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 Calorie
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Jamie -- Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 24th, 2004, 05:17 AM
Kalepa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Jamie -- Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research

Jamie -- (this method of posting is quite clunky to me -- takes too
long to compose a respone)

Any chance you'd like to put a small wager on this one? Say one
dollar? Dr. Mattson's study will start in late summer or early fall
and will take about six months.

Please see the following for a brief description of three meals being
better than two,

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/ne...9/ntwin129.xml

As for what those folks

the knowledgeable folks
from misc.fitness.weights have referred to studies showing that the
only number of meals per day that has poorer results for weight loss
than any other meal frequency is eating only once a day.


say, I'd be happy to wager each of them a buck as well (to a maximum
of 100 dollars).

I think we will find that one meal a day is no less harmful than more
meals a day (in terms of harm to the human body). And from my
perspective, we're going to find that it's easier to adhere to one
meal a day than to be forced with the choice on a daily basis of,
"Should I eat? Should I just have a 16th of that?"

Wanna bet on whether it's more harmful?

Yours,

Caleb
  #2  
Old June 25th, 2004, 08:44 AM
jamie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Jamie -- Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research

I see, it's a life-extension study, that hasn't been done yet.
Says nothing at all about losing weight, or this eating pattern on
optimal weight folks vs overweight folks, or if the rodent study helped
or hindered fat mice. The page did refer to the once a day eating
as raising "stresses", from which one might suspect that it might raise
cortisol, the latest fad bugaboo cause of difficulty losing weight.


Kalepa wrote:
Jamie -- (this method of posting is quite clunky to me -- takes too
long to compose a respone)

Any chance you'd like to put a small wager on this one? Say one
dollar? Dr. Mattson's study will start in late summer or early fall
and will take about six months.

Please see the following for a brief description of three meals being
better than two,

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/ne...9/ntwin129.xml

As for what those folks

the knowledgeable folks
from misc.fitness.weights have referred to studies showing that the
only number of meals per day that has poorer results for weight loss
than any other meal frequency is eating only once a day.


say, I'd be happy to wager each of them a buck as well (to a maximum
of 100 dollars).

I think we will find that one meal a day is no less harmful than more
meals a day (in terms of harm to the human body). And from my
perspective, we're going to find that it's easier to adhere to one
meal a day than to be forced with the choice on a daily basis of,
"Should I eat? Should I just have a 16th of that?"

Wanna bet on whether it's more harmful?

Yours,

Caleb



--
jamie )

"There's a seeker born every minute."

  #3  
Old June 25th, 2004, 05:21 PM
Kalepa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Jamie -- Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research

Jamie -- as you can read by a portion of my post of yesterday, Dr.
Stern of the American Obesity Association (judging by the results of
my google search on her name), appears to praise Dr. Mattson's
approach and she clearly does not think the results are only relevant
to rodents.

Mattson's research shows that rats who fasted every other day lost
weight. There was no such clear weight loss in the mice strains he
described.

Anyway, this is very interesting research and will almost certainly
impact hugely on the treatment of obesity. I can hardly wait until
much of the weight-loss superstition has been cleared away. (Seems to
me that too much of the "information" related to weight loss is more
folk-lore than fact.)


Yours,

Caleb

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

Intermittent fasting is a much more palatable lifestyle than the
continual self-denial of a highly calorie-restricted diet, says Judith
S. Stern, Sc.D., vice president of the American Obesity Association.
"You can almost have your cake and eat it too."

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


(jamie) wrote in message ...
I see, it's a life-extension study, that hasn't been done yet.
Says nothing at all about losing weight, or this eating pattern on
optimal weight folks vs overweight folks, or if the rodent study helped
or hindered fat mice. The page did refer to the once a day eating
as raising "stresses", from which one might suspect that it might raise
cortisol, the latest fad bugaboo cause of difficulty losing weight.


Kalepa wrote:
Jamie -- (this method of posting is quite clunky to me -- takes too
long to compose a respone)

Any chance you'd like to put a small wager on this one? Say one
dollar? Dr. Mattson's study will start in late summer or early fall
and will take about six months.

Please see the following for a brief description of three meals being
better than two,

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/ne...9/ntwin129.xml

As for what those folks

the knowledgeable folks
from misc.fitness.weights have referred to studies showing that the
only number of meals per day that has poorer results for weight loss
than any other meal frequency is eating only once a day.


say, I'd be happy to wager each of them a buck as well (to a maximum
of 100 dollars).

I think we will find that one meal a day is no less harmful than more
meals a day (in terms of harm to the human body). And from my
perspective, we're going to find that it's easier to adhere to one
meal a day than to be forced with the choice on a daily basis of,
"Should I eat? Should I just have a 16th of that?"

