A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Swimming
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Mrs Atkins speaks



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old March 3rd 04, 11:08 AM
Jason O'Rourke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mrs Atkins speaks

m. w. smith wrote:
Fourth, you switched form "5k run" to "race". Where on earth did you get
the idea we are arguing about racing!? We are arguing about exercise!
EXERCISE, Matt! NOT RACING! We are arguing about whether a land-based


In the context of calories burned, it doesn't really matter. Walking the 5k
in 60 minutes or running it in 25 is pretty close in terms of energy used. The
same amount of work is done. I suspect that at the 95% level the burn rate
increases a bit due to inefficiency, but not by a heck of a lot.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
  #96  
Old March 3rd 04, 08:20 PM
MJuric
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mrs Atkins speaks

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 10:54:04 +0100, "m. w. smith"
wrote:

Point in case...

~Matt



On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 19:19:46 GMT, MJuric wrote:
(I won't say what I'm arguing against as no matter what I say
it will be incorrect). My understanding of the argument is the body
"Craves carbohydrates" because of low blood sugar or because the blood
is shunted away from the stomache. If the case is we don't want to eat
heavy food because it is "more difficult" to absorb and digest than
carbs it really has nothing to do with whether or not we "need carbs"
or our muscles are in a glycogen depleted state. In other words as you
stated earlier you only burn 300-400 calories in a 5K run. Assuming
you weren't in a glycogen depleted state prior to the race you aren't
afterwards. However most people don't want to mow down on a big juicy
hamburger right after a hard 5K effort. So my point is that this
"hunger for carbs" is not a muscle dictated thing but a "blood flow"
issue.


Matt, that is gibberish. It doesn't make sense. First, the argument was
never that the body craves carbohydrates. The argument was that the
*swimmer* is hungry for carbohydrates after a hard swimming workout, *not*
the swimmer's body. The swimmer, Matt. This includes the swimmer's mind. A
large component of losing weight is mental. Second, the argument was never
about blood shunting; it was always about low blood sugar. The Atkins
diet, which is what started the argument, is largely about maintainin a
stable blood sugar level, lower than is typical for the overweight person,
but not low like after a hard swimming workout. The Atkins diet supposedly
stabilizes blood sugar, thus stabilizing blood insulin, and apparently
stabilizing blood sugar and insulin by burning fat instead of
carbohydrates reduces hunger and cravings.

Third, this: "If the case is we don't want to eat heavy food because it is
"more difficult" to absorb and digest than carbs it really has nothing to
do with whether or not we "need carbs"
or our muscles are in a glycogen depleted state." is nonsense. If it is
harder to digest heavy food because of your blood shunting argument, then
it is harder to digest light food for exactly the same reason. But since
swimmers generally are hungry after a hard workout, and they don't desire
fat but they do desire lighter foods, ie carbohydrates, something else
must be the cause. Low blood sugar. Carbohydrates will replace low blood
sugar faster than fat or protein. Note that it is low blodd sugar, not low
glycogen in the muscles.

Fourth, you switched form "5k run" to "race". Where on earth did you get
the idea we are arguing about racing!? We are arguing about exercise!
EXERCISE, Matt! NOT RACING! We are arguing about whether a land-based
exercise program is better than swimming for losing weight. Racing has
nothing to do with it. Nothing. All statements about racing are irrelevant
in the context of this argument.

Fifth, your conclusion simply does not follow from anything you wrote
before it. And, although your conclusion tacitly admits there is a "hunger
for carbs" by attempting to explain it, it ignores the fact that if
restricted blood flow in the digestive system reduces hunger for fat and
protein, it also reduces hunger for carbohydrates.

Why does this matter? This matters because it has to do with
an earlier argument that swimming burns more glycogen than running.


That wasn't an argument. That was an assumption posted by Larry, based on
results of some experiment.

Why does that matter? This matters because it has to do with an
earlier argument that burning glycogen will not allow you to lose
weight as easily as burning fat.


There was no such argument. The argument was about the relative
efficiencies of these exercises for use when trying to lose weight. It was
about efficiency, not easiness.

Why does this matter? This matters
because it has to do with yet an earlier argument about the Atkins
diet.


No, this argument was always about whether a land-based exerercise program
is more efficient than a swimming based exercise program for losing weight.

You have never once gotten my position right. Apparently you don't even
understand it. You also clearly do not understand the Atkins program.

Confused yet?


How could they not be confused after rerading what you wrote. You got
every wrong.

martin

--
If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote,
because we badly need a new president.


  #97  
Old March 3rd 04, 08:24 PM
MJuric
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mrs Atkins speaks

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 10:59:04 +0100, "m. w. smith"
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 19:58:21 GMT, MJuric wrote:
Somebody has to try and say what you mean as your all over the
map and reguardless of evidence shown you refuse to respond to accept
the results.


**** you, Matt.

martin


Does this mean we're done?

~Matt


--
If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote,
because we badly need a new president.


  #98  
Old March 4th 04, 12:04 PM
Jason O'Rourke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mrs Atkins speaks

In article , MJuric wrote:
In the context of calories burned, it doesn't really matter. Walking the 5k
in 60 minutes or running it in 25 is pretty close in terms of energy used. The

Couldn't agree more. And that's pretty much the crux of my
argument. Calories in calories out. Method of in does not matter much
and method of out does not matter much. Yes both have some effect but
not nearly as much as the overall balance.


You agree with my statement, or your's? They're entirely different, though
I also believe weight loss is a simple energy equation.

Running is one of the few sports where effort level doesn't matter, only
distance. Swimming varies more than almost any I can think of because
of the high drag. If you swim hard, you can burn at a rate similar to
running. But it's hard to swim that fast that long.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
  #99  
Old March 5th 04, 05:27 PM
MJuric
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mrs Atkins speaks

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 11:04:57 +0000 (UTC),
(Jason O'Rourke) wrote:

In article , MJuric wrote:
In the context of calories burned, it doesn't really matter. Walking the 5k
in 60 minutes or running it in 25 is pretty close in terms of energy used. The

Couldn't agree more. And that's pretty much the crux of my
argument. Calories in calories out. Method of in does not matter much
and method of out does not matter much. Yes both have some effect but
not nearly as much as the overall balance.


You agree with my statement, or your's? They're entirely different, though
I also believe weight loss is a simple energy equation.


Unless I'm missing something we agree that both running and
walking a mile burns similar calories and 100 calories burnt is 100
calories burnt whether it's from running or swimming.


Running is one of the few sports where effort level doesn't matter, only
distance. Swimming varies more than almost any I can think of because
of the high drag. If you swim hard, you can burn at a rate similar to
running. But it's hard to swim that fast that long.


I agree that swimming has much higher variation over similar
distance from swimmer to swimmer. IOW, usually due to technique, one
may burn 150 calories in 500 yds while another may burn 200-250 in the
same distance. That variation is ususally not present in running.
Cycling, IMO is not quite as suseptable to this variation as
is swimming but moreso than running, particularly as you reach higher
speeds and higher resistance.

~Matt


--
Jason O'Rourke
www.jor.com

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Don't Die on Atkins call 911 Steve Bayt Running 1 July 21st 04 04:00 AM
Ban via Suit Atkins not Supplements Steve Bayt Running 11 February 25th 04 09:20 PM
Hey Larry rtk Swimming 37 February 16th 04 06:44 AM
Atkins promoters now suggest dieters limit red meat Not distinguishing proteins was 'mistake' John Hanson Weights 3 February 14th 04 05:47 AM
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret Paul Smith Weights 1 January 23rd 04 05:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.