Using Matter Transmitters for Immortality
Rich Horton
immortality -- plus physical changes (editing yourself to be younger,
or prettier, or whatever) -- is central to Wil McCarthy's excellent
Queendom of Sol series. (The idea is that you make a copy, and
transmit the information. Thus, why not save the copy, and make a new
physical copy when needed? And as long as you have the copy as
information, go ahead and edit it, eh?)
I just read John Brunner's 1959 novel, The World Swappers, which
contains the nearly exactly identical idea. (Oddly, the main use of
"editing" copies is to change appearance so that those who don't have
the immortality secret won't recognize the surprisingly long-lived
individuals ...) And I must say I find it a natural idea (I used to
wonder why Star Trek never thought of that). A variant is central to
James Patrick Kelly's story "Think Like a Dinosaur". And for that
matter Rogue Moon makes you think of the notion ...
What I wonder is, in what story was such an idea first posed? Anyone
know anything earlier than Brunner's 1959 novel?
Maureen
> The idea of using matter transmitters as a means of personal
> immortality -- plus physical changes (editing yourself to be younger,
> or prettier, or whatever) -- is central to Wil McCarthy's excellent
> Queendom of Sol series. (The idea is that you make a copy, and
> transmit the information. Thus, why not save the copy, and make a new
> physical copy when needed? And as long as you have the copy as
> information, go ahead and edit it, eh?)
>
> individuals ...) And I must say I find it a natural idea (I used to
> wonder why Star Trek never thought of that). A variant is central to
The idea came up in some of Alan Dean Foster's novelizations of Star
Trek Animated, IIRC, and in quite a few old Star Trek novels
afterward. (I believe the infamous Phoenix novels by Marshak and
Culbreath were among them.) Then I think Paramount lowered the boom,
because you didn't see transporters used as healing devices or
whatever anymore.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Could you argue for _A Princess of Mars_?
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> The idea of using matter transmitters as a means of personal
> immortality -- plus physical changes (editing yourself to be younger,
> or prettier, or whatever) -- is central to Wil McCarthy's excellent
> Queendom of Sol series. (The idea is that you make a copy, and
> transmit the information. Thus, why not save the copy, and make a new
> physical copy when needed? And as long as you have the copy as
> information, go ahead and edit it, eh?)
>
> I just read John Brunner's 1959 novel, The World Swappers, which
> contains the nearly exactly identical idea. (Oddly, the main use of
> "editing" copies is to change appearance so that those who don't have
> the immortality secret won't recognize the surprisingly long-lived
> individuals ...) And I must say I find it a natural idea (I used to
> wonder why Star Trek never thought of that).
Marshak and Culbreath explored the concept in depth in "The Price of
the Phoenix" and "The Fate of the Phoenix". Much reviled, but I still
remember them fondly for doing what so few books, or even FANS, were
willing to do -- actually take a look at the implications of the
Transporter technology as described.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
And if not that, you might be able to discuss the World of Null-A, by
Van Vogt, 1948.
Wayne Throop
: (I used to wonder why Star Trek never thought of that).
I thought they did think of it, for one of the "we been prematurely
aged" episodes (but not the one where adrenalin is the cure). Maybe
the TNG one about super immune system snafu? Eh, at any event, I
can recall a discussion about "and you can bet they'll forget they
can do that pretty quick".
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Marcus L. Rowland
<rrho...@prodigy.net> writes
It's been around since 1945, in the Venus Equilateral series, and
probably much earlier.
--
Marcus L. Rowland www.forgottenfutures.com
www.forgottenfutures.org
www.forgottenfutures.co.uk
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
Diana: Warrior Princess & Elvis: The Legendary Tours
The Original Flatland Role Playing Game
tkma...@yahoo.co.uk
Arthur Clarke - "Travel By Wire!" (1937)
This is also probably the first published story of Clarke, when he was
all of 20 years old.
--
<http://variety-sf.blogspot.com/>
<http://twitter.com/varietysf>
Michael Grosberg
> The idea of using matter transmitters as a means of personal
> immortality -- plus physical changes (editing yourself to be younger,
> or prettier, or whatever) -- is central to Wil McCarthy's excellent
> Queendom of Sol series. (The idea is that you make a copy, and
> transmit the information. Thus, why not save the copy, and make a new
> physical copy when needed? And as long as you have the copy as
> information, go ahead and edit it, eh?)
