Question on Calories
PassionOfDarwin
a slow or moderate pace. I have some questions about calories and dieting.
How many calories would he burn per mile?
How many calories would he normally need each day?
How many calories are in each pound of fat on him?
How many calories should he take in daily, to lose 2 pounds per week?
Thanks!
ma...@toad-net.com
It is perhaps easier to ask the question in a different way, as to how
many caleries to reduce from the current intake to lose weight at a given
rate. Choosing a pound a week, one would lower consumption by 500
calories, one pound of stored fat is about 3500 caleries and 500/day gives
us the per week daily rate. It has been found that more then 1.5 pounds
per week tends to be counter productive for long term weight loss and
maintenance. If one looks at an exercise chart for caleries/hour by type,
only the most intensive consume many caleries. Don't count on caleries
consumed to add much to the daily loss. Exercise does have many other
health benefits which don't address the point of your question and should
be done at the same time as reducing caleries for that reason alone. To
be mindful of calerie intake, one must have some measure of portions by
weight or measure. See:
http://www.calorieking.com/foods/search.php
to assist you in doing so. By seeing how much he now consumes for total
caleries, you can then know how much to reduce each day for the desired
rate of loss. This is a very vcomplex area and I have only addressed the
questions you have raised. Other points to educate yourself about are the
quality of the food he eats and the amounts of nutrients anyone needs to
consume for overall health. There are many net based sources of that kind
of information and maybe some can be addressed here in subsequent
questions, good luck.
Pizza Girl
<ma...@toad-net.com> wrote in message
news:4051010b$0$247$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
Mxsmanic
> My husband is 5 foot 8 inches and weighs 220 pounds. He walks 2 miles a day, at
> a slow or moderate pace. I have some questions about calories and dieting.
>
> How many calories would he burn per mile?
About 110 kcal per mile, over and above his resting energy requirement.
> How many calories would he normally need each day?
Perhaps 2500 kcal, depending on how active he is.
> How many calories are in each pound of fat on him?
3500
> How many calories should he take in daily, to lose 2 pounds per week?
He should eat 1000 kcal less than he burns in order to lose two pounds
per week. Since this is about half his calorie quota for each day, it
will probably be difficult to reduce calories by this much. A reduction
of 500 kcal per day (the equivalent of a Big Mac) or even 200 (the
equivalent of a glass of whole milk) might be a lot easier.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mxsmanic
> Lose calories too fast and you can lose your gallbladder with it.
Only if you are predisposed to gallbladder problems, as a general rule.
Dally
> My husband is 5 foot 8 inches and weighs 220 pounds. He walks 2 miles a day, at
> a slow or moderate pace. I have some questions about calories and dieting.
Losing fat is something people do when they decide to do it. Having
their WIFE decide to do it doesn't help. It's not rocket science, it
doesn't need to be charted in advance, it just takes four steps:
1. Eat less
2. Exercise more
3. Repeat
4. Forever.
I found that each step has its own struggles. The most important thing
I did was to decide I didn't want to be fat anymore and do what it takes
to stop being fat. (I've lost 62 pounds since then.)
> How many calories would he burn per mile?
Irrelevant, really. Exercise should serve more purposes than how many
calories it burns during the exercise. Does it raise his heart rate to
80% of max? (My guess is not.) It should. Does it stimulate muscle
growth? (My guess is not.) Does it raise his resting metabolism? I
don't know.
> How many calories would he normally need each day?
A starting rule of thumb for a man is 12x his weight in calories, but
not going under 10x his weight in calories. I've found that the
composition of the calories makes a big difference. I like to eat only
40-50% of my calories from carbs just to get the most satietion out of
my calorie budget.
> How many calories should he take in daily, to lose 2 pounds per week?
It's a two part formula where both parts produce feedback on each other.
He has to eat less AND burn more. A good starting place is for him to
log all his foods at www.fitday.com and see how much he's currently
eating. Then eat less.
But fat loss is best measured in retrospect. Having goals about how
much fat you plan to lose only makes it likely that you'll quit in
frustration when you don't meet your goal. A better goal is to adopt a
healthy habit each week. How many healthy habits can he adopt that he
can hold onto for the rest of his life?
I really do hate to see people coming here on behalf of a loved one.
Losing weight is intrinsically something you have to do alone. No diet
and exercise plan works - HE has to do all the work. (The diet plan
just sits there.) Until he's ready to do it he will just fail.
Dally
tcomeau
The math involved in predicting weight loss or gain using caloric
values of food is not very useful. 98% of those who attempt to lose
weight by restricting and/or counting calories fail. It is a
fundamentally flawed theory. It doesn't work. There is no science that
links caloric values of food with controlling weight/fat in humans. I
challenge anyone to show us the definitive and seminal study that
makes the direct and un-equivocal connection between calorie-intake
and weight management (gain/loss).
TC
"randy_gallimore"_http://ran23.quickpros.biz
eat smaller portions of foods, more
frequently, 4 or 5 small meals, breakfast most important, boiled egg
white for protein, piece of whole grain bread,bowl of oatmeal for fiber.
not so much the calories, if possible
raw vegs, and fruits, drink plenty of water. or he could go to this site
where the ceo has just lost 100lbs
last two years on dream away weight
loss program http://ran23.healthyoudeserve.com
Tim Tyler
> The math involved in predicting weight loss or gain using caloric
> values of food is not very useful. 98% of those who attempt to lose
> weight by restricting and/or counting calories fail. It is a
> fundamentally flawed theory. It doesn't work. There is no science that
> links caloric values of food with controlling weight/fat in humans. I
> challenge anyone to show us the definitive and seminal study that
> makes the direct and un-equivocal connection between calorie-intake
> and weight management (gain/loss).
Er - isn't it about time to get in touch with ground control?
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
John 'the Man'
Once upon a time, our fellow Tim Tyler
rambled on about "Re: Question on Calories."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>Er - isn't it about time to get in touch with ground control?
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
Do you really expect TC to be anything but our village idiot?
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
ma...@toad-net.com
advice? The site is just another "miricle" in a bottle scam with all the
familiar pitches. Spam, just ignore.
"or he could go to this site
where the ceo has just lost 100lbs
last two years on dream away weight
loss program ..."
Mxsmanic
> The math involved in predicting weight loss or gain using caloric
> values of food is not very useful. 98% of those who attempt to lose
> weight by restricting and/or counting calories fail.
One hundred percent of people who try to lose weight without creating a
calorie deficit fail. One hundred percent of people who try to lose
weight by creating a calorie deficit succeed.
It's all calories in versus calories out. It is the ONLY way to lose
weight, and it ALWAYS works.
> It is a fundamentally flawed theory. It doesn't work. There is no
> science that links caloric values of food with controlling
> weight/fat in humans.
The laws of thermodynamics guarantee that a caloric deficit will produce
weight loss. There are no exceptions.
> I challenge anyone to show us the definitive and seminal study that
> makes the direct and un-equivocal connection between calorie-intake
> and weight management (gain/loss).
There are hundreds of such studies, but they aren't really needed, since
the laws of thermodynamics are pretty clear. Ever wonder why you don't
see anyone in a long-term coma who is obese?
ma...@toad-net.com
fundamentally flawed theory. It doesn't work. There is no science that
links caloric values of food with controlling weight/fat in humans. I
challenge anyone to show us the definitive and seminal study that
makes the direct and un-equivocal connection between calorie-intake
and weight management (gain/loss)."
Then you might enlighten us as to the "real scientific" principle by which
weight is lost or gained; and the supporting research by which it is
supported. In the context of generations of research such an
extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence from your perspective,
not from the current concensus. If accepted science is to be replaced,
and it is from time to time, the new notion carries all the burden of
evidence.
Pizza Girl
"Dally" <da...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:c2sfdh$20p9b5$1...@ID-217902.news.uni-berlin.de...
Pizza Girl
statements posted by you are just horseshit of the highest calibre and
completely not true.
eg: "One hundred percent of people who try to lose weight by creating a
calorie deficit succeed" is just a damn lie. Most people attempting this
fail because most people fail at all diets.
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kc1450h0p8qjcj2l5...@4ax.com...
Dally
> 10x my weight in ounces?
No dear, in calories. It turns out that calories consumed actually ARE
an important aspect of a fat-reduction plan. Sorry.
Dally
Pizza Girl
How heavy is a calorie?
"Dally" <da...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:c2tiai$215dql$3...@ID-217902.news.uni-berlin.de...
tcomeau
>
> > The math involved in predicting weight loss or gain using caloric
> > values of food is not very useful. 98% of those who attempt to lose
> > weight by restricting and/or counting calories fail.
>
> One hundred percent of people who try to lose weight without creating a
> calorie deficit fail. One hundred percent of people who try to lose
> weight by creating a calorie deficit succeed.
>
> It's all calories in versus calories out. It is the ONLY way to lose
> weight, and it ALWAYS works.
>
If that were true then anyone who wanted to be thin and followed the
low-fat/low-calorie diet would be thin. Period. But that ain't the
case, is it?
> > It is a fundamentally flawed theory. It doesn't work. There is no
> > science that links caloric values of food with controlling
> > weight/fat in humans.
>
> The laws of thermodynamics guarantee that a caloric deficit will produce
> weight loss. There are no exceptions.
>
Has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics. It is several
levels removed from the laws of thermo. Applying the laws of thermo to
weight control is extreme oversimplification and sheer stupid
assumption.
> > I challenge anyone to show us the definitive and seminal study that
> > makes the direct and un-equivocal connection between calorie-intake
> > and weight management (gain/loss).
>
> There are hundreds of such studies, but they aren't really needed, since
> the laws of thermodynamics are pretty clear.
Then show me ONE! Otherwise Shut the f... up.
> Ever wonder why you don't
> see anyone in a long-term coma who is obese?
Since when does the extreme prove anything other than the extreme?
TC
tcomeau
It does not require extraordinary proof when the initial theory itself
was never proven. It was assumed. If it was indeed "proven" then such
an important breakthrough would be well known to all in terms of when
and who proved it.
Please provide me this info and I will meekly go away. Give me the
study and the name of the researcher who proved with certainty that
calories could be used to accurately predict weight loss or gain in
humans. Should be easy, since it is such a fundamental principle in
nutrition.
As far as replacing accepted science, I say that the science was never
there. It was accepted on face value and nothing else. Show me the
science.
TC
John 'the Man'
Once upon a time, our fellow tcomeau
rambled on about "Re: Question on Calories."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>If that were true then anyone who wanted to be thin and followed the
>low-fat/low-calorie diet would be thin. Period. But that ain't the
>case, is it?
It works for me!
Just thought that you might want to know. :)
Dally
> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<kc1450h0p8qjcj2l5...@4ax.com>...
>>tcomeau writes:
>>
>>>The math involved in predicting weight loss or gain using caloric
>>>values of food is not very useful. 98% of those who attempt to lose
>>>weight by restricting and/or counting calories fail.
>>
>>One hundred percent of people who try to lose weight without creating a
>>calorie deficit fail. One hundred percent of people who try to lose
>>weight by creating a calorie deficit succeed.
>>
>>It's all calories in versus calories out. It is the ONLY way to lose
>>weight, and it ALWAYS works.
>>
> If that were true then anyone who wanted to be thin and followed the
> low-fat/low-calorie diet would be thin. Period. But that ain't the
> case, is it?
