Three reasons why calories probably don't count

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by TC, Feb 20, 2006.

  1. TC

    TC Guest

    1) There is no fundamental science to support it.

    The following is supposed to be the scientific basis of the concept of
    calories being applicable to animals and weigt control:

    *
    second ed. of White, Handler and Smith "Principles of Biochemistry"
    Chaper 1 and
    Chapter 15 (metabolism) plus the citations and references therin. It
    states: (pp8) "Three historic discoveries led to the concept that the
    fundamental laws of phsics and chemistry, which apply to nonliving
    systems, also apply to living structures. These discoveries are (1)
    the establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
    conservation of energy in its application of animals"-- (the others
    have to do with (2) synthesis of urea and (3) fermentation). (pp9) "In
    living, as in nonliving, systems therefore, these laws of physical
    chemistry require that energy must be supplied in orderto accomplish
    the reversal of a spontaneous process or for the synthesis of a new
    compound from precursors of lower energy content".
    *

    A very highly regarded bio-chemistry textbook references "the
    establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
    conservation of energy in its application of animals"

    Except that the study or the paper by Lavoisier and Laplace does not
    exist.

    http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lavoisier_Chronology2.asp?anno=1785

    Any studies by these two together occurred much later than 1785 and
    none specifically established "the law of conservation of energy in its
    application of animals". They never did any such study or paper.

    This textbook is used to educate all medical people. They are being
    told that science has established "the law of conservation of energy in
    its application of animals" and then fails to provide a correct or
    relevant reference.

    Is this acceptable scientific "proof"? Can you find the study or the
    paper that originally established "the law of conservation of energy in
    its application of animals"?

    ************************

    2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight loss
    in humans fails 95% of the time.

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

    "Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
    ineffective
    C S Wooley, D M Garner

    University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio 45267,
    USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research, Bala Cynwood,
    Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr Wooley.

    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 "

    If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
    exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of effort
    would lose at least weight over time and they would successfully keep
    it off. There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local grocer.
    And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine effort and
    succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the expected and desired
    results. Applying the low calorie diet and the very low calorie diet in
    the real world does not result in the desired weight loss in 90 to 95%
    of cases.

    *******************

    3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors or is
    triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage and weight
    loss or fat loss.

    Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients that we
    consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals, water, air and
    light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that handles and
    metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good bio-chemistry textbook
    will give you the whole story of how our bodies use and process these
    various nutrients.

    Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels which
    in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn triggers our body to
    create and store fat.

    There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is triggered
    by calories specifically. It is a black box concept that has never gone
    further than the mysterious black box. And it does not fit into any
    bio-chemical explanation of the various bio-chemical and metabolic
    processes of the human body. In light of the entire metabolic systems
    bio-chemical processes and various chemical cascades involved in fat
    storage and fat breakdown, calories become the red-headed step-child
    with no role to play whatsoever.

    ********

    I am sure that calories mean something somewhere. Possibly at the
    extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
    calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at the
    other extreme, way too many calories will cause some problems. But in
    the middle area where we are eating within normal ranges of food, the
    actual number of calories consumed and the amounts expended cannot be
    used to reliably predict weight gain or loss. The basic and simple math
    of the calorie deficit concept simply does not work in the real world.

    It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
    Except it fails in the real world.

    TC
     
    Tags:


  2. GaryG

    GaryG Guest

    "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
    >
    > The following is supposed to be the scientific basis of the concept of
    > calories being applicable to animals and weigt control:
    >
    > *
    > second ed. of White, Handler and Smith "Principles of Biochemistry"
    > Chaper 1 and
    > Chapter 15 (metabolism) plus the citations and references therin. It
    > states: (pp8) "Three historic discoveries led to the concept that the
    > fundamental laws of phsics and chemistry, which apply to nonliving
    > systems, also apply to living structures. These discoveries are (1)
    > the establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
    > conservation of energy in its application of animals"-- (the others
    > have to do with (2) synthesis of urea and (3) fermentation). (pp9) "In
    > living, as in nonliving, systems therefore, these laws of physical
    > chemistry require that energy must be supplied in orderto accomplish
    > the reversal of a spontaneous process or for the synthesis of a new
    > compound from precursors of lower energy content".
    > *
    >
    > A very highly regarded bio-chemistry textbook references "the
    > establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
    > conservation of energy in its application of animals"
    >
    > Except that the study or the paper by Lavoisier and Laplace does not
    > exist.
    >
    > http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lavoisier_Chronology2.asp?anno=1785
    >
    > Any studies by these two together occurred much later than 1785 and
    > none specifically established "the law of conservation of energy in its
    > application of animals". They never did any such study or paper.
    >
    > This textbook is used to educate all medical people. They are being
    > told that science has established "the law of conservation of energy in
    > its application of animals" and then fails to provide a correct or
    > relevant reference.
    >
    > Is this acceptable scientific "proof"? Can you find the study or the
    > paper that originally established "the law of conservation of energy in
    > its application of animals"?
    >
    > ************************
    >
    > 2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight loss
    > in humans fails 95% of the time.
    >
    > http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/309/6955/655
    >
    > "Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
    > ineffective
    > C S Wooley, D M Garner
    >
    > University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio 45267,
    > USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research, Bala Cynwood,
    > Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr Wooley.
    >
    > 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 "
    >
    > If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
    > exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of effort
    > would lose at least weight over time and they would successfully keep
    > it off. There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local grocer.
    > And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine effort and
    > succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the expected and desired
    > results. Applying the low calorie diet and the very low calorie diet in
    > the real world does not result in the desired weight loss in 90 to 95%
    > of cases.
    >
    > *******************
    >
    > 3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors or is
    > triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage and weight
    > loss or fat loss.
    >
    > Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients that we
    > consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals, water, air and
    > light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that handles and
    > metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good bio-chemistry textbook
    > will give you the whole story of how our bodies use and process these
    > various nutrients.
    >
    > Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels which
    > in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn triggers our body to
    > create and store fat.
    >
    > There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is triggered
    > by calories specifically. It is a black box concept that has never gone
    > further than the mysterious black box. And it does not fit into any
    > bio-chemical explanation of the various bio-chemical and metabolic
    > processes of the human body. In light of the entire metabolic systems
    > bio-chemical processes and various chemical cascades involved in fat
    > storage and fat breakdown, calories become the red-headed step-child
    > with no role to play whatsoever.
    >
    > ********
    >
    > I am sure that calories mean something somewhere. Possibly at the
    > extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
    > calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at the
    > other extreme, way too many calories will cause some problems. But in
    > the middle area where we are eating within normal ranges of food, the
    > actual number of calories consumed and the amounts expended cannot be
    > used to reliably predict weight gain or loss. The basic and simple math
    > of the calorie deficit concept simply does not work in the real world.
    >
    > It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
    > Except it fails in the real world.


    It fails in the real world precisely because people consume more calories
    than they burn. With the ready availability of high calorie foods, and the
    decreasing requirement for movement in modern life, it's no wonder people
    are getting fatter and fatter. This also explains why we're getting fatter
    over time - years ago, high fat food was less plentiful (you couldn't buy 64
    oz sodas), and there were very few jobs that required sitting down for 8
    hours per day. Years ago people also weren't sitting on their butts
    watching television for 6 hours per day.

    Study after study has demonstrated that overweight people consistently
    underestimate how many calories they consume, and consistently overestimate
    how many calories they burn through exercise. The results are quite
    predictable.

    GG

    >
    > TC
    >
     
  3. Cubit

    Cubit Guest

    "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    [snip]
    And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine effort and
    succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the expected and desired
    results.
    [snip]

    Nonsense. Weight gain and loss is directly linked to calories. When humans
    are caloricaly restricted their behavior changes. They cheat. We think we
    have control over our lives, but the evidence shows that innate survival
    drives can alter the perceptions of the conscious mind and change behavior.

    Diets don't fail. People do.
     
