Question on Calories

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:09:10 GMT, "Pizza Girl" <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Always need that water to flush the fat out, aid in
catabolic processes....

Can you explain these unusual phenomena that you
mention here?

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 03:53:54 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Laurel Amberdine said:

Oh good. Then I shouldn't have any problems.

Not for losing weight, no. If you eat less than you burn,
you'll lose weight, just like everyone else.

Quoted message said:

Then... why does it only happen when I either increase my
exercise or decrease my calories?

I don't know. Ask a doctor. It could be an endocrine
disorder, it could be heart disease ... it could be lots of
things. But whatever it is, you'll still lose weight on a
hypocaloric diet. Everyone does.

Quoted message said:

And why does it only occur when I cannot lose weight?

If you eat fewer calories than you burn, you will ALWAYS
lose weight.

Quoted message said:

There may be another option.

There are no other options. You cannot eat less than you
burn without losing weight. If you don't take in enough
fuel to keep your body running, your body will burn fat
(mostly) to get the fuel it needs. If you have no fat to
burn, you'll die of starvation very quickly if you don't
eat all the calories you need.

Quoted message said:

I know. I didn't say it was normal, only that it
happened.

So see your doctor.

Quoted message said:

I've seen my doctor very recently. I appear to be
extremely healthy (except for my being too fat, which the
doctor doesn't seem very concerned about, bah.)

And what did he say about all these symptoms?

Being too fat can cause a world of problems. Your doctor
may simply have assumed that you won't be able to stick to
a diet, so there's no point in suggesting one. Or your
extra weight is slight enough that it isn't a health risk.

Quoted message said:

Really?

Guaranteed.

Quoted message said:

It must be nice to know everything.

I wouldn't know. But I do know that physical systems obey
certain laws, and among those are the laws of
thermodynamics, and these laws govern weight loss. If you
eat less than you burn, you lose weight, and that is
absolute, no exceptions.

Thanks Mxsmanic. A breath of fresh air on this forum.

On 14 Mar 2004 23:36:48 GMT, Laurel Amberdine <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Doug Freese said:

Laurel Amberdine said:

I've seen my doctor very recently. I appear to be
extremely healthy (except for my being too fat, which
the doctor doesn't seem very concerned about, bah.)

Then maybe you should define what you consider fat.

Sorry, I'm being too flip. I did actually want help (which
was why I began the other thread). I just get annoyed when
people make blanket statements about knowing *everything*.

Like where? Would you rather take notice of know nothings
like Pizza Girl?

Quoted message said:

Um, too fat? About 75 lbs overweight, as far as I can tell.
Even considering possible error, there's still some
significant fat to lose.

Depending on your frame size that's morbidly obese isn't it?
Change doctors!!!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Anyway, just because you are fortunate enough to have
>>all your bodily systems working properly, don't assume
>>that is the case for everyone.

Then you better find a better/another doctor because you
do have a problem.

I have LOTS of problems. I've managed to control some of
them. This doctor is as helpful as any I've found in many
years of searching.

Surely not if he's not worried about your obesity.

Quoted message said:

I only mentioned to him the fact that I keep coming down
with a cold every time I try to lose weight. I don't let it
get further than that anymore. He suggested drinking more
water. :p

I suggest you get checked out by an endocrinologist. You
tend to get sick when your blood sugar is low. I suspect you
might have syndrome
X.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You can be as smug as you like but if your condition is
such that the modification to exercise or food causes
fainting, YOU HAVE A PROBLEM. Then again you never said
what or how much food you eliminated or how much
exercise.

See other thread for brief details. I didn't want to get
into a great long summary of my habits if no one had any
ideas or wanted to discuss it.

Seriously, have you had any glucose tolerance tests with
insulin assays?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Really? It must be nice to know everything.

Seems like you hiding from the facts or trying to justify
your excess weight or just busting chops with silly
dialog.

I just spent too much time online today and I'm cranky.
Sorry. (BTW, I remember you from rec.running. Hi!)

If I were you, I would get a blood glucose meter (have you
got a diabetic friend?) and measure your bg when you feel
like this.

On 14 Mar 2004 22:37:10 GMT, Laurel Amberdine <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Pizza Girl said:

LA...this guy is trolling for bites here. He has rolled
his argument several times. He is either trolling for
attention or a complete idiot.

You decide. I have killfiltered him won't see him anymore
except for when you repeat his garbage.

Thanx for understanding.

