Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)

Hello Again Gooserider!

Of course. It doesn't matter if the calories consumed are from ice cream or
brussels sprouts. If one consumes more calories than one's body needs,
weight gain occurs. That's why I laugh at people who claim to "not eat much"
but are still morbidly obese. A 300 pound person needs to eat 3000 cals/day
just to maintain.

Sorry to tell you this, but you are wrong on this note also.
Maintenance level caloric intake can only be calculated by LBM (ie.
(Total Weight - Fat Weight) = Lean Body Mass ) numbers.

Think about it this way.. How much energy does fat need to sustain
itself??? Basically little to none as it is just chains of molecules
anyway... Also, the human organs are also exceptionally efficient so
they take very little energy! Your skeletal muscles absorb most of
the bodies glucose. This is the reason high weight strength
exercising is so effective!!

Jim Carver


"Gooserider" wrote in message om...
"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...
On 5/10/04 2:53 PM, in article er,
"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.

Earth to PETA: it is possible to be fat and vegetarian. Don't they know
any fat guy vegetarians? I could introduce them to some...

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.

Of course. It doesn't matter if the calories consumed are from ice cream or
brussels sprouts. If one consumes more calories than one's body needs,
weight gain occurs. That's why I laugh at people who claim to "not eat much"
but are still morbidly obese. A 300 pound person needs to eat 3000 cals/day
just to maintain.

"FOB" wrote in message
. ..
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.

My mom lost a lot of weight without much exercise by cutting calories and
she's over 50. Still, she's not getting other benefits that would come with
exercise, such as better cardiovascular health, more energy, etc.

For most people though I think it takes both diet and exercise.

-Rubystars

Hello Rubystars!

Add to this the contradictory claims made by various "Experts" on what
should be eaten, how much, and when, and it can be extremely hard to figure
it all out.

I agree. It has been my experience that even 60% of doctors have a
very low understanding of how the body uses various foods. I think I
am qualified to say this as I have two brothers that are both
surgeons. (ie. I decided to go a nutrition route instead!!)
Interestinly enought, most of the quality knowledge on dieting and
nutrition was developed by nutrtionists and body builders over the
last 30 years and not by doctors.

Let me know if you are interested in learn more about how the body
actually uses the different types of foods you eat, and I will answer
any questions you have! No distortion and no diet crap biasing...
Just straight nutrition facts... Please do not think it is that
difficult. It really is not that hard to understand once you learn a
few concepts about body process mechanisms.

Jim Carver


"Rubystars" wrote in message om...
"Gooserider" wrote in message
m...

"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...
On 5/10/04 2:53 PM, in article
er,
"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.

Earth to PETA: it is possible to be fat and vegetarian. Don't they
know
any fat guy vegetarians? I could introduce them to some...

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.

Of course. It doesn't matter if the calories consumed are from ice cream
or
brussels sprouts. If one consumes more calories than one's body needs,
weight gain occurs. That's why I laugh at people who claim to "not eat
much"
but are still morbidly obese. A 300 pound person needs to eat 3000
cals/day
just to maintain.

You shouldn't laugh at them! There are reasons why a 300 lb person might not
eat much but still maintain or even gain weight.

They could have metabolic problems that cause them to gain even if they eat
like a normal person. Some people have a genetic disposition toward being
fat that's hard to get past. Also some people don't have any natural
mechanisms to help them know what a portion size looks like, so they have to
actually learn it before they can control their intake.

Besides, a lot of people who are big do cut down their intake of food a lot
in order to try to be healthier, and it doesn't always work. The people I
see buying low calorie food, fat free food, etc. are usually fat people. I
went through a phase where I was trying that "Stop the Insanity" diet where
you can eat a normal amount of food but everything had to be lower than 20%
of calories from fat. I wasn't eating a lot but I didn't lose much weight at
all.

Add to this the contradictory claims made by various "Experts" on what
should be eaten, how much, and when, and it can be extremely hard to figure
it all out.

Besides, food is only part of the picture. They need to exercise too. If
they tried exercising, they'd burn more calories no matter how much they
ate.

-Rubystars

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
link.net...
Rubystars wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Rubystars wrote:


"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
arthlink.net...


They could have metabolic problems that cause them to gain even if
they
eat like a normal person. Some people have a genetic disposition
toward
being fat that's hard to get past.