Uh, yes, it is the case.
You're right that it's complex learning how to change your diet to one
that works for fat loss, but that's because you've got to learn to fuel
your body in a ratio that works for you to feel fueled and sated on less
calories.
The problem with the low-fat/low-calorie diet is that people don't stay
ON it because it doesn't leave them adequately fueled or adequately
sated. It's not that the calorie reduction doesn't work. It's that the
diet often isn't sustainable.
Are you fat? Is this all your way of explaining why it's NOT YOUR FAULT
that you're so SPECIAL that YOU ALONE CAN'T LOSE WEIGHT? Ever hear the
term "fat fuck in denial?"
Dally, down 65 pounds in 22 months (and still dropping)
Dally
> So I use my weight in calories and multiply by ten.
>
> How heavy is a calorie?
I'm sorry, I should have lurked more. I stop by here once in a while
and I don't know all the characters. Are you really, really stupid, or
a troll, or one of the two pound diet fools?
Dally
Tim Tyler
> If that were true then anyone who wanted to be thin and followed the
> low-fat/low-calorie diet would be thin. Period. But that ain't the
> case, is it?
Low calorie diets are an *extremely* effective means of losing weight.
Pizza Girl
the world does not weigh things in pounds but rather grams and kilograms,
referring to body weights.
Get with the 1980's. You will have to specify, if you want to post to the
whole world instead of your usual tiny world.
Thank you.
"Dally" <da...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:c2u7dv$21lfbk$2...@ID-217902.news.uni-berlin.de...
Pizza Girl
going to consume low calories and keep with the ritual?
"Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:HuInv...@bath.ac.uk...
> tcomeau <tund...@hotmail.com> wrote or quoted:
> Low calorie diets are an *extremely* effective means of losing weight.
Mxsmanic
> You have no idea what you are talking about. Thiose oversimplified
> statements posted by you are just horseshit of the highest calibre and
> completely not true.
Show my errors, if you believe I've made any.
> eg: "One hundred percent of people who try to lose weight by creating a
> calorie deficit succeed" is just a damn lie.
There are no counterexamples, anywhere. Calorie deficits always produce
weight loss. There are never any exceptions.
> Most people attempting this fail because most people fail at all diets.
They fail because they don't actually produce a calorie deficit.
Tim Tyler
> Pizza Girl wrote:
> > 10x my weight in ounces?
>
> No dear, in calories. [...]
Your weight in *calories*? After applying E = mc^2, I presume? ;-)
Mxsmanic
> If that were true then anyone who wanted to be thin and followed the
> low-fat/low-calorie diet would be thin. Period. But that ain't the
> case, is it?
Yes, it _is_ the case. If you follow a hypocaloric diet (one that
provides fewer calories than you burn), you lose weight. Always.
> Has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics.
It has everything to do with it. The human body is a machine like any
other, and it follows the same physical laws that every other material
object in the universe must follow. Energy cannot be created or
destroyed. A human body cannot create energy. A human body cannot burn
calories that it does not have. Therefore, if a person doesn't consume
enough calories to meet the energy requirements of his body, body fat
will be burned to provide the required calories. If he has no body fat,
and he doesn't eat enough to meet his requirements, he'll die fairly
quickly.
> It is several levels removed from the laws of thermo.
No matter how many levels removed it is from those laws, it is still
constrained to obey them.
> Applying the laws of thermo to weight control is extreme
> oversimplification and sheer stupid assumption.
No, it's the only way to lose weight, and it always works.
> Then show me ONE! Otherwise Shut the f... up.
No. Eat less, exercise more, and you'll lose weight. It works for
everyone.
> Since when does the extreme prove anything other than the extreme?
There's nothing extreme about it.
You see, people in long-term comas do not feed themselves. Instead,
they are fed by doctors through tubes. Doctors measure their weight,
urine output, etc., and determine how many calories they are burning as
they lie in coma. The doctors then provide them with enough calories
through those tubes to match the calories they require. Since the
calories going in match the calories being burned, people in comas do
not get fat.
People who fall into a long-term coma while obese lose weight because
doctors feed them with only enough calories to maintain a normal weight,
and not with the much larger number of calories required to maintain
them in an obese state. As a result, their bodies develop a calorie
deficit, and burn fat to make up the deficit, until they lose enough
weight that the calories necessary to maintain their weight matches the
calories they receive through feeding. Doctors calculate this so that
the patients converge on a normal body weight. Thus, all long-term
comatose patients are normal in weight.
The key observation in this scenario is that it removes the ability of
the patient himself to control his calories. Obese people eat too much.
That's why they gain weight. But a person in a coma cannot eat too
much; he cannot eat at all. Thus, he gets only what he is given, and
since he is fed by doctors who wish to maintain him at an optimal
weight, he gets only what is required for that optimal weight. And so
the patient does not get fat, and if he is fat to begin with, he loses
weight until his weight is normal.
This is a perfect illustration of the reality that most obese people
don't want to face: maintaining a calorie deficit is the only way to
lose weight. It always works. And no other method works at all.
Mxsmanic
> Low calorie diets are an *extremely* effective means of losing weight.
Yes. Many fat people haven't the discipline to follow them, but those
who do invariably do not remain fat.
Mxsmanic
> This is common and very ancient knowledge but the technique is how are you
> going to consume low calories and keep with the ritual?
That's a problem that every individual has to resolve for himself. Fat
people have a real problem resolving it, which is why they stay fat.
But the fact remains that any hypocaloric diet produces weight loss,
without exception. And no diet that _isn't_ hypocaloric can produce
weight loss.
Dally
> Actualy I was only making fun of your stupid American assumptions. Most of
> the world does not weigh things in pounds but rather grams and kilograms,
> referring to body weights.
>
> Get with the 1980's. You will have to specify, if you want to post to the
> whole world instead of your usual tiny world.
Fair enough.
Dally
ma...@toad-net.com
you base your new theory of weight status without reference to calorie
status. I don't want to quibble about the existence of past research
which manipulates calories for various research ends and illustrate the
relationship to weight status, they exist. Here is but one, the easiest to
recall and put my hands on, as requested, one time free subscription
required:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/469768_3
It says in short that there are many factors as to the specific effect of
amount of calories in and metabolism of same and the final weight loss.
There is no surprise here, all human biological activities exibit
themselves in a bell curve. But, if you read the article, in a controlled
situation where input is measured in a controlled in hospital situation,
all lost weight with lower calories. Because of the range of variation to
x amount of calories in/out and weight status, we cann't conclude that the
in/out notion fails, just that there are real limits to the in/out and the
final result in all people is a change in weight status. Knowing this
biological reality doesn't disprove the calorie in/out approach to
creating a plan to lose or gain weight, it just says what the most usual
result is for the great majority of folk who fall in the wide middle of
the curve;ie. 500 cal/day/week = 1 lb lost. I suggest you read the entire
series, parts 1 and 2:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470747
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/469768
I suggest you read the "current concensus" link on the first url above as
the basis by which you frame the extraordinary evidence which displases
that concensus.
Pizza Girl
"Dally" <da...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:c2vnna$224bjl$1...@ID-217902.news.uni-berlin.de...
Pizza Girl
"Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:HuJ43...@bath.ac.uk...
Pizza Girl
Don't twist your own words. The word "Try" ws including in the original post
and this is just not true. Most people cannot do it for a required length of
time.
When will you basement diet specialists get over yourselves and realize
dieting/losing weight takes a lot of psychology to make it work?
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mdn6501scbmcqeeis...@4ax.com...
Pizza Girl
from the bones and deplete other organs.
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1gn650t4jbcg7c6q7...@4ax.com...
> Therefore, if a person doesn't consume
> enough calories to meet the energy requirements of his body, body fat
> will be burned to provide the required calories. .
Tim Tyler
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Therefore, if a person doesn't consume
> > enough calories to meet the energy requirements of his body, body fat
> > will be burned to provide the required calories. .
>
> Another error in logic. Your body will burn off proteins and use up minerals
> from the bones and deplete other organs.
Maybe a /little/ bit if fat is really hard to come by.
Normally, body fat is the first thing to be burned.
Pizza Girl
lose much subcutaneous fat also from their muscle mass when in the
"sculpting" phase which can account for much of their muscle mass loss.
This is a problem with people dieting and not doing weight bearing exercises
to compensate. They lose as much muscle mass as they do fat and when
regaining their weight are left with lower metabolisms muchly due to less
muscle mass.
"Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:HuJD3...@bath.ac.uk...
Dally
> Bodybuilders will disagree with you vehemently on that one. Of course, they
> lose much subcutaneous fat also from their muscle mass when in the
> "sculpting" phase which can account for much of their muscle mass loss.
I'm a weight-lifter (not a bodybuilder, that's about strutting, I'm
about lifting heavy things.) I absolutely do NOT understand what you
mean. Yes, I am losing subcutaneous fat. But that is NOT part of my
muscle mass loss. That's fat loss.
I've got three kinds of fat - brown fat (tends to be on my thighs),
organ fat (nestled around my organs) and subcutaneous fat. I'm finding
that it's quite a trick to partition where the fat loss comes from.
(I've had plenty of practice losing 65 pounds.) The absolute truth is
that it will come from lean body mass at least equally (if not
preferentially) if you go into starvation mode and aren't doing
resistance training. That's because you body wants to dump the
metabolic hogs when you're starving, i.e., waste the muscles.
I've been hypocaloric for something like 22 months now. I lose lean
body mass unless I use it. I'm down 55 pounds of fat and 10 pounds of
muscle and that ratio is a testament to my weight-training and the slow
rate at which I'm losing.
> This is a problem with people dieting and not doing weight bearing exercises
> to compensate. They lose as much muscle mass as they do fat and when
> regaining their weight are left with lower metabolisms muchly due to less
> muscle mass.
Yup.
Dally
Doug Freese
Tim Tyler wrote:
> tcomeau <tund...@hotmail.com> wrote or quoted:
> Er - isn't it about time to get in touch with ground control?
Why bother he would say they all part of the "big Calorie
conspiracy." He still thinks the world is flat and Dolly Parton
wears falsies.
--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"
dfre...@NOBShvc.rr.com
Doug Freese
tcomeau wrote:
> If that were true then anyone who wanted to be thin and followed the
> low-fat/low-calorie diet would be thin. Period. But that ain't the
> case, is it?
They do low-fat but NOT low calorie. Still parroting the same
jabberwocky.
> Has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics. It is several
> levels removed from the laws of thermo. Applying the laws of thermo to
> weight control is extreme oversimplification and sheer stupid
> assumption.
And we get get to outer space by soaring on air currents.
> Then show me ONE!
Why, you wil simply claim it's a conspiracy to hold your fabricated
position.
> Otherwise Shut the f... up.
You can always tell when TC is backed in a corner, he resorts to
mature scientic language.
Pizza Girl
usually need the extra bulk for the power and support of the structure.
Subcutaneous fat is the fat in the muscle tissue that makes the muscle
massive. When you try to "cut-up" you lose much of this fat and the muscle
size diminishes.
"Dally" <da...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:c30asp$22m282$1...@ID-217902.news.uni-berlin.de...
Mxsmanic
> There are fat people everywhere proving your statement incorrect.
There are no such people. Put them on a hypocaloric diet under
controlled conditions, and they will lose weight. There have never been
any exceptions.
