On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:00:46 -0600, Philip <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I'm still a little confused about something though...
> How do you know that exercise was the main factor in losing the weight  
> when you changed your diet at the same time? Even given that activity  
> level was the only significant factor in your weight gain, that doesn't  
> necessarily
> preclude the possibility that diet played a role in your weight loss.

I never said diet wasn't part of the weight loss (at least I don't think I  
did -- I certainly don't feel that way).  I think the diet and exercise  
went together.   However, I do believe that I would have been successful  
at losing the weight if I had stayed with the same exact diet *content*  
and changed only the *quantity*.  So in *that* regard, I don't think the  
*content* of the diet had as much to do with it as my vigilance about the  
calories and quantities.  (Does that help?  I don't feel like I'm  
explaining myself very well.)

> Yeah, veggies, nuts and meats are very filling and they don't give you
> cravings for more the way chips and cookies do (unless salt and sugar is
> added to the nuts).

Absolutely.  Salted nuts are evil -- like salty chips, they make you want  
to keep eating them even after your good sense is telling you to stop.

> I'm a little skeptical of Cordain's warning about not eating too much  
> nuts to avoid gaining weight,

As am I.  Raw nuts are a fine food, and tend to be self-limiting.  This is  
doubly true if you get them with their shells still on.  If you have to  
sit there and crack the shells, you'll tire of eating nuts well before you  
start ballooning at the waist.  I sometimes take a bowl of mixed nuts  
(walnuts, hazelnuts, pecans, almonds, and brazil nuts) and crack them and  
eat them.  It only takes a few minutes to have quite enough of that.

> A lot of SAD eaters I know would probably be
> skeptical re: claims about not having to count calories as much with a
> dietary style that tends to include more meats and fats, but that's been  
> my experience as well. What about the clean SAD--could you also eat  
> pretty much until you were full on that diet?

Maybe.  My first reaction is yes, but that's probably not entirely true.   
At the time, I was very conscious of my weight, my calorie intake, and how  
much food I really needed.  Because of that, I would tend to be "done"  
with a meal when I felt like I had reached the appropriate amount.  My  
brain was running the show a lot more than my stomach.

> OK, well that probably puts you in the medium frame category. So by HG
> standards you're still on the plump end of the BMI scale (no offense
> intended of course :-) ). So to you, HG's probably seem very thin indeed.

No offense taken.  I don't think anyone has ever referred to me as plump.   
:-)

> My perception of what is normal in cattle weight had been skewed by  
> farming
> practices. I think our perceptions of what is normal human weight have  
> been skewed in a similar manner.

Absolutely.  The entertainment, fashion, and advertising agencies have  
seen to that.  But that's a whole 'nother discussion as well.

> So, while I'm not suggesting you lose more weight, it seems possible that
> getting down to 175 lbs. might involve losing some fat, not just muscle,
> unless you added significant muscle after your 20's.

Indeed I did, and I hope to continue to.  In my teens, despite lifting  
weights and eating everything in sight, my upper arms taped in at a  
massive 11".  (I'm 6' 4", remember?).  I did put on some weight in my  
20's, but I doubt much of it was muscle.  These days my arms are around 14  
1/2", and leaner than they were in high school.  I hope that means I've  
put on some muscle.

>> That seems really odd -- to base a conclusion of a "healthy"
>> weight on someone who has just lost a bunch *due to illness*.
>
> Actually, they were concluding that being thin is "unhealthy" because  
> they were ignoring this fact that some Americans are thin because they  
> have lost weight after already developing a severe illness.

Ah.  Makes sense, but still seems really odd that they didn't take that  
into consideration.

>> For what it's worth, I lose weight at that calorie level.  My
>> maintenance level is about 3K/day.
>
> Yes, that's well above the reported average American level of 2,000-2,250
> K/day, but of course you are taller than the avg. American (especially if
> that is an avg for both men and women, like I think it is), much more
> active, and eat a much healthier diet.

True.  And I hope to stay that way until the day I die.  :-)

> We disagree on which factor is more important, but I think we agree that
> diet, exercise and genetics are all factors in body weight.

Absolutely.  :-)


-- 
   Robert Kesterson
   [log in to unmask]