Ah, sorry for dragging it on. I have reached my quota of
contentious posts anyhow. 🙂

Contentious? The guy tells you the obvious truth and you
want to argue because it doesn't suit? Sheeesh!

On 14 Mar 2004 22:30:46 GMT, Laurel Amberdine <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Mxsmanic said:

Laurel Amberdine said:

There's me, and while I am certainly weird, I am
probably not the only one.

You are not an exception to the rule.

Oh good. Then I shouldn't have any problems.

No, join the queue for problems like the rest of us.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If I drop my calories I (sequentially):

(1) start to feel extremely bad
(2) get invaded by a virus
(3) develop an irregular heartbeat
(4) start fainting

...all without having lost any weight.

Whatever this may be, it has nothing to do with
weight loss.

Then... why does it only happen when I either increase my
exercise or decrease my calories?

You're ill, check it out.

Quoted message said:

And why does it only occur when I cannot lose weight?

Huh? Happens all the time?

Quoted message said:

(In the past I have been able to succesfully drop fat. This
situation only occurs when I am unusually stressed.)

Check it out.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will
lose weight.

There may be another option. I agree that someone cannot
exist without using energy.

What other option? No-one has EVER demonstrated any. TC has
been promising for several years...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At this point, I go back to eating normally because the
fainting distresses my husband. It looks to me like
whatever hormone it is that says "get some fuel out of
storage" isn't working for me.

Your symptoms are suggestive of pathology. You should
consult a physician and describe your history in detail.
Viral infections, arrythmias, and syncope are not normal
consequences of a hypocaloric diet ... even fasting does
not normally produce these symptoms.

I know. I didn't say it was normal, only that it happened.

Check it out.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is it? Glucagon? I haven't looked this stuff up in
years.

Defects in glucose metabolism (such as diabetes mellitus
and chronic or acute hypoglycemic episodes) can produce
symptoms similar to yours. These are serious conditions
that must be investigated medically, by a doctor.

I've seen my doctor very recently. I appear to be extremely
healthy (except for my being too fat, which the doctor
doesn't seem very concerned about, bah.)

Give us a rough idea of your BMI. I take it you get
enough exercise?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyway, just because you are fortunate enough to have
all your bodily systems working properly, don't assume
that is the case for everyone.

No matter what bodily systems you may have that are not
working, you will still lose weight on a hypocaloric
diet. There is no pathological condition that can
prevent this.

Really? It must be nice to know everything.

The basic laws of physics are surely not everything. It
might be comforting for some to be so ignorant.

Did you learn your killfiltering when you learned to top
post?

This guy is consistently correct. You are the one out of
step.

A hypocaloric diet cannot result in anything other than fat
store reduction. Fact!!!

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:28:55 GMT, "Pizza Girl"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

LA...this guy is trolling for bites here. He has rolled his
argument several times. He is either trolling for
attention or a complete idiot.

You decide. I have killfiltered him won't see him anymore
except for when you repeat his garbage.

Thanx for understanding.

"Laurel Amberdine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message -"]news:[email hidden]-
berlin.de...

Quoted message said:

Mxsmanic said:

Laurel Amberdine writes:

> There's me, and while I am certainly weird, I am
> probably not the only one.

You are not an exception to the rule.

Oh good. Then I shouldn't have any problems.

Quoted message said:

> If I drop my calories I (sequentially):
>
> (1) start to feel extremely bad
> (2) get invaded by a virus
> (3) develop an irregular heartbeat
> (4) start fainting
>
> ...all without having lost any weight.

Whatever this may be, it has nothing to do with weight
loss.

Then... why does it only happen when I either increase my
exercise or decrease my calories? And why does it only
occur when I cannot lose weight? (In the past I have been
able to succesfully drop fat. This situation only occurs
when I am unusually stressed.)

Quoted message said:

If you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will
lose weight.

There may be another option. I agree that someone cannot
exist without using energy.

Quoted message said:

> At this point, I go back to eating normally because
> the fainting distresses my husband. It looks to me
> like whatever hormone it is that says "get some fuel
> out of storage" isn't working for me.

Your symptoms are suggestive of pathology. You should
consult a physician and describe your history in
detail. Viral infections, arrythmias, and syncope are
not normal consequences of a hypocaloric diet ... even
fasting does not normally produce these symptoms.

I know. I didn't say it was normal, only that it
happened.

Quoted message said:

> What is it? Glucagon? I haven't looked this stuff up
> in years.

Defects in glucose metabolism (such as diabetes
mellitus and chronic or acute hypoglycemic episodes)
can produce symptoms similar to yours. These are
serious conditions that must be investigated medically,
by a doctor.