> Most people cannot do it for a required length of time.
Perhaps so, but the fact remains that as long as their diet is
hypocaloric, they'll lose weight.
> When will you basement diet specialists get over yourselves and realize
> dieting/losing weight takes a lot of psychology to make it work?
Maybe it does, but the first step in that psychology is recognizing one
hard fact: you have to eat less than you burn in order to lose weight.
This is what a great many fat people refuse to accept. They want to
overeat _and_ lose weight, and that cannot happen. They'll accept any
quack science that says that calories don't matter, but they'll reject
the one proven reality, which says that calories _do_ matter, always.
Mxsmanic
> Another error in logic. Your body will burn off proteins and use up minerals
> from the bones and deplete other organs.
It will burn fat as well, and it burns fat faster than it burns anything
else. I simplified for brevity, even though I knew that someone would
probably try to divert attention from the harsh reality by bringing up
details.
Mxsmanic
> Maybe a /little/ bit if fat is really hard to come by.
You need 30 g or so of protein per day to replace protein lost through
"wear and tear," so you should continue to consume protein even on a
hypocaloric diet. Also, protein can provide glucose, which is important
in the initial stages of a fast.
However, all of this applies mainly to fasting and severely hypocaloric
diets. If you reduce your calorie intake by 200 or 500 kcal per day,
and you continue to eat a balanced diet, you don't have to worry about
loss of protein or bone mass or anything like that. You'll just lose
fat.
> Normally, body fat is the first thing to be burned.
It's the primary energy store of the body. As soon as the glucose and
glycogen run out (in about a day, if you don't eat), the fat starts to
go.
Mxsmanic
> Bodybuilders will disagree with you vehemently on that one.
Bodybuilders generally don't know anything about nutrition. They hardly
even know anything about muscles. Like many athletes, they depend a lot
on superstition and urban legend, and much less on science.
But normal people trying to lose weight are not bodybuilders, so that
doesn't matter.
> This is a problem with people dieting and not doing weight bearing exercises
> to compensate. They lose as much muscle mass as they do fat and when
> regaining their weight are left with lower metabolisms muchly due to less
> muscle mass.
There's nothing wrong with this. The less weight you carry, the less
muscle you need, so you lose the muscle that isn't required to carry the
weight. The lower metabolism is normal, too, because you have less body
mass to feed.
Mxsmanic
> Why would you try to lose fat if you are not body building?
Because obesity is a serious health hazard.
Tim Tyler
> Why would you try to lose fat if you are not body building? [...]
Most of the millions of folks on diets are doing it to lose fat tissue.
Basically, too much fat predisposes you to many illnesses - and makes you
look and feel unhealthy and unfit.
Pizza Girl
troll and also to stop feeding them.
Mxmaniac off
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:51985057vda5or97q...@4ax.com...
Pizza Girl
better. Try to focus between the beginning of a sentence and the end. A
sentence usually means one idea or concept and you appear to have trouble
with that concept.
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:559850pqme30795tu...@4ax.com...
Laurel Amberdine
> Pizza Girl writes:
>
>> There are fat people everywhere proving your statement incorrect.
>
> There are no such people. Put them on a hypocaloric diet under
> controlled conditions, and they will lose weight. There have never been
> any exceptions.
>
>> Most people cannot do it for a required length of time.
>
> Perhaps so, but the fact remains that as long as their diet is
> hypocaloric, they'll lose weight.
Hrmn, well. I don't know about that. There's me, and
while I am certainly weird, I am probably not the only
one. Even if I am the only one, one case is enough to
disprove your blanket assertion.
If I drop my calories I (sequentially):
(1) start to feel extremely bad
(2) get invaded by a virus
(3) develop an irregular heartbeat
(4) start fainting
...all without having lost any weight.
At this point, I go back to eating normally because the
fainting distresses my husband. It looks to me like
whatever hormone it is that says "get some fuel out of
storage" isn't working for me. (What is it? Glucagon?
I haven't looked this stuff up in years.)
Anyway, just because you are fortunate enough to have
all your bodily systems working properly, don't assume
that is the case for everyone.
--
- Laurel * * * http://amberdine.com
Mxsmanic
> There's me, and while I am certainly weird, I am
> probably not the only one.
You are not an exception to the rule.
> If I drop my calories I (sequentially):
>
> (1) start to feel extremely bad
> (2) get invaded by a virus
> (3) develop an irregular heartbeat
> (4) start fainting
>
> ...all without having lost any weight.
Whatever this may be, it has nothing to do with weight loss.
If you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight.
> At this point, I go back to eating normally because the
> fainting distresses my husband. It looks to me like
> whatever hormone it is that says "get some fuel out of
> storage" isn't working for me.
Your symptoms are suggestive of pathology. You should consult a
physician and describe your history in detail. Viral infections,
arrythmias, and syncope are not normal consequences of a hypocaloric
diet ... even fasting does not normally produce these symptoms.
> What is it? Glucagon? I haven't looked this stuff up in years.
Defects in glucose metabolism (such as diabetes mellitus and chronic or
acute hypoglycemic episodes) can produce symptoms similar to yours.
These are serious conditions that must be investigated medically, by a
doctor.
> Anyway, just because you are fortunate enough to have
> all your bodily systems working properly, don't assume
> that is the case for everyone.
No matter what bodily systems you may have that are not working, you
will still lose weight on a hypocaloric diet. There is no pathological
condition that can prevent this.
Some pathological conditions can interfere with weight gain on a
hypercaloric diet, but nothing can stop weight loss on a hypocaloric
diet.
Laurel Amberdine
> Laurel Amberdine writes:
>
>> There's me, and while I am certainly weird, I am
>> probably not the only one.
>
> You are not an exception to the rule.
Oh good. Then I shouldn't have any problems.
>> If I drop my calories I (sequentially):
>>
>> (1) start to feel extremely bad
>> (2) get invaded by a virus
>> (3) develop an irregular heartbeat
>> (4) start fainting
>>
>> ...all without having lost any weight.
>
> Whatever this may be, it has nothing to do with weight loss.
Then... why does it only happen when I either increase
my exercise or decrease my calories? And why does it only
occur when I cannot lose weight? (In the past I have been able
to succesfully drop fat. This situation only occurs when I am
unusually stressed.)
> If you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight.
There may be another option. I agree that someone cannot
exist without using energy.
>> At this point, I go back to eating normally because the
>> fainting distresses my husband. It looks to me like
>> whatever hormone it is that says "get some fuel out of
>> storage" isn't working for me.
>
> Your symptoms are suggestive of pathology. You should consult a
> physician and describe your history in detail. Viral infections,
> arrythmias, and syncope are not normal consequences of a hypocaloric
> diet ... even fasting does not normally produce these symptoms.
I know. I didn't say it was normal, only that it happened.
>> What is it? Glucagon? I haven't looked this stuff up in years.
>
> Defects in glucose metabolism (such as diabetes mellitus and chronic or
> acute hypoglycemic episodes) can produce symptoms similar to yours.
> These are serious conditions that must be investigated medically, by a
> doctor.
I've seen my doctor very recently. I appear to be extremely
healthy (except for my being too fat, which the doctor doesn't
seem very concerned about, bah.)
>> Anyway, just because you are fortunate enough to have
>> all your bodily systems working properly, don't assume
>> that is the case for everyone.
>
> No matter what bodily systems you may have that are not working, you
> will still lose weight on a hypocaloric diet. There is no pathological
> condition that can prevent this.
Really? It must be nice to know everything.
Pizza Girl
times. He is either trolling for attention or a complete idiot.
You decide. I have killfiltered him won't see him anymore except for when
you repeat his garbage.
Thanx for understanding.
"Laurel Amberdine" <cir...@mtco.com> wrote in message
news:c32mej$21ulna$1...@ID-45790.news.uni-berlin.de...
Laurel Amberdine
> LA...this guy is trolling for bites here. He has rolled his argument several
> times. He is either trolling for attention or a complete idiot.
>
> You decide. I have killfiltered him won't see him anymore except for when
> you repeat his garbage.
>
> Thanx for understanding.
Ah, sorry for dragging it on. I have reached my quota of
contentious posts anyhow. :)
Doug Freese
Laurel Amberdine wrote:
> I've seen my doctor very recently. I appear to be extremely
> healthy (except for my being too fat, which the doctor doesn't
> seem very concerned about, bah.)
Then maybe you should define what you consider fat.
>
>
>>>Anyway, just because you are fortunate enough to have
>>>all your bodily systems working properly, don't assume
>>>that is the case for everyone.
Then you better find a better/another doctor because you do have a
problem. You can be as smug as you like but if your condition is
such that the modification to exercise or food causes fainting, YOU
HAVE A PROBLEM. Then again you never said what or how much food you
eliminated or how much exercise.
> Really? It must be nice to know everything.
Seems like you hiding from the facts or trying to justify your
excess weight or just busting chops with silly dialog.
Laurel Amberdine
>
> Laurel Amberdine wrote:
>
>> I've seen my doctor very recently. I appear to be extremely
>> healthy (except for my being too fat, which the doctor doesn't
>> seem very concerned about, bah.)
>
> Then maybe you should define what you consider fat.
Sorry, I'm being too flip. I did actually want help
(which was why I began the other thread). I just get
annoyed when people make blanket statements about
knowing *everything*.
Um, too fat? About 75 lbs overweight, as far as I can
tell. Even considering possible error, there's still some
significant fat to lose.
>>>>Anyway, just because you are fortunate enough to have
>>>>all your bodily systems working properly, don't assume
>>>>that is the case for everyone.
>
> Then you better find a better/another doctor because you do have a
> problem.
I have LOTS of problems. I've managed to control some of
them. This doctor is as helpful as any I've found in many
years of searching.
I only mentioned to him the fact that I keep coming down with
a cold every time I try to lose weight. I don't let it get
further than that anymore. He suggested drinking more water. :p
> You can be as smug as you like but if your condition is
> such that the modification to exercise or food causes fainting, YOU
> HAVE A PROBLEM. Then again you never said what or how much food you
> eliminated or how much exercise.
See other thread for brief details. I didn't want to get into
a great long summary of my habits if no one had any ideas or
wanted to discuss it.
>> Really? It must be nice to know everything.
>
> Seems like you hiding from the facts or trying to justify your
> excess weight or just busting chops with silly dialog.
I just spent too much time online today and I'm cranky. Sorry.
(BTW, I remember you from rec.running. Hi!)
Mxsmanic
> Oh good. Then I shouldn't have any problems.
Not for losing weight, no. If you eat less than you burn, you'll lose
weight, just like everyone else.
> Then... why does it only happen when I either increase
> my exercise or decrease my calories?
I don't know. Ask a doctor. It could be an endocrine disorder, it
could be heart disease ... it could be lots of things. But whatever it
is, you'll still lose weight on a hypocaloric diet. Everyone does.
> And why does it only occur when I cannot lose weight?
If you eat fewer calories than you burn, you will ALWAYS lose weight.
> There may be another option.
There are no other options. You cannot eat less than you burn without
losing weight. If you don't take in enough fuel to keep your body
running, your body will burn fat (mostly) to get the fuel it needs. If
you have no fat to burn, you'll die of starvation very quickly if you
don't eat all the calories you need.
> I know. I didn't say it was normal, only that it happened.
So see your doctor.
