lowering of metabolism after weight loss



"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Stacey Bender wrote:
>>
>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> > There is wisdom in abiding by the Lord's will and His timing.

>>
>> There is also wisdom in using the brain god gave you to show proof
>> scientifically. To not do so is a misuse of the gift.

>
> Actually "scientific proof" is an oxymoron.
>


Actually Andrew is a moron.
 
Patricia Heil wrote:
>
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Stacey Bender wrote:
> >>
> >> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >> > There is wisdom in abiding by the Lord's will and His timing.
> >>
> >> There is also wisdom in using the brain god gave you to show proof
> >> scientifically. To not do so is a misuse of the gift.

> >
> > Actually "scientific proof" is an oxymoron.
> >

>
> Actually Andrew is a moron.


Ouch. You may have at the other cheek.

At His service,

Andrew

--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?V113154DA
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
 
> George Lagergren wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist wrote:
> Nevertheless, you remain in my prayers, dear Gary whom I love, in Lord
> Jesus' holy name. At His service, Andrew


> Questions: Being a cardiologist, do you have your patients on
> whole natural Vitamin B complex? btw, whole natural Vitamin B
> complex includes Vitamin B-4.


> Also, do you have your patients on whole natural Vitamin E complex?
> btw, whole natural Vitamin E complex includes Vitamin E-2 and E-3.


> For additional information, see www.healthalert.com .
> A commerical company called "Standard Process" sells these types
> of nutrients.


> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> replied:
> What is your relationship with these commercial companies?


> None. I am an end-user of their nutrition products.


> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:

Why do you advocate their products over those from other companies?

I was just using the "Standard Process" brand as a company who
sells whole, natural vitamin complexes as nutritional supplements.

Any nutritional supplement company who also makes whole, natural
vitamin complexes should work as well.
 
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Patricia Heil wrote:
> >
> > "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Stacey Bender wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > >> > There is wisdom in abiding by the Lord's will and His timing.
> > >>
> > >> There is also wisdom in using the brain god gave you to show proof
> > >> scientifically. To not do so is a misuse of the gift.
> > >
> > > Actually "scientific proof" is an oxymoron.
> > >

> >
> > Actually Andrew is a moron.

>
> Ouch. You may have at the other cheek.


While she's doing that, could you please take a moment and answer my
questions regarding your behavior on Sunday? You know...when you called
Stacey Bender "psychotic".

You seem to be afraid to address the issue...which in itself provides some
interesting insights into the fear that comes upon you whenever you are
challenged.

Have you ever admitted to making a mistake?

GG

>
> At His service,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Board-Certified Cardiologist
>
> **
> Suggested Reading:
> (1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
> (2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?V113154DA
> (3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
> (4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
> (5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
> (6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
> (7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
 
"wendy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The data suggests that weight loss in obese, obesity-prone rats, induced
> by caloric restriction, is accompanied by metabolic adaptations that
> predispose one to regain the lost weight. In rats that are losing weight,
> this is exhibited by a significant reduction in metabolic rate, measured
> as both 24-hour energy expenditure and sleeping metabolic rate, both
> independent of metabolic mass and energy intake. This adaptation persists
> after eight weeks of intake-regulated weight maintenance, but is no longer
> present with eight subsequent weeks of feeding at-will where rats are
> regaining lost weight. While rats that are regaining weight may have a
> shift in appetite that would contribute to their high rate of weight
> regain, the drive to increase food intake remains the most critical factor
> in the predisposition to regain lost weight. This adjustment clearly
> weighs more on the energy balance equation than the metabolic adjustment
> on energy expenditure observed in this or any other study.
>

I found this interesting only because it seemed a long-winded way to say
that if you eat more after dieting, you will regain weight. Sure, there's a
desire to return to your old ways of eating, but we all know that's how we
gained in the first place. Did we really need a study of rats to figure
this out?
Mark
 
