Question on Calories



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

>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 protected]>
posted:

>Laurel Amberdine writes:
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>> And why does it only occur when I cannot lose weight?
>
>If you eat fewer calories than you burn, you will ALWAYS
>lose weight.
>
>> 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.
>
>> I know. I didn't say it was normal, only that it
>> happened.
>
>So see your 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.)
>
>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.
>
>> Really?
>
>Guaranteed.
>
>> 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 protected]>
posted:

>On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:16:10 GMT, Doug Freese
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Laurel Amberdine wrote:
>>
>>> 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?

>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!!!

>>>>>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.

>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.

>> 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?

>>> 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 protected]>
posted:

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

>On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:36:47 +0100, Mxsmanic
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.

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

>>> 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.

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

Huh? Happens all the time?

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

Check it out.

>> 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...

>>> 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.

>>> 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?

>>> 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 protected]> posted:

>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 protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
>berlin.de...
>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:36:47 +0100, Mxsmanic
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> >> 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.)
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> >> 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.)
>>
>> >> 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 * * * http://amberdine.com
>
 
On 12 Mar 2004 07:23:35 -0800, [email protected] (tcomeau) posted:

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

>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:
>
>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/469768_3
>
>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:
>
>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470747
>
>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/469768
>
>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 12 Mar 2004 20:14:14 -0800, [email protected] (tcomeau) posted:

>Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> tcomeau writes:
>>
>> > 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.

>> > 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.

>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.

>> > 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!

>> 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 protected]>
posted:

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

Try? I thought he said that was what happened.

>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?

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

What is "cut-up"?
 
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:44:29 +0900, "PaulP" <[email protected]> posted:

>"Moosh:)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:53:49 -0500, Dally
>> <[email protected]> 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.
>>
>> http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_in-
>> 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 protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:44:29 +0900, "PaulP"
> <[email protected]> posted:
>
> >"Moosh:)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:53:49 -0500, Dally
> >> <[email protected]> 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.
> >>
> >> http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_-
> >> index.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
 
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:03:19 GMT, "Pizza Girl" <[email protected]>
posted:

>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 protected]) 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 protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> tcomeau writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>"Moosh:)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:44:29 +0900, "PaulP"
>> <[email protected]> posted:
>>
>> >"Moosh:)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:53:49 -0500, Dally
>> >> <[email protected]> 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.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety-
>> >> _index.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
 
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 protected]> posted:

>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.

>That excess Ketones are excreted by the kidneys?

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

>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.

>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 :)

>Now, there are lots of ways to accomplish this.

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

>There are also lots of different people out there.

Six billion, give or take.

>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.....

>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.

> 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.

>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.

>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.

>For them fats work better than carbohydrates.

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

>Filling the stomach is less important than not
>feeling hungry.

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

>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.

>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?

>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.

>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
 
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 17:41:13 +0800, "Moosh:)" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

>
>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>
>>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.

>
>>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.

>>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.

>
>>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 writes:

> 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.

> 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 protected]>
wrote:

>Robert Klute writes:
>
>> 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.

>> 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)

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back