<p>I actually do weigh my portions to get an accurate calorie count even after all this time. </p>
<p>Fun workout today; pretty intense 30 minutes of a core specific class. That’s literally all we did with no breaks between sets. Never could have done it before. Then 35 minutes on the elliptical. Cold front moving through which will be really nice for tomorrow’s 11 or 12 miles, can’t remember. </p>
<p>I use my kitchen scale all the time since I got in the habit. Mostly for measuring liquids (fluid ounce setting) and for portioning stuff for the freezer, etc. When I do one of my semi-annual food tracking refreshers, I weight everything.</p>
<hr>
<p>Back from the steamy basement. 20 minute kettlebell circuit standing in front of a fan. Did all four exercises on both sides in each set without stopping. Two minutes between sets. Four sets. That gets me huffin’ and puffin’ and every muscle in my body fired up. Carrying a 20 lb bag of charcoal up the stairs for the grill felt like nothing afterwards.</p>
<p>Grill time. BBQ Chicken breasts and fresh asparagus for tonight. Smoked kielbasa for tomorrow, opening day of the Patriots season. I don’t know what the world is coming to. It’s hard to find Polish Keilbasa that isn’t made with… turkey? Huh? I have to get the specialty brands. </p>
<p>Bromfield2, what a coincidence! I wouldn’t be surprised if our daughters know or at least know of each other. The Philadelphia theatre scene is a small community with a lot actors packed in for its size. </p>
<p>Just got back from my TRX certification course. It was so jammed full of important and useful knowledge from the nuances of how exercises are properly performed to programming of routines for different client needs. It was also tough. Lots and lots of working out during the course of the 8 hours!</p>
<p>Thanks iDad for the hip exercise videos! You are the bomb.</p>
<p>Running this am at girls and boys cc meet. Cycled 22 in the pm. Very sluggish? Probably 3-4 mph slower. Never happened before. Might have to take it easy tomorrow </p>
<p>"The authors collected detailed information on the participants’ dietary intake. Total calories were claimed to be about the same for the two groups: those on a low-fat diet reportedly consumed an average of 1,527 calories per day, while those on a low-carb diet took in an average of 1,448 calories. That’s 79 calories a day less, which doesn’t seem like much, but if you do that every day for a year, it totals almost 29,000.</p>
<p>Since 3,500 calories equals one pound, the people on the low-carb diet would be expected to lose an additional eight pounds. That means the difference between groups could be accounted for entirely by caloric intake, without regard for fat or carbohydrates."</p>
<p>^^ I love this interpretation of the data. LOL! “What are those numbers in parentheses after the calories? Something labeled SDs? We have no idea what that SD is, so we just going to ignore it!” In fact, the two groups were NOT statistically significantly different in their caloric intake: 1,527 +/- 522 calories for the LoFat and 1,448 +/- 610 for the LoCarb. </p>
<p>Here is what the study authors say about this:</p>
<p>"Dietary Intake and Physical Activity.</p>
<p>Dietary composition data for participants who remained on each diet and also provided 24-hour recalls are summarized in Table 2. At baseline, reported dietary composition in the low-fat group was similar to that in the low-carbohydrate group. During follow-up, total energy intake was similar between groups. The intake of total carbohydrate was significantly higher and intakes of protein and total, saturated, and monounsaturated fat (as percentages of kilocalories) were significantly lower in the low-fat group at 12 months (P < 0.001 for these comparisons). Physical activity levels were similar throughout the study."</p>
<p>I also would not be so quick to dismiss the “self-reporting” of food. The study was designed to minimize the errors in that regard. They double</p>
<p>"Our conclusions are subject to limitations. First, self-reported dietary information may be subject to memory and recall issues, and participants who complete the dietary recall may be more likely to report adhering to the interventions. However, we collected these within 24 hours of consumption and used multiple 24-hour dietary recalls to reflect weekday and weekend eating patterns. Second, dietitians were not blinded to the study hypothesis. To avoid potential differences in dietary counseling due to this, we used specific and detailed scripts for all counseling sessions and trained staff to deliver the scripts without deviation. Dietary sessions for both groups were intermittently observed for consistency by an independent registered dietitian consultant who was not a regular part of the study staff, and all outcome assessors were blinded to the diet group assignment. Third, conclusions from our study are limited by the lack of CVD clinical end points; however, we assessed CVD risk factors extensively. Because of the number of tests performed in the primary analyses, statistically significant results should be interpreted with caution, particularly P values denoting significance levels between 0.01 and 0.05. Finally, although our findings show what can be achieved, they may not be generalizable to more common situations where intensive and repeated dietary counseling is not available.
.</p>
<p>Our study has several strengths. All data were collected by trained and certified staff using rigorous quality control protocols. Also, the completion rate was approximately 80% in both diet groups. In addition, this study had high rates of dietary adherence, as shown by 24-hour recall and urinary ketone levels (31). The proportion of participants with detectable urinary ketone levels was significantly higher in the low-carbohydrate group than in the low-fat group at 3, 6, and 12 months (data not shown). Finally, our study included a substantial proportion of black participants, a group underrepresented in previous trials."</p>
<p>Yeah. I would say that the assisted 24 hour recall food diary had a decent chance of being fairly accurate on what they ate even if the quantities were misjudged. It looks like both groups probably fudged the quantities at about the same rate.</p>
<p>The differences in HDL and triglycerides, in ways that are consistent with every study of this sort that’s ever been done suggest that the two groups were actually eating two different diets.</p>
<p>That was actually a way for researchers to check if the participants were really talking what they ate. :)</p>
<p>I think this is a solid study. I do not think the participants “fudged up” the quantities by much. Recall that they started out their dietary journey (time point 0) with eating about 2,000 calories plus or minus 700-ish. The diets were designed to bring their caloric intake down so they would lose weight. They ended up eating fewer and fewer calories until they got to the numbers reported in the last link. </p>
<p>How do you get to a 30+ BMI eating 2000 calories a day? 
