Are you sluggish and low on energy? Do you feel like you work and
work
toward your weight loss goal and never seem to make any dramatic
improvement? You could be suffering from a slow metabolism.


http://www.mady70.info/lose-weight-forever.html

On Sep 27, 5:18*am, mada > wrote:
> Are you sluggish and low on energy? Do you feel like you work and
> work
> toward your weight loss goal and never seem to make any dramatic
> improvement? You could be suffering from a slow metabolism.
>
> http://www.mady70.info/lose-weight-forever.html

I was thinking yesterday, than upon one losing some
weight (at a certain rate), then their ability to lose
further weight would be at a faster rate because
their metabolic rate would shift.

I know the secret to weight loss.(even though I've never
had a problem) It's portion control. You can eat anything
you want if you eat little portions like you see on TV at
chic' french restaurants. You'll be hungry for a few minutes
after you finish, then it'll subside. While doing this,
skip a meal or two if you can. You'll easily lose 5 - 7lbs.
a week.

---
Mark

---
Mark

In article
>,
Mark > wrote:

> I was thinking yesterday, than upon one losing some
> weight (at a certain rate), then their ability to lose
> further weight would be at a faster rate because
> their metabolic rate would shift.

I didn't read the spam (I assume that's what it was), so I'm totally
ignoring what it claimed. The usual calculation for metabolic energy
need is 11 calories per pound for women, and 12 calories per pound for
men. Thus, the more weight you lose, the *harder* it is to lose weight
through metabolism.

> I know the secret to weight loss.

I do too. It's psychology. You can know ten times as much as the
second most knowledgeable person in the whole world, but if you can't
get yourself to do what you know, it doesn't help.

>(even though I've never
> had a problem) It's portion control. You can eat anything
> you want if you eat little portions like you see on TV at
> chic' french restaurants. You'll be hungry for a few minutes
> after you finish, then it'll subside. While doing this,
> skip a meal or two if you can. You'll easily lose 5 - 7lbs.
> a week.


OK, I'll throw the psychology out the window for a moment. The average
person needs about 2000 calories per day to maintain weight. A pound of
fat is about 3500 calories. That means it is theoretically impossible
to lose more than about 1/2 pound per day of fat, even if you reduce
food consumption (calories) to zero.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Sep 27, 11:45*am, Dan Abel > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *Mark > wrote:
> > I was thinking yesterday, than upon one losing some
> > weight (at a certain rate), then their ability to lose
> > further weight would be at a faster rate because
> > their metabolic rate would shift.
>
> I didn't read the spam (I assume that's what it was), so I'm totally
> ignoring what it claimed. *The usual calculation for metabolic energy
> need is 11 calories per pound for women, and 12 calories per pound for
> men. *Thus, the more weight you lose, the *harder* it is to lose weight
> through metabolism.

The law of diminishing returns, eh?

> > I know the secret to weight loss.
>
> I do too. *It's psychology.

I thought it was arithmetic.

*>You can know ten times as much as the
> second most knowledgeable person in the whole world

I'm nowhere near that smart! I'd say 9 times.

>but if you can't
> get yourself to do what you know, it doesn't help.

This isn't my topic of expertise, but right off hand
I'd say that obesity as a percentage, when viewed
as culturally endemic, is at least 50%, due to sheer
post-modern societie's dietary choices coupled with
sedintarism. This group is happy.

Another percentage is endocrinologically linked.
Some percentage is psychosomatic.
Some percentage is psychological.

The "fix" would be different, depending upon which
group you were in.

> >(even though I've never
> > had a problem) It's portion control. You can eat anything
> > you want if you eat little portions like you see on TV at
> > chic' french restaurants. You'll be hungry for a few minutes
> > after you finish, then it'll subside. While doing this,
> > skip a meal or two if you can. You'll easily lose 5 - 7lbs.
> > a week.
>
> OK, I'll throw the psychology out the window for a moment. *The average
> person needs about 2000 calories per day to maintain weight.

