weight loss

Good tips, exrunner! I also recommend a pinch of sugar when dissolving the yeast in the warm water...gives the yeast something to feed on. And, by the way, I disagree with the statement that Bobby Flay is a "flash in the pan" -- sure, he's a bit abrasive (in a metropolitan east coast way :) ), but I look past that when I see what he creates. We should all eat that well!! Bill

Shaky, that was a very informative posting. But the more I think about it, there are some things which I'm not sure match what you are saying (in my experience). You broke down the difference to (mostly) upper body vs lower body exercise. But when I use an ergometer or a Nordictrack, machines that would involve the upper body as well as the lower, my "hunger response" is the same as running. (And not as much as swimming. But maybe others have a different experience.) Similarly, the urge to "power nap" after a workout is independent of the type of exercise, what I've eaten, or whether or not I've eaten. Or maybe you are commenting about the "typical" running vs swimming workout. Would your argument change if you compared a sprinting running workout (muscle building) vs. a long distance moderate pace swim (aerobic)? Originally posted by Shaky Finally, that business about running keeping you from being hungry because it jostles your internal organs is a wives' tale. You can pound on someone's abdomen with a billy club, but if his muscles are depleted of glycogen he'll still be hungry. I'll trust your word about this. But considering your experience at the Y, I'm wondering if you should try to get a grant for medical/sports research, using your co-swimmers as subjects. (Whack! Whack! Whack! "Are you still hungry? Good!" :D )

Bobby Flay only won once on Iron Chef and never competed again, whereas Iron Chef Morimoto has competed and won countless times.

people can always argue about what chef has talent, etc. etc. There's no need to slam anybody--there are always things that can be learned from another person...even if it's not what to do. All I know is that any chef could probably run rings around me...and the iron chef! What a crazy concept! Surly a great creator of food won't be judged by that show. Not everyone performs at their top without obvious preparation, the allowance to cook in their own style, and not against the clock. It really seems like the chefs are racing... I'd rather save the racing for the swimming pool. Then again, I'm not a famous chef--but still...the Iron Chef? Come on! When did the art of fine cooking evolve into a sporting event? :rolleyes:

Bill, Thanks so much for the encouragement to make my own pizza. You're talking my language when you talk cooking. I love to cook! In fact, on the weekends, I spend sometimes 8-12 hours each day cooking. And, I'll admit that pizza dough has always been that one thing I could never make--I tried once, and it was so bad that I never tried again. But, your recipie, I know I can do. In fact, I'm going to do it this weekend--if not before. I have a home office--and it's really easy to skip meals during the day. In fact, I know that's one of the main reason for weight gain. So, I'm going to get on track with eating 3-5 times a day...that is sure to get results as well as swimming and adding some additional cardio. Congrats on your weight loss. I'm sure you feel like a whole new person! Thanks everybody for your feedback--it is extremely helpful!!! :D Have an awesome day! Jerrycat (JoAnne)indigo

Bobby Flay is a flash in the pan. . .

I agree with Bill V - it is possible to lose weight with swimming. I got back into swimming this year and have lost 30# in 6 months. In addition to the swimming, I have cut back on junk food. Not easy with the sweet tooth I have.... I did some research on the internet. All of the info I found that said swimming was not a good weight loss exercise referred to swimming at speeds of 20 yards/meters per minute. I'm not the fastest swimmer at my Y, but I would have trouble going that slow! Even when rests are figured in. That works out to be 88 minutes/mile! I swim 4-5 times a week, 2500 to 3000 yards in an hour depending on the stroke and number of drills, kick sets, etc. The weight has come off.

Bill and other pizza fans. Let me pass along a few tips on making your own pizza. I learned much of this from watching foodtv as well as the hard way. (1) Divide the dough before the final rise, rather than after; (2) Refrigerate the dough (oiled and covered in plastic) in the refrigerator overnight; (3) Do not punch down the dough or roll it out. Instead, tap it down gently with fingers, and stretch the dough to shape it; (4) Bake at the highest temperature your over allows. (500 degrees should work fine).

