Optimal weight ranges for Uechi practice

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Fri Jun 25, 1999 4:58 pm

Recently we acquired a new student in the Richmond area who is (in the words of Raffi who saw him last week) a "big puppy". This gentleman (in his upper twenties) is a little over 6'3" and weighs 310 pounds. Of course in the beginning you don't notice individuals much because most of them quit anyway. But this fellow once studied Hakutsu Ryu (a goju-ish crane system) and seems to be here to stay. I began to take an active, personal interest in his study after he "accidentally" broke some toes of partners in class while sparring.

Tony (fortunately) is a delight to work with. I now trust him doing Kanshiwa bunkai with one of my little 7-year-old girls in the class, and he is both good natured and eager to learn. He's also quite coordinated. I am spending a lot of personal time with him on Dan Kumite to make sure he brushes up on his control so he won't (inadvertently) hurt people. I've gotta tell you, doing ashi kitae with Tony is like talking to Allah. I'm glad my forearms don't bruise when blocking his roundhouse kicks, but the sensation of his 310 hitting my 185 is one that makes me giggle like I've just fallen out of a tree and am stunned. Now I know how some of the women feel!

The only limitation I've noted was that he can't seem to do a decent skipping front kick. This makes me think that teaching the seisan jump (coming up around this fall) might be a problem. But oddly enough, his flying side kick (for Dan Kumite) is actually decent and - in fact - better than most. I wouldn't even have bothered to have conversations with him about weight and diet and lifestyle if I hadn't noted this limitation. When talking more about it, he alluded to a 45-year-old brother that just had a cardiac event. This made me glad I was having the conversation, and I plan to pursue this aspect of his training further.

The reason why I'm writing this is because I'd like a little feedback on what other experienced (and perhaps medically oriented) people feel about what is functional and ideal in karate. Personally I have a very negative attitude about "dieting". I think the literature is repleat with the failures of those who try to make people "lose weight". My philosophy is more along the line of teaching someone a healthy lifestyle - one that is achievable - and then letting the weight settle where it may. My personal preference is along the lines of Barry Sears and his "Zone" diets. But Tony may be a special case and I'm not sure whether or not it might be appropriate to try an approach that is equally healthy but perhaps more aggressive. Already Tony tells me he eats "low fat"; I plan on looking into that further. We also got him into weight training a few months ago. It's not that he needs more strength. Oye!! We just want to up his basal metabolic rate.

Suggestions and comments welcome.

- Bill

paul giella · Post by **paul giella** » Sat Jun 26, 1999 1:41 am

One would want to know if your student is at his baseline weight or if his 310 shows a gain. While all of us have different 'set points' (I think that was the term in vogue a few years ago)we should still all strive to stay at our own healthiest weight. Maybe 310 is light for him, maybe he is up a little. Maybe he will never be as thin as a model, and shouldn't strive to be, but he can shoot for his own fittest weight. I think you have suggested the same.

Rick Wilson · Post by **Rick Wilson** » Sat Jun 26, 1999 6:26 am

Recently my wife and I did a life style course offered by some folks connected with the University of Alberta. Much of what they taught had to do with the psychology of everything connected with weight gain. The rest had to do with how to eat properly. It was not a "diet" and they specifically warned us away from the Zone Diet.

The gist is that most North Americans eat based on the Sumo diet. Most of our calories taken during the evening. Here is the basis of the course:

Eat three meals a day and three food snacks (not snack foods) each day. Here is a rough schedule: Larger Meal 7:00 a.m., snack 10:00 a.m., Larger Meal 12:00 p.m., snack 3:00 p.m., Smaller Meal 6:00 p.m. and snack 9:00 p.m.

Low fat: Women about 30 grams each day, males about 50 grams.

High carbohydrates, lots of vegetables, some protein

Plan your meals so you eat when hungry but not HUNGRY!

Pack as many of your daily intake of calories in before that last meal as you can.