So just eat 900 calories a day.

>*A pound of fat is about 3500 calories. *That means it is
theoretically impossible
> to lose more than about 1/2 pound per day of fat, even if you reduce
> food consumption (calories) to zero.

A half pound of fat (by your numbers) is 1750 calories.

A person eats 750 calories.

He weighs 200 lbs., metabolizes 12 calories per pound.

That's 2400 calories.

2400 calories - 750 calories = -1650 calories.

-1650 calories = .94 lbs of fat lost per day

..94 X 7 = 6.58lbs lost per week.

---
Mark



> --
> Dan Abel
> Petaluma, California USA
>

On Sep 27, 2:47*pm, Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 27, 11:45*am, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *Mark > wrote:
> > > I was thinking yesterday, than upon one losing some
> > > weight (at a certain rate), then their ability to lose
> > > further weight would be at a faster rate because
> > > their metabolic rate would shift.
>
> > I didn't read the spam (I assume that's what it was), so I'm totally
> > ignoring what it claimed. *The usual calculation for metabolic energy
> > need is 11 calories per pound for women, and 12 calories per pound for
> > men. *Thus, the more weight you lose, the *harder* it is to lose weight
> > through metabolism.
>
> The law of diminishing returns, eh?
>
> > > I know the secret to weight loss.
>
> > I do too. *It's psychology.
>
> I thought it was arithmetic.
>
> *>You can know ten times as much as the
>
> > second most knowledgeable person in the whole world
>
> I'm nowhere near that smart! *I'd say 9 times.
>
> >but if you can't
> > get yourself to do what you know, it doesn't help.
>
> This isn't my topic of expertise, but right off hand
> I'd say that obesity as a percentage, when viewed
> as culturally endemic, is at least 50%, due to sheer
> post-modern societie's dietary choices coupled with
> sedintarism. This group is happy.
>
> Another percentage is endocrinologically linked.
> Some percentage is psychosomatic.
> Some percentage is psychological.
>
> The "fix" would be different, depending upon which
> group you were in.
>
> > >(even though I've never
> > > had a problem) It's portion control. You can eat anything
> > > you want if you eat little portions like you see on TV at
> > > chic' french restaurants. You'll be hungry for a few minutes
> > > after you finish, then it'll subside. While doing this,
> > > skip a meal or two if you can. You'll easily lose 5 - 7lbs.
> > > a week.
>
> > OK, I'll throw the psychology out the window for a moment. *The average
> > person needs about 2000 calories per day to maintain weight.
>
> So just eat 900 calories a day.
>
> *>*A pound of fat is about 3500 calories. *That means it is
> theoretically impossible
>
> > to lose more than about 1/2 pound per day of fat, even if you reduce
> > food consumption (calories) to zero.
>
> A half pound of fat (by your numbers) is 1750 calories.
>
> A person eats 750 calories.
>
> He weighs 200 lbs., metabolizes 12 calories per pound.
>
> That's 2400 calories.
>
> 2400 calories - 750 calories = *-1650 calories.
>
> -1650 calories = .94 lbs of fat lost per day
>
> .94 X 7 = 6.58lbs lost per week.
>
> ---
> Mark
>
>
>
> > --
> > Dan Abel
> > Petaluma, California USA
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ok, math error here! Cut that weekly loss in half.

It's 3.25 lbs. per week, by your fat calorie value.

So...I've seen people beat that. They musta lost
more than fat!

---
Mark

On 9/27/2010 5:45 AM, Dan Abel wrote:
>
> OK, I'll throw the psychology out the window for a moment. The average
> person needs about 2000 calories per day to maintain weight. A pound of
> fat is about 3500 calories. That means it is theoretically impossible
> to lose more than about 1/2 pound per day of fat, even if you reduce
> food consumption (calories) to zero.
>

Wouldn't a fat guy need more calories to maintain his weight?