> I've seen my doctor very recently. I appear to be extremely
> healthy (except for my being too fat, which the doctor doesn't
> seem very concerned about, bah.)
And what did he say about all these symptoms?
Being too fat can cause a world of problems. Your doctor may simply
have assumed that you won't be able to stick to a diet, so there's no
point in suggesting one. Or your extra weight is slight enough that it
isn't a health risk.
> Really?
Guaranteed.
> It must be nice to know everything.
I wouldn't know. But I do know that physical systems obey certain laws,
and among those are the laws of thermodynamics, and these laws govern
weight loss. If you eat less than you burn, you lose weight, and that
is absolute, no exceptions.
Mxsmanic
> Sorry, I'm being too flip. I did actually want help
> (which was why I began the other thread). I just get
> annoyed when people make blanket statements about
> knowing *everything*.
Nobody has made any such statements in this thread.
> Um, too fat? About 75 lbs overweight, as far as I can
> tell. Even considering possible error, there's still some
> significant fat to lose.
It's also a significant health risk.
> I only mentioned to him the fact that I keep coming down with
> a cold every time I try to lose weight. I don't let it get
> further than that anymore.
What do you mean when you say "I don't let it get further"?
Doug Freese
Laurel Amberdine wrote:
> I just spent too much time online today and I'm cranky. Sorry.
> (BTW, I remember you from rec.running. Hi!)
Hi and it's not that I have never been considered cranky either, ask
TC. :) I simply find it hard to believe there isn't something amiss.
I sense your frustration and don't want you to accept this food
exercise relationship i.e. excess weight as your fate. I at least
hope your doctor is an alleged (my choice of words) specialist and
not a garden variety GP although the suggestion to drink more water
leaves me arid. I would at least expect an instant 5 pound loss from
the lab people pulling blood searching for an explanation.
A dear friend had lymes and it took her doctor 9 months to diagnose
even after she insisted she only started having problems after she
got the lymes shot. I'm suggesting that if your current doctor's
final answer is to drink more water, then look for another opinion.
Good luck!!!
The sad part, there used to be a set of MD's hanging out here that
would lend some thoughts or direction but most of them have left
cajoled by the quacks with agendas and no science. You might try
sci.med for a lead. Hopefully the quacks haven't taken over that
group.
Dally
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:36:47 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Laurel Amberdine writes:
>>
>>
>>>There's me, and while I am certainly weird, I am
>>>probably not the only one.
>>
>>You are not an exception to the rule.
>
>
> Oh good. Then I shouldn't have any problems.
>
>
>>>If I drop my calories I (sequentially):
>>>
>>>(1) start to feel extremely bad
>>>(2) get invaded by a virus
>>>(3) develop an irregular heartbeat
>>>(4) start fainting
>>>
>>>...all without having lost any weight.
>>
>>Whatever this may be, it has nothing to do with weight loss.
>
>
> Then... why does it only happen when I either increase
> my exercise or decrease my calories? And why does it only
> occur when I cannot lose weight? (In the past I have been able
> to succesfully drop fat. This situation only occurs when I am
> unusually stressed.)
You sound like me two years ago. I couldn't lose weight no matter what
I did.
But I wasn't doing the right things, so it sort of makes sense.
The main thing I did was change my mind. I decided I didn't want to be
fat anymore so I was going to do what it took to stop being fat. I
didn't use willpower, I didn't use discipline, I used my own values as
guidelines.
I started doing high intensity interval training three days a week and
lifting weights three days a week and eating 5 or 6 times a day (keeping
calories at 8 to 10x my weight (in pounds) with roughly 1/3 of my
calories coming from each macronutrient.
I slowly repaired my insulin resistance, hypoglycemia and eventually my
obesity. I also made this into a way of life.
I'm still losing weight, but so far I've gone from 244 to 179 pounds, a
tight size 22 to a size 14. I've lost 10 inches off my waist. It is
truly astounding.
And I sounded JUST LIKE YOU two years ago.
Now I believe that people stay fat because they choose to. That's okay
with me, they get to choose. But when you choose to stop being fat you
can figure out how to do it. It doesn't turn out to be rocket science.
You may take some adjusting here and there to work out the details for
yourself, but it really does come down to eating less and exercising more.
Dally
jmk
> My husband is 5 foot 8 inches and weighs 220 pounds. He walks 2 miles a day, at
> a slow or moderate pace. I have some questions about calories and dieting.
>
> How many calories would he burn per mile?
See http://caloriesperhour.com/
> How many calories would he normally need each day?
Many recommend 8x - 10x body weight for weight loss so 1760 - 2200
calories per day would be the right ballpark.
>
> How many calories are in each pound of fat on him?
1 pound = 3500 calories
>
> How many calories should he take in daily, to lose 2 pounds per week?
For a loss of 2 pounds per week he'd need to reduce his intake by 7000
calories per week or 1000 calories per day.
--
jmk in NC
Laurel Amberdine
> Laurel Amberdine writes:
>
>> tell. Even considering possible error, there's still some
>> significant fat to lose.
>
> It's also a significant health risk.
I know, which is why I am interested in doing so.
>> I only mentioned to him the fact that I keep coming down with
>> a cold every time I try to lose weight. I don't let it get
>> further than that anymore.
>
> What do you mean when you say "I don't let it get further"?
I stop exercising and eat a little bit more, at least until
I get over the cold.
Laurel Amberdine
> Laurel Amberdine wrote:
>>
>> Then... why does it only happen when I either increase
>> my exercise or decrease my calories? And why does it only
>> occur when I cannot lose weight? (In the past I have been able
>> to succesfully drop fat. This situation only occurs when I am
>> unusually stressed.)
>
> obesity. I also made this into a way of life.
>
> I'm still losing weight, but so far I've gone from 244 to 179 pounds, a
> tight size 22 to a size 14. I've lost 10 inches off my waist. It is
> truly astounding.
>
> And I sounded JUST LIKE YOU two years ago.
>
> Now I believe that people stay fat because they choose to. That's okay
> with me, they get to choose. But when you choose to stop being fat you
> can figure out how to do it. It doesn't turn out to be rocket science.
> You may take some adjusting here and there to work out the details for
> yourself, but it really does come down to eating less and exercising more.
Actually, I do know this.
I used to be much more fat. Then I began running, and eventually
was running about ~2 hours a day. I lost over 90 lbs. I developed
a problem with my left foot, which makes it so I cannot run very
much.
I have been slowly regaining weight ever since. This has, in the
past few months, become more noticable, as there were a lot of
stressful incidents, which cut into my "normal" (if less than I'd
like) running schedule of 30 minutes, 3x/week. It lead to a rather
quick 5lb gain, which was really noticable.
So I decided this had to stop. I began to eat less, measuring
everything, recording what I ate, and adding exercise to two other
days a week.
I got a cold after about four days. Bleah. Had to stop
exercising. Went back to eating at a more maintenance level.
Tried again a couple weeks later. Same thing, reduced diet, a
smidge more exercise. Came down with a stomach virus. Didn't wind
up eating at all because I was too nauseous. Took about three
weeks to get over that.
Tried *again* just two weeks ago. This time just diet (and a couple
hundred more calories a day). And no additional exercise, just my
normal three runs. Got a cold.
ARRGH! I hadn't had a cold in over three years. I hadn't had
stomach flu in.... geez, 20 years? Maybe this is a coincidence,
but I don't want to play with it. I have asthma; getting a cold is
not a trivial thing.
Now, this trying-to-lose-weight-leading-to-an-illness used to
happen to me many years ago too, though it took me a long time to
see the pattern. I don't know why, when I first started running, I
managed to do okay. I don't know what's different, except maybe my
ambient stress level.
I thought someone might know, I don't know, a supplement, or suggest
that I might not be eating enough X, or whatever. I guess I'm sorry
to have asked. I'll go try to figure it out myself.
(Now, though I don't want to get into detail, I do have a
long history strange health problems and food sensitivities. I used
to feel sick 95% of the time. Through a lot of research and some
people's help on this very newsgroup, I figured out how to take care
of that -- I take magnesium and fish oil, and I don't eat loads of
carbohydrates, and now I'm okay, in that regard at least.)
Laurel Amberdine
> Laurel Amberdine wrote:
>
>> I just spent too much time online today and I'm cranky. Sorry.
>> (BTW, I remember you from rec.running. Hi!)
>
> Hi and it's not that I have never been considered cranky either, ask
> TC. :) I simply find it hard to believe there isn't something amiss.
Oh, of course there's something amiss. I just don't know what. I
thought there was a possibility of nutritional deficit. Thus, my
question.
> I sense your frustration and don't want you to accept this food
> exercise relationship i.e. excess weight as your fate.
Sigh. Me neither.
> I at least
> hope your doctor is an alleged (my choice of words) specialist and
> not a garden variety GP although the suggestion to drink more water
> leaves me arid. I would at least expect an instant 5 pound loss from
> the lab people pulling blood searching for an explanation.
Hee. He's just a "family doctor". I go to him to get refills for
my prescriptions, which requires regular check ups. Since I was
there, I asked. I didn't expect this issue to be something he
could address well.
> A dear friend had lymes and it took her doctor 9 months to diagnose
> even after she insisted she only started having problems after she
> got the lymes shot. I'm suggesting that if your current doctor's
> final answer is to drink more water, then look for another opinion.
He did also suggest 15 minutes of exercise a day. I'm not clear on
whether he meant *only* 15, or at least 15. Hmm.
> Good luck!!!
Thank you. I'll figure it out eventually, dangit. I'm not giving
up.
> The sad part, there used to be a set of MD's hanging out here that
> would lend some thoughts or direction but most of them have left
> cajoled by the quacks with agendas and no science. You might try
> sci.med for a lead. Hopefully the quacks haven't taken over that
> group.
Oh, hmm. Yeah, I suppose. Thanks.
Laurel Amberdine
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 03:53:54 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Laurel Amberdine writes:
>
>
>> There may be another option.
>
> There are no other options. You cannot eat less than you burn without
> losing weight. If you don't take in enough fuel to keep your body
> running, your body will burn fat (mostly) to get the fuel it needs. If
> you have no fat to burn, you'll die of starvation very quickly if you
> don't eat all the calories you need.
It was the dying option I was thinking of. :(
> I wouldn't know. But I do know that physical systems obey certain laws,
> and among those are the laws of thermodynamics, and these laws govern
> weight loss. If you eat less than you burn, you lose weight, and that
> is absolute, no exceptions.
I'm kind of a physics geek, so I both understand and admire the
concept. I'm not trying to speculate about some metaphysical force
keeping me from using calories.
Pizza Girl
with what they don't know.
Seriously.
"Doug Freese" <dfr...@NOBShvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xla5c.17753$c73.6...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Pizza Girl
to stay on track. This is where the groups like WW come in for the support
and enthusiasm
Love the pound clarification...LOL
"Dally" <da...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:c33enm$23dt6d$1...@ID-217902.news.uni-berlin.de...
Pizza Girl
fill up the tummy sometimes.
"Laurel Amberdine" <cir...@mtco.com> wrote in message
news:c34ou3$23t8sc$2...@ID-45790.news.uni-berlin.de...
Doug Freese
Pizza Girl wrote:
> All the docs are over at misc.health.alternative making asses of themselves
> with what they don't know.
> Seriously.
Why, because they don't your toxin BS?