Exercise.

If you screw up don't beat yourself up, plenty of days and meals ahead to get it right. Changing behaviour is a process of changing and reverting.

Start by trying to get it right Monday to Thursday, and don't panic about Friday to Sunday. (You would be surprised how the pattern quickly creeps into the rest of the week).

If you eat only when hungry and not HUNGRY you tend to eat less.

If you feel hungry, you might be thirsty, try drinking water first.

Stop night feeding, particularly on fatty foods. Sumo's eat very fatty meals at 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. AND WE KNOW HOW THAT AFFECTS THEM, RIGHT?

By the way there is a low fat fudgsicle that has 46 calories and 0.2 grams of fat. A great treat (no not forty a day).

This has worked very well so far.

Rick

Jackie Olsen · Post by **Jackie Olsen** » Sun Jun 27, 1999 5:03 am

To all the above I add DRINK PLENTY OF WATER!! With his weight and size, is he taking in enough fluids to flush his toxins out? Eight glasses a day may be enough for the average-sized person, but I bet for someone his size, he needs a lot more water.

He may also want to start on a daily walking program to add to his training and keep his metabolism up.

Jackie

Jackie Olsen · Post by **Jackie Olsen** » Sun Jun 27, 1999 7:13 pm

JD-chan:

You're probably right ... as consumers we do tend to get fixated on certain things. Perhaps it due to the fact that there are many who cannot afford health care and are trying to learn what it takes to stay healthy.

I'm very relentless about water these days due to my recent kidney stone experience (OHHHH THE PAINNNNNN). So, I thought that perhaps if I trained a lot, sweat alot ... that maybe I just wasn't getting enough water for me. Sound plausible? (NO, I'm not asking for medical advice ...DISCLAIMER)

JD ... a woman's health mag just came out with a statement that drininking more water increases your metabolism. Any truth to this? The only way I can see my metabolism increasing is reflected the number of times I have to walk to the bathroom!

Jackie

[This message has been edited by Jackie Olsen (edited 06-27-99).]

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Jun 28, 1999 3:34 pm

Here's a good point to define a few terms brought up.

Basal Metabolic Rate this is the metabolism (could be defined as kilocalories burned per unit of time) at rest. Weight training increases the BMR because muscle (you get more of this in resistance training) burns more calories - even at rest - than connective or adipose (fat) tissue. Starving (crash diets) decreases the BMR because years of evolution has selected for DNA that makes us hoard calories when our bodies senses starvation. This is the main reason why "dieting" (as opposed to permanent lifestyle changes) fails.

Set Point This is a popular term used by physiologists to acknowledge a "central tendancy" of a system. It is often used when trying to describe blood pressure control (a person with hypertension has an increased "set point"). Given the often cyclical behavior of people with weight problems, it is a useful concept.

QALY Quality-adjusted life years. J.D. touched on this concept when talking about quality and quantity of life. It is a way of wrapping up those two concepts into one meaningful term. Actually health services researchers are now using this to evaluate the relative efficacy of various treatment modalities so that (if they'd only look at the facts) those "in charge" can make rational (as opposed to emotional) decisions about what should be paid for (such as routine screening for cervical cancer in fertile women) and what should be deemed "too costly" (such as routine yearly mamograms in fertile women. The scale used to recommend one treatment over another is Quality-adjusted years of life saved. In this case, we see that Joe PigRear and Joe Granola-head live the same number of years, but Mr. Granola-head had more quality of life because he lived actively and independently in his sixties, whereas Mr. PigRear was slowed by arthritis and was plagued with chest pain.

I'll define more terms when/if they arise.

- Bill

Jackie Olsen · Post by **Jackie Olsen** » Mon Jun 28, 1999 3:38 pm

Thanks, JD-Chan,

... for a thoughtful, straightforward reply. There seems to be so much theory about setpoints, water, genetic disposition, wheat allergies, protein deficiencies, carbo loading, grapefruit diets,etc. in weight problems. Obviously a billion dollar industry with Chromium Supplements, Picolinate (?), etc. (No, I don't take any ... these things seem to raise the blood pressure along with the metabolism).

