Three reasons why calories probably don't count



Joe the Aroma wrote:
> "Star Shooter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:57:52 GMT, "Cubit" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > =>
> > =>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.
> > =>
> >
> > Some diet plans(ie. low carb) are easier for weak minded overweight people
> > like us to follow than some other plans which ask us to fight hunger and
> > craving with our weak will.
> >
> > Remember, if we have strong will, we won't be here in the first place and
> > we
> > need no help at all.
> >
> > Weak mind person is written all over our body even on the face. Yelling us
> > with known fact is showing how ignorant you are. Finally, we are really
> > not
> > that interested in people showing how stupid they are.
>
> I'm not weak minded at all. Hell I was losing weight on a calorie restricted
> diet (fat too restricted), but LC dieting is funner so I switched.

Everyone is strong willed until they start involuntarily gaining
weight, then a switch goes off and they all become weak-willed. That
explains it all.

TC
 
Mirek Fidler wrote:
> > it off. There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local grocer.
>
> You still do not get it do not you?
>
> Calorie restriction is not about low-cal food, that is just your wild
> imagination (maybe inspired by low-cal food marketing). But the real
> meaning of "calorie restriction", as understood by people (well, at
> least, most people) in this room has NOTHING to do with low-cal foods.
>
> E.g. I am now on calorie restriction HIGH-FAT diet for more than 2 years
> and I must say that it works exactly as predicted (keeps the weight off).
>
> Unless you fix your terminology, nobody can take you seriously.
>
> Mirek

Now that is a different case altogether from typical LCDs.

The typical low cal diet that fails 90 to 95% of the time is LOW FAT.
You eat HIGH FAT and I presume LOW CARB, at least relatively speaking.
Then you are proving my point that restricting carbs are more important
than restricting fats.

TC
 
"TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Joe the Aroma wrote:
>> "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > I think you're blowing smoke. Where's the data that says LCers succeed
>> > better than low fatters?
>>
>> You're actually doing yourself a disservice by believing that keeping LC
>> lost weight off is any easier than LF/LC dieting and believing that
>> calories
>> don't matter.
>>
>> How many newbies will spend weeks/months on LC diets not losing any
>> weight
>> because of what you're (TC) telling them about calories?
>
> Then they should read the correct information and do it right. Too many
> try to LC by doing what they read in a news article or what their
> cousin said they had to do.

I agree totally.

> Learn what LC really is and apply it and you will lose unwanted fat.

I cannot agree here. You cannot be assured that someone will lose weight on
a LC diet. You're assuming the "one diet fits all" mentality, which the low
fat folks do as well. This is wrong IMO.

>> Just from this newsgroup how many people have posted here in the past few
>> months something like this "Back in '03 I lost 40 pounds doing Atkins and
>> felt great but due to [insert reasons here] I have since gained it all
>> back
>> and then some"? Believing that keeping the weight off is anything less
>> than
>> perhaps the most difficult challenge of your life is self-delusional and
>> will come back to harm you.
>
> Plenty of people failed to make it a way of eating. That is a
> prerequiste for long term success. And if you really understand the
> concept, it isn't all that difficult to do.
> And I've rarely hear of people putting it back on "and then some".

Just the other day someone said exactly that.
 
> The typical low cal diet that fails 90 to 95% of the time is LOW FAT.

The low calorie diet is low calorie diet.

It has NOTHING to do with macronutrient composition.

It has NOTHING to do with average energy density.

The only things it has to do something is total number of calories
eaten. Nothing else.

If you want to be taken seriously, start speaking about "ad libitum
low-fat diet", or if you wish "ad libitum low average energy density
diet", because that is perhaps what you have on the mind. But stop
confusing terms.

You look like fool.

Mirek
 
x-no-archive: yes

TC wrote:

> The typical low cal diet that fails 90 to 95% of the time is LOW FAT.
> You eat HIGH FAT and I presume LOW CARB, at least relatively speaking.
> Then you are proving my point that restricting carbs are more important
> than restricting fats.
>
> TC
>

But not more important than restricting calories.

Except in terms of health benefits, that is.

Susan
 
With fat being 9 cals per gram and proteins and carbs being 4, low cal
has always been primarily low fat. And with the big fear on against fat
in the last 50 years, fat has always been the primary target of low cal
diets.

