Weight loss suggestions?

Kelly said:

Robin King said:

I say, if you haven't got a method to help these people lose
weight that gives them a better chance of improving their lives than
of killing them, then leave them as is until you come up with one.

Someone please help this deluded person out. Robin is of the opinion
that losing weight is deadly.

Dieting is bad for your health and can be deadly. The healthiest thing
to do is eat what you want and let your body find its right weight.
It's what nature intended.

--

That would be true if you ate what nature intended you to eat, wild game,
fruits, vegetables, grains..

Not Mcburger, sodas, deep fried foods, hormones loaded meats and chips..

Will~

--

"Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built
the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic."
Dave Barry

"Real BBW" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kelly said:

Robin King said:

I say, if you haven't got a method to help these people lose
weight that gives them a better chance of improving their lives than
of killing them, then leave them as is until you come up with one.

Someone please help this deluded person out. Robin is of the opinion
that losing weight is deadly.

Dieting is bad for your health and can be deadly. The healthiest thing
to do is eat what you want and let your body find its right weight.
It's what nature intended.

--

"Willow Herself" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That would be true if you ate what nature intended you to eat, wild game,
fruits, vegetables, grains..

Yes, and run and jump and climb for it, and occasionally run *from* it.

I don't think fat + old go together too well. There are very few obese
people who make it into their seventies.

Quoted message said:

Not Mcburger, sodas, deep fried foods, hormones loaded meats and chips..

My personal theory is that if a person eats the right foods and gets at
least some exercise, the body will regulate its weight. For me that's low
carb + not much exercise but at least a little.

Just eating and eating and saying that "the body will find its own weight"
is like putting the pedal to the metal in your car and letting your car
naturally find its own speed.

My .02, anyway.

Mike

Robin King said:

"Kelly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, "Robin King" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I say, if you haven't got a method to help these people

lose

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

weight that gives them a better chance of improving their lives

than

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of killing them, then leave them as is until you come up with one.

Someone please help this deluded person out. Robin is of the

opinion that

Quoted message said:

losing weight is deadly.

Did you even look at the Dimensions website?

So a website that encourages "Erotic Weight Gain" (
http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6 ), as well as
celebrates people who weigh 900 pounds and up(
http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/dimtext/kjn/people/heaviest.htm ), is now
an authority on weight loss?

Typical fat accepting BS!

Delta said:

Robin King said:

"Kelly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, "Robin King" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

>
> I say, if you haven't got a method to help these people

lose

Quoted message said:

>weight that gives them a better chance of improving their lives

than

Quoted message said:

>of killing them, then leave them as is until you come up with one.

Someone please help this deluded person out. Robin is of the

opinion that

Quoted message said:

losing weight is deadly.

Did you even look at the Dimensions website?

So a website that encourages "Erotic Weight Gain" (
http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6 ), as
well as celebrates people who weigh 900 pounds and up(
http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/dimtext/kjn/people/heaviest.htm ),
is now an authority on weight loss?

Typical fat accepting BS!

The Dimensions website exposes the dirty truth about dieting.

--

Poster wrote:

Dieting is bad for your health and can be deadly. The healthiest
thing

Quoted message said:

to do is eat what you want and let your body find its right weight.
It's what nature intended.

Probably true 200 years ago, when the vast majority of people did hard
physical work, plus ate very plain, unprocessed foods that were
limited in quantity (you can't pig out when there are 15 people to
feed at each meal), and also had no ready supply of high fat, high
sugar desserts and snacks in the house (couldn't have afforded them
other than perhaps as special occasion treats).

I've already tested the hypothesis that you can eat what you want and
hope your body will find some happy set point. I'm pushing 51, and
until I decided enough was enough, I'd packed on 65 extra pounds - I
was almost 200 lb at 5' 6". I hated it. I felt miserable. I was having
health issues related to it. I looked like [censored], and I was tired all
the time. And....I was continuing to gain, so lord knows where I might
have ended up.

I'm sure if I was living the life of one of my ancestors raising 11
kids, working the farm, scrubbing and chopping, and hoeing, and
swinging cast iron pots around, I'd have been a tough skinny old
broad, like the old pictures I've seen of them, and could have eaten
anything I wanted....that is, anything I wanted that we had, which
probably wouldn't have been much beyond what we raised on the farm. On
the other hand, I'd probably have been dead of exhaustion at 45.

M

"em" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Willow Herself" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That would be true if you ate what nature intended you to eat, wild game,
fruits, vegetables, grains..

Yes, and run and jump and climb for it, and occasionally run *from* it.

Now there's that too...

Will~

Another statistic obtained by extrapolating from a very small self observed
sample.

em wrote:
|
| I don't think fat + old go together too well. There are very few obese
| people who make it into their seventies.
|

"FOB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Another statistic obtained by extrapolating from a very small self
observed
sample.

There are three kinds of statistics: [censored], more [censored] and political
[censored]. Oh, wait, there's the branch of math called statistics, only
understood by some but not all "staticticians".

