Re: Why calorie restricted diets are so dangerous



M

[email protected]

Guest
All diets work in the long term because they restrict calories, all of
them without exception. Note also that calories made the difference, cut
your intake in half and x percent over time of weight will be lost. All
experts regardless of diet used advise not exceeding around 2 lbs per week
tops loss to avoid long term problems, except in the case of those very
obese where the next step is surgury if the extreem diet usually done in a
hospital is not effective. These people, like people in the camps had
similar experiences with food obsession but it is questionable that any
principle can be generalized from it that applies to the typical person
wanting to lose some wieight and keep it off. Btw, not a mention of
carbs.

>http://river-centre.org/StarvSympt.html
>
>"Although this was described as a study of "semistarvation," it is
>important to keep in mind that cutting the men's rations to half of
>their former intake is precisely the level of caloric deficit used to
>define "conservative" treatments for obesity (Stunkard, 1993)."
>A real eye opener.
>
>TC
 
Theoretically calories are the only issue, but a person who is severely
stressed is not the same person as his/her identical twin who has an
unstressed life. On the typical US diet, that stressed person is going
to be releasing arachidonic acid in large amounts, damaging tissues and
suppressing metabolism. This is why chronic sleep deprivation leads to
weight gain. A report of a study was on www.sciencedaily.com today.
There are simple mechanisms at play here, but you have to know some
biochemistry, and reading about Hans Selye's stress theory would help
too.
 
Theoretically calories are the only issue, but a person who is severely
stressed is not the same person as his/her identical twin who has an
unstressed life. On the typical US diet, that stressed person is going
to be releasing arachidonic acid in large amounts, damaging tissues and
suppressing metabolism. This is why chronic sleep deprivation leads to
weight gain. A report of a study was on www.sciencedaily.com today.
There are simple mechanisms at play here, but you have to know some
biochemistry, and reading about Hans Selye's stress theory would help
too.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> All diets work in the long term because they restrict calories, all
of
> them without exception. Note also that calories made the difference,
cut
> your intake in half and x percent over time of weight will be lost.
All
> experts regardless of diet used advise not exceeding around 2 lbs per
week
> tops loss to avoid long term problems, except in the case of those
very
> obese where the next step is surgury if the extreem diet usually done
in a
> hospital is not effective. These people, like people in the camps
had
> similar experiences with food obsession but it is questionable that
any
> principle can be generalized from it that applies to the typical
person
> wanting to lose some wieight and keep it off. Btw, not a mention of
> carbs.

We are not discussing carbs, we are discussing the real dangers of even
moderate restriction of food to achieve weight loss.

It is a dangerous and misguided pile of foolishness for any man of
science to even consider restricting nutrition to try to achieve weight
loss.

TC
 
"We are not discussing carbs, we are discussing the real dangers of even
moderate restriction of food to achieve weight loss.

It is a dangerous and misguided pile of foolishness for any man of
science to even consider restricting nutrition to try to achieve weight
loss."

Ah, the spin boggles the mind, what is clearly called a "starvation" diet
in the study where normal people start eating 1/2 of normal calories for
long terms is now transformed into a "moderate" diet. All diets restrict
nutrition, all of them without exception. The real question is to have a
diet which covers one's nutritional needs while eating fewer calories to
gain weight loss and then to maintain the new weight status by matching
calories to it. All of the research done using different macro source
ratios had fewer calories over the long term that resulted in weight loss
and by definition each also consumed fewer levels of nutritions as food
sources. First it was calories are not related to weight loss and now
that eating fewer calories to lose weight is dangerous. The latter can be
if too much weight loss is attempted, and the study diet exceeded that
limit in terms of today's understanding of best strategies for long term
weight maintainence. None of the recent research studies in diet exceeded
it and all lost weight regardless of macro source ratios.
 
I'd like to see the science behind the "baseline" for calories. You
really can't make claims about calories unless there is some science
behind a baseline. Steven Spindler, the CR research scientist who just
won a prestigious award for CR work, had some interesting ideas behind
the mechanism behinds the success of CR in lab animals. It is the
mechanism that is important, so the idea would be to only restrict
calories to the point where you get the mechanism to work. After that
point, more restriction probably will do nothing, or more harm than
good.
 
On 11 Jan 2005 12:47:46 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:

snip'\
>We are not discussing carbs, we are discussing the real dangers of even
>moderate restriction of food to achieve weight loss.
>
>It is a dangerous and misguided pile of foolishness for any man of
>science to even consider restricting nutrition to try to achieve weight
>loss.

Incorrect--sorta. Restricting calories is a good way to live longer
and better. The trick is using a "nutrient dense" diet. fewer calories
but high in nutrients.

