Conference rocks::weight_control

    Now _that's_ something that makes perfect sense.
    
    Thanks for posting that note, Jim, I'll look out for the book.
    
    Brian

    Interesting!  I just went to the doctor's and was discussing weight
    loss with him.  I mentioned that I exercised 5 - 7 days a week doing
    three miles on a gazelle glider in 30 - 40 minutes.  He told me that
    it was pretty difficult to lose weight by exercising.  He said that
    "by exercising 1/2 hour, you only tend to burn 150 calories which 
    amounts to 1 1/2 slices of bread."  Now mind you, he wasn't knocking
    exercise, he strongly believes in it.  In fact he told me that he
    exercised 20 minutes a day on his bike.  He said it was definitely good
    for toning up the body and building muscle mass.
    
    Corey

    Well, if you really want to pursue pure weight loss through exercise,
    then I'd have to recommend another book.  Its called "The Heart Rate
    Monitor Book" by Sally Edwards.  It came with my heart rate monitor.
    
    Actually, she and Mr. Bailey pretty much agree in principle, and have
    even collaborated on a book before.  And though you'll find this
    information in Mr. Bailey's book, its called out much more clearly and
    specifically in Ms. Edwards' book.
    
    Essentially, she divides exercise into five ranges.  The lowest range,
    50-60% of your maximal heart rate (MHR = 220 - age) is for what she
    calls "heart training".  This leads to very moderate weight loss, but
    helps condition the heart for more advanced exercise.  She even
    recommends that triathloners occasionally workout at this level to
    maintain overall systemic health (this is what I'm doing right now).
    
    The 60-70% range is what she calls the weight loss zone.  She contends
    that maximum weight loss occurs in this area.  
    
    Furthermore, although you continue to burn fat at higher levels of
    exercise, other effects, such as increasing muscle mass, tend to mask
    the effect of the fat burning, at least in terms of actual weight loss. 
    Also, at higher levels, the body begins to supplement its energy level
    with sugar in higher percentages, which minimizes any significant
    *increase* in fat burning (you still burn fat, just not much faster). 
    For this reason, Mr. Bailey recommends using calipers to measure your
    total body fat, instead of a scale to measure your weight.
    
    Ms. Edwards and Mr. Bailey also go on to explain that exercising at
    higher levels can lead to over training, which metabolically speaking
    can have very negative effects on health and weight loss.  Basically,
    50-70% (I think Bailey says 50-65%) is the "safe" exercise area.  Its
    extremely difficult to hurt your body at these levels, and the health
    benefits and weight loss are maximized.
    
    70-80% is supposed to be aerobic training, which has its place in an
    exercise program, though it can easily be overdone, and isn't a
    complete replacement for lower level exercise.  And 80-90% is called
    anerobic training, which can be helpful when done properly, but doesn't
    contribute a significant amount of fat burning beyond what you get at
    lower levels (though its effects can lead to an effectively higher
    metabolism, which assists in weight loss).
    
    So the interesting thing from both these books is that "less is more". 
    That is, less strenuous exercise, 3-5 times per week, can actually be a
    more effective "pure" weight loss tool than more strenuous programs.
    
    Of course there is a *lot* more to it than that.  Mr. Bailey feels that
    all exercise zones have a purpose, and also emphasizes strength
    training.  
    
    To get it all, I recommend the books, and a heart monitor, as well -
    its really been very helpful and stimulating for me.  I've found that
    losing 1-1.5 punds per week is not sufficiently rewarding to keep me on
    my program.  
    
    However, using the heart rate monitor, and staying in the "safe" zone,
    I've seen my distance and pace (another thing Bailey recommends you
    track) increase on a daily basis.  So even though the scale moves quite
    slowly, I know that I am getting healthier, so I can keep urging myself
    on each day to see how much farther and faster I go, without ever
    losing my breath, getting exhausted or hurting myself, or feeling
    uncomfortable.  Engergy is up, and it feels good!
    
