. Do they
::: factor in activity level, muscle mass, frame size, and age?
::
:: With a waist size 40", I don't think muscle mass and frame size are
:: significant moderators of disease risk. It's the fat that's the
:: problem.

Prove it. I say it is the sedentary lifestyle that's the problem, moreso
than just being fat. I use myself as evidence for that position. There are
enough others who report similar findings to lead me to believe, in spite of
what research says and what charts indicate, that there is more to the story
than the mere numbers cited above.

::
:: More research does need to be done on people with high BMI's who are
:: physically active - it would be very interesting to see to what
:: extent physical activity reduces disease risk (some preliminary
:: research indicates that it can reduce, but not eliminate, disease
:: risk). Unfortunately, the vast majority of folks with high BMI's
:: are *not* physcially fit.

Agreed, however nothing is going to eliminate disease risk, it can only be
lessened. How do you define "physically fit?"

The OP can do 70-mile rides at 16 mph while weighing 275 on hilly terrain.
Are football players who run up and down the field not fit? ARe 300 lbs
bodybuilders not physically fit?

I do agree with you that there are many high BMI's people who are definitely
NOT physically fit by any standards. I'm just saying that there are very
real exceptions and applying blanket notions and numbers is not useful in
light of MORE information.


::
:::
:::::
::::: As for his performance on the bike...losing weight would clearly
::::: allow him to go faster, especially up hill (although he might lose
::::: some top-end speed on the downhills!).
:::::
::::: GG
::::: http://www.WeightWare.com
::::: Your Weight and Health Diary
:::::
:::::
::::::
::::::::
:::::::: In the chart I included, I didn't even function in age, hGH,
:::::::: and exercise.
::::::::
:::::::: It ain't easy, but there are a couple ways that a person can do
:::::::: it, without being on a Reality Series and only having rats and
:::::::: a cup of rice to eat.
::::::
:::::: Well, LCing IS the best way for sure (IMO), but 2200 kcals is
:::::: possible. It's only 8x bodyweight. If he is currently
:::::: maintaining
:::::: on 10x (with exercise) then moving to 8x won't be impossible.

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
Doug Cook wrote:

Do you have a scale and measure and weigh what you eat? I assume you're
making your own meals and not eating out, right?

Yes, I have a digital scale that weighs down to the gram.

::
:: 2. I'm not burning as much as I think I am on my rides - Maybe, but
:: my computer is correctly set, and I do wear a HRM. Every calculator
:: I can find tells me I'm burning at least 6400 calories a week on my
:: rides, and some estimate it as high as 10,000. I keep a ride dairy,
:: so I know I'm not over estimating my miles. Remember, I weigh 274.

I weigh 235. Yesterday I did 35 miles. My HRM said I burned 2741 kcals.
Fitday.com said I burned 1697 kcals and Cyclistat said I burned 1680
kcals.
Now, you'd think the HRM is more accurate since it know more about what
I'm
doing. But that is quite a large variation in what I burned. I wonder if
any of them are right -- and a lot of people will tell you that all of
these
are overestimates.

That's exactly why I thought I'd go get tested. Isn't hopping on the
treadmill with all the tubes and blood-lettings the most accurate way of
determining Basal Metebolic Rate, amount of calories burning during
exercise, Vo2Max, etc.?

I'm a T2. My resting GB is about 80 to 85 and my HbA1c was 5.1%.. I
control my T2 with diet (low carb) and exercise. If you're not on a LC
diet,
I doubt you're a T2.

::
:: So... after 170 posts (for which I'm grateful, don't get me wrong),
:: I'm back to beginning. I guess I'll go see a medical pro. Get all
:: the offiicial tests on the treadmill and all that. Who do I see? A
:: sports physiologist?
::

You can do that if you want...however, why don't you just bump calories
down
to about 2200 for a couple of weeks. Keep everything else the same.
You'll
lose weight. I don't see why it is so hard for everyone to think that
you're simply eating too much to lose weight.


But raising the amount burned by 500 cals per day won't accomplish the same
thing? I'd love to be able to say, "Sorry, I have to spend another half
hour on the bike!"