</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

i've seen this report, too. but what's missing from this? what descriptions do we have of the people in the low fat group? in the low carb group? what were their caloric maintenance levels? what about exersize? were both group's consumed calories too low prior to the study? none of these important questions is answered. and they should be. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'm sure if you found the study you could find those answers, however, it was a controlled study at Harvard so the subjects would have been equivalent. This is just an overview from CBS News and is just going to give the high points. It was a peer reviewed study from the Harvard School of Nutrition.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by whippit:


[QUOTE]It always comes back to macronutrient ratio as study after study shows. Sure, metabolism can slow some when calories are reduced</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">whippit wrote: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">no. it always slows down. that's physiology 101. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I would disagree that its physiology 101. That is not a universal truth. Sometimes lowering calories WILL speed up metabolism, depends on the person and the current caloric level.

okok, I am really off to work now!

LOL, KK I have no idea what they're debating either. I read it and go....huh? BUT! I LOVE IT!! I get that blank stare all the time from people when I start rambling on about what's wrong with their computer. One time I was talking to a farmer and I was desperatly trying to explain to him what 'peripherals' were. I said it was like scanners, printers, digital cameras etc... Blank stare. So I said, "look, your computer is your tractor, it does the main work. The peripherals, they're your plow, your planter, your disc" He got that just fine!!

Can you convert this calorie conversation in to computer terms for me??? HEE HEE!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Now - back to the blank stare - <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

Summary of the debate:

- Whippit: Metabolism works this way.
- MelodyLane: No, actually, it works that way.

How's that for an incredible oversimplification? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

For those who are following along from the bleachers, a few basic principles come out of both sides of the argument:

- Don't starve yourself. Your body will rebel.
- Get exercise. It always helps.
- Eat a balanced diet that focuses on foods that are very high in nutrients for the number of calories that they provide. In other words, broccoli is preferred over brown rice. Brown rice is preferred over white rice. White rice and Hershey's kisses are tied for bad, with white rice probably losing.
- Make sure that your body gets ENOUGH protein and fat. Too little does weird stuff. What's "enough" is debated by the various factions in the nutrition community, but get at least your RDA of protein and fat.

J, who read these debates for years in other forums, and who never saw either side "win."

Oh yeah, videos! I don't have any Cathie Freideriche, though I've heard good things. As for what I -do- have? Let's see...

- Firm Strength (killer hard 60 minute aerobic/weight workout)
- Firm Cardio (goofy 45 minute aerobics thing with bunny hops in it)
- Firm Cardio Burn (hard 45 minutes of aerobics)
- Time Crunch (hard 45 minute aerobic/weight workout)
- CIA Step video, don't remember the specific one (3 30-minute workouts with warm-up and cool down. Killer complex workouts for aerobics instructors to get ideas from.)
- Navy Seal Strength workout (60 minutes and yes, it's as hard as it sounds, even though there's no weights at all. I never wanted to even think about another pushup after these...)
- Gin Miller something-or-other step aerobics (fairly easy, by comparison)
- Petra Kolber (like the Gin one)
- A bunch of 10 and 20 minute Step Reebok and Body by Jake workouts recorded from FitTV a few years ago
- A really nice yoga workout whose name I don't remember (60 minutes and 10 minutes of relaxation at the end)
- Kari Anderson (60 minutes of step aerobics, a nice solid aerobic workout for days when dying on the step doesn't seem like fun)

Those are the ones that I got in the separation; WP took about half of our collection. We had quite the set of Firm and step aerobic workouts. I -really- need to do these more often than once every six months. Time to review my routine and figure out how to fit two more workouts in. (I mallwalk for an hour twice a week. Decent low-level exercise, but NOT enough.)

<small>[ December 19, 2003, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Just J ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by MelodyLane:
But carbs are carbs.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">not quite and you admit as much yourself. you want it both ways. down the page you speak of low-gi carbs ... which is what i refer to when i say fibrous, or complex, carbohydrate.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Some are certainly worse than others, but all of them cause an insulin response. The body does not differentiate between the sugar in a potato and that in a Snickers bar. The blood sugar spike may vary and come slower or faster, but it is all the same.