    Five pounds (in 6 weeks) so far - 55 more to go!!!  :-)
    
    jeb
    
    (P.S.  Regarding calories, Mr. Bailey clearly explains that the
    calories you burn during your workout are the tip of the iceberg,
    almost irrelevant, compared to the other changes your body goes
    through.  For example, he explains that after 20-30 minutes of
    exercise, your body starts guarding its sugar stores.  It does this by
    releasing a flood of fatty acids into the blood so you will have the
    energy you need readily available.  
    
    I was giddy when I saw this happen.  I was pumping along, about 25
    minutes in, watching my heart rate and speed jump around as usual, when
    suddenly my heart rate just dropped like a rock.  I started speeding up
    faster to maintain my correct heart rate, and found I was going a half
    a kilometer faster than usual!  I could not have detected this without
    a monitor, but with the monitor, the effect was very noticible and
    gratifying.  
    
    You see, once the "flood" begins, your body doesn't turn it off for
    some time.  So you continue to burn fat at a higher rate than usual
    even after you stop exercising.  As you continue to train, your body
    learns to turn this flood on sooner, making any activity more of a
    "butter burner", as Bailey says.  The book has many more examples of
    how its the body changes that count, more than any actual calories
    burnt.  This "non-caloric" approach to weight loss has been very
    helpful to me)
    

    Fascinating, absolutely fascinating.
    
    I'd previously understood that 25 - 30 minutes moderate exercise would
    "raise one's metabolism" (whatever that means, exactly).  The effect of
    that would be to burn calories faster for up to 12 hours afterwards. 
    So whilst the actual calorie equivalent of the exercise you do seems
    quite small, it's the after effects that really help shift the fat. 
    The explanation in terms of the flood of fatty acids, rather then
    "metabolic rate",  seems much more tangible and believable.  Or does it
    really amount to the same thing?
    
    I'm so glad that there's an optimum, moderate level of exercise that
    will help produce the desired results.  I'm just not into the "Exercise
    till it hurts" philosophy ...
    
    Brian

                                                             
    Brian,
    
    There's also a very good book, "Body, Mind, and Sport", by John
    Douillard, a former Olympic triathlete, turned Ayurvedic doctor. 
    
    A few weeks ago I was in a weekend workshop with him, and he showed
    us how to exercise without 'maxing out'.  The most important thing
    he taught was to breathe through the nose all the time.  
    
    There is a point that the body gets to in exercising where breathing
    switches over to the mouth.  When that happens, that's when it's time
    to slow down and go back to breathing through the nose.  It takes
    a while to retrain, however when I got back to the office and tried 
    it while climbing 12 flights of stairs, I reached the top and was
    barely winded and felt very energetic, whereas before I used to feel
    exhausted.  I also did it on my exercise bike at home, and 5 miles 
    flew by.  He emphasized that to integrate the mind/body, it's important
    to focus in on the breathing through the nose during exercise, and not
    distract the mind through reading.
    
    Breathing through the mouth produces a 'flight or fight' response in
    the body.  With this kind of exertion, the body believes it's being 
    chased by a wild animal, and burns short term sugar reserves along with 
    sending free radicals into the body.  The heart beats fast, the oxygen 
    exchange is rapid and is only in the upper part of the lungs.  This can 
    even bring on panic attacks in people, which is unfortunate.  This is 
    one of the reasons people tend to shy away from exercise, because when 
    one exercises this way, it only adds more stress to our stress-laden
    environment.  
    
    Breathing through the nose though...the air is driven into the bottom 
    part of the lungs, and it's important to exhale through the nose as well, 
    because of the same reason - to expel the toxins at the bottom of the 
    lungs.  This burns longer-term fat reserves, and with training to do
    this nasel breathing, the heart rate stays constant as well.  (He cited
    one fellow, and amateur runner, who trained with nasel breathing and
    throughout the marathon could not get his heart rate above 126.)  And
    afterwards, you feel energized and calm, rather than exhausted.  
    
    John has also put out a tape series called "Invincible Athlete" which
    I've heard is quite good.
    
