Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Fifty Plus (50+)
Reload this Page >

Body fat confusion...

Notices
Fifty Plus (50+) Share the victories, challenges, successes and special concerns of bicyclists 50 and older. Especially useful for those entering or reentering bicycling.

Body fat confusion...

Old 03-11-10, 12:08 PM
  #76  
Pat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,794

Bikes: litespeed, cannondale

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by TromboneAl
Apolo Ohno said, on Leno, that his body fat was 2%. I don't believe it.
I agree, it seems more than improbable. People think of body fat as solely subcutaneous fat and maybe that is what they are referring to. Subcutaneous fat is also called "depot" fat. It is used as a calorie reserve for lean times.


But fats include lipid bilayer membranes. Cells have all sorts of membranes in them: endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, cell membranes, golgi apparatus and so on. Membranes are fat. Without membranes you would be sort of like jello.

Also nervous tissue has a very high fat content in the form of phospholipids.

Another purpose that fat serves in the human body is as a cushion for certain critical organs like the kidneys. It serves as a sort of shock absorber.

Also, bone marrow is very high in fat and that is not something one can do without either.

I would think that a living human would have to be more than 2% fat to even be alive. Now maybe Ohno had been measured for body fat and it gave that reading but that does not mean that is what his percent body fat actually is.
Pat is offline  
Old 03-11-10, 12:40 PM
  #77  
Full Member
 
Speedskater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 423

Bikes: Bob Jackson, Trek & Sampson

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked 24 Times in 14 Posts
Originally Posted by Pat
I would think that a living human would have to be more than 2% fat to even be alive. Now maybe Ohno had been measured for body fat and it gave that reading but that does not mean that is what his percent body fat actually is.
I know that US Olympics/US Speedskating Organizations measure fat and lot's of other things on the Elite skaters. I think that Apolo either misunderstood or misremembered the value or that 2% was not the total body fat number.
Speedskater is offline  
Old 03-11-10, 03:44 PM
  #78  
Your scars reveal you
 
tallard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Citizen of Planet Earth
Posts: 406

Bikes: My Brodie's dead, start hunting for a new cycle before March arrives

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by icyclist
Wogsterca wrote:

Human beings' fat cells simply will not tolerate being hungry. At that point, no matter how much we exercise, our fat cells we will simply want to put back as much energy as we expend.

Think of the phrase, "I worked up a good appetite." That's what happens after a long bike ride, or after chopping a few cords of wood, or climbing a mountain, or exercising at the gym. We don't finish those activities, if we're overweight, feeling as if we don't need to eat. It's just the opposite, no matter what we weigh.

And cutting down on the amount of food we eat - once we are fat - won't work, either, because over the long haul, we will not let ourselves stay hungry. We will eventually eat to assuage our hunger. Maybe not that day, maybe not the next day. But we know that eventually just about everyone will put back on weight they've lost via exercise and by cutting down on their calories.
And this FACT is well known by scientists but completely ignored by trainers. And with good reason. Most "trainers" have always been skinny. Then with resistance exercise they bulked up. Hence the ripped look, they've always been low fat, so their bulking up can look very desirable.

That is their selling point: "I can make you look as beautiful as me, just eat and sport as I do". But different bodies produce different results.

99%of the failures in permanent weight loss are due to the simple fact that our fat cells simply don't die when we lose weight. They just sit there, starving, waiting.

A person who's alway been skinny will not "pay" for that one trip to MacDonalds. they can relax. A previously fat person CAN NEVER RELAX, every single extra calorie that hits those lips, will end up in the starving fat cells. What human being among us is mentally strong enough to never relax, never never never. No one.

Those fantastic exciting stories on Biggest Loser, they all, eventually gain it back. Cuz everyone relaxes now and then.

The solution really is if that weight loss be accompanied by liposuction. Then there is a better (not absolute) chance that a previously overweight person can maintain the lower weight. Remove those hungry fat cells.

This is what is dangerous for the future of fat nations such as Australia (takes the prize), USA, Canada. The kids who are allowed to get fat will never be able to relax. And kids who diet, such as myself, to be smaller (I was always big musclebound but not fat) cuz their figure skating coach required it, will always be on a dieting bandwagon. Cuz as soon as you starve those fat cells, they just lie in wait, for that next slip up. No margin of error.