Mark McArthey wrote:
> "wendy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>The data suggests that weight loss in obese, obesity-prone rats, induced
>>by caloric restriction, is accompanied by metabolic adaptations that
>>predispose one to regain the lost weight. In rats that are losing weight,
>>this is exhibited by a significant reduction in metabolic rate, measured
>>as both 24-hour energy expenditure and sleeping metabolic rate, both
>>independent of metabolic mass and energy intake. This adaptation persists
>>after eight weeks of intake-regulated weight maintenance, but is no longer
>>present with eight subsequent weeks of feeding at-will where rats are
>>regaining lost weight. While rats that are regaining weight may have a
>>shift in appetite that would contribute to their high rate of weight
>>regain, the drive to increase food intake remains the most critical factor
>>in the predisposition to regain lost weight. This adjustment clearly
>>weighs more on the energy balance equation than the metabolic adjustment
>>on energy expenditure observed in this or any other study.
>>

>
> I found this interesting only because it seemed a long-winded way to say
> that if you eat more after dieting, you will regain weight. Sure, there's a
> desire to return to your old ways of eating, but we all know that's how we
> gained in the first place. Did we really need a study of rats to figure
> this out?
> Mark
>
>


You ate paint chips as a child didn't you.
 
Mark McArthey wrote:
> "wendy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>The data suggests that weight loss in obese, obesity-prone rats, induced
>>by caloric restriction, is accompanied by metabolic adaptations that
>>predispose one to regain the lost weight. In rats that are losing weight,
>>this is exhibited by a significant reduction in metabolic rate, measured
>>as both 24-hour energy expenditure and sleeping metabolic rate, both
>>independent of metabolic mass and energy intake. This adaptation persists
>>after eight weeks of intake-regulated weight maintenance, but is no longer
>>present with eight subsequent weeks of feeding at-will where rats are
>>regaining lost weight. While rats that are regaining weight may have a
>>shift in appetite that would contribute to their high rate of weight
>>regain, the drive to increase food intake remains the most critical factor
>>in the predisposition to regain lost weight. This adjustment clearly
>>weighs more on the energy balance equation than the metabolic adjustment
>>on energy expenditure observed in this or any other study.
>>

>
> I found this interesting only because it seemed a long-winded way to say
> that if you eat more after dieting, you will regain weight. Sure, there's a
> desire to return to your old ways of eating, but we all know that's how we
> gained in the first place. Did we really need a study of rats to figure
> this out?
> Mark
>
>

Studies show that research labs, causes cancer in rats.
 
Mark McArthey wrote:
> I found this interesting only because it seemed a long-winded way to say
> that if you eat more after dieting, you will regain weight.


You are highly likely to eat more because your system makes you
hungrier. At the same time it's reducing your BMR to conserve weight.
And yes we need studies to figure this stuff out. Leptin itself was only
found in 1994.
 
Stacey Bender wrote:
>
> Mark McArthey wrote:
> > I found this interesting only because it seemed a long-winded way to say
> > that if you eat more after dieting, you will regain weight.

>
> You are highly likely to eat more because your system makes you
> hungrier.


Correct.

At His service,

Andrew

--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?V113154DA
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
 
In alt.support.diet.low-carb Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote:
> Daniel Hoffmeister wrote:
> >
> > In alt.support.diet.low-carb Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Ignoramus21798 wrote:
> > > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > It all depends on how much you want it. Numerous people lose weight
> > > > and keep it off, not without difficulties. It is not impossible.

> >
> > > More than 625,550 people for more than 5 years without regain:

> >
> > Make the 625,549. I hear that nice Mrs. Hadermeyer fell off the wagon
> > at her 50-year high school reunion. She muttered your name and crossed
> > herself as she grabbed for the big piece of cake with the '5' on it.


> In truth, a 67-68 year old Mrs. Hadermeyer is not in my database so the
> number remains more than 625,550. Sorry if this causes you any
> consternation.


LOL! Must be sad to be so literal-minded that you can't find fun in
anything.

> You will be in my prayers, dear Dan whom I love, in Lord Jesus' holy
> name.


If you pray as much as you post, I'm sad to say you're probably in His
killfile, too. But, hey, since you offered -- the MegaBall lottery is up
to $188 million and I bought a ticket. I'm counting on you.

Dan
325/189/190
Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution)
Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes
 
"Daniel Hoffmeister" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> If you pray as much as you post, I'm sad to say you're probably in His
> killfile, too.


Love it!!