A small, self observed sample it may be. At one point it time, I did meet
and was around several hundred "old people" at hospitals, retirment homes,
etc., and I will tell you right now that the vast, vast majority were skinny
non-smokers.

There are all kinds of charts out there comparing the longevity of smokers
to non-smokers. I have never seen anything of the sort for obesety. I
"highly suspect" that obesety is a bigger killer than cigarettes.

In other words, if an obese person who smokes can give up one or the other
(smoking or excess weight), losing the weight will probably keep them alive
longer.

Maybe the fat ones aren't clustered in hospitals or retirememnts homes. I'm
a fat old person and you won't see me at either place. I suspect that your
suspicions are wrong. I have been seeing a lot of articles lately saying
that fat old people live longer than skinny ones. And I definitely believe
smoking is worse though lately there has been a lot of propaganda about
obesity.

em wrote:
|
| There are three kinds of statistics: [censored], more [censored] and
| political [censored]. Oh, wait, there's the branch of math called
| statistics, only understood by some but not all "staticticians".
|
| A small, self observed sample it may be. At one point it time, I did
| meet and was around several hundred "old people" at hospitals,
| retirment homes, etc., and I will tell you right now that the vast,
| vast majority were skinny non-smokers.
|
| There are all kinds of charts out there comparing the longevity of
| smokers to non-smokers. I have never seen anything of the sort for
| obesety. I "highly suspect" that obesety is a bigger killer than
| cigarettes.
|
| In other words, if an obese person who smokes can give up one or the
| other (smoking or excess weight), losing the weight will probably
| keep them alive longer.

FOB said:

Maybe the fat ones aren't clustered in hospitals or retirememnts homes. I'm
a fat old person and you won't see me at either place. I suspect that your
suspicions are wrong. I have been seeing a lot of articles lately saying
that fat old people live longer than skinny ones. And I definitely believe
smoking is worse though lately there has been a lot of propaganda about
obesity.

For this to make sense, you need to explain how diabetes, joint
disease, and high blood pressure helps a person to live longer and
stay vigorous in old age.
And lots of chronic diseases force a person to be thin. No chronic
disease forces a person to be fat. This fact will always skew the
numbers.

Quoted message said:

em wrote:

|
| There are three kinds of statistics: [censored], more [censored] and
| political [censored]. Oh, wait, there's the branch of math called
| statistics, only understood by some but not all "staticticians".
|
| A small, self observed sample it may be. At one point it time, I did
| meet and was around several hundred "old people" at hospitals,
| retirment homes, etc., and I will tell you right now that the vast,
| vast majority were skinny non-smokers.
|
| There are all kinds of charts out there comparing the longevity of
| smokers to non-smokers. I have never seen anything of the sort for
| obesety. I "highly suspect" that obesety is a bigger killer than
| cigarettes.
|
| In other words, if an obese person who smokes can give up one or the
| other (smoking or excess weight), losing the weight will probably
| keep them alive longer.

Real BBW said:

Kelly said:

Robin King said:

I say, if you haven't got a method to help these people lose
weight that gives them a better chance of improving their lives than
of killing them, then leave them as is until you come up with one.

Someone please help this deluded person out. Robin is of the opinion
that losing weight is deadly.

Dieting is bad for your health and can be deadly. The healthiest thing
to do is eat what you want and let your body find its right weight.
It's what nature intended.

That could only work if the person restricts themselves to the diet that
'nature intended', a.k.a. no processed foods, and in the quantities that
nature intended, a.k.a. no super-sized portions, etc. And even with all
of that, it wold likely be necessary to add the exercise the nature
intended, a.k.a. working a garden or farm, or going out and
finding/tracking down your meals.

If Your plan is to eat what ever You want and let Your body find a good
weight, as "nature intended", while living a modern life of minimal
physical activity and eating a modern diet of mostly highly processed
foods in very large quantities, You will fail, You will end up with
excess weight and in very poor health (diabetes, heart disease, etc...).

Kelly said:

Robin King said:

I say, if you haven't got a method to help these people lose
weight that gives them a better chance of improving their lives than
of killing them, then leave them as is until you come up with one.

Someone please help this deluded person out. Robin is of the opinion that
losing weight is deadly.

The whole point is to improve the person's life. There is no shortage of
testimonials to the improvement in quality-of-life and health that are to
gained by loosing excess weight.

It is not about finding a way to improve their lives. That has been
found. The question is how to develop a program that can give the
individual person those results (the easy part), and is also a program
that the person can both live with, and live up to (that is the difficult
part).

"FOB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Maybe the fat ones aren't clustered in hospitals or retirememnts homes.
I'm
a fat old person and you won't see me at either place. I suspect that
your
suspicions are wrong. I have been seeing a lot of articles lately saying
that fat old people live longer than skinny ones. And I definitely
believe
smoking is worse though lately there has been a lot of propaganda about
obesity.

I wish you a long, healthy, happy life. I have no real data to back up what
I am saying. I do suspect that obesity is worse than smoking. That'll never
be proven.