Pizza Girl
"Doug Freese" <dfr...@NOBShvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:S4t5c.50525$Wo2....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
tcomeau
> I don't want you to go away, just provide the scientific evidence on which
> you base your new theory of weight status without reference to calorie
> status. I don't want to quibble about the existence of past research
> which manipulates calories for various research ends and illustrate the
> relationship to weight status, they exist. Here is but one, the easiest to
> recall and put my hands on, as requested, one time free subscription
> required:
>
> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/469768_3
There is much evidence to, at the very least, question the validity of
directly applying the math of calories to weight management. There was
the one study that showed that low-carbers can eat as much as 300 cals
more than low-fat doeters and still lose the same or more weight. If
you contend that the laws of thermo are *directly* applicable to the
human body in terms of direct mathematical weight management then this
is the example that disproves it.
The simple matter is that if restricting calories were all that
mattered, then anyone, and I mean ANYONE could easily lose weight any
time they wanted to. It is so easy to go a few days or weeks and
simply moderately restrict all food intake that virtually anyone could
do it. But it remains that 60% or so of the american public is obese,
including a huge number of people who genuinely attempt to restrict
calories and actually succeed in restricting calories but always seem
to fail in actually losing weight in the end.
>
> It says in short that there are many factors as to the specific effect of
> amount of calories in and metabolism of same and the final weight loss.
> There is no surprise here, all human biological activities exibit
> themselves in a bell curve.
The bell curve. Glad you brought that up. A number of studies have
indicated that as many as 95% to 98% of those who restrict fat and
calories fail to lose weight. Statistically that means that
restricting calories fails to the third standard deviation. The curve
is upside down. At first glance one could almost argue that
restricting calories actually causes weight gain and vice versa. But
if you look a bit closer and beyond just the numbers of calories you
will see that the method employed to lose weight involves restricting
fats and proteins and increasing the consumption of carbs, and more
often than not refined carbs. Hence my argument that macro-nutrient
intake impacts hormones(insulin/glucagon) which impacts weight gain
and fat storage.
But, if you read the article, in a controlled
> situation where input is measured in a controlled in hospital situation,
> all lost weight with lower calories. Because of the range of variation to
> x amount of calories in/out and weight status, we cann't conclude that the
> in/out notion fails, just that there are real limits to the in/out and the
> final result in all people is a change in weight status. Knowing this
> biological reality doesn't disprove the calorie in/out approach to
> creating a plan to lose or gain weight, it just says what the most usual
> result is for the great majority of folk who fall in the wide middle of
> the curve;ie. 500 cal/day/week = 1 lb lost. I suggest you read the entire
> series, parts 1 and 2:
>
> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470747
>
> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/469768
>
> I suggest you read the "current concensus" link on the first url above as
> the basis by which you frame the extraordinary evidence which displases
> that concensus.
The current consensus has been wrong for generations. Is that
possible? Many of us believe so. Why? Because the consensus has
failed. If the consensus were correct, then obesity would not be a
problem for those willing to apply a modicum of effort to lose weight,
but we know that even those who work hard at losing weight by
restricting calories are more likely to fail then they are to succeed.
Studies are showing, consistently I may add, that low-carb works
significantly better than low-fat. That is now an acknowledged fact.
The low-fat ideologist must now explain what the science is behind
their failed program. We are beyond the stage where the low-carb group
needs to explain anything.
So, show us one or more of the following:
1) The seminal study or series of studies that established once and
for all that calories are directly applicable to the typical human in
terms of weight gain or loss.
2) The names(s) of the ground breaking researcher(s) that came up with
this breakthrough finding.
or
3) The definitive proof to support the calorie concept in any form
whatsoever.
or
4) A clear and precise explanation of the exact biological process
that occurs in the human body that triggers fat storage or fat usage
in direct response to calorie intake. How does the body respond to a
low-calorie diet to cause it to burn fat and how does it respond to a
high-calorie diet that causes the body to store fat and how does it
know what state it is in. I want the basic metabolic pathways, the
specific bio-chemical responses and the trigger mechanism that causes
the fat cells to stor or burn fat.
The ball is in the court of the low-calorie camp. It is time put your
money where your mouth is. Low-carbers, including myself, have done
what they can to make their argument. And all the low-fatters have
done is a bunch of high-handed arrogant derision and name-calling. Put
up or shut up.
TC
ma...@toad-net.com
Two things in responce, the calorie balance to account for weight status
has been demonstrated, the original request, that point is now mute.
Second, the only long term studies comparing various diet approaches shows
that at the year mark weight status was similar for all and that the drop
out rate was similar for all. Most of the responce, see reference
article, took on the nature of strawmen type arguments. All the mention
that folk are over weight and it is due to faulty science on the topic
falls flat. People are over weight because they consume more energy then
is required for metabolism and tissue repair. Atkins never claimed his
presentation, he didn't invent the notion, was an exception to science,
just that it made weight loss somewhat easier. All of the human reasons
for consuming excess calories remains even with his model, as the long
term studies amply show and people will regain weight for all the reasons
people do on all diets, they stop doing it. When they resume eating more
calories, they gain weight.
Mxsmanic
> It does not require extraordinary proof when the initial theory itself
> was never proven.
The initial theory is proved every day.
> If it was indeed "proven" then such
> an important breakthrough would be well known to all in terms of when
> and who proved it.
And it is.
> Please provide me this info and I will meekly go away.
Go to any hospital or clinic and take a look. The principles of weight
loss are as well known and as well established as any in medicine.
> Give me the study and the name of the researcher who proved with certainty that
> calories could be used to accurately predict weight loss or gain in
> humans. Should be easy, since it is such a fundamental principle in
> nutrition.
Just about every doctor has seen the proof. So has anyone who has
actually undertaken a truly hypocaloric diet.
Show me the study and the name of the researcher who proved with
certainty that the sun actually rises in the east.
Mxsmanic
> There is much evidence to, at the very least, question the validity of
> directly applying the math of calories to weight management. There was
> the one study that showed that low-carbers can eat as much as 300 cals
> more than low-fat doeters and still lose the same or more weight.
The source of calories is irrelevant. All that matters is the size of
the deficit. A deficit of 500 kcal (that is, eating 500 kcal less than
the body requires) per day will produce a weight loss of 1 lb per week,
in everyone, no matter what their source of calories.
Incidentally, if you are asking for specific links to studies, then you
should also provide specific links to the ones you cite, and not simply
refer to "the one study."
> If you contend that the laws of thermo are *directly* applicable to the
> human body in terms of direct mathematical weight management then this
> is the example that disproves it.
There is no study such as you describe. Everything obeys the laws of
thermodynamics.
> The simple matter is that if restricting calories were all that
> mattered, then anyone, and I mean ANYONE could easily lose weight any
> time they wanted to.
And that is exactly the case. Eat less than you burn, and you'll lose
weight. Always. No exceptions.
> It is so easy to go a few days or weeks and
> simply moderately restrict all food intake that virtually anyone could
> do it.
Exactly.
> But it remains that 60% or so of the american public is obese,
> including a huge number of people who genuinely attempt to restrict
> calories and actually succeed in restricting calories but always seem
> to fail in actually losing weight in the end.
That's because they start overeating again.
> The bell curve. Glad you brought that up. A number of studies have
> indicated that as many as 95% to 98% of those who restrict fat and
> calories fail to lose weight.
Nobody on a hypocaloric diet fails to lose weight.
Remember, provide the links to your studies, not just "a number of
studies." You wanted specific references, so it's up to you to practice
what you preach.
> Statistically that means that restricting calories fails
> to the third standard deviation.
Hypocaloric diets never fail.
> At first glance one could almost argue that
> restricting calories actually causes weight gain and vice versa.
It's important to look beyond a first glance.
> But if you look a bit closer and beyond just the numbers of calories you
> will see that the method employed to lose weight involves restricting
> fats and proteins and increasing the consumption of carbs, and more
> often than not refined carbs.
The source of calories has nothing to do with weight loss.
> Hence my argument that macro-nutrient intake impacts
> hormones(insulin/glucagon) which impacts weight gain
> and fat storage.
Total calories is all that matters in weight loss.
> The current consensus has been wrong for generations.
Because you say so?
> Is that possible? Many of us believe so.
It's possible, but believing it is so doesn't make it so. Where are
your references?
> Why? Because the consensus has failed.
The consensus has not failed. Hypocaloric diets always produce weight
loss.
> If the consensus were correct, then obesity would not be a
> problem for those willing to apply a modicum of effort to lose weight,
> but we know that even those who work hard at losing weight by
> restricting calories are more likely to fail then they are to succeed.
There are no such people. Anyone who follows a hypocaloric diet will
lose weight. People who claim to follow such a diet and yet do not lose
weight are either lying or counting calories inaccurately.
> Studies are showing, consistently I may add, that low-carb works
> significantly better than low-fat.
Low-calorie is the only type of diet that works. Whether the calories
are carbohydrates or fat is irrelevant.
> That is now an acknowledged fact.
No, it isn't. Where are your references?
> We are beyond the stage where the low-carb group
> needs to explain anything.
The low-carb group seems to be somewhat of a cult. Mainstream medical
science recognizes that only hypocaloric diets produce weight loss.
> So, show us one or more of the following:
Wait a minute ... where are _your_ references? You keep asking for
references, but you've provided virtually none of your own. Why the
double standard?
> 1) The seminal study or series of studies that established once and
> for all that calories are directly applicable to the typical human in
> terms of weight gain or loss.
There is no "seminal study." It has been self-evident for as long as
medicine has existed. Just as there is no "seminal study" that proves
that the sun rises each day, there is no single study that establishes
that hypocaloric diets produce weight loss. It is too obvious to merit
a study. However, studies have been done that prove the principle under
tightly controlled conditions, again and again.
> 4) A clear and precise explanation of the exact biological process
> that occurs in the human body that triggers fat storage or fat usage
> in direct response to calorie intake.
Not required.
The human body expends a certain amount of energy each day to remain
alive. The only source of this energy is air and dietary calories.
Everyone breathes continuously, so air supply is a constant. The only
variable is the intake of dietary calories. If this intake exceeds the
energy requirements of the body, excess calories are either excreted or
stored, usually as glycogen or fat (which produces weight gain). If the
intake is insufficient to meet the body's energy requirements, the body
will turn to stored energy in the form of glucose, glycogen, fat and
protein, in roughly that order--and this produces weight loss as the
stored energy sources are consumed. If no stored energy is available
and the intake remains hypocaloric, death results.
> How does the body respond to a low-calorie diet to cause it
> to burn fat ...
See above.
> ... and how does it respond to a high-calorie diet that causes
> the body to store fat ...
See above.
> ... and how does it know what state it is in.
Over the short term, by monitoring nutrient status in the blood. For
example, falling glucose levels trigger processes that release glucose
into the blood, such as conversion of glycogen to glucose.
> I want the basic metabolic pathways, the
> specific bio-chemical responses and the trigger mechanism that causes
> the fat cells to stor or burn fat.
All of these are abundantly documented in many medical texts. There is
no point in duplicating them here, particularly since even the basic
pathways are complex.
> The ball is in the court of the low-calorie camp.
The efficacy of hypocaloric diets in producing weight loss is not
disputed by anyone in the medical community. As I've said, it's about
as uncertain as sunrise.
> It is time put your money where your mouth is.