I had to work a LOT harder than that to get fat!</p>
<p>I do agree. As these sorts of studies go, this one seems to have been done about as well as possilble. And, it was never intended to be a calorie study anyway, so the quantity of food is irrelevant to the study outcome. They were testing what happens when you tell overweight people to eat this, not that or vice versa.</p>
<p>By being short :)</p>
<p>My speculation. I think these folks got where they got by eating way more, but it is possible that they cut down in the year prior to the beginning of the study in hopes to lose weight. Hence, their eagerness to sign up for the study. ;)</p>
<p>A middle-aged woman who does not exercise would definitely gain weight eating 2000 calories a day. That’s 300-700 calories/day more than expended. </p>
<p>I had assumed that those caloric averages were such that a petit but fat woman might be averaging 1200 and a large-framed heavy guy might be averaging 2000…ergo the mid-range.</p>
<p>If they used a food tracker, its within reason that after a few months they’d have a decent handle on approximately true caloric intake.</p>
<p>What I like about the study is that it has reminded me its all about the averages. On my days that are uncontrolled I have an unfortunate habit of saying what the hell, today’s a train wreck anyway…which is why I’m not losing (dietary compliance four days a week will not offset an average of 3 days at high caloric intake…)</p>
<p>This reminds me that I need to do better every day/every moment.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I am “remembering” this when I’m already up and headed n a week to SF with a pal who loves to eat and drink which means I’ll have to remember it a lot harder to achieve my same goal of having maintained my -40 for two years (in Jan) and enhanced goal f being down 50 ;)</p>
<p>Kc, just remember that you will get to tell us how well you exercised your self control, so that should help.</p>
<p>Finished up the week with 32 miles total (my highest since the injury in May). 3.1 this morning. We walked all over downtown Nashville last night at an art crawl event, so I was really tired. This going out on Saturday night stuff is for younger folks! :)<br>
I’m afraid the ValSlide stuff is bothering my ribs a little, so I might need to give that a little more time.</p>
<p>ValSlide works the shoulders/lats like crazy. I can see how that would be rough on busted ribs.</p>
<p>Until now, probably the most exotic hotel for me was a small ryokan inn in Kyoto, Japan. Tomorrow may top that. I’ve got reservations at this one:</p>
<p>[AMC</a> Greenleaf Hut](<a href=“http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Greenleaf_Mountain_Hut.jpg]AMC”>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Greenleaf_Mountain_Hut.jpg)</p>
<p>I’ve visited it on a day hike, but never stayed. 3 miles and 2400 feet of elevation gain to the hut. Then, dinner, sunset, and early to bed. No hot water. No electricity. Just bunks and some kind of carb fest.</p>
<p>Up for 7 am breakfast and take off to finish the Franconia Ridge Loop hike. 1 mile and 1000 feet elevation from the hut to the summit of Mt. Lafayette. Then 1.75 miles along the knife edge ridge, down and back up to Mt. Lincoln, then down a little to Little Haystack Mountain (the hike I did a few weeks ago), then 3 miles down Fallling Waters Trail to the car.</p>
<p>It’s the classic above treeline loop hike, but at 9 miles total, just more than I can do as a day hike. Hence the hut. 3 miles and most of the climb the first day. 6 miles, little bit uphill and then mostly downhill the second day.</p>
<p>Supposed to be bright blue sky, sunny, and cool/crisp.</p>
<p>Enjoy that hut, the view, and the carbs, idad!</p>
<p>3.5 mile treadmill run today, plus upper body weights, and some kettlebell swings. Yesterday H and I walked 3 miles. I cooked a dinner of pumpkin soup, roasted pork tenderloins wrapped in pancetta, roasted eggplant and carrots, a skillet cornbread (half whole wheat), and green salad. I probably should have added another mile of running today…our guest brought a box a very fancy chef select Godiva chocolates. I’m having a stare-down with one of them now.</p>
<p>Smiling to see a post from Deborah!! </p>
<p>It was a beautiful weather morning for my 5 k race today. Sunny and 56 on the drive over. Got checked in and then realized that I had forgot headphones so made a mad dash back home to retrieve them which didn’t allow me to warm up as I might have. Still a good day - think I ran almost exactly (within a few seconds) what I ran in another race a few weeks ago. Temperature was great, a few hilly areas (for our area anyway!) so I’m pleased enough.<br>
Next race I’ll have bumped up an age group - one good thing about getting older???!</p>
<p>Glad you had a nice race, abasket!
This is what my friend used to say about getting older, “To qualify for Boston, one does not need to get faster - s/he just needs to get older.” :)</p>
![http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Greenleaf_Mountain_Hut.jpg]AMC](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Greenleaf_Mountain_Hut.jpg%5DAMC){kind=link}
