On intuitive eating



E

Enrico C

Guest
I know "Intuitive eating" has already been discussed in a recent
thread. Anyway, I couldn't read the original article (dead link), and
here is another article on the topic...
Maybe "intuitition" isn't everything... but even a "perfect diet" (if
you agree what that is!) doesn't always work, if the person doesn't
find the right attitude... All in all, it seems to me that listening
to your body is key.
On the other hand, I think that just saying that is not enough... and
sound nutritional advice can be useful for those who lost their "inner
wisdom"!, to say it in Dr. Hawks's words. ;)

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_28256.html

Intuitive Eating: the Anti-dieting Diet

Reuters Health

Wednesday, November 23, 2005


NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Stop dieting. Become an "intuitive eater."
It's a better way to maintain a healthy weight and reduce the risk of
heart disease, research suggests.

Intuitive eaters don't diet -- they recognize and respond to internal
hunger and fullness cues to regulate food intake, explains Dr. Steven
R. Hawks of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, who adopted
intuitive eating habits several years ago and lost 50 pounds in the
process.

"The basic premise of intuitive eating is, rather than manipulate what
we eat in terms of prescribed diets -- how many calories a food has,
how many grams of fat, specific food combinations or anything like
that -- we should take internal cues, try to recognize what our body
wants and then regulate how much we eat based on hunger and satiety,"
he said in a university statement.

In a pilot study, Hawks and colleagues studied the relationship
between intuitive eating and several health indicators among a group
of female college students. They identified 15 women who were
intuitive eaters and 17 women who were not intuitive eaters and ran a
battery of tests to see how healthy they were.

Overall, women who scored high on the Intuitive Eating Scale were
healthier than were those who scored low on the scale. High intuitive
eaters had a significantly lower body mass index than did low
intuitive eaters and had lower levels of harmful triglycerides and
higher levels of "good" HDL cholesterol and, therefore, a better
cardiovascular risk profile.

Hawks plans to do a large-scale study of intuitive eating across
different cultures. For example, Asian populations are primarily
intuitive eaters -- they eat when hungry and stop when full. Compared
with Americans, Asians have a "much healthier relationship with food,
far fewer eating disorders, and interestingly, far less obesity,"
Hawks notes.

Diets and dieting often fail to result in long-term weight loss,
largely because food restriction works against human biology, is not
sustainable, and may lead to negative outcomes such as weight
recycling, altered body composition, increased fat storage, decreased
metabolism, and eating disorders, Hawks and colleagues explain in the
American Journal of Health Education.

Proponents of intuitive eating for weight management believe that all
individuals possess a natural mechanism that if allowed to function
will ensure good nutrition at a healthy weight. Therefore, it is
possible to maintain a healthy body weight while maintaining an
unrestrained relationship with food.

"As individuals get in touch with this 'inner guide' or access their
'inner wisdom' they will be more in tune with their body's physical
needs and will eat in a way that supports healthy weight maintenance
and positive nutrition," Hawks and colleagues write.

To get on the road to intuitive eating, a person needs to adopt two
attitudes, according to the researchers. The first attitude is body
acceptance. "It's an extremely difficult attitude adjustment for many
people to make, but they have to come to a conscious decision that
personal worth is not a function of body size," Hawks said. The second
attitude, that dieting is harmful, relates to the first -- namely that
dieting does not lead to the results that people think it will lead
to.

To become an intuitive eater, a person also needs to adopt two key
behaviors. They must learn how not to eat for emotional, environmental
or social reasons and they must listen to their body and eat only when
hungry and stop when full. They must also learn how to interpret body
signals, cravings, and hunger and respond in a healthy way.

SOURCE: American Journal of Health Education, November 18, 2005.
 
T

TC

Guest
A random diet will be more successful than a low calorie diet 95% of
the time.