I've seen more references by your opponents than from yourself already.
> Low-carbers, including myself, have done
> what they can to make their argument.
In that case, you are not likely to persuade anyone.
> And all the low-fatters have done is a bunch of high-handed arrogant
> derision and name-calling. Put up or shut up.
Who has said anything about low fat? Hypocaloric diets produce weight
loss. It doesn't matter where the calories come from.
"randy_gallimore"_http://ran23.quickpros.biz
metabolism, will bburn fat,
protein will build muscles, but with sleep deprivation, one will eat more
cals next day, as sugar and fatty foods
hoping to recover from the loss.
tcomeau
So, show us one or more of the following:
1) The seminal study or series of studies that established once and
for all that calories are directly applicable to the typical human in
terms of weight gain or loss.
2) The names(s) of the ground breaking researcher(s) that came up with
this breakthrough finding.
or
3) The definitive proof to support the calorie concept in any form
whatsoever.
or
4) A clear and precise explanation of the exact biological process
that occurs in the human body that triggers fat storage or fat usage
in direct response to calorie intake. How does the body respond to a
low-calorie diet to cause it to burn fat and how does it respond to a
high-calorie diet that causes the body to store fat and how does it
know what state it is in. I want the basic metabolic pathways, the
specific bio-chemical responses and the trigger mechanism that causes
the fat cells to stor or burn fat.
TC
Mxsmanic
> So, show us one or more of the following:
You mean "me," not "us." You seem to be the only person who doubts the
applicability of thermodynamics to human bodies.
Here's an interesting article, although not exactly on this precise
topic:
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
Mxsmanic
> you don't have to do away with cals to lose weight, with proper sleep, exercise,
> metabolism, will bburn fat ...
Same thing. You have a hypocaloric diet in either case; that is, you
are eating less than you burn. You can create a calorie deficit by
either eating less, or exercising more, or both.
ma...@toad-net.com
another strawman. You originally asked for one example and you would "go
away". Your location is not relevant, but the one example, embedded in
others, was provided. The ball is, where it always was, in your court to
provide the evidence supporting your new theory. As suggested, the
article provided you should make a fine basis from which to provide that
evidence. It's your notion, now prove it.
Moosh:)
>ma...@toad-net.com wrote in message news:<40537344$0$247$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com>...
>> I don't want you to go away, just provide the scientific evidence on which
>> you base your new theory of weight status without reference to calorie
>> status. I don't want to quibble about the existence of past research
>> which manipulates calories for various research ends and illustrate the
>> relationship to weight status, they exist. Here is but one, the easiest to
>> recall and put my hands on, as requested, one time free subscription
>> required:
>>
>> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/469768_3
>
>There is much evidence to, at the very least, question the validity of
>directly applying the math of calories to weight management.
You keep saying this but never come up with any.
>There was
>the one study that showed that low-carbers can eat as much as 300 cals
>more than low-fat doeters and still lose the same or more weight.
As this was an atrocious study that was unreplicable and didn't even
know what the insignificant weight loss was composed of -- fat,
muscle, water -- and was counterproductive even mentioning it....
> If
>you contend that the laws of thermo are *directly* applicable to the
>human body in terms of direct mathematical weight management then this
>is the example that disproves it.
If that's all you have, your reputation as an idiot is confirmed.
>The simple matter is that if restricting calories were all that
>mattered, then anyone, and I mean ANYONE could easily lose weight any
>time they wanted to.
And they can, you goose! Trouble is it is difficult to restrict
calories for some. This isn't too difficult for you, is it?
> It is so easy to go a few days or weeks and
>simply moderately restrict all food intake that virtually anyone could
>do it. But it remains that 60% or so of the american public is obese,
>including a huge number of people who genuinely attempt to restrict
>calories and actually succeed in restricting calories but always seem
>to fail in actually losing weight in the end.
And you know that they eat hypocalorically how?
>> It says in short that there are many factors as to the specific effect of
>> amount of calories in and metabolism of same and the final weight loss.
>> There is no surprise here, all human biological activities exibit
>> themselves in a bell curve.
>
>The bell curve. Glad you brought that up. A number of studies have
>indicated that as many as 95% to 98% of those who restrict fat and
>calories fail to lose weight.
So they should try eating hypocalorically. It always works, never
failed.
>Statistically that means that
>restricting calories fails to the third standard deviation.
And two plus two is not four to the third standard deviation?
Who said a little knowledge is dangerous, Sarge?
>The curve
>is upside down. At first glance one could almost argue that
>restricting calories actually causes weight gain and vice versa.
Well YOU could! And do!!!
The Don Quixote of Sci Med Nutrition :)
>But
>if you look a bit closer and beyond just the numbers of calories you
>will see that the method employed to lose weight involves restricting
>fats and proteins and increasing the consumption of carbs, and more
>often than not refined carbs.
Where do you get this total crap from. NO-ONE that I know of
recommends substituting fat and protein calories for refined carbs.
Refined foods are to be avoided. That's a given, stop trying to
sidetrack with irrelevancies.
>Hence my argument that macro-nutrient
>intake impacts hormones(insulin/glucagon) which impacts weight gain
>and fat storage.
Without a shred of evidence! Have you seen how various proteins have a
large effect on insulin secretion? How do you explain this? Or do you
just ignore inconvenient facts, as usual?
> >But, if you read the article, in a controlled
>> situation where input is measured in a controlled in hospital situation,
>> all lost weight with lower calories. Because of the range of variation to
>> x amount of calories in/out and weight status, we cann't conclude that the
>> in/out notion fails, just that there are real limits to the in/out and the
>> final result in all people is a change in weight status. Knowing this
>> biological reality doesn't disprove the calorie in/out approach to
>> creating a plan to lose or gain weight, it just says what the most usual
>> result is for the great majority of folk who fall in the wide middle of
>> the curve;ie. 500 cal/day/week = 1 lb lost. I suggest you read the entire
>> series, parts 1 and 2:
>>
>> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470747
>>
>> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/469768
>>
>> I suggest you read the "current concensus" link on the first url above as
>> the basis by which you frame the extraordinary evidence which displases
>> that concensus.
>
>The current consensus has been wrong for generations.
Yep and you are the only one in step without a shred of evidence.
But you can't see it.... Snarfffff!
> Is that
>possible?
Not without a shred of evidence.
> Many of us believe so. Why? Because the consensus has
>failed.
Many? You and TC? Who else?
>If the consensus were correct, then obesity would not be a
>problem for those willing to apply a modicum of effort to lose weight,
>but we know that even those who work hard at losing weight by
>restricting calories are more likely to fail then they are to succeed.
Can you honestly not see the difference between TRYING to restrict
calories and actually doing it? Or are you a bit soft in the head?
>Studies are showing, consistently I may add, that low-carb works
>significantly better than low-fat.
At what? Being able to restrict calories for the many syndrome X folk
around these days? I don't wonder about that at all. Still doesn't
change the fact that ALL folk who eat hypocalorically will lose fat
storage, and all folk who eat hypercalorically will gain fat store.
>That is now an acknowledged fact.
See above. I don't think you understand what you are stating is a
fact.
>The low-fat ideologist must now explain what the science is behind
>their failed program.
Calories are the only measure of whether you gain or lose body fat
stores, and fat has two-and-a-half times the calories as an equal
weight of carb or protein. Which unnecessary excess nutrient would a
sensible person restrict?
>We are beyond the stage where the low-carb group
>needs to explain anything.
No, it is a fine trick to reduce syndrome X sufferers' caloric intake,
so long as there don't turn out to be harmful long-term effects.
Trouble is you think it is a magic bullet that somehow suspends the
laws of thermodynamics. Please visit your library for a few weeks.
>So, show us one or more of the following:
>
>1) The seminal study or series of studies that established once and
>for all that calories are directly applicable to the typical human in
>terms of weight gain or loss.
Conservation of calories applies universally. It has NEVER been shown
to be invalid anywhere. If you can show it has, please do so and stop
waving your arms.
>2) The names(s) of the ground breaking researcher(s) that came up with
>this breakthrough finding.
Conservation of energy? That doesn't matter. Don't you know how
science works? No-one has ever demonstrated the breaching of these
centuries old principles. If you consider it is false somewhere, then
the onus is on you to show where, with evidence. I won't hold my
breathe coz you have been unable to show any evidence for several
years that I'm aware or your silly ravings on this group.
>or
>
>3) The definitive proof to support the calorie concept in any form
>whatsoever.
As it has never been faulted in centuries EVER! The onus is on you to
show just one tiny aberration.
>or
>
>4) A clear and precise explanation of the exact biological process
>that occurs in the human body that triggers fat storage or fat usage
>in direct response to calorie intake.
Pulllleeeeese visit your library!!!
>How does the body respond to a
>low-calorie diet to cause it to burn fat
Energy needs, you idiot. What else?
>and how does it respond to a
>high-calorie diet that causes the body to store fat and how does it
>know what state it is in.
It burns the energy it needs and stores the energy that it has in
excess. What else did you have in mind?
> I want the basic metabolic pathways, the
>specific bio-chemical responses and the trigger mechanism that causes
>the fat cells to stor or burn fat.
Read a book, ferchrissake!
>The ball is in the court of the low-calorie camp.
Try an even more elementary book on the scientific method.
You have to show something you claim to go against the universally
held scientific knowledge of centuries.
> It is time put your
>money where your mouth is.
EVERYTHING shows that energy is conserved. You want to claim
otherwise, then you have to demonstrate it.
> Low-carbers, including myself, have done
>what they can to make their argument.
So when are you going to try science and stop waving your arms?
>And all the low-fatters have
>done is a bunch of high-handed arrogant derision and name-calling. Put
>up or shut up.
You put up and shut up. I've asked you for years for your claimed
metabolic lab study that shows a hypercaloric diet can result in the
loss of body fat storage. ALL metabolic lab studies to date show this
can't happen, yet you claim it can with ZERO evidence.
Mooosh:)
Moosh:)
posted:
>Always need that water to flush the fat out, aid in catabolic processes....
Can you explain these unusual phenomena that you mention here?
Moosh:)
Thanks Mxsmanic. A breath of fresh air on this forum.
Moosh:)
posted:
>On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:16:10 GMT, Doug Freese <dfr...@NOBShvc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> Laurel Amberdine wrote:
>>
>>> I've seen my doctor very recently. I appear to be extremely
>>> healthy (except for my being too fat, which the doctor doesn't
>>> seem very concerned about, bah.)
>>
>> Then maybe you should define what you consider fat.
>
>Sorry, I'm being too flip. I did actually want help
>(which was why I began the other thread). I just get
>annoyed when people make blanket statements about
>knowing *everything*.
Like where? Would you rather take notice of know nothings like Pizza
Girl?
>Um, too fat? About 75 lbs overweight, as far as I can
>tell. Even considering possible error, there's still some
>significant fat to lose.
Depending on your frame size that's morbidly obese isn't it? Change
doctors!!!
>>>>>Anyway, just because you are fortunate enough to have
>>>>>all your bodily systems working properly, don't assume
>>>>>that is the case for everyone.
>>
>> Then you better find a better/another doctor because you do have a
>> problem.
>
>I have LOTS of problems. I've managed to control some of
>them. This doctor is as helpful as any I've found in many
>years of searching.
Surely not if he's not worried about your obesity.
