 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
True, but what your body and my body do with those calories may differ.
In link.net, Jonathan Ball > stated | | A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. "Calorie" is an | OBJECTIVE unit of energy. If there is one chocolate | eclair on a table in front of us, and some referee | randomly picks you or me to eat the eclair, it provides | the same number of calories to you as it would to me. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"Dawn Taylor" > wrote in message ... > On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:23:39 GMT, "Gooserider" > > announced in front of God and everybody: > > >Of course. It doesn't matter if the calories consumed are from ice cream or > >brussels sprouts. > > Actually, it does make a difference, depending on the individual. > People who are diabetic and/or insulin resistant have a different > reaction to simple carbohydrates than non-IR people. A calorie is a calorie is a kilocalorie. However, not every person can extract the same amount of calories from a given quantity of food. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
having been vegan for 6 years and involved in animal rights for a decade, i have
to say that peta really making it embarrassing to say so at times. i know the leaders of the german peta organization, and have no idea why they keep rolling out one stupid media stunt after the other. they seem to think that any publicity is good - well - i disagree and wish they would finally cut rhe crap. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
FOB wrote:
> True, but what your body and my body do with those calories may differ. Unfortunately, many people see it as a judgment call on them personally to be told that weight loss is from a calorie deficit. Eating fewer calories than *your body personally needs to maintain weight* (And it does differ for everyone) is technically, what causes weight loss. Even if one is insulin resistant, and a certain way of eating raises their metabolism, and they've still lost weight, it's because at *some* given point the calories burned has exceeded calories ingested over a period of time. This does not contradict the idea that different people metabolize foods differently and at different rates, and for different reasons. -- The post you just read, unless otherwise noted, is strictly my opinion and experience. Please interpret accordingly. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Rubystars wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > hlink.net... > >>Rubystars wrote: >> >> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message arthlink.net... >>> >> >>>>>They could have metabolic problems that cause them to gain even if they >>>>>eat like a normal person. Some people have a genetic disposition toward >>>>>being fat that's hard to get past. >>>> >>>>Sorry. This is simply not true. >>> >>> >>>I think some people have more of a natural tendency than others. >> >>I don't doubt that two people can have very different >>*resting* metabolisms. That isn't what we're talking >>about, or at least shouldn't be. > > > It can be the resting metabolism that makes all the difference, when the > vast majority of Americans don't do regular exercise. IF an obese person wants to lose weight, the person MUST figure out what the caloric count of various possible meals is, and figure out what the caloric expenditure of various forms and durations of exercise is. It's that simple. I believe I have a fairly high resting metabolism. I have always eaten rather large meal portions, have gotten less exercise as I've gotten older (but still VASTLY more than the typical American), and I don't gain weight. Without even NEEDING to investigate portion size, however, my portions have gone down. I had an easily intuitive sense that they needed to go down as my level of exercise declined somewhat, and I find I feel physically full on far less food than before. I read no diet books, received no special medical advice, was not the subject of any harangues in order to do this. It just happened. > > >>>This can be >>>seen in families who don't have bad eating habits but still nearly every >>>member of the family is big, even the young children. My sister had a friend >>>whose family was like that. They were all huge (not fat, huge), even though >>>they were all trying very hard. It could have been a gland problem that ran >>>in the family, etc. >> >>It's conceivable that some ONE person might have a >>hormonal issue. That can't possibly explain the >>terrible incidence of severe, morbid obesity in the >>U.S. versus, say, continental Europe. The Germans are >>pretty stout people, but you simply don't see those >>extremely obese people there that you see in the >>American "heartland". > > > Yeah, I think most people are big for lifestyle reasons, and nothing else, > but my point originally was that it's not necessarily a lie when someone > says that they're eating a small amount and still gaining or maintaining a > large weight. It isn't necessarily a lie, but it's MOST LIKELY untrue. It might be untrue because they're lying, or it might be untrue because (as you've suggested) they don't really know what a "small amount" is. MY point is that very few morbidly obese people have some medical abnormality that causes the obesity. > > <Snip> > >>There is nothing contradictory in the notion that >>adding 20-30 minutes of vigorous physical exercise to >>your daily routine, and cutting your caloric intake by >>15-20%, will make you lose weight. > > > That's very specific information. How much BS did you have to sift through > to find it? ZERO. It's common sense. If I had total control of a morbidly obese person's life for one month, that person would lose 5-8 pounds with ease, possibly more with a little bona fide sweat. > There's a diet plan being advertized on tv right now that's > called the "Body Makeover" or something similar, where people take photos of > themselves, mark on them with markers to indicate where they want to change, > and then do a miniscule amount of exercise every day (much less than 20-30 > minutes). The more reliable information I've come across indicates that the > claims of that infomercial are bogus, you can't spot-reduce fat, you can > only tone muscle groups in certain areas. The infomercial decleares "Eat > more!" (as if that's really something an overeater needs to do anyway!) and > "Exercise less!" (that's really a bad message to send, especially for long > term health). > > How is someone supposed to know that commercial is bogus though? Most people > aren't exactly biology majors. You can say 20-30 minutes and cut calories, > but then someone else is telling them something completely opposite to that. Who?! Who is saying that reducing your food intake somewhat, and increasing your exercise by 20-30 minutes a day, WON'T result in weight loss? I mean, who other than some moronic "fat acceptance" wackos? > So how is the average person supposed to distinguish who is lying and who's > telling the truth, especially when the lie is so much more appealing? Look, life is FULL of little instances of proving "if it sounds too good to be true, it undoubtedly isn't" to be true. I'm sure a lot of morbidly obese people can think of quite a lot of instances where they've said it themselves, to someone else over a different issue. > > >>It also is absurd to suggest that morbidly obese people >>aren't aware of the issue. EVERYONE is aware of it, >>and of the basic commonsense that must be internalized: >> reduce caloric intake, increase caloric expenditure, >>lose weight. It really is that simple. Morbid obesity >>is SOLELY a function of behavior, not family tendencies. > > > I think that in some people it is family genetics alone, Virtually never. > or both in > combination. In the vast majority of overweight people though (most, not > all) you're right. > > <snip> > >>>They may not even know they have a problem with portion control until > > they > >>>get really big, >> >>Come on, now. They know they have SOME kind of problem >>when their clothes stop fitting them and their friends >>begin needling them about packing on a lot of weight. > > > They know they have a *weight* problem, they may not necessarily know they > have a portion control problem. It's no big mystery. Weight gain is directly and obviously tied to food intake. What determines food intake? Number of meals times size of portions: M x P Now, they KNOW they aren't increasing M to, say, 8 meals per day. Therefore, it's mostly an increase in P (although the old bugaboo "between-meal snacks" must be considered.) > They may think that eating a huge portion of > potatoes will help them lose weight instead of eating a huge portion of > steak, because potatoes are lower in fat. Thinking in terms of huge portions is a mistake right off the line. > They may think eating a box of > sugary Snack Wells cookies will help them lose weight instead of eating a > package of chips a hoy. Some of these changes might help a little, but they > don't address the issue of portion control. > > >>>and then they're bombarded with different people trying to >>>take their money away to fix the overweight problem, without fixing the >>>issue that caused it. They may never learn what a regular sized portion >>>is unless they take the time to find out that specific information. >> >>That information is readily available. One must WANT >>to find it and learn from it. > > > And search for it until they find it, and then sift through BS. In this age of the internet, and frequent news stories about an obesity "epidemic", one need search neither long nor hard. It's right there under their noses, or at least it would be if a quarter-pounder-with-cheese weren't already there. > When you > have infomercials constantly telling people "Eat all you want! and lose 10 > lbs. in 5 days!" it can be confusing for people. I automatically assume that all infomercials for health care or health-related products - baldness cures, flatulence, impotence - are bullshit. > > >>>It's extremely easy to gain weight, and it's difficult to lose it. >> >>It sure is. I just read something about the >>documentary "Super Size Me" >>(http://www.supersizeme.com/) The guy ate nothing but >>McDonald's food for a month in order to make the film, >>and his rule was that if the counterperson ever asked >>him did he want to "supersize" something, he had to do >>it. He gained 25 pounds in ONE MONTH! It took him six >>months of supervised weight loss to lose 20 pounds, and >>another NINE MONTHS to lose the final five pounds. > > > Yeah, it's frustrating. > > >>The asymmetry between the ease of weight gain and the >>difficulty of weight loss is NOT a legitimate excuse, >>however, although lots of seriously obese people try to >>use it as one. Also, the asymmetry is not some >>craftily concealed fact that someone "doesn't want you >>to know". It's very well known. > > > I'm not saying it's a legit excuse (it's not), But lots of obese people USE it as one. I'll bet Dawn Taylor does. > just saying it's a lot easier > to talk about losing weight than to actually do it. It's a lot easier for me to talk about training to hike up Mt. Whitney in August than actually to get outside and DO some training, too, but realizing that all the blather in the world in May won't help me a g.d. bit in August, I went out and did a monster, "beastly" hike last Saturday: http://www.localhikes.com/Hikes/Bade...Islip_4472.asp. It was damned hard even to get out there, too, because the night before a friend in a lousy marriage wanted to get together for a couple of drinks and I had a bit too much to drink and only about 4 hours of sleep, and felt hung-over as hell Saturday morning, but I *did* the hike. No one was going to do it for me. > That's one reason I > think people are so big in the U.S. People are so big in the U.S. because our culture grotesquely values quantity over quality. That doesn't mean people must accept the prevailing cultural message. I rejected it in adult life, after growing up believing that more and bigger was almost always better. > Not only are we constantly bombarded > with food ads (heck, I can't watch the news without commercials telling me > about the wonders of Domino's Pizza, Taco Bell, Golden Corral, Hartz Chicken > Buffet, etc.) that can trigger cravings, but there's a double whammy with > all the distorted, wrong, and dangerous diet information being pushed in > people's faces. There's a dangerous passivity in your writing, bordering on sounding as if you see yourself as a witless dupe: "are constantly bombarded", for example. Turn the goddamned television OFF! Better, get RID of the thing, or at least get a small one that doesn't make parking yourself on the sofa in front of it seem like such a great thing; a little 14" TV will do just fine to have a look at the news/sports/weather, which is about all that's worth looking at on TV anyway, and not even much of that. > > >>>It takes >>>no effort at all to gain, it can take monumental effort to lose. So they >>>spend their money and time on a bunch of fad diets and just get bigger and >>>bigger and in the mean time they never really learn how much they should >>>eat, etc. >> >>Again, this information is readily available. One must >>first want to know. > > > And then take the effort to sift through the BS. Not much effort required. *I* know it, and I don't even have a weight problem. That's another way of saying there's no good reason FOR me to know it, yet I do. For those who DO have ample reason to know it, there's no excuse NOT to know it. > > >>>>>Besides, a lot of people who are big do cut down their intake of food a >>>>>lot in order to try to be healthier, and it doesn't always work. >>>> >>>>If you cut your caloric intake to something less than >>>>your caloric expenditure, you NECESSARILY will lose >>>>weight. >>> >>> >>>Yes, burning more calories than you consume sounds pretty easy, doesn't