By the way ... anyone ever hear of this diet (it was very popular in the late 60's and seems to be making the rounds again to lose 5-10lbs in a hurry):

1st Day: Eat nothing but eggs until you're full (or sick)!

2nd Day: Eat nothing but grapefruit

3rd Day: Eat nothing but hot dogs

4th Day: Eat nothing but bananas

5th Day: Eat nothing but chicken

6th Day: Eat nothing but salad

7th Day: Eat what you want

YUCK!! Makes no sense to me.

If you come across the water theory, please let me know. Thanks again...

Jackie

Jackie Olsen · Post by **Jackie Olsen** » Mon Jun 28, 1999 3:46 pm

Bill-San:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Starving (crash diets) decreases the BMR because years of evolution has selected for DNA that makes us hoard calories when our bodies senses starvation.

Because of the yo-yo syndrome -- meaning if a person spends most of his/her life with up down weight due to extreme dieting followed by normal or over-eating patterns ... does the BMR ever get back to normal?

Most people that I know who've done the yo-yo dieting can't seem to be able to maintain a normal caloric intake or weight once off the starvation (700 calories or less) diet.

Thanks... Jackie

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Jun 28, 1999 4:07 pm

Jackie

"Normal" is a relative term. If you live in an agrarian society and you have good and bad crop years, then having a little padding in the good years can be considered quite "normal" as it allows you to survive when food is scarce. In our society where most have enough income to afford a decent diet and there's a lot of sugary, fatty convenience food and most people sit on their butts all day and anorexic models grace the covers of "chick" magazines, then the concept of "normal" is very different. Suddenly we have physicians espousing the use of gastric bypass operations and drugs (like phen/fen) that put your health at risk.

But what I think you mean to ask is "Can you change your Basal Metabolic Rate?" The answer is yes - by changing your lifestyle. Just as you can lower the BMR by yoyo dieting, so you can increase the BMR by keeping your blood sugar at a constant level (so that you don't trigger the starvation reaction) and increasing your muscle weight. In fact those two factors are inextricably linked. Your body will shed muscle (gluconeogenesis, or conversion of protein to sugar) when you starve as this is costly to maintain. This is like what Corporate America does when the going gets tough - they have a massive layoff in the company. But bring on the good times and live a "lean and mean" existence (through competition), and you see an increase in corporate muscle.

I will say - however - that influencing the BMR is an artform today. That's why some will kneel at the altar of Bary Sears (the Zone diet), wheareas the next "expert" will tell you something else. The body is quite complex and has an amazing ability to thwart your best intentions. We are just beginning to understand it.

- Bill

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Jun 28, 1999 8:44 pm

Jackie

I might add that there is tremendous variability from individual to individual, which adds to the total complexity of the issue. J.D. is correct in his skepticism towards some who blame their weight problems on genes and glands and whatever excuse that allows them to act impulsively without conscienceor consequence. However there is documentation of certain ethnic strains (like southwest native americans) that have a greater tendency to retain weight (have a higher "set point" if you will). The reason for the latter is that these people lived for many, many centuries in conditions of famine. In these severe conditions, only the people who packed the reserves on survived.

It could be - in the end - that there is no such thing as a "one size fits all" lifestyle. But I do believe that some lifestyles are better than others for the preponderance of folks.

- Bill

Jackie Olsen · Post by **Jackie Olsen** » Mon Jun 28, 1999 9:13 pm

Thanks for taking the time to share your expertise Bill & JD. You've certainly given us a lot of "food for thought."

Regards,

Jackie

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Jun 28, 1999 11:03 pm

Gang

My interest and knowledge stems partly from my general health interest (career, hobby, personal obsessions, etc), and partly from having married a competitive bodybuilder. On the latter subject, bodybuilders go beyond science and art, and into religion. In bodybuilding, one assumes that things can be controlled, and go from there. They know that genetics matter, but they are well beyond those baseline limitations.