George M. Carter
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "We are not discussing carbs, we are discussing the real dangers of
> even
> moderate restriction of food to achieve weight loss.
>
> It is a dangerous and misguided pile of foolishness for any man of
> science to even consider restricting nutrition to try to achieve
> weight
> loss."
>
> Ah, the spin boggles the mind, what is clearly called a "starvation"
> diet
> in the study where normal people start eating 1/2 of normal calories
> for
> long terms is now transformed into a "moderate" diet. All diets
> restrict
> nutrition, all of them without exception. The real question is to
> have a
> diet which covers one's nutritional needs while eating fewer calories
> to
> gain weight loss and then to maintain the new weight status by
> matching
> calories to it.


Maybe it is implied in some dark corner but how about adding some
exercise. Trying to control weight strictly by food/caloric intake
reduction is doomed to fail. Contrary to TC's preposterous paranoiac
mythical musings, this isn't rocket science. Find some exercise that
raises your pulse beyond typing on the keyboard or a button on the
remote control.

-DF
 
[email protected] wrote:
> "We are not discussing carbs, we are discussing the real dangers of
even
> moderate restriction of food to achieve weight loss.
>
> It is a dangerous and misguided pile of foolishness for any man of
> science to even consider restricting nutrition to try to achieve
weight
> loss."
>
> Ah, the spin boggles the mind, what is clearly called a "starvation"
diet
> in the study where normal people start eating 1/2 of normal calories
for
> long terms is now transformed into a "moderate" diet. All diets
restrict
> nutrition, all of them without exception. The real question is to
have a
> diet which covers one's nutritional needs while eating fewer calories
to
> gain weight loss and then to maintain the new weight status by
matching
> calories to it. All of the research done using different macro
source
> ratios had fewer calories over the long term that resulted in weight
loss
> and by definition each also consumed fewer levels of nutritions as
food
> sources. First it was calories are not related to weight loss and
now
> that eating fewer calories to lose weight is dangerous. The latter
can be
> if too much weight loss is attempted, and the study diet exceeded
that
> limit in terms of today's understanding of best strategies for long
term
> weight maintainence. None of the recent research studies in diet
exceeded
> it and all lost weight regardless of macro source ratios.

"Although this was described as a study of "semistarvation," it is
important to keep in mind that cutting the men's rations to half of
their former intake is precisely the level of caloric deficit used to
define "conservative" treatments for obesity (Stunkard, 1993)."

What spin. It is not an extreme case for an adult to be placed on a
1200 kcal a day diet, which is around half what is actually "needed".
That is called a "LCD" - a low calorie diet. It is the more moderate of
LCDs. More extreme restriction occurs on a "VLCD", a very low calories
diet (as low as 800 kcal/day). All of this restriction of nutrition,
whether moderate or extreme, causes some kind of nutritional deficiency
and in turn will cause the symptoms witnessed in this study to some
degree. All of this occurs with the explicit support of the medical
establishment. In fact, according to the medical establishment,
restricting nutrition like this is the only method that can lead to
weight loss.

And according to the medical establishment, restricting all nutritional
intake (ie. low calorie diet) is the only *safe* way to lose weight.
And we are told in no uncertain terms that low carb diets are
dangerous. You've made that point repeatedly.

We are told it is much safer to restrict all nutritional intake than
restricting refined carbs only. We are told that restricting refined
carbs and eating enough other lower glycemic foods in their stead is
one of the most dangerous things one can do, diet wise, right? But
restricting all nutritional intake is fine, right?
Where is the logic in this? Let's hear your spin on this.

TC
 
I've lost, and kept off 20 lbs, for over four years now. Haven't
increased my activity levels one iota. The lack-of-exercise card keeps
getting misplayed by the mainstream anytime someone makes a point about
how the whole calorie thing just doesn't add up.

I am always amused how people will say that the calorie concept is
simple, eat less calories and you will lose weight. then when you point
out an example where it doesn't seem to make sense, or work at all, and
all of a sudden the concept gets more complicated. Now they throw in
things like exercise, or genetics, or different metabolisms, or some
other such "complicating" factor.
Freese, is it simple or is it complicated? Which is it?

TC
 
On 12 Jan 2005 07:06:24 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I've lost, and kept off 20 lbs, for over four years now.

4 years? YAWN

> Haven't increased my activity levels one iota. The lack-of-exercise card keeps
>getting misplayed by the mainstream anytime someone makes a point about
>how the whole calorie thing just doesn't add up.

I am 32 years old 6' and about 153 pounds. I have weighed about this
since I was 15.

My father and younger brother are approx the same height and are
around 190 pounds. They started out where I started but slowly added
weight through the years.

I do not watch calories or diet. I eat a well balanced diet without
the junk.

The only difference between me and my brother and father is that I run
maybe 15-20 miles a week. Which equates to a whopping 2 - 2 1/2 hours
a week of exercise. Probably less time than most dieters spend
reading worthless diet books and weighing themselves. I also actually
enjoy running and do not view it as a chore. It only seems hard or
painful to those that are unhealthy and out of shape.

Through exercise I am not only thin but strong and healthy unlike the
gaunt, pale, doughy, vegetarian thin.