Rachael
 
Daniel Hoffmeister wrote:
>
> In alt.support.diet.low-carb Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Daniel Hoffmeister wrote:
> > >
> > > In alt.support.diet.low-carb Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Ignoramus21798 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > It all depends on how much you want it. Numerous people lose weight
> > > > > and keep it off, not without difficulties. It is not impossible.
> > >
> > > > More than 625,550 people for more than 5 years without regain:
> > >
> > > Make the 625,549. I hear that nice Mrs. Hadermeyer fell off the wagon
> > > at her 50-year high school reunion. She muttered your name and crossed
> > > herself as she grabbed for the big piece of cake with the '5' on it.

>
> > In truth, a 67-68 year old Mrs. Hadermeyer is not in my database so the
> > number remains more than 625,550. Sorry if this causes you any
> > consternation.

>
> LOL! Must be sad to be so literal-minded that you can't find fun in
> anything.


Let me assure you that I do not feel sad. Instead there is joy.

> > You will be in my prayers, dear Dan whom I love, in Lord Jesus' holy
> > name.

>
> If you pray as much as you post, I'm sad to say you're probably in His
> killfile, too.


Thankfully, His patience is as infinite as His grace.

> But, hey, since you offered -- the MegaBall lottery is up
> to $188 million and I bought a ticket. I'm counting on you.


In truth, you would be counting on the Lord's will.

At His service,

Andrew

--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?V113154DA
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
 
Stacey Bender wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> > Good point but it still misses something. Folks can and do
> > find ways to keep their loss off.

>
> Very few.


Sorry for the slow response.

The fact that some manage to keep it off has meaning:

It can be done.

The fact that few manage to keep it off has meaning or
a list of meanings. Here are a few that most won't consider:

Much of the "common knowledge" about keeping it off is
false and/or confusing. Many come in with motivations
that are wrong. Tempting approaches to be fast lead to
more people falling off so stress needs to be put on
approaches that somehow are moderate yet still work.
The problem is just saying "be moderate" is an absolute
failure. If just "be moderate" worked no one would still
be fat. Thus there's someone non-obvious and/or
anti-obvious in there that's key. Folks have *huge*
resistance to stuff that's non-obvious and/or anti-obvious
even when presented with the data that it works.

> It's interesting when our schools fail to graduate a large
> percentage of students we want to change the schools to be more
> effective. We don't say the students should be able to graduate no
> matter how bad the schools are. Yet for weight, no matter hard it is

for
> someone to lose weight it's their fault and their fault alone. We

don't
> think about how to improve the entire system to help people, which is


> really what needs to happen for masses of people to change.


Exactly, and I just wrote that above in a very different
form. Most of the stress is on the common knowledge and
on what seems to be obvious. The approach does not work.
The fact that some *do* manage to keep it off means there
*are* approaches that do work. The missing link is
explicitly *not* blaming people who fail to keep it off.
That's been tried and tried and tried. Insanity - Doing
the same thing again and again and expecting different
results each time. The current system fits this definition
of insanity.

> Talking about individual successes is interesting, but
> in every other case we call that ancedotal evidence.


Anecodatal evidence is usually the source for the
advancement of scientific knowledge. I offer this as
a version of the scientific method:

1) See anecdotal evidence.
2) Gather data to see if there is an actual trend.
3) Form a hypothesis that explains the anecdotal evidence.
4) Devise experiments that will confirm or reject the hypothesis.
5) If the experiments work, your hypothesis becomes a working theory.

Very little of this is being done relative to keeping it
off. Plenty of research is being done in the 2-8 week
time frames. That's nice but it misses much of the
problem. So what that a scientific study confirms that
Atkins works, or that any other type of plan works, at
the beginning. If the plans described in the books
didn't work, the books wouldn't sell in the millions.

I see very little study of trying to figure out what
are the non-obvious things that people do when they
successfully keep it off. Are they the lucky ones who
don't have intolerance based binge triggers? Are they
the ones with the stronger wills? Is there some
psychological mechanism among them? I strongly feel
that the reasons folks actually keep it off will end
up both psychological and physical. Figure out how to
avoid fattening situations mentally. Firgure out how
to avoid binge trigger foods physically.

> The problem is appetite isn't the only mechanism that triggers

eating.
> The dopamine reward system is another largely independent system for
> encouraging eating.


Addictive triggers, check.

> As for the diet, people don't stay on diets in general? Why is that?
> It's rooted in our biology.


And our biology has both physical and psychological aspects.