TC


Enrico C wrote:
> I know "Intuitive eating" has already been discussed in a recent
> thread. Anyway, I couldn't read the original article (dead link), and
> here is another article on the topic...
> Maybe "intuitition" isn't everything... but even a "perfect diet" (if
> you agree what that is!) doesn't always work, if the person doesn't
> find the right attitude... All in all, it seems to me that listening
> to your body is key.
> On the other hand, I think that just saying that is not enough... and
> sound nutritional advice can be useful for those who lost their "inner
> wisdom"!, to say it in Dr. Hawks's words. ;)
>
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_28256.html
>
> Intuitive Eating: the Anti-dieting Diet
>
> Reuters Health
>
> Wednesday, November 23, 2005
>
>
> NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Stop dieting. Become an "intuitive eater."
> It's a better way to maintain a healthy weight and reduce the risk of
> heart disease, research suggests.
>
> Intuitive eaters don't diet -- they recognize and respond to internal
> hunger and fullness cues to regulate food intake, explains Dr. Steven
> R. Hawks of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, who adopted
> intuitive eating habits several years ago and lost 50 pounds in the
> process.
>
> "The basic premise of intuitive eating is, rather than manipulate what
> we eat in terms of prescribed diets -- how many calories a food has,
> how many grams of fat, specific food combinations or anything like
> that -- we should take internal cues, try to recognize what our body
> wants and then regulate how much we eat based on hunger and satiety,"
> he said in a university statement.
>
> In a pilot study, Hawks and colleagues studied the relationship
> between intuitive eating and several health indicators among a group
> of female college students. They identified 15 women who were
> intuitive eaters and 17 women who were not intuitive eaters and ran a
> battery of tests to see how healthy they were.
>
> Overall, women who scored high on the Intuitive Eating Scale were
> healthier than were those who scored low on the scale. High intuitive
> eaters had a significantly lower body mass index than did low
> intuitive eaters and had lower levels of harmful triglycerides and
> higher levels of "good" HDL cholesterol and, therefore, a better
> cardiovascular risk profile.
>
> Hawks plans to do a large-scale study of intuitive eating across
> different cultures. For example, Asian populations are primarily
> intuitive eaters -- they eat when hungry and stop when full. Compared
> with Americans, Asians have a "much healthier relationship with food,
> far fewer eating disorders, and interestingly, far less obesity,"
> Hawks notes.
>
> Diets and dieting often fail to result in long-term weight loss,
> largely because food restriction works against human biology, is not
> sustainable, and may lead to negative outcomes such as weight
> recycling, altered body composition, increased fat storage, decreased
> metabolism, and eating disorders, Hawks and colleagues explain in the
> American Journal of Health Education.
>
> Proponents of intuitive eating for weight management believe that all
> individuals possess a natural mechanism that if allowed to function
> will ensure good nutrition at a healthy weight. Therefore, it is
> possible to maintain a healthy body weight while maintaining an
> unrestrained relationship with food.
>
> "As individuals get in touch with this 'inner guide' or access their
> 'inner wisdom' they will be more in tune with their body's physical
> needs and will eat in a way that supports healthy weight maintenance
> and positive nutrition," Hawks and colleagues write.
>
> To get on the road to intuitive eating, a person needs to adopt two
> attitudes, according to the researchers. The first attitude is body
> acceptance. "It's an extremely difficult attitude adjustment for many
> people to make, but they have to come to a conscious decision that
> personal worth is not a function of body size," Hawks said. The second
> attitude, that dieting is harmful, relates to the first -- namely that
> dieting does not lead to the results that people think it will lead
> to.
>
> To become an intuitive eater, a person also needs to adopt two key
> behaviors. They must learn how not to eat for emotional, environmental
> or social reasons and they must listen to their body and eat only when
> hungry and stop when full. They must also learn how to interpret body
> signals, cravings, and hunger and respond in a healthy way.
>
> SOURCE: American Journal of Health Education, November 18, 2005.
 