Sorry. This is simply not true.


I think some people have more of a natural tendency than others.

I don't doubt that two people can have very different
*resting* metabolisms. That isn't what we're talking
about, or at least shouldn't be.


It can be the resting metabolism that makes all the difference, when the
vast majority of Americans don't do regular exercise.

IF an obese person wants to lose weight, the person
MUST figure out what the caloric count of various
possible meals is, and figure out what the caloric
expenditure of various forms and durations of exercise
is. It's that simple.

I believe I have a fairly high resting metabolism. I
have always eaten rather large meal portions, have
gotten less exercise as I've gotten older (but still
VASTLY more than the typical American), and I don't
gain weight. Without even NEEDING to investigate
portion size, however, my portions have gone down. I
had an easily intuitive sense that they needed to go
down as my level of exercise declined somewhat, and I
find I feel physically full on far less food than
before. I read no diet books, received no special
medical advice, was not the subject of any harangues in
order to do this. It just happened.

You're extremely lucky to be able to know when to stop eating without having
to force yourself, you're extremely lucky to never have had to deal with the
physical pain and exhaustion and emotional issues of being overweight. Not
everyone is so lucky, many people have to learn these things, as they don't
come naturally to them.

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), even
though
they were all trying very hard. It could have been a gland problem that
ran
in the family, etc.

It's conceivable that some ONE person might have a
hormonal issue. That can't possibly explain the
terrible incidence of severe, morbid obesity in the
U.S. versus, say, continental Europe. The Germans are
pretty stout people, but you simply don't see those
extremely obese people there that you see in the
American "heartland".


Yeah, I think most people are big for lifestyle reasons, and nothing
else,
but my point originally was that it's not necessarily a lie when someone
says that they're eating a small amount and still gaining or maintaining
a
large weight.

It isn't necessarily a lie,

Which was my point. When I see someone who is massive, like say, 500 lbs. or
more, I don't automatically assume that they're sitting at home stuffing
their face all day. More likely than not, they're desperately trying to lose
weight and have been for a long time. There are some people who do get to
those weights just by lifestyle choices, but I've met several huge people
like that, that I know for a fact are really trying hard but not having much
luck without a doctor's assistance.

but it's MOST LIKELY
untrue.

Considering the odds, you're right, but I would rather give someone the
benefit of the doubt when they say they have a health issue.

It might be untrue because they're lying, or
it might be untrue because (as you've suggested) they
don't really know what a "small amount" is.

Exactly.

MY point
is that very few morbidly obese people have some
medical abnormality that causes the obesity.


Snip

There is nothing contradictory in the notion that
adding 20-30 minutes of vigorous physical exercise to
your daily routine, and cutting your caloric intake by
15-20%, will make you lose weight.


That's very specific information. How much BS did you have to sift
through
to find it?

ZERO. It's common sense.

Common sense to you. Common sense to me. But you have to remember that
common sense isn't so common, and those infomercials are very appealing.
They say you can eat what you want, not exercise, and look like a
supermodel. Who wouldn't give that one a try for $19.95 - $70.00 if they
really thought it might work? They see those testimonials on tv, the
dramatic "before and after" photos, and they want that too. They want to do
good for themselves, it's just confusing so much of the time.

Now you've got all these people on Atkins, destroying their health, over a
similar fad. Not that some of the low carb stuff isn't helpful, some of the
"Reduced carb" items in the store, are also lower in calories now, just as
some of the "low fat" stuff in the 90s was lower in calories.


If I had total control of a morbidly obese person's
life for one month, that person would lose 5-8 pounds
with ease, possibly more with a little bona fide sweat.

But you can't control other people. They have to seek help and some have had
bad experiences with doctors, so they dont necessarily trust doctors
anymore.

There are doctors that treat fat patients as if they shouldn't even bother
going to the doctor and/or find ways to cut them down rather than offering
advice. Most doctors I'm sure aren't like that, but there are bad apples out
there, and one bad experience can scare people away from conventional
medicine for good, and so they end up turning to quacks and wackjobs like
reflexologists.