Statistics come from two places. One, from an idiotic government. Those
stats are picked through by people/groups with some sort of agenda, and
whatever supports their cause is what they publicize. The other statistics
you will see comes directly from people or groups with some sort of agenda.

If you can't trust the American Heart Association, etc., for factual
information, who can you trust? Seriously.

"Shava_X" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kelly said:

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, "Robin King" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I say, if you haven't got a method to help these people

lose

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

weight that gives them a better chance of improving their lives

than

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of killing them, then leave them as is until you come up with one.

Someone please help this deluded person out. Robin is of the

opinion that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

losing weight is deadly.

The whole point is to improve the person's life. There is no

shortage of

Quoted message said:

testimonials to the improvement in quality-of-life and health that

are to

Quoted message said:

gained by loosing excess weight.

Of course there are testimonials. You don't hear many
denunciations because nobody profits from them. My question is, how
you you distinguish the effects of weight loss from the effects of

a) eating healthier food
b) regular exercise
c) experiencing more social acceptance at a lower weight?

Quoted message said:

It is not about finding a way to improve their lives. That has been
found.

Then somebody should tell them. In the list of 900+ lb.
people, there are some who've been put on very low-calorie diets under
supervision, which ultimately had the effect of weakening them, so
that they couldn't fight off an infection and died of it. One died of
starvation at 600 pounds.

The question is how to develop a program that can give the

Quoted message said:

individual person those results (the easy part), and is also a

program

Quoted message said:

that the person can both live with, and live up to (that is the

difficult

Quoted message said:

part).

The easy part is to blame the patient when the program doesn't
work.

What I am wondering is why people are so fixated on the
extremes of fatness. Do people in diet groups likewise fixate on
skeletal people and their health problems?

Robin

"Robin King" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Then somebody should tell them. In the list of 900+ lb.
people, there are some who've been put on very low-calorie diets under
supervision, which ultimately had the effect of weakening them, so
that they couldn't fight off an infection and died of it. One died of
starvation at 600 pounds.

Hi Robin,

That's a good point and definitely worth consideration and discussion. I
don't want to throw any maybes out because I have no understanding or point
of reference to back me up. There's no maybe, though, about 900+ being life
threatening, nor is there any question (in my mind) that the wrong and/or
too drastic of an approach can be deadly. Starving a 1/2 ton person so that
they'll lose weight makes about as much sense as punching a hole in the gas
tank of a jet plane, in mid flight, in order to improve fuel efficience.

Can we start by agreeing that 900+ pounds is not where a person's body finds
their "natural weight"? If we can do that, then we can start to talk, in a
civilized and respectful maner, about what the problem is, what approaches
might work, what one's don't, what and where the dangers are, etc. (Of
course, trolls are not civilized and have no respect even for themselves, so
we ignore the troll posts, no?)

On another note, I took a long, hard look at the acceptance group a few
weeks back. There was so much trolling in that group that I was not able to
cut through through the noise and understand what the group was really
(supposed to be) about. I'd appreciate a link to the group's charter or faq
or some such thing.

Quoted message said:

Robin

Mike

Robin King said:

Then somebody should tell them. In the list of 900+ lb.
people, there are some who've been put on very low-calorie diets under
supervision, which ultimately had the effect of weakening them, so
that they couldn't fight off an infection and died of it. One died of
starvation at 600 pounds.

Cite?

No one. So far as I know they are still pushing low fat diets and statins
for all, not positions I trust.

Statistics are just numbers, interpreting them is a different matter. And
when it comes to finding cause and effect it's very difficult to pin down
causes when there are multiple variables. Could be that obese people
exercise less and the lack of exercise is what shortens life. Everyone
assumes that all obese people are alike, that they got there by eating junk
food and swilling sugary sodas. It ain't necessarily so.

em wrote:
|
| I wish you a long, healthy, happy life. I have no real data to back
| up what I am saying. I do suspect that obesity is worse than smoking.
| That'll never be proven.
|
| Statistics come from two places. One, from an idiotic government.
| Those stats are picked through by people/groups with some sort of
| agenda, and whatever supports their cause is what they publicize. The
| other statistics you will see comes directly from people or groups
| with some sort of agenda.
|
| If you can't trust the American Heart Association, etc., for factual
| information, who can you trust? Seriously.

Quoted message said:

em wrote:
| If you can't trust the American Heart Association, etc., for factual
| information, who can you trust? Seriously.

FOB said:

No one. So far as I know they are still pushing low fat diets and statins
for all, not positions I trust.

I had a heart attack, angioplasty and bypass back in May, so it's become
more important to me to understand all this stuff. As far as I've been
able to tell, the AHA is as useful to heart patients as the ADA is to
diabetics.

I've been reading this one cardiologist's blog lately. He is a bit
over-the-top in criticizing his peers, and a lot of his emphasis is just
on having you join his pay website, but a lot of what he says makes
sense to me, so I will recommend it: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com

He is pro low-carb, anti-saturated fat and uses statins in patients he
feels need them.

I've taken some of his advice immediatly, in adding fish oil and vitamin
D supplements. There's still quite a lot of reading to do on his blog
and I've ordered his book.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/