Discussion:
Eating less does not result in weight loss
(too old to reply)
NR
2003-09-25 22:06:35 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

http://www.techcentralstation.com/071403A.html
The diet advocates have continuously claimed that by eating less, and
less fatty foods, we could all be slim. Americans listened. According
to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Center for Nutrition
Policy and Promotion, total caloric intake, as well as total fat
intake, steadily decreased from 1965 to 1990. During this period,
obesity increased dramatically, Steven Blair, P.E.D., president of the
Cooper Institute noted in a February 2002 Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
"The prevalence of obesity," he concluded, "is unlikely to be due to
increases in daily energy intake."

We're not the only nation to realize that weight gain can't be
explained simply by how much people eat. Between 1980 and 1991, the
number of heavyweights in England doubled, while Britons were eating
10 percent fewer calories, according to their government.

But American women appear to have been most affected by admonitions to
watch what they eat. Before the diet mania, the average American woman
took in 3,000 to 5,000 calories a day; today that average woman eats
less than 1,600 calories daily and is on some type of weight loss
program, according to Frances Berg, M.S., in Women Afraid to Eat --
Breaking Free in Today's Weight-Obsessed World (Healthy Weight
Network, 2000).

Yet, studies published in peer-reviewed journals from researchers
including R.J. Tuschl, Reinhold G. Laessle and Jane Wardle, have found
that women who watch what they eat and are light eaters, or who have
dieted, actually weigh more than those who don't restrict the foods
they eat -- even though they're eating about 620 calories less a day!
Many fat individuals have spent their lives restricting what they eat,
with valiant willpower and self-control; they just don't look like it.

Indeed, after decades of decreasing fat and calorie intakes, 1990 saw
a quirky dip especially in men, followed by the recent increase back
to 1965 figures; but throughout this entire period, Americans kept
getting fatter, while not eating any more than they had before. By the
1990s, it was clear that the low-fat and diet messages weren't working
and the USDA, (AHA), and the American Dietetic Association (ADA) began
moderating their recommendations, which are reflected in more recent
dietary figures.

Those trying to convince us of an "obesity crisis" use a common
sleight of hand in selectively using only dietary changes since 1990.
By taking a narrow sampling to support their claims, these diet
proponents exaggerate our bad habits and attribute them to obesity,
all the while ignoring why obesity rates soared for decades when we
were eating less fat and fewer calories than we are today.



ARGH.


NR

http://www.pat-acceptance.org/kookrant.html
http://www.pat-acceptance.org/kookrant2.html

If I catch you busting into a mass and vilifying a church, the last thing
you'll hear in your entire life, will be the ratatatatat of an automatic.
- --Steve Chaney to Mark Ira Kaufman
Message-ID: <***@csus.edu>

Young Mr. Chaney, the man who has told me that he wants to murder me and
sodomize women in my family, has said, repeatedly, that advocates for
choice had vandalized churches.
- --Mark Ira Kaufman
Message-ID: <***@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>

she probably has to have her picture taken by satellite because no normal
camera can fit all that whale blubber into one picture.
- --Steve Chaney
Message-ID: <***@csus.edu>

Excessively fat women look ugly. It is impractical to try and have sex when
she's 100lbs overweight and the weight is all fat - but most women ain't
that big.
- --Steve Chaney
Message-ID: <3814f6ca$0$***@nntp1.ba.best.com>

You of course do know what a lot of Asian women prefer, right? Besides,
after fucking a cute asian chick, experience tells me it isn't all that
except that she looks good on your arm. In bed it ain't much at all. If the
lights go out, any guy whose hormones are more fixed on performance than
looks, is going to go to sleep right there and then.
- --Steve Chaney
Message-ID: <***@207.217.77.23>

Clarice and Allisson were well beyond a BMI of 25 in their pictures where
they were called cows.
- --Steve Chaney
Message-ID: <***@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>

If Dutton knocked on Steve's door and Steve shot him in the face, I would
really not care.
- --Crash Street Kidd about Steve Chaney
Message-ID: <***@drn.newsguy.com>

Stephen A Chaney is NR's whipping boy.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

Px0cJ1qaoe221L/JnuWl8ywSRn9MdFJ1UGa7beePMM/Qcl8oAsWUi1GLS+xeMSzn
wiil4wwRE1+In8fqnrPqVYbYP
=R3tl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.
Don Klipstein
2003-09-27 04:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by NR
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
http://www.techcentralstation.com/071403A.html
The diet advocates have continuously claimed that by eating less, and
less fatty foods, we could all be slim. Americans listened. According
to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Center for Nutrition
Policy and Promotion, total caloric intake, as well as total fat
intake, steadily decreased from 1965 to 1990. During this period,
obesity increased dramatically, Steven Blair, P.E.D., president of the
Cooper Institute noted in a February 2002 Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
"The prevalence of obesity," he concluded, "is unlikely to be due to
increases in daily energy intake."
It appears obvious to me that enough people have lifestyles more
sedentary around and after 1990 than around/before 1965 to explain higher
prevalence in overweightness and obesity now and in the past several
years.

- Don Klipstein (***@misty.com)
jean and bill
2003-09-30 20:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by NR
But American women appear to have been most affected by admonitions to
watch what they eat. Before the diet mania, the average American woman
took in 3,000 to 5,000 calories a day; today that average woman eats
less than 1,600 calories daily and is on some type of weight loss
program, according to Frances Berg, M.S., in Women Afraid to Eat --
Breaking Free in Today's Weight-Obsessed World (Healthy Weight
Network, 2000).
It ain't the fat, it's the carbs. See:

http://tinyurl.com/p7kc

Jeannie
--
To reply to me, remove *spamenot* from address.
Don Klipstein
2003-10-01 00:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by jean and bill
http://tinyurl.com/p7kc
One argument they propose:

Against Asians eating more carb and less fat having lower rates of heart
disease:
Jean/Bill proposes that these carb-eating Asians get more strokes and
pancreatic cancer and thyroid cancer.

I would say that heart disease is a much bigger killer and even more so
a much bigger cause of big-ticket medical bills than strokes, and that
pancreatic and thyroid cancers are far down the list of causes of death.
Heart disease is a greater cause of death in the USA than all cancers
combined, and about half of all USA cancers are attributrable to cigarette
smoking. After smoking related cancers comes (probably out of order, but
still more significant than thyroid and pancreatic cancer) are:

*Colon-rectum cancer, with higher fat intake largely believed to slightly
favor this

*Breast cancer, with slight positive correlation with being overweight and
with never (I don't know which of these two) giving birth or breastfeeding
(A fact used by anti-abortion forces to suit their agenda)

*Skin cancer, with the more common types associated with total sun
exposure and with most of the deadlier ones having positive correlation
with severe sunburn

*Prostate cancer, which normally progresses slowly at first and is
easily treatable for a while after being detectable and the main cause
seems to be having a prostate and not dying of something else before a
cancer gets a chance to develop in the prostate

*Lung cancer caused by radon, depending on the source of information.
Note that buildings have accumulated more radon in the past 15 years than
they did prior to the early 1970's, and also that lung cancers attributed
to radon (as well as ones to various particles such as asbestos) are
widely claimed to occur more in smokers and recent-smokers than in
longtime non-smokers (smokers' lungs retain particles that non-smokers'
lungs expel since the lungs' "sweeping cells" are paralyzed in smokers'
lungs).

- Don Klipstein (***@misty.com)
Cat
2003-10-07 01:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Eating less does not result in weight loss? Duhhhh.....I'll tell that to the
75 lbs. I've lost so far. They'll be surprised to hear it. <G>

Cat (snickering)
Bob Ward
2003-10-07 02:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cat
Eating less does not result in weight loss? Duhhhh.....I'll tell that to the
75 lbs. I've lost so far. They'll be surprised to hear it. <G>
Cat (snickering)
Snickers are fattening.

Eating less doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE weight loss.

There are other factors to consider, too.
MadJock
2003-10-07 06:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Ward
Snickers are fattening.
Eating less doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE weight loss.
There are other factors to consider, too.
I beg to differ. If you eat less calories than you use on a daily basis,
you will lose weight. It's a very simple formula. You say that there are
other factors - and there are other factors to consider if you want to stay
healthy, but if it is purely weight loss you are looking for, eating less
will make you lose weight.

MadJock
204/191/165
Michael Snyder
2003-10-07 06:53:09 UTC
Permalink
MadJock wrote in message ...
Post by MadJock
Post by Bob Ward
Snickers are fattening.
Eating less doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE weight loss.
There are other factors to consider, too.
I beg to differ. If you eat less calories than you use on a daily basis,
you will lose weight. It's a very simple formula.
And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.
Over-simplifications such as these serve no one --
least of all people who would like to lose weight.
If you eat less calories on a daily basis, the amount
of calories you USE will very likely change.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-07 07:54:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.
It is the one and only basis of all weight loss. All successful diets
work by creating a caloric deficit. All unsuccessful diets have in
common that they fail to create a caloric deficit. There are no
exceptions to this rule.
Post by Michael Snyder
Over-simplifications such as these serve no one --
least of all people who would like to lose weight.
They serve those people best of all. However, they are unpleasantly
difficult to deny for people who don't want to face the necessity of
eating less in order to lose weight.
Post by Michael Snyder
If you eat less calories on a daily basis, the amount
of calories you USE will very likely change.
No, it will not. The number of calories you burn is based on your
weight, sex, body composition, and the amount of exercise you get. None
of this suddenly changes just because you decide to eat less, which is
why you lose weight if you significantly reduce your intake of food.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mr. F. Le Mur
2003-10-07 10:20:48 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 09:54:22 +0200, Mxsmanic <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

->Michael Snyder writes:
->
->> And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.
->
->It is the one and only basis of all weight loss. All successful diets
->work by creating a caloric deficit. All unsuccessful diets have in
->common that they fail to create a caloric deficit. There are no
->exceptions to this rule.