There's a diet plan being advertized on tv right now that's
called the "Body Makeover" or something similar, where people take
photos of
themselves, mark on them with markers to indicate where they want to
change,
and then do a miniscule amount of exercise every day (much less than
20-30
minutes). The more reliable information I've come across indicates that
the
claims of that infomercial are bogus, you can't spot-reduce fat, you can
only tone muscle groups in certain areas. The infomercial decleares "Eat
more!" (as if that's really something an overeater needs to do anyway!)
and
"Exercise less!" (that's really a bad message to send, especially for
long
term health).

How is someone supposed to know that commercial is bogus though? Most
people
aren't exactly biology majors. You can say 20-30 minutes and cut
calories,
but then someone else is telling them something completely opposite to
that.

Who?! Who is saying that reducing your food intake
somewhat, and increasing your exercise by 20-30 minutes
a day, WON'T result in weight loss? I mean, who other
than some moronic "fat acceptance" wackos?

All the infomercials tell them they can eat more and exercise less, or,
alternatively, eat as much as they want, and not exercise at all. Fat
acceptance doesn't help either, it puts out bogus information trying to
claim that fat isn't really unhealthy (even though it's a killer).

So how is the average person supposed to distinguish who is lying and
who's
telling the truth, especially when the lie is so much more appealing?

Look, life is FULL of little instances of proving "if
it sounds too good to be true, it undoubtedly isn't" to
be true. I'm sure a lot of morbidly obese people can
think of quite a lot of instances where they've said it
themselves, to someone else over a different issue.

Yes, but people still fall for scams, and for someone who hasn't developed a
skeptical nature, they can be easy marks or victims of the diet industry.

It also is absurd to suggest that morbidly obese people
aren't aware of the issue. EVERYONE is aware of it,
and of the basic commonsense that must be internalized:
reduce caloric intake, increase caloric expenditure,
lose weight. It really is that simple. Morbid obesity
is SOLELY a function of behavior, not family tendencies.


I think that in some people it is family genetics alone,

Virtually never.

or both in
combination. In the vast majority of overweight people though (most, not
all) you're right.

snip

They may not even know they have a problem with portion control until

they

get really big,

Come on, now. They know they have SOME kind of problem
when their clothes stop fitting them and their friends
begin needling them about packing on a lot of weight.


They know they have a *weight* problem, they may not necessarily know
they
have a portion control problem.

It's no big mystery. Weight gain is directly and
obviously tied to food intake. What determines food
intake? Number of meals times size of portions:

M x P

Now, they KNOW they aren't increasing M to, say, 8
meals per day. Therefore, it's mostly an increase in P
(although the old bugaboo "between-meal snacks" must be
considered.)

Yup.

They may think that eating a huge portion of
potatoes will help them lose weight instead of eating a huge portion of
steak, because potatoes are lower in fat.

Thinking in terms of huge portions is a mistake right
off the line.

Yes I know.

They may think eating a box of
sugary Snack Wells cookies will help them lose weight instead of eating
a
package of chips a hoy. Some of these changes might help a little, but
they
don't address the issue of portion control.


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.

That information is readily available. One must WANT
to find it and learn from it.


And search for it until they find it, and then sift through BS.

In this age of the internet, and frequent news stories
about an obesity "epidemic", one need search neither
long nor hard. It's right there under their noses, or
at least it would be if a quarter-pounder-with-cheese
weren't already there.

So is all the other crap information.

When you
have infomercials constantly telling people "Eat all you want! and lose
10
lbs. in 5 days!" it can be confusing for people.

I automatically assume that all infomercials for health
care or health-related products - baldness cures,
flatulence, impotence - are bull****.

I assume that too, but the commercials wouldn't keep running if there
weren't a large (pun intended) gullible public out to buy the products.



It's extremely easy to gain weight, and it's difficult to lose it.

It sure is. I just read something about the
documentary "Super Size Me"
(http://www.supersizeme.com/) The guy ate nothing but
McDonald's food for a month in order to make the film,
and his rule was that if the counterperson ever asked
him did he want to "supersize" something, he had to do
it. He gained 25 pounds in ONE MONTH! It took him six
months of supervised weight loss to lose 20 pounds, and
another NINE MONTHS to lose the final five pounds.


Yeah, it's frustrating.


The asymmetry between the ease of weight gain and the
difficulty of weight loss is NOT a legitimate excuse,
however, although lots of seriously obese people try to
use it as one. Also, the asymmetry is not some
craftily concealed fact that someone "doesn't want you
to know". It's very well known.