>I only mentioned to him the fact that I keep coming down with
>a cold every time I try to lose weight. I don't let it get
>further than that anymore. He suggested drinking more water. :p
I suggest you get checked out by an endocrinologist. You tend to get
sick when your blood sugar is low. I suspect you might have syndrome
X.
>> You can be as smug as you like but if your condition is
>> such that the modification to exercise or food causes fainting, YOU
>> HAVE A PROBLEM. Then again you never said what or how much food you
>> eliminated or how much exercise.
>
>See other thread for brief details. I didn't want to get into
>a great long summary of my habits if no one had any ideas or
>wanted to discuss it.
Seriously, have you had any glucose tolerance tests with insulin
assays?
>>> Really? It must be nice to know everything.
>>
>> Seems like you hiding from the facts or trying to justify your
>> excess weight or just busting chops with silly dialog.
>
>I just spent too much time online today and I'm cranky. Sorry.
>(BTW, I remember you from rec.running. Hi!)
If I were you, I would get a blood glucose meter (have you got a
diabetic friend?) and measure your bg when you feel like this.
Moosh:)
posted:
>On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:28:55 GMT, Pizza Girl <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> LA...this guy is trolling for bites here. He has rolled his argument several
>> times. He is either trolling for attention or a complete idiot.
>>
>> You decide. I have killfiltered him won't see him anymore except for when
>> you repeat his garbage.
>>
>> Thanx for understanding.
>
>Ah, sorry for dragging it on. I have reached my quota of
>contentious posts anyhow. :)
Contentious?
The guy tells you the obvious truth and you want to argue because it
doesn't suit? Sheeesh!
Moosh:)
posted:
>On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:36:47 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Laurel Amberdine writes:
>>
>>> There's me, and while I am certainly weird, I am
>>> probably not the only one.
>>
>> You are not an exception to the rule.
>
>Oh good. Then I shouldn't have any problems.
No, join the queue for problems like the rest of us.
>>> If I drop my calories I (sequentially):
>>>
>>> (1) start to feel extremely bad
>>> (2) get invaded by a virus
>>> (3) develop an irregular heartbeat
>>> (4) start fainting
>>>
>>> ...all without having lost any weight.
>>
>> Whatever this may be, it has nothing to do with weight loss.
>
>Then... why does it only happen when I either increase
>my exercise or decrease my calories?
You're ill, check it out.
> And why does it only
>occur when I cannot lose weight?
Huh? Happens all the time?
>(In the past I have been able
>to succesfully drop fat. This situation only occurs when I am
>unusually stressed.)
Check it out.
>> If you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight.
>
>There may be another option. I agree that someone cannot
>exist without using energy.
What other option? No-one has EVER demonstrated any. TC has been
promising for several years...
>>> At this point, I go back to eating normally because the
>>> fainting distresses my husband. It looks to me like
>>> whatever hormone it is that says "get some fuel out of
>>> storage" isn't working for me.
>>
>> Your symptoms are suggestive of pathology. You should consult a
>> physician and describe your history in detail. Viral infections,
>> arrythmias, and syncope are not normal consequences of a hypocaloric
>> diet ... even fasting does not normally produce these symptoms.
>
>I know. I didn't say it was normal, only that it happened.
Check it out.
>>> What is it? Glucagon? I haven't looked this stuff up in years.
>>
>> Defects in glucose metabolism (such as diabetes mellitus and chronic or
>> acute hypoglycemic episodes) can produce symptoms similar to yours.
>> These are serious conditions that must be investigated medically, by a
>> doctor.
>
>I've seen my doctor very recently. I appear to be extremely
>healthy (except for my being too fat, which the doctor doesn't
>seem very concerned about, bah.)
Give us a rough idea of your BMI. I take it you get enough exercise?
>>> Anyway, just because you are fortunate enough to have
>>> all your bodily systems working properly, don't assume
>>> that is the case for everyone.
>>
>> No matter what bodily systems you may have that are not working, you
>> will still lose weight on a hypocaloric diet. There is no pathological
>> condition that can prevent this.
>
>Really? It must be nice to know everything.
The basic laws of physics are surely not everything.
It might be comforting for some to be so ignorant.
Moosh:)
Did you learn your killfiltering when you learned to top post?
This guy is consistently correct. You are the one out of step.
A hypocaloric diet cannot result in anything other than fat store
reduction. Fact!!!
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:28:55 GMT, "Pizza Girl" <ab...@hotmail.com>
posted:
>LA...this guy is trolling for bites here. He has rolled his argument several
>times. He is either trolling for attention or a complete idiot.
>
>You decide. I have killfiltered him won't see him anymore except for when
>you repeat his garbage.
>
>Thanx for understanding.
>
>"Laurel Amberdine" <cir...@mtco.com> wrote in message
>news:c32mej$21ulna$1...@ID-45790.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:36:47 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Laurel Amberdine writes:
>> >
>> >> There's me, and while I am certainly weird, I am
>> >> probably not the only one.
>> >
>> > You are not an exception to the rule.
>>
>> Oh good. Then I shouldn't have any problems.
>>
>> >> If I drop my calories I (sequentially):
>> >>
>> >> (1) start to feel extremely bad
>> >> (2) get invaded by a virus
>> >> (3) develop an irregular heartbeat
>> >> (4) start fainting
>> >>
>> >> ...all without having lost any weight.
>> >
>> > Whatever this may be, it has nothing to do with weight loss.
>>
>> Then... why does it only happen when I either increase
>> my exercise or decrease my calories? And why does it only
>> occur when I cannot lose weight? (In the past I have been able
>> to succesfully drop fat. This situation only occurs when I am
>> unusually stressed.)
>>
>> > If you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight.
>>
>> There may be another option. I agree that someone cannot
>> exist without using energy.
>>
>> >> At this point, I go back to eating normally because the
>> >> fainting distresses my husband. It looks to me like
>> >> whatever hormone it is that says "get some fuel out of
>> >> storage" isn't working for me.
>> >
>> > Your symptoms are suggestive of pathology. You should consult a
>> > physician and describe your history in detail. Viral infections,
>> > arrythmias, and syncope are not normal consequences of a hypocaloric
>> > diet ... even fasting does not normally produce these symptoms.
>>
>> I know. I didn't say it was normal, only that it happened.
>>
>> >> What is it? Glucagon? I haven't looked this stuff up in years.
>> >
>> > Defects in glucose metabolism (such as diabetes mellitus and chronic or
>> > acute hypoglycemic episodes) can produce symptoms similar to yours.
>> > These are serious conditions that must be investigated medically, by a
>> > doctor.
>>
>> I've seen my doctor very recently. I appear to be extremely
>> healthy (except for my being too fat, which the doctor doesn't
>> seem very concerned about, bah.)
>>
>> >> Anyway, just because you are fortunate enough to have
>> >> all your bodily systems working properly, don't assume
>> >> that is the case for everyone.
>> >
>> > No matter what bodily systems you may have that are not working, you
>> > will still lose weight on a hypocaloric diet. There is no pathological
>> > condition that can prevent this.
>>
>> Really? It must be nice to know everything.
>>
>>
>>
Moosh:)
posted:
>On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 10:23:43 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Pizza Girl writes:
>>
>>> There are fat people everywhere proving your statement incorrect.
>>
>> There are no such people. Put them on a hypocaloric diet under
>> controlled conditions, and they will lose weight. There have never been
>> any exceptions.
>>
>>> Most people cannot do it for a required length of time.
>>
>> Perhaps so, but the fact remains that as long as their diet is
>> hypocaloric, they'll lose weight.
>
>Hrmn, well. I don't know about that. There's me, and
>while I am certainly weird, I am probably not the only
>one. Even if I am the only one, one case is enough to
>disprove your blanket assertion.
>
>If I drop my calories I (sequentially):
>
>(1) start to feel extremely bad
>(2) get invaded by a virus
>(3) develop an irregular heartbeat
>(4) start fainting
>
>...all without having lost any weight.
>
>At this point, I go back to eating normally because the
>fainting distresses my husband. It looks to me like
>whatever hormone it is that says "get some fuel out of
>storage" isn't working for me. (What is it? Glucagon?
>I haven't looked this stuff up in years.)
>
>Anyway, just because you are fortunate enough to have
>all your bodily systems working properly, don't assume
>that is the case for everyone.
Which changes none of the facts stated.
Have you had this problem diagnosed properly?
Moosh:)
>passion...@aol.com (PassionOfDarwin) wrote in message news:<20040311174413...@mb-m04.aol.com>...
>> My husband is 5 foot 8 inches and weighs 220 pounds. He walks 2 miles a day, at
>> a slow or moderate pace. I have some questions about calories and dieting.
>>
>> How many calories would he burn per mile?
>>
>> How many calories would he normally need each day?
>>
>> How many calories are in each pound of fat on him?
>>
>> How many calories should he take in daily, to lose 2 pounds per week?
>>
>> Thanks!
>
>The math involved in predicting weight loss or gain using caloric
>values of food is not very useful. 98% of those who attempt to lose
>weight by restricting and/or counting calories fail. It is a
>fundamentally flawed theory. It doesn't work. There is no science that
>links caloric values of food with controlling weight/fat in humans. I
>challenge anyone to show us the definitive and seminal study that
>makes the direct and un-equivocal connection between calorie-intake
>and weight management (gain/loss).
>
>TC
So you are again/still claiming that calories can be made to
disappear?
Moosh:)
>I don't want you to go away, just provide the scientific evidence on which
>you base your new theory of weight status without reference to calorie
>status. I don't want to quibble about the existence of past research
>which manipulates calories for various research ends and illustrate the
>relationship to weight status, they exist. Here is but one, the easiest to
>recall and put my hands on, as requested, one time free subscription
>required:
>
>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/469768_3
>
>It says in short that there are many factors as to the specific effect of
>amount of calories in and metabolism of same and the final weight loss.
>There is no surprise here, all human biological activities exibit
>themselves in a bell curve. But, if you read the article, in a controlled
>situation where input is measured in a controlled in hospital situation,
>all lost weight with lower calories. Because of the range of variation to
>x amount of calories in/out and weight status, we cann't conclude that the
>in/out notion fails, just that there are real limits to the in/out and the
>final result in all people is a change in weight status. Knowing this
>biological reality doesn't disprove the calorie in/out approach to
>creating a plan to lose or gain weight, it just says what the most usual
>result is for the great majority of folk who fall in the wide middle of
>the curve;ie. 500 cal/day/week = 1 lb lost. I suggest you read the entire
>series, parts 1 and 2:
>
>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470747
>
>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/469768
>
>I suggest you read the "current concensus" link on the first url above as
>the basis by which you frame the extraordinary evidence which displases
>that concensus.
ALL observations have shown the conservation of energy principle, or
its corrollary, the indestructibility of calories.
So. All calories into the human body must equal all calories out. This
has NEVER been shown to be otherwise. There are hundreds of thousand
of corroborating experiments down the ages.
Now for TC to claim that this is not so requires extraordinary
evidence from him IMHO
Moosh:)
>Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<kc1450h0p8qjcj2l5...@4ax.com>...
>> tcomeau writes:
>>
>> > The math involved in predicting weight loss or gain using caloric
>> > values of food is not very useful. 98% of those who attempt to lose
>> > weight by restricting and/or counting calories fail.
