Where are all the thin poeple from Atkins first book?

jbuch wrote in message
Where are all the thin people from LOW FAT DIETS that have been
postulated for the last 40 years?

Roach, Mary,
"Advice from the World's Biggest Weight Experts: Their Gain Can Be
Your Loss."
Health (March/April 1993) 62-72.
Describes the traditional, low-fat diet of Japanese sumo wrestlers.

Centuries old traditions of diet and exercise have shown the results.

Have you ever seen Dean Ornish in a thong?
Ever seen a picture of John Harvey Kellogg, inventor of the low fat
diet and exercise program your doctor recommends. His foundation is
worth in excess of $12 billion - earned by selling high carbohydrate
breakfast foods (i.e. corn flakes) to children. He was also the first
to show that if one fed corn kibble to wolves instead of meat they
became autistic. Dog food manufacturers and pediatric neurologists
have been forever grateful for the profits he generated.

Ray Audette
Author "NeanderThin"
www.NeanderThin.com

Rob wrote in message
...

Tony Lew wrote:



My eating habits don’t conform to the low fat diet standards
either. I
eat plenty of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat. It’s the
saturated fats and trans-fats that I limit.


You don't do "low fat". You do "calorie counting". But the same
question applies. "Calorie counting" has been around a LONG time.
I have cookbooks from the 40's and 50's with calorie tables in them.
Where are all the thin people from calorie counting?

"calorie counting" seems to have been a bad term to use. I call it that
since I calculate my resting metabolic rate (RMR) then add it to my
exercise calories to find my max caloric intake.

RMR=13x155+500
RMR=2515 calories

"Portion control" is apparently a more accepted term than counting
calories so lets use that instead.


I don't consider "calorie counting" and "portion control" to be the
same thing. Calorie counting is one means of portion control. It
is not the only one. Low carbing IS a form of portion control.
Low carb foods are more satisfying so you end up eating less food.

Then you do agree that portion control is key?
I know my number of calories and stop in those bounds (calorie
counting). Others may eat a certain portion size the later step on a
scale and adjust the next day/weeks portions accordingly. Bottom line,
if there were 2 days of exercise this week vs. 5 days last week, there
needs to be a calorie/portion adjustment to compensate, correct? If we
both over-ate at a party or cookout, we’d probably both go a little easy
the next couple meals and not keep up the extra portion eating, right?
Unless we’re long term averaging our portions, that works too, but might
lead to too many “treats” that weren’t corrected for.


I'm convinced that "most", since
there are exceptions to every rule, fit people portion control their
meals and that's how they stay trim. They may have tried "low fat" or
"low carb." along the way, but portion control was their key to
success.

But some diets make portion control easy (low carb), while others make
it more difficult (low-fat).

This is where personal preference comes in. Whichever keeps portions in
check, is the one to maintain.



Published diets drop foods, food groups and ingredients but in the
end, it’s less or equal calories in than are burned, that makes the
final difference.

Where are all the thin people from calorie counting?

They are a shrinking percentage of the population, but they're
everywhere you see someone thin (theater, television, magazines, office,
gym, etc.) They're limiting portion sizes to maintain their weight.


I agree, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily consciously
counting their calories and stoping when they reach a pre-determined
maximum like you are. That's what most people mean when they say
"calorie counting".

Maybe they’re not stopping at a pre-determined “number”, but they’ve
been eating the same portions sizes so long they know when they’ve gone
over. It’s their diet. Not something they just started, something
they’ve been doing all their life and they’re real good at it.

My breakfast consists of:

6:30 English muffin (125c/2f/25c/5p)
w/crunchy peanut butter (95c/8f/3c/4p)
9:30 Yogurt (220c/2f/42c/7p)
10:30 ½ Protein shake (140c/15f/11c/20p)

I know it’s a 580 calorie breakfast so I don’t count it anymore. If I
were to grab bagels, donuts or sticky buns that somebody brought in to
share, I know I need to cut back somewhere later today or tomorrow. Did
I need to count calories to know that? I guess a long time ago I had to
calculate that bagels, donuts and sticky buns were higher in calories
than an English muffin, but I probably don’t need to count them the rest
of my life as long as I don’t make them a regular part of my diet.

BTW, grabbin’ that donut with coworkers is a classic place to get comments:
“He never has to watch what he eats.”
“He’s naturally skinny.”
“If I ate that donut like him I’d be 300 pounds.”
“Do you have a Tape worm or something?”

I would so love to fire back with a fat comment, but I’m not allowed
because society believes I’m thin for all those reasons above and NOT
portion control.

Rob wrote in message
...

Tony Lew wrote:



My eating habits don’t conform to the low fat diet standards
either. I
eat plenty of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat. It’s the
saturated fats and trans-fats that I limit.


