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

Low carb diets



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old December 17th, 2003, 06:10 PM
Donovan Rebbechi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low carb diets

In article , Doug Freese wrote:

Didn't you just tell me to be nice to Lyle? The ? at the end
suggests Lyle was busting on TC.


Don't know what Lyle meant by that, but he has at least one humerous insult for
every type of athlete and non-athlete out there.

Being nice is optional (though generally frowned upon in misc.fitness.weights
;-), but he does know a lot about weight loss nutrition, and it pays to be
aware of that.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
  #62  
Old December 17th, 2003, 06:14 PM
Donovan Rebbechi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low carb diets

In article , jmk wrote:


On 12/17/2003 9:55 AM, Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

"If they have any willpower" is the bit that gets most of them (-;

The ideal weight loss/maintenance program shouldn't demand enormous amounts
of willpower.


I don't really agree that it is a willpower issue. I think it's more of
a paying attention issue. No matter what plan you are following, you
need to pay attention to what you are eating and how much you eat
(portion control).


A 500 calorie a day deficit isn't that easy to maintain through restrained
eating alone. In the absence of exercise, one must exercise greater restraint
in eating to achieve the same results. Exercise is very beneficial for those
who have that option.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
  #63  
Old December 17th, 2003, 06:16 PM
Donovan Rebbechi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low carb diets

In article , Chupacabra wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:55:19 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
wrote:

In article , Chupacabra wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:33:00 GMT, Doug Freese
wrote:

Lyle McDonald wrote:
this depends on a host of factors such as

duration/intensity
length of adaptation

Quite true.


your argument is simplistic at best. You're using fairly active
individuals to your average obese person.

Of course I am because exercise MUST be used in tandem with food to
control weight. Those that try to control their weight by food alone
have at best short term results.

Bull****. Those that try to control their weight by food alone just
fine if they have any willpower.


"If they have any willpower" is the bit that gets most of them (-;

The ideal weight loss/maintenance program shouldn't demand enormous amounts
of willpower.


Understood, but nor does it demand exercise per se


While I disagree with Doug's suggestion that one *MUST* combine diet with
exercise to have long term success, I think exercise certainly helps.

And IMO it takes just as much willpower for most people to stick to a
decent exercise regimen ("It's cold! It's raining! I'm tired! I'm
busy!" et cetera ad infinitum) than it does to make a few dietary
changes.


People get addicted to, hooked on exercise. Once you get to this point,
cold and rain don't matter any more. I've yet to hear of someone becoming
a "low carb addict".

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
  #64  
Old December 17th, 2003, 06:48 PM
Donovan Rebbechi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low carb diets

In article , tcomeau wrote:
(gman99) wrote in message ...


n 1: a state of extreme hunger resulting from lack of essential

^^^^^^^^^
nutrients over a prolonged period [syn: famishment] 2: the act of

^^^^^^^^^
starving; "they were charged with the starvation of children in their
care" [syn: starving]
*****

If one requires X number of calories per day

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Requires" depends on context. What one "requires" for weight maintenance
is different to what one "requires" for weight loss.

Either way, it doesn't make much sense in the context of the above
definition, since calories are not themselves an "essential nutrient".

and one deliberately
restricts ones consumption to less than this amount then one is
consuming less nutrients and energy than is required by the body. That
is restricting food, restricting required nutrition thus it is
essentially trying to *starve* the fat off.


Bull****.

It may not be an extreme
level of starvation but it is starvation nonetheless.

And, oh yeah, it doesn't work long term in more than 95% of cases.


I've rebutted this idiocy in another thread.

The low-carb diet works specifically by not causing hunger and
starvation, but by 1) satiating and 2) keeping the body out of a
fat-storage mode and keeping it in a fat-using mode


Being in a "fat using mode" doesn't help a whole lot if you have a net
caloric defecit (because regardless of the amount of fat you're "using",
if you have a surplus, you're either replenishing glycogen which will kick you
out of your "fat using mode" and into your "fat storing mode", or you're
taking in enough dietary fat that your body doesn't need to mobilise
stored fat)

ie. mild ketosis.


Most low carb diets do not involve/require a state of ketosis (mild or
otherwise)

This is taking advantage of the bodies natural processes and avoiding
the carb induced insulin spikes that forces the body into storing fat.


Low GI carbs don't induce "insulin spikes".

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
  #65  
Old December 17th, 2003, 07:12 PM
Barry Wong
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low carb diets

roger wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:38:38 -0600, Lyle McDonald
wrote:

Exercise is beneficial but it is by no means REQUIRED.