To say that low cal has nothing to do with fats is not a realistic
statement. Any low cal diet that is not low fat is an anomaly. I, and
most people, equate low cal and low fat to be the same diet with the
same goals of restricting calories.

And although my interpretation may not be the most accurate use of the
language, it is still just a matter of semantics for the vast majority
of people seeking to lose weight by following the mainstreams idea of a
weight loss diet, namely low-fat/low-calorie.

TC

Mirek Fidler wrote:
> > The typical low cal diet that fails 90 to 95% of the time is LOW FAT.
>
> The low calorie diet is low calorie diet.
>
> It has NOTHING to do with macronutrient composition.
>
> It has NOTHING to do with average energy density.
>
> The only things it has to do something is total number of calories
> eaten. Nothing else.
>
> If you want to be taken seriously, start speaking about "ad libitum
> low-fat diet", or if you wish "ad libitum low average energy density
> diet", because that is perhaps what you have on the mind. But stop
> confusing terms.
>
> You look like fool.
>
> Mirek
 
"Star Shooter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:57:52 GMT, "Cubit" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> =>
> =>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.
> =>
>
> Some diet plans(ie. low carb) are easier for weak minded overweight people
> like us to follow than some other plans which ask us to fight hunger and
> craving with our weak will.
>
> Remember, if we have strong will, we won't be here in the first place and
we
> need no help at all.
>
> Weak mind person is written all over our body even on the face. Yelling us
> with known fact is showing how ignorant you are. Finally, we are really
not
> that interested in people showing how stupid they are.
>

In the face of hunger (or thirst) willpower always fails.

I try to lead people to the idea of manipulating hunger and the "appestat"
through portion control, frequent mini-meals, and low carb high fat
macronutrient ratios. A strong feedback system, such as provided by food
journaling in Fitday is important too.
 
x-no-archive: yes

Cubit wrote:

> In the face of hunger (or thirst) willpower always fails.

Have you heard of anorexia? Supermodels? Jockeys?

Susan
 
"TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Mirek Fidler wrote:
>> > it off. There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local grocer.
>>
>> You still do not get it do not you?
>>
>> Calorie restriction is not about low-cal food, that is just your wild
>> imagination (maybe inspired by low-cal food marketing). But the real
>> meaning of "calorie restriction", as understood by people (well, at
>> least, most people) in this room has NOTHING to do with low-cal foods.
>>
>> E.g. I am now on calorie restriction HIGH-FAT diet for more than 2 years
>> and I must say that it works exactly as predicted (keeps the weight
>> off).
>>
>> Unless you fix your terminology, nobody can take you seriously.
>>
>> Mirek
>
> Now that is a different case altogether from typical LCDs.
>
> The typical low cal diet that fails 90 to 95% of the time is LOW FAT.
> You eat HIGH FAT and I presume LOW CARB, at least relatively speaking.

> Then you are proving my point that restricting carbs are more important
> than restricting fats.
>

Good grief....most of us here are LCers, TC. Do you really think we are
debating that point? If so, you're a loon.
 
"TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> With fat being 9 cals per gram and proteins and carbs being 4, low cal
> has always been primarily low fat. And with the big fear on against fat
> in the last 50 years, fat has always been the primary target of low cal
> diets.
>
> To say that low cal has nothing to do with fats is not a realistic
> statement. Any low cal diet that is not low fat is an anomaly. I, and
> most people, equate low cal and low fat to be the same diet with the
> same goals of restricting calories.
>
> And although my interpretation may not be the most accurate use of the
> language, it is still just a matter of semantics for the vast majority
> of people seeking to lose weight by following the mainstreams idea of a
> weight loss diet, namely low-fat/low-calorie.

Who cares what dummies thing. LC can be low calorie. It typically is for
people who manage weight loss.
Restricting fat is just one way to get low cal....restricting the amount of
food eaten is another, which is what LC does by appetite suppression. But
why am I telling you this...you're never going to listen.

Yeah, I think it's time I quit playing with you.