This is why low glycemic-index carbs are always the focus on low carb diets at the exclusion of starchier carbs.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">we agree.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So then you would agree that fat and protein are condusive to weight loss and excessive carbohydrates are not? You say you agree that macronutrients are metabolized differently, then you also have to agree with my previous comment.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">first, it depends upon what the indivdual's carbohydrate needs are. what is excessive for you is not necessarily excessive for me or your neighbor or dave scott the triathelete. typically, the more active a person is, the more of the right types of carbohydrates are required. the atkins approach lumps almost everyone into the same boat when we're not.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So, the more glucose you produce, the less fat you will burn. Any excess glucose is stored as body fat. That doesn't change the fact the body does not burn its stored body fat UNTIL the glucose is burned off. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">again ... only if it's not synthesized. see, we agree. if you don't exercise regularly (whether by going to a gym or taking a walk or parking at the back of the mall lot), you don't need more glucose. the individual need for energy is truly just that ... an individual need. even atkins stipulated that more active people should be consuming more carbs than less active people.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Nor does it guarantee that one will lose weight from exercising if that is the point you are trying to make here. Studies show that many exercisers don't.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">i'm not arguing at all that just exercise will result in weight loss. i'm arguing that careful management of nutrition and exercise will result in fat loss. show me the specifics of the studies that indicate many exercisers don't lose weight. i'll concede that this is true on many levels. i'm at the gym six days per week and haven't lost an ounce in months. i've lost fat and i've gained lean mass resulting in a net loss of zero pounds.

another level of truth is the person who attempts to rev their weight loss by dropping calories drastically and increasing the frequency and/or intensity of exercise. this creates a caloric deficit that's too large which triggers, you guessed it, a famine response.

so just what is it about those exercisers that makes them particularly resistant to weight loss? you're not offering anything to examine.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But the point is not that the subjects were obese, the subjects were the alike in both groups, the key difference in weight loss was always MACRONUTRIENT ratio and not calories. Some of the studies have been done obese individuals, certainly not all by a long shot. Just look at the famous Kekwick study, they were athletes, along with many other important studies on this question.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">ummm ... the kekwick study -- at least the one that atkins and numerous other low-carb proponents like to use -- was done first on animals and then on obese people and then on mice.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The principles of glucose and fat metabolism are UNIVERSAL and don't apply only to obese people.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">i don't disagree. but to say that overeating (read: consuming more calories, regardless of macro ratios, than are needed to support a given person's activity) or undereating (read: drastic caloric reductions regardless of macro ratios) aren't a factor is like denying that gravity keeps us anchored to the earth. a recent article published in the journal of the ama examined the 107 low-carb only diet studies completed between 1966 and 2003. two things stand out: 1. none of the studies had participants with a mean age over 53; 2. none of the randomized and controlled studies lasted longer than 90 days. this second point is especially worth noting.

pointing back to kekwick, i've found no source that indicates how long the study measured its human subjects during each of the caloric intake phases beyond stating each phase was "several weeks." the atkins institute uses this study as evidence, and it's compelling. what they don't reveal is how long the kekwick study had subjects in low cal/low carb -- it's possible it wasn't long enough to trigger the famine response. i can't verify this one way or the other, however.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Whippit, when you say you believe in calories in/calories out then how can you say that you don't believe in low calorie diets? That saying professes a belief in the calorie factor but you say you don't believe it here. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">again, the concept of calories in/calories out specifically relates to a given person's daily caloric need which is influenced by metabolic rate wich is determined by the proportion of lean mass to body fat, total body weight and activity level. as i said, my maintenance level is about 3400 calories per day. a low calorie diet for me -- one that would trigger a famine response -- would be fewer than 2400 calories. (which for others could be down right extravagant!)

calories in/calories out is not a universal, specific number (like, say, the 2000 calories that the usda would have us believe -- even atkins uses that number on page 17 of the paperback version of 'ndr') that can be applied to all persons. it's a number that accounts for an individual's activity, lean mass to fat ratio and body weight (and age to a degree).

to apply this to you, i'm saying that the increase of your own calories was likely a moderate reduction from what your body needs to meet its basic energy requirements (never mind the macro part of it for the moment ... we're just talking about calories now). from that perspective, you pulled yourself out of starvation/famine response. now in looking at macros, i contend that a low carb approach isn't necessary if your energy needs (by increasing your activity level) are adequately synthesizing the carbohydrate (assuming you're eating complex carbs).