I agree it is not absolutely required but the recidivism among those
who try to keep off the fat by diet alone is quite high.


Isn't the recidivism (nice word) among those trying to keep off fat
quite high period? You can say that those who keep exercising regularly
do better, but so do those who really stick to their diets. The problem,
I'm guessing (and I really am guessing) is that people tend to stop
doing the things that led to weight loss, and return to the bad habits
that made them fat in the first place.
  #66  
Old December 17th, 2003, 08:11 PM
Doug Freese
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low carb diets



Chupacabra wrote:


Of course I am because exercise MUST be used in tandem with food to
control weight. Those that try to control their weight by food alone
have at best short term results.



Bull****. Those that try to control their weight by food alone just
fine if they have any willpower.


And if we all had willpower we would not have wars, our prisons
would be empty and drugs would not exist. Earth to Chupacabra, Earth
to Chupacabra....



Quality of life is one thing, and I'd agree with you that being
physically active is ideal. Weight control is something completely
different, and has very little to do with physical activity.


Weight control has nothing to do with activity? Besides blatantly
naive concerning willpower, may I suggest you read a little about
physiology.

Can you do one without the other, sure. You can etch that number on
the head of a pin.


--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"


  #67  
Old December 17th, 2003, 08:17 PM
Lyle McDonald
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low carb diets

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

In article , Doug Freese wrote:

Didn't you just tell me to be nice to Lyle? The ? at the end
suggests Lyle was busting on TC.


Don't know what Lyle meant by that, but he has at least one humerous insult for
every type of athlete and non-athlete out there.


I have long referred to myself (primarily in-line skating, some cycling)
as an endurance clad weenie.

Trust me, I make fun of everyone, including me.

Lyle
  #68  
Old December 17th, 2003, 08:21 PM
Lyle McDonald
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low carb diets

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

In article , jmk wrote:


On 12/17/2003 9:55 AM, Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

"If they have any willpower" is the bit that gets most of them (-;

The ideal weight loss/maintenance program shouldn't demand enormous amounts
of willpower.


I don't really agree that it is a willpower issue. I think it's more of
a paying attention issue. No matter what plan you are following, you
need to pay attention to what you are eating and how much you eat
(portion control).


A 500 calorie a day deficit isn't that easy to maintain through restrained
eating alone.


doesn't that depend entirely on how much you were eating previously?
Or, more accurately, what types of foods?

I had a client years ago who was drinking, on average, 3-4 large regular
sodas per day. I told him to switch out to diet. It saved him easily
500 calories/day (and he lost weight of course) and was hardly tough to maintain.

If someone is eating a large amount of highly refined or high energy
density foods (think most of what's available in any US supermarket),
reducing food intake by 500 cal/day may be trivial by simply making
qualitative substitutions. They don't even have to be very extreme if
the diet is horrible to begin with.

Obviously, the stricter someone's diet is to begin with, the harder it
will be to remove 500 calories from the diet.

As well, one can just as easily argue that the average person will have
no easier time maintaining a 500 cal/day daily exercise energy
expenditure. Unless you're well trained to begin with, that's an hour+
of activity and most are unlikely to do that daily in the long-term
(adherence to exercise routines is just as bad as for diets).

In the absence of exercise, one must exercise greater restraint
in eating to achieve the same results. Exercise is very beneficial for those
who have that option.


Very true.

Lyle
  #69  
Old December 17th, 2003, 08:26 PM
Doug Freese
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low carb diets

tcomeau wrote:


Yeah, and starving yourself can easily become a lifestyle, sure.


Who said anything about starving ?? That's quite an imagination...



****
starvation

n 1: a state of extreme hunger resulting from lack of essential


Note the word "extreme" unless you are reading challenged.

nutrients over a prolonged period [syn: famishment] 2: the act of
starving; "they were charged with the starvation of children in their
care" [syn: starving]
*****

If one requires X number of calories per day and one deliberately
restricts ones consumption to less than this amount then one is
consuming less nutrients and energy than is required by the body. That
is restricting food, restricting required nutrition thus it is
essentially trying to *starve* the fat off. It may not be an extreme
level of starvation but it is starvation nonetheless.


According to you, if I eat 1 less calorie I'm in extreme hunger. I
enjoy your sense of humor and your gift for definition.


And, oh yeah, it doesn't work long term in more than 95% of cases.


Please Saturday Night Live is looking for some more comedy writers.


The low-carb diet works specifically by not causing hunger and
starvation, but by 1) satiating and 2) keeping the body out of a
fat-storage mode and keeping it in a fat-using mode ie. mild ketosis.