  4. TC

    TC Guest

    GaryG wrote:
    > "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
    > >
    > > The following is supposed to be the scientific basis of the concept of
    > > calories being applicable to animals and weigt control:
    > >
    > > *
    > > second ed. of White, Handler and Smith "Principles of Biochemistry"
    > > Chaper 1 and
    > > Chapter 15 (metabolism) plus the citations and references therin. It
    > > states: (pp8) "Three historic discoveries led to the concept that the
    > > fundamental laws of phsics and chemistry, which apply to nonliving
    > > systems, also apply to living structures. These discoveries are (1)
    > > the establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
    > > conservation of energy in its application of animals"-- (the others
    > > have to do with (2) synthesis of urea and (3) fermentation). (pp9) "In
    > > living, as in nonliving, systems therefore, these laws of physical
    > > chemistry require that energy must be supplied in orderto accomplish
    > > the reversal of a spontaneous process or for the synthesis of a new
    > > compound from precursors of lower energy content".
    > > *
    > >
    > > A very highly regarded bio-chemistry textbook references "the
    > > establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
    > > conservation of energy in its application of animals"
    > >
    > > Except that the study or the paper by Lavoisier and Laplace does not
    > > exist.
    > >
    > > http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lavoisier_Chronology2.asp?anno=1785
    > >
    > > Any studies by these two together occurred much later than 1785 and
    > > none specifically established "the law of conservation of energy in its
    > > application of animals". They never did any such study or paper.
    > >
    > > This textbook is used to educate all medical people. They are being
    > > told that science has established "the law of conservation of energy in
    > > its application of animals" and then fails to provide a correct or
    > > relevant reference.
    > >
    > > Is this acceptable scientific "proof"? Can you find the study or the
    > > paper that originally established "the law of conservation of energy in
    > > its application of animals"?
    > >
    > > ************************
    > >
    > > 2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight loss
    > > in humans fails 95% of the time.
    > >
    > > http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/309/6955/655
    > >
    > > "Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
    > > ineffective
    > > C S Wooley, D M Garner
    > >
    > > University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio 45267,
    > > USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research, Bala Cynwood,
    > > Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr Wooley.
    > >
    > > 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 "
    > >
    > > If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
    > > exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of effort
    > > would lose at least weight over time and they would successfully keep
    > > it off. There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local grocer.
    > > And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine effort and
    > > succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the expected and desired
    > > results. Applying the low calorie diet and the very low calorie diet in
    > > the real world does not result in the desired weight loss in 90 to 95%
    > > of cases.
    > >
    > > *******************
    > >
    > > 3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors or is
    > > triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage and weight
    > > loss or fat loss.
    > >
    > > Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients that we
    > > consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals, water, air and
    > > light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that handles and
    > > metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good bio-chemistry textbook
    > > will give you the whole story of how our bodies use and process these
    > > various nutrients.
    > >
    > > Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels which
    > > in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn triggers our body to
    > > create and store fat.
    > >
    > > There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is triggered
    > > by calories specifically. It is a black box concept that has never gone
    > > further than the mysterious black box. And it does not fit into any
    > > bio-chemical explanation of the various bio-chemical and metabolic
    > > processes of the human body. In light of the entire metabolic systems
    > > bio-chemical processes and various chemical cascades involved in fat
    > > storage and fat breakdown, calories become the red-headed step-child
    > > with no role to play whatsoever.
    > >
    > > ********
    > >
    > > I am sure that calories mean something somewhere. Possibly at the
    > > extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
    > > calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at the
    > > other extreme, way too many calories will cause some problems. But in
    > > the middle area where we are eating within normal ranges of food, the
    > > actual number of calories consumed and the amounts expended cannot be
    > > used to reliably predict weight gain or loss. The basic and simple math
    > > of the calorie deficit concept simply does not work in the real world.
    > >
    > > It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
    > > Except it fails in the real world.

    >
    > It fails in the real world precisely because people consume more calories
    > than they burn. With the ready availability of high calorie foods, and the
    > decreasing requirement for movement in modern life, it's no wonder people
    > are getting fatter and fatter. This also explains why we're getting fatter
    > over time - years ago, high fat food was less plentiful (you couldn't buy 64
    > oz sodas), and there were very few jobs that required sitting down for 8
    > hours per day. Years ago people also weren't sitting on their butts
    > watching television for 6 hours per day.
    >
    > Study after study has demonstrated that overweight people consistently
    > underestimate how many calories they consume, and consistently overestimate
    > how many calories they burn through exercise. The results are quite
    > predictable.
    >
    > GG


    Did you even read what I wrote?

    TC
     
  5. TC

    TC Guest

    Cubit wrote:
    > "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > [snip]
    > And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine effort and
    > succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the expected and desired
    > results.
    > [snip]
    >
    > Nonsense. Weight gain and loss is directly linked to calories. When humans
    > are caloricaly restricted their behavior changes. They cheat. We think we
    > have control over our lives, but the evidence shows that innate survival
    > drives can alter the perceptions of the conscious mind and change behavior.
    >
    > Diets don't fail. People do.


    People fail but calories don't. Sure. That explains it all.

    TC
     
  6. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    GaryG wrote:
    :: "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    :: news:[email protected]
    ::: 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
    :::
    ::: The following is supposed to be the scientific basis of the concept
    ::: of calories being applicable to animals and weigt control:
    :::
    ::: *
    ::: second ed. of White, Handler and Smith "Principles of Biochemistry"
    ::: Chaper 1 and
    ::: Chapter 15 (metabolism) plus the citations and references therin. It
    ::: states: (pp8) "Three historic discoveries led to the concept that
    ::: the fundamental laws of phsics and chemistry, which apply to
    ::: nonliving systems, also apply to living structures. These
    ::: discoveries are (1) the establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in
    ::: 1785 of the law of conservation of energy in its application of
    ::: animals"-- (the others have to do with (2) synthesis of urea and
    ::: (3) fermentation). (pp9) "In living, as in nonliving, systems
    ::: therefore, these laws of physical chemistry require that energy
    ::: must be supplied in orderto accomplish the reversal of a
    ::: spontaneous process or for the synthesis of a new compound from
    ::: precursors of lower energy content". *
    :::
    ::: A very highly regarded bio-chemistry textbook references "the
    ::: establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
    ::: conservation of energy in its application of animals"
    :::
    ::: Except that the study or the paper by Lavoisier and Laplace does not
    ::: exist.
    :::
    ::: http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lavoisier_Chronology2.asp?anno=1785
    :::
    ::: Any studies by these two together occurred much later than 1785 and
    ::: none specifically established "the law of conservation of energy in
    ::: its application of animals". They never did any such study or paper.
    :::
    ::: This textbook is used to educate all medical people. They are being
    ::: told that science has established "the law of conservation of
    ::: energy in its application of animals" and then fails to provide a
    ::: correct or relevant reference.
    :::
    ::: Is this acceptable scientific "proof"? Can you find the study or the
    ::: paper that originally established "the law of conservation of
    ::: energy in its application of animals"?
    :::
    ::: ************************
    :::
    ::: 2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight
    ::: loss in humans fails 95% of the time.
    :::
    ::: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/309/6955/655
    :::
    ::: "Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
    ::: ineffective
    ::: C S Wooley, D M Garner
    :::
    ::: University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
    ::: 45267, USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research, Bala
    ::: Cynwood, Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr Wooley.
    :::
    ::: 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 "
    :::
    ::: If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
    ::: exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of effort
    ::: would lose at least weight over time and they would successfully
    ::: keep it off. There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local
    ::: grocer. And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine
    ::: effort and succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the
    ::: expected and desired results. Applying the low calorie diet and the
    ::: very low calorie diet in the real world does not result in the
    ::: desired weight loss in 90 to 95% of cases.
    :::
    ::: *******************
    :::
    ::: 3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors or
    ::: is triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage and
    ::: weight loss or fat loss.
    :::
    ::: Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients
    ::: that we consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals,
    ::: water, air and light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that
    ::: handles and metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good
    ::: bio-chemistry textbook will give you the whole story of how our
    ::: bodies use and process these various nutrients.
    :::
    ::: Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels
    ::: which in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn triggers
    ::: our body to create and store fat.
    :::
    ::: There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is
    ::: triggered by calories specifically. It is a black box concept that
    ::: has never gone further than the mysterious black box. And it does
    ::: not fit into any bio-chemical explanation of the various
    ::: bio-chemical and metabolic processes of the human body. In light of
    ::: the entire metabolic systems bio-chemical processes and various
    ::: chemical cascades involved in fat storage and fat breakdown,
    ::: calories become the red-headed step-child with no role to play
    ::: whatsoever.
    :::
    ::: ********
    :::
    ::: I am sure that calories mean something somewhere. Possibly at the
    ::: extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
    ::: calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at the
    ::: other extreme, way too many calories will cause some problems. But
    ::: in the middle area where we are eating within normal ranges of
    ::: food, the actual number of calories consumed and the amounts
    ::: expended cannot be used to reliably predict weight gain or loss.
    ::: The basic and simple math of the calorie deficit concept simply
    ::: does not work in the real world.
    :::
    ::: It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
    ::: Except it fails in the real world.
    ::
    :: It fails in the real world precisely because people consume more
    :: calories than they burn. With the ready availability of high
    :: calorie foods, and the decreasing requirement for movement in modern
    :: life, it's no wonder people are getting fatter and fatter. This
    :: also explains why we're getting fatter over time - years ago, high
    :: fat food was less plentiful (you couldn't buy 64 oz sodas),

    I truly hope you meant "high calorie food". However, high calorie food as
    always been available. Nuts, for example. Meat in large enough quantities
    is high calorie.