You don't do "low fat". You do "calorie counting". But the same
question applies. "Calorie counting" has been around a LONG time.
I have cookbooks from the 40's and 50's with calorie tables in them.
Where are all the thin people from calorie counting?

"calorie counting" seems to have been a bad term to use. I call it that
since I calculate my resting metabolic rate (RMR) then add it to my
exercise calories to find my max caloric intake.

RMR=13x155+500
RMR=2515 calories

"Portion control" is apparently a more accepted term than counting
calories so lets use that instead.


I don't consider "calorie counting" and "portion control" to be the
same thing. Calorie counting is one means of portion control. It
is not the only one. Low carbing IS a form of portion control.
Low carb foods are more satisfying so you end up eating less food.

Then you do agree that portion control is key?
I know my number of calories and stop in those bounds (calorie
counting). Others may eat a certain portion size the later step on a
scale and adjust the next day/weeks portions accordingly. Bottom line,
if there were 2 days of exercise this week vs. 5 days last week, there
needs to be a calorie/portion adjustment to compensate, correct? If we
both over-ate at a party or cookout, we’d probably both go a little easy
the next couple meals and not keep up the extra portion eating, right?
Unless we’re long term averaging our portions, that works too, but might
lead to too many “treats” that weren’t corrected for.


I'm convinced that "most", since
there are exceptions to every rule, fit people portion control their
meals and that's how they stay trim. They may have tried "low fat" or
"low carb." along the way, but portion control was their key to
success.

But some diets make portion control easy (low carb), while others make
it more difficult (low-fat).

This is where personal preference comes in. Whichever keeps portions in
check, is the one to maintain.



Published diets drop foods, food groups and ingredients but in the
end, it’s less or equal calories in than are burned, that makes the
final difference.

Where are all the thin people from calorie counting?

They are a shrinking percentage of the population, but they're
everywhere you see someone thin (theater, television, magazines, office,
gym, etc.) They're limiting portion sizes to maintain their weight.


I agree, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily consciously
counting their calories and stoping when they reach a pre-determined
maximum like you are. That's what most people mean when they say
"calorie counting".

Maybe they’re not stopping at a pre-determined “number”, but they’ve
been eating the same portions sizes so long they know when they’ve gone
over. It’s their diet. Not something they just started, something
they’ve been doing all their life and they’re real good at it.

My breakfast consists of:

6:30 English muffin (125c/2f/25c/5p)
w/crunchy peanut butter (95c/8f/3c/4p)
9:30 Yogurt (220c/2f/42c/7p)
10:30 ½ Protein shake (140c/15f/11c/20p)

I know it’s a 580 calorie breakfast so I don’t count it anymore. If I
were to grab bagels, donuts or sticky buns that somebody brought in to
share, I know I need to cut back somewhere later today or tomorrow. Did
I need to count calories to know that? I guess a long time ago I had to
calculate that bagels, donuts and sticky buns were higher in calories
than an English muffin, but I probably don’t need to count them the rest
of my life as long as I don’t make them a regular part of my diet.

BTW, grabbin’ that donut with coworkers is a classic place to get comments:
“He never has to watch what he eats.”
“He’s naturally skinny.”
“If I ate that donut like him I’d be 300 pounds.”
“Do you have a Tape worm or something?”

I would so love to fire back with a fat comment, but I’m not allowed
because society believes I’m thin for all those reasons above and NOT
portion control.

Rob wrote:

Why do you think I'm stupid?

Someone posting from MIT who hasn't bothered to read a single
book on the topic, and you wonder why people think you're
stupid?

Because I believe this diet is too hard to follow long term?

Name one that isn't and you'll have a relevant point. Go
ahead; I'll wait. Just like Dr Atkins waited 30 years for
one name of a person who got kidney damage from low carbing.

Because I believe the people in the 70s started out with the same mind
set and determination that this room is full of today?

Think about it. People who started in 1972 faced three
consequative *decades* of unrelenting, vicious suppression
by the medical authorities and virtually everyon in society
echoing medical authorities. If there's even ONE person
out there who managed to stay on low carb for three decades
of that, it's a miracle.

I'm a realist. If the majority failed to blend with society or caved in
to peer pressure or carb cravings or whatever it was that caused them to
fail in the 70s, not enough has changed about his latest book to prevent
it from happening again.

I'm a realist, too. After 30 years of peer pressure I'm
astonished to find *anyone* from *any plan* who's still at
it 30 years later.

If there were 30 year success stories , this is where I'd find them, right?

No. After thirty years of facing vicious supression by
the medical authorities the only way they could handle it
was to refuse to talk about food with anyone for any reason.

In the 5 years I've been low carbing, I've met 2 people who
started low carbing in the 1970s. The only way is to notice
what they are eating, compliment it, point out that I'm
doing the same, and ask how long they've been at it. I
have not been able to engage them in any further discussion
about food, but I did meet 2 such people.

