Adiposity 101 4/4 
Author Message
 Adiposity 101 4/4

I haven't read the whole of your latest A101 (is their a differences
file from earlier versions available?) but this jumped out at me:



Quote:
> Advertising ethics are no better  in  the  related  exercise
> industry.   A NordicTrack ad claimed a fat person could lose
> up  to  1100  calories  per  hour,  several  times  what  an
> endomorph with middle age spread could reasonably expect.

It's much more important what a *formerly* fat person, such as myself,
can burn.  I've never used a NordicTrack, but I've ridden a calibrated
exercise bike, and it told me that my normal outdoor cycling rate, which
I can keep up for hours, burns 1000 calories per hour.  And that my peak
sprint speed burns 3000.

Since the NordicTrack uses arms as well as legs, it's quite plausible
to me that it would burn more calories.  I can't imagine why you would
think it important that someone who is currently fat and out of shape is
unlikely to burn a full 1100 calories the very first hour they use the
thing.  Nor have I seen any ads whych make any such claim.  Obviously
the intent is to use it a lot, for years.  Similarly with any other
exercise machine or form of exercise.
--

f p=2,3:2 s q=1 x "f f=3:2 q:f*f>p!'q  s q=p#f" w:q p,?$x\8+1*8



Sun, 21 Apr 1996 09:20:52 GMT
 Adiposity 101 4/4

Quote:
>I haven't read the whole of your latest A101 (is their a differences
>file from earlier versions available?) but this jumped out at me:



>> Advertising ethics are no better  in  the  related  exercise
>> industry.   A NordicTrack ad claimed a fat person could lose
>> up  to  1100  calories  per  hour,  several  times  what  an
>> endomorph with middle age spread could reasonably expect.

>It's much more important what a *formerly* fat person, such as myself,
>can burn.  I've never used a NordicTrack, but I've ridden a calibrated
>exercise bike, and it told me that my normal outdoor cycling rate, which
>I can keep up for hours, burns 1000 calories per hour.  And that my peak
>sprint speed burns 3000.

>Since the NordicTrack uses arms as well as legs, it's quite plausible
>to me that it would burn more calories.  I can't imagine why you would
>think it important that someone who is currently fat and out of shape is
>unlikely to burn a full 1100 calories the very first hour they use the
>thing.  Nor have I seen any ads whych make any such claim.  Obviously
>the intent is to use it a lot, for years.  Similarly with any other
>exercise machine or form of exercise.

Keith, I don't think you have seen or remember every exercise
ever aired or printed; neither have I.  And I'm sure people in
top shape can burn 1000 or more calories an hour.  But that is
beside the point Adiposity 101 makes.  The ad in question pitched
the exercise machine as a way of losing weight, an alternative to
stringent energy restriction, so the question of a fat individual
safely burning energy at that rate is, unfortunately, relevant.

There is no question that Keith is an exceptional individual.

--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX          ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
  Omen Technology Inc    "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD   Portland OR 97231   503-621-3406



Mon, 22 Apr 1996 14:58:03 GMT
 Adiposity 101 4/4



# Keith, I don't think you have seen or remember every exercise
# ever aired or printed; neither have I.  And I'm sure people in
# top shape can burn 1000 or more calories an hour.  But that is
# beside the point Adiposity 101 makes.  The ad in question pitched
# the exercise machine as a way of losing weight, an alternative to
# stringent energy restriction, so the question of a fat individual
# safely burning energy at that rate is, unfortunately, relevant.
#
# There is no question that Keith is an exceptional individual.

I'm not so sure that that is the case, Chuck.  I too am maintaining a
160 lb weightloss.  Maintaining the weight loss requires a realization
that a) I can't eat more calories than that required for maintenance
b) I can't afford to go back to the same sloth-like lifestyle I led as
an obese person
c) changes in body fat levels have to be gradual

A 220lb person can develop cardiovascular fitness reasonably quickly,
and can eventually maintain a pace on the Nordic Track that THEORETICALLY
burns over 1000 calories per hour.  It too me only 3 months to reach
a point where I could vigorously use my Nordic Track for an hour on a daily
basis.  My bodyweight at the time was 245 lbs.  I was also able to
maintain a pace of 4 MPH on my treadmill at an incline of 10% -- which
according to Precor, works out to close to 1000 cal/hr (I forget exactly,
it's been a while since I weighed that much).

I'm not saying the ads are not a little optimistic, but they're not
outright lies.

