G
GaryG
Guest
"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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!
Well, I'm agnostic on the issue of low-carb. From what I've read, it can be
a good diet strategy for some folks. Not because it allows your body to
violate the laws of thermodynamics, but because it allows for "satiety". By
feeling "satisifed" one eats less...less *calories*. I think this can be a
prticularly effective strategy if : a) one's "problem foods" are carbs
(e.g., bread, rice, etc.), and b) one is not engaged in endurance sports.
As for the ranchers...they fatten up their beef by feeding grains because
they're cheaper, on a per-calorie basis, than other alternatives. It's the
caloric excess that fatten the cows (bovine and otherwise).
GG
>
> :: 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
>
>
>
news:[email protected]...
> 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!
Well, I'm agnostic on the issue of low-carb. From what I've read, it can be
a good diet strategy for some folks. Not because it allows your body to
violate the laws of thermodynamics, but because it allows for "satiety". By
feeling "satisifed" one eats less...less *calories*. I think this can be a
prticularly effective strategy if : a) one's "problem foods" are carbs
(e.g., bread, rice, etc.), and b) one is not engaged in endurance sports.
As for the ranchers...they fatten up their beef by feeding grains because
they're cheaper, on a per-calorie basis, than other alternatives. It's the
caloric excess that fatten the cows (bovine and otherwise).
GG
>
> :: 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
>
>
>