True.

->
->> Over-simplifications such as these serve no one --
->> least of all people who would like to lose weight.
->
->They serve those people best of all. However, they are unpleasantly
->difficult to deny for people who don't want to face the necessity of
->eating less in order to lose weight.
->
->> If you eat less calories on a daily basis, the amount
->> of calories you USE will very likely change.
->
->No, it will not. The number of calories you burn is based on your
->weight, sex, body composition, and the amount of exercise you get. None
->of this suddenly changes just because you decide to eat less, which is
->why you lose weight if you significantly reduce your intake of food.

Actually one's metabolism does change when calorie intake changes.
Lower calorie intake -> lower metabolism.

For example: "However, the major factor affecting resting metabolic
rate is decreased food intake with age."
http://www.merck.com/pubs/mm_geriatrics/sec8/ch62.htm
Mxsmanic
2003-10-07 13:15:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
Actually one's metabolism does change when calorie intake changes.
Lower calorie intake -> lower metabolism.
The change is slight and largely temporary.
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
For example: "However, the major factor affecting resting metabolic
rate is decreased food intake with age."
BMR stays mostly the same to the extent that health is maintained. In
any case, falling BMR is not an excuse for obesity, nor is it an excuse
for failing to lose weight. These minor changes in metabolic rate are
never enough to make much difference in a diet program--their importance
is routinely exaggerated by those who are grasping for any way to avoid
responsibility for their own obesity.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mr. F. Le Mur
2003-10-07 13:49:10 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 15:15:31 +0200, Mxsmanic <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

->Mr. F. Le Mur writes:
->
->> Actually one's metabolism does change when calorie intake changes.
->> Lower calorie intake -> lower metabolism.
->
->The change is slight and largely temporary.
->
->> For example: "However, the major factor affecting resting metabolic
->> rate is decreased food intake with age."
->
->BMR stays mostly the same to the extent that health is maintained. In
->any case, falling BMR is not an excuse for obesity, nor is it an excuse
->for failing to lose weight. These minor changes in metabolic rate are
->never enough to make much difference in a diet program--their importance
->is routinely exaggerated by those who are grasping for any way to avoid
->responsibility for their own obesity.

I wonder about that though, since I never get fat no matter how
much I eat. Back in my younger days the only way I could vary my
weight was either by running a lot (10-15 miles/day = lose weight,
including muscle weight) or lifting weights (= gain weight). I
haven't done either for quite a while and I still weigh about the
same as 20 years, if not slightly less. FWIW, I eat whatever I
feel like eating, and it's usually high in fat and sugar.
(So I think there might be something to recent theory that low-fat
diets tend to make people fat.)
Ignoramus20526
2003-10-07 13:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Are you a Korean? I had a Korean girlfriend a very long time ago and
she told me that there are no fat Koreans.

i
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
->
->> Actually one's metabolism does change when calorie intake changes.
->> Lower calorie intake -> lower metabolism.
->
->The change is slight and largely temporary.
->
->> For example: "However, the major factor affecting resting metabolic
->> rate is decreased food intake with age."
->
->BMR stays mostly the same to the extent that health is maintained. In
->any case, falling BMR is not an excuse for obesity, nor is it an excuse
->for failing to lose weight. These minor changes in metabolic rate are
->never enough to make much difference in a diet program--their importance
->is routinely exaggerated by those who are grasping for any way to avoid
->responsibility for their own obesity.
I wonder about that though, since I never get fat no matter how
much I eat. Back in my younger days the only way I could vary my
weight was either by running a lot (10-15 miles/day = lose weight,
including muscle weight) or lifting weights (= gain weight). I
haven't done either for quite a while and I still weigh about the
same as 20 years, if not slightly less. FWIW, I eat whatever I
feel like eating, and it's usually high in fat and sugar.
(So I think there might be something to recent theory that low-fat
diets tend to make people fat.)
Mr. F. Le Mur
2003-10-07 14:04:00 UTC
Permalink
On 7 Oct 2003 13:53:10 GMT, Ignoramus20526 <***@NOSPAM.20526.invalid>
wrote:

->Are you a Korean? I had a Korean girlfriend a very long time ago and
->she told me that there are no fat Koreans.
->

ha! No, I'm not Korean, pretty much standard N. European;
none of my relatives ever got fat either, that I know of.
Ignoramus20526
2003-10-07 14:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
->Are you a Korean? I had a Korean girlfriend a very long time ago and
->she told me that there are no fat Koreans.
->
ha! No, I'm not Korean, pretty much standard N. European;
none of my relatives ever got fat either, that I know of.
I have always been curious about slim people who eat all they want
etc. Myself, I am at normal weight, but I need to watch what I eat
like a hawk to not regain weight. It is not that difficult, but it
takes some effort. I do not eat junk food, sugar etc.

What would be your typical day's eating? Can you elaborate a little?
You make no effort to stay slim at all? It is just natural?

i
Mr. F. Le Mur
2003-10-07 15:08:30 UTC
Permalink
On 7 Oct 2003 14:18:06 GMT, Ignoramus20526 <***@NOSPAM.20526.invalid>
wrote:

->In article <***@4ax.com>, Mr F Le Mur wrote:
->> On 7 Oct 2003 13:53:10 GMT, Ignoramus20526
<***@NOSPAM.20526.invalid>
->> wrote:
->>
->> ->Are you a Korean? I had a Korean girlfriend a very long time ago and
->> ->she told me that there are no fat Koreans.
->> ->
->>
->> ha! No, I'm not Korean, pretty much standard N. European;
->> none of my relatives ever got fat either, that I know of.
->>
->>
->
->I have always been curious about slim people who eat all they want
->etc. Myself, I am at normal weight, but I need to watch what I eat
->like a hawk to not regain weight. It is not that difficult, but it
->takes some effort. I do not eat junk food, sugar etc.
->
->What would be your typical day's eating? Can you elaborate a little?
->You make no effort to stay slim at all? It is just natural?

No effort at all. I've tried to do the opposite, by stuffing my
face whenever I could stand it, when I wanted to gain weight; I
gained weight, but it was all muscle, since that was about 30
years ago when I was lifting weights - striations and veins and
that kinda shit. When I was working out I looked like a middle-
weight boxer you might see on TV (and was one, too, though pretty
half-assedly - definitely not on TV), but now I look kinda like
a freshman college basketball player. Not too bad for 50,
I'll wager.
FWIW, at different periods I might eat anything from three big
meals a day to one big meal every other day, plus cookies or
some such. It's seems like the more I eat the more I want to
eat. I'm hungry right now and would eat a big, greasy bacon
'n' eggs breakfast with extra bacon* and plenty of toast with
butter and sugary jelly if someone put it in front of me, but
otherwise I'm too lazy to mess with it - it's easier to be
hungry. I know a couple of other people like this and they
seem to be dark-haired with British ancestors. Plus, like
you said, a lot of Oriental people don't seem to get fat.

My free advice to people concerned about getting fat is to
quit thinking that it's terrible to feel hungry, and probably
also quit "couting calories" and other things that turn food
into something symbolic or an intermittent reward; like
instead of thinking about what you're supposed to eat and when
and how much, think about staying hungry as long as you can.
Then when you've been hungry long enough, eat whatever you
feel like eating. Dunno if that's all bullshit or not, but
it's what I do by default.

