On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 00:10:06 -0600, Jason Earl wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16 2011, MU wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:06:41 -0600, Jason Earl wrote:
>>>> Which is why the 2PD OMER approach to eating attacks the central problem
>>>> - oversconsumption.
>>> I would like to think that this would probably work. I found that when
>>> I started keeping track of what I ate that I lost weight (at least at
>>> first) despite the fact that I never really felt hungry. Being more
>>> conscious of what I ate was almost more important than how many calories
>>> I took in.
>> Cal counting doesn't work when work is defined as more than a
>> temporary approach to eating. The most significant issue with cal
>> counting is the reliability of your own data. Was that 6oz of
>> salmon...or 5? Was that really a 8oz sirloin...or was it 9? Or 7? How
>> much fat did you eat v.s meat? How much was digested and useful?
> Granted, unless you are far more persnickety than I am about your
> measurements there is going to be a certain amount of fuzz in your data.
At equilibrium caloric intake (no weight gain or loss) let's assume for
mathematical purposes is 3,000 cals, an error of 10%. Nothing fuzzy
One pound of body weight is roughly equivalent to 3500 calories, so
eating an extra 2,100 calories per week will cause you to gain half to
three quarters pounds a week. A year? You're obese.
This assumes you, MU or anyone else other than a lab technician, has a
bomb calorimeter and would use it to establish *true* caloric content.
Point being; cal counting doesn't work on so many levels it's a Mute
> Still, I tend to weigh most of the things that I eat (instead of using
> volume measurements). So the difference between what I do and what you
> propose is not likely to be that great.
The difference is that I never consider caloric content at all. No fuzz
to worry about.
> My guess is that your method is actually a useful shorthand. Weighing
> foods is quite a bit easier than weighing food and then guessing how
> many calories per gram, and I would not be surprised to find out it
> works just as well.
>>> The problem with an eating system like yours is that I think that I
>>> would find it too tempting to game the system.
>> It's your game, neither the 2PD OMER nor any eating system can be
>> blamed, it's your game.
> True. I would only be cheating myself.
>>> For example, I am pretty sure that eating two pounds of bacon per day
>>> would not be good for me, but I am also pretty sure that I would at
>>> least be tempted to try it.
>> Go ahead.
> Heck, it might even work. It did not kill me when I experimented with
>>> I know that when I experimented with the Atkins diet I had a *bacon*
>>> day. Eating piles of bacon made me happy (for a bit), but I don't
>>> think that it got me closer to my goal.
>> Atkins was, is and always will be a complete failure. No worries, he's
>> in excellent company with every other calorie or carb counting diet
>> that has ever existed.
> Atkins made me feel like crap. I like a few carbs in my meals. Bacon
> is still delicious though.
Atkins ranks among the most villanous men in the history of faux
dieting. Even his death was manipulated.
Thanks to his death certificate, we know Atkins was 6', 258 pounds at
the time of his death, obese by any definition. Yet according to a copy
of his medical records, from the Atkins widow, Atkins weighed 195 pounds
upon admission to the hospital 8 April 2003 following his fall. He died
on 17 April 2003.
Even in death, he was a deceitful, pitiful evil man.
>>> Counting calories is not significantly more difficult than simply
>>> weighing your food, and it helps steer me towards foods like
>>> vegetables that are low in calories.
>> Overconsumption is the issue not what is consumed. Just ask any Atkins
> I agree. Everything in moderation.
Moderation to what? The immoderate, overconsuming gluttony now taken as