I've been on Atkins for 5.5 years. I have learned what
I can, can't and shouldn't eat. For me wheat and sugar
alcohols are bad binge triggers so I avoid them except
for rare accidental dosages. I know how to deal with
those accidental dosages. But when it comes to the foods
I shouldn't, that's harder. It's why I hover about half
way between my best loss and my starting point.

At this point I have the physical aspects learned. It's
not enough. I'm satisfied with my state in that my
original goals of no back pain and no loud snoring are
handled, but I am still above my best weight. Am I
sucessfull because I'm satisfied and my goals are
acheieved? Yes. Am I blocked by those facts from doing
what it takes for what others would expect for me to be
successfull? Also yes.
 
Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Exactly, and I just wrote that above in a very different
> form. Most of the stress is on the common knowledge and
> on what seems to be obvious. The approach does not work.
> The fact that some *do* manage to keep it off means there
> *are* approaches that do work.


In the weight loss registry people who kept off over 60 pounds (i think)
for more than 5 years, 91% exercised their ass off. Most people aren't
willing to do that.

People have made a calculation, pleasure now is better than the promiss
of health in the future. Living longest is not the main outcome to
optimize for. Food is the main soure of pleasure for most people. The
calculation is rational.


> I see very little study of trying to figure out what
> are the non-obvious things that people do when they
> successfully keep it off.


25% or so won't get fat simply because that's their biology. I would
like to be one of them :)

> Figure out how to
> avoid fattening situations mentally. Firgure out how
> to avoid binge trigger foods physically.


That implies you think it worth the effort to do so. That implies you
deeply feel losing weight is important. I truly think most people just
give lip service to the idea of losing weight because they think they
should. In the end the pleasure of food wins because that makes people
happier now.

> And our biology has both physical and psychological aspects.


I think as we find more about the physical aspects, as we have for other
issues, the psychological aspects have become the hocus pocus baseless
conjecture they are.


> At this point I have the physical aspects learned. It's
> not enough. I'm satisfied with my state in that my
> original goals of no back pain and no loud snoring are
> handled, but I am still above my best weight. Am I
> sucessfull because I'm satisfied and my goals are
> acheieved? Yes. Am I blocked by those facts from doing
> what it takes for what others would expect for me to be
> successfull? Also yes.


Five years of any sustained weight loss is great. It's a daily battle
thought isn't it?
 
Ignoramus19113 wrote:
>>People have made a calculation, pleasure now is better than the
>>promiss of health in the future. Living longest is not the main
>>outcome to optimize for. Food is the main soure of pleasure for most
>>people. The calculation is rational.

>
> It depends on personal value of now vs. the value of the future.


Clearly. The interesting bit is why people value as they do.

>
>>Five years of any sustained weight loss is great. It's a daily battle
>>thought isn't it?

>
> I kept at normal weight for approximately 20 months, by now.


That's great. I hope you are able to keep it going.
 
In alt.support.diabetes Stacey Bender <[email protected]> wrote:
: Doug Freyburger wrote:
: > Exactly, and I just wrote that above in a very different
: > form. Most of the stress is on the common knowledge and
: > on what seems to be obvious. The approach does not work.
: > The fact that some *do* manage to keep it off means there
: > *are* approaches that do work.

: In the weight loss registry people who kept off over 60 pounds (i think)
: for more than 5 years, 91% exercised their ass off. Most people aren't
: willing to do that.

: People have made a calculation, pleasure now is better than the promiss
: of health in the future. Living longest is not the main outcome to
: optimize for. Food is the main soure of pleasure for most people. The
: calculation is rational.


: > I see very little study of trying to figure out what
: > are the non-obvious things that people do when they
: > successfully keep it off.

: 25% or so won't get fat simply because that's their biology. I would
: like to be one of them :)

: > Figure out how to
: > avoid fattening situations mentally. Firgure out how
: > to avoid binge trigger foods physically.

: That implies you think it worth the effort to do so. That implies you
: deeply feel losing weight is important. I truly think most people just
: give lip service to the idea of losing weight because they think they
: should. In the end the pleasure of food wins because that makes people
: happier now.

: > And our biology has both physical and psychological aspects.

: I think as we find more about the physical aspects, as we have for other
: issues, the psychological aspects have become the hocus pocus baseless
: conjecture they are.