Tom



Mon, 22 Apr 1996 22:25:36 GMT
 Adiposity 101 4/4


Quote:
> ... people in top shape can burn 1000 or more calories an hour.  But
> that is beside the point Adiposity 101 makes.  The ad in question
> pitched the exercise machine as a way of losing weight, ...
> There is no question that Keith is an exceptional individual.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Tom Molnar, yet another "exceptional individual," reports that he
was able to burn 1000 calories per hour for long periods after 3
months of practice.

This is hardly "top shape," any more than someone with three months
of education is well educated.  I burn about the same amount on my
bike, but I'm frequently passed by people with gray hair on heavier
bikes.

There is no real distinction between losing weight and maintaining
lost weight.  One starts by adopting a new lifestyle, with changes
in cooking.net">food and activities.  The result is (among other things) a weight
curve which asymptotically approaches some reasonable weight.  As
time passes, one's calories-burned-per-hour will be steadily increasing
until it levels off after a few months or years, on an asymptotic curve
similar to the weight curve inverted (not necessarily with the same
time constant).

The fact that one is not burning 1100 calories per hour on an exercise
machine (or real bicycle, or tennis court) for the first three months
or so, is as irrelevant as the fact that one won't reach one's target
weight within the first three months.

I'd be more concerned about the other side of that number.  Why do they
say "up to 1100"?  Plenty of people eventually become able to burn far
more calories than that.  Is that a sneaky way of saying that a more
energetic user will break the machine?

Anyhow, even if nobody ever burned more than half that, and used the
machine only an hour a day (perhaps during a favorite TV show), that's
about a 1/3 increase of daily calories burned over a typical basal rate.
Thus one could expect, in time, to lose 1/4 of their weight.  Even if
they made no other lifestyle changes whatsoever.

Boring?  Perhaps.  A ripoff?  Not unless they break too easily.
--

f p=2,3:2 s q=1 x "f f=3:2 q:f*f>p!'q  s q=p#f" w:q p,?$x\8+1*8



Tue, 23 Apr 1996 11:06:44 GMT
 Adiposity 101 4/4

Quote:




># Keith, I don't think you have seen or remember every exercise
># ever aired or printed; neither have I.  And I'm sure people in
># top shape can burn 1000 or more calories an hour.  But that is
># beside the point Adiposity 101 makes.  The ad in question pitched
># the exercise machine as a way of losing weight, an alternative to
># stringent energy restriction, so the question of a fat individual
># safely burning energy at that rate is, unfortunately, relevant.
>#
># There is no question that Keith is an exceptional individual.

>I'm not so sure that that is the case, Chuck.  I too am maintaining a
>160 lb weightloss.  Maintaining the weight loss requires a realization
>that a) I can't eat more calories than that required for maintenance
>b) I can't afford to go back to the same sloth-like lifestyle I led as
>an obese person
>c) changes in body fat levels have to be gradual

>A 220lb person can develop cardiovascular fitness reasonably quickly,
>and can eventually maintain a pace on the Nordic Track that THEORETICALLY
>burns over 1000 calories per hour.  It too me only 3 months to reach
>a point where I could vigorously use my Nordic Track for an hour on a daily
>basis.  My bodyweight at the time was 245 lbs.  I was also able to
>maintain a pace of 4 MPH on my treadmill at an incline of 10% -- which
>according to Precor, works out to close to 1000 cal/hr (I forget exactly,
>it's been a while since I weighed that much).

>I'm not saying the ads are not a little optimistic, but they're not
>outright lies.

The comment about Nordictrack's 1100 calorie/hr claim is based
on my readings indicating this is not a reasonable figure.
Obviously I need to include the references to that research in
the next major revision to Adiposity 101.

As for Tom's anecdotal report, please consider this.  The most
often quoted figure is that 95% of all diet attempts fail.
Various activists have come up with numbers ranging from 85% to
98% depending on the definitions used and the phase of the moon.
There are, roughly, 10^5 readers of this newsgroup.  Fourty per
cent of Americans are overweight, so we might have 40,000
overweight sci.med readers.  That sounds a bit high, so let's
make that 10^4 overweight sci.med readers.  That gives at least
200 sci.med readers who would have lost weight and kept it off
according to the 98% failure rate figure.  Those who claim the
95% failure rate figure is too grim need to find about a
thousand sci.med readers who have lost weight and kept it off.