I'm not saying it's a legit excuse (it's not),

But lots of obese people USE it as one. I'll bet Dawn
Taylor does.

It's not a legit excuse though.

just saying it's a lot easier
to talk about losing weight than to actually do it.

It's a lot easier for me to talk about training to hike
up Mt. Whitney in August than actually to get outside
and DO some training, too, but realizing that all the
blather in the world in May won't help me a g.d. bit in
August, I went out and did a monster, "beastly" hike
last Saturday:
http://www.localhikes.com/Hikes/Bade...Islip_4472.asp.
It was damned hard even to get out there, too,
because the night before a friend in a lousy marriage
wanted to get together for a couple of drinks and I had
a bit too much to drink and only about 4 hours of
sleep, and felt hung-over as hell Saturday morning, but
I *did* the hike. No one was going to do it for me.

Congrats!

That's one reason I
think people are so big in the U.S.

People are so big in the U.S. because our culture
grotesquely values quantity over quality. That doesn't
mean people must accept the prevailing cultural
message. I rejected it in adult life, after growing up
believing that more and bigger was almost always better.

Good for you!

Not only are we constantly bombarded
with food ads (heck, I can't watch the news without commercials telling
me
about the wonders of Domino's Pizza, Taco Bell, Golden Corral, Hartz
Chicken
Buffet, etc.) that can trigger cravings, but there's a double whammy
with
all the distorted, wrong, and dangerous diet information being pushed in
people's faces.

There's a dangerous passivity in your writing,
bordering on sounding as if you see yourself as a
witless dupe: "are constantly bombarded", for example.
Turn the goddamned television OFF!

I dont' have a problem with these things most of the time anymore, but I
know other people do. That's why I may sound passive about a lot of this.
Sit down and watch tv for an hour during prime time and count all the fast
food commercials you see. It's crazy. It can trigger eating if people
haven't conditioned themselves not to let that happen.

Better, get RID
of the thing, or at least get a small one that doesn't
make parking yourself on the sofa in front of it seem
like such a great thing; a little 14" TV will do just
fine to have a look at the news/sports/weather, which
is about all that's worth looking at on TV anyway, and
not even much of that.

lol

snip
Not much effort required. *I* know it, and I don't
even have a weight problem. That's another way of
saying there's no good reason FOR me to know it, yet I
do. For those who DO have ample reason to know it,
there's no excuse NOT to know it.

The blame is on their shoulders. Ignorance is not an excuse. With that said
though, it's not always so easy to sift the good information from the bad.
Even otherwise legit doctors will sometimes refer a patient to a
chiropractor, for example.

snip
No. The weight for "morbid obesity" is going to vary
by height and other physical characteristics, but let's
say we're talking about a 6' tall American male who
ought to weigh about 185 lb. and in fact weighs 260 lb.
It is absurdly easy to lose 3 pounds a month, if one
wants to do so; one could probably safely lose 5 with a
bit more effort, but we'll go with 3. It would take
the person just slightly more than 2 years at that rate
to get down to his target weight.

Cool.

It's hard to make a change significant enough to see the results within
a
reasonable time.

Two years of modest but steady weight loss seems pretty
reasonable. That doesn't even allow for the fact that
one could increase the loss for a couple of scattered
months, say to 5-7 pounds.

Yeah.

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).

All of that information is readily available.


So is a lot of BS.

The good stuff is readily available, and should leap
out at anyone who goes into it knowing there are no
silver bullets.

That's something that's hard to sacrifice for a lot of people. God knows we
all wish we could just pop a pill every morning and not have to worry about
any of this hard work stuff. I know that's never going to be reality though.

snip
Easy to say, you know what you're talking about. The "Food pyramid"
tells
people to get 2 servings of dairy, so some people think cheese like that
is
part of a balanced diet.

I don't have a weight problem, yet *I* know that the
recommendation for dairy means non- or low-fat milk
products. NOT cheese, not ice cream.

When they taught us about nutrition in school, they told us that cheese and
ice cream were in the dairy group. Too bad they didn't explain the low fat
part.

snip
I agree that everyone

ESPECIALLY those with an obesity problem...

Yes.

should *make time* for exercise. It's probably the
most important thing out of any of this.


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

Very, very little. If a person can't find that out in
half an hour or less, s/he just doesn't want to know.


That's not really fair. They're given a large amount of information,
most of
it untrue.