>
> TC
>
> Mirek Fidler wrote:
>> > The typical low cal diet that fails 90 to 95% of the time is LOW FAT.
>>
>> The low calorie diet is low calorie diet.
>>
>> It has NOTHING to do with macronutrient composition.
>>
>> It has NOTHING to do with average energy density.
>>
>> The only things it has to do something is total number of calories
>> eaten. Nothing else.
>>
>> If you want to be taken seriously, start speaking about "ad libitum
>> low-fat diet", or if you wish "ad libitum low average energy density
>> diet", because that is perhaps what you have on the mind. But stop
>> confusing terms.
>>
>> You look like fool.
>>
>> Mirek
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"TC" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Roger Zoul wrote:
> > "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >>
> > >> Jeff wrote:
> > >>> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >>> news:[email protected]...
> > >>> > 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yeah, there is. The fundamental science includes the laws of
> > >>> thermodynamics.
> > >>
> > >> How many times must I hear this stupid argument?
> > >>
> > >> The laws of thermodynamics are not invalid.
> > >
> > > In what universe are you? The laws of themodynamics work in this one.
> > >
> > >> The question is whether or not it cannot be *directly applied to
> > >> predict weight gain or weight loss in animals*. Do you understand that
> > >> little detail?
> > >
> > > Yes, very well.
> > >
> > >> OK. Now, go read what I wrote. There is no study or papers that found
> > >> definitively that the laws of thermo can be directly applied to predict
> > >> weight gain or loss in animals. I showed where a major textbook used a
> > >> reference to a non-existant piece of scientific work to back up it's
> > >> claim that the laws of thermo can be aplied to predict weight in
> > >> animals.
> > >>
> > >> And you saying that it applies, does not simply make it so. Here is
> > >> what you do: Read a few textbooks, read all the seminal studies
> > >> referenced by those textbooks, when you find one that definitively
> > >> proves or finds specifically that the laws of thermo can be applied
> > >> directly to mathematically predict weight gain or weight loss in
> > >> animals, come back and give us the name of the study, the names of the
> > >> researchers who made these findings and where it was published.
> > >>
> > >> Until then, your cryptic little pronouncement that the laws of thermo
> > >> make it so, is ****.
> > >
> > > There is clearly more to weight loss and gain than the laws of
> > > thermodynamics. But the laws of thermodynamics still apply.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> (...)
> > >>>
> > >>> > 2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight loss
> > >>> > in humans fails 95% of the time.
> > >>>
> > >>> And succeeds 5% of the time.
> > >>
> > >> Do you know anything about statistics. Do you know anything about the
> > >> bell curve? Standard deviations? The bell curve is upside down, which
> > >> means the results are opposite of the expected result. It fails
> > >> statistically and in the real world enough of the time (95%+) for us to
> > >> declare that it does not work in any practical way whatsoever.
> > >
> > > Tell that to the 5% of the people for whom it does work.
> > >
> > >> In
> > >> scientific studies 95% failure rate is as good as 100% failure rate. It
> > >> is statistically the same thing.
> > >
> > > Actually, you are incorrect. Something like 95% of all attempts to quit
> > > smoking fail. Yet, the number of exsmokers is going up every day.
> > >
> > > Likewise, people who follow a diet that is low in calories will lose
> > > weight.
> > >
> > > It is not that 95% of the people who follow a low-calorie diet don't lose
> > > weight, but rather, 95% of the people can't stick to the low-calorie
> > > diet. They are very different things.
> >
> > I've told him this over and over but he refuses to hear.
>
> How, exactly, do you explain that only 5 or less % of people can stick
> to a low calorie diet, yet a much larger and more significant number
> can stick to a low carb diet for much longer and with much more
> success?
>
> They somehow are incapable of counting calories but they can more
> easily count carbs? Carb math is easier than calorie math?
>

In some ways. If I just eat meat, non-starchy vegetables, and dairy, I
know I'll lose weight without having to count anything or do any math at
all.

> Or they can enjoy a low-carb diet more than a low-fat diet?

Yes. I do anyway. Fat tastes good. Carbs taste good only when they
have fat on them. imo
 
Roger Zoul wrote:
> "jbuch" <jbuch@CUT_HERE.revealed.net> wrote
>
>
>>You are headed to the JC "Kill Filter" status for me.
>
>
> Please don't forget, Jim, that TC means well. His heart IS in the right
> place. He is not a troll here.
>
>


There is an argument that in some ways, Marx, Lenin and Stalin "meant
well" to differing degrees.

But Communism was founded on the false assumptions that men (and women)
could be induced to live and work unselfishly for the common good. This
is "Meaning Well" of a high order.