Kids need to not get fat in the first place. Which means ELIMINATION OF ALL VIDEO GAMES and TV sets, yeah like that'll happen!
tallard is offline  
Old 03-11-10, 04:22 PM
  #79  
Neophyte
 
Caribou2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Toronto, ON.
Posts: 111

Bikes: 2001 Devinci Caribou (touring bike)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Just for the record, to the best of my knowledge, the most quantitative way to measure body-fat involves sitting in a scale and being lowered into a water bath... there's some formula they then use to get your %BF.
Caribou2001 is offline  
Old 03-11-10, 05:22 PM
  #80  
Your scars reveal you
 
tallard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Citizen of Planet Earth
Posts: 406

Bikes: My Brodie's dead, start hunting for a new cycle before March arrives

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Caribou2001
Just for the record, to the best of my knowledge, the most quantitative way to measure body-fat involves sitting in a scale and being lowered into a water bath... there's some formula they then use to get your %BF.
That IS the water displacement basic test I mentioned earlier. You don't have to weight yourself IN the water. Your MASS and your VOLUME are all that count. And your MASS is the same whether you are in water or not.
tallard is offline  
Old 03-11-10, 06:53 PM
  #81  
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6,937

Bikes: Old Bike: 1975 Raleigh Delta, New Bike: 2004 Norco Bushpilot

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by icyclist
Wogsterca wrote:

"Now suppose you buy the same meal, you eat it, get on a bicycle and do a ride up cardiac ridge, burning 2000 calories in the process. Same input, but now you burned 4000 calories, so your down 1000 calories, the body will use it's fat stores to make up that deficit. You lose weight. This is why diet and exercise are combined to provide weight loss. "

If that worked, it would be great. You've simply ignored my premise, though, and stated your own.

Let's look at the numbers you've listed another way:

- Your body needs: 2000 calories

- You burned with a bike ride: 2000 C

- You need to put back: 4000 C

So:

- You eat: 3000 C

- You are negative: 1000 C

In my scenario, you will put those missing calories back into your body because, as I wrote above, you will be hungry enough after your ride to consume at least 1000 C. Maybe not that night, maybe not the next day. But your body, on the most basic physiological level, will demand that balance be restored, and it won't be satisfied pulling energy out of fat tissue; your body will want you to put energy back in through it's gaping mouth.

Human beings simply will not tolerate being hungry.

In the abstract, yes, I agree with you, Wogsterca, it's calories in and calories out. In reality, though, and especially in societies where unhealthy - i.e. fattening - foods are too readily available, it's too often extra calories in and not enough out.

Once we have gained extra weight from eating too many Big Macs and shakes and breads and potatoes and candy bars, getting rid of that extra weight is extremely difficult, at least for most people. At that point, no matter how much we exercise, we will simply want to put back as much energy as we expend.

Think of the phrase, "I worked up a good appetite." That's what happens after a long bike ride, or after chopping a few cords of wood, or climbing a mountain, or exercising at the gym. We don't finish those activities, if we're overweight, feeling as if we don't need to eat. It's just the opposite, no matter what we weigh.

And cutting down on the amount of food we eat - once we are fat - won't work, either, because over the long haul, we will not let ourselves stay hungry. We will eventually eat to assuage our hunger. Maybe not that day, maybe not the next day. But we know that eventually just about everyone will put back on weight they've lost via exercise and by cutting down on their calories.

There is a way to lose weight, though, without starving ourselves (and without the need to exercise, although, as I wrote above, exercise is good for us). That way is to stop eating, as much as possible, sweets and starches. That is virtually impossible to do, given that these fattening foods are ubiquitous.
Your premise has a couple of gapping holes in it, which is why I stated my own.

1) That your mind's desire to lose weight can't overcome your bodies desire for food. It can, and it does in anyone who actually does lose weight.
2) That only the typical North American diet of fat laden foods drenched in high fructose corn syrup and chemicals, can satisfy hunger.
3) I never said it was easy, and it's something I have struggled with, and continue to.

There is another part to the puzzle though, diets do not work, you need to retrain yourself to eat properly, unfortunately our parents started the problem, and we passed it on to the next generation, and they are passing it on to the one after them already. This is why you see a fat guy, with a fat wife, and fat kids in tow.
Wogster is offline  
Old 03-11-10, 07:23 PM
  #82  
just keep riding
 
BluesDawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Milledgeville, Georgia
Posts: 13,560

Bikes: 2018 Black Mountain Cycles MCD,2017 Advocate Cycles Seldom Seen Drop Bar, 2017 Niner Jet 9 Alloy, 2015 Zukas custom road, 2003 KHS Milano Tandem, 1986 Nishiki Cadence rigid MTB, 1980ish Fuji S-12S

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 173 Post(s)
Liked 33 Times in 22 Posts
Originally Posted by Wogsterca
Your premise has a couple of gapping holes in it, which is why I stated my own.

