Eating less does not result in weight loss

In article ,
Michael Snyder wrote:

Bob wrote:
Michael Snyder wrote:

SuperSpark ® wrote:

In article ,
"Michael Snyder" wrote:


Mr. F. Le Mur wrote in message ...

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 09:54:22 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

-Michael Snyder writes:
-
- And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.
-
-It is the one and only basis of all weight loss. All successful
diets
-work by creating a caloric deficit. All unsuccessful diets have in
-common that they fail to create a caloric deficit. There are no
-exceptions to this rule.

True.

-
- Over-simplifications such as these serve no one --
- least of all people who would like to lose weight.
-
-They serve those people best of all. However, they are unpleasantly
-difficult to deny for people who don't want to face the necessity of
-eating less in order to lose weight.
-
- If you eat less calories on a daily basis, the amount
- of calories you USE will very likely change.
-
-No, it will not. The number of calories you burn is based on your
-weight, sex, body composition, and the amount of exercise you
get. None
-of this suddenly changes just because you decide to eat less,
which is
-why you lose weight if you significantly reduce your intake of food.

Actually one's metabolism does change when calorie intake changes.
Lower calorie intake - lower metabolism.



I was once told, by a professional physical trainer, that I was eating
too little and that if I wanted to lose weight I would need to eat
more.
My body thought it was starving, and therefore was hanging on to
every calory it could get.





Bull**** psuedo science. Caloric deficit always results in weight
loss. Consult an anorexic for more info.



Funny how you guys all want to cite the pathological cases, instead
of looking at what normal people experience in real life.



Normal people obey the laws of thermodynamics. Energy out eventually
equals energy in.

Duh, I'm a physicist;

Really? Why such trouble with 3rd grade concepts?

In article ,
jmk wrote:

On 10/8/2003 4:39 PM, SuperSpark (R) wrote:
In article ,
jmk wrote:


On 10/8/2003 12:49 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:

jmk writes:



Perhaps I missunderstood you, do you have any citations to support this
or just your personal observation to base that one.


It is based on both personal observations and statistics I have read.



I think that you may have missed my previous post. If you want the
attributions, please see my earlier post, here's a summary:

Obese Americans - 33%
Overweight/Obese Australians - 56%
Obese British Men - 20%
Overweight British Men - 50%


Where are the numbers for the Germans, Spaniards, Finns, Austrians,
Swedes, French, Italians, Greeks, Danes, Poles, Irish, Portuguese,
Dutch, and all the other Europeans in Europe?

I don't have time to look for them. If you find that they do not share
this trend, please let us know. In the meantime, I look forward to
seeing citations to support your claims.




Uh, where is your hard evidence? Is that the iVillage link and the
outdated CDC info you posted earlier? Got anything current and/or
remotely accurate or actually science based? How does the 56% Austalians
figure break down? Which is which? Overweight and obese are two
different things.

You've posted no evidence other than the fact you can operate a search
engine.

And you've posted no evidence whatsoever.


Does that somehow validate the posting of pop culture opin and outdated,
dubious information?

I don't know what evidence I could provide to support the basic biology
postion of energy in vs energy out. If someone is incapable of grasping
such elementary concepts, I doubt an accredited study would be of much
use.

But I certainly invite readers who are unsure that, yes, eating less
causes one to lose weight to ask their doctor, ask Richard Simmons, ask
a weight watchers meeting, ask anyone in any alt.support.diet.* group,
ask the formerly obese, ask the health club....****, ask a 3rd grader.

I've seen cites of BPs of 400/300 for brief periods after heavy lifts.

I've seen citations for very high BPs after lifts, but keep in mind
the *younger* human body is more than capable of handling it. After
a certain age, however, the risk of aneurism goes up into an area
that might not be within the risk-reward ratio for some folks. More
conservative, lighter weight lifting is called for at that point.

While this may not qualify as a hypertensive episode, ...

It doesn't.

Your other points are apropos, but smacked of hysteria in your first
post. Weightlifting is generally good for you, and offers benefits
that other forms of exercise do not. For men in particular, it
contributes to a beneficial hormonal balance, which is one of those
"differences in individual physiology" that I haven't seem you name
yet.

C//

Michael Snyder wrote in message ...
Ralph DuBose wrote:
"Michael Snyder" wrote in message ...

Ralph DuBose wrote in message ...

Michael Snyder wrote in message ...

Ralph DuBose wrote:

"Michael Snyder" wrote in message ...


Mxsmanic wrote in message ...


