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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
FOB wrote:
I have decreased intake but not increased expenditure and I have lost 49.5 pounds. While I agree that exercise is a good thing, it is not a necessary thing. Probably "not necessary" in terms of getting your number, but people, physical problems notwithstanding, are designed to be somewhat active, and it is very healthy and invigorating to incorporate some form of exercise into one's lifestyle. JMO -- The post you just read, unless otherwise noted, is strictly my opinion and experience. Please interpret accordingly. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Rubystars wrote:
Sorry. This is simply not true. I think some people have more of a natural tendency than others. This can be seen in families who don't have bad eating habits but still nearly every member of the family is big, even the young children. My sister had a friend whose family was like that. They were all huge (not fat, huge), the difference being ... ? even though they were all trying very hard. Yes we all believe that. I'm sure they were stuffing their faces very hard with cheeseburgers. It could have been a gland problem that ran in the family, etc. They said the doctor had said they had thyroid issues. Foods have known caloric values. Various forms of exercise and activity burn up fairly well known amounts of calories. Yes, if people take the effort and time to learn all that (often contradictory) information, to sift the truth out, then they can make an eating/exercise plan that will work for them. What is contradictory about the caloric values of differents foods and the caloric needs of various forms of exercise ? You are making excuses again. It's not really complicated: you need to get off your ass and go exercise. Metabolism is NOT a constant for any individual: if you exercise more and are otherwise more active, you burn more calories. If you burn more calories than you take in, you lose weight. It's a medical and logical NECESSITY. That's true. People can increase their metabolism, or decrease it, but I think some people have a higher natural metabolism than other people, and so there is a different range available for different people. You missed the point entirely. Energy does not come out of nowhere. What some of you fat people don't realize, is that the only thing to understand about diets is the need to establish a negative caloric balance. They may not even know they have a problem with portion control until they get really big, and then they're bombarded with different people trying to take their money away to fix the overweight problem, without fixing the issue that caused it. They may never learn what a regular sized portion is unless they take the time to find out that specific information. It's extremely easy to gain weight, and it's difficult to lose it. It takes no effort at all to gain, it can take monumental effort to lose. So they spend their money and time on a bunch of fad diets and just get bigger and bigger and in the mean time they never really learn how much they should eat, etc. Please explain your logic: going on a diet makes you fat. I've seen this kind of fat logic everywhere on this newsgroup, and also on the big fat blog. I am puzzled by it everytime. Yes, burning more calories than you consume sounds pretty easy, doesn't it? It's not. In order to do that you have to know how much you can eat, how many calories you can eat and still lose, what are good types of exercise (walking, for example). Any exercise is good enough for you, although at 130kgs, you might want to prefer walking to running. Some people cut their food intake, but not enough, or are eating smaller portions of high calorie foods, and they are frustrated because they're unsatisified with the portions they eat but still gain weight. Of course diets are frustrating, nobody ever said the contrary. Fat people seem to think that if a diet is frustrating, then it won't work/ isn't working. You know, some people with more willpower than you are able to follow the diet and succesfully lose weight with it. I mean, let's say someone ate 2 patio burritos for lunch every day, heated up in the microwave with melted cheese over it. They cut it down to one burrito. They still might not lose weight or stop gaining because it may not be enough of a drop in calories/fat intake to help them. Here, fat logic at work again: going on a diet won't make me shed 50kgs in a week, so I might as well stay fat, because the effort isn't worth it. I have news for you: diets are a long term effort. Actually, they are lifetime efforts. To lose weight and keep it off, you have to change your eating habits permanently. The caloric intake and the caloric expenditure are highly variable, and people who cut their caloric intake but don't lose weight NECESSARILY are still consuming more in calories than they burn. Yes that's true! It's just that it takes effort and research to find out how many calories you can consume, what kinds of foods are more bulky but lower in fat and calories, etc. It takes no effort at all to buy what tastes good and eat as much as you want to feel full. So people who don't have the knowledge base to work from are at a disadvantage. The internet can make it a lot easier, but in some ways it may make it more difficult, as there are also a lot of diet scams being promoted over the internet. Don't fall trap to the diet scams, but don't fall trap to fat logic too. You only need to remember one thing, and that's "calorie deficit". -- polar bear |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