I don't see how the idea of editing a body in transit is a natural
extension of copying matter: editing is completely different than
copying. While copying requires a physical process that is "simple" to
describe (take one atom, clone 3 meters to the left, repeat). editing
requires a subtle knowledge of biology that has nothing to do with the
process of matter transmission. It's like expecting to be able to
change the plot of a movie you own a copy of, just because you can
make a duplicate of the DVD. It is certainly completely beyond
anything possible in the Star Trek universe.
David Mitchell
> I don't see how the idea of editing a body in transit is a natural
> extension of copying matter: editing is completely different than
> copying. While copying requires a physical process that is "simple" to
> describe (take one atom, clone 3 meters to the left, repeat). editing
> requires a subtle knowledge of biology that has nothing to do with the
> process of matter transmission. It's like expecting to be able to change
> the plot of a movie you own a copy of, just because you can make a
> duplicate of the DVD. It is certainly completely beyond anything
> possible in the Star Trek universe.
I'm not sure it's "completely beyond", they do, after all, apply
"biofilters" to remove pathogens, and have the facility to detect and
disable weapons; and even re-grow adult bodies from those of children.
Not to mention splitting one person back into two ("Tuvix" in _Voyager_),
all of which imply the ability to profoundly manipulate biological matter.
--
=======================================================================
= David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
= Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.
=======================================================================
Cryptoengineer
wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phantom_Edit
pt
Joseph Nebus
>The idea of using matter transmitters as a means of personal
>immortality -- plus physical changes (editing yourself to be younger,
>or prettier, or whatever) -- is central to Wil McCarthy's excellent
>Queendom of Sol series.
I'm curious why you regard matter transmitters as copiers rather
than as, er, transmitters, taking something from one spot and sending it
to another.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Plotkin
> Rich Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> writes:
>
> >The idea of using matter transmitters as a means of personal
> >immortality -- plus physical changes (editing yourself to be younger,
> >or prettier, or whatever) -- is central to Wil McCarthy's excellent
> >Queendom of Sol series.
>
> I'm curious why you regard matter transmitters as copiers rather
> than as, er, transmitters, taking something from one spot and sending it
> to another.
Because in McCarthy's series they *are* copiers? The transmitting and
receiving device each logs a copy (at least if they're working
properly) and you can decide whether to step out of one or both.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Joseph Nebus
>Arthur Clarke - "Travel By Wire!" (1937)
>This is also probably the first published story of Clarke, when he was
>all of 20 years old.
I have to admit much as effortless-instant-weight-loss appealed
to me [*], the idea that it might be done just by having my body
transmitted over a poorly grounded cable so as to ensure matter loss
throughout is terrifying. Effective weight loss I think has to be more
sophisticated than just throw away one molecule from every three you've
got.
[*] I came about as near instantaneous as possible last year,
including two months in a row of losing 15 pounds per month, but it was
*not* effortless. And after a year of this I haven't got much more
weight *to* lose. But I did just spend a full week without my morning
weight varying more than three-quarters of a pound, so I think I've got
the basics of this licked.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Grosberg
<david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 02:25:09 -0700, Michael Grosberg wrote:
> > I don't see how the idea of editing a body in transit is a natural
> > extension of copying matter: editing is completely different than
> > copying. While copying requires a physical process that is "simple" to
> > describe (take one atom, clone 3 meters to the left, repeat). editing
> > requires a subtle knowledge of biology that has nothing to do with the
> > process of matter transmission. It's like expecting to be able to change
> > the plot of a movie you own a copy of, just because you can make a
> > duplicate of the DVD. It is certainly completely beyond anything
> > possible in the Star Trek universe.
>
> I'm not sure it's "completely beyond", they do, after all, apply
> "biofilters" to remove pathogens, and have the facility to detect and
> disable weapons; and even re-grow adult bodies from those of children.