And in bodybuilding, you find a lot of the same situation of 10% good knowledge and 90% the latest hype and unsubstantiated crap. The good news is that a lot of the bodybuilding publications (as opposed to the bimbos that push protein powder and "rocket fuel" at the health-food store) are now going legit. Good articles can be found complete with references - even if the studies cited are a little preliminary and "weak". Years after my wife's retirement from competition, I still go to some of these publications (particularly the non-Weider ones) to get "the latest" information. They do a very good job of scouring the literature to find even the slightest hints of causality between behavior and effect.

The latest, non-modern-pharmaceutical approaches deal with the interrelationships between what you eat and things like BMR, growth hormone release, insulin release, and testosterone release (even in women, although at lower levels). And it's a bloody complicated subject indeed. But these building blocks of knowledge explain things like why we were so buff in our teens and now some have big problems keeping the weight off.

Speaking of essential fats, there's also been a lot of work done descibing the utility of certain essential fatty acids. Fatty acids, by the way, are the building blocks of sex hormones. Some things aren't worth giving up. The key is moderation of fat consumption, and consumption of the right kinds of fats (like vegetable and fish oils).

The big difference between what bodybuilders do and what John Q. Public should do has to do with the degree of obsesssion, as well as the whole idea that - in the end - it's easier to maintain a constant lifestyle. There's also the issue that bodybuilders are concered strictly with the appearance of muscle, whereas athletes and normal people need a certain percentage of fat to be healthy and functional.

Plus most of us don't have to go to work in brief suits that show off our butt cheeks.

- Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 06-28-99).]

Post by **gmattson** » Tue Jun 29, 1999 7:04 pm

Dr. Ann does not wish to relinquish her "Lurker" status, but wanted to add to this fascinating "thread". GEM

George,
I read through Bill's message. I agree that dieting is often unsuccessful at creating long term change and that the "zone" concept works for many people. I've also found that there is no one system that covers the myriad
of individual genetics/physiologies.A word of caution on restricting carbohydrates is in order here, as restriction causes relative reduction in pyruvate kinase, an enzyme involved in carb. metabolism, resulting in
subsequent carb sensitivity when /if carbs are reintroduced to the diet.

Generally speaking, eliminate processed and refined foods, especially white flour ,sugar, caffeine and hydrogenated oils. Incorporate healthy fats in the form of uncooked oils(1 tablespoon per day of flax or walnut oil should be sufficient for most people),fish oils and sesame oil for cooking. The cold water fishes such as salmon or trout are excellent and I recommend 2 times per week consumption.

Lastly, when an individual embarks on a weight reduction or weightmanagement regiem, all of the "toxins" which are stored in the fat cells get released into the blood stream and may create other health challenges if the body is not properly supported with nutrients, particularly antioxidants!

Dr. Ann

kc · Post by kc » Wed Jun 30, 1999 3:32 pm

In my personal experience,not that i'm over weight by any means but when i had to take a flight physical for the Army the doctors marveled at the strength of my heart(which was far superior to anyone else at this physical, including Special Forces Soldiers). They asked me what I did for excercise i said i walked wherever i went and i studied karate. While walking everywhere is surely not necessary, the sincere practice of karate on a steady basis will lower your students heart rate (a sign of good fitness) and strengthen his cardiovascular system. As far as loosing weight (as a certified personal trainer) i recommend a bicycle. This will increase metabolism, oxygen flow, cardiovascular fitness, and burns more calories than almost any other form of arobic excercise. Weight training is good but only if he doesn't give himself any, or very little rest between sets. High repetition super sets(alternating two or more excercises in rapid succession) done quickly will burn fat rapidly. But don't forget power training (heavy weights low rep) to keep from losing muscle mass and strength.