The results of this "well meaning" were not good - however, far from it.

"Meaning Well" and doing badly happen to meld together in many strange
ways when misunderstanding of issues and facts are intermingled.

His "Meaning Well" is further spreading the disinformation and confusion
that he claims to be trying to eliminate.

I would rather have a well educated person who "Means Only OK" try to
work on the problem. It ain't gonna get fixed by idiots "Meaning Well",
but who are compounding the confusion and disinformation problem as a
result of their inate limitations.

JC doesn't have the "Meaning Well" excuse nor the propensity to create
harm by "meaning well" - so you are right in that aspect.

--
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)
 
"TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Star Shooter wrote:
> > On 20 Feb 2006 11:50:53 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > =>
> > =>It is all useless navel gazing.
> > =>
> > =>There are millions that do put in the effort needed and they still
> > =>fail.
> > =>
> > =>TC
> >
> > They failed, because they mixed two problems/solutions together.
> > It is like fighting two front wars all at the same time.
> >
> > We have
> > Problem number one -> Weight
> > Problem number two -> Exercise
> >
> > exercise can get people healthy(if your weight does not crush you first)
and
> > probably lose weight(not necessary true, if you eat them all back).
> >
> > Diet to lose weight can get people healthy and light enough to move(and
> > exercise) and won't hurt self like incorrect exercise.
> >
> > Now, come to the worst, people want to mix them together.
> > If we have will to do enough exercise, do you think we would be here in
the
> > first place? So stop suggesting exercise.
> >
> > Since exercise does not guarantee weight loss, forget all about it.
> > Let's focus our mind on diet only.
> >
> > If one can lose weight by diet only, they can choose to exercise as an
extra
> > bonus(or not).
>
> You are telling me that the vast majority of people (90 to 95%) who try
> to lose weight simply are incapable of restricting their calories and
> increasing their physical activity, at all, or a bit, or the minimum
> needed to tip the caloric equation towards a deficit rather than an
> excess.
>
> Because it would not take a herculian effort to cutback a few hundred
> calories of food a day. It ain't that difficult. Many do just that and
> still get no lasting results.

Actually, if they *consistently* reduce their caloric intake by a few
hundred calories per day, they will lose weight. Many have accomplished
it...it's not rocket science, but it does take patience and persistence.

As documented by the National Weight Control Registry project, most folks
who accomplish significant long-term weight loss success, also combine their
dietary efforts with a fairly significant amount of exercise (around 3000
calories per week burned in exercise).

Either strategy (reducing calories, or increasing exercise) will work, but
most folks find a combination of the two to be the most effective way to
lose weight and enhance health and vitality.

>
> Wake up and smell the coffee.

I do...every day.

>
> TC
>
 
Roger Zoul wrote:
> "jbuch" <jbuch@CUT_HERE.revealed.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>I was a professional researcher for nearly 40 years. I know how sloppy
>>most research actually is. Too much of my career was involved in fixing
>>sloppy and some frankly stupid research. It is plentiful.
>
>
> Very true. It saddens me at how sloppy researchers have become. I see it
> all the time as an editor/reviewer of technical journals/articles.
>
>

Not long ago, there was a study which revealed that it is common for
people use as reference papers they never read. Especially the older
classics. They just copy the way they were cited in another publication
and go merrily along. I no longer bother to keep notes on such
discouraging stuff.


They often get added as "Window Dressing" to spiff up the appearance of
your paper and assume the cloak of having done real research.

Once in a while, I, sadly, did it myself - but I always "Intended" to
someday actually read the papers. That makes it OK :)

At any rate, it isn't highly uncommon for a classic paper to be
referenced for saying something it never said.... or for the publication
date to be moxied, or the title even mangled.

I suppose I am divulging that some researchers today are frauds, or near
frauds. But, that isn't news if you have done much real research.


Have you ever considered publishing an editorial or letter to the editor
requiring that authors agree, as an automatic condition of publication,
that they are certifying that they have actually read all of their
references?

Or let them have two classes of papers. One is "Publication as usual"
and the second is "Certified Read References" where the authors now
certify that they have indeed read each of the references they cite.

I would love to hear how authors react to the opportunity to elect
"Publication as usual". Without in any way placing the publication
status of their paper at risk.