--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX          ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
  Omen Technology Inc    "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD   Portland OR 97231   503-621-3406



Thu, 25 Apr 1996 09:07:14 GMT
 Adiposity 101 4/4


Quote:
> There are, roughly, 10^5 readers of this newsgroup.

What does this mean?  People who have read at least one sci.med posting
in the past year?  People who have read *all* sci.med postings in the
last year?  Something else?

I think a more reasonable starting point is the number of people who
regularly *post* to sci.med, and who *also* read this thread, *and* who
have ever been at least 100 pounds overweight, *and* who attempted to
lose that weight.

Quote:
> That gives at least 200 sci.med readers who would have lost weight
> and kept it off according to the 98% failure rate figure.

I'll find several for you, *if*, for each one, you find me fifty who
have tried and failed.  I don't think you'll succeed.

Off the top of my head, I can recall three people who have posted here
who are complete successes, two who are partial successes, and just one
who is a complete failure (you).  (I'm speaking of attempted 100+ pound
loss and maintenance only.)

Quote:
> The comment about Nordictrack's 1100 calorie/hr claim is based
> on my readings indicating this is not a reasonable figure.

Not a reasonable figure for what?  The first hour an out of shape
fat person uses the machine?  Or after it's been used daily for
several months?

The only way someone could fail to be able to burn 1100 calories per
hour on a machine after several months practice is if they have some
kind of muscle, nerve, or bone wasting disease, or if the machine isn't
sturdy enough and breaks when they try it, or if the machine doesn't
exercise major muscle groups.

Again I ask you, is there a differences file available, for those of
us who don't care to read several subtly different versions of A101?
--

f p=2,3:2 s q=1 x "f f=3:2 q:f*f>p!'q  s q=p#f" w:q p,?$x\8+1*8



Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:21:13 GMT
 Adiposity 101 4/4


# As for Tom's anecdotal report, please consider this.  The most
# often quoted figure is that 95% of all diet attempts fail.
# Various activists have come up with numbers ranging from 85% to
# 98% depending on the definitions used and the phase of the moon.
# There are, roughly, 10^5 readers of this newsgroup.  Fourty per
# cent of Americans are overweight, so we might have 40,000
# overweight sci.med readers.  That sounds a bit high, so let's
# make that 10^4 overweight sci.med readers.  That gives at least
# 200 sci.med readers who would have lost weight and kept it off
# according to the 98% failure rate figure.  Those who claim the
# 95% failure rate figure is too grim need to find about a
# thousand sci.med readers who have lost weight and kept it off.

I think many of the people reading sci.med have a good understanding
of nutrition and metabolism.  The real nutrition experts have known
for some time why up to 95% of all diet attempts fail.  It's no mystery.
There's no mystery about the body's adaptation to the shock of nutritionally
poor starvation diets.  There is no mystery about the lack of proper
eating and lifestyle habits in the N.A. population.  There is no mystery
about the result of eating diet high in fat and low in fibre.  There is no
mystery about what happens if you don't work to eliminate the causes of
most obesity.

What's the failure rate amongst those individuals who have lost weight by
making the following part of their lifestyle, permanently:

        - switch to a diet providing 50-75 grams natural dietary
          fibre (all types, not one isolated source from a supplement)
        - minimize purified fats from the diet (like butter, cooking oil, etc.)
        - avoid foods naturally high in fat
        - minimize refined foods / eliminate junk foods
        - expend an extra 300 to 500 calories every day through regular exercise
          (walking, riding, running, cross-training etc.)
        - get adequate sleep
        - practice relaxation techiques to cope with stress if necessary

What is the failure rate of this group?

I've kept my weight down because I've addressed what made me fat in the first
place.  My "diet" is not a temporary condition.

How does that compare to a group of people who drink ULTRA SLIM FAST for
a month?  Or who use herbal concoctions?  Or those who use appetite
suppressants?  That these people are sure to fail is no mystery to me.

The diet industry huckster's shouting voices overpower the quiet voices
of the nutrition experts.  Sometimes I think this industry ought to
be regulated.

Tom



Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:44:49 GMT
 Adiposity 101 4/4

Quote:


>> There are, roughly, 10^5 readers of this newsgroup.

>What does this mean?  People who have read at least one sci.med posting
>in the past year?  People who have read *all* sci.med postings in the
>last year?  Something else?

>I think a more reasonable starting point is the number of people who
>regularly *post* to sci.med, and who *also* read this thread, *and* who
>have ever been at least 100 pounds overweight, *and* who attempted to
>lose that weight.