it? > >>It IS easy. It may not be easy to make it into a large >>difference, but a small net expenditure is EASY to attain. > > > Well if someone wants to take 10 years to get to goal weight, maybe. No. The weight for "morbid obesity" is going to vary by height and other physical characteristics, but let's say we're talking about a 6' tall American male who ought to weigh about 185 lb. and in fact weighs 260 lb. It is absurdly easy to lose 3 pounds a month, if one wants to do so; one could probably safely lose 5 with a bit more effort, but we'll go with 3. It would take the person just slightly more than 2 years at that rate to get down to his target weight. > > >>>It's not. >> >>It is. > > > It's hard to make a change significant enough to see the results within a > reasonable time. Two years of modest but steady weight loss seems pretty reasonable. That doesn't even allow for the fact that one could increase the loss for a couple of scattered months, say to 5-7 pounds. > > >>>In order to do that you have to know how much you can eat, how >>>many calories you can eat and still lose, what are good types of >>>exercise (walking, for example). >> >>All of that information is readily available. > > > So is a lot of BS. The good stuff is readily available, and should leap out at anyone who goes into it knowing there are no silver bullets. > > >>>Some people cut their food intake, but not enough, >>>or are eating smaller portions of high calorie foods, and they are >>>frustrated because they're unsatisified with the portions they eat but >>>still gain weight. >>> >>>I mean, let's say someone ate 2 patio burritos for lunch every day, heated >>>up in the microwave with melted cheese over it. They cut it down to one >>>burrito. >> >>DROP THE CHEESE! > > > Easy to say, you know what you're talking about. The "Food pyramid" tells > people to get 2 servings of dairy, so some people think cheese like that is > part of a balanced diet. I don't have a weight problem, yet *I* know that the recommendation for dairy means non- or low-fat milk products. NOT cheese, not ice cream. > >>>They still might not lose weight or stop gaining because it may not >>>be enough of a drop in calories/fat intake to help them. >> >>This is why it's important to increase caloric >>expenditure as well. It doesn't take much. A >>beginner's walking speed is apparently 3.0-3.2 mph >>(http://www.classicalmusicfitness.com/speed.htm). At >>3.0 mph, you'll walk one mile in 20 minutes. For most >>seriously obese people, those 20 minutes would be the >>ONLY 20 minutes of additional exercise they get. It >>isn't a lot, but it's a start. It simply is not a >>believable excuse that they don't have the 20 minutes >>to spend. > > > I agree that everyone ESPECIALLY those with an obesity problem... > should *make time* for exercise. It's probably the > most important thing out of any of this. > > >>>>The caloric intake and the caloric expenditure >>>>are highly variable, and people who cut their caloric >>>>intake but don't lose weight NECESSARILY are still >>>>consuming more in calories than they burn. >>> >>> >>>Yes that's true! It's just that it takes effort and research >> >>Very, very little. If a person can't find that out in >>half an hour or less, s/he just doesn't want to know. > > > That's not really fair. They're given a large amount of information, most of > it untrue. I'm not buying that. What you're doing is providing excuses for people not to act. > I would bet money on the hunch that people even offer > "reflexology" for weight loss. That idiot Irish whore Lesley ("pearl") for one... > > >>In 2-3 hours of research, you should have enough >>information to last a LIFETIME. Since we're talking >>about something that has virtually an incalculable >>effect on quality of life AND duration of life, that >>seems like a pittance of time. > > > You're assuming 2-3 hours of productive research. No, total. That's more than enough for someone to sort out the good stuff from the crap. > You're not counting the > time spent looking at hypnotist sites, trying various diets from tv, etc. "Trying diets" doesn't count as research. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
FOB wrote:
> True, but what your body and my body do with those calories may differ. I've taken differences in resting metabolism into account already; that's why *everything* I've written in this thread talks about increases in exercise. If you cut your caloric intake to something less than your caloric expenditure, which probably requires an increase in expenditure, you will lose weight. It's medically and mathematically necessary. > > In link.net, > Jonathan Ball > stated > | > | A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. "Calorie" is an > | OBJECTIVE unit of energy. If there is one chocolate > | eclair on a table in front of us, and some referee > | randomly picks you or me to eat the eclair, it provides > | the same number of calories to you as it would to me. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Crafting Mom wrote:
> FOB wrote: > > >>True, but what your body and my body do with those calories may differ. > > > Unfortunately, many people see it as a judgment call on them personally to > be told that weight loss is from a calorie deficit. Eating fewer calories > than *your body personally needs to maintain weight* (And it does differ > for everyone) is technically, what causes weight loss. Once again, that threshold number of calories VARIES depending on activity level. If you are maintaining your weight while going about your daily living including a one-mile walk, and then increase your walk to three miles while keeping your food intake and other activities (work, household chores, etc.) exactly the same, then you will lose weight. Not rapidly, not dramatically, but weight loss will occur. The problem for obese people is that the majority of them get ZERO true exercise. > > Even if one is insulin resistant, and a certain way of eating raises their > metabolism, and they've still lost weight, it's because at *some* given > point the calories burned has exceeded calories ingested over a period of > time. This does not contradict the idea that different people metabolize > foods differently and at different rates, and for different reasons. That's right. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
I have decreased intake but not increased expenditure and I have lost 49.5
pounds. While I agree that exercise is a good thing, it is not a necessary thing. In link.net, Jonathan Ball > stated | | I've taken differences in resting metabolism into | account already; that's why *everything* I've written | in this thread talks about increases in exercise. | | If you cut your caloric intake to something less than | your caloric expenditure, which probably requires an | increase in expenditure, you will lose weight. It's | medically and mathematically necessary. | |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
FOB wrote:
> I have decreased intake but not increased expenditure and I have lost 49.5 > pounds. While I agree that exercise is a good thing, it is not a necessary > thing. Probably "not necessary" in terms of getting your number, but people, physical problems notwithstanding, are designed to be somewhat active, and it is very healthy and invigorating to incorporate some form of exercise into one's lifestyle. JMO -- The post you just read, unless otherwise noted, is strictly my opinion and experience. Please interpret accordingly. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Rubystars wrote:
>>Sorry. This is simply not true. > > > I think some people have more of a natural tendency than others. This can be > seen in families who don't have bad eating habits but still nearly every > member of the family is big, even the young children. My sister had a friend > whose family was like that. They were all huge (not fat, huge), the difference being ... ? > even though > they were all trying very hard. Yes we all believe that. I'm sure they were stuffing their faces very hard with cheeseburgers. > It could have been a gland problem that ran > in the family, etc. They said the doctor had said they had thyroid issues. > > >>Foods have known >>caloric values. Various forms of exercise and activity >>burn up fairly well known amounts of calories. > > > Yes, if people take the effort and time to learn all that (often > contradictory) information, to sift the truth out, then they can make an > eating/exercise plan that will work for them. What is contradictory about the caloric values of differents foods and the caloric needs of various forms of exercise ? You are making excuses again. It's not really complicated: you need to get off your ass and go exercise. > > >>Metabolism is NOT a constant for any individual: if >>you exercise more and are otherwise more active, you >>burn more calories. If you burn more calories than you >>take in, you lose weight. It's a medical and logical >>NECESSITY. > > > That's true. People can increase their metabolism, or decrease it, but I > think some people have a higher natural metabolism than other people, and so > there is a different range available for different people. You missed the point entirely. Energy does not come out of nowhere. What some of you fat people don't realize, is that the only thing to understand about diets is the need to establish a negative caloric balance. > > They may not even know they have a problem with portion control until they > get really big, and then they're bombarded with different people trying to > take their money away to fix the overweight problem, without fixing the > issue that caused it. They may never learn what a regular sized portion is > unless they take the time to find out that specific information. > > It's extremely easy to gain weight, and it's difficult to lose it. It takes > no effort at all to gain, it can take monumental effort to lose. So they > spend their money and time on a bunch of fad diets and just get bigger and > bigger and in the mean time they never really learn how much they should > eat, etc. Please explain your logic: going on a diet makes you fat. I've seen this kind of fat logic everywhere on this newsgroup, and also on the big fat blog. I am puzzled by it everytime. > Yes, burning more calories than you consume sounds pretty easy, doesn't it? > It's not. In order to do that you have to know how much you can eat, how > many calories you can eat and still lose, what are good types of exercise > (walking, for example). Any exercise is good enough for you, although at 130kgs, you might want to prefer walking to running. > Some people cut their food intake, but not enough, > or are eating smaller portions of high calorie foods, and they are > frustrated because they're unsatisified with the portions they eat but still > gain weight. Of course diets are frustrating, nobody ever said the contrary. Fat people seem to think that if a diet is frustrating, then it won't work/ isn't working. You know, some people with more willpower than you are able to follow the diet and succesfully lose weight with it. > > I mean, let's say someone ate 2 patio burritos for lunch every day, heated > up in the microwave with melted cheese over it. They cut it down to one > burrito. They still might not lose weight or stop gaining because it may not > be enough of a drop in calories/fat intake to help them. Here, fat logic at work again: going on a diet won't make me shed 50kgs in a week, so I might as well stay fat, because the effort isn't worth it. I have news for you: diets are a long term effort. Actually, they are lifetime efforts. To lose weight and keep it off, you have to change your eating habits permanently. >>The caloric intake and the caloric expenditure >>are highly variable, and people who cut their caloric >>intake but don't lose weight NECESSARILY are still >>consuming more in calories than they burn. > > > Yes that's true! It's just that it takes effort and research to find out how > many calories you can consume, what kinds of foods are more bulky but lower > in fat and calories, etc. It takes no effort at all to buy what tastes good > and eat as much as you want to feel full. So people who don't have the > knowledge base to work from are at a disadvantage. The internet can make it > a lot easier, but in some ways it may make it more difficult, as there are > also a lot of diet scams being promoted over the internet. Don't fall trap to the diet scams, but don't fall trap to fat logic too. You only need to remember one thing, and that's "calorie deficit". -- polar bear |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
FOB wrote:
> I have decreased intake but not increased expenditure and I have lost 49.5 > pounds. While I agree that exercise is a good thing, it is not a necessary > thing. Right; it isn't. It definitely helps. I don't know if increasing expenditure is naturally a little easier than reducing intake, or not. Intuitively, it seems to me that it should be, as there obviously are some, maybe most, morbidly obese people who get no exercise at all, while, as Rubystars points out, they may need to acquire some additional knowledge about which things might to best effect be reduced. > > In link.net, > Jonathan Ball > stated > | > | I've taken differences in resting metabolism into > | account already; that's why *everything* I've written > | in this thread talks about increases in exercise. > | > | If you cut your caloric intake to something less than > | your caloric expenditure, which probably requires an > | increase in expenditure, you will lose weight. It's > | medically and mathematically necessary. > | > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Jonathan Ball wrote:
