Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
rec.running
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Burning Fat?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
mjuric  
View profile  
 More options Aug 12 2002, 3:41 pm
Newsgroups: rec.running
From: MJuric
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:34:30 GMT
Local: Mon, Aug 12 2002 3:34 pm
Subject: Re: Burning Fat?
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 15:32:23 -0700, Don Kirkman <spambus...@covad.net>
wrote:

>It seems to me I heard somewhere that MJuric wrote in article
><3d52c6a2.111777...@news.choiceone.net>:

>>On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 14:37:51 -0400, Michael Roose
>><trainerofathle...@email.com> wrote:

>>>On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 17:14:25 GMT, MJuric wrote:

>>>|Lately there has been alot of posts about LSD runs, pace etc on the
>>>|"best" way to burn fat. Has anyone got any studies on this subject to
>>>|go look at? I'm more curious about the balance of losing weight via
>>>|fat vs losing weight via muscle loss etc.

>>>|   Although I have no actual studies to back up my belief it
>>>|seems to me that "burning" fat will not occur any faster during any
>>>|type of run than any other type of run.

>>>Matt, the recent studies on High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT)
>>>appear promising in regard to maximizing fat burn.  Truth is, exercise
>>>of all kinds is way overrated to fat loss.

>>>Eat less.

>>>http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

>>        OK actually I looked at this the last time you posted it. I
>>really have my doubts and an example. My wife and I ate at a local
>>grocery store yesterday, they have a deli an a small kitchen. For the
>>salad bar they charge by the lb. Yeh strange I know. My wife got a
>>salad with some Turkey breast meat misc stuff. With Styrofome bowl the
>>whole thing weighed around .68 lbs. Later she went back and got a
>>similar sized bowl with fruit. This weighed nearly 1 lb at .92# for a
>>total meal of 1.6 lbs Less bowl around 1.5# his leaves around a 1/2 lb
>>left to eat. I also estimate her whole meal to be around 500-600
>>calories. Lets say she later decided to dine on a 8 oz chicken breast
>>for around 400 calories that would put her at around 2 lbs and 1000
>>calories. This meets the two lb quota but puts her at a caloric
>>deficit that is highly unhealthy. But she would lose weight!

>Would this be a typical diet for your wife over the four to six months
>that might be involved in a weight loss effort, or is it rather
>different from her daily intake?   IE, are both the amount and the
>calory-richness pretty much what she eats regularly, or was this a
>marked difference that wouldn't be sustained?
>--
>Don
>donk...@covad.net

        As I mentioned earlier I believe that this is to little
caloric intake for any reason. I also believe that one should eat the
calories they need to sustain the weight they desire to be. At present
my wife is not trying to lose any weight. And at the same time we had
just finished up a 30 mi bike ride. Once again guestimation, sorry no
time to reseach for conversation today, I would put my wifes caloric
needs for the day, loosing weight or not around 2100-2500. This is
twice what she woudl have taken in on the 2PD

        As far as is this my wife normal carloric density the answer
would be slightly under. We do consume alot of vegies and fruits as in
this meal, however we also eat slightly more chicken and pasta than
shown in the above meal.

        My actual point of the above info was not to say that my wife
eats this all of the time but to show a possibility of a caloric
deficit at 2 lbs. Despite Michaels claim in a previuos post of me not
grasping the concept of the 2PD.

>"I'm sorry you are having trouble grasping that 2 pounds per day is NOT
>starvation, non nutritious (if you apply an ounce of common sense) or
>dangerous in any way.

I do fully understand the concept of the 2PD I just disagree with it.
As stated before I agree that under most normal circumstances the 2PD
will cause weight lose. The concept in its purest form is simple, "eat
less food" however "if you apply an ounce of common sense" to the 2PD
you must not call it the 2PD. Simply because 2 lbs of any food will
not sustain all people doing all things.

I would state this. Throw away all "diets" and simply use Michaels
"apply an ounce of common sense" to what you eat. Pay attention to
what, when and how much you eat. Use a little "common sense" which
isn't so common, and you will lose weight.

Of course you could wait and buy my new series of guaranteed weight
lose diet books. Including:

"Eat as much as you want as long as its not to much"
"Don't eat the whole damn thing"
"What! McDonalds isn't health food?"
"Use your mouth for more than eating"
"Build Your Leg Muscles Not Your Jowels"

And my personal favorite

"Quite Eating So Much Fat A@!"

~Matt


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google