I'm not buying that. What you're doing is providing
excuses for people not to act.

No excuses here, just explanations as to why so many people haven't acted
yet. People are responsible for their own outcomes, and for doign their own
research. They don't have anyone to blame but themselves, in most cases.
With that said there are many people who want to make a buck off of
un-skeptical people by selling them a miracle drug or diet that just ends up
making people fatter.

I would bet money on the hunch that people even offer
"reflexology" for weight loss.

That idiot Irish whore Lesley ("pearl") for one...

Why do you call her a whore?

In 2-3 hours of research, you should have enough
information to last a LIFETIME. Since we're talking
about something that has virtually an incalculable
effect on quality of life AND duration of life, that
seems like a pittance of time.


You're assuming 2-3 hours of productive research.

No, total. That's more than enough for someone to sort
out the good stuff from the crap.

If they know how to think critically.

You're not counting the
time spent looking at hypnotist sites, trying various diets from tv,
etc.

"Trying diets" doesn't count as research.

After a couple fo them it helped me learn they don't work.

-Rubystars

"polar bear" wrote in message
...
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 ... ?

The difference between 200 lbs and close to 400 lbs.

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.

Nope, they all ate healthy stuff every night. Vegetables, chicken breast,
etc.

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.

Not making excuses for people. I'm already losing weight by "getting off my
ass" and exercising. I've lost 13 lbs. I was talking about other people who
are getting a lot of contradictory information thrown their way that isn't
necessarily a snap to recognize what is truthful and what is not.


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.

I think that's the most important aspect of a successful diet, yes.

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.

Going on a diet makes you fat if it's not a permanent lifestyle change, but
instead is a temporary starvation program to get people down to a goal and
then to go off the diet. When people rebound, they tend to get fatter than
they were before. Some people have yo yoed like that several times.
Thankfully, I only got down to my goal weight once. I'm going slow this
time, making it a lifestyle change, which is much healthier and much more
likely to succeed long term.

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.

I'm not sure how many lbs. 130 kgs is, so I'm not sure if you guessed close
or not. I'm walking right now and that helps a lot (and it's fun too).

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 was able to successfully lose weight on diets, the problem is keeping it
off. That's why it's much better to make a lifestyle change (for life) than
to go on a temporary "diet."

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.

That's not what I said at all. I was giving an example of when someone tries
to control portions but doesn't know what a normal meal should be in terms
of calories they may not enough calories to lose weight, to create a
"calorie deficit."

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.

Yes that's exactly right!


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".

You're right.

-Rubystars

"Jim Carver" wrote in message
om...
Hello Rubystars!

Add to this the contradictory claims made by various "Experts" on what
should be eaten, how much, and when, and it can be extremely hard to
figure
it all out.

I agree. It has been my experience that even 60% of doctors have a
very low understanding of how the body uses various foods. I think I
am qualified to say this as I have two brothers that are both
surgeons. (ie. I decided to go a nutrition route instead!!)
Interestinly enought, most of the quality knowledge on dieting and
nutrition was developed by nutrtionists and body builders over the
last 30 years and not by doctors.

Let me know if you are interested in learn more about how the body
actually uses the different types of foods you eat, and I will answer
any questions you have! No distortion and no diet crap biasing...
Just straight nutrition facts... Please do not think it is that
difficult. It really is not that hard to understand once you learn a
few concepts about body process mechanisms.

Jim Carver

Thanks. I've done a lot of my own research over the past several years (with
a very skeptical approach) and it's helped me to learn a lot, but I'm always
willing to learn more.

One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is
that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that
can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity?

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:

Now you've got all these people on Atkins, destroying their health, over a
similar fad.

[ Note for SSFA readers, this post, while making reference to Atkins, is not
about weight loss or promoting weight loss - It just hopefully clears up
ignorant misconceptions about Atkins]

That used to be my belief about Atkins until I read the book and read the
actual outline of the process (It's a process with various phases, not a
"diet" with a menu).

I used to think of it as the "bacon and eggs diet", too. With the slant the
media seems to love to put on it ("Eat all the luxurious cream, bacon,
grease you can handle and lose the weight") sure, I was thoroughly
convinced everyone was "destroying their health", too.