:: FOB wrote: :: ::: I have decreased intake but not increased expenditure and I have ::: lost 49.5 pounds. While I agree that exercise is a good thing, it ::: is not a necessary thing. :: :: Right; it isn't. It definitely helps. :: :: I don't know if increasing expenditure is naturally a :: little easier than reducing intake, or not. It sounds as if you have no experience with the matter. So why are you hawking? :: Intuitively, it seems to me that it should be, as there :: obviously are some, maybe most, morbidly obese people :: who get no exercise at all, while, as Rubystars points :: out, they may need to acquire some additional knowledge :: about which things might to best effect be reduced. Intuitively, for the very obese, it would be easier to NOT exercise and simply follow a LC woe. That way, appetite would diminish naturally and weight loss would likely follow easily. You clearly no little about weight loss. :: ::: ::: In link.net, ::: Jonathan Ball > stated :::: :::: I've taken differences in resting metabolism into :::: account already; that's why *everything* I've written :::: in this thread talks about increases in exercise. :::: :::: If you cut your caloric intake to something less than :::: your caloric expenditure, which probably requires an :::: increase in expenditure, you will lose weight. It's :::: medically and mathematically necessary. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Roger Zoul, bonehead ordinaire, bullshitted:
> Jonathan Ball wrote: > :: FOB wrote: > :: > ::: I have decreased intake but not increased expenditure and I have > ::: lost 49.5 pounds. While I agree that exercise is a good thing, it > ::: is not a necessary thing. > :: > :: Right; it isn't. It definitely helps. > :: > :: I don't know if increasing expenditure is naturally a > :: little easier than reducing intake, or not. > > It sounds as if you have no experience with the matter. It sounds as if you don't know your ass from your face. I don't have any direct experience because I have never been overweight. One needn't have been overweight in order to know something useful about the topic. > So why are you hawking? Because I'm right. > > :: Intuitively, it seems to me that it should be, as there > :: obviously are some, maybe most, morbidly obese people > :: who get no exercise at all, while, as Rubystars points > :: out, they may need to acquire some additional knowledge > :: about which things might to best effect be reduced. > > Intuitively, for the very obese, it would be easier to NOT exercise and > simply follow a LC woe. No one is talking about what it is "intuitive" to DO, you blockhead. > That way, appetite would diminish naturally and > weight loss would likely follow easily. > > You clearly no [SIC] little about weight loss. I clearly *know* - not 'no', blockhead - plenty about it. > > :: > ::: > ::: In link.net, > ::: Jonathan Ball > stated > :::: > :::: I've taken differences in resting metabolism into > :::: account already; that's why *everything* I've written > :::: in this thread talks about increases in exercise. > :::: > :::: If you cut your caloric intake to something less than > :::: your caloric expenditure, which probably requires an > :::: increase in expenditure, you will lose weight. It's > :::: medically and mathematically necessary. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fat Kills (was: Oh, brother (I roll my eyes))
Fat cells actively breed disease
By Daniel Q. Haney Associated Press Research into the biology of fat is turning up some surprising new insights about how obesity kills. The weight of the evidence: It's the toxic mischief of the flesh. Experts have realized for decades that large people die young, and the explanation long seemed obvious. Carrying around all those extra pounds must put a deadly strain on the heart and other organs. Obvious but wrong, it turns out. Although the physical burden contributes to arthritis and sleep apnea, among other things, it is a minor hazard compared with the complex and insidious damage wrought by the oily, yellowish globs of fat that cover human bodies like never before. A series of recent discoveries suggests that all fat-storage cells churn out a stew of hormones and other chemical messengers that fine-tune the body's energy balance. But when spewed in vast amounts by cells swollen to capacity with fat, they assault many organs in ways that are bad for health. The exact details still are being worked out, but scientists say there is no doubt this flux of biological cross talk hastens death from heart disease, strokes, diabetes and cancer, diseases that are especially common among the obese. ``When we look at fat tissue now, we see it's not just a passive depot of fat,'' said Dr. Rudolph Leibel of Columbia University. ``It's an active manufacturer of signals to other parts of the body.'' The first real inkling that fat is more than just inert was the discovery 10 years ago of the substance leptin. Scientists were amazed to find that this static-looking flesh helps maintain itself by producing a chemical that regulates appetite. Roughly 25 different signaling compounds -- with names like resistin and adiponectin -- are now known to be made by fat cells, Leibel estimates, and many more undoubtedly will be found. ``There is an explosion of information about just what it is and what it does,'' Dr. Allen Spiegel, director of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, says of fat. ``It is a tremendously dynamic organ.'' Fat tissue is now recognized to be the body's biggest endocrine organ, and its sheer volume is impressive even in normal-sized people. A trim woman is typically 30 percent fat, a man 15 percent. That is enough fuel to keep someone alive without eating for three months. By far, the biggest single threat of obesity is heart disease. Someone with a body mass index over 30 has triple the usual risk. The American Cancer Society estimates that staying trim could eliminate 90,000 U.S. cancer deaths a year. Among the varieties most clearly linked to weight are cancer of the breast, uterus, colon, kidney, esophagus, pancreas and gallbladder. (In the San Jose Mercury-New, http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...8638237.htm?1c) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fat Kills (was: Oh, brother (I roll my eyes))
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/st...200549,00.html
Jonathan Ball wrote: :: Fat cells actively breed disease :: :: By Daniel Q. Haney :: :: Associated Press :: :: Research into the biology of fat is turning up some :: surprising new insights about how obesity kills. The :: weight of the evidence: It's the toxic mischief of the :: flesh. :: :: Experts have realized for decades that large people die :: young, and the explanation long seemed obvious. :: Carrying around all those extra pounds must put a :: deadly strain on the heart and other organs. :: :: Obvious but wrong, it turns out. Although the physical :: burden contributes to arthritis and sleep apnea, among :: other things, it is a minor hazard compared with the :: complex and insidious damage wrought by the oily, :: yellowish globs of fat that cover human bodies like :: never before. :: :: A series of recent discoveries suggests that all :: fat-storage cells churn out a stew of hormones and :: other chemical messengers that fine-tune the body's :: energy balance. But when spewed in vast amounts by :: cells swollen to capacity with fat, they assault many :: organs in ways that are bad for health. :: :: The exact details still are being worked out, but :: scientists say there is no doubt this flux of :: biological cross talk hastens death from heart disease, :: strokes, diabetes and cancer, diseases that are :: especially common among the obese. :: :: ``When we look at fat tissue now, we see it's not just :: a passive depot of fat,'' said Dr. Rudolph Leibel of :: Columbia University. ``It's an active manufacturer of :: signals to other parts of the body.'' :: :: The first real inkling that fat is more than just inert :: was the discovery 10 years ago of the substance leptin. :: Scientists were amazed to find that this static-looking :: flesh helps maintain itself by producing a chemical :: that regulates appetite. :: :: Roughly 25 different signaling compounds -- with names :: like resistin and adiponectin -- are now known to be :: made by fat cells, Leibel estimates, and many more :: undoubtedly will be found. :: :: ``There is an explosion of information about just what :: it is and what it does,'' Dr. Allen Spiegel, director :: of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and :: Kidney Diseases, says of fat. ``It is a tremendously :: dynamic organ.'' :: :: Fat tissue is now recognized to be the body's biggest :: endocrine organ, and its sheer volume is impressive :: even in normal-sized people. A trim woman is typically :: 30 percent fat, a man 15 percent. That is enough fuel :: to keep someone alive without eating for three months. :: :: By far, the biggest single threat of obesity is heart :: disease. Someone with a body mass index over 30 has :: triple the usual risk. :: :: The American Cancer Society estimates that staying trim :: could eliminate 90,000 U.S. cancer deaths a year. Among :: the varieties most clearly linked to weight are cancer :: of the breast, uterus, colon, kidney, esophagus, :: pancreas and gallbladder. :: :: (In the San Jose Mercury-New, :: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...8638237.htm?1c) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Hello Gooseride!
> I would say that millions of concentration camp victims and starving > Ethiopians say you're full of beans. I guarantee you that if ANYONE goes > into caloric deficit they will lose weight. Basic thermodynamics. What > you're claiming defies the laws of physics, and of common sense. Yes, people > lose weight with a diet which eliminates high GI foods. But people also lose > weight by eating lots of pasta and exercising intensely. People also lose > weight by achieving a state of caloric deficit. In basic thermo terms you are completely correct! Unfortunately, though, the human body is considerably more complex than you are giving it credit for. This also completely disregards the human brain/personality factor. It has been my typical experience, as with most nutritional professionals, that cleaning up a persons diet thru education about refined foods instead of just looking at caloric intact is dramatically more effective? Also, since the body metabolizes foods differently depending on its current state, caloric intake from a "blood glucose" standpoint is drastically different. Don't believe me?? Well, let me first put it in a simple context for you... How much broccoli would it take to constitute the caloric intake of 1 8oz soft drink? (ie. approx. 230 kcal) Well, it is over 5 cups!! Eating 5 cups of broccoli in one sitting would be extremely difficult for any one person to take. Telling someone, though, to drink no more than 1/2 can of soft drinks a day, would be very difficult for the individual to sustain long-term! Starting to see my point now? :-) OK.. Now lets get a little more technical and explore why the human body is much more complex than most people ever realize…. To address how the body metabolizes different types of foods, lets look at the way the body processes carbohydrates, proteins, and fats. Unless placed in a ketosis state, the body certainly is not going to break down the fats for blood glucose conversion during a normal digestion state. In addition, protein is even more difficult for the body to convert to glucose as it provides very little in conversion. So what is going to happen when you eat a pretty well balanced meal?? Well, unless your glycogen levels are low in the liver, (ie. Your bodies natural carb backup storage) the body will absorb the carb source as glucose and then raise to an anabolic state with the protein source. (ie. blood PH shift from amino acid absorption). I will leave the fat out from this example only because it serves a slightly different purpose to the bodies needs. Cool the way the body works isn't it?? This is why looking just at calories alone is almost useless. One should use caloric intake for reference, but looking at the food ratios are much more important. By the way, how do you think body builders are about to obtain < 10% BF numbers while on a diet of > 3500 calories? If they simply reduced calories, then their body would just because leaner overall by breaking down their muscles first and leaving the BF as is! Having a clear understanding of anabolic/catabolic blood states is critical for a person to understand if you are ever looking to develop any kind of muscle tone and definition... Jim Carver "Gooserider" > wrote in message om>... > "Jim Carver" > wrote in message > om... > > Hello Doug! > > > > Sorry for the long email in advance. I just wanted to provide > > information for you just in case you might find it helpful... > > > > > I tried a vegetarian diet for a couple of months before starting > low-cal. I > > > *gained* weight. It's easy to gain weight on a vegetarian diet - > especially > > > a lacto-vegetarian diet. > > > > This is great that you are trying a new diet! Especially a low-cal > > vegetarian diet, which I would think would be exceptionally difficult > > to stomach. It shows that you really trying!! Now, I don't really > > know if you want the information, but there is a very easy explanation > > as to why you gained weight. Let me explain... > > > > What if I was to tell you that for most people, reducing their caloric > > intake would have ZERO impact on them loosing weight? > > I would say that millions of concentration camp victims and starving > Ethiopians say you're full of beans. I guarantee you that if ANYONE goes > into caloric deficit they will lose weight. Basic thermodynamics. What > you're claiming defies the laws of physics, and of common sense. Yes, people > lose weight with a diet which eliminates high GI foods. But people also lose > weight by eating lots of pasta and exercising intensely. People also lose > weight by achieving a state of caloric deficit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Hello Again Gooserider!