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So how would you define the concept of calories in/calories out without taking into account the effect that the different macronutrients have on metabolism? I am trying to understand exactly what YOU mean when you it. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">i don't define the concept without taking into account macros. i've said numerous times that healthy eating is comprised of good carbs, quality protein and healthy fats in every meal.

where we disagree is with ratios. i simply don't believe that a person who consumes 50 percent of their calories from carbohydrate is necessarily ill equipped to lose fat. there's too much else that goes on to make such blanket statements. i'm proof that higher carb intake can result in fat loss and i certainly was not blessed with particularly good genetics. dave scott, the triathlete, is well over 50 percent carbohydrate and i visually esitmate his body fat to be six to eight percent.

mind you, i'm not speaking of highly processed or simple carbohydrate. i'm speaking of vegetables and fiber primarily , as well as some grains ... and even small amounts of starches and fructose ... eaten with good protein and healthy fat with each meal.

again, these are individual ratios that are to be tailored to match each person's basal metabolic rate (that number influenced by weight, body composition, age and activity) ... which is tied specifically to an individual's basic daily caloric need.

summarizing my arguments:

calories in/calories out applies to an individual person's energy needs. like snowflakes, no two people are alike in this regard. everything else starts from here.

there is no evidence to support that low carb diets are the sole influence on fat loss. clearly there is evidence that higher carb/lower fat nutrition works, too. in both cases, however, the right carbs and healthy fats are shared as a part of the fully implemented fat loss plan.

a reduction in calores (whether through cutting calories or adding exercise or both) well below individual maintenance level will always result in a famine response which will make you store fat.

excessive calories well above individual maintenance level (whether through over consumption or decreased exercise or both) will always result in weight gain.

the carbohydrate need of a highly active person is different than that of a sedentary person. highly active does not equal skinny. sedentary does not equal obese.

weight loss does not necessarily equal fat loss.

macronutrient ratios are important. individual macronutrient needs are not all the same.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by whippit:
Originally posted by MelodyLane:
But carbs are carbs.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">not quite and you admit as much yourself. you want it both ways. down the page you speak of low-gi carbs ... which is what i refer to when i say fibrous, or complex, carbohydrate.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Agree. But you said that complex carbs are inherently better than simple carbs and my point is that it is contingent upon the GI scale, not whether the carb is complex or simple. They are different on the GI scale, my point is that complex carbs are not inherently "good" carbs for insulin resistant people and some complex carbs are better than others. They might be more nutritious than simple, but for weight loss purposes, are often just as bad as simple carbs.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Some are certainly worse than others, but all of them cause an insulin response. The body does not differentiate between the sugar in a potato and that in a Snickers bar. The blood sugar spike may vary and come slower or faster, but it is all the same.

This is why low glycemic-index carbs are always the focus on low carb diets at the exclusion of starchier carbs. we agree.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> first, it depends upon what the indivdual's carbohydrate needs are. what is excessive for you is not necessarily excessive for me or your neighbor or dave scott the triathelete. typically, the more active a person is, the more of the right types of carbohydrates are required. the atkins approach lumps almost everyone into the same boat when we're not.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No it doesn’t. Have you ever read the book? The only phase of Atkins that is not contingent upon the individual’s own “critical carb level” is the 2 week induction phase, which is 20 grams of carbs. After that phase, the individual has to find his OWN “critical carb level.” Some folks can eat 100 grams a day and maintain [or lose, depending on what phase they are in] and some maintain at 40.

I haven’t found either that a more active person needs more carbs. It depends on that person’s metabolism. For me, a weight lifter, I keep my fat and protein as high as possible to ensure energy; my carbs are around 10% of my calories.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> again ... only if it's not synthesized. see, we agree. if you don't exercise regularly (whether by going to a gym or taking a walk or parking at the back of the mall lot), you don't need more glucose. the individual need for energy is truly just that ... an individual need. even atkins stipulated that more active people should be consuming more carbs than less active people.
. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">We agree on the first part but I have never seen anywhere where Aktins stipulates that active people need more carbs; they don't and that wouldn't make sense. One's carb level is based on their own metabolism, which is highly individual.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">.i'm not arguing at all that just exercise will result in weight loss. i'm arguing that careful management of nutrition and exercise will result in fat loss. show me the specifics of the studies that indicate many exercisers don't lose weight. i'll concede that this is true on many levels. i'm at the gym six days per week and haven't lost an ounce in months. i've lost fat and i've gained lean mass resulting in a net loss of zero pounds.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Agree completely. My body fat went from 43% to 19.6% working out but I couldn’t lose an ounce of body weight until I got my diet right. However, I obviously lost body fat and inches.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">so just what is it about those exercisers that makes them particularly resistant to weight loss? you're not offering anything to examine.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Not sure. But I do know that exercise is no guarantee of weight loss. I recently copied this article from the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports and here a key excerpt:

“Because physical activity increases energy expenditure, it is reasonable to assume that the combination of diet plus exercise would be more effective than dieting alone for weight loss. A recent review of 13 controlled studies found that this is rarely the case (Wing, 1999). Only two of the 13 studies reported statistically significant differences in weight loss from the diet plus exercise regimen compared to diet alone. The conclusion from this review was that "…exercise does not significantly increase initial weight loss over and above that obtained with diet only."[b] When the effect of exercise on weight loss was studied without corresponding dietary modifications, exercise was found to promote weight loss in only one of five randomized controlled trials (Ross & Janssen, 1999).