    However, years ago "high-calorie, nutrient-poor, chemically-enriched
    convenience" foods were less plentiful. And people were more active.

    and
    :: there were very few jobs that required sitting down for 8 hours per
    :: day. Years ago people also weren't sitting on their butts watching
    :: television for 6 hours per day.
    ::
    :: Study after study has demonstrated that overweight people
    :: consistently underestimate how many calories they consume, and
    :: consistently overestimate how many calories they burn through
    :: exercise. The results are quite predictable.

    What? Most overweight people don't estimate one way or another how much the
    consume or burn, and that's part of the problem. Merely trying tends to
    result in doing better in that regard. Another part of the problem is that
    many of them (certainly speaking from experience here) overeat carb-heavy
    calorie-dense foods and don't get any exercise to speak of. The greater
    part of that problem is the consumption part, as far as weight goes.
    Exercise isn't needed to lose weight but it is benefical for a lot of
    reasons, with weight control being one .

    ::
    :: GG
    ::
    :::
    ::: TC
     
  7. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    TC wrote:
    :: 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
    ::

    [snipped the useless stuff]

    ::
    :: ************************
    ::
    :: 2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight
    :: loss in humans fails 95% of the time.

    Now, had your subject reflected this statement, TC, then I'd have no issue
    with you. This statement suggests that as a practical matter, people refuse
    to restrict calories 95% of the time to achieve or maintain weight loss.
    Agreed. In times of cheap but good tasting junk foods, people would rather
    stuff their faces than go hungry or do without something that makes them
    feel good. Understandable, really. But, you're saying calories don't count.
    That, I'm not so sure about....

    Less calories = less nutrient-containing food = less usable matter = less
    energy for the body = less body

    ::
    :: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/309/6955/655
    ::
    :: "Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
    :: ineffective
    :: C S Wooley, D M Garner
    ::
    :: University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
    :: 45267, USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research, Bala
    :: Cynwood, Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr Wooley.
    ::
    :: 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 "

    I have no problem with that statement as it stands.

    ::
    :: If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
    :: exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of effort
    :: would lose at least weight over time and they would successfully keep
    :: it off.

    The vast majority of people who try, do lose weight. The vast majorit of
    people who lose weight using mere calorie restriction, fail at maintaining
    calorie restriction.


    There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local
    :: grocer. And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine
    :: effort and succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the
    :: expected and desired results.

    This is where you aren't seeing clearly. "If you do what you've always
    done, you'll get what you've always got."

    :: Applying the low calorie diet and the
    :: very low calorie diet in the real world does not result in the
    :: desired weight loss in 90 to 95% of cases.
    ::

    It does not result in maintaining the weight loss because people get bored
    with 1) counting, 2) eating boring foods, 3) being without stuff they like,
    4) etc.

    :: *******************
    ::
    :: 3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors or
    :: is triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage and
    :: weight loss or fat loss.
    ::
    :: Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients that
    :: we consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals, water, air
    :: and light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that handles and
    :: metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good bio-chemistry textbook
    :: will give you the whole story of how our bodies use and process these
    :: various nutrients.
    ::
    :: Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels which
    :: in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn triggers our body
    :: to create and store fat.
    ::
    :: There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is
    :: triggered by calories specifically. It is a black box concept that
    :: has never gone further than the mysterious black box. And it does
    :: not fit into any bio-chemical explanation of the various
    :: bio-chemical and metabolic processes of the human body. In light of
    :: the entire metabolic systems bio-chemical processes and various
    :: chemical cascades involved in fat storage and fat breakdown,
    :: calories become the red-headed step-child with no role to play
    :: whatsoever.

    Where is your reference for this? Are these your statements?

    Maybe we should hold a contest where people just eat 6000 calories / day
    steak or the fatty meats for a week and see if there is no weight gain. I'd
    enjoy that. Zero carb for one week at a fix calorie level that would
    produced weight gain. One of us would have to shut the hell up at the end
    of that week, TC. Would you enjoy that? :)

    ::
    :: ********
    ::
    :: I am sure that calories mean something somewhere.

    More calories from food = more bio-usable mass entering the body = more
    weight stored on body

    Possibly at the
    :: extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
    :: calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at the
    :: other extreme, way too many calories will cause some problems. But in
    :: the middle area where we are eating within normal ranges of food, the
    :: actual number of calories consumed and the amounts expended cannot be
    :: used to reliably predict weight gain or loss. The basic and simple
    :: math of the calorie deficit concept simply does not work in the real
    :: world.
    ::
    :: It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
    :: Except it fails in the real world.

    No, for thoses who do it, it works. The problem is, most can't sustain it
    for various reasons. Think about it. A lot of people get fat over time.
    They get used to eating a certain way and having the foods they enjoy. They
    get used to a lifestyle. Then, they become unsightly or unhealthy. To
    address it requires a major lifestyle change which has been developed over a
    period of time. But most would apparently rather live with the consequences
    than do the work to make the major change in lifestyle.

    TC, you're a good LCer for sure. But I think the reason you don't really
    get this is because you were only ever 20 lbs overweight. You found LC and
    it diminshed your appetite without any discomfort and you got your weight
    under control. And you continue that without any major lifestyle change
    since you eat foods you like (cause LC food is good). Good deal, really.
    However, you, to your benefit, have never been a true fat person like me.
    Hence, you don't have the 'monkey on your back' as people like me do. We
    have to work harder to maintain. That's just how it is. Most don't want to
    do they work. I do, because if I don't, my future will indeed not be a good
    one.
     
  8. sycochkn

    sycochkn Guest

    I am neither trying to gain or lose weight. I am dieting for better
    nutrition. I also cheat. To much salt too many non nutritional calories.

    Bob

    "Cubit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > [snip]
    > And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine effort and
    > succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the expected and desired
    > results.
    > [snip]
    >
    > Nonsense. Weight gain and loss is directly linked to calories. When

    humans
    > are caloricaly restricted their behavior changes. They cheat. We think

    we
    > have control over our lives, but the evidence shows that innate survival
    > drives can alter the perceptions of the conscious mind and change

    behavior.
    >
    > Diets don't fail. People do.
    >
    >
     
  9. jbuch

    jbuch Guest

    "Probably don't count" is not the same as "Actually don't count"

    Your argument is quite weak and deceptive.... See below.



    TC wrote:

    "A Very Highly Regarded...." begins to sound like an advertising claim
    without substantiation.

    > *
    >
    > A very highly regarded bio-chemistry textbook references "the
    > establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
    > conservation of energy in its application of animals"
    >
    > Except that the study or the paper by Lavoisier and Laplace does not
    > exist.
    >
    > http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lavoisier_Chronology2.asp?anno=1785
    >
    > Any studies by these two together occurred much later than 1785 and
    > none specifically established "the law of conservation of energy in its
    > application of animals". They never did any such study or paper.
    >
    > This textbook is used to educate all medical people. They are being
    > told that science has established "the law of conservation of energy in
    > its application of animals" and then fails to provide a correct or
    > relevant reference.
    >
    > Is this acceptable scientific "proof"? Can you find the study or the
    > paper that originally established "the law of conservation of energy in
    > its application of animals"?