T

TC

Guest
MMu wrote:
> "TC" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:[email protected]
> >A random diet will be more successful than a low calorie diet 95% of
> > the time.
> >
> > TC

>
> I doubt that, can you provide any evidence for this?


http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/309/6955/655

quote:

It is surprising that debate continues about the effectiveness of
dietary treatments for obesity. Perhaps this is partly related to
ambiguity in the term effectiveness. It is well known that most
treatments produce temporary weight loss. But it is equally well known
that 90% to 95% of those who lose weight regain it within several
years.1 This poor outcome has led to charges that traditional
treatments for obesity should be abandoned and countercharges that it
is irresponsible to withhold treatment for such a serious problem. The
failure of reducing diets to produce lasting improvement was recently
reiterated at a National Institutes of Health consensus conference,
which also warned about the adverse effects of treatment.2

The failure of fat people to achieve a goal they seem to want - and to
want almost above all else - must now be admitted for what it is: a
failure not of those people but of the methods of treatment that are
used. It is no longer a mystery why diets have such a poor long term
record of success. Indeed the failure of obese people to become or
remain thin by "normalising" their food intake follows logically from
studies on the heritability of obesity,3 the biology of weight
regulation,4 and the physiology of energy metabolism.5

unquote

The mentioned "traditional treatments for obesity" up to that time,
pre-lo-carb, was exclusiveley low calorie, low fat. And it fails in 90
to 95% of cases.

If it fails in that many cases, statistically speaking, most any other
random diet will be as successful, of more successful, than the diet
that will fail in 90 to 95% of cases.

TC
 
T

TC

Guest
TC wrote:
> MMu wrote:
> > "TC" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:[email protected]
> > >A random diet will be more successful than a low calorie diet 95% of
> > > the time.
> > >
> > > TC

> >
> > I doubt that, can you provide any evidence for this?

>
> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/309/6955/655
>
> quote:
>
> It is surprising that debate continues about the effectiveness of
> dietary treatments for obesity. Perhaps this is partly related to
> ambiguity in the term effectiveness. It is well known that most
> treatments produce temporary weight loss. But it is equally well known
> that 90% to 95% of those who lose weight regain it within several
> years.1 This poor outcome has led to charges that traditional
> treatments for obesity should be abandoned and countercharges that it
> is irresponsible to withhold treatment for such a serious problem. The
> failure of reducing diets to produce lasting improvement was recently
> reiterated at a National Institutes of Health consensus conference,
> which also warned about the adverse effects of treatment.2
>
> The failure of fat people to achieve a goal they seem to want - and to
> want almost above all else - must now be admitted for what it is: a
> failure not of those people but of the methods of treatment that are
> used. It is no longer a mystery why diets have such a poor long term
> record of success. Indeed the failure of obese people to become or
> remain thin by "normalising" their food intake follows logically from
> studies on the heritability of obesity,3 the biology of weight
> regulation,4 and the physiology of energy metabolism.5
>
> unquote
>
> The mentioned "traditional treatments for obesity" up to that time,
> pre-lo-carb, was exclusiveley low calorie, low fat. And it fails in 90
> to 95% of cases.
>
> If it fails in that many cases, statistically speaking, most any other
> random diet will be as successful, of more successful, than the diet
> that will fail in 90 to 95% of cases.
>
> TC


Here is an even better quote:

"We should stop offering ineffective treatments aimed at weight loss.
Researchers who think they have invented a better mousetrap should test
it in controlled research before setting out their bait for the entire
population. Only by admitting that our treatments do not work - and
showing that we mean it by refraining from offering them - can we begin
to undo a century of recruiting fat people for failure."

The ineffective treatment referred to in this paragraph is the old
calorie concept. You know, cut the calories by cutting the fat and
exercise more. It don't work, why keep pushing it. Start looking at
other treatments like cutting refined carbs.

TC
 
The below applies equally well to atkins etc., all diets work because in
the end people have reduced calorie intake to reach the goal weight and
then if it is to succeed, they maintain intake at that lower level.


>> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/309/6955/655
>>
>> quote:
>>
>> It is surprising that debate continues about the effectiveness of
>> dietary treatments for obesity. Perhaps this is partly related to
>> ambiguity in the term effectiveness. It is well known that most
>> treatments produce temporary weight loss. But it is equally well known
>> that 90% to 95% of those who lose weight regain it within several
>> years.1 This poor outcome has led to charges that traditional
>> treatments for obesity should be abandoned and countercharges that it
>> is irresponsible to withhold treatment for such a serious problem. The
>> failure of reducing diets to produce lasting improvement was recently
>> reiterated at a National Institutes of Health consensus conference,
>> which also warned about the adverse effects of treatment.2
>>
>> The failure of fat people to achieve a goal they seem to want - and to
>> want almost above all else - must now be admitted for what it is: a
>> failure not of those people but of the methods of treatment that are
>> used. It is no longer a mystery why diets have such a poor long term
>> record of success. Indeed the failure of obese people to become or
>> remain thin by "normalising" their food intake follows logically from
>> studies on the heritability of obesity,3 the biology of weight
>> regulation,4 and the physiology of energy metabolism.5
>>
>> unquote
>>
>> The mentioned "traditional treatments for obesity" up to that time,
>> pre-lo-carb, was exclusiveley low calorie, low fat. And it fails in 90
>> to 95% of cases.
>>
>> If it fails in that many cases, statistically speaking, most any other
>> random diet will be as successful, of more successful, than the diet
>> that will fail in 90 to 95% of cases.
>>
>> TC

>
>Here is an even better quote:
>
>"We should stop offering ineffective treatments aimed at weight loss.
>Researchers who think they have invented a better mousetrap should test
>it in controlled research before setting out their bait for the entire
>population. Only by admitting that our treatments do not work - and
>showing that we mean it by refraining from offering them - can we begin
>to undo a century of recruiting fat people for failure."
>
>The ineffective treatment referred to in this paragraph is the old
>calorie concept. You know, cut the calories by cutting the fat and
>exercise more. It don't work, why keep pushing it. Start looking at
>other treatments like cutting refined carbs.
>
>TC
 
T

TC

Guest
When these guys talk about the "traditional treatments for obesity",
they are specifically talking about low fat, low calorie diets. Low
carb is most definitely not part of the "traditional treatments for
obesity".

Some people end up with reduced calorie intake on low-carb, some may
not. We do not know if all people on a low carb diet do actually end up
eating fewer calories. The studies have not been done. And if they did,
so what? They did not achieve a lower calorie intake by specifically
striving to restrict high calorie fat, they achieved a lower caloric
intake by restricting refined carbs and eating more high calorie
satiating fats. Restricting high calorie fats fail in 90 to 95% of
cases.

And one study showed clearly that low-carbers can eat as much as 300
calories more than low-fatters and still either lose more weight or
lose as much weight as the low-fatters. If that isn't a kick in the
teeth to the old
calories-matter-because-of-the-infallibility-of-the-laws-of-thermodynamics
crowd, I don't know what is. A law only needs one exception to render
it useless, and in this case the laws of thermo cannot be directly
applied in the real world to managed weight in humans.

Face it, counting calories has not worked in the real world. Why do you
(we) continue to fixate on trying to make it all makes sense vis-a-vis
calories? It does not need to. The term "calories" can be completely
thrown out with regards to diet and weight management. Throw the entire
calorie theory out the window and never speak of it again, and you will
have made one major leap towards more success in treating obesity.
Screw the calories, count the carbs. As long as we are being deceived
by being falsely fixating on calories, we will never get to the real
nub of the matter, which has way more to do with hormonal
flunctuations, satiation triggers, and fat storage or fat usage
triggers than calories.

There is no such thing as a caloric balance response mechanism in the
human body. There is no way the body can response to a theoretucal
caloric balance or imbalance. It does not exist. If it does not exist,
why do we insist that calories are the key? They most definitely are
not the key. They are barely part of the equation.

Calories are a mirage, ignore them because to pursue calories will lead
to failure in 90 to 95% of cases. Statistically, low calorie diets are
the opposite of what works. When your only tool is a hammer, everything
looks like a nail. Throw away the hammer (restricting calories) and
start looking at the other tools available, that do a better job, like
restricting refined and manufactured carbs and eating adequate amounts
of satiating healthy animal fats and proteins regardless of their
alleged calorie content.