I've seen my doctor very recently. I appear to be
extremely healthy (except for my being too fat, which the
doctor doesn't seem very concerned about, bah.)

Quoted message said:

> Anyway, just because you are fortunate enough to have
> all your bodily systems working properly, don't assume
> that is the case for everyone.

No matter what bodily systems you may have that are not
working, you will still lose weight on a hypocaloric
diet. There is no pathological condition that can
prevent this.

Really? It must be nice to know everything.

--
- Laurel * * * amberdine.comamberdine.comOpen ↗

On 12 Mar 2004 07:23:35 -0800, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (PassionOfDarwin) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

My husband is 5 foot 8 inches and weighs 220 pounds. He
walks 2 miles a day, at a slow or moderate pace. I have
some questions about calories and dieting.

How many calories would he burn per mile?

How many calories would he normally need each day?

How many calories are in each pound of fat on him?

How many calories should he take in daily, to lose 2
pounds per week?

Thanks!

The math involved in predicting weight loss or gain using
caloric values of food is not very useful. 98% of those who
attempt to lose weight by restricting and/or counting
calories fail. It is a fundamentally flawed theory. It
doesn't work. There is no science that links caloric values
of food with controlling weight/fat in humans. I challenge
anyone to show us the definitive and seminal study that
makes the direct and un-equivocal connection between calorie-
intake and weight management (gain/loss).

TC

So you are again/still claiming that calories can be made to
disappear?

On 13 Mar 2004 20:47:00 GMT, [email hidden] posted:

Quoted message said:

I don't want you to go away, just provide the scientific
evidence on which you base your new theory of weight status
without reference to calorie status. I don't want to
quibble about the existence of past research which
manipulates calories for various research ends and
illustrate the relationship to weight status, they exist.
Here is but one, the easiest to recall and put my hands on,
as requested, one time free subscription required:

medscape.com469768 3Open ↗

It says in short that there are many factors as to the
specific effect of amount of calories in and metabolism of
same and the final weight loss. There is no surprise here,
all human biological activities exibit themselves in a bell
curve. But, if you read the article, in a controlled
situation where input is measured in a controlled in
hospital situation, all lost weight with lower calories.
Because of the range of variation to x amount of calories
in/out and weight status, we cann't conclude that the
in/out notion fails, just that there are real limits to
the in/out and the final result in all people is a
change in weight status. Knowing this biological
reality doesn't disprove the calorie in/out approach to
creating a plan to lose or gain weight, it just says
what the most usual result is for the great majority of
folk who fall in the wide middle of the curve;ie. 500
cal/day/week = 1 lb lost. I suggest you read the entire
series, parts 1 and 2:

medscape.com470747Open ↗

medscape.com469768Open ↗

I suggest you read the "current concensus" link on the
first url above as the basis by which you frame the
extraordinary evidence which displases that concensus.

ALL observations have shown the conservation of energy
principle, or its corrollary, the indestructibility of
calories.

So. All calories into the human body must equal all
calories out. This has NEVER been shown to be otherwise.
There are hundreds of thousand of corroborating experiments
down the ages.

Now for TC to claim that this is not so requires
extraordinary evidence from him IMHO

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:53:49 -0500, Dally <[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

I like to eat only 40-50% of my calories from carbs just
to get the most satietion out of my calorie budget.

Potato has the most satiety value of any food I believe.

diabetesnet.comsatietyOpen ↗
_index.php

On 12 Mar 2004 20:14:14 -0800, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

Mxsmanic <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

tcomeau said:

The math involved in predicting weight loss or gain
using caloric values of food is not very useful. 98% of
those who attempt to lose weight by restricting and/or
counting calories fail.

One hundred percent of people who try to lose weight
without creating a calorie deficit fail. One hundred
percent of people who try to lose weight by creating a
calorie deficit succeed.

It's all calories in versus calories out. It is the ONLY
way to lose weight, and it ALWAYS works.

If that were true then anyone who wanted to be thin and
followed the low-fat/low-calorie diet would be thin.
Period. But that ain't the case, is it?

YEP! Your failures are those who don't comply with the diet
and that's a whole nother matter.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is a fundamentally flawed theory. It doesn't work.
There is no science that links caloric values of food
with controlling weight/fat in humans.

The laws of thermodynamics guarantee that a caloric
deficit will produce weight loss. There are no
exceptions.

Quoted message said:

Has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics. It is
several levels removed from the laws of thermo. Applying
the laws of thermo to weight control is extreme
oversimplification and sheer stupid assumption.