FOB wrote:
I have decreased intake but not increased expenditure and I have lost 49.5 pounds. While I agree that exercise is a good thing, it is not a necessary thing. Right; it isn't. It definitely helps. I don't know if increasing expenditure is naturally a little easier than reducing intake, or not. Intuitively, it seems to me that it should be, as there obviously are some, maybe most, morbidly obese people who get no exercise at all, while, as Rubystars points out, they may need to acquire some additional knowledge about which things might to best effect be reduced. In link.net, Jonathan Ball stated | | I've taken differences in resting metabolism into | account already; that's why *everything* I've written | in this thread talks about increases in exercise. | | If you cut your caloric intake to something less than | your caloric expenditure, which probably requires an | increase in expenditure, you will lose weight. It's | medically and mathematically necessary. | |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Jonathan Ball wrote:
:: FOB wrote: :: ::: I have decreased intake but not increased expenditure and I have ::: lost 49.5 pounds. While I agree that exercise is a good thing, it ::: is not a necessary thing. :: :: Right; it isn't. It definitely helps. :: :: I don't know if increasing expenditure is naturally a :: little easier than reducing intake, or not. It sounds as if you have no experience with the matter. So why are you hawking? :: Intuitively, it seems to me that it should be, as there :: obviously are some, maybe most, morbidly obese people :: who get no exercise at all, while, as Rubystars points :: out, they may need to acquire some additional knowledge :: about which things might to best effect be reduced. Intuitively, for the very obese, it would be easier to NOT exercise and simply follow a LC woe. That way, appetite would diminish naturally and weight loss would likely follow easily. You clearly no little about weight loss. :: ::: ::: In link.net, ::: Jonathan Ball stated :::: :::: I've taken differences in resting metabolism into :::: account already; that's why *everything* I've written :::: in this thread talks about increases in exercise. :::: :::: If you cut your caloric intake to something less than :::: your caloric expenditure, which probably requires an :::: increase in expenditure, you will lose weight. It's :::: medically and mathematically necessary. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Dawn Taylor wrote:
Stop trying -- he has no interest in facts. He's a cross-posting troll trying to create another ASDLC/fat-acceptance/misc.consumers logjam. Dawn is correct; he is a known troll on other newsgroups I've frequented. I already had him killfiled from elsewhere... and I do not killfile easily. He's a known troll and his posts are a serious waste of electrons. -- As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value. Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets. -- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Roger Zoul, bonehead ordinaire, bull****ted:
Jonathan Ball wrote: :: FOB wrote: :: ::: I have decreased intake but not increased expenditure and I have ::: lost 49.5 pounds. While I agree that exercise is a good thing, it ::: is not a necessary thing. :: :: Right; it isn't. It definitely helps. :: :: I don't know if increasing expenditure is naturally a :: little easier than reducing intake, or not. It sounds as if you have no experience with the matter. It sounds as if you don't know your ass from your face. I don't have any direct experience because I have never been overweight. One needn't have been overweight in order to know something useful about the topic. So why are you hawking? Because I'm right. :: Intuitively, it seems to me that it should be, as there :: obviously are some, maybe most, morbidly obese people :: who get no exercise at all, while, as Rubystars points :: out, they may need to acquire some additional knowledge :: about which things might to best effect be reduced. Intuitively, for the very obese, it would be easier to NOT exercise and simply follow a LC woe. No one is talking about what it is "intuitive" to DO, you blockhead. That way, appetite would diminish naturally and weight loss would likely follow easily. You clearly no [SIC] little about weight loss. I clearly *know* - not 'no', blockhead - plenty about it. :: ::: ::: In link.net, ::: Jonathan Ball stated :::: :::: I've taken differences in resting metabolism into :::: account already; that's why *everything* I've written :::: in this thread talks about increases in exercise. :::: :::: If you cut your caloric intake to something less than :::: your caloric expenditure, which probably requires an :::: increase in expenditure, you will lose weight. It's :::: medically and mathematically necessary. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Fat Kills (was: Oh, brother (I roll my eyes))
Fat cells actively breed disease
