GM Diet program



"David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"JMW" <[email protected]> wrote
>> "David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>"Martin Bakalorz" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> "David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> However,
>>>>>I would not consider a reduction in maintenance calories to reflect the
>>>>>lower weight (200-300 calories) to constitute a "lifestyle change".
>>>>
>>>> The 99.99 percent of dieters who regain all the weight they lost
>>>> would tend to disagree with you.
>>>>
>>>> I think a longterm 10% change in calories qualifies as a lifestyle
>>>> change.
>>>
>>>But, that isn't the case. First, a 10% reduction in bodyfat as a result of
>>>liposuction would cause less than a 10% reduction in maintenance calories.
>>>From, say, about 3000 calories, to about 2800 calories. Second, no one
>>>said
>>>you have to account for this with calorie reduction only. A couple hundred
>>>extra calories burned would do, or 100 less calories and 100 extra
>>>calories
>>>burned, or etc etc etc. Any such combination does not fit my definition of
>>>"lifestyle change". Your definition, is, of course, your business.
>>
>> What does and does not constitute a "lifestyle change"? And how long
>> must it last to constitute that? How much difference is there,
>> really, between someone who changes things for a month, gets results,
>> and gradually gravitates back to the way things were, and someone who
>> does it for two years before regressing?
>
>Exactly. As I've been pointing out, the definition of "lifestyle change" is
>extremely individual. There is no one answer.

Yes. Some answers are better than others, but even then, it's all a
matter of context.
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:12:55 GMT, David Cohen wrote:
>
>"elzinator" <[email protected]> wrote
>> David Cohen wrote:
>>> > Regardless, David, any long-term commitment to a reduction in daily
>>> > caloric intake requires a 'lifestyle change'; that person has to
>> make
>>> > a conscious choice and commitment to that and/or associated
>> choices.
>>>
>>> Dropping 150ish calories from my daily intake and burning 150ish
>> extra
>>> calories a day does not meet "my" definition of "lifestyle change".
>> Your
>>> definition may, of course, vary.
>>
>> Of course, which is why I proposed the challenge of dropping 12.5
>> lbs/month and keeping it off. I know you well enough that it might be a
>> challenge :)
>
>Done it before. Probably do it again. Uh...tomorrow. Yeah, tomorrow. No
>later than Monday. Probably.

Point driven home.

------------------------------
Reality is an illusion created by an intelligence deficiency.
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:52:04 -0500, Dr_Dickie wrote:
>
>
>"elzinator" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Dr_Dickie wrote:

>> > (try teaching college students chemistry!).
>>
>> Biochemistry maybe, but not general chem. (taught a few labs in
>> virology; does that count?)
>> Make it interesting and they will come :)
>>
>> Same with diets. They don't have to be boring.
>
>By the time you get them to biochem they are already chem or biology
>students (studying what they are interested in)--you got a built in hook.
>G-chem they just need for general purposes--much harder group to get
>involved. Actually, intro chem (chem for nurses and poets--sorry Cohen
>that's what some folks call it) was easier. They were just there for general
>purpose but the simplicity of the material made it easier to make fun.
>Although that had a lot to do with class size as well. G-chem or into at 250
>students is a bear. Intro or quant at 25 or 50 students is easier.

I was fortunate to have several very entertaining chem professors
during my three and 1/2 stinking years of chemistry. One was a Brit
who was truly a mad scientist (blew **** up in lectures with the
disclaimer " Don't try this at home or in your dorm room"). The prof
who taught my graduate O-chem was fantastic and didn't ***** (too
much) when I interrupted her with questions (I was always relating it
to biochem). She was adept at relating O-chem to everyday life
(including LSD and marijuana).

All my chem classes had 100+ students minimum, except for one semester
of O-chem (undergrad) where the prof was so damned boring, a month
into the semester, only 25 people showed up for his class.


------------------------------
Reality is an illusion created by an intelligence deficiency.
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:41:57 -0500, JMW <[email protected]> wrote:

>"David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Martin Bakalorz" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> "David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> However,
>>>>I would not consider a reduction in maintenance calories to reflect the
>>>>lower weight (200-300 calories) to constitute a "lifestyle change".
>>>
>>> The 99.99 percent of dieters who regain all the weight they lost
>>> would tend to disagree with you.
>>>
>>> I think a longterm 10% change in calories qualifies as a lifestyle
>>> change.
>>
>>But, that isn't the case. First, a 10% reduction in bodyfat as a result of
>>liposuction would cause less than a 10% reduction in maintenance calories.
>>From, say, about 3000 calories, to about 2800 calories. Second, no one said
>>you have to account for this with calorie reduction only. A couple hundred
>>extra calories burned would do, or 100 less calories and 100 extra calories
>>burned, or etc etc etc. Any such combination does not fit my definition of
>>"lifestyle change". Your definition, is, of course, your business.
>
>What does and does not constitute a "lifestyle change"? And how long
>must it last to constitute that? How much difference is there,
>really, between someone who changes things for a month, gets results,
>and gradually gravitates back to the way things were, and someone who
>does it for two years before regressing?

The difference appears, in the scenario you present John, the length
of time between the two respective "regressions"!!

Or is that somewhat too simplistic?

Have a great weekend - you know I will!!
 