*I just talked myself into heading over to the
Breafast King!
Ignoramus20526
2003-10-07 15:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Sounds interesting. Your advice won't work for me, as I really have to
limit how much I eat even though I want to eat more. However I am very
happy about your personal condition!

i
223/177/180
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
->> On 7 Oct 2003 13:53:10 GMT, Ignoramus20526
->>
->> ->Are you a Korean? I had a Korean girlfriend a very long time ago and
->> ->she told me that there are no fat Koreans.
->> ->
->>
->> ha! No, I'm not Korean, pretty much standard N. European;
->> none of my relatives ever got fat either, that I know of.
->>
->>
->
->I have always been curious about slim people who eat all they want
->etc. Myself, I am at normal weight, but I need to watch what I eat
->like a hawk to not regain weight. It is not that difficult, but it
->takes some effort. I do not eat junk food, sugar etc.
->
->What would be your typical day's eating? Can you elaborate a little?
->You make no effort to stay slim at all? It is just natural?
No effort at all. I've tried to do the opposite, by stuffing my
face whenever I could stand it, when I wanted to gain weight; I
gained weight, but it was all muscle, since that was about 30
years ago when I was lifting weights - striations and veins and
that kinda shit. When I was working out I looked like a middle-
weight boxer you might see on TV (and was one, too, though pretty
half-assedly - definitely not on TV), but now I look kinda like
a freshman college basketball player. Not too bad for 50,
I'll wager.
FWIW, at different periods I might eat anything from three big
meals a day to one big meal every other day, plus cookies or
some such. It's seems like the more I eat the more I want to
eat. I'm hungry right now and would eat a big, greasy bacon
'n' eggs breakfast with extra bacon* and plenty of toast with
butter and sugary jelly if someone put it in front of me, but
otherwise I'm too lazy to mess with it - it's easier to be
hungry. I know a couple of other people like this and they
seem to be dark-haired with British ancestors. Plus, like
you said, a lot of Oriental people don't seem to get fat.
My free advice to people concerned about getting fat is to
quit thinking that it's terrible to feel hungry, and probably
also quit "couting calories" and other things that turn food
into something symbolic or an intermittent reward; like
instead of thinking about what you're supposed to eat and when
and how much, think about staying hungry as long as you can.
Then when you've been hungry long enough, eat whatever you
feel like eating. Dunno if that's all bullshit or not, but
it's what I do by default.
*I just talked myself into heading over to the
Breafast King!
Mr. F. Le Mur
2003-10-07 17:08:52 UTC
Permalink
On 7 Oct 2003 15:13:25 GMT, Ignoramus20526 <***@NOSPAM.20526.invalid>
wrote:

->Sounds interesting. Your advice won't work for me, as I really have to

I don't do it on purpose, so I should probably be quiet.

->limit how much I eat even though I want to eat more. However I am very
->happy about your personal condition!
->

Me too! It'd be a drag to be tempted to eat all the time
when you know you shouldn't.

And now I am heading over to Breakfast King - I got involved
with a sound project and forgot about being hungry....
Mxsmanic
2003-10-07 15:37:24 UTC
Permalink
... it's easier to be hungry.
Very revealing. For fat people, it's _never_ easier to be hungry! They
_will_ go out and find a place to eat. This reluctance on your part
alone may be sufficient to explain why you are not fat.
My free advice to people concerned about getting fat is to
quit thinking that it's terrible to feel hungry, and probably
also quit "couting calories" and other things that turn food
into something symbolic or an intermittent reward; like
instead of thinking about what you're supposed to eat and when
and how much, think about staying hungry as long as you can.
Not a bad idea. But a characteristic of fat people is that they cannot
tolerate hunger, nor does anything seem to distract them from hunger.
My extremely fat grandmother had to stop to eat several times a day,
whether she actually felt hungry or not, and no matter what she was
doing. No wonder she was extremely fat.
Then when you've been hungry long enough, eat whatever you
feel like eating.
Not a good idea. Fat people usually feel like eating a great deal.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-07 15:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
I wonder about that though, since I never get fat no matter how
much I eat.
That's because you don't eat that much. If you tried to eat as much as
the average fat person, you might feel stuffed and sick.
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
FWIW, I eat whatever I feel like eating, and it's usually
high in fat and sugar.
Only calories matter with respect to weight; you can eat anything you
want.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mr. F. Le Mur
2003-10-07 18:26:00 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:28:19 +0200, Mxsmanic <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

->Mr. F. Le Mur writes:
->
->> I wonder about that though, since I never get fat no matter how
->> much I eat.
->
->That's because you don't eat that much. If you tried to eat as much as
->the average fat person, you might feel stuffed and sick.

Probably.

->
->> FWIW, I eat whatever I feel like eating, and it's usually
->> high in fat and sugar.
->
->Only calories matter with respect to weight; you can eat anything you
->want.

True, but I think the idea is if you don't eat anough fat, then
you still have cravings (for fat) and eat more calories-worth
of stuff with less fat.
http://www.reason.com/0303/fe.mf.big.shtml
As you can see, it's still controversial.
jmk
2003-10-07 18:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
->
->> I wonder about that though, since I never get fat no matter how
->> much I eat.
->
->That's because you don't eat that much. If you tried to eat as much as
->the average fat person, you might feel stuffed and sick.
Probably.
->
->> FWIW, I eat whatever I feel like eating, and it's usually
->> high in fat and sugar.
->
->Only calories matter with respect to weight; you can eat anything you
->want.
True, but I think the idea is if you don't eat anough fat, then
you still have cravings (for fat) and eat more calories-worth
of stuff with less fat.
http://www.reason.com/0303/fe.mf.big.shtml
As you can see, it's still controversial.
Don't studies show that fiber releases the same hunger hormone as fat?
Maybe I'm confusing that with the PYY hormone that was in the news a few
weeks ago...
Mxsmanic
2003-10-07 21:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
True, but I think the idea is if you don't eat anough fat, then
you still have cravings (for fat) and eat more calories-worth
of stuff with less fat.
It's funny how people elsewhere in the world manage to remain thin
without having to worry about how much fat or carbs they are eating,
isn't it?
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Bob
2003-10-07 23:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
True, but I think the idea is if you don't eat anough fat, then
you still have cravings (for fat) and eat more calories-worth
of stuff with less fat.
It's funny how people elsewhere in the world manage to remain thin
without having to worry about how much fat or carbs they are eating,
isn't it?
It's always a tradeoff between calories (energy) and work done
(exercise). A bicycle racer who competes with Lance Armstrong might eat
8,000 calories per day, and be as thin as the tires on his bicycle. A
couch potato might get fat eating 2,000 calories per day.

A lot of it is life style. A life sitting in front of a PC tends to use
little energy and fatten up -- which is a survival mode for a species
that once experienced famines. A life style that includes activity,
mowing lawns, walking to the shops, or working other than at a desk,
causes the body to prefer being thinner to reduce energy consumption and
enable activity -- another survival mode for a species that relied on
hunting and active food gathering.

If you don't get enough to eat, instead of losing pounds right away your
brain thinks you ought to sit more to conserve. However, the laws of
thermodynamics ALWAYS hold in the end. Energy is conserved. Energy out
equals energy in plus or minus a draw from the reserve accounts.

Bob
Courageous
2003-10-08 01:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
It's funny how people elsewhere in the world manage to remain thin
without having to worry about how much fat or carbs they are eating,
isn't it?
Just got back from a 10 day trip to Spain. There are two fundamental
reasons why the Spanish are thinner than Americans:

1. They walk everywhere, especially in the small towns, which in many
cases aren't even well-structured for cars.

2. They smoke. Like chimneys.

C//
Mxsmanic
2003-10-08 03:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Courageous
2. They smoke. Like chimneys.
Most Europeans do. However, I don't think this explains their lower
prevalence of obesity.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Michael Snyder
2003-10-08 02:57:57 UTC
Permalink
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
True, but I think the idea is if you don't eat anough fat, then
you still have cravings (for fat) and eat more calories-worth
of stuff with less fat.
It's funny how people elsewhere in the world manage to remain thin
without having to worry about how much fat or carbs they are eating,
isn't it?
Yes it is. As it is also funny that a high-carb/low fat/low protein diet
works for SOME people, while a high-protein/low carb diet works for
SOME people, while eating only pineapple and tree frogs works for
SOME people... yet there is not a single diet or practice that works
for ALL people, including eating less and exercising more.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-08 03:53:46 UTC
Permalink
... yet there is not a single diet or practice that works
for ALL people, including eating less and exercising more.
This is incorrect. Eating less and exercising more ALWAYS works, if it
creates a calorie deficit. Additionally, all other diets that produce
weight loss also work by creating a calorie deficit. A calorie deficit
(eating fewer calories than one burns) always results in weight loss,
with no exceptions. Diets that create a deficit always produce weight
loss. Diets that do not create a deficit never produce weight loss.

The reason why different diets may or may not work for different people
is that they must persuade individuals to eat less in order to work.
Some people find that they eat less on a low-carb diet; others find that
they eat less on a low-fat diet. It really doesn't matter which diet
they follow, as long as it "tricks" them into eating less; and a diet
that does not "trick" them won't work, unless they consciously adopt a
hypocaloric diet and stick to it (only a minority of fat people seem to
have the sense of personal responsibility and discipline required for
anything this straightforward, however).
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Courageous
2003-10-08 05:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
SOME people... yet there is not a single diet or practice that works
for ALL people, including eating less and exercising more.
Eh? This is mathematically impossible. Excercise requires calories and
food provides those calories. The calories _must_ come from somewhere.

C//
SuperSpark ®
2003-10-08 05:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
True, but I think the idea is if you don't eat anough fat, then
you still have cravings (for fat) and eat more calories-worth
of stuff with less fat.
It's funny how people elsewhere in the world manage to remain thin
without having to worry about how much fat or carbs they are eating,
isn't it?
Yes it is. As it is also funny that a high-carb/low fat/low protein diet
works for SOME people, while a high-protein/low carb diet works for
SOME people, while eating only pineapple and tree frogs works for
SOME people... yet there is not a single diet or practice that works
for ALL people, including eating less and exercising more.
Eating less and excercising more works 100% of the time, for all people,
if applied correctly. Simple, basic human physiology.