Wanna bet on whether it's more harmful?

Yours,

Caleb

  #4  
Old June 26th, 2004, 07:52 PM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Jamie -- Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research

On 25 Jun 2004 09:21:04 -0700, (Kalepa) wrote:

Jamie -- as you can read by a portion of my post of yesterday, Dr.
Stern of the American Obesity Association (judging by the results of
my google search on her name), appears to praise Dr. Mattson's
approach and she clearly does not think the results are only relevant
to rodents.

Mattson's research shows that rats who fasted every other day lost
weight. There was no such clear weight loss in the mice strains he
described.

Anyway, this is very interesting research and will almost certainly
impact hugely on the treatment of obesity. I can hardly wait until
much of the weight-loss superstition has been cleared away. (Seems to
me that too much of the "information" related to weight loss is more
folk-lore than fact.)
Yours,Caleb


Caleb, you are correct. I have no doubt that the fasting will
produce the greatest results for both weight loss and longevity.

And with that, there will be an increase in health and happiness
for those who fast.

I'm anxious for the results though and wish I could see into the
future as to just how much fasting and how many calories per 'week'
produces the best results. I know we can't say say 'calories per day'
with this diet because there will be approximately 0 calories on the
fasting days.

Some have started this diet already and expect to live to be 120 and
in relatively good health for the duration.

Bob





  #5  
Old June 27th, 2004, 07:16 AM
Kalepa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Jamie -- Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research

Bob -- I agree with your views. Important too is throwing off the
oppression of the toxic advice given by people who give advice that is
without any good scientific foundation.

Agreement among nutritionists on this particular matter is almost
worthless, I think. (They encourage three squares a day, plus snacks,
etc.)

While they certainly know a lot about different things (and a heck of
a lot more than I do about food-related biology -- I'm a psychologist,
not a physiologist, nutritionist, nurse, etc.), a lot of what "they
know just ain't so." (You may remember that Mondale in his 84 election
campaign said, "It's not what we don't know that's going to harm us.
It's what we know that just ain't so!"

I too would like to look into the future on this one.

Yours,

Caleb

Bob wrote in message . ..
Caleb, you are correct. I have no doubt that the fasting will
produce the greatest results for both weight loss and longevity.

And with that, there will be an increase in health and happiness
for those who fast.

I'm anxious for the results though and wish I could see into the
future as to just how much fasting and how many calories per 'week'
produces the best results. I know we can't say say 'calories per day'
with this diet because there will be approximately 0 calories on the
fasting days.

Some have started this diet already and expect to live to be 120 and
in relatively good health for the duration.

Bob

  #6  
Old June 28th, 2004, 12:17 AM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Jamie -- Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research

Caleb, I'm seeing more and more reputation of the idea that skipping
breakfast is necessarily bad for you. I'm now highly suspect of
anyone that claims that, or that 3 squares are necessary or that
starvation mode is a bad thing. Most of these people will go to
their graves knowing what ain't so.

What's your idea on a likely diet/fasting schedule that will maximize
longevity?


Bob


On 26 Jun 2004 23:16:45 -0700, (Kalepa) wrote:

Bob -- I agree with your views. Important too is throwing off the
oppression of the toxic advice given by people who give advice that is
without any good scientific foundation.

Agreement among nutritionists on this particular matter is almost
worthless, I think. (They encourage three squares a day, plus snacks,
etc.)

While they certainly know a lot about different things (and a heck of
a lot more than I do about food-related biology -- I'm a psychologist,
not a physiologist, nutritionist, nurse, etc.), a lot of what "they
know just ain't so." (You may remember that Mondale in his 84 election
campaign said, "It's not what we don't know that's going to harm us.
It's what we know that just ain't so!"

I too would like to look into the future on this one.

Yours,

Caleb




Bob wrote in message . ..
Caleb, you are correct. I have no doubt that the fasting will
produce the greatest results for both weight loss and longevity.

And with that, there will be an increase in health and happiness
for those who fast.

I'm anxious for the results though and wish I could see into the
future as to just how much fasting and how many calories per 'week'
produces the best results. I know we can't say say 'calories per day'
with this diet because there will be approximately 0 calories on the
fasting days.

Some have started this diet already and expect to live to be 120 and
in relatively good health for the duration.

Bob


  #7  
Old June 29th, 2004, 11:03 PM
jamie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Jamie -- Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research

Bob wrote:
Caleb, I'm seeing more and more reputation of the idea that skipping
breakfast is necessarily bad for you. I'm now highly suspect of
anyone that claims that, or that 3 squares are necessary or that
starvation mode is a bad thing. Most of these people will go to
their graves knowing what ain't so.

What's your idea on a likely diet/fasting schedule that will maximize
longevity?