By Daniel Q. Haney Associated Press Research into the biology of fat is turning up some surprising new insights about how obesity kills. The weight of the evidence: It's the toxic mischief of the flesh. Experts have realized for decades that large people die young, and the explanation long seemed obvious. Carrying around all those extra pounds must put a deadly strain on the heart and other organs. Obvious but wrong, it turns out. Although the physical burden contributes to arthritis and sleep apnea, among other things, it is a minor hazard compared with the complex and insidious damage wrought by the oily, yellowish globs of fat that cover human bodies like never before. A series of recent discoveries suggests that all fat-storage cells churn out a stew of hormones and other chemical messengers that fine-tune the body's energy balance. But when spewed in vast amounts by cells swollen to capacity with fat, they assault many organs in ways that are bad for health. The exact details still are being worked out, but scientists say there is no doubt this flux of biological cross talk hastens death from heart disease, strokes, diabetes and cancer, diseases that are especially common among the obese. ``When we look at fat tissue now, we see it's not just a passive depot of fat,'' said Dr. Rudolph Leibel of Columbia University. ``It's an active manufacturer of signals to other parts of the body.'' The first real inkling that fat is more than just inert was the discovery 10 years ago of the substance leptin. Scientists were amazed to find that this static-looking flesh helps maintain itself by producing a chemical that regulates appetite. Roughly 25 different signaling compounds -- with names like resistin and adiponectin -- are now known to be made by fat cells, Leibel estimates, and many more undoubtedly will be found. ``There is an explosion of information about just what it is and what it does,'' Dr. Allen Spiegel, director of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, says of fat. ``It is a tremendously dynamic organ.'' Fat tissue is now recognized to be the body's biggest endocrine organ, and its sheer volume is impressive even in normal-sized people. A trim woman is typically 30 percent fat, a man 15 percent. That is enough fuel to keep someone alive without eating for three months. By far, the biggest single threat of obesity is heart disease. Someone with a body mass index over 30 has triple the usual risk. The American Cancer Society estimates that staying trim could eliminate 90,000 U.S. cancer deaths a year. Among the varieties most clearly linked to weight are cancer of the breast, uterus, colon, kidney, esophagus, pancreas and gallbladder. (In the San Jose Mercury-New, http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...8638237.htm?1c) |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Fat Kills (was: Oh, brother (I roll my eyes))
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/st...200549,00.html
Jonathan Ball wrote: :: Fat cells actively breed disease :: :: By Daniel Q. Haney :: :: Associated Press :: :: Research into the biology of fat is turning up some :: surprising new insights about how obesity kills. The :: weight of the evidence: It's the toxic mischief of the :: flesh. :: :: Experts have realized for decades that large people die :: young, and the explanation long seemed obvious. :: Carrying around all those extra pounds must put a :: deadly strain on the heart and other organs. :: :: Obvious but wrong, it turns out. Although the physical :: burden contributes to arthritis and sleep apnea, among :: other things, it is a minor hazard compared with the :: complex and insidious damage wrought by the oily, :: yellowish globs of fat that cover human bodies like :: never before. :: :: A series of recent discoveries suggests that all :: fat-storage cells churn out a stew of hormones and :: other chemical messengers that fine-tune the body's :: energy balance. But when spewed in vast amounts by :: cells swollen to capacity with fat, they assault many :: organs in ways that are bad for health. :: :: The exact details still are being worked out, but :: scientists say there is no doubt this flux of :: biological cross talk hastens death from heart disease, :: strokes, diabetes and cancer, diseases that are :: especially common among the obese. :: :: ``When we look at fat tissue now, we see it's not just :: a passive depot of fat,'' said Dr. Rudolph Leibel of :: Columbia University. ``It's an active manufacturer of :: signals to other parts of the body.'' :: :: The first real inkling that fat is more than just inert :: was the discovery 10 years ago of the substance leptin. :: Scientists were amazed to find that this static-looking :: flesh helps maintain itself by producing a chemical :: that regulates appetite. :: :: Roughly 25 different signaling compounds -- with names :: like resistin and adiponectin -- are now known to be :: made by fat cells, Leibel estimates, and many more :: undoubtedly will be found. :: :: ``There is an explosion of information about just what :: it is and what it does,'' Dr. Allen Spiegel, director :: of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and :: Kidney Diseases, says of fat. ``It is a tremendously :: dynamic organ.'' :: :: Fat tissue is now recognized to be the body's biggest :: endocrine organ, and its sheer volume is impressive :: even in normal-sized people. A trim woman is typically :: 30 percent fat, a man 15 percent. That is enough fuel :: to keep someone alive without eating for three months. :: :: By far, the biggest single threat of obesity is heart :: disease. Someone with a body mass index over 30 has :: triple the usual risk. :: :: The American Cancer Society estimates that staying trim :: could eliminate 90,000 U.S. cancer deaths a year. Among :: the varieties most clearly linked to weight are cancer :: of the breast, uterus, colon, kidney, esophagus, :: pancreas and gallbladder. :: :: (In the San Jose Mercury-New, :: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...8638237.htm?1c) |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"Eva Whitley" wrote ...