It is possible that the original citation of Lavoisier and Laplace fell
into the "Classic" reference class.... where the textbook authors had
never read it, but passed along their intrepretation of how it had been
referenced by authors of othe publications. Eventually, the supposed
content of the original paper becomes "Plastic" and easily molded to the
intent or convenience of contemporary authors.

Again, all of the above is pretty well known to those who do/did
research for a living.

--
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)
 
"Cubit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Star Shooter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:57:52 GMT, "Cubit" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > =>
> > =>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.
> > =>
> >
> > Some diet plans(ie. low carb) are easier for weak minded overweight
people
> > like us to follow than some other plans which ask us to fight hunger and
> > craving with our weak will.
> >
> > Remember, if we have strong will, we won't be here in the first place
and
> we
> > need no help at all.
> >
> > Weak mind person is written all over our body even on the face. Yelling
us
> > with known fact is showing how ignorant you are. Finally, we are really
> not
> > that interested in people showing how stupid they are.
> >
>
> In the face of hunger (or thirst) willpower always fails.

I think in our modern world, we've forgotten what hunger really is. I get
the impression that for most overweight people, "hunger" means "my stomach
isn't full", not "I've not eaten in 6 hours".

GG

>
> I try to lead people to the idea of manipulating hunger and the "appestat"
> through portion control, frequent mini-meals, and low carb high fat
> macronutrient ratios. A strong feedback system, such as provided by food
> journaling in Fitday is important too.
>
>
>
 
"jbuch" <jbuch@CUT_HERE.revealed.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>> "jbuch" <jbuch@CUT_HERE.revealed.net> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>I was a professional researcher for nearly 40 years. I know how sloppy
>>>most research actually is. Too much of my career was involved in fixing
>>>sloppy and some frankly stupid research. It is plentiful.
>>
>>
>> Very true. It saddens me at how sloppy researchers have become. I see it
>> all the time as an editor/reviewer of technical journals/articles.
>
> Not long ago, there was a study which revealed that it is common for
> people use as reference papers they never read. Especially the older
> classics. They just copy the way they were cited in another publication
> and go merrily along. I no longer bother to keep notes on such
> discouraging stuff.
>
>
> They often get added as "Window Dressing" to spiff up the appearance of
> your paper and assume the cloak of having done real research.
>

Well, I've compiled lists of reference papers using this approach. You try
to do it by topic, too, maybe sometimes just skimming the paper. Then, when
it comes time to cite, you try to be thorough. However, it's certian bad
form to say that ressearchers XX and YY said this and that in [*]. That,
you've got to check if you want to enjoy a good reputation.

> Once in a while, I, sadly, did it myself - but I always "Intended" to
> someday actually read the papers. That makes it OK :)

Well, these days, page charges can hit you hard if you let the paper run too
long due to unnecessary cites.
>
> At any rate, it isn't highly uncommon for a classic paper to be referenced
> for saying something it never said.... or for the publication date to be
> moxied, or the title even mangled.

Yes...and worse still, with online publications that don't list on the site
the same info given in the paper, it becomes more time-consuming (in some
ways) to look up references.

>
> I suppose I am divulging that some researchers today are frauds, or near
> frauds. But, that isn't news if you have done much real research.
>

Well, most that I encounter are just sloppy. But in another sense many are
frauds...in the journals I deal with people will rarely talk seriously about
what doesn't work, only what did. Hence, it's hard to know the limits of
their approach...I think many times it's more important to know where a
technique fails than where it works.

>
> Have you ever considered publishing an editorial or letter to the editor
> requiring that authors agree, as an automatic condition of publication,
> that they are certifying that they have actually read all of their
> references?

No. Such a thought never occured to me. However, I get upset with their
apparently lack of attention to detail....such as figures that are poorly
labeled, poor grammar, etc. If there happen to be lots of equations, you
wonder if they are right..or if it's experimental, you wonder about data
collection/reporting..and that brings up another matter...reviewers rarely
check equations and derivations anymore. Everyone is too busy.

>
> Or let them have two classes of papers. One is "Publication as usual" and
> the second is "Certified Read References" where the authors now certify
> that they have indeed read each of the references they cite.