TC

[email protected] wrote:
> The below applies equally well to atkins etc., all diets work because in
> the end people have reduced calorie intake to reach the goal weight and
> then if it is to succeed, they maintain intake at that lower level.
>
>
> >> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/309/6955/655
> >>
> >> quote:
> >>
> >> It is surprising that debate continues about the effectiveness of
> >> dietary treatments for obesity. Perhaps this is partly related to
> >> ambiguity in the term effectiveness. It is well known that most
> >> treatments produce temporary weight loss. But it is equally well known
> >> that 90% to 95% of those who lose weight regain it within several
> >> years.1 This poor outcome has led to charges that traditional
> >> treatments for obesity should be abandoned and countercharges that it
> >> is irresponsible to withhold treatment for such a serious problem. The
> >> failure of reducing diets to produce lasting improvement was recently
> >> reiterated at a National Institutes of Health consensus conference,
> >> which also warned about the adverse effects of treatment.2
> >>
> >> The failure of fat people to achieve a goal they seem to want - and to
> >> want almost above all else - must now be admitted for what it is: a
> >> failure not of those people but of the methods of treatment that are
> >> used. It is no longer a mystery why diets have such a poor long term
> >> record of success. Indeed the failure of obese people to become or
> >> remain thin by "normalising" their food intake follows logically from
> >> studies on the heritability of obesity,3 the biology of weight
> >> regulation,4 and the physiology of energy metabolism.5
> >>
> >> unquote
> >>
> >> The mentioned "traditional treatments for obesity" up to that time,
> >> pre-lo-carb, was exclusiveley low calorie, low fat. And it fails in 90
> >> to 95% of cases.
> >>
> >> If it fails in that many cases, statistically speaking, most any other
> >> random diet will be as successful, of more successful, than the diet
> >> that will fail in 90 to 95% of cases.
> >>
> >> TC

> >
> >Here is an even better quote:
> >
> >"We should stop offering ineffective treatments aimed at weight loss.
> >Researchers who think they have invented a better mousetrap should test
> >it in controlled research before setting out their bait for the entire
> >population. Only by admitting that our treatments do not work - and
> >showing that we mean it by refraining from offering them - can we begin
> >to undo a century of recruiting fat people for failure."
> >
> >The ineffective treatment referred to in this paragraph is the old
> >calorie concept. You know, cut the calories by cutting the fat and
> >exercise more. It don't work, why keep pushing it. Start looking at
> >other treatments like cutting refined carbs.
> >
> >TC
 
"When these guys talk about the "traditional treatments for obesity", they
are specifically talking about low fat, low calorie diets. Low carb is
most definitely not part of the "traditional treatments for obesity".

Some people end up with reduced calorie intake on low-carb, some may not.
We do not know if all people on a low carb diet do actually end up eating
fewer calories. The studies have not been done. And if they did,"

Pure guessing, but what else is new. I have presented at least 3 studies
of long term studies which also involved low carb and all determined in
the end that weight loss occured because in the long term fewer calories
were eaten. The last was a few weeks ago and was an in hospital shorter
term study where every calorie was measured and involved low carb and the
conclusion the same, weight loss was due to the intake of fewer calories.
Does a low carb diet also have the side effect of memory loss or selective
memory or reinforcement of invalid presumptions and acute begging the
question?
 
"Pure guessing and irrelevant. Calories are irrelevant."

snip

"And whatever their findings regarding calories, it is irrelevant to
weight management in humans."

Ah, confirmation, low carb does lead to memory problems and selective
memory effects. Each time you assert this calories make no difference
sillyness you fall flat on your face for lack of evidence. As noted,
studies including low carb concluded in the end that weight loss happened
the old fashion way, the people ate less and consumed fewer calories.
These are not my conclusions, they are those of the people doing the
studies to which you have been directed before but selectively forget so
easily. But of course the ambient temperature and the calories involved
in it were not considered, let us help your low carb fogged memory on that
one, shall we? Or better yet, you should join the other one note jonnies
in this ng for iron and fat and make a complete triad that explains all
possible nutritional questions. We can rename the ng the
"low-carb/iron/saturated-fat choir.
 