On 9/27/2010 5:45 AM, Dan Abel wrote:

> men. Thus, the more weight you lose, the *harder* it is to lose weight
> through metabolism.
>

This is a very good thing. If the opposite were true, people would be
wasting away at an alarming rate.

In article >,
dsi1 > wrote:

> On 9/27/2010 5:45 AM, Dan Abel wrote:
> >
> > OK, I'll throw the psychology out the window for a moment. The average
> > person needs about 2000 calories per day to maintain weight. A pound of
> > fat is about 3500 calories. That means it is theoretically impossible
> > to lose more than about 1/2 pound per day of fat, even if you reduce
> > food consumption (calories) to zero.
> >
>
> Wouldn't a fat guy need more calories to maintain his weight?

Yes. Of course, there are a ton of variables.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Mark wrote:
> Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>> I didn't read the spam (I assume that's what it was), so I'm totally
>> ignoring what it claimed. *The usual calculation for metabolic energy
>> need is 11 calories per pound for women, and 12 calories per pound for
>> men. *Thus, the more weight you lose, the *harder* it is to lose weight
>> through metabolism.
>
> The law of diminishing returns, eh?

Beyond that the target is fat loss not just any weight. Once the matter
has been considered no rational dieter should want to lose lean or
muscle, and water weight is finite and hard to control. Do some
googling for "maximum fat loss" and you'll find this article:

http://baye.com/calculating-the-dail...imum-fat-loss/

"Simply stated, the maximal daily calorie deficit for fat loss is
approximately 31.4 cals per pound of fat, give or take about 3
calories, and if your daily calorie deficit exceeds this the difference
is going to come from other tissues, including your hard-earned muscle."

Do a calorie deficit greater than that and you'll lose lean. That will
trigger endlessly growing hunger pangs that will eventually knock you
off your diet.

Simple translation - If you go extreme you ensure your own failure. Do
it by going smart. The arithmetic to figure a good current calorie
intake level and the result will be a loss that can be sustained.

>> > I know the secret to weight loss.
>>
>> I do too. *It's psychology.
>
> I thought it was arithmetic.

It's a combination of all of the above. If it were as simple as eating
less with no idea how much there would be no fat people. Does anyone
seriously believe there's even one fat person out there who hasn't tried
and failed dieting multiple times? If simple minded approaches like
this discussion actually worked no one would be fat. Go to the mall and
look around some time. That's proof that approaches like in this
discuss can not possibly work. Every fat person in western civilization
has already tried it that way more than once.

It's also hunger pangs. There's a reason that low carb plans are
popular - For a large percentage of the population insulin swings from
high carb diets are the largest contributor towards hunger pangs. Low
carb, for most but not for all, allows hungerless loss after the first
couple of weeks. But it's unstable - Eat enough carby foods in a cheat
and you have to go through that first couple of weeks of hunger all over
again.

> This isn't my topic of expertise, but right off hand
> I'd say that obesity as a percentage, when viewed
> as culturally endemic, is at least 50%, due to sheer
> post-modern societie's dietary choices coupled with
> sedintarism. This group is happy.

Half is about right. A glance at the crowd in the mall says that. Any
such estimate has to fit that sort of "stink test".

>> OK, I'll throw the psychology out the window for a moment. *The average
>> person needs about 2000 calories per day to maintain weight.
>
> So just eat 900 calories a day.

People in concentration camps always lose. People exitting
concentration camps always binge. The rational approach once that is
considered is selecting a level that does not produce a guaranteed binge
once you've lost.

> >*A pound of fat is about 3500 calories. *That means it is
> theoretically impossible
>> to lose more than about 1/2 pound per day of fat, even if you reduce
>> food consumption (calories) to zero.
>
> .94 X 7 = 6.58lbs lost per week.

Try reality some time. Ask some actual dieters. The loss rate in a
complete fast is no higher than the maximum lost rate Dan suggested.
For most it's even lower.