>> That gives at least 200 sci.med readers who would have lost weight
>> and kept it off according to the 98% failure rate figure.

>I'll find several for you, *if*, for each one, you find me fifty who
>have tried and failed.  I don't think you'll succeed.

Obviously, those who fail aren't inclined to brag about it on the net.

Quote:
>Again I ask you, is there a differences file available, for those of
>us who don't care to read several subtly different versions of A101?

The current version is not merely "subtly different".  It is the
first edition to report on the definitive study of the fattening
effects of diet cycling and early high carbohydrate diet.
Keith, if you had carefully read the latest Adiposity 101 you

--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX          ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
  Omen Technology Inc    "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD   Portland OR 97231   503-621-3406



Sat, 27 Apr 1996 19:18:08 GMT
 Adiposity 101 4/4

Quote:



># As for Tom's anecdotal report, please consider this.  The most
># often quoted figure is that 95% of all diet attempts fail.
># Various activists have come up with numbers ranging from 85% to
># 98% depending on the definitions used and the phase of the moon.
># There are, roughly, 10^5 readers of this newsgroup.  Fourty per
># cent of Americans are overweight, so we might have 40,000
># overweight sci.med readers.  That sounds a bit high, so let's
># make that 10^4 overweight sci.med readers.  That gives at least
># 200 sci.med readers who would have lost weight and kept it off
># according to the 98% failure rate figure.  Those who claim the
># 95% failure rate figure is too grim need to find about a
># thousand sci.med readers who have lost weight and kept it off.

>I think many of the people reading sci.med have a good understanding
>of nutrition and metabolism.  The real nutrition experts have known
>for some time why up to 95% of all diet attempts fail.  It's no mystery.
>There's no mystery about the body's adaptation to the shock of nutritionally
>poor starvation diets.  There is no mystery about the lack of proper
>eating and lifestyle habits in the N.A. population.  There is no mystery
>about the result of eating diet high in fat and low in fibre.  There is no
>mystery about what happens if you don't work to eliminate the causes of
>most obesity.

>What's the failure rate amongst those individuals who have lost weight by
>making the following part of their lifestyle, permanently:

>    - switch to a diet providing 50-75 grams natural dietary
>      fibre (all types, not one isolated source from a supplement)
>    - minimize purified fats from the diet (like butter, cooking oil, etc.)
>    - avoid foods naturally high in fat
>    - minimize refined foods / eliminate junk foods
>    - expend an extra 300 to 500 calories every day through regular exercise
>          (walking, riding, running, cross-training etc.)
>    - get adequate sleep
>    - practice relaxation techiques to cope with stress if necessary

>What is the failure rate of this group?

About the same as those who went on low carbohydrate diets and had
Close Encounters of the Third kind.

I'm assuming all there is to support either proposition is anecdotal
reports, otherwise Tom would have cited 5-year studies in the medical
literature to back up his thoughts.

Quote:
>I've kept my weight down because I've addressed what made me fat in the first
>place.  My "diet" is not a temporary condition.

The studies cited in Adiposity 101 indicate adiposity is caused mostly
by genetics, aggravated in some cases by high carbohydrate diets early
in life and/or diet cycling.

Quote:
>How does that compare to a group of people who drink ULTRA SLIM FAST for
>a month?  Or who use herbal concoctions?  Or those who use appetite
>suppressants?  That these people are sure to fail is no mystery to me.

Many people swear by Slim Fast (Pound, Wisconsin) and Herbalife.

Quote:
>The diet industry huckster's shouting voices overpower the quiet voices
>of the nutrition experts.  Sometimes I think this industry ought to
>be regulated.

Some of the "nutrition experts" quack pretty loudly, too.

The techniques Tom espouses weren't invented yesterday.
Let's see some long term studies in the scientific literature.
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX          ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
  Omen Technology Inc    "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD   Portland OR 97231   503-621-3406



Sat, 27 Apr 1996 21:36:50 GMT
 
 [ 9 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. New Adiposity 101

2. Adiposity 101

3. Obesity research dollars (was Adiposity 101)

4. Need Adiposity 101 article

5. Correction to Adiposity 101

6. Updated Adiposity 101 (long)

7. Adiposity 101 (Part 1 of 2)

8. Adiposity 101

9. Adiposity 101 (Part 2 of 2)

10. Adiposity 101 (Part 2 of 2)

11. New Adiposity 101 1/2

12. Andiposity 101


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software