: > At this point I have the physical aspects learned. It's
: > not enough. I'm satisfied with my state in that my
: > original goals of no back pain and no loud snoring are
: > handled, but I am still above my best weight. Am I
: > sucessfull because I'm satisfied and my goals are
: > acheieved? Yes. Am I blocked by those facts from doing
: > what it takes for what others would expect for me to be
: > successfull? Also yes.

: Five years of any sustained weight loss is great. It's a daily battle
: thought isn't it?

I have kept my weight loss for over 15 years and am not a big exerciser.
I used to walk quite a bit, livig in New York City, but have been unable
to for the last yer and a half, yet O have maintained the weight loss. I
do get on the scale every morning. I am eating carefully to maintain good
diabetic numbers (A1c 5.304 over the last 15 months) and find, as I age,
tht I no longer enjoy "pigging out" and can't really eat as much
comfortably any mre. Wherther this iis due to age (I am 69) or to just
havign gotton accustomed to eating less I don't know. I am writomg a;;
this with a sense of wonder, because I really can't explain it. I am food
aware, largely because of teh diabetes and I am in a big competition with
the disease to sho it that it can't beat me, so maybe that helps. I was
never able to maintain weight loss before my diagnoses at a little over
50, but thought of my self as a fat person with thin intervals, or as an
acordion person. Now I am still over weight and would like to loose aobut
10-15 pounds, but am sable and have not gone back up the 60 pounds I lost
after my diagnoses.

O don't think of myself as anyting special for this, just happy that is is
working. It may partly be because of the foo self-consciousness that
accompanies the diabetes and the automatic carb counter in my her . I am
on a moderate carb regimineating 45-100 grms per day and trying not to
"make up for it" in extra fat and protein. I am putting this all down in
case it might help someone else.

Wendy
 
"Ignoramus19113" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:54:07 -0700, Stacey Bender <[email protected]> wrote


> The actual number for exercise was 2,800 calories per week. That's 400
> calories per day. For myself, it is equivalent to 30 minutes of
> running.
>
>> > 223/175.9/180


That doesn't sound too bad. I earn 270 for my walk to and from work so only
a little bit more. I thought you were going to say masses more than that!

Rachael
176/116/111
 
Stacey Bender wrote:

> In the weight loss registry people who kept off over 60 pounds (i think)
> for more than 5 years, 91% exercised their ass off. Most people aren't
> willing to do that.


Just so you're aware... the registry is very much geared toward
find out how eating low-fat plans can help you control weight.
I've been participating with it for many years even though my
115+ loss is due to LC. The registry might show different
"findings" if they were objectively looking at all methods of
lowing weight and keeping healthy.

All that said, I do think exercise is a key component of keeping
my weight under control. But even though I'm a trainer, I
wouldn't say that I exercise my "ass off" to a unreasonable
degree. I do cardio maybe 3 times a week (more and longer if I'm
trying to lean out) and WT 2-5 times a week depending on whatever
training plan I'm on, and almost all of my exercise sessions last
only between :30 to an hour. To me those who exercise their ass
off, are the people I see all the time who do an hour of cardio
almost every day.

> Five years of any sustained weight loss is great. It's a daily battle
> thought isn't it?


Not really, the only real battle times for me are during the
weekends due to social situations. After learning that LC helped
me keep my appetite under control and that WT would give me a
higher metabolism (and therefore allow me to take in enough
calories to eat a satisfying diet) its been comparatively easy.

I say comparatively because in my past I had lost 90+ pounds
eating low-fat and doing a lot of cardio. That time I was only
able to keep it off for a few years... through all of which it
was difficult to eat so few calories and do so much cardio.


--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm
 
Rachael Reynolds wrote:
> "Ignoramus19113" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:54:07 -0700, Stacey Bender <[email protected]> wrote

>
>
>>The actual number for exercise was 2,800 calories per week. That's 400
>>calories per day. For myself, it is equivalent to 30 minutes of
>>running.
>>
>>
>>>>223/175.9/180

>
>
> That doesn't sound too bad. I earn 270 for my walk to and from work so only
> a little bit more. I thought you were going to say masses more than that!


It's over an hour of slow walking. Every day.
 
RRzVRR wrote:
> All that said, I do think exercise is a key component of keeping my
> weight under control.


I think that was the larger point. People who succeeded exercised. The
diet doesn't matter so much because people don't stay on diets.