That's next Gen and beyond, not original Trek. Of course they have
nano-thingamagigs and bio-thingamabobs *now*, but the thread is about
using this idea back in the 50's-60's. Not that trek technology was
consistent or well thought out at any point in time: Treknology can do
anything this week's plot requires of it but will lose the capability
the week after. There was this one transporter malfunction in TOS that
divided Kirk into an evil Kirk and a good Kirk. Try explaining that
one...
Scott Lurndal
The _Duplicated Man_, Blish, 1953.
scott
Joseph Nebus
>Here, Joseph Nebus <nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
>> Rich Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> writes:
>>
>> >The idea of using matter transmitters as a means of personal
>> >immortality -- plus physical changes (editing yourself to be younger,
>> >or prettier, or whatever) -- is central to Wil McCarthy's excellent
>> >Queendom of Sol series.
>>
>> I'm curious why you regard matter transmitters as copiers rather
>> than as, er, transmitters, taking something from one spot and sending it
>> to another.
>Because in McCarthy's series they *are* copiers? The transmitting and
>receiving device each logs a copy (at least if they're working
>properly) and you can decide whether to step out of one or both.
You're right; I generalized badly from starting on McCarthy's
faxes to matter-transmitting-stories of all kinds.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Horton
<grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I don't see how the idea of editing a body in transit is a natural
>extension of copying matter: editing is completely different than
>copying. While copying requires a physical process that is "simple" to
>describe (take one atom, clone 3 meters to the left, repeat). editing
>requires a subtle knowledge of biology that has nothing to do with the
>process of matter transmission. It's like expecting to be able to
>change the plot of a movie you own a copy of, just because you can
>make a duplicate of the DVD. It is certainly completely beyond
>anything possible in the Star Trek universe.
Obviously "editing" would be much harder than just copying, but it
still seems a "natural extension" of the idea, emphasis of course on
"extension".
Rich Horton
<forgotte...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>It's been around since 1945, in the Venus Equilateral series, and
>probably much earlier.
VENUS EQUILATERAL did lots of neat stuff with the idea of matter
transmitters, yes. (Including economic disruption.) But did it suggest
making copies of people as backups for re-instantiation after death?
Maybe so -- I haven't read the book in 35 years, I think. I'd just
like to know. Wouldn't surrpise me, mind you.
John F. Eldredge
Who was the first author to use the idea of matter transmitters being
used to brainwash people as they were being transmitted?
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
David Mitchell
> On Apr 27, 12:38 pm, David Mitchell
> <david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 02:25:09 -0700, Michael Grosberg wrote:
>> > I don't see how the idea of editing a body in transit is a natural
>> > extension of copying matter: editing is completely different than
>> > copying. While copying requires a physical process that is "simple"
>> > to describe (take one atom, clone 3 meters to the left, repeat).
>> > editing requires a subtle knowledge of biology that has nothing to do
>> > with the process of matter transmission. It's like expecting to be
>> > able to change the plot of a movie you own a copy of, just because
>> > you can make a duplicate of the DVD. It is certainly completely
>> > beyond anything possible in the Star Trek universe.
>>
>> I'm not sure it's "completely beyond", they do, after all, apply
>> "biofilters" to remove pathogens, and have the facility to detect and
>> disable weapons; and even re-grow adult bodies from those of children.
>
> That's next Gen and beyond, not original Trek. Of course they have
> nano-thingamagigs and bio-thingamabobs *now*, but the thread is about
> using this idea back in the 50's-60's.
Oh. My bad. Sorry.
David Mitchell
>
> [*] I came about as near instantaneous as possible last year,
> including two months in a row of losing 15 pounds per month, but it was
> *not* effortless. And after a year of this I haven't got much more
> weight *to* lose. But I did just spend a full week without my morning
> weight varying more than three-quarters of a pound, so I think I've got
> the basics of this licked.
Erm, "eat less and exercise more"?
Joseph Nebus
>On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:19:57 -0400, Joseph Nebus wrote:
>>
>> [*] I came about as near instantaneous as possible last year,
>> including two months in a row of losing 15 pounds per month, but it was
>> *not* effortless. And after a year of this I haven't got much more
>> weight *to* lose. But I did just spend a full week without my morning
>> weight varying more than three-quarters of a pound, so I think I've got
>> the basics of this licked.
>Erm, "eat less and exercise more"?