    This is crappy textbook writing, if it in fact exists, of the form of
    retelling yet again of an unfounded urban legend as fact.

    Happens often, unfortunately.

    Not the big deal you make of it. And it does sound like you are
    repeating, or could be repeating, another urban myth.


    >
    > ************************
    >
    > 2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight loss
    > in humans fails 95% of the time.
    >
    > http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/309/6955/655
    >
    > "Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
    > ineffective
    > C S Wooley, D M Garner
    >
    > University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio 45267,
    > USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research, Bala Cynwood,
    > Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr Wooley.



    This appears to be "scientific work" by "Shrinks", not physiologists or
    MD's.

    >
    > 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 "
    >
    > If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
    > exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of effort
    > would lose at least weight over time and they would successfully keep
    > it off. There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local grocer.
    > And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine effort and
    > succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the expected and desired
    > results. Applying the low calorie diet and the very low calorie diet in
    > the real world does not result in the desired weight loss in 90 to 95%
    > of cases.


    There is nothing "Scientific" in this short piece, and it could be the
    result of anybody who does much popular reading.

    >
    > *******************


    There is no "Referenced Source" for the information below. It could be
    the typing of a pretty smart canine on the web. It could be...... anything.


    >
    > 3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors or is
    > triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage and weight
    > loss or fat loss.
    >
    > Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients that we
    > consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals, water, air and
    > light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that handles and
    > metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good bio-chemistry textbook
    > will give you the whole story of how our bodies use and process these
    > various nutrients.
    >
    > Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels which
    > in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn triggers our body to
    > create and store fat.
    >
    > There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is triggered
    > by calories specifically. It is a black box concept that has never gone
    > further than the mysterious black box. And it does not fit into any
    > bio-chemical explanation of the various bio-chemical and metabolic
    > processes of the human body. In light of the entire metabolic systems
    > bio-chemical processes and various chemical cascades involved in fat
    > storage and fat breakdown, calories become the red-headed step-child
    > with no role to play whatsoever.
    >
    > ********
    >
    > I am sure that calories mean something somewhere. Possibly at the
    > extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
    > calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at the
    > other extreme, way too many calories will cause some problems. But in
    > the middle area where we are eating within normal ranges of food, the
    > actual number of calories consumed and the amounts expended cannot be
    > used to reliably predict weight gain or loss. The basic and simple math
    > of the calorie deficit concept simply does not work in the real world.
    >
    > It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
    > Except it fails in the real world.
    >
    > TC
    >



    --
    1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
    2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
    3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
    book
    4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)
     
  10. TC

    TC Guest

    Roger Zoul wrote:
    > TC wrote:
    > :: 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
    > ::
    >
    > [snipped the useless stuff]


    You snipped the most important stuff. How am I to view your input when
    you fail to grasp the importance of what you snipped? I suggest you
    read it again carefully and fully appreciate what is being said.

    >
    > ::
    > :: ************************
    > ::
    > :: 2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight
    > :: loss in humans fails 95% of the time.
    >
    > Now, had your subject reflected this statement, TC, then I'd have no issue
    > with you. This statement suggests that as a practical matter, people refuse
    > to restrict calories 95% of the time to achieve or maintain weight loss.
    > Agreed. In times of cheap but good tasting junk foods, people would rather
    > stuff their faces than go hungry or do without something that makes them
    > feel good. Understandable, really. But, you're saying calories don't count.
    > That, I'm not so sure about....
    >
    > Less calories = less nutrient-containing food = less usable matter = less
    > energy for the body = less body
    >
    > ::
    > :: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/309/6955/655
    > ::
    > :: "Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
    > :: ineffective
    > :: C S Wooley, D M Garner
    > ::
    > :: University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
    > :: 45267, USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research, Bala
    > :: Cynwood, Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr Wooley.
    > ::
    > :: 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 "
    >
    > I have no problem with that statement as it stands.
    >
    > ::
    > :: If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
    > :: exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of effort
    > :: would lose at least weight over time and they would successfully keep
    > :: it off.
    >
    > The vast majority of people who try, do lose weight. The vast majorit of
    > people who lose weight using mere calorie restriction, fail at maintaining
    > calorie restriction.
    >
    >
    > There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local
    > :: grocer. And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine
    > :: effort and succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the
    > :: expected and desired results.
    >
    > This is where you aren't seeing clearly. "If you do what you've always
    > done, you'll get what you've always got."
    >
    > :: Applying the low calorie diet and the
    > :: very low calorie diet in the real world does not result in the
    > :: desired weight loss in 90 to 95% of cases.
    > ::
    >
    > It does not result in maintaining the weight loss because people get bored
    > with 1) counting, 2) eating boring foods, 3) being without stuff they like,
    > 4) etc.
    >
    > :: *******************
    > ::
    > :: 3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors or
    > :: is triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage and
    > :: weight loss or fat loss.
    > ::
    > :: Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients that
    > :: we consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals, water, air
    > :: and light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that handles and
    > :: metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good bio-chemistry textbook
    > :: will give you the whole story of how our bodies use and process these
    > :: various nutrients.
    > ::
    > :: Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels which
    > :: in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn triggers our body
    > :: to create and store fat.
    > ::
    > :: There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is
    > :: triggered by calories specifically. It is a black box concept that
    > :: has never gone further than the mysterious black box. And it does
    > :: not fit into any bio-chemical explanation of the various
    > :: bio-chemical and metabolic processes of the human body. In light of
    > :: the entire metabolic systems bio-chemical processes and various
    > :: chemical cascades involved in fat storage and fat breakdown,
    > :: calories become the red-headed step-child with no role to play
    > :: whatsoever.
    >
    > Where is your reference for this? Are these your statements?


    Can you describe the metabolic process or the biological mechanism that
    is triggered by caloric balance that, in turn, triggers fat storage or
    loss? If I am wrong then you will be able to give em simple and concise
    description. Go for it.

    I can give you references that explain the effects of carbs, fats and
    proteins on our physiology. But that is easy. Just read any bio-chem
    textbook available.

    >
    > Maybe we should hold a contest where people just eat 6000 calories / day
    > steak or the fatty meats for a week and see if there is no weight gain. I'd
    > enjoy that. Zero carb for one week at a fix calorie level that would
    > produced weight gain. One of us would have to shut the hell up at the end
    > of that week, TC. Would you enjoy that? :)
    >
    > ::
    > :: ********
    > ::
    > :: I am sure that calories mean something somewhere.
    >
    > More calories from food = more bio-usable mass entering the body = more
    > weight stored on body


    How exactly? By what explicit mechanism? You keep saying it but you
    fail to show the exact biological processes that do this in direct
    response to calories consumed.

    >
    > Possibly at the
    > :: extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
    > :: calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at the
    > :: other extreme, way too many calories will cause some problems. But in
    > :: the middle area where we are eating within normal ranges of food, the
    > :: actual number of calories consumed and the amounts expended cannot be
    > :: used to reliably predict weight gain or loss. The basic and simple
    > :: math of the calorie deficit concept simply does not work in the real
    > :: world.
    > ::
    > :: It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
    > :: Except it fails in the real world.
    >
    > No, for thoses who do it, it works.


    90 to 95% failure rates.

    > The problem is, most can't sustain it
    > for various reasons.


    Because it does not work.

    > Think about it. A lot of people get fat over time.


    Every one who gets fat gets fat over time.

    > They get used to eating a certain way and having the foods they enjoy. They
    > get used to a lifestyle. Then, they become unsightly or unhealthy. To
    > address it requires a major lifestyle change which has been developed over a
    > period of time. But most would apparently rather live with the consequences
    > than do the work to make the major change in lifestyle.


    They get used to eating a high-grain high-sugar high-carb diet. Then
    they try to lose weight by restricting high-fat high-calorie foods and
    eating more low calorie grains starches. They eat less calories but
    still fail to lose weight, esoecially long term.