Hmmm, starvation is bad and ketosis is good.

This is taking advantage of the bodies natural processes and avoiding
the carb induced insulin spikes that forces the body into storing fat.
It isn't rocket science.


One can do very nicely eating carbs, sensing zero starvation, lose
weight and not have smelly breath as your body internally
hemorrhages from ketosis. Boy can you make up **** up on the fly.

Let's see, ready, fire, aim.

--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"


  #70  
Old December 17th, 2003, 08:33 PM
OmegaZero2003
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low carb diets


"Doug Freese" wrote in message
...
Lyle McDonald wrote:
this depends on a host of factors such as

duration/intensity
length of adaptation


Quite true.


your argument is simplistic at best. You're using fairly active
individuals to your average obese person.


Of course I am because exercise MUST be used in tandem with food to
control weight.


Wrong. Your hypothesis is easily disproven as stated.


Those that try to control their weight by food alone
have at best short term results. If you sit in on a name_the_sport
forum, the primary reason they start a program is some state of
extra weight.

When I was 39 I had a 38 inch waist. I took to running because I
could do it all year around. At 40 my mid line was 34 and I now
hover at 32-33 depending on my training level. My caloric content
remains fairly constant all year to include my Heineken.

True they're active but they did this knowing they needed take some
action which is the first step. This in not unlike AA where you must
admit you are an alcoholic before any corrective action can happen.
When people like tcomeau suggests stagnation and Atkins, I find it
very poor if not dangerous advice. It's a form of denial.


Forget about runners (or athletes of any color), what about the average
person who may be exercising not at all or only minimal amounts (either
because they are unwilling, or because they are too heavy)?


It's impossible to maintain weight without exercise and to try
usually leads to the notorious yo-yo effect. I'm suggesting that
exercise is not an option but a necessity if one cares about quality
of life.


QOL is a different story.

And what constitutes exercise per se, vs. leading an active lifestyle!?
There are countless people who have modified their diet alone and, with no
additional "exercise" have achieved long-term weight control/fat control.

What is the "exercise"? Can be normal, routine stuff like housework,
yardwork, washing the cars, shopping, chasing/playing with kids - anything
that is not specifically *for* exercise qua exercise. (Like running down
the street or weightlifting in the gym etc.)



Say walking briskly for 30' three times per week.


30 minutes X 3 is a great start. If one is too heavy a walking
program is one of the best exercises. Biking, swimming are also good
but hard to maintain all year in most states/countries.

How many carbs do they need on a daily basis to sustain that?


It's still a calorie game. If you walk 30 minutes and average 15 mph
you are burning off roughly 200 calories. Now 200 is better than
zero but a cookie or two and you have broke even or possibly lost
ground. One needs to work up to 45 or an hour a day AND take some
necessary steps to eliminate some calories. I'm not suggesting
elimination of fat but to cut it DOWN to maybe 30%. If your also
health conscious and not just weight conscious then can the bad
fats. Simple carbs is a good place to start, with bad fat a good
second choice.

Understand that while doing your exercise all at once may be easiest
but there are lots of ways to include it during the day. Park your
car in the far corner of the lot, or take the stairs, rake your
leaves not blow them, go for walk at lunch time. In all honesty,
most people know what they need to do to lose weight yet hold out
for the magic pill or the next fad diet with the remote control in
their hand.

It's not so much a diet or exercise change but a lifestyle change
that includes diet and exercise. Once you adapt to an active
lifestyle you can then play with carb/pro/fat ratio. Even as an
exerciser one still has to be careful of what they eat. I can
exercise enough to stay thin and live on pure simple carbs. This
makes me thin but not necessarily healthy.

The newer pyramid as noted in
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio.../pyramids.html
with exercise at the bottom and brandishes balance IMO is way to go.
Then again as some contend the Harvard folks are part of this evil
conspiracy paid for by big money. Probably funded by Osama...

--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"




 




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
Latest "Net Carb" Scam? Jenny Low Carbohydrate Diets 7 June 26th, 2004 07:00 PM
Article: The TRUTH About Low Carb Diets by Keith Klein Steve General Discussion 24 June 7th, 2004 09:05 PM
Why Reduced Carb Diets Work For Most People:A Theory John Low Carbohydrate Diets 14 March 30th, 2004 05:32 AM
Low Carb intelligence vs. low carb STUPIDITY Steven C. \(Doktersteve\) Low Carbohydrate Diets 6 February 5th, 2004 01:12 PM
low carb fad diets do work in the short-term rob Weightwatchers 3 October 19th, 2003 02:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:22 AM.


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