Caleb's history for the past several years in the diet groups is to
crash diet for the 100 days preceding Thanksgiving every year to take
off 40 or 50 pounds then gain the weight back the rest of the year and
crash diet again for 100 days. He's been know to subsist on diets
of cup'o noodles and cabbage soup to do this, so I wouldn't put any
great stock in his nutritional advice for longevity or weight loss.

--
jamie )

"There's a seeker born every minute."

  #8  
Old June 30th, 2004, 09:00 AM
Kalepa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Jamie -- Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research

Jamie -- I'm not sure that the data support your view. Perhaps losing
a lot of weight in the course of a year -- not that one wants to do
that regularly -- is far better than maintaining a lot of weight
throughout the year. (Overall, I'm a lot lower than I was 6 years
ago.)

Do you have any proof at all that the above perspective is wrong?

On the other hand, Mattson's views appear to support the intermittent
lengthy periods between eating. For some reason, eating less regularly
helps the brain and body in a variety of ways.

The traditional three-squares a day appears to harmful (according to
the prelimnary Mattson results) and are incredibly difficult to follow
for the average human beings. That's clearly one of the reasons Dr.
Stern (of the American Obesity Association thinks the results of
intermittent non-eating are important for people to consider.

As athletes fall off their regimens in the course of a year, so too do
people people fall off their diet and exercise programs. (It's tuff to
be good ALL year long.) And as you may be aware, a variety of
admonitions are out there to get people to get in shape -- e.g.,
putting on one's summer bathing suit, getting in shape for sports,
etc.

Yours,

Caleb


(jamie) wrote in message ...
Bob wrote:
Caleb, I'm seeing more and more reputation of the idea that skipping
breakfast is necessarily bad for you. I'm now highly suspect of
anyone that claims that, or that 3 squares are necessary or that
starvation mode is a bad thing. Most of these people will go to
their graves knowing what ain't so.

What's your idea on a likely diet/fasting schedule that will maximize
longevity?


Caleb's history for the past several years in the diet groups is to
crash diet for the 100 days preceding Thanksgiving every year to take
off 40 or 50 pounds then gain the weight back the rest of the year and
crash diet again for 100 days. He's been know to subsist on diets
of cup'o noodles and cabbage soup to do this, so I wouldn't put any
great stock in his nutritional advice for longevity or weight loss.

  #9  
Old June 30th, 2004, 09:05 AM
Kalepa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Jamie -- Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research

Bob -- I don't know the parameters of the days on eating and off
eating. I wrote to Mattson several days ago asking him what the
research shows about three day and six day intervals but I have not
heard back. I'll post it here when I hear his results.

But this is all very interesting, and certainly it goes along with his
observation that many years ago, the human race had to survive with
long intervals between meals. I don't mind long intervals between
meals. It's the immediacy of food that gets to me, and -- I'd venture
to say -- to a heck of a lot of people.

Yours,

Caleb

Bob wrote in message . ..
Caleb, I'm seeing more and more reputation of the idea that skipping
breakfast is necessarily bad for you. I'm now highly suspect of
anyone that claims that, or that 3 squares are necessary or that
starvation mode is a bad thing. Most of these people will go to
their graves knowing what ain't so.

What's your idea on a likely diet/fasting schedule that will maximize
longevity?


Bob


On 26 Jun 2004 23:16:45 -0700, (Kalepa) wrote:

Bob -- I agree with your views. Important too is throwing off the
oppression of the toxic advice given by people who give advice that is
without any good scientific foundation.

Agreement among nutritionists on this particular matter is almost
worthless, I think. (They encourage three squares a day, plus snacks,
etc.)

While they certainly know a lot about different things (and a heck of
a lot more than I do about food-related biology -- I'm a psychologist,
not a physiologist, nutritionist, nurse, etc.), a lot of what "they
know just ain't so." (You may remember that Mondale in his 84 election
campaign said, "It's not what we don't know that's going to harm us.
It's what we know that just ain't so!"

I too would like to look into the future on this one.

Yours,

Caleb




Bob wrote in message . ..
Caleb, you are correct. I have no doubt that the fasting will
produce the greatest results for both weight loss and longevity.

And with that, there will be an increase in health and happiness
for those who fast.

I'm anxious for the results though and wish I could see into the
future as to just how much fasting and how many calories per 'week'
produces the best results. I know we can't say say 'calories per day'
with this diet because there will be approximately 0 calories on the
fasting days.

Some have started this diet already and expect to live to be 120 and
in relatively good health for the duration.

Bob

 




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
Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research Caleb Burns Low Calorie 1 June 23rd, 2004 11:33 PM
Federal diet guidelines to purée low-carb craze tcomeau Low Carbohydrate Diets 8 May 28th, 2004 10:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:36 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.