YUMMMMMMMM.... Sounds like we need a recipes thread. -LBJ

Just to be clear with everyone, I agree that swimming is not only a great way to lose weight, but also just about the best all around exercise available. I'm not arguing for running, since I hate running and generally feel that an adult human shouldn't run unless he's being chased. Still, if weight loss is your most immediate goal, lower body exercise is generally a more efficient way to metabolize fat without gaining muscle mass than upper body exercise. Originally posted by mattson You broke down the difference to (mostly) upper body vs lower body exercise. But when I use an ergometer or a Nordictrack, machines that would involve the upper body as well as the lower, my "hunger response" is the same as running. Evolution has optimized the white muscle for anaerobic power. That doesn't mean that white muscle won't metabolize fat; it MUST be able to switch over from anaerobic power to aerobic power in order to sustain muscle activity. In fact, most physical activities present a combination of aerobic and anaerobic exercise. Running is more aerobic, but all you have to do is run up a hill to provide enough resistance to increase the anaerobic component. Weightlifting is mostly anaerobic, but while it would likely be dangerous to do so, you could increase the aerobic component by doing the reps as fast as possible. Swimming provides an almost perfect combination of aerobic and anaerobic activity: the sustained motion gives the aerobic component, while the resistance of the water provides the anaerobic component. Thus, your Nordictrack hunger response makes sense. It's a sustained activity with more of an aerobic component than anaerobic. Your body is powering itself off your fat reserves and suppresses the appetite because it doesn't think it needs immediate replacement of calories. If you think of it as a balance between the two types of exercise, the results of the aerobic activity are outweighing the results of the anaerobic component. Originally posted by mattson Would your argument change if you compared a sprinting running workout (muscle building) vs. a long distance moderate pace swim (aerobic)? I don't think so. While I can't personally attest to the effects of a sprinting running workout (since I'm not much of a runner), I do experience a difference in my hunger response between distance workouts and interval workouts in the pool. For example, I sometimes swim a 4000 to 5000m non-stop endurance workout, attempting to maintain a constant, reasonable pace throughout with my heart rate near its target level. When I get out of the pool, I generally have little desire to eat. When I have done this workout in the morning, on an empty stomach, I come out of the pool still hungry but unable to eat very much before feeling full. In contrast, when I swim intervals I am always hungry afterwards. The main set of my favorite workout is ten 100m IM on 2 minute intervals. My stomach usually starts growling soon after that set, and the rest of my workout has me thinking about what delicious things await me when I get out of the pool. (And yes, that response is the same when I've had a "full contact" workout with other swimmers kicking me in the sides. :D ) As you can see, I'm not saying that swimming doesn't burn fat or that running doesn't burn glycogen, nor am I saying that all swimming or running workouts affect the body the same way. What I'm saying is that, generally, our bodies have evolved to power the muscles in our upper and lower bodies differently to reflect the different kind of activities required of them, and that understanding this difference can help to understand why some types of exercise result in weight loss more quickly than others. Originally posted by mattson Similarly, the urge to "power nap" after a workout is independent of the type of exercise, what I've eaten, or whether or not I've eaten. I'm studying Japanese. Whenever I start a lesson, fifteen minutes into it I desperately want a power nap, but it has nothing to do with burning carbs either. I just mentioned wanting a nap after satisfying a carbohydrate craving as part of the explanation of what's happening in the body in that particular situation, not as an explanation of every narcoleptic fit. I just thought a lot of swimmers might be able to relate to that specific situation. Switching gears... Originally posted by exrunner The fundamental rule of weight loss is 3500 calorie deficit (surplus) = 1 pound weight loss (gain). This equation holds true whether your calorie expenditure is from swimming or running, and whether your calorie intake is in the form of pizza or alfalfa sprouts. The equation is also true whether your weight loss is from lean tissue or fat. While that may be a reasonable weight loss guideline at the basic level, it's really more complicated than that. The 3500 calorie number is the specific number of calories in a pound of fat. Muscle contains far fewer calories per pound, and muscle gain differs from muscle loss in the amount of calories absorbed or expended. For example, bodybuilders and weightlifters will tell you that you have to absorb an additional 2500 calories to gain a pound of muscle, but you only have to burn 500-600 calories to lose a pound of muscle if you get your diet screwed up. If your calorie deficit were to cause you to lose 3500 calories from muscle, your actual weight loss would be six to seven times greater than if you lost 3500 calories of fat. Therefore it is not true that your equation works whether your weight loss is from lean tissue or fat; it doesn't even out. The equation also doesn't hold true for different types or combinations of food, since it assumes that all calories consumed will be absorbed by the body. Whether fat is stored depends upon the body's insulin response. If there is more sugar in the bloodstream than the muscles can store, insulin is released, which then triggers storage of that excess sugar as fat. If it isn't stored in the muscles as glycogen or as fat from an insulin response, it's passed from the body. Some people are lucky enough to have an unusually low insulin response to everything they eat. You know them; they're the ones who seem to be able to eat anything and never gain a pound, even though they don't exercise that much. Don't you hate them? Whatever calories their bodies don't need are passed out of the body without being stored. These people specifically fly in the face of the that equation. Likewise, diabetics disprove the validity of that equation. One of the warning signs that diabetes has taken hold is weight gain. These weight changes can occur even when the diabetic has not changed his caloric intake or level of physical activity. What happens is that there's a change in insulin response in the body, and calories that before were passed out of the body as waste are being stored as fat in response to the higher insulin output. If 3500 calories really equalled a pound of fat in practice, a diabetic shouldn't gain weight at the onset of the disease unless he increased his caloric intake. Furthermore, the presence of protein in the diet affects the insulin response and drastically reduces the effectiveness of that formula. When the body attempts to digest protein and carbs at the same time, the protein slows the absorption of the carbohydrates and helps reduce the rate at which they hit the bloodstream as sugar. This in turn reduces the amount of insulin released, and the body stores less of the sugar as fat. Meanwhile, because the digestion of the carbs has been slowed, less of those calories are actually absorbed by the body before being passed on down the tube. Thus, 3500 calories consumed is not necessarily 3500 absorbed by the body, and 3500 calories lost doesn't necessarily equal a pound of weight. How much of it is absorbed or lost is dependent on what was eaten and what kind of tissue was involved. While it's attractive to try to simplify it down to a nice little formula that everyone can follow, the reality is that the human body is too complicated to be reduced to an equation.