That's about losing weight. Maintaining weight loss is the new
challenge, particularly as I'd like to get back some of the time that's
been going into WiiFit even if that is about the only chance I have to
watch all the stuff accumulated on the Tivo.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William December Starr
David Mitchell <david.robo...@googlemail.com> said:
> Not to mention splitting one person back into two ("Tuvix"
> in _Voyager_), all of which imply the ability to profoundly
> manipulate biological matter.
We. Don't. TALK. About. That.
-- wds
David Mitchell
<grin>
Whyever not? Granted it was one of the silliest episodes; but probably
not the silliest (although, I admit, I'm struggling to top it).
Joseph Nebus
>On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 04:16:45 -0400, William December Starr wrote:
>> In article <8M-dnXl-W6DmLUvW...@brightview.co.uk>, David
>> Mitchell <david.robo...@googlemail.com> said:
>>
>>> Not to mention splitting one person back into two ("Tuvix" in
>>> _Voyager_), all of which imply the ability to profoundly manipulate
>>> biological matter.
>>
>> We. Don't. TALK. About. That.
><grin>
>Whyever not? Granted it was one of the silliest episodes; but probably
>not the silliest (although, I admit, I'm struggling to top it).
That's not even in the bottom half of silly episodes. In fact,
mercifully for a _Voyager_ episode, it whipped up a nasty moral quandary
for the characters (kill Tuvix so that Tuvok and Neelix might live, or
let the *currently living* Tuvix survive and accept Tuvok and Neelix
as dead) and then made Janeway actually make a choice about it.
The writers could easily have had it turn out that Tuvik suffered
from Concentrated Ethalpic Phase-Reversals or whatever so that he *had* to
be split in order to keep anybody alive (and turn the last act into a Race
Against Technobabble), but they didn't.
Granted there's probably not a silliest Voyager episode, any more
than there's a biggest integer or a comment sufficiently sarcastic so as
to be universally recognized as sarcasm on the Internet, but we're not
talking about silliness like Voyager's ``The Man Who Evolved'' ripoff.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
trag
<david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 04:16:45 -0400, William December Starr wrote:
> > Mitchell <david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> said:
>
> >> Not to mention splitting one person back into two ("Tuvix" in
> >> _Voyager_), all of which imply the ability to profoundly manipulate
> >> biological matter.
>
> > We. Don't. TALK. About. That.
>
> <grin>
>
> Whyever not? Granted it was one of the silliest episodes; but probably
> not the silliest (although, I admit, I'm struggling to top it).
Janeway and Paris have salamander sex. I think that one was
sillier...
William December Starr
David Mitchell <david.robo...@googlemail.com> said:
> William December Starr wrote:
>> David Mitchell <david.robo...@googlemail.com> said:
>>
>>> Not to mention splitting one person back into two ("Tuvix" in
>>> _Voyager_), all of which imply the ability to profoundly
>>> manipulate biological matter.
>>
>> We. Don't. TALK. About. That.
>
> <grin>
>
> Whyever not? Granted it was one of the silliest episodes; but
> probably not the silliest (although, I admit, I'm struggling to
> top it).
[Puts on Semi-Serious Hat]
I think that I accidentally came up with something here that
works equally well in two separate contexts. (1) Within the
fiction, the characters in Janeway's crew Don't Talk About It
because they don't want to have to think about the time their
beloved Captain did something that either was or was really,
really close to cold-blooded murder, and (2) in Trek fandom
people Don't Talk About It because doing so leads to huge wars
over "Captain Janeway { did | did not } commit cold-blooded
murder." (Note: she did.)
-- wds
Butch Malahide
> In article <ZLidnaabXp5SEUTWnZ2dnUVZ7vti4...@brightview.co.uk>,
>
> >>> Not to mention splitting one person back into two ("Tuvix" in
> >>> _Voyager_), all of which imply the ability to profoundly
> >>> manipulate biological matter.
>
> >> We. Don't. TALK. About. That.
>
> > <grin>
>
> > Whyever not? Granted it was one of the silliest episodes; but
> > probably not the silliest (although, I admit, I'm struggling to
> > top it).