I fail to see how one could destroy their health by eating healthy proteins,
(I don't eat bacon, to me it's gross) increase their intake of leafy greens
like spinach and broccoli, more vegetables like green peppers, pumpkin,
kale, brussel sprouts, asparagus, and some fruits like blueberries,
strawberries (yes, you can eat fruit on a diet like Atkins!), healthier
unrefined fats like extra virgin olive oil, while *breaking* *addictions*
to unhealthy foods like potato chips, cookies, sugar and refined grains,
donuts, etc....

If carbohydrate addiction isn't a problem for you, then Atkins probably
would not work as a helper. This is not even a weight loss issue, I know
people who have started low-carbohydrate diets to control blood sugar, and
to weed out food allergies.

Atkins attacks specific problems, and certainly it is not for everyone. In
a way I do wish it were not a current "fad", because it's trendy to put
down "fads" even if they turn out to be the needle in the haystack. It
seems to be marketed as a "for everyone" diet much like Low-Fat was, when
it really is a specialty way of eating designed for something very
specific.

--
The post you just read, unless otherwise noted, is strictly my opinion
and experience. Please interpret accordingly.

Hello Rubystars!

One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is
that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that
can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity?

No. No food (ie. Assuming no stimulants are added) is able to "raise
your metabolic rate". The word metabolic rate is really an overused
phase as very few people really understand what it actually means.
This includes a fair amount of doctors, eventhough they should know
better... Let me explain exactly what a metabolic rate is:

What is a metabolic rate?

When trying to understand what a metabolic rate actually is, you have
to understand a critical nervous system process in your body called
the autonomic nervous system. (NOTE: Please do not think that this is
some complex "medical term", because the word "autonomic" just means
"auto", or that you cannot mentally control its function)

In simplest terms, your body is always trying to balance between
either digesting food, or providing energy output for physical/mental
performance. To manage these two processes, your body has created two
different nervous system networks called the "sympathetic" and
"parasympathetic" nervous systems. Basically, whenever you eat
something, the body realizes that it needs to focus on food digestion,
so the parasympathetic nervous system (ie. Digestion kicks in) takes
over and suppresses the sympathetic nervous system (ie. decreased
thinking/performance). This is what is known as suppressing your
metabolic rate. Whenever you need enhanced physical or mental
performance, such as while you are working out or are doing some
complex mental task, the sympathetic nervous system takes over and
suppresses the parasympathetic nervous system. This is what is known
as increasing your metabolic rate. I promise that that is it with the
boring technical jargon!! What is my point here??

During a time of food digestion, because your sympathetic system is
suppressed (ie. suppressed metabolic rate), your body will reduce your
heart rate, lower brain functions, and try to just focus on digestion.
On the other hand, though, when you workout in the gym, the body
realizes that it needs enhanced physical and mental performance, so it
suppresses your parasympathetic system, and basically stops any
digestion of food. This increased output is known as increasing your
metabolic rate. In an increased metabolic rate, you certainly will
burn my calories, but it comes at the cost of slowing food
digestion... See, not hard to understand after all is it?? :-)

For additional reading if you are interested in knowing more techical
"stuff"...

THE SYMPATHETIC NERVOUS SYSTEM
http://home.swipnet.se/sympatiska/nervous.htm



OK. Then why does all of these "products" on the market say that they
"raise your metabolic rate"??

To understand this, you have understand the concept what a stimulant
is (ie. Coffee/Ephedra/Green Leaf Tea). Stimulants are any substance
that forces your body to keep a raised sympathetic nervous system.
Have you ever found yourself wondering why when you drink your first
cup of coffee in the morning, you get that pumped up feeling and can
think that much better? This is due to you forcing an increased
sympathetic system response. (NOTE: Caffine is actually a very weak
stimulant. Some of the powerful stimulants in the "anphedamine class"
can keep you awake for 3/5 days at a time)

Sounds great doesnt it?? Well, the downside of this, though, is that
any food that you eat at this point will not digest very much until
caffeine levels start to come down. That kind of sucks, because your
body really needs to get some glucose at the very least so that your
blood sugar levels do not fall too low, and it starts having to use
energy reserves that are stored in the liver... Not good as you are
about to go into what is called a "catabolic state" where the body
starts to break down your muscles for nutrients.

