Re: Why calorie restricted diets are so dangerous

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by [email protected], Jan 21, 2005.

  1. Show that calories do not figure in weight gain/loss, that is what you
    were asked to support. The below is not relevant, as sadly often the
    case, to the question at hand. Do look at the subject line again, we are
    not talking about the ratio of macro food sources. Your original
    assertion is that it is what one chooses to eat and not calories that are
    important. The number of support sources you have provided is pathetic in
    their number and quality, from which you more often then not cherry pick a
    phrase and force it to your agenda. Lc and lf are the only choices, did
    you see the 4 different diets used in recently reported research, neither
    lc or lf were the best in weight loss or health benefits or the number of
    people sticking to them. So we end where we began, bunck and horse
    puckies indeed.


    >It is not bunk, it is science. I've offered proof in many, many posts
    >over the last couple of years. I've presented a large number of studies
    >that have found low-carb to work better than low-fat and be healthier
    >by its reduction of cholesterol and improvement of other health
    >indicators.
    >
    >You can prove me wrong by doing as I suggested in the post that you
    >responded to. You can really prove me wrong by going further and eating
    >a high-fat/high-calorie/low-refined carb diet for two months. Keep
    >track of the calories and your weight and your general health
    >indicators such as cholesterol and blood sugars, etc. Then switch to a
    >high-carb/low-fat/low-calorie diet for two months, track your calories
    >and your weight and your health indocators.
    >
    >Then come back and tell us what happened.
    >
    >TC
    >
    >[email protected] wrote:
    >> Bunk, pure horse puckies, total unsupported crap; I'm feeling

    >charitable
    >> today. Provide support on the web outside your assertions. Did

    >those in
    >> the camps in europe only restrict carbs? You have failed completely

    >in
    >> supporting your nutritional theology before, but let's give you

    >another
    >> chance. Show us how calories are not involved in weight status, show

    >us
    >> how restricting them doesn't lead to weight loss.
    >>
    >>
    >> >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/]
     
    Tags:


  2. TC

    TC Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > Show that calories do not figure in weight gain/loss, that is what

    you
    > were asked to support. The below is not relevant, as sadly often the
    > case, to the question at hand. Do look at the subject line again, we

    are
    > not talking about the ratio of macro food sources. Your original
    > assertion is that it is what one chooses to eat and not calories that

    are
    > important. The number of support sources you have provided is

    pathetic in
    > their number and quality, from which you more often then not cherry

    pick a
    > phrase and force it to your agenda. Lc and lf are the only choices,

    did
    > you see the 4 different diets used in recently reported research,

    neither
    > lc or lf were the best in weight loss or health benefits or the

    number of
    > people sticking to them. So we end where we began, bunck and horse
    > puckies indeed.
    >
    >


    I can say that the studies that I presented were eityer absent of any
    conflicts of interest or they stated theirs up front. That, in my
    opinion, makes them much more relevant than the majority of the studies
    that you low fatters have presented. regardless of the number, size,
    length or any other such factor.

    TC


    > >It is not bunk, it is science. I've offered proof in many, many

    posts
    > >over the last couple of years. I've presented a large number of

    studies
    > >that have found low-carb to work better than low-fat and be

    healthier
    > >by its reduction of cholesterol and improvement of other health
    > >indicators.
    > >
    > >You can prove me wrong by doing as I suggested in the post that you
    > >responded to. You can really prove me wrong by going further and

    eating
    > >a high-fat/high-calorie/low-refined carb diet for two months. Keep
    > >track of the calories and your weight and your general health
    > >indicators such as cholesterol and blood sugars, etc. Then switch to

    a
    > >high-carb/low-fat/low-calorie diet for two months, track your

    calories
    > >and your weight and your health indocators.
    > >
    > >Then come back and tell us what happened.
    > >
    > >TC
    > >
    > >[email protected] wrote:
    > >> Bunk, pure horse puckies, total unsupported crap; I'm feeling

    > >charitable
    > >> today. Provide support on the web outside your assertions. Did

    > >those in
    > >> the camps in europe only restrict carbs? You have failed

    completely
    > >in
    > >> supporting your nutritional theology before, but let's give you

    > >another
    > >> chance. Show us how calories are not involved in weight status,

    show
    > >us
    > >> how restricting them doesn't lead to weight loss.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> >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]c.uk +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/]
     
Loading...