>
> [Puts on Semi-Serious Hat]
>
> I think that I accidentally came up with something here that
> works equally well in two separate contexts. (1) Within the
> fiction, the characters in Janeway's crew Don't Talk About It
> because they don't want to have to think about the time their
> beloved Captain did something that either was or was really,
> really close to cold-blooded murder, and (2) in Trek fandom
> people Don't Talk About It because doing so leads to huge wars
> over "Captain Janeway { did | did not } commit cold-blooded
> murder." (Note: she did.)
Let's talk about it: *Why* did she do it? I'm not a Trekkie, I never
heard of Tuvix before, so I went and read the wikipedia article about
that episode, and there's something I don't understand. Doesn't the
transporter have the capability of making multiple copies of a person?
By using "memory files" or something? If so, why couldn't they make an
extra Tuvix, and split just one of them into a Tuvok and a Neelix? For
that matter, wouldn't they be able to make as many Tuvixes, Tuvoks,
and Neelices as they wanted? What arcane limitation of Star Trek
transporter technology am I missing?
ObSF: Jackson Gee, "An Extra Man", Astounding Stories of Super-
Science, October, 1930; possibly the first story in which a man is
duplicated by a matter transmitter.
David Mitchell
None, AFAICT, although there might have been legal issues over the fact
that Tuvix would have both Neelix and Tuvok's memories, which is a
violation of their privacy. But still, that aside, it's the obvious
solution, and one of the reasons it was such a silly story.
Joseph Nebus
>On May 1, 9:40=A0pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>> I think that I accidentally came up with something here that
>> works equally well in two separate contexts. =A0(1) Within the
>> fiction, the characters in Janeway's crew Don't Talk About It
>> because they don't want to have to think about the time their
>> beloved Captain did something that either was or was really,
>> really close to cold-blooded murder, and (2) in Trek fandom
>> people Don't Talk About It because doing so leads to huge wars
>> over "Captain Janeway { did | did not } commit cold-blooded
>> murder." =A0(Note: she did.)
>Let's talk about it: *Why* did she do it? I'm not a Trekkie, I never
>heard of Tuvix before, so I went and read the wikipedia article about
>that episode, and there's something I don't understand. Doesn't the
>transporter have the capability of making multiple copies of a person?
>By using "memory files" or something? If so, why couldn't they make an
>extra Tuvix, and split just one of them into a Tuvok and a Neelix? For
>that matter, wouldn't they be able to make as many Tuvixes, Tuvoks,
>and Neelices as they wanted? What arcane limitation of Star Trek
>transporter technology am I missing?
Disclaimer: Any declaration one makes about Trek technology is
neutralized by at minimum one episode where the opposite happens.
But the preponderance of evidence is that no, you can't just
run off backup copies of people using the transporter, even though
there are some kind of patterns kept around for indefinite and plot-
convenient times. A couple of times, duplicates were made, but that
was because of macguffium particles in the intake valve, and it was
not generally something that could be done at will.
As to *why* you can't, it's never really satisfactorally
answered (disclaimer: some episode somewhere probably gave an answer,
but I'll bet it doesn't make sense), but I'll stand by my guess that the
transporter is a transporter, and once it's sent something somewhere,
it doesn't have more copies to send out.
In any case, even if they could run off a duplicate of Tuvix,
that wouldn't change the answer to whether splitting Tuvix into a
component Tuvok and Neelix is murdering that Tuvix.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butch Malahide
> Disclaimer: Any declaration one makes about Trek technology is
> neutralized by at minimum one episode where the opposite happens.
>
> But the preponderance of evidence is that no, you can't just
> run off backup copies of people using the transporter, even though
> there are some kind of patterns kept around for indefinite and plot-
> convenient times. A couple of times, duplicates were made, but that
> was because of macguffium particles in the intake valve, and it was
> not generally something that could be done at will.
>
> As to *why* you can't, it's never really satisfactorally
> answered (disclaimer: some episode somewhere probably gave an answer,
> but I'll bet it doesn't make sense), but I'll stand by my guess that the
> transporter is a transporter, and once it's sent something somewhere,
> it doesn't have more copies to send out.
OK, thanks for clearing that up. So the ST transporter actually
transmits matter, not just information. I guess it would have to be
that way, seeing as no receiver is needed when they beam down to a
planet. So I guess Tuvix weighed as much as Tuvok and Neelix combined,
and ate for two?