T

TC

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> "When these guys talk about the "traditional treatments for obesity", they
> are specifically talking about low fat, low calorie diets. Low carb is
> most definitely not part of the "traditional treatments for obesity".
>
> Some people end up with reduced calorie intake on low-carb, some may not.
> We do not know if all people on a low carb diet do actually end up eating
> fewer calories. The studies have not been done. And if they did,"
>
> Pure guessing, but what else is new. I have presented at least 3 studies
> of long term studies which also involved low carb and all determined in
> the end that weight loss occured because in the long term fewer calories
> were eaten. The last was a few weeks ago and was an in hospital shorter
> term study where every calorie was measured and involved low carb and the
> conclusion the same, weight loss was due to the intake of fewer calories.


Pure guessing and irrelevant. Calories are irrelevant.

> Does a low carb diet also have the side effect of memory loss or selective
> memory or reinforcement of invalid presumptions and acute begging the
> question?


And whatever their findings regarding calories, it is irrelevant to
weight management in humans.

TC
 
T

TC

Guest
1) You obviously cannot read English and comprehend what is being said
or
2) You have selective reading skills, you see and understand what you
want to see and what you want to understand.

It does not matter what the calorie counts were, they still had little
or nothing to do with the results. It was the carb counting methodology
that did it. And the way it did it was by way of hormonal events and
satiation. The fact that a low carber can eat 300 more calories per day
and still lose more weight than a low fatter means something. That
something is that calories cannot be used to quantify accurately or
reliably weight gain or loss in humans. You like to conveniently ignore
this little fact.

The human body has no calorie balance feedback mechanism. Calories are
a side issue and of little or no relevance.

If you want to win this argument once and for all you must do one of
teh following:

1) prove that low calorie diets work statistically 90% to 95% of the
time.
or
2) explain in detail how the calorie balance feedback mechanism goes
from sensing the ongoing calorie balance and subsequently triggers fat
loss or fat storage.

If neither of the above two points can be addressed satisfactorily,
then calories are a mirage and mean nothing. There is NO SCIENCE behind
the concept that calorie balance dictates numerically, and linearly,
weight gain or weight loss in humans. I challenge you you show us THE
DEFINITIVE and/or THE SEMINAL study or series of studies that FOUND
specifically that the calorie balance is THE CONTROLLING factor and the
only controlling factor in weight management. It does not exist. It is
a mirage.

TC


[email protected] wrote:
> "Pure guessing and irrelevant. Calories are irrelevant."
>
> snip
>
> "And whatever their findings regarding calories, it is irrelevant to
> weight management in humans."
>
> Ah, confirmation, low carb does lead to memory problems and selective
> memory effects. Each time you assert this calories make no difference
> sillyness you fall flat on your face for lack of evidence. As noted,
> studies including low carb concluded in the end that weight loss happened
> the old fashion way, the people ate less and consumed fewer calories.
> These are not my conclusions, they are those of the people doing the
> studies to which you have been directed before but selectively forget so
> easily. But of course the ambient temperature and the calories involved
> in it were not considered, let us help your low carb fogged memory on that
> one, shall we? Or better yet, you should join the other one note jonnies
> in this ng for iron and fat and make a complete triad that explains all
> possible nutritional questions. We can rename the ng the
> "low-carb/iron/saturated-fat choir.
 
One of the first questions you asked some years ago was how do calories
factor in weight loss, give us the studies you demanded. I then being the
kind to take folks as they appear as posing ernest questions provided a
study where in a lab setting calories were strictly measured and
controlled and the resulting weight loss range that occurred reported.
Here all that time later, with periodic outbreaks aside and curative
booster shots to help you understand, here we are all this time hence; it
is truely a chronic disorder. Or is it a fixed dellusion?

The answer has become after time, "do your own homework". But it was
offered knowing full well you would not because you fail even to read the
information provided you when it is only a mouse click away, as was the
report mentioned above.

Let's go back to the amount of weight change based on the calories
involved in raising the ambient temperature you asserted in one thread,
that was at least entertaining and very instructive in revealing the lack
of information about basic science that you show proudly in thread after
thread.