Mr. F. Le Mur writes:



True, but I think the idea is if you don't eat anough fat, then
you still have cravings (for fat) and eat more calories-worth
of stuff with less fat.


Oxygen is needed for aerobic metabolic processes but it is not
"energy" per se. My point is not nit picking because you do not seem
to understand anything about this subject.

It is not nit-picking -- it is a red herring. Show me where I claimed
that oxygen is energy per se. I said you cannot derive metabolic
energy from food without oxygen. The rest of your statement is
content-free and reveals information about you, not me.


Evidence is accumulating that you do not want top hear certain
things. There have been several referrences to the fact that no one
stays fat in boot camps or prison camps, that they all lose fat in a
hurry. This is a non-trivial fact in the context of the original title
of this thread. If you expect to be taken at all seriously, this is a
point with which you must deal. Waving your hand and expecting it to
go away does not work real well when the medium of dialogue is all
permanent and written.

Nor has anyone here addressed the equally real fact that people
often go on reduced-calorie diets and do not lose weight. Waving
your hand and expecting it to go away does not work real well...

"Equally real fact"? Dude, you are losing it. The fact that the
USMC gets highly reliable results with their recruits in training is
highly visible and confirmable. The validity of the "fact" that some
peoples bodies resist fat loss despite a sustained negative calorie
balance is dependent entirely on a story that someone tells you about
their private behavior. And multiple studies have pointed out the near
total unreliabilty of these sorts of stories.
Conferring equal validity to each method of getting ones "facts"
(objective public demonstration vs. individual story telling) is
something I doubt you would do for a minute in other areas of life.

Courageous writes:

I've seen citations for very high BPs after lifts, but keep in mind
the *younger* human body is more than capable of handling it.

Maybe once in a while, but not on a regular basis. Apparently CVAs are
an occupational hazard of weight lifters, at all ages.

Your other points are apropos, but smacked of hysteria in your first
post.

Hardly hysteria, although I'd consider a measured BP of 400/300 to be
cause for alarm, no matter what the reason for it. The cardiovascular
system cannot operate for very long at that pressure without a
catastrophic failure.

For men in particular, it contributes to a beneficial
hormonal balance, which is one of those "differences in
individual physiology" that I haven't seem you name yet.

It normally has much more of an influence on the tone of USENET postings
than it does on weight.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ralph DuBose writes:

The fact that the USMC gets highly reliable results
with their recruits in training is highly visible
and confirmable.

Perhaps the USMC deliberately selects people who don't have the magic
ability to pack on the fat without ever eating.

More seriously, doesn't the USMC have fairly strict requirements for
weight even for new recruits? I don't think they'll accept true tubs of
lard for induction.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On 10/9/2003 11:07 PM, SuperSpark (R) wrote:
In article ,
jmk wrote:


On 10/8/2003 4:39 PM, SuperSpark (R) wrote:

In article ,
jmk wrote:



On 10/8/2003 12:49 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:


jmk writes:




Perhaps I missunderstood you, do you have any citations to support this
or just your personal observation to base that one.


It is based on both personal observations and statistics I have read.




I think that you may have missed my previous post. If you want the
attributions, please see my earlier post, here's a summary:

Obese Americans - 33%
Overweight/Obese Australians - 56%
Obese British Men - 20%
Overweight British Men - 50%


Where are the numbers for the Germans, Spaniards, Finns, Austrians,
Swedes, French, Italians, Greeks, Danes, Poles, Irish, Portuguese,
Dutch, and all the other Europeans in Europe?

I don't have time to look for them. If you find that they do not share
this trend, please let us know. In the meantime, I look forward to
seeing citations to support your claims.




Uh, where is your hard evidence? Is that the iVillage link and the
outdated CDC info you posted earlier? Got anything current and/or
remotely accurate or actually science based? How does the 56% Austalians
figure break down? Which is which? Overweight and obese are two
different things.

You've posted no evidence other than the fact you can operate a search
engine.

And you've posted no evidence whatsoever.



Does that somehow validate the posting of pop culture opin and outdated,
dubious information?

So, your personal observation is a verifiable fact then? So it's fine
to complain about other people's sources when you haven't gotten off
your ass to provide any of your own? The fact of the matter is that
your assumptions are incorrect. I think that most people on these
forums can see that.

FWIW, according to the 1999 National Health and Nutrition Examination,
35% moderately overweight and 26% obese in the US.