> In any case, even if they could run off a duplicate of Tuvix,
> that wouldn't change the answer to whether splitting Tuvix into a
> component Tuvok and Neelix is murdering that Tuvix.
Hmm. If you accept the ST premise that the transporter in normal
operation doesn't kill anybody, then how is it murder if one Tuvix
goes in and one Tuvix comes out? Why is asking what happened to the
extra Tuvix any different from asking what happened to the original
Tuvix who stepped onto the transporter plate?
Anyway, killing an alien monster who has devoured two of your crewmen
isn't exactly murder, is it? Did anyone care about the wolf's rights
in "Little Red Riding Hood"?
Walter Bushell
David Mitchell <david.robo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:19:57 -0400, Joseph Nebus wrote:
>
> >
> > [*] I came about as near instantaneous as possible last year,
> > including two months in a row of losing 15 pounds per month, but it was
> > *not* effortless. And after a year of this I haven't got much more
> > weight *to* lose. But I did just spend a full week without my morning
> > weight varying more than three-quarters of a pound, so I think I've got
> > the basics of this licked.
>
> Erm, "eat less and exercise more"?
Doesn't work for most people without external restrictions, because it
causes hunger which most people will not endure long term and those that
can make it work frequently have the most unpleasant personalities.
This used to be called starvation diets.
The people I know who have lost major weight have done it by cutting
down on carbs and perhaps adding fiber. Certainly cutting out sugar is a
big help.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
David Mitchell
> In article <Qq2dnRYVZZU4TkrW...@brightview.co.uk>,
> David Mitchell <david.robo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:19:57 -0400, Joseph Nebus wrote:
>>
>>
>> > [*] I came about as near instantaneous as possible last year,
>> > including two months in a row of losing 15 pounds per month, but it
>> > was *not* effortless. And after a year of this I haven't got much
>> > more weight *to* lose. But I did just spend a full week without my
>> > morning weight varying more than three-quarters of a pound, so I
>> > think I've got the basics of this licked.
>>
>> Erm, "eat less and exercise more"?
>
> Doesn't work for most people without external restrictions, because it
> causes hunger which most people will not endure long term and those that
> can make it work frequently have the most unpleasant personalities.
>
> This used to be called starvation diets.
Depends how far you take it - there is a popular diet in the UK
promulgated by an organisation called Weight Watchers, which allocates
"points" (each worth roughly 60 calories, although there's slightly more
to it than that) to varying amounts of various foodstuffs.
For a given gender and weight, there are weight-loss and maintenance
numbers of points to be consumed on a daily basis.
I've always found the number of weight-loss points to be quite hard to
achieve, (I've had to eat when not hungry - to make up points), but still
lost weight.
John F. Eldredge
Also. limit your fat intake. Since fat is calorie-rich, you can easily
be consuming considerably more calories than you realize from the volume.
Walter Bushell
"John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 20:41:46 -0400, Walter Bushell wrote:
>
> > In article <Qq2dnRYVZZU4TkrW...@brightview.co.uk>,
> > David Mitchell <david.robo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:19:57 -0400, Joseph Nebus wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > [*] I came about as near instantaneous as possible last year,
> >> > including two months in a row of losing 15 pounds per month, but it
> >> > was *not* effortless. And after a year of this I haven't got much
> >> > more weight *to* lose. But I did just spend a full week without my
> >> > morning weight varying more than three-quarters of a pound, so I
> >> > think I've got the basics of this licked.
> >>
> >> Erm, "eat less and exercise more"?
> >
> > Doesn't work for most people without external restrictions, because it
> > causes hunger which most people will not endure long term and those that
> > can make it work frequently have the most unpleasant personalities.
> >
> > This used to be called starvation diets.
> >
> > The people I know who have lost major weight have done it by cutting
> > down on carbs and perhaps adding fiber. Certainly cutting out sugar is a
> > big help.
>
> Also. limit your fat intake. Since fat is calorie-rich, you can easily
> be consuming considerably more calories than you realize from the volume.
Actually I lost about a hundred pounds basically by just cutting carbs,
with no particular fat restrictions.