>
>I am always amused how people will say that the calorie concept is
>simple, eat less calories and you will lose weight. then when you point
>out an example where it doesn't seem to make sense, or work at all, and
>all of a sudden the concept gets more complicated.

Not really these obese people are eating 4000-7000 calories a day.
They then go down to 1200 a day lose a few pounds and then go back to
their old weight. Anyone who eats less calories will lose weight.
They just always regain it when they go back to there old eating
habits. If they just ate like a normal person 2000-2500 calories
(which is sustainable for life) a day they would lose weight more
slowly but would at least keep it off.

> Now they throw in
>things like exercise, or genetics, or different metabolisms, or some
>other such "complicating" factor.

Exercise raises ones metabolism. Not only are you burning calories
while you are exercising but more when you are not. Lean and muscular
is the best way to raise your metabolism.

Lazy people who sit around and eat all day are going to be fat.
 
"TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've lost, and kept off 20 lbs, for over four years now. Haven't
> increased my activity levels one iota.

All this means is have just hint more self control then the obese
masses. One of the basic reasons for keeping one's weight under control
is health. Not doing any exercise nor encouraging any shows how narrow
and insincere you are. For you the scale is the end-all - you are
shallow if not disingenuous and don't give a rats ass about quality of
life.

> The lack-of-exercise card keeps
> getting misplayed by the mainstream anytime someone makes a point
> about
> how the whole calorie thing just doesn't add up.

Your BS spin. Throw in some bloody exercise and eat a few less calories
of **** food and the weight will come off AND establish a quality
lifestyle to keep it off.


> I am always amused how people will say that the calorie concept is
> simple, eat less calories and you will lose weight. then when you
> point
> out an example where it doesn't seem to make sense, or work at all,
> and
> all of a sudden the concept gets more complicated.

And every time we show you a study to refute this position you claim
it's conspiracy. Don't let facts get in the way of your story.

> Now they throw in
> things like exercise, or genetics, or different metabolisms, or some
> other such "complicating" factor.

This makes the issue complicated? It simply means people with slower
metabolism need to eat less or exercise more than someone with a higher
metabolism. We all have a closed system but the system is not identical
from person to person. It's calories in, calories out.

Stop by a local 5/10k race of 100 people and count the obese people.
Maybe 2 and they are walking at the back of pack since they are finally
taking some action. Stop by your local food store and tell me how many
of the first 100 that enter are fat. Wanna bet it's at least 30%. Do you
think all the runners are gifted with genes and perfect metabolisms and
don't eat bad food? Most of the people that took up running or walking
for that matter(pick the activity) did so because of excess weight or
**** poor health.

If we put some real physical fitness in school and ***** slap or educate
some parents to tell their kids to "go out and play"
we might slow the obesity and type II diabetes curve and save some kids.
And you who think exercise does not work is adding and abetting this
problem. Why did the Harvard School of Public Health revised the food
pyramid to put exercise and weigh control at the base?
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramids.html Is this an
institution on the industrial dole? I'm sure you will say they get
their funds from say Monsanto and all the resulting studies by all the
students involved are also on the take.

> is it simple or is it complicated? Which is it?

For you it's appears complicated. Eat a little less and exercise a
little more and watch the weight slowly melt off, self esteem grow live
higher quality of life and who knows, maybe longer. Ain't complicated
to me unless you want to count motivating people off their asses.

-DF
 
Doug Freese <[email protected]> wrote:

> Trying to control weight strictly by food/caloric intake
> reduction is doomed to fail.

Except of course in my case. Whenever my trousers get too small, I
start eating a bit less until they fit. It's worked for thirty years.

What do you think explains my strange response of losing weight to
reducing portion size? Is there something wrong with me?

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
You just got lucky in that you happen to inadvertently restrict the
right things ie. carbs.

Try cutting fats and upping refined carbs and I guarantee you that your
apparent ability to easily control your weight will go right out the
window. That is what has happened to millions when they specifically
try to lose weight by cutting fats.

TC

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> Doug Freese <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Trying to control weight strictly by food/caloric intake
> > reduction is doomed to fail.
>
> Except of course in my case. Whenever my trousers get too small, I
> start eating a bit less until they fit. It's worked for thirty years.
>
> What do you think explains my strange response of losing weight to
> reducing portion size? Is there something wrong with me?
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
> IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
"Chris Malcolm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Freese <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Trying to control weight strictly by food/caloric intake
>> reduction is doomed to fail.
>
> Except of course in my case. Whenever my trousers get too small, I
> start eating a bit less until they fit. It's worked for thirty years.
>
> What do you think explains my strange response of losing weight to
> reducing portion size? Is there something wrong with me?

Of course there is a percentage of people that have self control and my
hat goes to you. Sadly we live in an obese world and working steadily on
morbidly obese because masses of people such as yourself do not have
self control. By the way, you have an alternative to strict portion
control - do some exercise and not have to worry about a yoyo waist. Not
only that, your heart and a few other trivial organs would be healthier.

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