It does not matter what you eat; if you eat below your BMR, you're in a
caloric deficit mode, whether you do the Atkins, the grapefruit diet or
all you eat is chocolate frosting.
Ralph DuBose
2003-10-08 07:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
True, but I think the idea is if you don't eat anough fat, then
you still have cravings (for fat) and eat more calories-worth
of stuff with less fat.
It's funny how people elsewhere in the world manage to remain thin
without having to worry about how much fat or carbs they are eating,
isn't it?
Yes it is. As it is also funny that a high-carb/low fat/low protein diet
works for SOME people, while a high-protein/low carb diet works for
SOME people, while eating only pineapple and tree frogs works for
SOME people... yet there is not a single diet or practice that works
for ALL people, including eating less and exercising more.
If you walk 10 miles, what does your body use for the calories
needed to do the work? Is energy pulled into you from another Astral
plane? Seriously.
And if you walk 20 miles, you are going to need at least twice the
fuel.
If you put food (calories) in your mouth, what else can happen to
it except 1. burned 2. Stored. There is no other way out.
So of course more activity and less food will work for everyone, no
exception. Russian POWs put into German labor camps did not display
that much variability in how they lost fat content. None of them
remained unchanged.
Another key fact is that what determines whether muscle is laid
down or used as fuel is mostly the activity level of specific muscles.
If an athlete is confined to bed rest, they burn muscles for fuel
regardless of diet. Work out and you make ( or preserve) muscle.
The USMC has been taking flabby young men and producing fitter,
leaner, stronger young men for some years now. And it works every
time.
Ralph DuBose
2003-10-08 07:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
True, but I think the idea is if you don't eat anough fat, then
you still have cravings (for fat) and eat more calories-worth
of stuff with less fat.
It's funny how people elsewhere in the world manage to remain thin
without having to worry about how much fat or carbs they are eating,
isn't it?
Yes it is. As it is also funny that a high-carb/low fat/low protein diet
works for SOME people, while a high-protein/low carb diet works for
SOME people, while eating only pineapple and tree frogs works for
SOME people... yet there is not a single diet or practice that works
for ALL people, including eating less and exercising more.
If you walk 10 miles, what does your body use for the calories
needed to do the work? Is energy pulled into you from another Astral
plane? Seriously.
And if you walk 20 miles, you are going to need at least twice the
fuel.
If you put food (calories) in your mouth, what else can happen to
it except 1. burned 2. Stored. There is no other way out.
So of course more activity and less food will work for everyone, no
exception. Russian POWs put into German labor camps did not display
that much variability in how they lost fat content. None of them
remained unchanged.
Another key fact is that what determines whether muscle is laid
down or used as fuel is mostly the activity level of specific muscles.
If an athlete is confined to bed rest, they burn muscles for fuel
regardless of diet. Work out and you make ( or preserve) muscle.
The USMC has been taking flabby young men and producing fitter,
leaner, stronger young men for some years now. And it works every
time.
jmk
2003-10-08 11:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
True, but I think the idea is if you don't eat anough fat, then
you still have cravings (for fat) and eat more calories-worth
of stuff with less fat.
It's funny how people elsewhere in the world manage to remain thin
without having to worry about how much fat or carbs they are eating,
isn't it?
I'm not sure that this blanket statement is true...

Obese Americans - 33%
Overweight/Obese Australians - 56%
Obese British Men - 20%
Overweight British Men - 50%

Total number of overweight adults: (20 through 74 years old)
approximately one-third or 58 million Americans.2 (numbers derived from
NHANES III, 1988-91, which defines overweight as a BMI value of 27.3
percent or more for women and 27.8 percent or more for men) --
http://www.healthgoods.com/Education/Nutrition_Information/Weight_Control/overweight_obesity_facts.htm

1995 National Nutrition Survey showing that 56% of adult Australians are
either overweight or obese --
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/174_11_040601/baur/baur.html

Obesity in British men is fast approaching U.S. levels, raising their
risk of cancer, scientists said Wednesday. About 20 percent of men in
Britain are obese and a further 50 percent are overweight, according to
research compiled by the charity Cancer Research UK. --
http://www.ivillage.com/diet/news/diet/content/0,,412842_586254,00.html?arrivalSA=1&arrival_freqCap=1&pba=adid=6349328
Dr Chaos
2003-10-07 17:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
->
->> Actually one's metabolism does change when calorie intake changes.
->> Lower calorie intake -> lower metabolism.
->
->The change is slight and largely temporary.
->
->> For example: "However, the major factor affecting resting metabolic
->> rate is decreased food intake with age."
->
->BMR stays mostly the same to the extent that health is maintained. In
->any case, falling BMR is not an excuse for obesity, nor is it an excuse
->for failing to lose weight. These minor changes in metabolic rate are
->never enough to make much difference in a diet program--their importance
->is routinely exaggerated by those who are grasping for any way to avoid
->responsibility for their own obesity.
I wonder about that though, since I never get fat no matter how
much I eat.
no matter how much you *want* to eat.
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
Back in my younger days the only way I could vary my
weight was either by running a lot (10-15 miles/day = lose weight,
including muscle weight) or lifting weights (= gain weight).
It wasn't the lifting, but the increase in eating after lifting.
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
I
haven't done either for quite a while and I still weigh about the
same as 20 years, if not slightly less. FWIW, I eat whatever I
feel like eating, and it's usually high in fat and sugar.
(So I think there might be something to recent theory that low-fat
diets tend to make people fat.)>
That has nothing to do with it. The amount you feel like
eating is not enough to cause you to gain weight.

The amount that overweight people feel like eating, by contrast,
does make them gain weight.
Alfred Einstead
2003-10-07 21:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
I wonder about that though, since I never get fat no matter how
much I eat.
The body resists changes in both directions. But, as anyone knows
who's ever watch Survivor, weight WILL change and change substantially
if the body's pushed far enough. That's just as true going up as
it is going down.

There is, in fact, a slow secular variation in weight with respect
to changes in activity level. You may not notice it, if you're
not actually logging both the weight and activity level over the
long term in detail. There's also a large seasonal component in
weight variation, that could get up as far as 5-10 pounds, peaking
(in the Northern Hemisphere) in March and ebbing in September.
There are also subtantial weekly variations, in the 5-10 pound
range, and even large daily variations (and even variations in
a matter of minutes if, for instance, comparing pre-bathroom-trip
weight vs. post-bathroom-trip weight; since the bathroom is
where and when most weight loss actually takes place).
Mxsmanic
2003-10-07 23:16:04 UTC
Permalink
... since the bathroom is where and when most
weight loss actually takes place.
No, it isn't. Most weight loss (loss of fat, that is) occurs through
breathing.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Michael Snyder
2003-10-07 18:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
Actually one's metabolism does change when calorie intake changes.
Lower calorie intake -> lower metabolism.
The change is slight and largely temporary.
No, it is not. In fact, once your body decides that it is starving,
it is rather difficult to dissuade it of the notion. It can persist
indefinitely.
SuperSpark ®
2003-10-07 19:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
Actually one's metabolism does change when calorie intake changes.
Lower calorie intake -> lower metabolism.
The change is slight and largely temporary.
No, it is not. In fact, once your body decides that it is starving,
it is rather difficult to dissuade it of the notion. It can persist
indefinitely.
Is this why concentration camp victims were so fat?
Bob
2003-10-07 20:01:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by SuperSpark ®
Post by Michael Snyder
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
Actually one's metabolism does change when calorie intake changes.
Lower calorie intake -> lower metabolism.
The change is slight and largely temporary.
No, it is not. In fact, once your body decides that it is starving,
it is rather difficult to dissuade it of the notion. It can persist
indefinitely.
Is this why concentration camp victims were so fat?
Mxsmanic
2003-10-07 21:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by SuperSpark ®
Is this why concentration camp victims were so fat?
Concentration camp victims were lard balls because they ate too many
empty calories in the form of carbs (bread rations, etc.). Some of them
also got empty calories in the form of rancid grease. This is why they
stayed enormously fat enough though they hardly ate any calories at all.
They were living proof that you can gain weight no matter how few
calories you eat. How can anyone dispute this hard evidence?
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Bob Ward
2003-10-07 22:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by SuperSpark ®
Is this why concentration camp victims were so fat?
Concentration camp victims were lard balls because they ate too many
empty calories in the form of carbs (bread rations, etc.). Some of them
also got empty calories in the form of rancid grease. This is why they
stayed enormously fat enough though they hardly ate any calories at all.
They were living proof that you can gain weight no matter how few
calories you eat. How can anyone dispute this hard evidence?
What "hard evidence" are you talking about? All I see are your
unsupported claims.
Bob
2003-10-07 23:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Ward
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by SuperSpark ®
Is this why concentration camp victims were so fat?
Concentration camp victims were lard balls because they ate too many
empty calories in the form of carbs (bread rations, etc.). Some of them
also got empty calories in the form of rancid grease. This is why they
stayed enormously fat enough though they hardly ate any calories at all.
They were living proof that you can gain weight no matter how few
calories you eat. How can anyone dispute this hard evidence?
What "hard evidence" are you talking about? All I see are your
unsupported claims.
He defies the laws of thermodynamics.