(NOTE: You should keep in mind, though, that not all stimulants use
the same type of mechanisms to raise metabolic rate. Some ways are
more effective than others, which is why some stimulants work better
than others)



Next question I suspect you are wondering is: Why was ephedra banned,
as it was a powerful stimulant for raising metabolic rate??

Well, now that know how the sympathetic nervous system works you can
certainly get an idea of the problems that these types of substances
can cause on the body. In ephedra's case, what would happen is that
people would take large amounts of ephedra and then workout in the sun
during the hottest part of the day. Because their bodies were not
able to suppress their metabolic rate, once they started to overheat,
their body could do nothing to stop it. So, basically, you can say
they died of heat stroke.....

Helpful? Got any addition questions on this subject or something
else?

Jim Carver


"Rubystars" wrote in message om...
"Jim Carver" wrote in message
om...
Hello Rubystars!

Add to this the contradictory claims made by various "Experts" on what
should be eaten, how much, and when, and it can be extremely hard to
figure
it all out.

I agree. It has been my experience that even 60% of doctors have a
very low understanding of how the body uses various foods. I think I
am qualified to say this as I have two brothers that are both
surgeons. (ie. I decided to go a nutrition route instead!!)
Interestinly enought, most of the quality knowledge on dieting and
nutrition was developed by nutrtionists and body builders over the
last 30 years and not by doctors.

Let me know if you are interested in learn more about how the body
actually uses the different types of foods you eat, and I will answer
any questions you have! No distortion and no diet crap biasing...
Just straight nutrition facts... Please do not think it is that
difficult. It really is not that hard to understand once you learn a
few concepts about body process mechanisms.

Jim Carver

Thanks. I've done a lot of my own research over the past several years (with
a very skeptical approach) and it's helped me to learn a lot, but I'm always
willing to learn more.

One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is
that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that
can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity?

-Rubystars

One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is
that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that
can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity?

No. No food (ie. Assuming no stimulants are added) is able to "raise
your metabolic rate".

....

Energy Balance: Interpretation of Data from Rural China
T. Colin Campbell, PhD
Division of Nutritional Sciences
Cornell University
...
Data pertinent to the issue of energy balance and body weight
control obtained in a comprehensive study of diet, lifestyle and
disease mortality in 65 counties (130 villages, 6500 adults) of
rural China (Chen et al. 1990) were used for the analysis. After
adjusting the food intake data to represent a reference male
adult involved in the least physical activity and representing the
same body weight, total calorie intake (40.6 kcal/kg BW) was
about 30% higher in China when compared with an average
adult American male (30.6% kcal/kg BW), yet the body mass
index for the Chinese male was about 25% lower (20.5 vs.
25.8 kg BW/m2). Diets in rural China were low in fat (14.5%
of energy), relatively low in protein (65.8 g/day), and high in
fiber (33 g/day), representing a diet unusually rich in plant
based foods (e.g., including about 90% of the total protein).

It is believed that the excess energy intake among the Chinese
is mostly attributed to their greater physical activity, although
some unknown but significant and probably difficult to measure
amount could be due to increased energy expenditure
associated with non-post prandial basal metabolism. ......'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html

....

J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3.
Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians.
Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T.
Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores. In
this study the relationship between the weight/height ratio and
food consumption was evaluated in 92 ovo-lacto vegetarians
and 113 omnivores in Israel. The average weight of the
vegetarians was significantly lower than that of the omnivores
(60.8 kg vs. 69.1 kg), even though the vegetarian diet supplied
a significantly higher amount of calories than the nonvegetarian
diet (3,030.5 cal/day vs. 2,626.8 cal/day). Consumption of fat
was similar in both groups. Carbohydrate consumption was
higher in the vegetarians while protein consumption was lower.
The prevalence of obesity was significantly lower in the
vegetarian group (5.4%) as compared to 19.5% among the
omnivores. The lower body weight of vegetarians despite a
higher caloric intake is of considerable interest.
PMID: 3760524

"Jim Carver" wrote in message
snip explanation
Helpful?

Yes, thanks.

Got any addition questions on this subject or something
else?

So since caffeine is a stimulant, I'm wondering if drinking diet cokes is
helping me to lose weight (at least a little). I drink a couple of them
every day (used to be regular cokes, and more than a couple, so I switched
over to diet to keep from consuming all those extra calories). I know it's
helping as far as reducing the calorie intake but I was wondering if the
caffeine part was helping.

-Rubystars