1) That your mind's desire to lose weight can't overcome your bodies desire for food. It can, and it does in anyone who actually does lose weight.
2) That only the typical North American diet of fat laden foods drenched in high fructose corn syrup and chemicals, can satisfy hunger.
3) I never said it was easy, and it's something I have struggled with, and continue to.

There is another part to the puzzle though, diets do not work, you need to retrain yourself to eat properly, unfortunately our parents started the problem, and we passed it on to the next generation, and they are passing it on to the one after them already. This is why you see a fat guy, with a fat wife, and fat kids in tow.
+1
Can't buy into the fatalistic tone of a couple of previous responses. Sure, you will want to replace the extra calories by overeating, but that doesn't mean you will. Discipline and willpower come into play in any weight loss scenario. It isn't easy, but it isn't impossible.
BluesDawg is offline  
Old 03-11-10, 07:59 PM
  #83  
gone ride'n
 
cyclinfool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 4,050

Bikes: Simoncini, Gary Fisher, Specialized Tarmac

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by BluesDawg
+1
Can't buy into the fatalistic tone of a couple of previous responses. Sure, you will want to replace the extra calories by overeating, but that doesn't mean you will. Discipline and willpower come into play in any weight loss scenario. It isn't easy, but it isn't impossible.
As been said with other addictions - "Loosing weight is easy, I've done it many times"
It is all about willpower - or as my Dad use to say - won't power.
Unfortunately my willpower only lasts so long and spring is comming and just like last year I have 15 lbs to loose - again...
cyclinfool is offline  
Old 03-11-10, 08:12 PM
  #84  
Your scars reveal you
 
tallard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Citizen of Planet Earth
Posts: 406

Bikes: My Brodie's dead, start hunting for a new cycle before March arrives

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
What many of you are ignoring is the science behind it. It's not '"fatalism" it is just plain scientific BIOLOGY. Fat cells do not die, they're not like blood cells who's lifespan is 120 days! That why I corrected the other statement. It's not about me/you/they wanting to balance out the calories needed, it's about the cells WILL balance out the calories. No matter how little YOU eat the cells WILL compensate. That is the science.

In this way, a (always) skinny person can eat a tub of fries and not gain weight, because there are no fat cells lying in wait (pardon the pun)
An overweight person will put on weight with just a half tub of fries, because every single calorie turns into fat. For the skinny person, the calories came in one end and went out the other end!

Not every calorie ingested in every person ends up as fat!

The reality is, if you've been fat in your life, remaining skinny in the future requires 10x more committment than an always skinny person.

Do you think many people have the will power to be 10x as 'in control' as natural skinny people? The only people I know with that amount of self control obsession are anorexics.

It's simply not realistic to expect that from normal behavioured people. Weight loss is eventually regained not through laziness, but through NORMAL human nature.
tallard is offline  
Old 03-11-10, 08:48 PM
  #85  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
Going back to the original question:

Body Fat Charts

A quick google yields a range that forgives with age:



From what you've posted, I still think that the quality of measurement is suspect. It doesn't sound like you're overfat, it sounds like the scale you used isn't accurate.
I suggest these charts are not relevant to fit people who exercise strenuously. They were derived from a population where the vast majority are sedentary. If you study exercise and nutrition physiology, it's readily apparent that exercise dominates and moves the so-called healthy zones to the far right and left of this chart. The fitter one is the less risk of death from all causes.

Just one example: the Cooper institute in Dallas amassed a data base of 43,000 males which were tracked for a number of years. Each was periodically tested on a standard treadmill test and divided in quintiles of fitness. The top quintile had a death rate from all causes less than 1/10 that of the most sedentary quintile. That was irrespective of fat percentage or diet, though one has to assume that if they were part of the Cooper program, they ate reasonably well and were certainly not obese.

Kenneth Cooper who started the jogging craze in the '70s is still at it and testifies before Congress periodically.