He's invented perpetual motion.

Bob
Mxsmanic
2003-10-07 21:55:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
No, it is not. In fact, once your body decides that it is starving,
it is rather difficult to dissuade it of the notion. It can persist
indefinitely.
As I've said, the change is slight and temporary. People who do not eat
enough eventually starve. People who do not starve are eating enough,
or living on fat.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Michael Snyder
2003-10-07 18:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Mr. F. Le Mur wrote in message ...
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
->
->> And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.
->
->It is the one and only basis of all weight loss. All successful diets
->work by creating a caloric deficit. All unsuccessful diets have in
->common that they fail to create a caloric deficit. There are no
->exceptions to this rule.
True.
->
->> Over-simplifications such as these serve no one --
->> least of all people who would like to lose weight.
->
->They serve those people best of all. However, they are unpleasantly
->difficult to deny for people who don't want to face the necessity of
->eating less in order to lose weight.
->
->> If you eat less calories on a daily basis, the amount
->> of calories you USE will very likely change.
->
->No, it will not. The number of calories you burn is based on your
->weight, sex, body composition, and the amount of exercise you get. None
->of this suddenly changes just because you decide to eat less, which is
->why you lose weight if you significantly reduce your intake of food.
Actually one's metabolism does change when calorie intake changes.
Lower calorie intake -> lower metabolism.
I was once told, by a professional physical trainer, that I was eating
too little and that if I wanted to lose weight I would need to eat more.
My body thought it was starving, and therefore was hanging on to
every calory it could get.
SuperSpark ®
2003-10-07 19:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
Mr. F. Le Mur wrote in message ...
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
->
->> And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.
->
->It is the one and only basis of all weight loss. All successful diets
->work by creating a caloric deficit. All unsuccessful diets have in
->common that they fail to create a caloric deficit. There are no
->exceptions to this rule.
True.
->
->> Over-simplifications such as these serve no one --
->> least of all people who would like to lose weight.
->
->They serve those people best of all. However, they are unpleasantly
->difficult to deny for people who don't want to face the necessity of
->eating less in order to lose weight.
->
->> If you eat less calories on a daily basis, the amount
->> of calories you USE will very likely change.
->
->No, it will not. The number of calories you burn is based on your
->weight, sex, body composition, and the amount of exercise you get. None
->of this suddenly changes just because you decide to eat less, which is
->why you lose weight if you significantly reduce your intake of food.
Actually one's metabolism does change when calorie intake changes.
Lower calorie intake -> lower metabolism.
I was once told, by a professional physical trainer, that I was eating
too little and that if I wanted to lose weight I would need to eat more.
My body thought it was starving, and therefore was hanging on to
every calory it could get.
Bullshit psuedo science. Caloric deficit always results in weight loss.
Consult an anorexic for more info.
Michael Snyder
2003-10-07 18:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Michael Snyder
And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.
It is the one and only basis of all weight loss
Bullshit. Utterly and completely absurd. For the most trivial
example, your simple formula completely ignores what KIND
of calories one consumes. For another, it ignores the active
relationship between how much you eat and how much you
burn. This type of mindless oversimplification is what gets
in the way of millions of people actually losing weight.
Dr Chaos
2003-10-07 18:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Michael Snyder
And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.
It is the one and only basis of all weight loss
Bullshit. Utterly and completely absurd. For the most trivial
example, your simple formula completely ignores what KIND
of calories one consumes.
scientific evidence shows that ignoring this is valid to
answer the question.
Post by Michael Snyder
For another, it ignores the active
relationship between how much you eat and how much you
burn.
what is this exactly and how does it invalidate the statement.
Post by Michael Snyder
This type of mindless oversimplification is what gets
in the way of millions of people actually losing weight.
No it doesn't. Thinking that people can do things other than maintain
a caloric imbalance that in their hearts they don't want to do gets in
the way of losing weight. This is because people would prefer to hear
that the problem is something exotic that they didn't know about
before rather than eating too much.
RLW
2003-10-08 08:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr Chaos
Post by Michael Snyder
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Michael Snyder
And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.
It is the one and only basis of all weight loss
Bullshit. Utterly and completely absurd. For the most trivial
example, your simple formula completely ignores what KIND
of calories one consumes.
scientific evidence shows that ignoring this is valid to
answer the question.
Interesting article:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/1/281S

"In slightly overweight men, Bouché et al (C Bouché, SW Rizkalla, J Luo, A
Veronese, and G Slama, unpublished observations, 2000) showed that
consumption of a low-GI diet for 5 wk, compared with a high-GI diet of equal
energy and macronutrient content, decreased total fat mass by 500 g (P <
0.05, as measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry), despite no
difference in body weight. The decrease in fat mass was mostly abdominal and
was associated with a decrease in ob gene expression in subcutaneous fat
tissue."

There are other articles which show that type of calories consumed can
affect fat loss, if one cares to look.

Rowena.
Post by Dr Chaos
Post by Michael Snyder
For another, it ignores the active
relationship between how much you eat and how much you
burn.
what is this exactly and how does it invalidate the statement.
Post by Michael Snyder
This type of mindless oversimplification is what gets
in the way of millions of people actually losing weight.
No it doesn't. Thinking that people can do things other than maintain
a caloric imbalance that in their hearts they don't want to do gets in
the way of losing weight. This is because people would prefer to hear
that the problem is something exotic that they didn't know about
before rather than eating too much.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-08 11:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by RLW
There are other articles which show that type of calories consumed can
affect fat loss, if one cares to look.
There are articles that appear to show all kinds of things. The ones
having to do with diet are notoriously unreliable, because imposing the
strict controls necessary to obtain truly reliable results often is
impractical or even unethical.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
RLW
2003-10-08 11:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by RLW
There are other articles which show that type of calories consumed can
affect fat loss, if one cares to look.
There are articles that appear to show all kinds of things. The ones
having to do with diet are notoriously unreliable, because imposing the
strict controls necessary to obtain truly reliable results often is
impractical or even unethical.
If you discount any research you don't agree with because it may be
'unreliable', how can you possibly come to any logical conclusion about
anything related to diet? And what's the point of debating the subject?

Rowena
Mxsmanic
2003-10-08 11:56:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by RLW
If you discount any research you don't agree with because it may be
'unreliable', how can you possibly come to any logical conclusion about
anything related to diet?
If you discount the laws of thermodynamics because they require you to
eat less, how do you expect to ever lose weight?
Post by RLW
And what's the point of debating the subject?
Some people are interested in unbiased information.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
RLW
2003-10-08 12:11:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by RLW
If you discount any research you don't agree with because it may be
'unreliable', how can you possibly come to any logical conclusion about
anything related to diet?
If you discount the laws of thermodynamics because they require you to
eat less, how do you expect to ever lose weight?
I was responding to the contention that all calories are the same (ie. have
the same ability to make us fat). I did not make any statement about the
laws of thermodynamics as they apply to the human body.
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by RLW
And what's the point of debating the subject?
Some people are interested in unbiased information.
What was biased about the journal article I quoted?

Rowena.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-08 12:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by RLW
I was responding to the contention that all calories are the same (ie. have
the same ability to make us fat).
They are.
Post by RLW
I did not make any statement about the laws of thermodynamics
as they apply to the human body.
That is implicit in your statement above.
Post by RLW
What was biased about the journal article I quoted?
I don't know that it was biased, but neither do I have any reason to
believe that it was useful or meaningful. Just because a study is
published in a journal doesn't mean that it is accurate or that it's
conclusions or implications are correct. There are so many studies with
so many conflicting conclusions and implications that only a general
survey of results from all studies over long periods is really worth
considering, and even that can be subject to fad and fashion to a
certain extent.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-07 21:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
Bullshit. Utterly and completely absurd.
I'm afraid that emotional outbursts do not persuade me.
Post by Michael Snyder
For the most trivial example, your simple formula
completely ignores what KIND of calories one consumes.
That's because all dietary calories are the same.
Post by Michael Snyder
For another, it ignores the active relationship between
how much you eat and how much you burn.
There is very little "active" about that relationship. How much you
burn depends on your BMR and your rate of activity or exercise. How
much you eat depends on what you put into your mouth. Neither is a
function of the other.
Post by Michael Snyder
This type of mindless oversimplification is what gets
in the way of millions of people actually losing weight.
No, this type of reality check is what upsets fat people who are looking
for some way--any way--to deny their own responsibility for being fat.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Michael Snyder
2003-10-08 03:14:18 UTC
Permalink
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Michael Snyder
Bullshit. Utterly and completely absurd.
I'm afraid that emotional outbursts do not persuade me.
Post by Michael Snyder
For the most trivial example, your simple formula
completely ignores what KIND of calories one consumes.
That's because all dietary calories are the same.
Right. That's why the all-fat diet works so well.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-08 03:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
Right. That's why the all-fat diet works so well.
The all-fat diet is no better or worse than any other diet. Diets work
when the people on those diets consume fewer calories than they burn.
The actual content of the diet is irrelevant. Most fad diets are
designed to trick people into eating less without realizing it, and this
can produce weight loss. For people who are willing to acknowledge that
they overeat and are prepared to discipline themselves to eat less, fad
diets are not required--they can eat anything they want, as long as they
consume fewer calories than they burn, and they will lose weight.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Courageous
2003-10-08 05:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Michael Snyder
Right. That's why the all-fat diet works so well.
The all-fat diet is no better or worse than any other diet. Diets work
when the people on those diets consume fewer calories than they burn.
The actual content of the diet is irrelevant.
An "all fat" diet causes excessive ketosis -- the presence of
keytones in the blood -- one side effect of ketosis is loss of
appetite.