Because the maximum loss rate is proportional to the amount of fat
present, a dieter with over 100 pounds to lose can often lose more than
2 pounds per week without hunger by eating smart. Because the maximum
loss rate is proportional to the amount of fat present, a dieter with
under 20 pounds to lose can only lose around a half pound per week
without hunger by eating smart. Get hungry enough and eventually it
can't be resisted.

Losing weight is a skill not a matter of simple minded arithmetic
guaranteed to trigger binges. Keeping off the weight is a harder skill.
Portion control to a target while surrounded by unlimited food is not
easy even without hunger.

In article
>,
Mark > wrote:


> It's 3.25 lbs. per week, by your fat calorie value.
>
> So...I've seen people beat that. They musta lost
> more than fat!

One of the reasons that it isn't recommended to weigh yourself often, is
that water is very heavy (heavier than fat), and the amount in the body
tends to vary quite a bit. It's easy to drink a liter of water when you
are thirsty, and I believe that your bladder holds about the same when
it is full. So if you had a very full bladder and drank a liter of
water right before your weigh in, and emptied your bladder and drank (or
ate) nothing for several hours before another weigh in a week later, you
could easily lose 4 pounds in that week, according to a scale, without
losing an ounce of fat.

In fact, it is possible to lose up to 16 pounds of water a day, just by
sweating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat#Mechanism

I don't know if you would still be alive, though.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Sep 27, 5:34*pm, Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> >> I didn't read the spam (I assume that's what it was), so I'm totally
> >> ignoring what it claimed. *The usual calculation for metabolic energy
> >> need is 11 calories per pound for women, and 12 calories per pound for
> >> men. *Thus, the more weight you lose, the *harder* it is to lose weight
> >> through metabolism.
>
> > The law of diminishing returns, eh?
>
> Beyond that the target is fat loss not just any weight. *Once the matter
> has been considered no rational dieter should want to lose lean or
> muscle, and water weight is finite and hard to control. *Do some
> googling for "maximum fat loss" and you'll find this article:
>
> http://baye.com/calculating-the-dail...or-maximum-fat...
>
> "Simply stated, the maximal daily calorie deficit for fat loss is
> approximately 31.4 cals per pound of fat, give or take about 3
> calories, and if your daily calorie deficit exceeds this the difference
> is going to come from other tissues, including your hard-earned muscle."
>
> Do a calorie deficit greater than that and you'll lose lean. *That will
> trigger endlessly growing hunger pangs that will eventually knock you
> off your diet.
>
> Simple translation - If you go extreme you ensure your own failure. *Do
> it by going smart. *The arithmetic to figure a good current calorie
> intake level and the result will be a loss that can be sustained.
>
> >> > I know the secret to weight loss.
>
> >> I do too. *It's psychology.
>
> > I thought it was arithmetic.
>
> It's a combination of all of the above. *If it were as simple as eating
> less with no idea how much there would be no fat people. *Does anyone
> seriously believe there's even one fat person out there who hasn't tried
> and failed dieting multiple times? *If simple minded approaches like
> this discussion actually worked no one would be fat. *Go to the mall and
> look around some time. *That's proof that approaches like in this
> discuss can not possibly work. *Every fat person in western civilization
> has already tried it that way more than once.
>
> It's also hunger pangs. *There's a reason that low carb plans are
> popular - For a large percentage of the population insulin swings from
> high carb diets are the largest contributor towards hunger pangs. *Low
> carb, for most but not for all, allows hungerless loss after the first
> couple of weeks. *But it's unstable - Eat enough carby foods in a cheat
> and you have to go through that first couple of weeks of hunger all over
> again.
>
> > This isn't my topic of expertise, but right off hand
> > I'd say that obesity as a percentage, when viewed
> > as culturally endemic, is at least 50%, due to sheer
> > post-modern societie's dietary choices coupled with
> > sedintarism. This group is happy.
>
> Half is about right. *A glance at the crowd in the mall says that. *Any
> such estimate has to fit that sort of "stink test".
>
> >> OK, I'll throw the psychology out the window for a moment. *The average
> >> person needs about 2000 calories per day to maintain weight.
>
> > So just eat 900 calories a day.
>
> People in concentration camps always lose. *People exitting
> concentration camps always binge. *The rational approach once that is
> considered is selecting a level that does not produce a guaranteed binge
> once you've lost.
>
> > *>*A pound of fat is about 3500 calories. *That means it is
> > theoretically impossible
> >> to lose more than about 1/2 pound per day of fat, even if you reduce
> >> food consumption (calories) to zero.
>
> > .94 X 7 = 6.58lbs lost per week.
>
> Try reality some time. *Ask some actual dieters. *The loss rate in a
> complete fast is no higher than the maximum lost rate Dan suggested.
> For most it's even lower.
>
> Because the maximum loss rate is proportional to the amount of fat
> present, a dieter with over 100 pounds to lose can often lose more than
> 2 pounds per week without hunger by eating smart. *Because the maximum
> loss rate is proportional to the amount of fat present, a dieter with
> under 20 pounds to lose can only lose around a half pound per week
> without hunger by eating smart. *Get hungry enough and eventually it
> can't be resisted.
>
> Losing weight is a skill not a matter of simple minded arithmetic
> guaranteed to trigger binges. *Keeping off the weight is a harder skill..
> Portion control to a target while surrounded by unlimited food is not
> easy even without hunger.