The laws of Thermo apply EVERYWHERE. Show us where they have
not applied.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I challenge anyone to show us the definitive and
seminal study that makes the direct and un-equivocal
connection between calorie-intake and weight management
(gain/loss).

There are hundreds of such studies, but they aren't
really needed, since the laws of thermodynamics are
pretty clear.

Then show me ONE! Otherwise Shut the f... up.

They all say what we say. You are the odd man out, so I
suggest YOU take your own advice!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ever wonder why you don't see anyone in a long-term coma
who is obese?

Since when does the extreme prove anything other than
the extreme?

Not extreme. Just controlled so we can see the underlying
principle.

Your calorie counter and bathroom scale need not apply.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 05:28:22 GMT, "Pizza Girl" <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Why would you try to lose fat if you are not body building?

Try? I thought he said that was what happened.

Quoted message said:

A weight liter usually need the extra bulk for the power
and support of the structure.

Subcutaneous fat is the fat in the muscle tissue that makes
the muscle massive.

And what school did you learn this from?

Quoted message said:

When you try to "cut-up" you lose much of this fat and the
muscle size diminishes.

What is "cut-up"?

"Moosh🙂" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:53:49 -0500, Dally
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

I like to eat only 40-50% of my calories from carbs
just to get the most satietion out of my calorie
budget.

Potato has the most satiety value of any food I believe.

diabetesnet.comsatiety iOpen ↗
ndex.php

You're advocating the evil potato on this forum! Trying to
cause a ruckus?

Paul P.

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:44:29 +0900, "PaulP" <[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

"Moosh🙂" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:53:49 -0500, Dally
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

I like to eat only 40-50% of my calories from carbs
just to get the most satietion out of my calorie
budget.

Potato has the most satiety value of any food I believe.

diabetesnet.comsatiety inOpen ↗
dex.php

You're advocating the evil potato on this forum! Trying to
cause a ruckus?

I had to look at the headers -- thought I'd crossposted to
alt.whacko.lowcarb 🙂

I must do a comparison between the micronutrients in
lettuce, honey and cauliflower per average serving
<remind self

Troll alert.

Get a job and get out more often.

(how did this idiot get off my bozo filter list again?)

"Moosh🙂" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:44:29 +0900, "PaulP"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

"Moosh🙂" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:53:49 -0500, Dally
<[email hidden]> posted:

> I like to eat only 40-50% of my calories from carbs
> just to get the most satietion out of my calorie
> budget.

Potato has the most satiety value of any food I
believe.

diabetesnet.comsatietyOpen ↗
index.php

You're advocating the evil potato on this forum! Trying
to cause a

ruckus?

Quoted message said:

I had to look at the headers -- thought I'd crossposted to
alt.whacko.lowcarb 🙂

I must do a comparison between the micronutrients in
lettuce, honey and cauliflower per average serving
<remind self

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:03:19 GMT, "Pizza Girl" <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Troll alert.

Get a job and get out more often.

(how did this idiot get off my bozo filter list again?)

Better than an idiot alert, though 🙂 I haven't seen you
post anything vaguely sensible and relevant.

I must just quote a post of yours responding to Mxsmanic
that shows how stupid you are:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Pizza Girl ([email hidden]) Subject: Re: Question
on Calories Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition Date: 2004-03-12
15:00:03 PST

You have no idea what you are talking about. Thiose
oversimplified statements posted by you are just horseshit
of the highest calibre and completely not true.

eg: "One hundred percent of people who try to lose weight
by creating a calorie deficit succeed" is just a damn lie.
Most people attempting this fail because most people fail
at all diets.

"Mxsmanic" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

tcomeau said:

The math involved in predicting weight loss or gain
using caloric values of food is not very useful. 98% of
those who attempt to lose weight by restricting and/or
counting calories fail.

One hundred percent of people who try to lose weight
without creating a calorie deficit fail. One hundred
percent of people who try to lose weight by creating a
calorie deficit succeed.

It's all calories in versus calories out. It is the ONLY
way to lose weight, and it ALWAYS works.

Quoted message said:

It is a fundamentally flawed theory. It doesn't work.
There is no science that links caloric values of food
with controlling weight/fat in humans.

The laws of thermodynamics guarantee that a caloric
deficit will produce weight loss. There are no exceptions.

Quoted message said:

I challenge anyone to show us the definitive and seminal
study that makes the direct and un-equivocal connection
between calorie-intake and weight management
(gain/loss).