>>
>> One hundred percent of people who try to lose weight without creating a
>> calorie deficit fail. One hundred percent of people who try to lose
>> weight by creating a calorie deficit succeed.
>>
>> It's all calories in versus calories out. It is the ONLY way to lose
>> weight, and it ALWAYS works.
>>
>
>If that were true then anyone who wanted to be thin and followed the
>low-fat/low-calorie diet would be thin. Period. But that ain't the
>case, is it?
YEP! Your failures are those who don't comply with the diet and
that's a whole nother matter.
>> > It is a fundamentally flawed theory. It doesn't work. There is no
>> > science that links caloric values of food with controlling
>> > weight/fat in humans.
>>
>> The laws of thermodynamics guarantee that a caloric deficit will produce
>> weight loss. There are no exceptions.
>Has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics. It is several
>levels removed from the laws of thermo. Applying the laws of thermo to
>weight control is extreme oversimplification and sheer stupid
>assumption.
The laws of Thermo apply EVERYWHERE. Show us where they have not
applied.
>> > I challenge anyone to show us the definitive and seminal study that
>> > makes the direct and un-equivocal connection between calorie-intake
>> > and weight management (gain/loss).
>>
>> There are hundreds of such studies, but they aren't really needed, since
>> the laws of thermodynamics are pretty clear.
>
>Then show me ONE! Otherwise Shut the f... up.
They all say what we say. You are the odd man out, so I suggest YOU
take your own advice!
>> Ever wonder why you don't
>> see anyone in a long-term coma who is obese?
>
>Since when does the extreme prove anything other than the extreme?
Not extreme. Just controlled so we can see the underlying principle.
Your calorie counter and bathroom scale need not apply.
Moosh:)
posted:
>Why would you try to lose fat if you are not body building?
Try? I thought he said that was what happened.
>A weight liter
>usually need the extra bulk for the power and support of the structure.
>
>Subcutaneous fat is the fat in the muscle tissue that makes the muscle
>massive.
And what school did you learn this from?
>When you try to "cut-up" you lose much of this fat and the muscle
>size diminishes.
What is "cut-up"?
>
Moosh:)
> I like to eat only
>40-50% of my calories from carbs just to get the most satietion out of
>my calorie budget.
Potato has the most satiety value of any food I believe.
http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php
PaulP
news:jrvn50dc7qbkbasvj...@4ax.com...
You're advocating the evil potato on this forum! Trying to cause a ruckus?
Paul P.
Moosh:)
I had to look at the headers -- thought I'd crossposted to
alt.whacko.lowcarb :)
I must do a comparison between the micronutrients in lettuce, honey
and cauliflower per average serving <remind self>
Pizza Girl
Get a job and get out more often.
(how did this idiot get off my bozo filter list again?)
"Moosh:)" <sp...@less.ever> wrote in message
news:e7ns50d9f93d1aham...@4ax.com...
Moosh:)
posted:
>Troll alert.
>
>Get a job and get out more often.
>
>(how did this idiot get off my bozo filter list again?)
Better than an idiot alert, though :)
I haven't seen you post anything vaguely sensible and relevant.
I must just quote a post of yours responding to Mxsmanic that shows
how stupid you are:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Pizza Girl (ab...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Question on Calories
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Date: 2004-03-12 15:00:03 PST
You have no idea what you are talking about. Thiose oversimplified
statements posted by you are just horseshit of the highest calibre
and completely not true.
eg: "One hundred percent of people who try to lose weight by creating
a calorie deficit succeed" is just a damn lie. Most people attempting
this fail because most people fail at all diets.
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kc1450h0p8qjcj2l5...@4ax.com...
> tcomeau writes:
>
> > The math involved in predicting weight loss or gain using caloric
> > values of food is not very useful. 98% of those who attempt to lose
> > weight by restricting and/or counting calories fail.
>
> One hundred percent of people who try to lose weight without creating a
> calorie deficit fail. One hundred percent of people who try to lose
> weight by creating a calorie deficit succeed.
>
> It's all calories in versus calories out. It is the ONLY way to lose
> weight, and it ALWAYS works.
>
> > It is a fundamentally flawed theory. It doesn't work. There is no
> > science that links caloric values of food with controlling
> > weight/fat in humans.
>
> The laws of thermodynamics guarantee that a caloric deficit will produce
> weight loss. There are no exceptions.
>
> > I challenge anyone to show us the definitive and seminal study that
> > makes the direct and un-equivocal connection between calorie-intake
> > and weight management (gain/loss).
>
> There are hundreds of such studies, but they aren't really needed, since
> the laws of thermodynamics are pretty clear. Ever wonder why you don't
> see anyone in a long-term coma who is obese?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert Klute
consume is less than the number of calories you metabolize?
That ketosis is evidence of the body metabolizing body fat? That excess
Ketones are excreted by the kidneys? That excess glucose is converted
to body fat?
So, if everyone has answered yes so far, then any weight reduction diet
will result in lower blood glucose levels and increased ketosis while
losing weight. Yes?
Now, there are lots of ways to accomplish this. There are also lots of
different people out there. Some people are quite capable of
eliminating some dense calorie sources from their diet - such as fats
and oils - and lose weight. Perhaps they never really feel hungry and
strict portion control is easy for them. I know people like this, they
never talk about feeling hungry but will mention they risk feeling dizzy
if they go too long without eating.
For others it is different. They eat because they actually feel hungry
and eating quickly metabolized food results in hunger pains quicker.
So, the trick to dieting for these is to eat foods that take longer to
metabolize and thus keep the hunger pains at bay. For them fats work
better than carbohydrates. Filling the stomach is less important than
not feeling hungry. They can feel full longer with fewer overall
calories consumed and thus have a better chance of not 'cheating'.
For any diet and exercise program to be effective, it must be
sustainable over the long term. I have seen several studies that
indicate fluctuating weight is more harmful than staying at one weight,
even if that is being overweight. So, perhaps the real question should
be is the maintenance Atkins/Zone/South_Beach diet sustainable and
healthy.
Moosh:)
<robert_klut...@hp.com> posted:
>OK, can we agree that you loose weight when the number of calories yo
>consume is less than the number of calories you metabolize?
>
>That ketosis is evidence of the body metabolizing body fat?
Nope, any fat.
>That excess
>Ketones are excreted by the kidneys?
Nope. A trace only, like everything else in the blood.
>That excess glucose is converted
>to body fat?
Excess energy of any form is converted to fat (if it isn't fat
already) for storage.
>So, if everyone has answered yes so far, then any weight reduction diet
>will result in lower blood glucose levels and increased ketosis while
>losing weight. Yes?
Nope, back to the drawing board :)
>Now, there are lots of ways to accomplish this.
Whoa! Shouldn't you wait to confirm your premises?
>There are also lots of
>different people out there.
Six billion, give or take.
>Some people are quite capable of
>eliminating some dense calorie sources from their diet - such as fats
>and oils - and lose weight.
Yep. Probably the commonest way, but when food is so readily available
in a convenient calorie-concentrated (refined) form, and there is not
much incentive to get off your ass.....
>Perhaps they never really feel hungry and
>strict portion control is easy for them.
There are pleanty of people who resist a bit of hunger. We don't all
succumb to every urge we get.
> I know people like this, they
>never talk about feeling hungry but will mention they risk feeling dizzy
>if they go too long without eating.
Yep, I've heard of folk like that.
>For others it is different. They eat because they actually feel hungry
>and eating quickly metabolized food results in hunger pains quicker.
Nope. There are a few folks like this, but most folks eat coz they are
hungry. It's apetite we need to control.
>So, the trick to dieting for these is to eat foods that take longer to
>metabolize and thus keep the hunger pains at bay.
Potatoes are best for this Go figure.
>For them fats work
>better than carbohydrates.
Or so they tell themselves.
These folk are syndrome X, no?
>Filling the stomach is less important than
>not feeling hungry.
Satiation is mainly to do with full stomach and reasonable glucose
levels.
>They can feel full longer with fewer overall
>calories consumed and thus have a better chance of not 'cheating'.
Yep. Spuds in the diet. Wholefoods take much longer to digest and to
leave the stomach.
>For any diet and exercise program to be effective, it must be
>sustainable over the long term.
Absolutely. This is much to do with psychology. Often what you are
used to is the most comforting. I believe Western folk are constantly
craving comfort. Maybe this is contributory to our overeating?
>I have seen several studies that
>indicate fluctuating weight is more harmful than staying at one weight,
>even if that is being overweight.
Apparently so. I've certainly heard this.
>So, perhaps the real question should
>be is the maintenance Atkins/Zone/South_Beach diet sustainable and
>healthy.
No idea. But a varied wholefood diet seems the most satisfying to
most, I believe
Robert Klute
>On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:40:21 GMT, Robert Klute
><robert_klut...@hp.com> posted:
>
>>So, if everyone has answered yes so far, then any weight reduction diet
>>will result in lower blood glucose levels and increased ketosis while
>>losing weight. Yes?
>
>Nope, back to the drawing board :)
OK, where I am I wrong? If your glucose levels are sufficient your body
is not going to tap into body fat. If your body is tapping into it fat
reserves, their presence is noted by increased ketone levels.
>
>There are pleanty of people who resist a bit of hunger. We don't all
>succumb to every urge we get.
I am so glad you can tolerate being hungry all the time. I find it
difficult to concentrate when I am hungry.
>>For others it is different. They eat because they actually feel hungry
>>and eating quickly metabolized food results in hunger pains quicker.
>
>Nope. There are a few folks like this, but most folks eat coz they are
>hungry. It's apetite we need to control.
Yes, most people eat because they are hungry.
>>So, the trick to dieting for these is to eat foods that take longer to
>>metabolize and thus keep the hunger pains at bay.
>
>Potatoes are best for this Go figure.
Not for me.
>
>>For them fats work
>>better than carbohydrates.
>
>Or so they tell themselves.
>These folk are syndrome X, no?
Not necessarily. My cholesterol levels are within normal range. I
believe all it talks is some insulin resistance, not full syndrome X,
for lo-carb to be of benefit.
>
>>Filling the stomach is less important than
>>not feeling hungry.
>
>Satiation is mainly to do with full stomach and reasonable glucose
>levels.
Reasonable glucose levels I will go with. I don't need to fill my
stomach to eliminate feelings of hunger, at least not any more.
>>They can feel full longer with fewer overall
>>calories consumed and thus have a better chance of not 'cheating'.
>
>Yep. Spuds in the diet. Wholefoods take much longer to digest and to
>leave the stomach.
Potatoes have a high glycemic index. I have been overweight for a long
time, so I probably have insulin resistance at this point. (My mother
developed diabetes in her 70s.) I really want to avoid foods that might
exacerbate the problem.
>
>>For any diet and exercise program to be effective, it must be
>>sustainable over the long term.
>
>Absolutely. This is much to do with psychology. Often what you are
>used to is the most comforting. I believe Western folk are constantly
>craving comfort. Maybe this is contributory to our overeating?
Everyone craves comfort. How we perceive comfort varies and is based on
early experience. For those who grew up during WWII, rationing affected
their perception. For many of them, comfort is knowing there is a full
larder and serving enough that no one goes hungry. For their children,
then, abbondanza is their perception of normal. For their children, the
last food pyramid with the overemphasis on refined carbs and the
ubiquitous presence of fast food joints has contributed to the problem.