Note that it is the _ketosis_ and not, strictly speaking,
the diet that is important here. Some people, with a mix of
fats, carbs, and proteins, get into ketosis more easily than others.
Hence, on a fat-centric diet, one must use ketostix to positively
id the ketosis on a regular basis.

I've seen assertions that ketone-driven metabolism only burns fat
at a rate of 7 colories (instead of the traditional 9) per gram.
I've not actually pursued the scientific truth of this myself.

C//
Mxsmanic
2003-10-08 06:00:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Courageous
An "all fat" diet causes excessive ketosis -- the presence of
keytones in the blood -- one side effect of ketosis is loss of
appetite.
Fat also contains a truckload of calories, however, so the results are
still variable.
Post by Courageous
I've seen assertions that ketone-driven metabolism only burns fat
at a rate of 7 colories (instead of the traditional 9) per gram.
Fat is always burned at that rate (since it is always burned in the same
way). The 9-kcal figure is the actual energy yield of fat, but 2 kcal
is used to store the fat and then to convert it to a burnable form when
it is time to use it for energy, so the net calorie content is 7 kcal
per gram.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Bob Ward
2003-10-08 07:58:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Michael Snyder
Right. That's why the all-fat diet works so well.
The all-fat diet is no better or worse than any other diet. Diets work
when the people on those diets consume fewer calories than they burn.
The actual content of the diet is irrelevant. Most fad diets are
designed to trick people into eating less without realizing it, and this
can produce weight loss. For people who are willing to acknowledge that
they overeat and are prepared to discipline themselves to eat less, fad
diets are not required--they can eat anything they want, as long as they
consume fewer calories than they burn, and they will lose weight.
Do you actually know anything about dieting other than the stuff you
readf in the checkout stand at the market? I didn't think so.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-08 11:12:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Ward
Do you actually know anything about dieting other than the stuff you
readf in the checkout stand at the market?
Everything I know about dieting comes from sources outside the checkout
line.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Crafting Mom
2003-10-08 10:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
The actual content of the diet is irrelevant. Most fad diets are
designed to trick people into eating less without realizing it,
Oh, just because I am not sitting on my hands waiting for the
next ration, forcing myself not to eat, does not mean I am "tricked",
it just means I am actually sated like normal people are.

I can't tell you what a *glorious* feeling it was to actually be
able to say *honestly* "No thank you, I've had enough.", and
actually FEEL it! I used to think that the above phrase was a
polite little lie people used to avoid looking like gluttons (and
I often used it in that fashion). I *never* thought people
actually *meant* it.

Fad diet, schmad diet (I actually made up my own diet, for health
reasons not related to overweight), if it makes eating LESS a
process that is painless and FUN, I'm all for it.

Crafting Mom
http://ca.photos.yahoo.com/craftingmom2001
Modified WOL since spring '02 || Weight at start: over 250 lb
Today's weight: 180.5 lb || Goal/Maintenance: 140 lb
Ralph DuBose
2003-10-07 10:17:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
MadJock wrote in message ...
Post by MadJock
Post by Bob Ward
Snickers are fattening.
Eating less doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE weight loss.
There are other factors to consider, too.
I beg to differ. If you eat less calories than you use on a daily basis,
you will lose weight. It's a very simple formula.
And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.
Over-simplifications such as these serve no one --
least of all people who would like to lose weight.
If you eat less calories on a daily basis, the amount
of calories you USE will very likely change.
Basal etabolism is the only type that really can change and it can
change (decrease) only a small amount before you would die of
hypothermia.
Calorie comsumption from muscle activity does not and cannot vary
that much per unit of exercise. A 10 mile walk is a 10 mile walk and
doing it requires fuel. "X" number of calories are required to get
there. Actually, fat people must use more calories to get there.
The real difference between "naturally" thin people and the
easy-to-be-fat variety is in the difference in the amount of
spontaneous, unconscious activity that is carried out. Fat people just
sit there. Thin people squirm, fidget, climb around in their chair.
Exercise per se may not burn huge amounts of calories but it
increases muscle tone and makes it more likely that a person will be
more mobile and active in every area of life.
Being as active as possible is the key because nobody is really
going to eat the tiny number of calories needed to balance with a low
activity lifesyle.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-07 13:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph DuBose
The real difference between "naturally" thin people and the
easy-to-be-fat variety is in the difference in the amount of
spontaneous, unconscious activity that is carried out. Fat people just
sit there. Thin people squirm, fidget, climb around in their chair.
The real difference is that thin people eat less food than fat people.

Fat people claim that thin people "eat all they want" and never gain
weight. Well, thin people don't want to eat very much. If you actually
observe what thin people eat during the course of a single day, and what
fat people eat during the course of a day, it's very easy to see why the
thin people stay thin, and the fat people stay fat.
Post by Ralph DuBose
Exercise per se may not burn huge amounts of calories but it
increases muscle tone and makes it more likely that a person will be
more mobile and active in every area of life.
Exercise is always a good thing. However, one should not assume (as fat
people often do) that increasing exercise makes eating restrictions
unnecessary. To lose weight, you really _must_ eat less; most fat
people cannot afford to exercise enough to burn off all the calories
they consume by overeating, and often they are in such poor shape that
exercising to that extreme might be dangerous. So cutting calories is
necessary whether you exercise or not, and fat people who think that
they can just exercise a bit more and become thin, while still eating
double portions at every meal, are dreaming.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Ignoramus20526
2003-10-07 13:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Fat people claim that thin people "eat all they want" and never gain
weight. Well, thin people don't want to eat very much. If you actually
observe what thin people eat during the course of a single day, and what
fat people eat during the course of a day, it's very easy to see why the
thin people stay thin, and the fat people stay fat.
I am curious, why do some people want to eat more and some people want
to eat less. Any ideas?

i
Mxsmanic
2003-10-07 15:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignoramus20526
I am curious, why do some people want to eat more and
some people want to eat less. Any ideas?
That's the $64,000 question. If you can answer it, you can find a way
to make fat people want to eat less, thereby allowing them to lose
weight.

There are surely physiological causes, but most of it, I think, is
psychological. Americans are some of the fattest people in the world,
and yet physiologically they are just like Europeans, who are far less
prone to obesity. The biological side is the same--so the psychological
side must be different. All the evidence I've personally seen supports
this.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Ignoramus20526
2003-10-07 15:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Ignoramus20526
I am curious, why do some people want to eat more and
some people want to eat less. Any ideas?
That's the $64,000 question. If you can answer it, you can find a way
to make fat people want to eat less, thereby allowing them to lose
weight.
There are surely physiological causes, but most of it, I think, is
psychological. Americans are some of the fattest people in the world,
and yet physiologically they are just like Europeans, who are far less
prone to obesity. The biological side is the same--so the psychological
side must be different. All the evidence I've personally seen supports
this.
don't you think that Europeans also move more? They have more public
transportation (which forces you to walk etc). Here we have little
public transportation.

I cannot claim this as a fact, but I feel that moving was more
significant and central to my weight loss than dieting, as such. That
when I started really exercising (walking 100 minutes per day) my
appetite returned to more normal. Again, it is just speculation.

Incidentally, I am now a public transportation user -- I walk 40
minutes to train plus 10 minutes from train to work. I am very lucky
having this opportunity.

Also, I feel that recommendations given to fat people regarding
exercise are inadequate. Spending 30 minutes 3 times a week is not
enough to return to a more normal appetite/metabolism and burn any
appreciable quantity of fat.

i
223/177/180
Mxsmanic
2003-10-07 16:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignoramus20526
don't you think that Europeans also move more?
It depends on where they live. Here in Paris, they move around a great
deal, because the city is built that way. In other towns, this might
not be true.
Post by Ignoramus20526
I cannot claim this as a fact, but I feel that moving was more
significant and central to my weight loss than dieting, as such. That
when I started really exercising (walking 100 minutes per day) my
appetite returned to more normal. Again, it is just speculation.
Exercising never does any harm. I try to get as much as I can, but
exercising alone isn't sufficient to create a calorie deficit that will
result in significant weight loss over reasonable periods.
Post by Ignoramus20526
Incidentally, I am now a public transportation user -- I walk 40
minutes to train plus 10 minutes from train to work. I am very lucky
having this opportunity.
I used to walk all the way from work to home and vice versa--seven miles
and two hours. But it was enjoyable in good weather, and it burned
700-800 calories, too.