    >
    > TC, you're a good LCer for sure. But I think the reason you don't really
    > get this is because you were only ever 20 lbs overweight. You found LC and
    > it diminshed your appetite without any discomfort and you got your weight
    > under control. And you continue that without any major lifestyle change
    > since you eat foods you like (cause LC food is good). Good deal, really.
    > However, you, to your benefit, have never been a true fat person like me.
    > Hence, you don't have the 'monkey on your back' as people like me do. We
    > have to work harder to maintain. That's just how it is. Most don't want to
    > do they work. I do, because if I don't, my future will indeed not be a good
    > one.


    I will agree with you. Once you pack on that much weight, it becomes
    nearly impossible to take it off. You really have your work cut out for
    you.

    But it wasn't the fat that packed it on and it wasn't the calories that
    packed it on in the first place. That is the fallacy that we much
    recognise and understand.

    When you eat primarily animal fats and proteins, and fresh whole
    (non-starchy) produce in your diet with little or no refined and highly
    manufactured carbs, it is actually difficult to eat enough to gain
    excess fat. the calories seem to not make any difference either way.
    And when most of your diet is refined and high GI carbs, grains
    specifically, with little animal fats and proteins, it is virtually
    impossible to not gain weight. Calories seem to not matter either way,
    yet again. And studies have shown that low carbers can eat up to 300
    calories more than low-cal dieters and still lose as much or more
    weight. That study was well controlled and showed this clearly.

    That was approximately 15 or more percent variance. Were they wrong in
    their calorie counts by 15% in a controlled study with professionals
    doing the counting? If pros are that far off in a controlled study then
    of what use are calories to us laymen. So which is wrong: the calorie
    counts on the food labels? the people doing the counting at every meal?
    The initial calorie valuations that pegged it at 4 cal per gram of
    proteins and carbs and 9 per gram of fat? Or the concept that this all
    is directly applicable to animals and their weights?

    Where is it wrong? Just the dieters? I don't think so.

    And this takes us back to the most important part of the equation.
    There is no science that specifically found that calories are
    applicable to animals as far as fat management is concerned. We base
    our beliefs in this system on what? Because they said so? There is no
    study that supports the "establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785
    of the law of conservation of energy in its application of animals"

    It does not exist.

    TC
     
  11. TC

    TC Guest

    jbuch wrote:
    > "Probably don't count" is not the same as "Actually don't count"
    >
    > Your argument is quite weak and deceptive.... See below.
    >
    >
    >
    > TC wrote:
    >
    > "A Very Highly Regarded...." begins to sound like an advertising claim
    > without substantiation.
    >
    > > *
    > >
    > > A very highly regarded bio-chemistry textbook references "the
    > > establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
    > > conservation of energy in its application of animals"
    > >
    > > Except that the study or the paper by Lavoisier and Laplace does not
    > > exist.
    > >
    > > http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lavoisier_Chronology2.asp?anno=1785
    > >
    > > Any studies by these two together occurred much later than 1785 and
    > > none specifically established "the law of conservation of energy in its
    > > application of animals". They never did any such study or paper.
    > >
    > > This textbook is used to educate all medical people. They are being
    > > told that science has established "the law of conservation of energy in
    > > its application of animals" and then fails to provide a correct or
    > > relevant reference.
    > >
    > > Is this acceptable scientific "proof"? Can you find the study or the
    > > paper that originally established "the law of conservation of energy in
    > > its application of animals"?

    >
    >
    > This is crappy textbook writing, if it in fact exists, of the form of
    > retelling yet again of an unfounded urban legend as fact.
    >
    > Happens often, unfortunately.
    >
    > Not the big deal you make of it. And it does sound like you are
    > repeating, or could be repeating, another urban myth.



    second ed. of White, Handler and Smith "Principles of Biochemistry"
    Chaper 1 and
    Chapter 15 (metabolism) plus the citations and references therin. It
    states: (pp8) "Three historic discoveries led to the concept that the
    fundamental laws of phsics and chemistry, which apply to nonliving
    systems, also apply to living structures. These discoveries are (1)
    the establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
    conservation of energy in its application of animals"-- (the others
    have to do with (2) synthesis of urea and (3) fermentation). (pp9) "In
    living, as in nonliving, systems therefore, these laws of physical
    chemistry require that energy must be supplied in orderto accomplish
    the reversal of a spontaneous process or for the synthesis of a new
    compound from precursors of lower energy content".
    *

    This textbook is used in most, if not all, universities in North
    America. Go to your nearest medical library at your nearest medical
    university and read it for yourself.

    My guess is that you did not even do that before you chose to rag on
    the very textbook that most medical people are taught from in North
    America.

    I am sure that the professors that use this textbook will probably
    disagree with your glib comments about this textbook.

    The text you see quoted was written by a professor: pbeyer
    <[email protected]>
    He was trying to provide me with definitive scientific proof that
    calories do count. Except that the study that was referenced in the
    textbook did not exist. I've not heard from him since. That was in
    2002. I gather that he was quite embarassed that the textbook was
    fraudulent on this reference.

    If you have a better textbook that you want to quote and reference, go
    for it. Most textbooks use real references to support their teachings.

    TC
     
  12. jt

    jt Guest

    On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:51:52 -0800, "GaryG" <[email protected]>
    wrote:
    >
    >It fails in the real world precisely because people consume more calories
    >than they burn. With the ready availability of high calorie foods, and the
    >decreasing requirement for movement in modern life, it's no wonder people
    >are getting fatter and fatter. This also explains why we're getting fatter
    >over time - years ago, high fat food was less plentiful (you couldn't buy 64
    >oz sodas), and there were very few jobs that required sitting down for 8
    >hours per day. Years ago people also weren't sitting on their butts
    >watching television for 6 hours per day.


    Which also explains why as people grow older and become more sedentary
    they become fatter. It also explains why this generation of children
    who don't have pysical education, backyard swing sets, playgrounds,
    empty lots to play but instead watch tv, play video games, sit in
    front of a computer are fatter all while consuming more unhealthy high
    (trans) fat (HFCS) foods.
    >
    >Study after study has demonstrated that overweight people consistently
    >underestimate how many calories they consume, and consistently overestimate
    >how many calories they burn through exercise. The results are quite
    >predictable.
    >

    True
     
  13. TC

    TC Guest

    jt wrote:
    > On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:51:52 -0800, "GaryG" <[email protected]SPAMX.com>
    > wrote:
    > >
    > >It fails in the real world precisely because people consume more calories
    > >than they burn. With the ready availability of high calorie foods, and the
    > >decreasing requirement for movement in modern life, it's no wonder people
    > >are getting fatter and fatter. This also explains why we're getting fatter
    > >over time - years ago, high fat food was less plentiful (you couldn't buy 64
    > >oz sodas), and there were very few jobs that required sitting down for 8
    > >hours per day. Years ago people also weren't sitting on their butts
    > >watching television for 6 hours per day.

    >
    > Which also explains why as people grow older and become more sedentary
    > they become fatter. It also explains why this generation of children
    > who don't have pysical education, backyard swing sets, playgrounds,
    > empty lots to play but instead watch tv, play video games, sit in
    > front of a computer are fatter all while consuming more unhealthy high
    > (trans) fat (HFCS) foods.
    > >
    > >Study after study has demonstrated that overweight people consistently
    > >underestimate how many calories they consume, and consistently overestimate
    > >how many calories they burn through exercise. The results are quite
    > >predictable.
    > >

    > True


    It is all useless navel gazing.

    There are millions that do put in the effort needed and they still
    fail.

    TC
     
  14. jt

    jt Guest

    On 20 Feb 2006 07:39:23 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
    >


    Questions:

    1. Do you honestly believe all overweight people in the world have
    the same dietary patterns? High Carb etc?

    2. If the answer to number 1 is no then would it not mean that it
    relates to the quantity of food being eaten?

    3. Do you accept the fact that if someone starves to death they have
    expended more energy than consumed?

    4. Has it ever occurred to you that the body's natural inclination is
    to store extra energy for times of famine?

    5. Do you really believe that or ancestors tens of thousands of years
    ago ate 3 meals a day every 6 hours?

    6. Do you really believe or ancestors would have survived if when a
    big meal was had that only enough energy was stored to get to the next
    meal 6 hours later?

    7. Does it not make sense that the body is going to store energy
    because it does not know when more will become available?