Al
alcanoe is offline  
Old 03-11-10, 10:03 PM
  #86  
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6,937

Bikes: Old Bike: 1975 Raleigh Delta, New Bike: 2004 Norco Bushpilot

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by tallard
What many of you are ignoring is the science behind it. It's not '"fatalism" it is just plain scientific BIOLOGY. Fat cells do not die, they're not like blood cells who's lifespan is 120 days! That why I corrected the other statement. It's not about me/you/they wanting to balance out the calories needed, it's about the cells WILL balance out the calories. No matter how little YOU eat the cells WILL compensate. That is the science.

In this way, a (always) skinny person can eat a tub of fries and not gain weight, because there are no fat cells lying in wait (pardon the pun)
An overweight person will put on weight with just a half tub of fries, because every single calorie turns into fat. For the skinny person, the calories came in one end and went out the other end!

Not every calorie ingested in every person ends up as fat!

The reality is, if you've been fat in your life, remaining skinny in the future requires 10x more committment than an always skinny person.

Do you think many people have the will power to be 10x as 'in control' as natural skinny people? The only people I know with that amount of self control obsession are anorexics.

It's simply not realistic to expect that from normal behavioured people. Weight loss is eventually regained not through laziness, but through NORMAL human nature.
I don't think it does need a 10X commitment, it needs an attitude change.

The attitude of most obese people is that food is your friend, food is comfort, food is something to do when your bored, with the **** that passes for TV programming these days. The attitude of most skinny people is that food is simply fuel to keep the body running.

Let me illustrate that last one, you have a bad day at work, customers and bosses yelling at you all day. The typical obese person will then turn to soft mushy food as a comfort, so they get a gallon of chocolate-chocolate ice cream, and eat the whole thing in one sitting. This is where you make changes, instead you get on your bike and do a 25 mile hammerfest.

Losing weight is actually easy, start with, throw away the TV. TV is a real evil for the person wanting to lose weight, because it means that you see 100 food advertisements per hour, none of it good for you, and you spend all your time watching the box, instead of going out and doing activities.
Wogster is offline  
Old 03-11-10, 10:33 PM
  #87  
just keep riding
 
BluesDawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Milledgeville, Georgia
Posts: 13,560

Bikes: 2018 Black Mountain Cycles MCD,2017 Advocate Cycles Seldom Seen Drop Bar, 2017 Niner Jet 9 Alloy, 2015 Zukas custom road, 2003 KHS Milano Tandem, 1986 Nishiki Cadence rigid MTB, 1980ish Fuji S-12S

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 173 Post(s)
Liked 33 Times in 22 Posts
Originally Posted by tallard
What many of you are ignoring is the science behind it. It's not '"fatalism" it is just plain scientific BIOLOGY. Fat cells do not die, they're not like blood cells who's lifespan is 120 days! That why I corrected the other statement. It's not about me/you/they wanting to balance out the calories needed, it's about the cells WILL balance out the calories. No matter how little YOU eat the cells WILL compensate. That is the science.
Please share some sources for all this "science".
BluesDawg is offline  
Old 03-11-10, 10:51 PM
  #88  
Senior Member
 
miss kenton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Blueberry Capital of the WORLD, NJ
Posts: 2,095

Bikes: Trek '09 1.5 wsd, Trek '13 Cocoa

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by BluesDawg
Please share some sources for all this "science".
+1
miss kenton is offline  
Old 03-11-10, 11:28 PM
  #89  
Your scars reveal you
 
tallard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Citizen of Planet Earth
Posts: 406

Bikes: My Brodie's dead, start hunting for a new cycle before March arrives

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
You talk about attitude, I'm talking about the cellular level, you can beat it permanently. Yes you can choose to be OCD about your weight and diet and live differently from "normal" people ALL the remainder of your life. Yes you can, but do you want to. Being OCD about such things may just kill you from stress.

The point is thin people don't have to fight their biology, they have leeway in life. Once someone has become overweight the leeway is gone.

Becoming overweight IS generally about bad lifestyle. But the reverse, getting back to a lower weight, is NOT. Cellular mechanisms will fight you at every turn.

Do you not understand the cellular mechanism we've been trying to explain to you here? You seem to be living in your own idealised world were the brain is stronger than the biology. I've heard that one before, from faith healers, yeah, just believe a ha ha. You can fight your biology temporarily, you may win some battles, but your brain will not win the war against biology.

