A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Can a low-carb diet fail if you take in too many calories?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old August 13th, 2004, 04:45 PM
billydee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"marengo" wrote in message ...
The Voice of Reason wrote:

snip
A high
| protein intake and resistance exercise is crucial to any plan to lose
| fat.


Sorry, but you are incorrect. This is your own theory and should not be
presented as fact.

I have a disability and get very little exercise. I do not eat high amounts
of protein; only about the same amount as before low. carb. I've lost 60
pounds so far, mostly fat as evidenced by my pictures. My own weight loss
is proof that you're wrong.

Peter
270/213/180
Before/Current Pix:
http://users.thelink.net/marengo/wei...htlosspix.html


looks to me like you can make that statement after you are 35 pounds
lighter. I'm guessing you'll stall pretty quick using the
all-you-can-eat diet plan.
  #92  
Old August 13th, 2004, 05:23 PM
FOB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

He didn't say anything about an all-you-can-eat plan, you can't even read
right.

In om,
billydee stated
||
||
|| Sorry, but you are incorrect. This is your own theory and should
|| not be presented as fact.
||
|| I have a disability and get very little exercise. I do not eat high
|| amounts of protein; only about the same amount as before low. carb.
|| I've lost 60 pounds so far, mostly fat as evidenced by my pictures.
|| My own weight loss is proof that you're wrong.
||
|| Peter
|| 270/213/180
|| Before/Current Pix:
|| http://users.thelink.net/marengo/wei...htlosspix.html
|
| looks to me like you can make that statement after you are 35 pounds
| lighter. I'm guessing you'll stall pretty quick using the
| all-you-can-eat diet plan.


  #93  
Old August 13th, 2004, 05:23 PM
FOB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

He didn't say anything about an all-you-can-eat plan, you can't even read
right.

In om,
billydee stated
||
||
|| Sorry, but you are incorrect. This is your own theory and should
|| not be presented as fact.
||
|| I have a disability and get very little exercise. I do not eat high
|| amounts of protein; only about the same amount as before low. carb.
|| I've lost 60 pounds so far, mostly fat as evidenced by my pictures.
|| My own weight loss is proof that you're wrong.
||
|| Peter
|| 270/213/180
|| Before/Current Pix:
|| http://users.thelink.net/marengo/wei...htlosspix.html
|
| looks to me like you can make that statement after you are 35 pounds
| lighter. I'm guessing you'll stall pretty quick using the
| all-you-can-eat diet plan.


  #94  
Old August 13th, 2004, 06:14 PM
marengo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

billydee wrote:
| "marengo" wrote in message
| ...
|| The Voice of Reason wrote:
||
|| snip
|| A high
||| protein intake and resistance exercise is crucial to any plan to
||| lose fat.
||
||
|| Sorry, but you are incorrect. This is your own theory and should
|| not be presented as fact.
||
|| I have a disability and get very little exercise. I do not eat high
|| amounts of protein; only about the same amount as before low. carb.
|| I've lost 60 pounds so far, mostly fat as evidenced by my pictures.
|| My own weight loss is proof that you're wrong.
||
|| Peter
|| 270/213/180
|| Before/Current Pix:
|| http://users.thelink.net/marengo/wei...htlosspix.html
|
| looks to me like you can make that statement after you are 35 pounds
| lighter. I'm guessing you'll stall pretty quick using the
| all-you-can-eat diet plan.


Huh? What are you talking about? Do you call losing 57 pounds in 6-1/2
months "stalling pretty quick?"

I limit my calories to 1400 or so a day (70% of these calories from fat,
25% from protein and 5% from carbohydrates). I record everything I eat
and track all my daily intake - including nutritional values -- on Fitday.
I certainly do not use the "all you can eat diet plan."

You must have the thread mixed up and have me confused with someone else


|| Peter
|| 270/213/180
|| Before/Current Pix:
|| http://users.thelink.net/marengo/wei...htlosspix.html





  #95  
Old August 13th, 2004, 06:17 PM
MU
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 12 Aug 2004 21:40:43 GMT, jamie wrote:

Did you read the study extract?