    8. In relation to number 7 does it not make sense that the degree to
    which it occurs varies among individuals?

    9. Does 6 & 7 not explain why extreme dieters always fail because
    they slow down their metabolism because it is the body's natural
    defense against famine?

    10. Do you really believe the body's natural tendency to store excess
    energy can be shut down completely just because someone is completely
    sedentary and consuming 5000 calories and 6 meals a day?

    11. Are you saying in times of famine people should eat high carb
    diets because they will put on more weight?

    Just wondering since you are so intelligent....
     
  15. GaryG

    GaryG Guest

    "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > jt wrote:
    > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:51:52 -0800, "GaryG" <[email protected]>
    > > wrote:
    > > >
    > > >It fails in the real world precisely because people consume more

    calories
    > > >than they burn. With the ready availability of high calorie foods, and

    the
    > > >decreasing requirement for movement in modern life, it's no wonder

    people
    > > >are getting fatter and fatter. This also explains why we're getting

    fatter
    > > >over time - years ago, high fat food was less plentiful (you couldn't

    buy 64
    > > >oz sodas), and there were very few jobs that required sitting down for

    8
    > > >hours per day. Years ago people also weren't sitting on their butts
    > > >watching television for 6 hours per day.

    > >
    > > Which also explains why as people grow older and become more sedentary
    > > they become fatter. It also explains why this generation of children
    > > who don't have pysical education, backyard swing sets, playgrounds,
    > > empty lots to play but instead watch tv, play video games, sit in
    > > front of a computer are fatter all while consuming more unhealthy high
    > > (trans) fat (HFCS) foods.
    > > >
    > > >Study after study has demonstrated that overweight people consistently
    > > >underestimate how many calories they consume, and consistently

    overestimate
    > > >how many calories they burn through exercise. The results are quite
    > > >predictable.
    > > >

    > > True

    >
    > It is all useless navel gazing.
    >
    > There are millions that do put in the effort needed and they still
    > fail.


    So, why were we not fat back in the 1940's? Have our genetics or
    metabolisms changed since then? Or, are we sitting more, and eating less?
    I think the more likely answer is the latter.

    GG

    >
    > TC
    >
     
  16. jt

    jt Guest

    On 20 Feb 2006 11:50:53 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >jt wrote:
    >> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:51:52 -0800, "GaryG" <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >It fails in the real world precisely because people consume more calories
    >> >than they burn. With the ready availability of high calorie foods, and the
    >> >decreasing requirement for movement in modern life, it's no wonder people
    >> >are getting fatter and fatter. This also explains why we're getting fatter
    >> >over time - years ago, high fat food was less plentiful (you couldn't buy 64
    >> >oz sodas), and there were very few jobs that required sitting down for 8
    >> >hours per day. Years ago people also weren't sitting on their butts
    >> >watching television for 6 hours per day.

    >>
    >> Which also explains why as people grow older and become more sedentary
    >> they become fatter. It also explains why this generation of children
    >> who don't have pysical education, backyard swing sets, playgrounds,
    >> empty lots to play but instead watch tv, play video games, sit in
    >> front of a computer are fatter all while consuming more unhealthy high
    >> (trans) fat (HFCS) foods.
    >> >
    >> >Study after study has demonstrated that overweight people consistently
    >> >underestimate how many calories they consume, and consistently overestimate
    >> >how many calories they burn through exercise. The results are quite
    >> >predictable.
    >> >

    >> True

    >
    >It is all useless navel gazing.
    >
    >There are millions that do put in the effort needed and they still
    >fail.
    >
    >TC


    They don't put in they effort needed which is why they fail. Some
    have to put in more effort then others but nobody ever said life was
    fair.
     
  17. GaryG

    GaryG Guest

    "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Roger Zoul wrote:
    > > TC wrote:
    > > :: 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
    > > ::
    > >
    > > [snipped the useless stuff]

    >
    > You snipped the most important stuff. How am I to view your input when
    > you fail to grasp the importance of what you snipped? I suggest you
    > read it again carefully and fully appreciate what is being said.
    >
    > >
    > > ::
    > > :: ************************
    > > ::
    > > :: 2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight
    > > :: loss in humans fails 95% of the time.
    > >
    > > Now, had your subject reflected this statement, TC, then I'd have no

    issue
    > > with you. This statement suggests that as a practical matter, people

    refuse
    > > to restrict calories 95% of the time to achieve or maintain weight loss.
    > > Agreed. In times of cheap but good tasting junk foods, people would

    rather
    > > stuff their faces than go hungry or do without something that makes them
    > > feel good. Understandable, really. But, you're saying calories don't

    count.
    > > That, I'm not so sure about....
    > >
    > > Less calories = less nutrient-containing food = less usable matter =

    less
    > > energy for the body = less body
    > >
    > > ::
    > > :: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/309/6955/655
    > > ::
    > > :: "Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
    > > :: ineffective
    > > :: C S Wooley, D M Garner
    > > ::
    > > :: University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
    > > :: 45267, USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research, Bala
    > > :: Cynwood, Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr Wooley.
    > > ::
    > > :: 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 "
    > >
    > > I have no problem with that statement as it stands.
    > >
    > > ::
    > > :: If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
    > > :: exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of effort
    > > :: would lose at least weight over time and they would successfully keep
    > > :: it off.
    > >
    > > The vast majority of people who try, do lose weight. The vast majorit

    of
    > > people who lose weight using mere calorie restriction, fail at

    maintaining
    > > calorie restriction.
    > >
    > >
    > > There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local
    > > :: grocer. And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine
    > > :: effort and succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the
    > > :: expected and desired results.
    > >
    > > This is where you aren't seeing clearly. "If you do what you've always
    > > done, you'll get what you've always got."
    > >
    > > :: Applying the low calorie diet and the
    > > :: very low calorie diet in the real world does not result in the
    > > :: desired weight loss in 90 to 95% of cases.
    > > ::
    > >
    > > It does not result in maintaining the weight loss because people get

    bored
    > > with 1) counting, 2) eating boring foods, 3) being without stuff they

    like,
    > > 4) etc.
    > >
    > > :: *******************
    > > ::
    > > :: 3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors or
    > > :: is triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage and
    > > :: weight loss or fat loss.
    > > ::
    > > :: Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients that
    > > :: we consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals, water, air
    > > :: and light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that handles and
    > > :: metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good bio-chemistry textbook
    > > :: will give you the whole story of how our bodies use and process these
    > > :: various nutrients.
    > > ::
    > > :: Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels which
    > > :: in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn triggers our body
    > > :: to create and store fat.
    > > ::
    > > :: There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is
    > > :: triggered by calories specifically. It is a black box concept that
    > > :: has never gone further than the mysterious black box. And it does
    > > :: not fit into any bio-chemical explanation of the various
    > > :: bio-chemical and metabolic processes of the human body. In light of
    > > :: the entire metabolic systems bio-chemical processes and various
    > > :: chemical cascades involved in fat storage and fat breakdown,
    > > :: calories become the red-headed step-child with no role to play
    > > :: whatsoever.
    > >
    > > Where is your reference for this? Are these your statements?

    >
    > Can you describe the metabolic process or the biological mechanism that
    > is triggered by caloric balance that, in turn, triggers fat storage or
    > loss? If I am wrong then you will be able to give em simple and concise
    > description. Go for it.
    >
    > I can give you references that explain the effects of carbs, fats and
    > proteins on our physiology. But that is easy. Just read any bio-chem
    > textbook available.
    >
    > >
    > > Maybe we should hold a contest where people just eat 6000 calories / day
    > > steak or the fatty meats for a week and see if there is no weight gain.

    I'd
    > > enjoy that. Zero carb for one week at a fix calorie level that would
    > > produced weight gain. One of us would have to shut the hell up at the

    end
    > > of that week, TC. Would you enjoy that? :)
    > >
    > > ::
    > > :: ********
    > > ::
    > > :: I am sure that calories mean something somewhere.
    > >
    > > More calories from food = more bio-usable mass entering the body = more
    > > weight stored on body

    >
    > How exactly? By what explicit mechanism? You keep saying it but you
    > fail to show the exact biological processes that do this in direct
    > response to calories consumed.
    >
    > >
    > > Possibly at the
    > > :: extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
    > > :: calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at the
    > > :: other extreme, way too many calories will cause some problems. But in
    > > :: the middle area where we are eating within normal ranges of food, the
    > > :: actual number of calories consumed and the amounts expended cannot be
    > > :: used to reliably predict weight gain or loss. The basic and simple
    > > :: math of the calorie deficit concept simply does not work in the real
    > > :: world.
    > > ::
    > > :: It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
    > > :: Except it fails in the real world.
    > >
    > > No, for thoses who do it, it works.