    If anyone decides to give this nasel breathing a try during exercising,
    it would be interesting to hear how you made out with it.
    
    Cindy

    Covert Bailey pretty much agrees with the nasal breathing idea, though
    he doesn't specifically refer to it.  Rather, he speaks in terms of
    being able to carry on a conversation, not gulping for air, etc.  In
    ball park terms it comes down to setting a level of effort, which
    limiting your breathing through your nose certainly does.
    
    My cut at this is that, when you limit your breathing, you enforce a
    certain performance level.  My guess is that this level will probably
    map pretty closely to the 50-65% maximal heart rate.  In other words,
    you can buy a heart rate monitor, and work out at a specific heart rate
    (which may or may not be exactly what you want), or just breathe
    through your nose.
    
    I like the heart rate monitor, partly because I'm a techno-weeny, but
    moreso because it lets me track my progress.  With nasal breathing, you
    know you are in the right exercise zone, but it may be difficult to see
    subtle improvements, at least quantitatively.  The monitor helps me see
    daily improvement, albeit small ones, but gives me feedback I need to
    keep going.
    
    Its been very obvious to me over the last two months that I am
    naturally using nasal breathing by keeping my heart rate at a certain
    level, so all the pieces definitely fit.
    
    As for metabolism, Covert Bailey goes into that, as well.  He starts
    off discussing basal metabolism, which is EVERYTHING your body does to
    stay alive while you are resting, fasting, etc.  This varies from
    person to person, and is probably affected by overall fitness, weight,
    etc.  But then he gets into how you determine your overall metabolism,
    which includes things like the energy you use to digest your food, the
    typing you do at your computer, etc., etc.  Though he hints that
    metabolism may be fixed and unchangeable, he makes a strong case that
    overall metabolism requirements naturally go up for people who are
    fit.  He stretches the point a bit, but the overall message is that as
    you exercise more, you tend to become more active, and this pays off as
    an additional requirement you may not have had when you were less fit.
    
    Also, you have to add in things like muscle mass.  If you view
    metabolism as something that is fixed, then increased muscle mass is
    just a variable, like activity.  If you include the increased energy
    used by muscle mass as part of base metabolism, then at least in that
    sense you can change your metabolism.
    
    But no doubt, either way, increased fitness and strength lead to higher
    energy consumption, which, if not accompanied by increased caloric
    intake, will lead to stabilized or reduced weight.
    
    jeb
    

    re note 3, can you tell me how much this heart rate thinggy costs?
    as I'm interested in exercising at the right level for my age (59)
    now that Spring is here...
    					Many thanks,
    							Nick

    Heart rate monitors consist of two pieces:  a chest strap, which
    contains the transmitter, and is worn under your clothes over your
    heart, and the receiver, a wrist-watch like device that picks up the
    signal from the chest strap.
    
    There are several web pages with information on heart rate monitors
    (vs. pulse rate monitors, which are entirely different).  Polar has
    their own page, but this one is very informative:
    
    		http://www.heartmonitor.com/
    
    I have seen these priced very low and very high.  Some sports equipment
    (e.g., NordicTrack) will come with one bundled in.  The one I've seen
    vary from $70 (perhaps less) to over $300.
    
    The basic models do one thing - display your current heart rate. 
    Higher level models add features like a clock (i.e. a watch), an
    exercise timer, and a feature that lets you set high and low thresholds
    to facilitate zone training.
    
    The higher level models allow you to pre-program multiple zones and
    durations, essentially letting you manage your workout using the watch.
    
    Finally, the top of the line models will record your heart rate at
    various intervals, and can download the data to your PC for analysis.
    
    I have the lower to mid-range model (Polar Edge), with one zone, watch,
    and timers that show time in zone.  The only feature I wish it had is
    the average heart rate.
    
    jeb
    

    BTW, my monitor came with Sally Edwards' book, "The Heart Rate Monitor
    Book".  If your model doesn't come with it, I recommend it.  The
    enstructions that came with the watch explain its use, but didn't say
    much about heart zone training and how to go about it.
    
    jeb