> Of course. It doesn't matter if the calories consumed are from ice cream or > brussels sprouts. If one consumes more calories than one's body needs, > weight gain occurs. That's why I laugh at people who claim to "not eat much" > but are still morbidly obese. A 300 pound person needs to eat 3000 cals/day > just to maintain. Sorry to tell you this, but you are wrong on this note also. Maintenance level caloric intake can only be calculated by LBM (ie. (Total Weight - Fat Weight) = Lean Body Mass ) numbers. Think about it this way.. How much energy does fat need to sustain itself??? Basically little to none as it is just chains of molecules anyway... Also, the human organs are also exceptionally efficient so they take very little energy! Your skeletal muscles absorb most of the bodies glucose. This is the reason high weight strength exercising is so effective!! Jim Carver "Gooserider" > wrote in message om>... > "Doug Lerner" > wrote in message > ... > > On 5/10/04 2:53 PM, in article er, > > "Eva Whitley" > wrote: > > > > > The morons at PETA have rolled out Veg Eye for the Fat Guy (he > > > http://goveg.com/feat/vegeye2/ ) targeting Ruben Studdard, Luciano > > > Pavarotti, Michael Moore, John Goodman, and John Madden. > > > > > > Earth to PETA: it is possible to be fat and vegetarian. Don't they know > > > any fat guy vegetarians? I could introduce them to some... > > > > I tried a vegetarian diet for a couple of months before starting low-cal. > I > > *gained* weight. It's easy to gain weight on a vegetarian diet - > especially > > a lacto-vegetarian diet. > > > Of course. It doesn't matter if the calories consumed are from ice cream or > brussels sprouts. If one consumes more calories than one's body needs, > weight gain occurs. That's why I laugh at people who claim to "not eat much" > but are still morbidly obese. A 300 pound person needs to eat 3000 cals/day > just to maintain. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"FOB" > wrote in message . .. > I have decreased intake but not increased expenditure and I have lost 49.5 > pounds. While I agree that exercise is a good thing, it is not a necessary > thing. My mom lost a lot of weight without much exercise by cutting calories and she's over 50. Still, she's not getting other benefits that would come with exercise, such as better cardiovascular health, more energy, etc. For most people though I think it takes both diet and exercise. -Rubystars |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message link.net... > Rubystars wrote: > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > > hlink.net... > > > >>Rubystars wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > arthlink.net... > >>> > >> > >>>>>They could have metabolic problems that cause them to gain even if they > >>>>>eat like a normal person. Some people have a genetic disposition toward > >>>>>being fat that's hard to get past. > >>>> > >>>>Sorry. This is simply not true. > >>> > >>> > >>>I think some people have more of a natural tendency than others. > >> > >>I don't doubt that two people can have very different > >>*resting* metabolisms. That isn't what we're talking > >>about, or at least shouldn't be. > > > > > > It can be the resting metabolism that makes all the difference, when the > > vast majority of Americans don't do regular exercise. > > IF an obese person wants to lose weight, the person > MUST figure out what the caloric count of various > possible meals is, and figure out what the caloric > expenditure of various forms and durations of exercise > is. It's that simple. > > I believe I have a fairly high resting metabolism. I > have always eaten rather large meal portions, have > gotten less exercise as I've gotten older (but still > VASTLY more than the typical American), and I don't > gain weight. Without even NEEDING to investigate > portion size, however, my portions have gone down. I > had an easily intuitive sense that they needed to go > down as my level of exercise declined somewhat, and I > find I feel physically full on far less food than > before. I read no diet books, received no special > medical advice, was not the subject of any harangues in > order to do this. It just happened. You're extremely lucky to be able to know when to stop eating without having to force yourself, you're extremely lucky to never have had to deal with the physical pain and exhaustion and emotional issues of being overweight. Not everyone is so lucky, many people have to learn these things, as they don't come naturally to them. > >>>This can be > >>>seen in families who don't have bad eating habits but still nearly every > >>>member of the family is big, even the young children. My sister had a friend > >>>whose family was like that. They were all huge (not fat, huge), even though > >>>they were all trying very hard. It could have been a gland problem that ran > >>>in the family, etc. > >> > >>It's conceivable that some ONE person might have a > >>hormonal issue. That can't possibly explain the > >>terrible incidence of severe, morbid obesity in the > >>U.S. versus, say, continental Europe. The Germans are > >>pretty stout people, but you simply don't see those > >>extremely obese people there that you see in the > >>American "heartland". > > > > > > Yeah, I think most people are big for lifestyle reasons, and nothing else, > > but my point originally was that it's not necessarily a lie when someone > > says that they're eating a small amount and still gaining or maintaining a > > large weight. > > It isn't necessarily a lie, Which was my point. When I see someone who is massive, like say, 500 lbs. or more, I don't automatically assume that they're sitting at home stuffing their face all day. More likely than not, they're desperately trying to lose weight and have been for a long time. There are some people who do get to those weights just by lifestyle choices, but I've met several huge people like that, that I know for a fact are really trying hard but not having much luck without a doctor's assistance. >but it's MOST LIKELY > untrue. Considering the odds, you're right, but I would rather give someone the benefit of the doubt when they say they have a health issue. >It might be untrue because they're lying, or > it might be untrue because (as you've suggested) they > don't really know what a "small amount" is. Exactly. >MY point > is that very few morbidly obese people have some > medical abnormality that causes the obesity. > > > > > <Snip> > > > >>There is nothing contradictory in the notion that > >>adding 20-30 minutes of vigorous physical exercise to > >>your daily routine, and cutting your caloric intake by > >>15-20%, will make you lose weight. > > > > > > That's very specific information. How much BS did you have to sift through > > to find it? > > ZERO. It's common sense. Common sense to you. Common sense to me. But you have to remember that common sense isn't so common, and those infomercials are very appealing. They say you can eat what you want, not exercise, and look like a supermodel. Who wouldn't give that one a try for $19.95 - $70.00 if they really thought it might work? They see those testimonials on tv, the dramatic "before and after" photos, and they want that too. They want to do good for themselves, it's just confusing so much of the time. Now you've got all these people on Atkins, destroying their health, over a similar fad. Not that some of the low carb stuff isn't helpful, some of the "Reduced carb" items in the store, are also lower in calories now, just as some of the "low fat" stuff in the 90s was lower in calories. > If I had total control of a morbidly obese person's > life for one month, that person would lose 5-8 pounds > with ease, possibly more with a little bona fide sweat. But you can't control other people. They have to seek help and some have had bad experiences with doctors, so they dont necessarily trust doctors anymore. There are doctors that treat fat patients as if they shouldn't even bother going to the doctor and/or find ways to cut them down rather than offering advice. Most doctors I'm sure aren't like that, but there are bad apples out there, and one bad experience can scare people away from conventional medicine for good, and so they end up turning to quacks and wackjobs like reflexologists. > > There's a diet plan being advertized on tv right now that's > > called the "Body Makeover" or something similar, where people take photos of > > themselves, mark on them with markers to indicate where they want to change, > > and then do a miniscule amount of exercise every day (much less than 20-30 > > minutes). The more reliable information I've come across indicates that the > > claims of that infomercial are bogus, you can't spot-reduce fat, you can > > only tone muscle groups in certain areas. The infomercial decleares "Eat > > more!" (as if that's really something an overeater needs to do anyway!) and > > "Exercise less!" (that's really a bad message to send, especially for long > > term health). > > > > How is someone supposed to know that commercial is bogus though? Most people > > aren't exactly biology majors. You can say 20-30 minutes and cut calories, > > but then someone else is telling them something completely opposite to that. > > Who?! Who is saying that reducing your food intake > somewhat, and increasing your exercise by 20-30 minutes > a day, WON'T result in weight loss? I mean, who other > than some moronic "fat acceptance" wackos? All the infomercials tell them they can eat more and exercise less, or, alternatively, eat as much as they want, and not exercise at all. Fat acceptance doesn't help either, it puts out bogus information trying to claim that fat isn't really unhealthy (even though it's a killer). > > So how is the average person supposed to distinguish who is lying and who's > > telling the truth, especially when the lie is so much more appealing? > > Look, life is FULL of little instances of proving "if > it sounds too good to be true, it undoubtedly isn't" to > be true. I'm sure a lot of morbidly obese people can > think of quite a lot of instances where they've said it > themselves, to someone else over a different issue. Yes, but people still fall for scams, and for someone who hasn't developed a skeptical nature, they can be easy marks or victims of the diet industry. > >>It also is absurd to suggest that morbidly obese people > >>aren't aware of the issue. EVERYONE is aware of it, > >>and of the basic commonsense that must be internalized: > >> reduce caloric intake, increase caloric expenditure, > >>lose weight. It really is that simple. Morbid obesity > >>is SOLELY a function of behavior, not family tendencies. > > > > > > I think that in some people it is family genetics alone, > > Virtually never. > > > or both in > > combination. In the vast majority of overweight people though (most, not > > all) you're right. > > > > <snip> > > > >>>They may not even know they have a problem with portion control until > > > > they > > > >>>get really big, > >> > >>Come on, now. They know they have SOME kind of problem > >>when their clothes stop fitting them and their friends > >>begin needling them about packing on a lot of weight. > > > > > > They know they have a *weight* problem, they may not necessarily know they > > have a portion control problem. > > It's no big mystery. Weight gain is directly and > obviously tied to food intake. What determines food > intake? Number of meals times size of portions: > > M x P > > Now, they KNOW they aren't increasing M to, say, 8 > meals per day. Therefore, it's mostly an increase in P > (although the old bugaboo "between-meal snacks" must be > considered.) Yup. > > They may think that eating a huge portion of > > potatoes will help them lose weight instead of eating a huge portion of > > steak, because potatoes are lower in fat. > > Thinking in terms of huge portions is a mistake right > off the line. Yes I know. > > They may think eating a box of > > sugary Snack Wells cookies will help them lose weight instead of eating a > > package of chips a hoy. Some of these changes might help a little, but they > > don't address the issue of portion control. > > > > > >>>and then they're bombarded with different people trying to > >>>take their money away to fix the overweight problem, without fixing the > >>>issue that caused it. They may never learn what a regular sized portion > >>>is unless they take the time to find out that specific information. > >> > >>That information is readily available. One must WANT > >>to find it and learn from it. > > > > > > And search for it until they find it, and then sift through BS. > > In this age of the internet, and frequent news stories > about an obesity "epidemic", one need search neither > long nor hard. It's right there under their noses, or > at least it would be if a quarter-pounder-with-cheese > weren't already there. So is all the other crap information. > > When you > > have infomercials constantly telling people "Eat all you want! and lose 10 > > lbs. in 5 days!" it can be confusing for people. > > I automatically assume that all infomercials for health > care or health-related products - baldness cures, > flatulence, impotence - are bullshit. I assume that too, but the commercials wouldn't keep running if there weren't a large (pun intended) gullible public out to buy the products. > > > > > >>>It's