Of course, it’s important to point out here that they were not measuring FAT LOSS, but weight loss. I imagine it might look a little different if they had.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The principles of glucose and fat metabolism are UNIVERSAL and don't apply only to obese people.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">i don't disagree. but to say that overeating (read: consuming more calories, regardless of macro ratios, than are needed to support a given person's activity) or undereating (read: drastic caloric reductions regardless of macro ratios) aren't a factor is like denying that gravity keeps us anchored to the earth.[/quote]

.Agree.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> a recent article published in the journal of the ama examined the 107 low-carb only diet studies completed between 1966 and 2003. two things stand out: 1. none of the studies had participants with a mean age over 53; 2. none of the randomized and controlled studies lasted longer than 90 days. this second point is especially worth noting.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And we need to note also that there are NO long term studies on ANY DIET, not even low fat, so these conclusions would apply to ALL DIETS. The drop out rate on low fat diets is much higher than even low carb. The higher the fat level, the greater adherence.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">pointing back to kekwick, i've found no source that indicates how long the study measured its human subjects during each of the caloric intake phases beyond stating each phase was "several weeks." the atkins institute uses this study as evidence, and it's compelling. what they don't reveal is how long the kekwick study had subjects in low cal/low carb -- it's possible it wasn't long enough to trigger the famine response. i can't verify this one way or the other, however.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Then starvation mode should have occurred in ALL THREE groups, it did not. The groups who were on 90% protein and [especially] on a 90% fat diet lost weight, but when they were given a diet of the SAME number of calories, 90% of which came from CARBOHYDRATES, the subjects did not lose. This was done on 1000 calories.

THEN, they conducted a similar study where they put the subjects on a “balanced” 2000 calorie diet and they lost NOTHING. But, when their diet was mainly fat, these SAME subjects lost weight. The subjects could even lose when the calories were increased to 2600 as long as the fat was high.

Pretty compelling stuff and makes perfect sense when one understands how excess glucose can be an impediment to weight loss.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> from that perspective, you pulled yourself out of starvation/famine response. now in looking at macros, i contend that a low carb approach isn't necessary if your energy needs (by increasing your activity level) are adequately synthesizing the carbohydrate (assuming you're eating complex carbs).</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I would agree that a low carb approach isn’t necessarily for everyone, not everyone is overweight or has problems with insulinism. It is for overweight people who eat excess carbs, though. And Americans simply eat too many carbs.

But I was not in starvation mode when I ate 2000 calories on a high carb diet. Starvation mode can’t explain my dramatic weight loss because that is clearly not what happened. I started at 2000+ calories, remember? I believe it did kick in when my calories got under 1300 and I reduced fat to 25-30% [American Heart Association!] What made the difference was limiting my glucose intake and increasing my fat, which allowed my body to switch to FAT METABOLISM. I could not burn fat until I burned off the glucose and that is exactly what happened.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">there is no evidence to support that low carb diets are the sole influence on fat loss. clearly there is evidence that higher carb/lower fat nutrition works, too. in both cases, however, the right carbs and healthy fats are shared as a part of the fully implemented fat loss plan.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But no one ever said that low carb is the sole influence in weight so you are mischaracterizing my position. I have reams of studies that show weight loss on LOW FAT/HIGH CARB diets where the subjects did lose weight and even fat. HOWEVER, studies also show that subjects lose MORE FAT and less muscle on a higher fat/ lower carb diet eating much more calories.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">the carbohydrate need of a highly active person is different than that of a sedentary person. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Agree, and the same applies to fat and protein.

<small>[ December 19, 2003, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

Hey whippit, would you mind terribly if we took this private so as to not hijack this thread? I can't devote much time over the holidays, but I would't mind continuing it off-forum if you wouldn't. My email address is danajo114@aol.com if that is ok with you. Thanks!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Just J:
<strong> Oh yeah, videos! I don't have any Cathie Freideriche, though I've heard good things. As for what I -do- have? Let's see...