    >
    > 90 to 95% failure rates.
    >
    > > The problem is, most can't sustain it
    > > for various reasons.

    >
    > Because it does not work.
    >
    > > Think about it. A lot of people get fat over time.

    >
    > Every one who gets fat gets fat over time.
    >
    > > They get used to eating a certain way and having the foods they enjoy.

    They
    > > get used to a lifestyle. Then, they become unsightly or unhealthy. To
    > > address it requires a major lifestyle change which has been developed

    over a
    > > period of time. But most would apparently rather live with the

    consequences
    > > than do the work to make the major change in lifestyle.

    >
    > They get used to eating a high-grain high-sugar high-carb diet. Then
    > they try to lose weight by restricting high-fat high-calorie foods and
    > eating more low calorie grains starches. They eat less calories but
    > still fail to lose weight, esoecially long term.
    >
    > >
    > > TC, you're a good LCer for sure. But I think the reason you don't

    really
    > > get this is because you were only ever 20 lbs overweight. You found LC

    and
    > > it diminshed your appetite without any discomfort and you got your

    weight
    > > under control. And you continue that without any major lifestyle change
    > > since you eat foods you like (cause LC food is good). Good deal, really.
    > > However, you, to your benefit, have never been a true fat person like

    me.
    > > Hence, you don't have the 'monkey on your back' as people like me do. We
    > > have to work harder to maintain. That's just how it is. Most don't want

    to
    > > do they work. I do, because if I don't, my future will indeed not be a

    good
    > > one.

    >
    > I will agree with you. Once you pack on that much weight, it becomes
    > nearly impossible to take it off. You really have your work cut out for
    > you.
    >
    > But it wasn't the fat that packed it on and it wasn't the calories that
    > packed it on in the first place. That is the fallacy that we much
    > recognise and understand.
    >
    > When you eat primarily animal fats and proteins, and fresh whole
    > (non-starchy) produce in your diet with little or no refined and highly
    > manufactured carbs, it is actually difficult to eat enough to gain
    > excess fat. the calories seem to not make any difference either way.
    > And when most of your diet is refined and high GI carbs, grains
    > specifically, with little animal fats and proteins, it is virtually
    > impossible to not gain weight. Calories seem to not matter either way,
    > yet again. And studies have shown that low carbers can eat up to 300
    > calories more than low-cal dieters and still lose as much or more
    > weight. That study was well controlled and showed this clearly.
    >
    > That was approximately 15 or more percent variance. Were they wrong in
    > their calorie counts by 15% in a controlled study with professionals
    > doing the counting? If pros are that far off in a controlled study then
    > of what use are calories to us laymen. So which is wrong: the calorie
    > counts on the food labels? the people doing the counting at every meal?
    > The initial calorie valuations that pegged it at 4 cal per gram of
    > proteins and carbs and 9 per gram of fat? Or the concept that this all
    > is directly applicable to animals and their weights?
    >
    > Where is it wrong? Just the dieters? I don't think so.
    >
    > And this takes us back to the most important part of the equation.
    > There is no science that specifically found that calories are
    > applicable to animals as far as fat management is concerned.


    LOL - tell that to a rancher. They feed their animals just enough excess
    calories to "marble" the beef.

    GG

    > We base
    > our beliefs in this system on what? Because they said so? There is no
    > study that supports the "establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785
    > of the law of conservation of energy in its application of animals"
    >
    > It does not exist.
    >
    > TC
    >
     