Above lies a perfect example of why discussions outside of the science
community regarding "extracts", citations and (non)empirical studies have
little to no merit in alt.diet.support groups.
  #96  
Old August 13th, 2004, 06:17 PM
MU
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 12 Aug 2004 21:40:43 GMT, jamie wrote:

Did you read the study extract?


Above lies a perfect example of why discussions outside of the science
community regarding "extracts", citations and (non)empirical studies have
little to no merit in alt.diet.support groups.
  #97  
Old August 13th, 2004, 06:52 PM
Ernie Sty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"PJx" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 05:02:59 GMT, "jk" wrote:


"Luna" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"jk" wrote:


Oh really? Why not give it a try. Start today by eating ONLY 5000
calories of butter, or lard, or heavy cream, and see if you gain or

lose
weight. Please report back, we're all anxiously waiting for your

report.

Oh, now I get it. It won't make you fat to eat that way because you'll
puke most of it back up.

--
Michelle Levin



Now that's yet another reason aside from diahrea. But seriously...

eating
5000 calories of fat all by itself won't make you fat. It's a fact that
dietary fat doesn't convert to serum or body fat. It's only when you add
carbs to it, that the body starts converting.


I agree with you. And so does several million others who went from
low-fat to low-carb high protein/fat and consumed double the calories
and started losing weight.

It's a fact, jack, regardless of what the trolls on here say.


I think you'll agree that while it's true that you can eat more calories and
lose weight on a LC diet, you cannot eat *unlimited* calories and lose
weight on a LC diet.
Most people on a LC diet can eat whatever they want as long as they keep the
carbs down and still lose weight, because LC helps control your appetite,
whereas carbohydrates (especially refined ones) stimulate your appetite.
You know this already, I'm sure. But what you might not know is that some
people are addicted to compulsive overeating, and will stuff themselves when
they are not even hungry, and do this on a daily basis. I am one of those
people. It is very hard to give up an addiction to overeating. Overeating
addictions are unique, because an alcohol or drug addict can stay away from
alcohol or drugs and that will help them fight the addiction, but overeaters
still have to eat three times a day, and that means facing their addiction
head-on three times a day...


  #98  
Old August 13th, 2004, 08:41 PM
jamie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

MU wrote:
On 12 Aug 2004 21:40:43 GMT, jamie wrote:

Did you read the study extract?


Above lies a perfect example of why discussions outside of the science
community regarding "extracts", citations and (non)empirical studies have
little to no merit in alt.diet.support groups.


If you have access to the full study, rather than the extract, I'd
like to see it. It might answer my questions about the extract.

It was less a matter, IMO, of any problem discussing an extract in a
laypersons' group, than misleading math used in the way it's often
used in advertisements. The sixty-six percent more calories cited
from in the study sounds like a lot more than it is, until the "more
than what" number (1100) is actually examined.

It did say the children were ages 12 to 18, ranging from 20 to 100
pounds overweight. Speaking as a 5-foot-tall woman, my frame is about
the height of the average 12 year-old, and surely less active than
a 12 to 18 year-old, and 1100 calories would be very low for me.
I maintain goal at about 1400 to 1600 calories, and I'm not all
that active (although I have very large, dense bones for my height,
and a fortunate genetic tendency to be somewhat more muscley than my
activity level suggests, which skews my numbers from the average.)

1100 would be even lower for the older, larger teens in the study,
and those with a lot to lose. It's very possible that the ones on
the 1100 cal diet didn't have as much energy to be as active as the
ones eating a few hundred more calories on the low-carb diet, or was
low enough to promote muscle mass loss that would lower their basal
metabolism and reduce the amount of fat loss.

With the limit for the low-fat group set so low, and no further
details, it can't necessarily be assumed that it was low-carbing
accounting for higher losses at ~1700 calories, rather than a
more reasonable calorie level maintaining more muscle mass, and
perhaps energy for more activity.

--
jamie )

"There's a seeker born every minute."

  #99  
Old August 13th, 2004, 08:41 PM
jamie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

MU wrote:
On 12 Aug 2004 21:40:43 GMT, jamie wrote:

Did you read the study extract?