- Firm Strength (killer hard 60 minute aerobic/weight workout)
- Firm Cardio (goofy 45 minute aerobics thing with bunny hops in it)
- Firm Cardio Burn (hard 45 minutes of aerobics)
- Time Crunch (hard 45 minute aerobic/weight workout)


</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You are speaking my language, JJ! I have most of the Firms, too, and just love them. I like the older ones better than the newer ones. But I have moved up to Cathe Frederich for weight training and she has taken me to a new level. Especially upper body. I find her cardio to be painfully boring, though, and much prefer the Firm for cardio. My FAVORITE Firm Cardio is Cardio Step Mix, I love that workout!

Just J,

Thanks for posting the hilarious commentary! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> Perhaps they could make this into a "Clarica" moment for a new commercial... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

Whippit and Melody...it's certainly been an interesting debate and I for one will miss you (although I think considering the length and quantity of posts, it could be considered serious threadjacking!)...awed

When I was young, I was a ballet dancer and was quite lean.

IN my adult years I've struggled with weight. I'm a lifetime Weight Watcher, but have lapsed in recent years. Instead of losing weight with my divorce, I got heavier!

I rejoined WW last month, and have lost a fair amount of weight. It feels so much better to be fit, and on top of things. I still have some left to go, but even this amount is a vast improvement.

The first few weeks are the worst part, but then you see and feel results and it isn't too bad.

How is it going since you first posted this?

Good luck,
H_P

You are speaking my language, JJ! I have most of the Firms, too, and just love them. I like the older ones better than the newer ones. But I have moved up to Cathe Frederich for weight training and she has taken me to a new level. Especially upper body. I find her cardio to be painfully boring, though, and much prefer the Firm for cardio. My FAVORITE Firm Cardio is Cardio Step Mix, I love that workout!

She took you UP a level from the Firm? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> Dear god, that would kill me dead right now.

Then again I just made a pact with my cousin: Two hours of some kind of exercise a week. Doesn't matter what kind or how the minutes are grouped, so long as the exercise happens. Hopefully that, and the pacts I've made with other friends and family, will start to move me along towards a healthier exercise pattern.

Step Cardio Mix, huh? I'll watch for that and some Cathe Frederich. Do you have a favorite video you'd recommend?

Oh, and I hope I didn't offend you and whippit with my occasional commentary. I understand and appreciate the points of view that both of you espouse; I really just haven't ever seen anyone "win" one of these debates, no matter how well-stated the arguments have been.

Just J,

No offense at all!

Yes, Cathe's tapes are just awesome. The Firm got me in great shape, Cathe got me ripped. If you want to check her out, start out with a fun, yet effective workout like Muscle Endurance. It is a total body weight training workout that has 2-3 sets each for biceps, triceps, shoulders, glutes, legs, abs, etc. You will love her!
Here is the tape: http://www.cathe.com/2002_Muscle_Endurance_info.htm

Here is the video clip [scroll down a bit on the page]: http://www.cathe.com/launch_video_clips.htm

What are we ripping now?? From the sounds of these tapes, I'm thinking the first thing I'd rip would be a tendon or major muscle. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

I made it 20 minutes on my treadmill...but didn't wear shoes. A week later I think the blisters are healed up. I guess I'll try it WITH footwear tonight, eh? Sheesh.... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by hope4future:
<strong> What are we ripping now?? From the sounds of these tapes, I'm thinking the first thing I'd rip would be a tendon or major muscle. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">CHICKEN!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

Yes please! Preferably in a sandwich with ranch dressing. Thanks for the offer! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Would you like some chips with that, Madam? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Yes...I'll savor them for one last night :-(

Then it's pickles instead of chips!

The best way for you to stick with a diet is by doing it with a group. You said you teach. I'm sure that you work with people that would love to start a diet with you and work out with you. You know it really helps if you join a gym and have a personal trainer get you started. Gyms can be so intimidating if you don't know what your doing. You'll make some great friends that will keep you motivated if you go to different workout classes. Having someon to go with can take a lot of the intimidation away as well. By doing this with someone you can go over weekly progress of the diet you choose. It will also help you in making it enjoyable and life changing rather than just another diet.

For those who haven't found a diet plan that they like yet, check out the Discovery Health Channel's "National Body Challenge." So far, it looks to me like a great combination of exercise, nutrition, and a TON of useful information -- exercise assignments, recipes for every single thing you eat, etc. etc. etc. Oh, and they give you a free 3 month membership to Bally's if you weigh in on January 10th. How cool is that?