As said before, ignorance allows a kind of freedom to think and say
anything. The second one knows some facts it becomes binding in a way.
Your way of dealing with this discomfort is to ignore the facts, as here
we are all this time since and you are still demanding information be
spoon fed you about the relationship between calorie intake and weight
status. Have a merry christmas and the best of new years.
 
D

Doug Freese

Guest
"TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> 1) You obviously cannot read English and comprehend what is being said
> or
> 2) You have selective reading skills, you see and understand what you
> want to see and what you want to understand.
>
> It does not matter what the calorie counts were, they still had little
> or nothing to do with the results.


Even though the studies you ponted to said they did. Talk about
selective

> The human body has no calorie balance feedback mechanism. Calories are
> a side issue and of little or no relevance.


Spock, come get him!

>
> If you want to win this argument once and for all you must do one of
> teh following:
>
> 1) prove that low calorie diets work statistically 90% to 95% of the
> time.


That has been show in hundreds of studies but I guess you concluded they
were all on the take.

> or
> 2) explain in detail how the calorie balance feedback mechanism goes
> from sensing the ongoing calorie balance and subsequently triggers fat
> loss or fat storage.


Groan. And all the people in the funny farm think they are sane.

-DF
 
T

TC

Guest
Doug Freese wrote:
> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > 1) You obviously cannot read English and comprehend what is being said
> > or
> > 2) You have selective reading skills, you see and understand what you
> > want to see and what you want to understand.
> >
> > It does not matter what the calorie counts were, they still had little
> > or nothing to do with the results.

>
> Even though the studies you ponted to said they did. Talk about
> selective
>
> > The human body has no calorie balance feedback mechanism. Calories are
> > a side issue and of little or no relevance.

>
> Spock, come get him!
>
> >
> > If you want to win this argument once and for all you must do one of
> > teh following:
> >
> > 1) prove that low calorie diets work statistically 90% to 95% of the
> > time.

>
> That has been show in hundreds of studies but I guess you concluded they
> were all on the take.
>
> > or
> > 2) explain in detail how the calorie balance feedback mechanism goes
> > from sensing the ongoing calorie balance and subsequently triggers fat
> > loss or fat storage.

>
> Groan. And all the people in the funny farm think they are sane.
>
> -DF


Smart ass comments that add nothing to the discussion.

Low calorie diets fail in 90% to 95% of cases. Fact.

And please explain how the calorie balance feedback mechanism works,
specifically.

TC
 
D

Doug Freese

Guest
"TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Low calorie diets fail in 90% to 95% of cases. Fact.


And that includes LC diets. As pointed out repeatedly to you, but you
have your selective glasses on, all diets minimize calories and why you
lose weight and almost all fall flat on their face 6 months to a year
later. Throw in some sincere exercise and the survival rate is mucho
better.
>
> And please explain how the calorie balance feedback mechanism works,
> specifically.


I'm not playing that game again. No matter what study anyone shows you,
you claim it's bogus, so why try. Fool me once shame on you, fool me
twice shame on me. You have such a BS strawman going, but nice try
anyway. Walks like a duck........

-DF
 
J

jt

Guest
On 22 Dec 2005 13:57:03 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Low calorie diets fail in 90% to 95% of cases. Fact.


People who are at a healthy BMI are not on a low calorie diet or a
high calorie diet. Overweight people who are out of control regularly
consume high fat 3000+ calories a day diets with little or no
exercise. They than go from a 3000+ calorie diet to a <1200 calorie
diet. Of course this is too few calories than anyone should live on
but when these overweight out of control people lose a few pounds they
don't go to a normal healthy 2000-2500 calorie diet they go right back
to mega calories with no nutritional value and no exercise.

One does not become obese overnight and one can not expect to become
skinny overnight. A sensible diet of 2000-2500 calories plus exercise
one will lose weight slowly but surely and be a lot healthier.