Above lies a perfect example of why discussions outside of the science
community regarding "extracts", citations and (non)empirical studies have
little to no merit in alt.diet.support groups.


If you have access to the full study, rather than the extract, I'd
like to see it. It might answer my questions about the extract.

It was less a matter, IMO, of any problem discussing an extract in a
laypersons' group, than misleading math used in the way it's often
used in advertisements. The sixty-six percent more calories cited
from in the study sounds like a lot more than it is, until the "more
than what" number (1100) is actually examined.

It did say the children were ages 12 to 18, ranging from 20 to 100
pounds overweight. Speaking as a 5-foot-tall woman, my frame is about
the height of the average 12 year-old, and surely less active than
a 12 to 18 year-old, and 1100 calories would be very low for me.
I maintain goal at about 1400 to 1600 calories, and I'm not all
that active (although I have very large, dense bones for my height,
and a fortunate genetic tendency to be somewhat more muscley than my
activity level suggests, which skews my numbers from the average.)

1100 would be even lower for the older, larger teens in the study,
and those with a lot to lose. It's very possible that the ones on
the 1100 cal diet didn't have as much energy to be as active as the
ones eating a few hundred more calories on the low-carb diet, or was
low enough to promote muscle mass loss that would lower their basal
metabolism and reduce the amount of fat loss.

With the limit for the low-fat group set so low, and no further
details, it can't necessarily be assumed that it was low-carbing
accounting for higher losses at ~1700 calories, rather than a
more reasonable calorie level maintaining more muscle mass, and
perhaps energy for more activity.

--
jamie )

"There's a seeker born every minute."

  #100  
Old August 13th, 2004, 10:42 PM
MU
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 13 Aug 2004 19:41:38 GMT, jamie wrote:

Did you read the study extract?


Above lies a perfect example of why discussions outside of the science
community regarding "extracts", citations and (non)empirical studies have
little to no merit in alt.diet.support groups.


On 13 Aug 2004 19:41:38 GMT, jamie wrote:

If you have access to the full study, rather than the extract, I'd
like to see it. It might answer my questions about the extract.


If I did, I wouldn't publish it here. See above.

As for extracts, the only one I have at the moment is vanilla.

It was less a matter, IMO, of any problem discussing an extract in a
laypersons' group, than misleading math used in the way it's often
used in advertisements.


Math aside, discussing citations in a lay group is a waste of time.

It did say the children were ages 12 to 18, ranging from 20 to 100
pounds overweight. Speaking as a 5-foot-tall woman, my frame is about
the height of the average 12 year-old, and surely less active than
a 12 to 18 year-old, and 1100 calories would be very low for me.
I maintain goal at about 1400 to 1600 calories, and I'm not all
that active (although I have very large, dense bones for my height,
and a fortunate genetic tendency to be somewhat more muscley than my
activity level suggests, which skews my numbers from the average.)

1100 would be even lower for the older, larger teens in the study,
and those with a lot to lose. It's very possible that the ones on
the 1100 cal diet didn't have as much energy to be as active as the
ones eating a few hundred more calories on the low-carb diet, or was
low enough to promote muscle mass loss that would lower their basal
metabolism and reduce the amount of fat loss.

With the limit for the low-fat group set so low, and no further
details, it can't necessarily be assumed that it was low-carbing
accounting for higher losses at ~1700 calories, rather than a
more reasonable calorie level maintaining more muscle mass, and
perhaps energy for more activity.


Look, jamie, all of the above is nice conversation but the use of your
analyses of either an abstract or the cited study itself is practically
valueless. Put simply, you don't have the background, the education, the
experience or the credentials to analyze these studies. Hence, there is
little credibility in waht you have posted.

But it is nice conversation for conversations sake.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret Robin Smith Low Calorie 9 October 15th, 2010 02:51 PM
Something new MOM PEAGRAM Weightwatchers 7 June 13th, 2004 01:35 AM
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret tcomeau Low Calorie 113 February 14th, 2004 03:26 PM
Table 3. Hit List of Weight-Gaining Behaviors from Dr. Phil's book That T Woman General Discussion 45 January 20th, 2004 02:23 PM
Low carb diets Weightwatchers 245 January 9th, 2004 12:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.