There are hundreds of such studies, but they aren't really
needed, since the laws of thermodynamics are pretty clear.
Ever wonder why you don't see anyone in a long-term coma
who is obese?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quoted message said:

"Moosh🙂" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:44:29 +0900, "PaulP"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

"Moosh🙂" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:53:49 -0500, Dally
> <[email hidden]> posted:
>
> > I like to eat only 40-50% of my calories from carbs
> > just to get the most satietion out of my calorie
> > budget.
>
> Potato has the most satiety value of any food I
> believe.
>
> diabetesnet.comsatietyOpen ↗
> _index.php
>

You're advocating the evil potato on this forum! Trying
to cause a

ruckus?

Quoted message said:

I had to look at the headers -- thought I'd crossposted
to alt.whacko.lowcarb 🙂

I must do a comparison between the micronutrients in
lettuce, honey and cauliflower per average serving
<remind self

OK, can we agree that you loose weight when the number of
calories yo consume is less than the number of calories you
metabolize?

That ketosis is evidence of the body metabolizing body fat?
That excess Ketones are excreted by the kidneys? That excess
glucose is converted to body fat?

So, if everyone has answered yes so far, then any weight
reduction diet will result in lower blood glucose levels and
increased ketosis while losing weight. Yes?

Now, there are lots of ways to accomplish this. There are
also lots of different people out there. Some people are
quite capable of eliminating some dense calorie sources from
their diet - such as fats and oils - and lose weight.
Perhaps they never really feel hungry and strict portion
control is easy for them. I know people like this, they
never talk about feeling hungry but will mention they risk
feeling dizzy if they go too long without eating.

For others it is different. They eat because they actually
feel hungry and eating quickly metabolized food results in
hunger pains quicker. So, the trick to dieting for these is
to eat foods that take longer to metabolize and thus keep
the hunger pains at bay. For them fats work better than
carbohydrates. Filling the stomach is less important than
not feeling hungry. They can feel full longer with fewer
overall calories consumed and thus have a better chance of
not 'cheating'.

For any diet and exercise program to be effective, it
must be sustainable over the long term. I have seen
several studies that indicate fluctuating weight is more
harmful than staying at one weight, even if that is being
overweight. So, perhaps the real question should be is
the maintenance Atkins/Zone/South_Beach diet sustainable
and healthy.

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:40:21 GMT, Robert Klute
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

OK, can we agree that you loose weight when the number of
calories yo consume is less than the number of calories you
metabolize?

That ketosis is evidence of the body metabolizing body fat?

Nope, any fat.

Quoted message said:

That excess Ketones are excreted by the kidneys?

Nope. A trace only, like everything else in the blood.

Quoted message said:

That excess glucose is converted to body fat?

Excess energy of any form is converted to fat (if it isn't
fat already) for storage.

Quoted message said:

So, if everyone has answered yes so far, then any weight
reduction diet will result in lower blood glucose levels
and increased ketosis while losing weight. Yes?

Nope, back to the drawing board 🙂

Quoted message said:

Now, there are lots of ways to accomplish this.

Whoa! Shouldn't you wait to confirm your premises?

Quoted message said:

There are also lots of different people out there.

Six billion, give or take.

Quoted message said:

Some people are quite capable of eliminating some dense
calorie sources from their diet - such as fats and oils -
and lose weight.

Yep. Probably the commonest way, but when food is so
readily available in a convenient calorie-concentrated
(refined) form, and there is not much incentive to get off
your ass.....

Quoted message said:

Perhaps they never really feel hungry and strict portion
control is easy for them.

There are pleanty of people who resist a bit of hunger. We
don't all succumb to every urge we get.

Quoted message said:

I know people like this, they never talk about feeling
hungry but will mention they risk feeling dizzy if they go
too long without eating.

Yep, I've heard of folk like that.

Quoted message said:

For others it is different. They eat because they actually
feel hungry and eating quickly metabolized food results in
hunger pains quicker.

Nope. There are a few folks like this, but most folks eat
coz they are hungry. It's apetite we need to control.

Quoted message said:

So, the trick to dieting for these is to eat foods that
take longer to metabolize and thus keep the hunger
pains at bay.

Potatoes are best for this Go figure.

Quoted message said:

For them fats work better than carbohydrates.

Or so they tell themselves. These folk are syndrome X, no?

Quoted message said:

Filling the stomach is less important than not
feeling hungry.

Satiation is mainly to do with full stomach and reasonable
glucose levels.