Thanks for your response. I've never really looked
into this topic, and I truly hope someone who needs
to know this will benefit from it. Sometimes I'll notice
I'm 5 or 6 pounds over target, and drop it in a week
or so, staying that weight for years without fluctuation.

---
Mark

On Sep 27, 6:04*pm, Dan Abel > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *Mark > wrote:
> > It's 3.25 lbs. per week, by your fat calorie value.
>
> > So...I've seen people beat that. They musta lost
> > more than fat!
>
> One of the reasons that it isn't recommended to weigh yourself often, is
> that water is very heavy (heavier than fat), and the amount in the body
> tends to vary quite a bit. *It's easy to drink a liter of water when you
> are thirsty, and I believe that your bladder holds about the same when
> it is full. *So if you had a very full bladder and drank a liter of
> water right before your weigh in, and emptied your bladder and drank (or
> ate) nothing for several hours before another weigh in a week later, you
> could easily lose 4 pounds in that week, according to a scale, without
> losing an ounce of fat.
>
> In fact, it is possible to lose up to 16 pounds of water a day, just by
> sweating:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat#Mechanism
>
> I don't know if you would still be alive, though.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Petaluma, California USA
>

Thanks! Very interesting. I still wear the same size
pants I wore in High School. I'm 55.

---
Mark

Mark wrote:
>
> Sometimes I'll notice
> I'm 5 or 6 pounds over target, and drop it in a week
> or so,

Water retention is easy and fast to lose but it's fickle and random. My
water retention range is 6 pounds - I can be 6 above a previous low
without gaining any new fat. A few days of avoiding salty or carby
foods and the water is gone again.

> staying that weight for years without fluctuation.

Half the population of America would love to be in that situation.

On Sep 28, 11:34*am, Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>
> > Sometimes I'll notice
> > I'm 5 or 6 pounds over target, and drop it in a week
> > or so,
>
> Water retention is easy and fast to lose but it's fickle and random. *My
> water retention range is 6 pounds - I can be 6 above a previous low
> without gaining any new fat. *A few days of avoiding salty or carby
> foods and the water is gone again.

The only thing that gets my attention is the beginning
of a slight stomach bulge, after weeks of pastrys and/or
deviaton from portion control, or slacking off sports.

Fortunately (previously unfortunately), there are many
tasty meals for an affordable price...which leave one
hungry for a spell due to the miniscule portions. That's
how I flatten my belly.

> > staying that weight for years without fluctuation.
>
> Half the population of America would love to be in that situation.

What chew talkin' bout Willis? They already are in
that situation! Fat.

---
Mark