Today I walk an average of about two hours (10 kilometres) per day.
Post by Ignoramus20526
Also, I feel that recommendations given to fat people regarding
exercise are inadequate. Spending 30 minutes 3 times a week is not
enough to return to a more normal appetite/metabolism and burn any
appreciable quantity of fat.
Fat people need to eat less. It's almost impossible to do anything
significant with exercise alone, especially when a person is very fat.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Dr Chaos
2003-10-07 17:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Ignoramus20526
I am curious, why do some people want to eat more and
some people want to eat less. Any ideas?
That's the $64,000 question. If you can answer it, you can find a way
to make fat people want to eat less, thereby allowing them to lose
weight.
There are surely physiological causes, but most of it, I think, is
psychological. Americans are some of the fattest people in the world,
and yet physiologically they are just like Europeans, who are far less
prone to obesity. The biological side is the same--so the psychological
side must be different. All the evidence I've personally seen supports
this.
The question is whether Europeans actually have a lower desire
to eat, or whether Europeans are more intentionally careful about
eating.
Ralph DuBose
2003-10-08 03:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Ralph DuBose
The real difference between "naturally" thin people and the
easy-to-be-fat variety is in the difference in the amount of
spontaneous, unconscious activity that is carried out. Fat people just
sit there. Thin people squirm, fidget, climb around in their chair.
The real difference is that thin people eat less food than fat people.
I was referring to the type of difference that is actually
genetically determined to a large degree and that effects energy
consumption.
Post by Mxsmanic
Fat people claim that thin people "eat all they want" and never gain
weight. Well, thin people don't want to eat very much. If you actually
observe what thin people eat during the course of a single day, and what
fat people eat during the course of a day, it's very easy to see why the
thin people stay thin, and the fat people stay fat.
Post by Ralph DuBose
Exercise per se may not burn huge amounts of calories but it
increases muscle tone and makes it more likely that a person will be
more mobile and active in every area of life.
Exercise is always a good thing. However, one should not assume (as fat
people often do) that increasing exercise makes eating restrictions
unnecessary. To lose weight, you really _must_ eat less; most fat
people cannot afford to exercise enough to burn off all the calories
they consume by overeating, and often they are in such poor shape that
exercising to that extreme might be dangerous. So cutting calories is
necessary whether you exercise or not, and fat people who think that
they can just exercise a bit more and become thin, while still eating
double portions at every meal, are dreaming.
Sure, anyone can eat faster than they can run but they usually
cannot eat while they are running.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-08 03:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph DuBose
I was referring to the type of difference that is actually
genetically determined to a large degree and that effects energy
consumption.
There is no such difference. If obesity were genetically determind,
then Europeans would be just as fat as Americans, since they have the
same genes. But Europeans are much thinner, so clearly the obesity of
Americans is not genetic. Americans just eat too much.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
jmk
2003-10-08 12:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Ralph DuBose
I was referring to the type of difference that is actually
genetically determined to a large degree and that effects energy
consumption.
There is no such difference. If obesity were genetically determind,
then Europeans would be just as fat as Americans, since they have the
same genes. But Europeans are much thinner, so clearly the obesity of
Americans is not genetic.
On what is this assertation based?
Mxsmanic
2003-10-08 12:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by jmk
On what is this assertation based?
The fact that Europeans are generally thinner than Americans, despite
the fact that they have the same genes. This would rule out a genetic
excuse for obesity.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
jmk
2003-10-08 13:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by jmk
On what is this assertation based?
The fact that Europeans are generally thinner than Americans, despite
the fact that they have the same genes. This would rule out a genetic
excuse for obesity.
But they aren't generally thinner.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-08 14:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by jmk
But they aren't generally thinner.
They are considerably thinner. I see Americans and Europeans all the
time, and one easy way to recognize Americans is by their obesity. It
is very unusual for young Europeans (under 40) to be fat. Even the
Germans and English, who seem to be by far the fattest of the Europeans,
are still thinner than Americans.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
jmk
2003-10-08 14:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by jmk
But they aren't generally thinner.
They are considerably thinner. I see Americans and Europeans all the
time, and one easy way to recognize Americans is by their obesity. It
is very unusual for young Europeans (under 40) to be fat. Even the
Germans and English, who seem to be by far the fattest of the Europeans,
are still thinner than Americans.
Perhaps I missunderstood you, do you have any citations to support this
or just your personal observation to base that one.

I think that you may have missed my previous post. If you want the
attributions, please see my earlier post, here's a summary:

Obese Americans - 33%
Overweight/Obese Australians - 56%
Obese British Men - 20%
Overweight British Men - 50%

Dr Chaos
2003-10-07 17:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
MadJock wrote in message ...
Post by MadJock
Post by Bob Ward
Snickers are fattening.
Eating less doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE weight loss.
There are other factors to consider, too.
I beg to differ. If you eat less calories than you use on a daily basis,
you will lose weight. It's a very simple formula.
And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.
Over-simplifications such as these serve no one --
least of all people who would like to lose weight.
If you eat less calories on a daily basis, the amount
of calories you USE will very likely change.
That is true. The primary determinant of caloric expenditure is net
lean body mass----as you lose weight you will lose fat and some muscle
which was carrying the fat around. Overweight and obese typically
have higher resting metabolisms on account of this.

Excess exercise will preserve more of the muscle.

Still, if you eat less calories than you use you will lose weight.
It is a simple formula, and correct.
--
---------------------------------------------
Matthew Kennel, ***@ucsd.edu
Institute For Nonlinear Science, UC San Diego
---------------------------------------------
Mxsmanic
2003-10-07 07:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Ward
Eating less doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE weight loss.
It does if it results in consuming fewer calories than you burn.
Otherwise it does not.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Michael Snyder
2003-10-07 18:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Bob Ward
Eating less doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE weight loss.
It does if it results in consuming fewer calories than you burn.
Otherwise it does not.
But eating less often CAUSES you to burn less calories --
so the simple equation is obviously invalid.
SuperSpark ®
2003-10-07 19:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Bob Ward
Eating less doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE weight loss.
It does if it results in consuming fewer calories than you burn.
Otherwise it does not.
But eating less often CAUSES you to burn less calories --
so the simple equation is obviously invalid.
You don't burn less than your BMR, no matter what you eat.
You burn more with more activity, no matter what you eat.
As you lose/gain weight, your BMR rate adjusts.

The end.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-07 22:04:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by SuperSpark ®
As you lose/gain weight, your BMR rate adjusts.
Additionally, the portion of BMR represented by vital organs remains
essentially constant, even with changes in weight. Your brain requires
the same number of calories no matter how much you weigh or what you eat
or what caloric deficit you create or how much you exercise. The same
is true of your liver, kidneys, etc., for the most part. There is no
magic way to increase or decrease these numbers.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Michael Snyder
2003-10-08 03:01:26 UTC
Permalink
SuperSpark ® wrote in message ...
Post by SuperSpark ®
Post by Michael Snyder
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Bob Ward
Eating less doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE weight loss.
It does if it results in consuming fewer calories than you burn.
Otherwise it does not.
But eating less often CAUSES you to burn less calories --
so the simple equation is obviously invalid.
You don't burn less than your BMR, no matter what you eat.
Absurd. There is no such thing as a BMR.
If I lie in bed all day and eat, I will consume more calories
than I will if I lie in bed all day and fast.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-08 04:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
Absurd. There is no such thing as a BMR.
Yes, there is. BMR is the minimum energy required to keep you alive.
It includes the energy required to sustain vital organs (which is
extremely constant), plus the energy required to maintain whatever fat
and muscle tissue you have (which varies with body composition). A
person in a coma burns only the number of calories in his BMR. Everyone
else burns slightly more, since a conscious person always engages in
some amount of extra activity that burns a few extra calories, even
sitting up in bed all day.
Post by Michael Snyder
If I lie in bed all day and eat, I will consume more calories
than I will if I lie in bed all day and fast.
No, you will not.