The morons at PETA have rolled out Veg Eye for the Fat Guy (he http://goveg.com/feat/vegeye2/ ) targeting Ruben Studdard, Luciano Pavarotti, Michael Moore, John Goodman, and John Madden. If I was one of their celebrity 'targets' I'd be high POd. Hopefully they'll get some very public "fark off" messages. -- Rachel (New Zealand) |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Hello Gooseride!
I would say that millions of concentration camp victims and starving Ethiopians say you're full of beans. I guarantee you that if ANYONE goes into caloric deficit they will lose weight. Basic thermodynamics. What you're claiming defies the laws of physics, and of common sense. Yes, people lose weight with a diet which eliminates high GI foods. But people also lose weight by eating lots of pasta and exercising intensely. People also lose weight by achieving a state of caloric deficit. In basic thermo terms you are completely correct! Unfortunately, though, the human body is considerably more complex than you are giving it credit for. This also completely disregards the human brain/personality factor. It has been my typical experience, as with most nutritional professionals, that cleaning up a persons diet thru education about refined foods instead of just looking at caloric intact is dramatically more effective? Also, since the body metabolizes foods differently depending on its current state, caloric intake from a "blood glucose" standpoint is drastically different. Don't believe me?? Well, let me first put it in a simple context for you... How much broccoli would it take to constitute the caloric intake of 1 8oz soft drink? (ie. approx. 230 kcal) Well, it is over 5 cups!! Eating 5 cups of broccoli in one sitting would be extremely difficult for any one person to take. Telling someone, though, to drink no more than 1/2 can of soft drinks a day, would be very difficult for the individual to sustain long-term! Starting to see my point now? :-) OK.. Now lets get a little more technical and explore why the human body is much more complex than most people ever realize…. To address how the body metabolizes different types of foods, lets look at the way the body processes carbohydrates, proteins, and fats. Unless placed in a ketosis state, the body certainly is not going to break down the fats for blood glucose conversion during a normal digestion state. In addition, protein is even more difficult for the body to convert to glucose as it provides very little in conversion. So what is going to happen when you eat a pretty well balanced meal?? Well, unless your glycogen levels are low in the liver, (ie. Your bodies natural carb backup storage) the body will absorb the carb source as glucose and then raise to an anabolic state with the protein source. (ie. blood PH shift from amino acid absorption). I will leave the fat out from this example only because it serves a slightly different purpose to the bodies needs. Cool the way the body works isn't it?? This is why looking just at calories alone is almost useless. One should use caloric intake for reference, but looking at the food ratios are much more important. By the way, how do you think body builders are about to obtain 10% BF numbers while on a diet of 3500 calories? If they simply reduced calories, then their body would just because leaner overall by breaking down their muscles first and leaving the BF as is! Having a clear understanding of anabolic/catabolic blood states is critical for a person to understand if you are ever looking to develop any kind of muscle tone and definition... Jim Carver "Gooserider" wrote in message om... "Jim Carver" wrote in message om... Hello Doug! Sorry for the long email in advance. I just wanted to provide information for you just in case you might find it helpful... I tried a vegetarian diet for a couple of months before starting low-cal. I *gained* weight. It's easy to gain weight on a vegetarian diet - especially a lacto-vegetarian diet. This is great that you are trying a new diet! Especially a low-cal vegetarian diet, which I would think would be exceptionally difficult to stomach. It shows that you really trying!! Now, I don't really know if you want the information, but there is a very easy explanation as to why you gained weight. Let me explain... What if I was to tell you that for most people, reducing their caloric intake would have ZERO impact on them loosing weight? I would say that millions of concentration camp victims and starving Ethiopians say you're full of beans. I guarantee you that if ANYONE goes into caloric deficit they will lose weight. Basic thermodynamics. What you're claiming defies the laws of physics, and of common sense. Yes, people lose weight with a diet which eliminates high GI foods. But people also lose weight by eating lots of pasta and exercising intensely. People also lose weight by achieving a state of caloric deficit. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
secret EXHIBITION PICs Big Brother 2985 | [email protected] | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | April 27th, 2004 10:36 PM |
Ham~n~Cheese Omelet Roll | Beemie | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | December 23rd, 2003 02:31 PM |
Decent hamburger roll | Lee B | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | November 25th, 2003 03:01 PM |
Huge Radio Roll Out...for CORTISLIM -- any experience with it ? | Morehits4u | General Discussion | 3 | November 23rd, 2003 06:35 PM |
Dry and red eyes -- suggestions? | Kramer | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 7 | October 18th, 2003 01:14 PM |