This article relates to overweight children and teenagers around the
world.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/repri.../7244/1240.pdf

In the UK: "1 in 6 women and 1 in 7 men are now obese, and over half of
the adult population is overweight."
http://www.bda.uk.com/Downloads/Diet...bl_Control.pdf

In Australia: "The prevalence of overweight and obesity is increasing
at an alarming rate worldwide. In the United States, for example, the
prevalence of obesity rose from 15.0% to 30.9% between 1980 and 2000.2
Similar findings have been reported from developing countries."
"In the 1995 National Nutrition Survey, 45% of men and 29% of women were
found to be overweight, and a further 18% of men and women were
classified as obese."
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/...m10689_fm.html

Also in Australia: "The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
(AIHW) is warning rates of obesity in Australia are only a few years
behind the United States. In a bulletin released today, the AIHW
estimates almost 9 million Australian adults are overweight or obese.
The report estimates at least 16 per cent of men and 17 per cent of
women are obese, with a further 42 per cent of men and 25 per cent of
women considered overweight."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s944317.htm

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 03:23:16 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

-Mr. F. Le Mur writes:
-
- Actually it might make sense, because the difference between
- metabolisms can be very small - smaller than normal inefficiency -
- and
-
- To gain say, 50 pounds in ten years would be an average excess
- of .0136 pounds/day = .136*3500 = 47.6 excess calories stored per
- day = an error of 2% of the nominal 2,4000 calories/day intake.
-
-The variation between individuals in voluntary food consumption
-completely obliterates a 48 kcal per day difference, so it's not that.

Unless the voluntary food consuption depends on a feedback loop
which varies from one to another.

-
- There's no reason to think that everyone is exactly the same even
- though everyone is fairly efficient and similar.
-
-The same formulas and numbers work for everyone. It works for blood
-pressure, temperature, and a zillion other lab values, including BMR and
-extrapolations of BMR to REE and exercise energy expenditures.
-
- It doesn't take much difference to gain weight (2% metabolic
- difference = 50 pounds in ten years)
-
-Most people do not gain or lose 50 pounds in ten years.

Irrelevant. I just picked some numbers out of a hat,
and many people do gain 50 pounds in ten years.

-
- If I can't seem to get fat, I don't see why it's unlike
- that other people have a disparity, even a small one,
- between their physical drive to eat and their metabolisms.
-
-It's not a physical drive, it's a psychological drive.

I'd believe that if I didn't know that the brain etc are
physical organs and don't run on magic. "Psychology"
is a word for physical things which we don't completely
understand.

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:54:28 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

-Mr. F. Le Mur writes:
-
- True, but I think the idea is if you don't eat anough fat, then
- you still have cravings (for fat) and eat more calories-worth
- of stuff with less fat.
-
-It's funny how people elsewhere in the world manage to remain thin
-without having to worry about how much fat or carbs they are eating,
-isn't it?


Not as funny as the fact that some people, like me, remain
thin without having to worry about the fats or carbs they
eat, and live in the same environment and eat the same things
as the people who do have to worry.

On 9 Oct 2003 15:40:22 -0700, (Ralph DuBose) wrote:

-"Michael Snyder" wrote in message
....

-
- It is not nit-picking -- it is a red herring. Show me where I claimed
- that oxygen is energy per se. I said you cannot derive metabolic
- energy from food without oxygen. The rest of your statement is
- content-free and reveals information about you, not me.
-
- Evidence is accumulating that you do not want top hear certain
-things. There have been several referrences to the fact that no one
-stays fat in boot camps or prison camps, that they all lose fat in a
-hurry. This is a non-trivial fact in the context of the original title
-of this thread. If you expect to be taken at all seriously, this is a
-point with which you must deal. Waving your hand and expecting it to
-go away does not work real well when the medium of dialogue is all
-permanent and written.

It's clear that people will get skinny, and finally starve to death
if enough food is withheld. It's not true that all energy nutrients
(fat, carbs, sugars, alcohol) act the same way as far as retaining
fat is concerned. It's not true that everyone has the same metabolic
rate, and it's very doubtful that everyone has the same "I've had
enough to eat" feedback loop regarding the various nutrients.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/315/2/96
"Thus, resting metabolic rate is a familial trait in this population,
and it is independent of differences in fat-free mass, age, and sex.
We also found that persons from families with lower resting metabolic
rates were no more obese than persons from families with higher
metabolic rates. This finding may be partly explained by the close
correlation between fat-free mass and percentage of body fat (r = 0.81,
P less than 0.0001), which indicates that the resting metabolic
rate, as adjusted for fat-free mass, is already partly adjusted
for obesity. Only prospective studies will elucidate whether the
familial dependence of the resting metabolic rate is a contributing
mechanism to the familial predisposition to obesity.