Anyone feel like "junking" their diet?

J. David Anderson <jdavidanderson_@hotmail> wrote:
:> Check this.
:>
:> http://tinyurl.com/99jmq
:>
:> It just goes to support the reality that the only thing that counts
:> is calories.

He obviously doesn't have any metabolic issues to contend with.

Roger Zoul wrote:
|| J. David Anderson <jdavidanderson_@hotmail> wrote:
|||| Check this.
||||
|||| http://tinyurl.com/99jmq
||||
|||| It just goes to support the reality that the only thing that counts
|||| is calories.
||
|| He obviously doesn't have any metabolic issues to contend with.

My first thought exactly.

Personally I think that his idea of losing weight by eating junk foods and
stopping when you're full is the stupidest thing I've heard since Chung's
2PD diet.

--
Peter
Website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo

"Marengo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Tdalf.36334$4l5.3016@dukeread05...

Quoted message said:

Personally I think that his idea of losing weight by eating junk foods and
stopping when you're full is the stupidest thing I've heard since Chung's
2PD diet.

Well, this concept has been around, on and off, for decades now. It
apparently works for some people, but it did NOT work for me, nor for many
others. Probably because of the metabolic issues some of us have, mentioned
by Roger.

Personally, if I had a 1-lb bag of M&Ms, it would be gone. Same with that
bag of chips. When my insulin was raging, the metabolic drive was just too
strong and moderation was just not happening.

HG

"J. David Anderson" <jdavidanderson_@hotmail> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Check this.

http://tinyurl.com/99jmq

It just goes to support the reality that the only thing that counts is
calories.

Regards

David

That will work for maintenance. It will not work for losing weight, as most
people's bodies will wants to stay the same weight. I also wonder about how
he's doing nutritionally.

You can consume lots of Oreo's and stuff, by intuition, despite the fact
that they're filled with trans fat, which will get you into trouble.

J. David Anderson said:

Check this.

http://tinyurl.com/99jmq

It just goes to support the reality that the only thing that counts is
calories.

Regards

David

If your intuition tells you to avoid chips, pop, pasta, white bread,
and sugar, then his "no diet diet" will work. If your intutition tells
you to watch calories, restrict fat and eat a lot of "low calorie"
refined carb [censored], then the "intuitive no diet diet" will fail and you
will get fatter.

The concept of not dieting to regain control of your weight is not new.
Here is how it works. People get concerned that they are gaining weight
so they dutifully do as they are told, eat less fatty foods and more
carbs. Fat is 9 calories per gram and carbs are 4 calories per gram.
Makes sense. Cut the calories by eating fewer high fat foods and more
low-fat foods. Except they end up putting more weight on. So they
redouble their efforts and diet more by restricting more high-calorie
fat and eating more low-calorie carbs. And they get fatter. Eventually
they tire of failing and they stop dieting. They revert back to eating
more normal foods like meat with fat and regular carbs, a more
"intuitive" "no diet" "diet", and lo and behold they start to lose
weight on the "no diet diet".

In other words, a random diet is more likely to be conducive to losing
weight than the low-fat low-calorie high-carb diet they tried to use to
lose weight. Which males sense when you understand that a low fat diet
has been shown to fail in 95% of cases. If it was a valid concept, it
would invariably work in 95% or more of cases. The fact that it fails
in the statistically significant 95% of cases means that it does not
work, period. Which means that virtually any diet that does not
restrict fat will work better. Even an "intuitive" high fat "no diet"
"diet" will work better than a diet that fails 95% of the time.

Eat real food. Real food just happens to be low carb and chock full of
real nutrition. And even with more fat in the diet, you will lose
weight and be healthier. How much more intuitive can it get than that?

TC

In article <[email hidden]>,

Hannah Gruen said:

"Marengo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Tdalf.36334$4l5.3016@dukeread05...

Quoted message said:

Personally I think that his idea of losing weight by eating junk foods and
stopping when you're full is the stupidest thing I've heard since Chung's
2PD diet.

Well, this concept has been around, on and off, for decades now. It
apparently works for some people, but it did NOT work for me, nor for many
others. Probably because of the metabolic issues some of us have, mentioned
by Roger.

Personally, if I had a 1-lb bag of M&Ms, it would be gone. Same with that
bag of chips. When my insulin was raging, the metabolic drive was just too
strong and moderation was just not happening.

My ex-husband used to insist that, if I only ate when I was hungry,
instead of at mealtime, I would lose weight. He never understood that I
was *waiting* for mealtime rather than eating before I was hungry.
Different metabolism, and all that.

--
AF

Obviously.

--
Cheri

Roger Zoul wrote in message <[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

J. David Anderson <jdavidanderson_@hotmail> wrote:
:> Check this.
:>
:> http://tinyurl.com/99jmq
:>
:> It just goes to support the reality that the only thing that counts
:> is calories.

He obviously doesn't have any metabolic issues to contend with.

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

Quoted message said:

My ex-husband used to insist that, if I only ate when I was hungry,
instead of at mealtime, I would lose weight. He never understood that I
was *waiting* for mealtime rather than eating before I was hungry.
Different metabolism, and all that.

Yep, I remember watching the clock, hungry and waiting for the next
mealtime.

HG