extremely easy to gain weight, and it's difficult to lose it. > >> > >>It sure is. I just read something about the > >>documentary "Super Size Me" > >>(http://www.supersizeme.com/) The guy ate nothing but > >>McDonald's food for a month in order to make the film, > >>and his rule was that if the counterperson ever asked > >>him did he want to "supersize" something, he had to do > >>it. He gained 25 pounds in ONE MONTH! It took him six > >>months of supervised weight loss to lose 20 pounds, and > >>another NINE MONTHS to lose the final five pounds. > > > > > > Yeah, it's frustrating. > > > > > >>The asymmetry between the ease of weight gain and the > >>difficulty of weight loss is NOT a legitimate excuse, > >>however, although lots of seriously obese people try to > >>use it as one. Also, the asymmetry is not some > >>craftily concealed fact that someone "doesn't want you > >>to know". It's very well known. > > > > > > I'm not saying it's a legit excuse (it's not), > > But lots of obese people USE it as one. I'll bet Dawn > Taylor does. It's not a legit excuse though. > > just saying it's a lot easier > > to talk about losing weight than to actually do it. > > It's a lot easier for me to talk about training to hike > up Mt. Whitney in August than actually to get outside > and DO some training, too, but realizing that all the > blather in the world in May won't help me a g.d. bit in > August, I went out and did a monster, "beastly" hike > last Saturday: > http://www.localhikes.com/Hikes/Bade...Islip_4472.asp. > It was damned hard even to get out there, too, > because the night before a friend in a lousy marriage > wanted to get together for a couple of drinks and I had > a bit too much to drink and only about 4 hours of > sleep, and felt hung-over as hell Saturday morning, but > I *did* the hike. No one was going to do it for me. Congrats! > > That's one reason I > > think people are so big in the U.S. > > People are so big in the U.S. because our culture > grotesquely values quantity over quality. That doesn't > mean people must accept the prevailing cultural > message. I rejected it in adult life, after growing up > believing that more and bigger was almost always better. Good for you! > > Not only are we constantly bombarded > > with food ads (heck, I can't watch the news without commercials telling me > > about the wonders of Domino's Pizza, Taco Bell, Golden Corral, Hartz Chicken > > Buffet, etc.) that can trigger cravings, but there's a double whammy with > > all the distorted, wrong, and dangerous diet information being pushed in > > people's faces. > > There's a dangerous passivity in your writing, > bordering on sounding as if you see yourself as a > witless dupe: "are constantly bombarded", for example. > Turn the goddamned television OFF! I dont' have a problem with these things most of the time anymore, but I know other people do. That's why I may sound passive about a lot of this. Sit down and watch tv for an hour during prime time and count all the fast food commercials you see. It's crazy. It can trigger eating if people haven't conditioned themselves not to let that happen. >Better, get RID > of the thing, or at least get a small one that doesn't > make parking yourself on the sofa in front of it seem > like such a great thing; a little 14" TV will do just > fine to have a look at the news/sports/weather, which > is about all that's worth looking at on TV anyway, and > not even much of that. lol <snip> > Not much effort required. *I* know it, and I don't > even have a weight problem. That's another way of > saying there's no good reason FOR me to know it, yet I > do. For those who DO have ample reason to know it, > there's no excuse NOT to know it. The blame is on their shoulders. Ignorance is not an excuse. With that said though, it's not always so easy to sift the good information from the bad. Even otherwise legit doctors will sometimes refer a patient to a chiropractor, for example. <snip> > No. The weight for "morbid obesity" is going to vary > by height and other physical characteristics, but let's > say we're talking about a 6' tall American male who > ought to weigh about 185 lb. and in fact weighs 260 lb. > It is absurdly easy to lose 3 pounds a month, if one > wants to do so; one could probably safely lose 5 with a > bit more effort, but we'll go with 3. It would take > the person just slightly more than 2 years at that rate > to get down to his target weight. Cool.  > > It's hard to make a change significant enough to see the results within a > > reasonable time. > > Two years of modest but steady weight loss seems pretty > reasonable. That doesn't even allow for the fact that > one could increase the loss for a couple of scattered > months, say to 5-7 pounds. Yeah. > >>>In order to do that you have to know how much you can eat, how > >>>many calories you can eat and still lose, what are good types of > >>>exercise (walking, for example). > >> > >>All of that information is readily available. > > > > > > So is a lot of BS. > > The good stuff is readily available, and should leap > out at anyone who goes into it knowing there are no > silver bullets. That's something that's hard to sacrifice for a lot of people. God knows we all wish we could just pop a pill every morning and not have to worry about any of this hard work stuff. I know that's never going to be reality though. <snip> > > Easy to say, you know what you're talking about. The "Food pyramid" tells > > people to get 2 servings of dairy, so some people think cheese like that is > > part of a balanced diet. > > I don't have a weight problem, yet *I* know that the > recommendation for dairy means non- or low-fat milk > products. NOT cheese, not ice cream. When they taught us about nutrition in school, they told us that cheese and ice cream were in the dairy group. Too bad they didn't explain the low fat part. <snip> > > I agree that everyone > > ESPECIALLY those with an obesity problem... Yes. > > should *make time* for exercise. It's probably the > > most important thing out of any of this. > > > > > >>>>The caloric intake and the caloric expenditure > >>>>are highly variable, and people who cut their caloric > >>>>intake but don't lose weight NECESSARILY are still > >>>>consuming more in calories than they burn. > >>> > >>> > >>>Yes that's true! It's just that it takes effort and research > >> > >>Very, very little. If a person can't find that out in > >>half an hour or less, s/he just doesn't want to know. > > > > > > That's not really fair. They're given a large amount of information, most of > > it untrue. > > I'm not buying that. What you're doing is providing > excuses for people not to act. No excuses here, just explanations as to why so many people haven't acted yet. People are responsible for their own outcomes, and for doign their own research. They don't have anyone to blame but themselves, in most cases. With that said there are many people who want to make a buck off of un-skeptical people by selling them a miracle drug or diet that just ends up making people fatter. > > I would bet money on the hunch that people even offer > > "reflexology" for weight loss. > > That idiot Irish whore Lesley ("pearl") for one... Why do you call her a whore? > >>In 2-3 hours of research, you should have enough > >>information to last a LIFETIME. Since we're talking > >>about something that has virtually an incalculable > >>effect on quality of life AND duration of life, that > >>seems like a pittance of time. > > > > > > You're assuming 2-3 hours of productive research. > > No, total. That's more than enough for someone to sort > out the good stuff from the crap. If they know how to think critically. > > You're not counting the > > time spent looking at hypnotist sites, trying various diets from tv, etc. > > "Trying diets" doesn't count as research. After a couple fo them it helped me learn they don't work. -Rubystars |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"polar bear" > wrote in message ... > Rubystars wrote: > >>Sorry. This is simply not true. > > > > > > I think some people have more of a natural tendency than others. This can be > > seen in families who don't have bad eating habits but still nearly every > > member of the family is big, even the young children. My sister had a friend > > whose family was like that. They were all huge (not fat, huge), > > the difference being ... ? The difference between 200 lbs and close to 400 lbs. > > even though > > they were all trying very hard. > > Yes we all believe that. I'm sure they were stuffing their faces very > hard with cheeseburgers. Nope, they all ate healthy stuff every night. Vegetables, chicken breast, etc. > > It could have been a gland problem that ran > > in the family, etc. They said the doctor had said they had thyroid issues. > > > > > >>Foods have known > >>caloric values. Various forms of exercise and activity > >>burn up fairly well known amounts of calories. > > > > > > Yes, if people take the effort and time to learn all that (often > > contradictory) information, to sift the truth out, then they can make an > > eating/exercise plan that will work for them. > > What is contradictory about the caloric values of differents foods and > the caloric needs of various forms of exercise ? You are making excuses > again. It's not really complicated: you need to get off your ass and go > exercise. Not making excuses for people. I'm already losing weight by "getting off my ass" and exercising. I've lost 13 lbs. I was talking about other people who are getting a lot of contradictory information thrown their way that isn't necessarily a snap to recognize what is truthful and what is not. > > > >>Metabolism is NOT a constant for any individual: if > >>you exercise more and are otherwise more active, you > >>burn more calories. If you burn more calories than you > >>take in, you lose weight. It's a medical and logical > >>NECESSITY. > > > > > > That's true. People can increase their metabolism, or decrease it, but I > > think some people have a higher natural metabolism than other people, and so > > there is a different range available for different people. > > You missed the point entirely. Energy does not come out of nowhere. What > some of you fat people don't realize, is that the only thing to > understand about diets is the need to establish a negative caloric balance. I think that's the most important aspect of a successful diet, yes. > > They may not even know they have a problem with portion control until they > > get really big, and then they're bombarded with different people trying to > > take their money away to fix the overweight problem, without fixing the > > issue that caused it. They may never learn what a regular sized portion is > > unless they take the time to find out that specific information. > > > > It's extremely easy to gain weight, and it's difficult to lose it. It takes > > no effort at all to gain, it can take monumental effort to lose. So they > > spend their money and time on a bunch of fad diets and just get bigger and > > bigger and in the mean time they never really learn how much they should > > eat, etc. > > Please explain your logic: going on a diet makes you fat. I've seen this > kind of fat logic everywhere on this newsgroup, and also on the big fat > blog. I am puzzled by it everytime. Going on a diet makes you fat if it's not a permanent lifestyle change, but instead is a temporary starvation program to get people down to a goal and then to go off the diet. When people rebound, they tend to get fatter than they were before. Some people have yo yoed like that several times. Thankfully, I only got down to my goal weight once. I'm going slow this time, making it a lifestyle change, which is much healthier and much more likely to succeed long term. > > Yes, burning more calories than you consume sounds pretty easy, doesn't it? > > It's not. In order to do that you have to know how much you can eat, how > > many calories you can eat and still lose, what are good types of exercise > > (walking, for example). > > Any exercise is good enough for you, although at 130kgs, you might want > to prefer walking to running. I'm not sure how many lbs. 130 kgs is, so I'm not sure if you guessed close or not. I'm walking right now and that helps a lot (and it's fun too). > > Some people cut their food intake, but not enough, > > or are eating smaller portions of high calorie foods, and they are > > frustrated because they're unsatisified with the portions they eat but still > > gain weight. > > Of course diets are frustrating, nobody ever said the contrary. Fat > people seem to think that if a diet is frustrating, then it won't work/ > isn't working. You know, some people with more willpower than you are > able to follow the diet and succesfully lose weight with it. I was able to successfully lose weight on diets, the problem is keeping it off. That's why it's much better to make a lifestyle change (for life) than to go on a temporary "diet." > > I mean, let's say someone ate 2 patio burritos for lunch every day, heated > > up in the microwave with melted cheese over it. They cut it down to one > > burrito. They still might not lose weight or stop gaining because it may not > > be enough of a drop in calories/fat intake to help them. > > Here, fat logic at work again: going on a diet won't make me shed 50kgs > in a week, so I