Quoted message said:

They can feel full longer with fewer overall calories
consumed and thus have a better chance of not 'cheating'.

Yep. Spuds in the diet. Wholefoods take much longer to
digest and to leave the stomach.

Quoted message said:

For any diet and exercise program to be effective, it must
be sustainable over the long term.

Absolutely. This is much to do with psychology. Often what
you are used to is the most comforting. I believe Western
folk are constantly craving comfort. Maybe this is
contributory to our overeating?

Quoted message said:

I have seen several studies that indicate fluctuating
weight is more harmful than staying at one weight, even if
that is being overweight.

Apparently so. I've certainly heard this.

Quoted message said:

So, perhaps the real question should be is the maintenance
Atkins/Zone/South_Beach diet sustainable and healthy.

No idea. But a varied wholefood diet seems the most
satisfying to most, I believe

Moosh:) said:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:40:21 GMT, Robert Klute
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

So, if everyone has answered yes so far, then any weight
reduction diet will result in lower blood glucose levels
and increased ketosis while losing weight. Yes?

Nope, back to the drawing board 🙂

OK, where I am I wrong? If your glucose levels are
sufficient your body is not going to tap into body fat. If
your body is tapping into it fat reserves, their presence is
noted by increased ketone levels.

Quoted message said:

There are pleanty of people who resist a bit of hunger. We
don't all succumb to every urge we get.

I am so glad you can tolerate being hungry all the time. I
find it difficult to concentrate when I am hungry.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For others it is different. They eat because they actually
feel hungry and eating quickly metabolized food results in
hunger pains quicker.

Nope. There are a few folks like this, but most folks eat
coz they are hungry. It's apetite we need to control.

Yes, most people eat because they are hungry.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, the trick to dieting for these is to eat foods that
take longer to metabolize and thus keep the hunger
pains at bay.

Potatoes are best for this Go figure.

Not for me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For them fats work better than carbohydrates.

Or so they tell themselves. These folk are syndrome X, no?

Not necessarily. My cholesterol levels are within normal
range. I believe all it talks is some insulin resistance,
not full syndrome X, for lo-carb to be of benefit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Filling the stomach is less important than not
feeling hungry.

Satiation is mainly to do with full stomach and reasonable
glucose levels.

Reasonable glucose levels I will go with. I don't need to
fill my stomach to eliminate feelings of hunger, at least
not any more.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They can feel full longer with fewer overall calories
consumed and thus have a better chance of not 'cheating'.

Yep. Spuds in the diet. Wholefoods take much longer to
digest and to leave the stomach.

Potatoes have a high glycemic index. I have been
overweight for a long time, so I probably have insulin
resistance at this point. (My mother developed diabetes in
her 70s.) I really want to avoid foods that might
exacerbate the problem.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For any diet and exercise program to be effective, it must
be sustainable over the long term.

Absolutely. This is much to do with psychology. Often what
you are used to is the most comforting. I believe Western
folk are constantly craving comfort. Maybe this is
contributory to our overeating?

Everyone craves comfort. How we perceive comfort varies and
is based on early experience. For those who grew up during
WWII, rationing affected their perception. For many of them,
comfort is knowing there is a full larder and serving enough
that no one goes hungry. For their children, then,
abbondanza is their perception of normal. For their
children, the last food pyramid with the overemphasis on
refined carbs and the ubiquitous presence of fast food
joints has contributed to the problem.

Robert Klute said:

I am so glad you can tolerate being hungry all the time. I
find it difficult to concentrate when I am hungry.

People are not normally hungry all the time.

Quoted message said:

Yes, most people eat because they are hungry.

Yes, and they are only hungry when they need food--not
all the time.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach
me directly.

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 09:33:21 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Robert Klute said:

I am so glad you can tolerate being hungry all the time.
I find it difficult to concentrate when I am hungry.

People are not normally hungry all the time.

If you are on a reduced calorie diet that does not sate you,
you are hungry all the time. When I was on a low-fat, high
fiber diet I was sated for a very short time and was hungry
the rest of the time. On the dreaded low-carb diet, I remain
sated for a longer period. Now, all I need to contend with
is the Pavlovian drives - the tendency to head for the
cafeteria at noon, etc.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, most people eat because they are hungry.

Yes, and they are only hungry when they need food--not all
the time.

Other way around. People need food when they feel hungry.
While physically filling the stomach will release peptide
hormones that cause satiety, lowered glucose levels will
produce hunger (recent studies on hypothalmus hunger
indicates that the test rats were eating because they were
getting fat, not the other way around)

.