Low calorie diets fail because they are unhealthy just as high calorie
diets fail because they are unhealthy and abnormal. LC diets fail for
the same reason. If you look at the diets of people who have never
been overweight it is not because they have been eating LC since
birth. Healthy people who are not overweight do not eat LC or low
calorie diets. They eat healthy diets using quality foods that by
definition are not high calorie.

Unfortunately this group attracts a lot of hacks who have not formal
training or education on the subject of nutrition but are themselves
unhealthy and want to believe there is a single culprit and that it is
not their fault. Nutrition advice from a overweight or formerly
overweight inactive diabetic is not exactly an arms length unbiased
opinion one would hope to receive from a ng such as this.
 
"Absolutely not. When Garner and Wooley did their study and found that
traditional diets failed in 90 to 95% of cases, they were spealing of
traditional diets which are low calorie diets. LCDs."


But in more recent studies where lc was also involved the results were
similar. Selective glasses firmly in place make a wounderful sight.
Science moves on and lc has been found to both lose weight because of
eating fewer calories and that failure,ie dropouts, are similar. The
latter also seen in the severe drop in those doing lc and the market that
served the fad. The final take home message, lc causes some blunting of
appetite because of higher protein ratios for about six months, after
which all diets converge in effect and rate of people sticking to the
newer lower calorie intake..
 
T

TC

Guest
Doug Freese wrote:
> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > Low calorie diets fail in 90% to 95% of cases. Fact.

>
> And that includes LC diets. As pointed out repeatedly to you, but you
> have your selective glasses on, all diets minimize calories and why you
> lose weight and almost all fall flat on their face 6 months to a year
> later. Throw in some sincere exercise and the survival rate is mucho
> better.


Absolutely not. When Garner and Wooley did their study and found that
traditional diets failed in 90 to 95% of cases, they were spealing of
traditional diets which are low calorie diets. LCDs.

> >
> > And please explain how the calorie balance feedback mechanism works,
> > specifically.

>
> I'm not playing that game again. No matter what study anyone shows you,
> you claim it's bogus, so why try. Fool me once shame on you, fool me
> twice shame on me. You have such a BS strawman going, but nice try
> anyway. Walks like a duck........
>
> -DF


Of course you won't play the "game". You can't win it. No one has
provided anything that even remotely explains the mysterious calorie
balance feedback mechanism. It does not exist.

TC
 
"You did not read those LC studies very closely. You just read the
headlines. Next time read the details. The numbers for LC were
significantly better than the numbers for LCDs. You accuse me of
selectivity in the studies I read, and you wallow in selectivity in the
headlines you quote. Next time, read the actual studies and not the
headlines and the food and pharmaceutical industry reviews of those"

Nope, read them in full as they came out, including the one of just a few
weeks ago. The two l or so year long trials had similar outcomes as to
"failure". The recent one of above was shorter in duration but clearly
because every calorie could be measured in a controled setting the weight
loss was directly a result of fewer calories eaten and the conclusion that
higher protein ratios were responsible for people having blunted appetites
and thus those fewer calories. Again we can see in the population as a
whole the drastic drop in folk doing lc,ie. the failure rate, because it
like all fad diets for maintaining the lower weight status and the lower
calorie intake based on food type restrictions don't last.

Eating to maintain energy balance for a given weight status combined with
exercise works and does so not only because of calories used but because
it in general primes the metabolic system for maintaining weight status.
There are reasons to do lc for the short term but it holds no advantage in
the long term, that is what the studies showed. There are for specific
disorder groups reasons to consider consuming fewer carbs also, along with
substituting sat fat with mono fat and eating a variety of fruits and
veggies, these guidelines also based on study outcomes.

When one is truely non selective one can see this fuller picture.
 
"I have done my homework. That is why I have no problem telling you that
the seminal and ground-breaking study that found that calories can be
directly applied in the real world to weight management in humans DOES NOT
EXIST and never has existed and will never exist. It is a mirage."

The recently posted study using lc alone was in a controlled setting where
every calorie eaten could and was measured. The weight loss outcomes
related directly to the amount of calories consumed. End of story and
confirmation of what was demonstrated decades ago.