:)

>
> I would love to hear how authors react to the opportunity to elect
> "Publication as usual". Without in any way placing the publication status
> of their paper at risk.
>
> It is possible that the original citation of Lavoisier and Laplace fell
> into the "Classic" reference class.... where the textbook authors had
> never read it, but passed along their intrepretation of how it had been
> referenced by authors of othe publications. Eventually, the supposed
> content of the original paper becomes "Plastic" and easily molded to the
> intent or convenience of contemporary authors.

It would not surprise me.
>
> Again, all of the above is pretty well known to those who do/did research
> for a living.
>
>
 
"jbuch" <jbuch@CUT_HERE.revealed.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>> "jbuch" <jbuch@CUT_HERE.revealed.net> wrote
>>
>>
>>>You are headed to the JC "Kill Filter" status for me.
>>
>>
>> Please don't forget, Jim, that TC means well. His heart IS in the right
>> place. He is not a troll here.
>
>
> There is an argument that in some ways, Marx, Lenin and Stalin "meant
> well" to differing degrees.
>
> But Communism was founded on the false assumptions that men (and women)
> could be induced to live and work unselfishly for the common good. This
> is "Meaning Well" of a high order.
>
> The results of this "well meaning" were not good - however, far from it.
>
> "Meaning Well" and doing badly happen to meld together in many strange
> ways when misunderstanding of issues and facts are intermingled.
>
> His "Meaning Well" is further spreading the disinformation and confusion
> that he claims to be trying to eliminate.
>
> I would rather have a well educated person who "Means Only OK" try to work
> on the problem. It ain't gonna get fixed by idiots "Meaning Well", but
> who are compounding the confusion and disinformation problem as a result
> of their inate limitations.

Good point. History speaks of many "well meaning" folks who did great harm.
 
"GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> I think in our modern world, we've forgotten what hunger really is. I get
> the impression that for most overweight people, "hunger" means "my stomach
> isn't full", not "I've not eaten in 6 hours".

I think that's very true.
 
"GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Cubit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Star Shooter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:57:52 GMT, "Cubit" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > =>
>> > =>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.
>> > =>
>> >
>> > Some diet plans(ie. low carb) are easier for weak minded overweight
> people
>> > like us to follow than some other plans which ask us to fight hunger
>> > and
>> > craving with our weak will.
>> >
>> > Remember, if we have strong will, we won't be here in the first place
> and
>> we
>> > need no help at all.
>> >
>> > Weak mind person is written all over our body even on the face. Yelling
> us
>> > with known fact is showing how ignorant you are. Finally, we are really
>> not
>> > that interested in people showing how stupid they are.
>> >
>>
>> In the face of hunger (or thirst) willpower always fails.
>
> I think in our modern world, we've forgotten what hunger really is. I get
> the impression that for most overweight people, "hunger" means "my stomach
> isn't full", not "I've not eaten in 6 hours".
>
> GG

Well that is hunger, unless you've just woken up you shouldn't go for 6
hours without eating.

>> I try to lead people to the idea of manipulating hunger and the
>> "appestat"
>> through portion control, frequent mini-meals, and low carb high fat
>> macronutrient ratios. A strong feedback system, such as provided by food
>> journaling in Fitday is important too.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
GaryG wrote:
> "Cubit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Star Shooter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:57:52 GMT, "Cubit" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > =>
> > > =>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.
> > > =>
> > >
> > > Some diet plans(ie. low carb) are easier for weak minded overweight
> people
> > > like us to follow than some other plans which ask us to fight hunger and
> > > craving with our weak will.
> > >
> > > Remember, if we have strong will, we won't be here in the first place
> and
> > we
> > > need no help at all.
> > >
> > > Weak mind person is written all over our body even on the face. Yelling
> us
> > > with known fact is showing how ignorant you are. Finally, we are really
> > not
> > > that interested in people showing how stupid they are.
> > >
> >
> > In the face of hunger (or thirst) willpower always fails.
>
> I think in our modern world, we've forgotten what hunger really is. I get
> the impression that for most overweight people, "hunger" means "my stomach
> isn't full", not "I've not eaten in 6 hours".
>
> GG

You may have something there. It has been shown that hfcs and refined
carbs fail to satiate and may cause excessive eating by stimulating
hunger rather than appeasing it.

Is that the persons fault? You sound as if it is their fault and it has
nothing to do with the garbage carbs that are being sold as healthy and
low fat. Why are we so quick to blame the victim?

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