So please stop imposing guilt trips on people.
tallard is offline  
Old 03-11-10, 11:42 PM
  #90  
Your scars reveal you
 
tallard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Citizen of Planet Earth
Posts: 406

Bikes: My Brodie's dead, start hunting for a new cycle before March arrives

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I took many years of university in physiology and toxicology, many hours labouring over many books, and many university professors to make me the person I am, with those bits of knowledge I have. I've done my research and it's too long for me to go to my brother's house at the other side of the country, to get all my reference books stored at his place, to graciously provide you with a quick internet based education. Sorry guys, it doesn't work like that. And I don't have as much internet time available to me as closetbiker. I'm not going to fly across the country for you just to save you the trouble of actually going to a university library and spend some respectable hours informing yourselves.

Just go to any university library with a decent physiology department, and study. I have only hinted at the general physiological ground rules, the rest is up to you. But NOT from the internet, not from some cheap dietician, who published some cheap book on how to MAINTAIN weight loss, who got their certificate from some diet school. Real research.

Best wishes in your education.
tallard is offline  
Old 03-12-10, 05:15 AM
  #91  
just keep riding
 
BluesDawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Milledgeville, Georgia
Posts: 13,560

Bikes: 2018 Black Mountain Cycles MCD,2017 Advocate Cycles Seldom Seen Drop Bar, 2017 Niner Jet 9 Alloy, 2015 Zukas custom road, 2003 KHS Milano Tandem, 1986 Nishiki Cadence rigid MTB, 1980ish Fuji S-12S

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 173 Post(s)
Liked 33 Times in 22 Posts
So I am to believe you because you say you know what you are talking about? I am not looking to become a biologist or a dietitian. If there is widely accepted scientific consensus that personal choice and activity has no role in an overweight person achieving and maintaining weight loss, there should be plenty of literature available to support that. It shouldn't be hard to suggest some specific resources.

Last edited by BluesDawg; 03-12-10 at 05:42 AM.
BluesDawg is offline  
Old 03-12-10, 07:25 AM
  #92  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
BluesDawg is on target. Much of nutrition science is bogus and that's particularly true for that which appears in the popular media. I've spent over $200 on contemporary college level exercise/nutrition vs health and human performance physiology books over the last several years and have not seen anything like that.

While the number of fat cells do stay relatively constant, it's their size that changes apparently. There certainly are genetic variations that affect how certain people can gain weight more than others. But the rash of fat people over the last several decades is not do to an epidemic of genetic mutations. Two major factors are the removal of physical activity from the work place and the availability of processed food designed to appeal to our natural desire for fatty/salty/sweet tastes.

However, it is more than just calories in vs calories out. The body processes carbs about 15% less efficiently than fats. So replacing fat intake with carbs can in theory cause a loss of body fat for the exact same activity level. But, one needs to keep a reasonable balanced diet which seems to be 50% calories from carbs, 20% protein and 30% fat with saturated fat limited to no more than 10% of total calories. That appears to be the present thinking. On those 100 mile days and possibly a few after, the carbs would likely need to be higher to replenish the glycogen.

I can post references if anybody is interested.

As an after thought on the personal choice point, some of the reasons for our fat epidemic are commuting, the TV, PCs and supersizing of meals, particularly in restaurants. My wife and I have split menu items. Using an exercise bike or rowing machine works for viewing some TV. They have actually determined that you burn fewer calories while watching TV than when you are asleep. Brain dead I guess.

Another biggie is the loss of muscle mass with age (about 1%/year before 70 and about 3% after for the sedentary) and the subsequent reduction of calories burned at rest. Weight training is essential, even for cyclists to stay healthy with ageing. Then too, one does need to cut calories as one ages as well. A Reasonably balanced diet as mentioned and a strenuous exercise program allows one to do that with out being hungry all the time.

Al

Last edited by alcanoe; 03-12-10 at 07:48 AM.
alcanoe is offline  
Old 03-12-10, 08:24 AM
  #93  
Senior Member
 
miss kenton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Blueberry Capital of the WORLD, NJ
Posts: 2,095

Bikes: Trek '09 1.5 wsd, Trek '13 Cocoa

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 2 Posts
Perhaps your guilt trips are self imposed. I work in a reference library and would suggest that your research books at home are outdated- at best.
miss kenton is offline  
Old 03-12-10, 08:36 AM
  #94  
Banned.
 
DnvrFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 20,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 10 Posts
Originally Posted by alcanoe
BluesDawg is on target. Much of nutrition science is bogus and that's particularly true for that which appears in the popular media. I've spent over $200 on contemporary college level exercise/nutrition vs health and human performance physiology books over the last several years and have not seen anything like that.

While the number of fat cells do stay relatively constant, it's their size that changes apparently. There certainly are genetic variations that affect how certain people can gain weight more than others. But the rash of fat people over the last several decades is not do to an epidemic of genetic mutations. Two major factors are the removal of physical activity from the work place and the availability of processed food designed to appeal to our natural desire for fatty/salty/sweet tastes.

However, it is more than just calories in vs calories out. The body processes carbs about 15% less efficiently than fats. So replacing fat intake with carbs can in theory cause a loss of body fat for the exact same activity level. But, one needs to keep a reasonable balanced diet which seems to be 50% calories from carbs, 20% protein and 30% fat with saturated fat limited to no more than 10% of total calories. That appears to be the present thinking. On those 100 mile days and possibly a few after, the carbs would likely need to be higher to replenish the glycogen.

I can post references if anybody is interested.

As an after thought on the personal choice point, some of the reasons for our fat epidemic are commuting, the TV, PCs and supersizing of meals, particularly in restaurants. My wife and I have split menu items. Using an exercise bike or rowing machine works for viewing some TV. They have actually determined that you burn fewer calories while watching TV than when you are asleep. Brain dead I guess.

Another biggie is the loss of muscle mass with age (about 1%/year before 70 and about 3% after for the sedentary) and the subsequent reduction of calories burned at rest. Weight training is essential, even for cyclists to stay healthy with ageing. Then too, one does need to cut calories as one ages as well. A Reasonably balanced diet as mentioned and a strenuous exercise program allows one to do that with out being hungry all the time.

Al
Right on, ALCanoe

My wife and I always split entries - even then, it is often too much for each of us. Also saves big money.
DnvrFox is offline  
Old 03-12-10, 09:32 AM
  #95  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
A comment on libraries and finding stuff on the web. Unfortunately, the good technical stuff is stashed away in digital libraries where on has to pay big $'s to get access. That's even true when the work was funded by the taxpayer it appears. You can do well in finding the free stuff using Google Scholar which attempts to filter out the popular media interpretations and the endless repetitions across multiple sites. The only way I've found to get access to the "pay for view" at a decent price is by buying textbooks from Amazon.

The advantage of the texts is that you get a compilation by experts in the field of the studies/trials and often an intelligent discussion of the contradictions in the results. However, even experts disagree and have biases, so I get multiple books on the same subjects.

You can often buy used on Amazon which is a good way to start as the real progress in the field evolves slowly. On the other hand, I've 'had to buy a later edition of the same book a year later as I was impressed with the older version. Each time so far it's been worth it.

A Google Scholar key word search will sometimes get you access into a recent physiology book scanned into the Google database. I was surprised to find free access to one book published in 2007 that I had paid $80.00 for in 2007. It was limited access, but it was complete enough to deal the the subject of the search.

There is so much conflicting information in the nutrition field, you can literally prove a food or nutrient or class of nutrient is good or bad by doing a selective search. That's what drove me to studying physiology in the first place as well as a health issue that seemed to be nutrient dependent. But that turned out to be a false alarm --- at least for now. You can never be sure.

Al
alcanoe is offline  
Old 03-12-10, 10:55 AM
  #96  
Senior Member
 
miss kenton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Blueberry Capital of the WORLD, NJ
Posts: 2,095

Bikes: Trek '09 1.5 wsd, Trek '13 Cocoa

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 2 Posts
[QUOTE]
Originally Posted by alcanoe
A comment on libraries and finding stuff on the web. Unfortunately, the good technical stuff is stashed away in digital libraries where on has to pay big $'s to get access. That's even true when the work was funded by the taxpayer it appears.
I can't speak for all public libraries, but many public libraries have a number of data bases available to the public and all that is required is a library card (free to residents of the community/county). Many people may not be aware of the vast amount of information available. Visit your friendly, local reference librarian. (This has been a public service announcement)


There is so much conflicting information in the nutrition field, you can literally prove a food or nutrient or class of nutrient is good or bad by doing a selective search.
My thoughts exactly! This is why one needs to look for credible sources!
miss kenton is offline  
Old 03-12-10, 04:12 PM
  #97  
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6,937

Bikes: Old Bike: 1975 Raleigh Delta, New Bike: 2004 Norco Bushpilot

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by tallard
I took many years of university in physiology and toxicology, many hours labouring over many books, and many university professors to make me the person I am, with those bits of knowledge I have. I've done my research and it's too long for me to go to my brother's house at the other side of the country, to get all my reference books stored at his place, to graciously provide you with a quick internet based education. Sorry guys, it doesn't work like that. And I don't have as much internet time available to me as closetbiker. I'm not going to fly across the country for you just to save you the trouble of actually going to a university library and spend some respectable hours informing yourselves.