  18. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    GaryG wrote:
    :: "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    :: news:[email protected]
    :::
    ::: Roger Zoul wrote:
    :::: TC wrote:
    :::::: 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
    ::::::
    ::::
    :::: [snipped the useless stuff]
    :::
    ::: You snipped the most important stuff. How am I to view your input
    ::: when you fail to grasp the importance of what you snipped? I
    ::: suggest you read it again carefully and fully appreciate what is
    ::: being said.
    :::
    ::::
    ::::::
    :::::: ************************
    ::::::
    :::::: 2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight
    :::::: loss in humans fails 95% of the time.
    ::::
    :::: Now, had your subject reflected this statement, TC, then I'd have
    :::: no issue with you. This statement suggests that as a practical
    :::: matter, people refuse to restrict calories 95% of the time to
    :::: achieve or maintain weight loss. Agreed. In times of cheap but
    :::: good tasting junk foods, people would rather stuff their faces
    :::: than go hungry or do without something that makes them feel good.
    :::: Understandable, really. But, you're saying calories don't count.
    :::: That, I'm not so sure about....
    ::::
    :::: Less calories = less nutrient-containing food = less usable matter
    :::: = less energy for the body = less body
    ::::
    ::::::
    :::::: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/309/6955/655
    ::::::
    :::::: "Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
    :::::: ineffective
    :::::: C S Wooley, D M Garner
    ::::::
    :::::: University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
    :::::: 45267, USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research,
    :::::: Bala Cynwood, Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr
    :::::: Wooley.
    ::::::
    :::::: 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 "
    ::::
    :::: I have no problem with that statement as it stands.
    ::::
    ::::::
    :::::: If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
    :::::: exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of
    :::::: effort would lose at least weight over time and they would
    :::::: successfully keep it off.
    ::::
    :::: The vast majority of people who try, do lose weight. The vast
    :::: majorit of people who lose weight using mere calorie restriction,
    :::: fail at maintaining calorie restriction.
    ::::
    ::::
    :::: There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local
    :::::: grocer. And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine
    :::::: effort and succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the
    :::::: expected and desired results.
    ::::
    :::: This is where you aren't seeing clearly. "If you do what you've
    :::: always done, you'll get what you've always got."
    ::::
    :::::: Applying the low calorie diet and the
    :::::: very low calorie diet in the real world does not result in the
    :::::: desired weight loss in 90 to 95% of cases.
    ::::::
    ::::
    :::: It does not result in maintaining the weight loss because people
    :::: get bored with 1) counting, 2) eating boring foods, 3) being
    :::: without stuff they like, 4) etc.
    ::::
    :::::: *******************
    ::::::
    :::::: 3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors
    :::::: or is triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage
    :::::: and weight loss or fat loss.
    ::::::
    :::::: Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients
    :::::: that we consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals,
    :::::: water, air and light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that
    :::::: handles and metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good
    :::::: bio-chemistry textbook will give you the whole story of how our
    :::::: bodies use and process these various nutrients.
    ::::::
    :::::: Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels
    :::::: which in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn
    :::::: triggers our body to create and store fat.
    ::::::
    :::::: There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is
    :::::: triggered by calories specifically. It is a black box concept
    :::::: that has never gone further than the mysterious black box. And
    :::::: it does not fit into any bio-chemical explanation of the various
    :::::: bio-chemical and metabolic processes of the human body. In light
    :::::: of the entire metabolic systems bio-chemical processes and
    :::::: various chemical cascades involved in fat storage and fat
    :::::: breakdown, calories become the red-headed step-child with no
    :::::: role to play whatsoever.
    ::::
    :::: Where is your reference for this? Are these your statements?
    :::
    ::: Can you describe the metabolic process or the biological mechanism
    ::: that is triggered by caloric balance that, in turn, triggers fat
    ::: storage or loss? If I am wrong then you will be able to give em
    ::: simple and concise description. Go for it.
    :::
    ::: I can give you references that explain the effects of carbs, fats
    ::: and proteins on our physiology. But that is easy. Just read any
    ::: bio-chem textbook available.
    :::
    ::::
    :::: Maybe we should hold a contest where people just eat 6000 calories
    :::: / day steak or the fatty meats for a week and see if there is no
    :::: weight gain. I'd enjoy that. Zero carb for one week at a fix
    :::: calorie level that would produced weight gain. One of us would
    :::: have to shut the hell up at the end of that week, TC. Would you
    :::: enjoy that? :)
    ::::
    ::::::
    :::::: ********
    ::::::
    :::::: I am sure that calories mean something somewhere.
    ::::
    :::: More calories from food = more bio-usable mass entering the body =
    :::: more weight stored on body
    :::
    ::: How exactly? By what explicit mechanism? You keep saying it but you
    ::: fail to show the exact biological processes that do this in direct
    ::: response to calories consumed.
    :::
    ::::
    :::: Possibly at the
    :::::: extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
    :::::: calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at
    :::::: the other extreme, way too many calories will cause some
    :::::: problems. But in the middle area where we are eating within
    :::::: normal ranges of food, the actual number of calories consumed
    :::::: and the amounts expended cannot be used to reliably predict
    :::::: weight gain or loss. The basic and simple math of the calorie
    :::::: deficit concept simply does not work in the real world.
    ::::::
    :::::: It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
    :::::: Except it fails in the real world.
    ::::
    :::: No, for thoses who do it, it works.
    :::
    ::: 90 to 95% failure rates.
    :::
    :::: The problem is, most can't sustain it
    :::: for various reasons.
    :::
    ::: Because it does not work.
    :::
    :::: Think about it. A lot of people get fat over time.
    :::
    ::: Every one who gets fat gets fat over time.
    :::
    :::: They get used to eating a certain way and having the foods they
    :::: enjoy. They get used to a lifestyle. Then, they become unsightly
    :::: or unhealthy. To address it requires a major lifestyle change
    :::: which has been developed over a period of time. But most would
    :::: apparently rather live with the consequences than do the work to
    :::: make the major change in lifestyle.
    :::
    ::: They get used to eating a high-grain high-sugar high-carb diet. Then
    ::: they try to lose weight by restricting high-fat high-calorie foods
    ::: and eating more low calorie grains starches. They eat less calories
    ::: but still fail to lose weight, esoecially long term.
    :::
    ::::
    :::: TC, you're a good LCer for sure. But I think the reason you don't
    :::: really get this is because you were only ever 20 lbs overweight.
    :::: You found LC and it diminshed your appetite without any discomfort
    :::: and you got your weight under control. And you continue that
    :::: without any major lifestyle change since you eat foods you like
    :::: (cause LC food is good). Good deal, really. However, you, to your
    :::: benefit, have never been a true fat person like me. Hence, you
    :::: don't have the 'monkey on your back' as people like me do. We have
    :::: to work harder to maintain. That's just how it is. Most don't
    :::: want to do they work. I do, because if I don't, my future will
    :::: indeed not be a good one.
    :::
    ::: I will agree with you. Once you pack on that much weight, it becomes
    ::: nearly impossible to take it off. You really have your work cut out
    ::: for you.
    :::
    ::: But it wasn't the fat that packed it on and it wasn't the calories
    ::: that packed it on in the first place. That is the fallacy that we
    ::: much recognise and understand.
    :::
    ::: When you eat primarily animal fats and proteins, and fresh whole
    ::: (non-starchy) produce in your diet with little or no refined and
    ::: highly manufactured carbs, it is actually difficult to eat enough
    ::: to gain excess fat. the calories seem to not make any difference
    ::: either way. And when most of your diet is refined and high GI
    ::: carbs, grains specifically, with little animal fats and proteins,
    ::: it is virtually impossible to not gain weight. Calories seem to not
    ::: matter either way, yet again. And studies have shown that low
    ::: carbers can eat up to 300 calories more than low-cal dieters and
    ::: still lose as much or more weight. That study was well controlled
    ::: and showed this clearly.
    :::
    ::: That was approximately 15 or more percent variance. Were they wrong
    ::: in their calorie counts by 15% in a controlled study with
    ::: professionals doing the counting? If pros are that far off in a
    ::: controlled study then of what use are calories to us laymen. So
    ::: which is wrong: the calorie counts on the food labels? the people
    ::: doing the counting at every meal? The initial calorie valuations
    ::: that pegged it at 4 cal per gram of proteins and carbs and 9 per
    ::: gram of fat? Or the concept that this all is directly applicable to
    ::: animals and their weights?
    :::
    ::: Where is it wrong? Just the dieters? I don't think so.
    :::
    ::: And this takes us back to the most important part of the equation.
    ::: There is no science that specifically found that calories are
    ::: applicable to animals as far as fat management is concerned.
    ::
    :: LOL - tell that to a rancher. They feed their animals just enough
    :: excess calories to "marble" the beef.
    ::

    Oh no! You proved this point - they feed them CARBS (grain) to marble the
    beef! :)

    :: GG
    ::
    ::: We base
    ::: our beliefs in this system on what? Because they said so? There is
    ::: no study that supports the "establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace
    ::: in 1785 of the law of conservation of energy in its application of
    ::: animals"
    :::
    ::: It does not exist.
    :::
    ::: TC
     
  19. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    TC wrote:
    :: jt wrote:
    ::: On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:51:52 -0800, "GaryG"
    ::: <[email protected]> wrote:
    ::::
    :::: It fails in the real world precisely because people consume more
    :::: calories than they burn. With the ready availability of high
    :::: calorie foods, and the decreasing requirement for movement in
    :::: modern life, it's no wonder people are getting fatter and fatter.
    :::: This also explains why we're getting fatter over time - years ago,
    :::: high fat food was less plentiful (you couldn't buy 64 oz sodas),
    :::: and there were very few jobs that required sitting down for 8
    :::: hours per day. Years ago people also weren't sitting on their
    :::: butts watching television for 6 hours per day.
    :::
    ::: Which also explains why as people grow older and become more
    ::: sedentary they become fatter. It also explains why this generation
    ::: of children who don't have pysical education, backyard swing sets,
    ::: playgrounds, empty lots to play but instead watch tv, play video
    ::: games, sit in front of a computer are fatter all while consuming
    ::: more unhealthy high (trans) fat (HFCS) foods.
    ::::
    :::: Study after study has demonstrated that overweight people
    :::: consistently underestimate how many calories they consume, and
    :::: consistently overestimate how many calories they burn through
    :::: exercise. The results are quite predictable.
    ::::
    ::: True
    ::
    :: It is all useless navel gazing.
    ::
    :: There are millions that do put in the effort needed and they still
    :: fail.

    I once lost 100 lbs on low fat and exercise. I was eating mountains of
    bread, rice, potatoes, etc along with lean meats. So if your carb theory is
    correct, how is that possible? BTW, I was diabetic type 2 all that time....
     
  20. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    jt wrote:
    :: On 20 Feb 2006 07:39:23 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:
    ::
    ::: 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
    :::
    ::
    :: Questions:
    ::
    :: 1. Do you honestly believe all overweight people in the world have
    :: the same dietary patterns? High Carb etc?
    ::
    :: 2. If the answer to number 1 is no then would it not mean that it
    :: relates to the quantity of food being eaten?
    ::
    :: 3. Do you accept the fact that if someone starves to death they have
    :: expended more energy than consumed?
    ::
    :: 4. Has it ever occurred to you that the body's natural inclination
    :: is to store extra energy for times of famine?
    ::
    :: 5. Do you really believe that or ancestors tens of thousands of
    :: years ago ate 3 meals a day every 6 hours?
    ::
    :: 6. Do you really believe or ancestors would have survived if when a
    :: big meal was had that only enough energy was stored to get to the
    :: next meal 6 hours later?
    ::
    :: 7. Does it not make sense that the body is going to store energy
    :: because it does not know when more will become available?
    ::
    :: 8. In relation to number 7 does it not make sense that the degree to
    :: which it occurs varies among individuals?
    ::
    :: 9. Does 6 & 7 not explain why extreme dieters always fail because
    :: they slow down their metabolism because it is the body's natural
    :: defense against famine?
    ::
    :: 10. Do you really believe the body's natural tendency to store
    :: excess energy can be shut down completely just because someone is
    :: completely sedentary and consuming 5000 calories and 6 meals a day?
    ::
    :: 11. Are you saying in times of famine people should eat high carb
    :: diets because they will put on more weight?

    Yes, he's probably saying that! :)

    ::
    :: Just wondering since you are so intelligent....
     
Loading...