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 01:23:48 GMT, "David Cohen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"JMW" <[email protected]> wrote
>> "David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>"Martin Bakalorz" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> "David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> However,
>>>>>I would not consider a reduction in maintenance calories to reflect the
>>>>>lower weight (200-300 calories) to constitute a "lifestyle change".
>>>>
>>>> The 99.99 percent of dieters who regain all the weight they lost
>>>> would tend to disagree with you.
>>>>
>>>> I think a longterm 10% change in calories qualifies as a lifestyle
>>>> change.
>>>
>>>But, that isn't the case. First, a 10% reduction in bodyfat as a result of
>>>liposuction would cause less than a 10% reduction in maintenance calories.
>>>From, say, about 3000 calories, to about 2800 calories. Second, no one
>>>said
>>>you have to account for this with calorie reduction only. A couple hundred
>>>extra calories burned would do, or 100 less calories and 100 extra
>>>calories
>>>burned, or etc etc etc. Any such combination does not fit my definition of
>>>"lifestyle change". Your definition, is, of course, your business.
>>
>> What does and does not constitute a "lifestyle change"? And how long
>> must it last to constitute that? How much difference is there,
>> really, between someone who changes things for a month, gets results,
>> and gradually gravitates back to the way things were, and someone who
>> does it for two years before regressing?
>
>Exactly. As I've been pointing out, the definition of "lifestyle change" is
>extremely individual. There is no one answer.

It occurs to me that a lifestyle change is just that. The term does
not infer any degree of limits of time, and certainly not a lifetime
change.

Surely most people are adapting their lifestyles, to some degree,
almost throughout the entirety of their three score and ten. Those
unfortunates with un-co-operative metabolisms, are doomed to obesity
or a lifetime of yo-yo dieting!!

Have a great weekend - you know I will!! ;o)
 
DZ wrote:
> elzinator <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I was fortunate to have several very entertaining chem professors
> > during my three and 1/2 stinking years of chemistry. One was a Brit
> > who was truly a mad scientist (blew **** up in lectures with the
> > disclaimer " Don't try this at home or in your dorm room"). The
prof
> > who taught my graduate O-chem was fantastic and didn't ***** (too
> > much) when I interrupted her with questions (I was always relating
it
> > to biochem). She was adept at relating O-chem to everyday life
> > (including LSD and marijuana).
> >
> > All my chem classes had 100+ students minimum, except for one
semester
> > of O-chem (undergrad) where the prof was so damned boring, a month
> > into the semester, only 25 people showed up for his class.
>
> Of the chemistries I took (inorganic, organic, physical, colloid,
> biochemistry) I liked colloid the most, because it was basically a
> science about modeling wacky bubbles.

"Colloid" chemistry? "Bubbles"? Care to explain what this comprises of?
Or is it some secret Russky chemistry that us Easterners aren't privy
to? :)

>Biochemistry was thorough (2
> semesters) and entertaining too, but we had to memorize all the
> formulas and pathways for the exams, even most ridiculous stuff like
> beeswax synthesis.

Oh come on. Where's your sense of adventure? That's interesting! It's a
polymer, just like Velvetta! Not memorizing it though.
I loved biochem. Mostly due to good profs that entertained my
insatiable curiosity. Especially when I introduced them to the
"Biochemist's Songbook" by Harold Baum.

(example: THE BATTLE HYMN OF THE AEROBES)
http://baloo.bei.t-online.de/Hautptseite.htm
 
Dr_Dickie wrote:

> Yeah, I was a double major undergrad (biol and chem). Had to memorize
the
> TCA cycle (or Krebs if you like) for two biol classes and then bio
chem (for
> this each substrate and enzyme--with co-factors), and couldn't tell
you a
> damn one today.

That's what reference books are for.
Damned memorization and regurgitation. Better to understand why and
how.
 
"elzinator" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Dr_Dickie wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I was a double major undergrad (biol and chem). Had to memorize
> the
> > TCA cycle (or Krebs if you like) for two biol classes and then bio
> chem (for
> > this each substrate and enzyme--with co-factors), and couldn't tell
> you a
> > damn one today.
>
> That's what reference books are for.
> Damned memorization and regurgitation. Better to understand why and
> how.
>

Agree; however, my entire biochem experience was a series of flashcards.
What a waste.
I never make students memorize anything (with the exception of say something
like the speed of light and stuff they should know! Practical definitions..
like molarity and such). I also had to memorize the periodic table for a few
classes as well. Past the first three periods, who cares! And you will
memorize them just by constant exposure.
 
On 14 Feb 2005 22:11:28 GMT, DZ wrote:
>elzinator <[email protected]> wrote:
>> DZ wrote:

>>> Biochemistry was thorough (2 semesters) and entertaining too, but
>>> we had to memorize all the formulas and pathways for the exams,
>>> even most ridiculous stuff like beeswax synthesis.
>>
>> Oh come on. Where's your sense of adventure? That's interesting! It's a
>> polymer, just like Velvetta!
>
>I didn't know cheese is a polymer!

then I assume you have never eaten Velvetta cheese.


------------------------------
Reality is an illusion created by an intelligence deficiency.
 
"elzinator" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 14 Feb 2005 22:11:28 GMT, DZ wrote:
> >elzinator <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> DZ wrote:
>
> >>> Biochemistry was thorough (2 semesters) and entertaining too, but
> >>> we had to memorize all the formulas and pathways for the exams,
> >>> even most ridiculous stuff like beeswax synthesis.
> >>
> >> Oh come on. Where's your sense of adventure? That's interesting! It's a
> >> polymer, just like Velvetta!
> >
> >I didn't know cheese is a polymer!
>
> then I assume you have never eaten Velvetta cheese.
>
>
>

That is an oxymoron.
Cheese-like, a cheese-like substance. ;-)
--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick
Proud member of the, "Vast right-wing conspiracy."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back