Haven't you ever noticed that there are no fat, comatose people? That's
because doctors precisely control the nutrients that comatose patients
receive, and adjust the number of calories to match the BMR plus any
resting energy requirement (usually close to zero). Extra body fat is
gradually lost as the body burns it to provide energy to sustain it,
until body weight stabilizes at an optimal level. If the myriad myths
concerning magic variations in metabolism actually had any basis in
fact, there would be lots of obese, comatose patients--but in reality
all comatose patients are slender.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Bob Ward
2003-10-08 08:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Michael Snyder
Absurd. There is no such thing as a BMR.
Yes, there is. BMR is the minimum energy required to keep you alive.
It includes the energy required to sustain vital organs (which is
extremely constant), plus the energy required to maintain whatever fat
and muscle tissue you have (which varies with body composition). A
person in a coma burns only the number of calories in his BMR. Everyone
else burns slightly more, since a conscious person always engages in
some amount of extra activity that burns a few extra calories, even
sitting up in bed all day.
Post by Michael Snyder
If I lie in bed all day and eat, I will consume more calories
than I will if I lie in bed all day and fast.
No, you will not.
Haven't you ever noticed that there are no fat, comatose people? That's
because doctors precisely control the nutrients that comatose patients
receive, and adjust the number of calories to match the BMR plus any
resting energy requirement (usually close to zero). Extra body fat is
gradually lost as the body burns it to provide energy to sustain it,
until body weight stabilizes at an optimal level. If the myriad myths
concerning magic variations in metabolism actually had any basis in
fact, there would be lots of obese, comatose patients--but in reality
all comatose patients are slender.
But Mr. Snyder is not talking of being in a coma, on a precisely
controlled feeding regimin - he is talking about lying in bed
consuming food all day.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-08 11:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Ward
But Mr. Snyder is not talking of being in a coma, on a precisely
controlled feeding regimin - he is talking about lying in bed
consuming food all day.
He is suggesting notions that are incorrect. There is a slight increase
in metabolism while eating, because energy must be expended to digest
food and absorb nutrients, but it is trivial--not nearly as significant
as he would seem to wish to have others believe.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
SuperSpark ®
2003-10-08 05:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
SuperSpark ® wrote in message ...
Post by SuperSpark ®
Post by Michael Snyder
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Bob Ward
Eating less doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE weight loss.
It does if it results in consuming fewer calories than you burn.
Otherwise it does not.
But eating less often CAUSES you to burn less calories --
so the simple equation is obviously invalid.
You don't burn less than your BMR, no matter what you eat.
Absurd. There is no such thing as a BMR.
No such thing as your basal metabolic rate? Well, this is news, isn't it?
Post by Michael Snyder
If I lie in bed all day and eat, I will consume more calories
than I will if I lie in bed all day and fast.
True. You consume more calories when you eat than when you fast.

(????)
jmk
2003-10-08 12:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
SuperSpark ® wrote in message ...
Post by SuperSpark ®
Post by Michael Snyder
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Bob Ward
Eating less doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE weight loss.
It does if it results in consuming fewer calories than you burn.
Otherwise it does not.
But eating less often CAUSES you to burn less calories --
so the simple equation is obviously invalid.
You don't burn less than your BMR, no matter what you eat.
Absurd. There is no such thing as a BMR.
If I lie in bed all day and eat, I will consume more calories
than I will if I lie in bed all day and fast.
I thought that BMR was defined as the number of calories burned to fuel
essential bodily processes and keep organs and tissues in working order.

I'm not sure what calorie consumption has to do with that.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-08 12:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by jmk
I thought that BMR was defined as the number of calories burned to fuel
essential bodily processes and keep organs and tissues in working order.
Yes, that's what it is.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Daedalus
2003-10-08 13:33:06 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 03:01:26 GMT, "Michael Snyder"
Post by Michael Snyder
SuperSpark ® wrote in message ...
Post by SuperSpark ®
Post by Michael Snyder
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Bob Ward
Eating less doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE weight loss.
It does if it results in consuming fewer calories than you burn.
Otherwise it does not.
But eating less often CAUSES you to burn less calories --
so the simple equation is obviously invalid.
You don't burn less than your BMR, no matter what you eat.
Absurd. There is no such thing as a BMR.
You seem to have some trouble with basic science Mikey. I'd love to
hear your theories on how gravity is a hoax.
Post by Michael Snyder
If I lie in bed all day and eat, I will consume more calories
than I will if I lie in bed all day and fast.
You could have saved us all a lot of time by simply writing "duhhh"
and hitting send.

Jade
Mxsmanic
2003-10-07 22:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
But eating less often CAUSES you to burn less calories --
No, it does not. Losing weight will reduce the number of calories you
burn, however (since there is less of you to keep nourished).
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Michael Snyder
2003-10-08 03:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Michael Snyder
But eating less often CAUSES you to burn less calories --
No, it does not. Losing weight will reduce the number of calories you
burn, however (since there is less of you to keep nourished).
Fascinating -- no wonder you are a billionaire, since you are able to
reliably help anyone lose weight. Your advice works, where so many
others does not, so you must be richer than God.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-08 04:02:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
Fascinating -- no wonder you are a billionaire, since you are able to
reliably help anyone lose weight.
I've never tried to make money at it. It would be hard to make money at
it by telling the truth, since the last thing most fat people want to
hear is that they are fat because they overeat.
Post by Michael Snyder
Your advice works, where so many others does not, so
you must be richer than God.
See above. And it's not my advice, it's the consensus opinion in the
mainstream medical community, backed up by endless mountains of data
that invariably support these conclusions.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Bob Ward
2003-10-08 08:02:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Michael Snyder
Fascinating -- no wonder you are a billionaire, since you are able to
reliably help anyone lose weight.
I've never tried to make money at it. It would be hard to make money at
it by telling the truth, since the last thing most fat people want to
hear is that they are fat because they overeat.
Post by Michael Snyder
Your advice works, where so many others does not, so
you must be richer than God.
See above. And it's not my advice, it's the consensus opinion in the
mainstream medical community, backed up by endless mountains of data
that invariably support these conclusions.
I certainly haven't seen you provide any FACTS to support your
wild-eyed theories.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-08 11:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Ward
I certainly haven't seen you provide any FACTS to support your
wild-eyed theories.
I expect intelligent people to do their own research, by consulting
reliable sources. They should never believe what they read here without
independent verification.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Ignoramus792
2003-10-08 13:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Michael Snyder
But eating less often CAUSES you to burn less calories --
No, it does not. Losing weight will reduce the number of calories you
burn, however (since there is less of you to keep nourished).
Fascinating -- no wonder you are a billionaire, since you are able to
reliably help anyone lose weight. Your advice works, where so many
others does not, so you must be richer than God.
There is no way to help someone lose weight if they want to gorge on
cakes and junk food, more than they want to lose fat.

Weight loss is easy, eat slightly less than maintenance amount,
exercise a lot more. It always works.

What does not work is convincing some fat people that they need to
lose weight badly enough.

i
223/176/180
steve2000
2003-10-08 08:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cat
Eating less does not result in weight loss? Duhhhh.....I'll tell that to the
75 lbs. I've lost so far. They'll be surprised to hear it. <G>
Cat (snickering)
How dare you snicker!!!!? I went on a diet of sausages, lard, butter
and Big Macs (with weak black tea, no sugar) and I only put on 110
pounds.

steve -- so there!!!
jmk
2003-10-01 13:33:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by jean and bill
Post by NR
But American women appear to have been most affected by admonitions to
watch what they eat. Before the diet mania, the average American woman
took in 3,000 to 5,000 calories a day; today that average woman eats
less than 1,600 calories daily and is on some type of weight loss
program, according to Frances Berg, M.S., in Women Afraid to Eat --
Breaking Free in Today's Weight-Obsessed World (Healthy Weight
Network, 2000).
http://tinyurl.com/p7kc
Then again, it could be the 19% increase in caloric intake over the past
30 years...

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rhetoric/105H16/cofp/rhe/rhecofp.html
Jeeters
2003-10-01 15:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by jmk
Then again, it could be the 19% increase in caloric intake over the past
30 years...
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rhetoric/105H16/cofp/rhe/rhecofp.html
The statistic is caloric *production*, not "intake". i.e., the world is
producing (via agriculture, etc.) 3,000+ calories per person per day. It is
not implying those calories are consumed at the same level they are
produced.

btw, there's a typo in that article, too: the table says "3810" but the
text says "3180".
jmk
2003-10-01 16:34:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeeters
Post by jmk
Then again, it could be the 19% increase in caloric intake over the past
30 years...
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rhetoric/105H16/cofp/rhe/rhecofp.html
The statistic is caloric *production*, not "intake". i.e., the world is
producing (via agriculture, etc.) 3,000+ calories per person per day. It is
not implying those calories are consumed at the same level they are
produced.
btw, there's a typo in that article, too: the table says "3810" but the
text says "3180".
Oops, sorry about that

"A big jump in average calorie intake between 1985 and 2000
without a corresponding increase in the level of physical activity
(calorie expenditure) is the prime factor behind America’s soaring
rates of obesity and Type 2 diabetes."
- http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/FoodReview/DEC2002/frvol25i3a.pdf
Jeeters
2003-10-01 15:46:23 UTC
Permalink
"Before the diet mania, the average American woman
took in 3,000 to 5,000 calories a day; today that average woman eats
less than 1,600 calories daily and is on some type of weight loss
program,"
It fails to mention an additional factor: various conveniences has made it
such that the average person is a lot more sedentary now than they were in
the past. i.e., 3000 to 5000 calories a day in the past was a lot less
'damaging' that it is now.
Ignoramus28710
2003-10-01 15:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeeters
"Before the diet mania, the average American woman
took in 3,000 to 5,000 calories a day; today that average woman eats
less than 1,600 calories daily and is on some type of weight loss
program,"
It fails to mention an additional factor: various conveniences has made it
such that the average person is a lot more sedentary now than they were in
the past. i.e., 3000 to 5000 calories a day in the past was a lot less
'damaging' that it is now.
Absolutely correct.

Nowadays you do not even need to walk up to the TV to flip channels.

i
223/177/180
who does not watch TV
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...