Just go to any university library with a decent physiology department, and study. I have only hinted at the general physiological ground rules, the rest is up to you. But NOT from the internet, not from some cheap dietician, who published some cheap book on how to MAINTAIN weight loss, who got their certificate from some diet school. Real research.

Best wishes in your education.
So what is your degree in, at what level, from where and when? Your previous message, #89 doesn't read like anything from anyone in the academic world that I know, and I know a few. The problem with reference books, is that you either need to replace them every few years with newer editions or eventually they become too far out of date. Most academics know this, I'm not an academic and I know this.
Wogster is offline  
Old 03-12-10, 04:19 PM
  #98  
Spin Meister
 
icyclist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: California, USA
Posts: 2,651

Bikes: Trek Émonda, 1961 Follis (French) road bike (I'm the original owner), a fixie, a mountain bike, etc.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked 41 Times in 16 Posts
"1) That your mind's desire to lose weight can't overcome your bodies desire for food."

Wogsterca - this is precisely the case. Mind and body are related. When the body - on the cellular level, below the conscious level, tells the mind it needs to replace energy, that's what can happen, and does. We need only look at the figure - so to speak - about obesity in this country; those figures aren't shrinking.

Toss in the fact that many - most? - people don't realize "low-fat" foods are loaded with fat-creating ingrediants. Starting at young ages, we become overweight without even realizing why.

"2) That only the typical North American diet of fat laden foods drenched in high fructose corn syrup and chemicals, can satisfy hunger."

I didn't say it, in fact I categorically deny it. It's just that those foods are all around us - toffee-coated peanuts on plane flights, chips at the restaurant, "low-fat" (i.e. high carb) foods in the market.

"3) I never said it was easy, and it's something I have struggled with, and continue to."

It's a struggle for you, one you are apparently on top of. For millions of others, the struggle is a losing one. A good question is why they are losing the battle of the bulge. I think it has more to do with what we eat than with how much.
__________________
This post is a natural product. Slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and are in no way to be considered flaws or defects.
icyclist is offline  
Old 03-12-10, 04:25 PM
  #99  
Spin Meister
 
icyclist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: California, USA
Posts: 2,651

Bikes: Trek Émonda, 1961 Follis (French) road bike (I'm the original owner), a fixie, a mountain bike, etc.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked 41 Times in 16 Posts
"Sure, you will want to replace the extra calories by overeating, but that doesn't mean you will. Discipline and willpower come into play in any weight loss scenario. It isn't easy, but it isn't impossible."

Obviously, for many people, for millions of people, it is impossible. Just as obviously, people don't want to be fat. People are surrounded by the wrong kinds of foods and they are not educated in which foods make sense.

I don't think it's a matter of wanting to "replace the extra calories by overeating," either; it's a matter of the body wanting to replace any expended calories (as opposed to calories already stored as fat in fat cells). Which is why when we ride for a long distance, we're hungry (we'll get hungry if we don't exercise, too). We don't then just say to ourselves, "Hey, I'm already fat, so I'll just let some of that fat power my muscles and organs." Uh, uh. The body craves food from the direct root, it's loathe to give up it's stored energy supplies.

Eat healthy foods, in quantities, and people won't be hungry; and they can start to lose weight.
__________________
This post is a natural product. Slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and are in no way to be considered flaws or defects.
icyclist is offline  
Old 03-12-10, 04:41 PM
  #100  
Century bound
 
Phil85207's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Mesa Arizona
Posts: 2,262

Bikes: Felt AR4 and Cannondale hybrid

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 2 Posts
All this stuff is much to technical for me. I just try to burn more calories than I take in and wala, I loose weight. Since I took us biking about 60 lbs worth. Conversely. When I take in more than i burn, guess what?

I really don't give a hoot about body fat %. I know if I am working out and loosing fat, I must be going in the right direction. I could be over simplifying here, but I like to keep things simple.
Phil85207 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.