might as well stay fat, because the effort isn't worth > it. That's not what I said at all. I was giving an example of when someone tries to control portions but doesn't know what a normal meal should be in terms of calories they may not enough calories to lose weight, to create a "calorie deficit." >I have news for you: diets are a long term effort. Actually, they > are lifetime efforts. To lose weight and keep it off, you have to change > your eating habits permanently. Yes that's exactly right! > >>The caloric intake and the caloric expenditure > >>are highly variable, and people who cut their caloric > >>intake but don't lose weight NECESSARILY are still > >>consuming more in calories than they burn. > > > > > > Yes that's true! It's just that it takes effort and research to find out how > > many calories you can consume, what kinds of foods are more bulky but lower > > in fat and calories, etc. It takes no effort at all to buy what tastes good > > and eat as much as you want to feel full. So people who don't have the > > knowledge base to work from are at a disadvantage. The internet can make it > > a lot easier, but in some ways it may make it more difficult, as there are > > also a lot of diet scams being promoted over the internet. > > Don't fall trap to the diet scams, but don't fall trap to fat logic too. > You only need to remember one thing, and that's "calorie deficit". You're right. -Rubystars |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"Jim Carver" > wrote in message om... > Hello Rubystars! > > > Add to this the contradictory claims made by various "Experts" on what > > should be eaten, how much, and when, and it can be extremely hard to figure > > it all out. > > I agree. It has been my experience that even 60% of doctors have a > very low understanding of how the body uses various foods. I think I > am qualified to say this as I have two brothers that are both > surgeons. (ie. I decided to go a nutrition route instead!!) > Interestinly enought, most of the quality knowledge on dieting and > nutrition was developed by nutrtionists and body builders over the > last 30 years and not by doctors. > > Let me know if you are interested in learn more about how the body > actually uses the different types of foods you eat, and I will answer > any questions you have! No distortion and no diet crap biasing... > Just straight nutrition facts... Please do not think it is that > difficult. It really is not that hard to understand once you learn a > few concepts about body process mechanisms. > > Jim Carver Thanks. I've done a lot of my own research over the past several years (with a very skeptical approach) and it's helped me to learn a lot, but I'm always willing to learn more. One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity? -Rubystars |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Hello Rubystars!
> One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is > that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that > can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity? No. No food (ie. Assuming no stimulants are added) is able to "raise your metabolic rate". The word metabolic rate is really an overused phase as very few people really understand what it actually means. This includes a fair amount of doctors, eventhough they should know better... Let me explain exactly what a metabolic rate is: What is a metabolic rate? When trying to understand what a metabolic rate actually is, you have to understand a critical nervous system process in your body called the autonomic nervous system. (NOTE: Please do not think that this is some complex "medical term", because the word "autonomic" just means "auto", or that you cannot mentally control its function) In simplest terms, your body is always trying to balance between either digesting food, or providing energy output for physical/mental performance. To manage these two processes, your body has created two different nervous system networks called the "sympathetic" and "parasympathetic" nervous systems. Basically, whenever you eat something, the body realizes that it needs to focus on food digestion, so the parasympathetic nervous system (ie. Digestion kicks in) takes over and suppresses the sympathetic nervous system (ie. decreased thinking/performance). This is what is known as suppressing your metabolic rate. Whenever you need enhanced physical or mental performance, such as while you are working out or are doing some complex mental task, the sympathetic nervous system takes over and suppresses the parasympathetic nervous system. This is what is known as increasing your metabolic rate. I promise that that is it with the boring technical jargon!! What is my point here?? During a time of food digestion, because your sympathetic system is suppressed (ie. suppressed metabolic rate), your body will reduce your heart rate, lower brain functions, and try to just focus on digestion. On the other hand, though, when you workout in the gym, the body realizes that it needs enhanced physical and mental performance, so it suppresses your parasympathetic system, and basically stops any digestion of food. This increased output is known as increasing your metabolic rate. In an increased metabolic rate, you certainly will burn my calories, but it comes at the cost of slowing food digestion... See, not hard to understand after all is it?? :-) For additional reading if you are interested in knowing more techical "stuff"... THE SYMPATHETIC NERVOUS SYSTEM <http://home.swipnet.se/sympatiska/nervous.htm> OK. Then why does all of these "products" on the market say that they "raise your metabolic rate"?? To understand this, you have understand the concept what a stimulant is (ie. Coffee/Ephedra/Green Leaf Tea). Stimulants are any substance that forces your body to keep a raised sympathetic nervous system. Have you ever found yourself wondering why when you drink your first cup of coffee in the morning, you get that pumped up feeling and can think that much better? This is due to you forcing an increased sympathetic system response. (NOTE: Caffine is actually a very weak stimulant. Some of the powerful stimulants in the "anphedamine class" can keep you awake for > 3/5 days at a time) Sounds great doesnt it?? Well, the downside of this, though, is that any food that you eat at this point will not digest very much until caffeine levels start to come down. That kind of sucks, because your body really needs to get some glucose at the very least so that your blood sugar levels do not fall too low, and it starts having to use energy reserves that are stored in the liver... Not good as you are about to go into what is called a "catabolic state" where the body starts to break down your muscles for nutrients. (NOTE: You should keep in mind, though, that not all stimulants use the same type of mechanisms to raise metabolic rate. Some ways are more effective than others, which is why some stimulants work better than others) Next question I suspect you are wondering is: Why was ephedra banned, as it was a powerful stimulant for raising metabolic rate?? Well, now that know how the sympathetic nervous system works you can certainly get an idea of the problems that these types of substances can cause on the body. In ephedra's case, what would happen is that people would take large amounts of ephedra and then workout in the sun during the hottest part of the day. Because their bodies were not able to suppress their metabolic rate, once they started to overheat, their body could do nothing to stop it. So, basically, you can say they died of heat stroke..... Helpful? Got any addition questions on this subject or something else? Jim Carver "Rubystars" > wrote in message om>... > "Jim Carver" > wrote in message > om... > > Hello Rubystars! > > > > > Add to this the contradictory claims made by various "Experts" on what > > > should be eaten, how much, and when, and it can be extremely hard to > figure > > > it all out. > > > > I agree. It has been my experience that even 60% of doctors have a > > very low understanding of how the body uses various foods. I think I > > am qualified to say this as I have two brothers that are both > > surgeons. (ie. I decided to go a nutrition route instead!!) > > Interestinly enought, most of the quality knowledge on dieting and > > nutrition was developed by nutrtionists and body builders over the > > last 30 years and not by doctors. > > > > Let me know if you are interested in learn more about how the body > > actually uses the different types of foods you eat, and I will answer > > any questions you have! No distortion and no diet crap biasing... > > Just straight nutrition facts... Please do not think it is that > > difficult. It really is not that hard to understand once you learn a > > few concepts about body process mechanisms. > > > > Jim Carver > > Thanks. I've done a lot of my own research over the past several years (with > a very skeptical approach) and it's helped me to learn a lot, but I'm always > willing to learn more. > > One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is > that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that > can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity? > > -Rubystars |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
> > One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is
> > that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that > > can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity? > > No. No food (ie. Assuming no stimulants are added) is able to "raise > your metabolic rate". .... Energy Balance: Interpretation of Data from Rural China T. Colin Campbell, PhD Division of Nutritional Sciences Cornell University ... Data pertinent to the issue of energy balance and body weight control obtained in a comprehensive study of diet, lifestyle and disease mortality in 65 counties (130 villages, 6500 adults) of rural China (Chen et al. 1990) were used for the analysis. After adjusting the food intake data to represent a reference male adult involved in the least physical activity and representing the same body weight, total calorie intake (40.6 kcal/kg BW) was about 30% higher in China when compared with an average adult American male (30.6% kcal/kg BW), yet the body mass index for the Chinese male was about 25% lower (20.5 vs. 25.8 kg BW/m2). Diets in rural China were low in fat (14.5% of energy), relatively low in protein (65.8 g/day), and high in fiber (33 g/day), representing a diet unusually rich in plant based foods (e.g., including about 90% of the total protein). It is believed that the excess energy intake among the Chinese is mostly attributed to their greater physical activity, although some unknown but significant and probably difficult to measure amount could be due to increased energy expenditure associated with non-post prandial basal metabolism. ......' http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html .... J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3. Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians. Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T. Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores. In this study the relationship between the weight/height ratio and food consumption was evaluated in 92 ovo-lacto vegetarians and 113 omnivores in Israel. The average weight of the vegetarians was significantly lower than that of the omnivores (60.8 kg vs. 69.1 kg), even though the vegetarian diet supplied a significantly higher amount of calories than the nonvegetarian diet (3,030.5 cal/day vs. 2,626.8 cal/day). Consumption of fat was similar in both groups. Carbohydrate consumption was higher in the vegetarians while protein consumption was lower. The prevalence of obesity was significantly lower in the vegetarian group (5.4%) as compared to 19.5% among the omnivores. The lower body weight of vegetarians despite a higher caloric intake is of considerable interest. PMID: 3760524 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"Jim Carver" > wrote in message <snip explanation> >Helpful? Yes, thanks. >Got any addition questions on this subject or something > else? So since caffeine is a stimulant, I'm wondering if drinking diet cokes is helping me to lose weight (at least a little). I drink a couple of them every day (used to be regular cokes, and more than a couple, so I switched over to diet to keep from consuming all those extra calories). I know it's helping as far as reducing the calorie intake but I was wondering if the caffeine part was helping. -Rubystars |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Dreck the Fat **** wrote:
<...> > My only replacement is aniseed balls. I use them > as a substitute for the fags, but I must admit I do > eat more during mealtimes That's because you lack discipline, fatso. >>I've also heard that smoking can help people to be >>thin (maybe it just keeps the mouth busy) > > I'm hoping the quit will make me more active BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! More active than what -- what you were before you crippled yourself trying to lift engine blocks in front of the lads? > and > feel inclined to burn it off rather than diet. I've never > really tried a *meaningful* or determined diet before. No kidding, slacker. Your existence is meaningless. <...> > My mum's a pink puffer :-( You're a blue-foot and a blue bloater. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Dawn could eat a Tailor wrote:
<...> >>>They could have metabolic problems that cause them to gain even if they eat >>>like a normal person. Some people have a genetic disposition toward being >>>fat that's hard to get past. >> >>Sorry. This is simply not true. Foods have known >>caloric values. Various forms of exercise and activity >>burn up fairly well known amounts of calories. >>Metabolism is NOT a constant for any individual: if >>you exercise more and are otherwise more active, you >>burn more calories. If you burn more calories than you >>take in, you lose weight. It's a medical and logical >>NECESSITY. > > I love it when people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking > about get positively vehement in defending their ignorance. How about stating your actual point(s) of disagreement with a bit of specificity rather than making a conceited generalization about how superior you think you really are? > It's why I love Usenet so very, very much. Not nearly as much as you like HoHos. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
On Wed, 12 May 2004 16:35:04 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Dreck the Fat **** wrote: ><...> >> My only replacement is aniseed balls. I use them >> as a substitute for the fags, but I must admit I do >> eat more during mealtimes > >That's because you lack discipline, fatso. I've incredible discipline, and my smoking quit goes some way in demonstrating that. >>>I've also heard that smoking can help people to be >>>thin (maybe it just keeps the mouth busy) >> >> I'm hoping the quit will make me more active > >BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! More active than what -- what >you were before you crippled yourself trying to lift engine blocks in front of >the lads? Yes. I live in a wheelchair during the day. >> and >> feel inclined to burn it off rather than diet. I've never >> really tried a *meaningful* or determined diet before. > >No kidding, slacker. Your existence is meaningless. > ><...> >> My mum's a pink puffer :-( > >You're a blue-foot and a blue bloater. You should 've paid more attention to Pearl's message to you this afternoon before making a fool of yourself here. Why do attack disabled people like myself? ""Such slanderous remarks win you no respect. You only lose ground when you throw so much dirt." -'usual suspect' 22/Oct/03 "Address the issues at hand, not your hatred of me. ... the issue at hand isn't me. .. Stick to the issue." -'usual suspect' 31/Oct/03 "Perhaps you'd feel better if you dealt with the issues rather than attack the character of others." -'usual suspect' 3/Nov/03 "Attacking the person, yet another cheesy fallacy of debate and argumentation." -'usual suspect' 9/Nov/03 What a hypocrite." [end] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Rubystars wrote:
<...> > I think some people have more of a natural tendency than others. This can be > seen in families who don't have bad eating habits but still nearly every > member of the family is big, even the young children. My sister had a friend > whose family was like that. They were all huge (not fat, huge), even though > they were all trying very hard. Were they working out, and had they always been active? > It could have been a gland problem that ran > in the family, etc. They said the doctor had said they had thyroid issues. Some thyroid issues are organic (even genetic), but it's often a case of a gland responding to diet and exercise factors of an individual. Regular exercise and a high-fiber diet can help maintain thyroid function and prevent constipation. http://www.hmc.psu.edu/healthinfo/h/hypothyroidism.htm Studies have also shown that more intense exercise relates to greater improvement in thyroid function than moderate exercise. <...> >>Metabolism is NOT a constant for any individual: if >>you exercise more and are otherwise more active, you >>burn more calories. If you burn more calories than you >>take in, you lose weight. It's a medical and logical >>NECESSITY. > > That's true. People can increase their metabolism, or decrease it, but I > think some people have a higher natural metabolism than other people, and so > there is a different range available for different people. It fluctuates depending on age, physical activity level, etc. Someone who becomes more active later in life may have a higher BMR than when he or she was a sedentary young person. Again, exercise is the key to improving BMR and keeping weight off. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Dawn Taylor wrote:
<...> >>>I love it when people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking >>>about >> >>I do know what I'm talking about. There is no great >>mystery to weight loss. A cheeseburger of a given size >> provides the same number of calories to me as it does >>to you; moving your 120kg laterally for 4 miles on foot >>- that's called "walking", fatso - burns even *more* >>calories for you than it does for me (68kg). > > Well, considering that you apparently have no understanding of the > Glycemic Index Apparently, neither do you -- at least its complete insignificance in choosing healthy foods. Why don't you eat carrots or drink orange juice? "Oh, because they cause an insulin spike." Well so does your cottage cheese, chubby. So does that butter-fried steak with melted cheese. So do your fried pork skins. Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too much orange juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because you consume way too many calories. > or the difference in how insulin resistant/diabetic > people metabolize carbohydrates, Most people who use GI to determine what they can or cannot eat are not diabetic or anywhere near being insulin resistant. GI is one of the least scientific "tools" developed. Which baseline or list are you using anyway? ...[A]s aforementioned, the GI of any given food can vary dramatically depending on its country of origin. Therefore, unless you check the specific origin and brand of all the foods you eat, you may not always have an accurate idea of their glycemic indexes. ...[A]ccording to the American Diabetes Association (ADA), differences in the GI ratings of many foods are less accurate when they are eaten in conjunction with other foods at mealtimes. For example, jam has a high GI rating, but when eaten with whole-wheat bread, the combination is digested more slowly and should therefore have a lower GI rating. ...[H]igh-fat products may score low on the GI. Since fat slows digestion, foods like chocolate, sausages and peanuts get a low GI score. For example, the GI rating of some candy bars are 50% lower than that of a steamed potato. Does that mean we should opt to eat a chocolate bar over a potato? Definitely not. Relying exclusively on GI ratings can lead to bad diet decisions and even increase your risk of obesity-related diseases like heart attacks and strokes. http://www.askmen.com/sports/foodcou...ting_well.html Again, you're *not* fat because you ate too many carrots. Take your junky pseudoscience elsewhere. > it patently obvious that you have no > clue what you're talking about. That applies to you, tubby. > A calorie is not a calorie across the board for everyone. According to whom? >>Stop making excuses for your girth. You are overweight >>because you won't consume fewer calories than you burn. >> It's that simple. What ISN'T simple is any >>explanation for your excuse-making. Some view it as >>bad character; it might be. > > Actually, you have absolutely no idea that I'm overweight at all. I > never said I was fat -- I said you were wrong. He's right about your being fat. > I notice that you added the cross-posts to misc.consumers and > alt.support.fat-acceptance *back* after I removed them, so it's also > patently obvious that you're trolling. No, he did that for continuity. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Rubystars wrote:
<...> >>I would bet money on the hunch that people even offer >>"reflexology" for weight loss. > > Sure enough, I found a site: > http://www.holistic-online.com/Remed...eflexology.htm > > More BS: > http://www.bodyandhealthessentials.c...m_slippers.htm > > "Using reflexology science, magnets, and laws of gravity to get slim!" > > The site also claims: > "What if I told you that there is a way to lose weight without joining a gym > or changing your eating habits? Get Slim Slippers are the way, to be worn > daily for a short period of time." > > and then there's this stupid site: > http://www.erbook.net/lose_weight_wi... r_surgery.htm > > it has this stupid paragraph in it: > > "Perhaps you're skeptical, and scoff at the notion that it is possible to > lose weight without dieting, drugs, herbs, exercise, or surgery. My > response? We live in a world in which scientific breakthroughs are common. > People who resolutely adhere to the old dogma are sometimes nominated for > membership in the Flat Earth Society. However, it is natural to question the > validity of weight loss claims because most weight loss "breakthroughs" are > overhyped nonsense. This is different. It works." > > ALL of them claim "This is different. It works." Please stop giving Lesley more kooky sites to link. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
On Wed, 12 May 2004 17:02:52 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
> Dawn Taylor wrote: > <...> >>>> I love it when people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking >>>> about >>> >>> I do know what I'm talking about. There is no great mystery to weight >>> loss. A cheeseburger of a given size provides the same number of >>> calories to me as it does to you; moving your 120kg laterally for 4 >>> miles on foot - that's called "walking", fatso - burns even *more* >>> calories for you than it does for me (68kg). >> >> Well, considering that you apparently have no understanding of the >> Glycemic Index > > Apparently, neither do you -- at least its complete insignificance in > choosing healthy foods. Why don't you eat carrots or drink orange juice? > "Oh, because they cause an insulin spike." Well so does your cottage > cheese, chubby. So does that butter-fried steak with melted cheese. So > do your fried pork skins. Actually, butter-fried steak with melted cheese would not cause much of an insulin increase, as insulin is primarily caused by carbs. I don't eat carrots because they make my stomach upset and juices are the spawn of Satan -- there is nothing whatsoever good about juices. Eat fruit. > Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too > much orange juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and > because you consume way too many calories. > >> or the difference in how insulin resistant/diabetic >> people metabolize carbohydrates, > > Most people who use GI to determine what they can or cannot eat are not > diabetic or anywhere near being insulin resistant. GI is one of the > least scientific "tools" developed. Which baseline or list are you using > anyway? What does GI have to do with insulin resistance? One becomes insulin resistant for a variety of reasons, including the low fat, high carb diet I was on for many years. According to GI, al dente pasta has a low GI, but it causes my blood sugar to go through the roof. So does grapefruit, another supposedly low GI. These are totally separate things. Insulin resistance is problematic, and it has nothing to do with GI. -- Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Ignoramus20355 wrote:
>>Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too much orange >>juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because you consume >>way too many calories. > > > That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious, > trivial, and uninteresting. > > The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories. That question has been long answered: lack of discipline lack of self respect immaturity > For example, I am a slim person at normal weight (I am saying so just > so that you would not dismiss what I say as self excuses of a fat > person). I used to be fat but lost weight by eating less and eating > better and exercising. No great mystery to it, is there? > And yet, I am an overeater and have to apply a lot of efforts to not > overeat. I limit my portions, even though at each meal I would like to > eat more, I eat a lot of low calorie vegetables, keep down carbs, do > not eat sugar etc. > > That's why I call myself a "naturally fat" person. > > There is no particular emotional reason for my overeating, and I am > sure that I overeat becaus some metabolic function or another is not > working right in my body. > > Whereas some people eat all they want, but fortunately they do not > want all that much. > > So, saying that the only difference between fat people and slim people > is "gluttony"and immorality is stupid and inhelpful in really > understanding anything. > > I do realize that you get off by thinking that you are upsetting fat > people, so the complexity of what I say may be lost on you, but > hopefully some other people can identify with what I am describing. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}"; main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} > "It's never too late to have a happy childhood." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
pearl cut-n-pasted:
>>>One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is >>>that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that >>>can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity? >> >>No. No food (ie. Assuming no stimulants are added) is able to "raise >>your metabolic rate". <snip nothing of merit> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
On 12 May 2004 17:27:06 GMT, Ignoramus20355
> wrote: > In article .net>, > Jonathan Ball wrote: >> Ignoramus20355 wrote: >> >>>> Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too >>>> much orange >>>> juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because >>>> you consume >>>> way too many calories. >>> >>> >>> That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious, >>> trivial, and uninteresting. >>> >>> The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories. >> >> That question has been long answered: >> >> lack of discipline >> lack of self respect >> immaturity > > Have you not seen undisciplined, non self-respecting, immature slim > people? If what you mentioned was a real cause of obesity , such people > would not exist. But, I see loads of such people. > No, that's because Jonathan Ball is an idiot. I've seen tons of people who aren't fat who have those three characteristics. Personally, I got fat due to injury (shoulder and ankle) and by eating the same amount I did when I was riding my bike. Then insulin resistance developed and carbs caused me to become depressed, leading to a viscious cycle. I have tremendous discipline, a tremendous amount of self respect and am very mature. -- Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Ignoramus20355 wrote:
> In article .net>, Jonathan Ball wrote: > >>Ignoramus20355 wrote: >> >> >>>>Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too much orange >>>>juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because you consume >>>>way too many calories. >>> >>> >>>That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious, >>>trivial, and uninteresting. >>> >>>The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories. >> >>That question has been long answered: >> >> lack of discipline >> lack of self respect >> immaturity > > > Have you not seen undisciplined, non self-respecting, immature slim > people? Of course. > If what you mentioned was a real cause of obesity, such people > would not exist. But, I see loads of such people. Bad logic, pal; very much akin to the "all dogs are poodles" variety. Lack of discipline, lack of self respect and immaturity don't necessarily lead to grotesque obesity, but examine a grotesquely obese person and you will always find lack of discipline, lack of self respect and immaturity in appreciable concentration. The three emotional pathologies might lead to lots of bad outcomes; grotesque obesity is just one of the many. You need to learn to distinguish between necessity and sufficiency. Lack of discipline, lack of self respect and immaturity are necessary for grotesque obesity, but not sufficient, which means that if you observe the obesity you'll always observe the emotional pathologies, but if you observe the emotional pathologies you won't necessarily observe the obseity. If you have truly got a grip on the weight problem, I imagine you have begun to acquire discipline and self respect, which will propel you on the road to maturity. I don't consider the emotional pathologies to be permanent handicaps. > > >>>For example, I am a slim person at normal weight (I am saying so just >>>so that you would not dismiss what I say as self excuses of a fat >>>person). I used to be fat but lost weight by eating less and eating >>>better and exercising. >> >>No great mystery to it, is there? > > > No great mystery, no. > > What I would really like is, to remain slim and not be hungry > after I ate enough for the day. Just like the "naturally slim" > people. I don't know how long you've had a grip on your weight, but I would imagine that over time, you'll get there. > > i > > >>>And yet, I am an overeater and have to apply a lot of efforts to not >>>overeat. I limit my portions, even though at each meal I would like to >>>eat more, I eat a lot of low calorie vegetables, keep down carbs, do >>>not eat sugar etc. >>> >>>That's why I call myself a "naturally fat" person. >>> >>>There is no particular emotional reason for my overeating, and I am >>>sure that I overeat becaus some metabolic function or another is not >>>working right in my body. >>> >>>Whereas some people eat all they want, but fortunately they do not >>>want all that much. >>> >>>So, saying that the only difference between fat people and slim people >>>is "gluttony"and immorality is stupid and inhelpful in really >>>understanding anything. >>> >>>I do realize that you get off by thinking that you are upsetting fat >>>people, so the complexity of what I say may be lost on you, but >>>hopefully some other people can identify with what I am describing. >>> >>>char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34); }";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} >>> "It's never too late to have a happy childhood." >> > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Bob in CT wrote:
> On 12 May 2004 17:27:06 GMT, Ignoramus20355 > > wrote: > >> In article .net>, >> Jonathan Ball wrote: >> >>> Ignoramus20355 wrote: >>> >>>>> Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank >>>>> too much orange >>>>> juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because >>>>> you consume >>>>> way too many calories. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious, >>>> trivial, and uninteresting. >>>> >>>> The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories. >>> >>> >>> That question has been long answered: >>> >>> lack of discipline >>> lack of self respect >>> immaturity >> >> >> Have you not seen undisciplined, non self-respecting, immature slim >> people? If what you mentioned was a real cause of obesity , such people >> would not exist. But, I see loads of such people. >> > > No, that's because Jonathan Ball is an idiot. I've seen tons of people > who aren't fat who have those three characteristics. You make the same fundamental error of logic that Ignoramus does. Call lack of discipline, lack of self-respect and immaturity EP, for Emotional Pathologies. Obesity is O. Then EP is necessary, but not sufficient, for O. That is, if you see O, you will see EP (necessity); but if you see EP, you won't necessarily see O (sufficiency). > Personally, I got > fat due to injury (shoulder and ankle) and by eating the same amount I > did when I was riding my bike. Then insulin resistance developed So you got REALLY fat. > and carbs caused me to become depressed, leading to a viscious cycle. In other words, you consider yourself a victim of some external "forces". > I have tremendous discipline, a tremendous amount of self respect and am > very mature. Evidently not, or you would have caught it much earlier, and you wouldn't now be blathering about a "viscious [sic] cycle." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
news  > Bob in CT wrote: > > > On 12 May 2004 17:27:06 GMT, Ignoramus20355 > > > wrote: > > > >> In article .net>, > >> Jonathan Ball wrote: > >> > >>> Ignoramus20355 wrote: > >>> > >>>>> Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank > >>>>> too much orange > >>>>> juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because > >>>>> you consume > >>>>> way too many calories. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious, > >>>> trivial, and uninteresting. > >>>> > >>>> The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories. > >>> > >>> > >>> That question has been long answered: > >>> > >>> lack of discipline > >>> lack of self respect > >>> immaturity > >> > >> > >> Have you not seen undisciplined, non self-respecting, immature slim > >> people? If what you mentioned was a real cause of obesity , such people > >> would not exist. But, I see loads of such people. > >> > > > > No, that's because Jonathan Ball is an idiot. I've seen tons of people > > who aren't fat who have those three characteristics. > > You make the same fundamental error of logic that > Ignoramus does. Call lack of discipline, lack of > self-respect and immaturity EP, for Emotional > Pathologies. Obesity is O. > > Then EP is necessary, but not sufficient, for O. That > is, if you see O, you will see EP (necessity); but if > you see EP, you won't necessarily see O (sufficiency). > > > Personally, I got > > fat due to injury (shoulder and ankle) and by eating the same amount I > > did when I was riding my bike. Then insulin resistance developed > > So you got REALLY fat. > > > > and carbs caused me to become depressed, leading to a viscious cycle. > > In other words, you consider yourself a victim of some > external "forces". > > > I have tremendous discipline, a tremendous amount of self respect and am > > very mature. > > Evidently not, or you would have caught it much > earlier, and you wouldn't now be blathering about a > "viscious [sic] cycle." > Bob believes that there are evil external forces working against his weightloss "efforts". He doesn't believe that eating less would work for him. Don't try to use logic to reason with him as this has always failed in the past. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Dreck the Fat **** wrote:
>><...> >> >>>My only replacement is aniseed balls. I use them >>>as a substitute for the fags, but I must admit I do >>>eat more during mealtimes >> >>That's because you lack discipline, fatso. > > I've incredible discipline, No, you've none. > and my smoking quit goes > some way in demonstrating that. Some way? How many times have you tried before but failed because you lack *discipline*? >>>>I've also heard that smoking can help people to be >>>>thin (maybe it just keeps the mouth busy) >>> >>>I'm hoping the quit will make me more active >> >>BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! More active than what -- what >>you were before you crippled yourself trying to lift engine blocks in front of >>the lads? > > Yes. I live in a wheelchair during the day. *playing my violin for you* >>>and >>>feel inclined to burn it off rather than diet. I've never >>>really tried a *meaningful* or determined diet before. >> >>No kidding, slacker. Your existence is meaningless. >> >><...> >> >>>My mum's a pink puffer :-( >> >>You're a blue-foot and a blue bloater. > > You should 've paid more attention to Pearl's message Nobody with a sound mind should heed that loony crank's message about anything. > to you this afternoon before making a fool of yourself > here. Why do attack disabled people like myself? I've never attacked your self-inflicted disabilities, just how you got them. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Ignoramus20355 wrote:
> In article k.net>, Jonathan Ball wrote: > >>Bob in CT wrote: >> >> >>>On 12 May 2004 17:27:06 GMT, Ignoramus20355 > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article .net>, >>>>Jonathan Ball wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Ignoramus20355 wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank >>>>>>>too much orange >>>>>>>juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because >>>>>>>you consume >>>>>>>way too many calories. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious, >>>>>>trivial, and uninteresting. >>>>>> >>>>>>The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That question has been long answered: >>>>> >>>>> lack of discipline >>>>> lack of self respect >>>>> immaturity >>>> >>>> >>>>Have you not seen undisciplined, non self-respecting, immature slim >>>>people? If what you mentioned was a real cause of obesity , such people >>>>would not exist. But, I see loads of such people. >>>> >>> >>>No, that's because Jonathan Ball is an idiot. I've seen tons of people >>>who aren't fat who have those three characteristics. >> >>You make the same fundamental error of logic that >>Ignoramus does. Call lack of discipline, lack of >>self-respect and immaturity EP, for Emotional >>Pathologies. Obesity is O. >> >>Then EP is necessary, but not sufficient, for O. That >>is, if you see O, you will see EP (necessity); but if >>you see EP, you won't necessarily see O (sufficiency). > > > Okay, consider me then. I was fat. According to you, it means that I > was immature, lacked self respect and self discipline. > > But then I lost weight! I assue you that I did not become more mature, > self disciplined and I always had a lot of self respect. If you lost the weight and kept it off through your own change of habits, rather than through surgery or some other externally-imposed method, then you undoubtedly DID gain self discipline, self respect and emotional maturity. > > That's a contradiction to your explanation of EP as a cause for O. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}"; main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} > "It's never too late to have a happy childhood." |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Supersize me brother | General Cooking | |||
| I once gave my gf's brother a BJ | General Cooking | |||
| My kid brother | Diabetic | |||
| Material for making spring roll summer roll | General Cooking | |||
| Banh Trang Vietnam for making spring roll / summer roll | Asian Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