I'm just not hearing about people that have been successfully on Atkins
since the 70s. What I'm hearing is stories of quick fixes.

If there had been 3 decades of active suppresion of low fat,
do you think you'd hear about the few who did it anyways and
succeeded and stayed with it? Of course not! They have gone
underground decades ago, completely refusing to discuss food.

Rob wrote:

Why do you think I'm stupid?

Someone posting from MIT who hasn't bothered to read a single
book on the topic, and you wonder why people think you're
stupid?

Because I believe this diet is too hard to follow long term?

Name one that isn't and you'll have a relevant point. Go
ahead; I'll wait. Just like Dr Atkins waited 30 years for
one name of a person who got kidney damage from low carbing.

Because I believe the people in the 70s started out with the same mind
set and determination that this room is full of today?

Think about it. People who started in 1972 faced three
consequative *decades* of unrelenting, vicious suppression
by the medical authorities and virtually everyon in society
echoing medical authorities. If there's even ONE person
out there who managed to stay on low carb for three decades
of that, it's a miracle.

I'm a realist. If the majority failed to blend with society or caved in
to peer pressure or carb cravings or whatever it was that caused them to
fail in the 70s, not enough has changed about his latest book to prevent
it from happening again.

I'm a realist, too. After 30 years of peer pressure I'm
astonished to find *anyone* from *any plan* who's still at
it 30 years later.

If there were 30 year success stories , this is where I'd find them, right?

No. After thirty years of facing vicious supression by
the medical authorities the only way they could handle it
was to refuse to talk about food with anyone for any reason.

In the 5 years I've been low carbing, I've met 2 people who
started low carbing in the 1970s. The only way is to notice
what they are eating, compliment it, point out that I'm
doing the same, and ask how long they've been at it. I
have not been able to engage them in any further discussion
about food, but I did meet 2 such people.

I'm just not hearing about people that have been successfully on Atkins
since the 70s. What I'm hearing is stories of quick fixes.

If there had been 3 decades of active suppresion of low fat,
do you think you'd hear about the few who did it anyways and
succeeded and stayed with it? Of course not! They have gone
underground decades ago, completely refusing to discuss food.

I liked your post Digy. I agree about the internal calorie regulator having
mysterious and profound powers. I too vary by a wide margin from day to day
in calorie consumption, but broad averages in FitDay show an amazing
consistency.

Calorie Chart:
http://techmart.com/~cubit/Chart39.gif

As you can see on the chart, I have been almost exactly at 1400 calories per
day, when averaged a month at a time. I sure as hell didn't do that
intentionally. My original goal was 1600 calories per day. Something else
picked 1400.

I disagree with your comments on people losing at 12x, but not losing at 6x.
I believe those reports were false data. Part of what the internal calorie
thermostat does is change our perception of food quantities. I would guess
85% of my FitDay log items were actually measured on a digital kitchen
scale. I'm guessing that measuring process is not typical.

Cubit


"DigitalVinyl" wrote in message
...
(The Voice of Reason) wrote:

DigitalVinyl wrote in message
. ..

It's all about will power.
snip
Everyone in america is simply lazy couch potatoes.

What do you think is the most common thing the typical overweight
American does when he gets home from work?

a) goes for a 5-mile bike ride to the gym, does a 40-minute
weight-lifting session, then cycles home again and works in the
garden.
b) does five minutes on an exercise bike and a half-arsed attempt at
some press-ups.
b) watches TV.

Okay, here's a basic concept that I don't see anyone getting. The
body is a machine--very complex, but it is. And it was ****ing'
ingeniously conceived by whatever/whoever put us together. It knows
better than every scientist and mother on the planet put together what
we need and how to keep the body going. This is true throughout the
entire scope of living species, from bacteria to giant whales.

We EAT for sustenance, for energy. We have attached various other
meanings for psychological as well as Cultural. But it still comes
back to we eat for sustenance. You may gorge on Thanksgiving, but you
won't keep doing that. Your hunger simply won't be there. And hunger
is undeniable. You either will eventually do what it tells you or it
will kill you off. Pretty powerful mechanism there.

SO if I workout like crazy, i get hungrier, and need great sustenance.
Many here have noted the absence of energy without carbs for heavy
duty workouts. The carb-up becomes necessary for some. We've all
experienced the big appetite and the no appetite at all. I've tracked
my calories for months and while I'll eat as little as 800 calories
one day, another I'll eat 3500. But the average constantly comes back
to 1900-2000. Amazing that my body has no problem with the extreme
variants... it balances it out and I don't think or do anything to
make it balance. WHich is cool--and I believe what nature built in all
creatures as the most basic part of the system.

So when people say we are lazy couch potatoes--I think that doesn't
matter. The body would naturally curb appetite because it has no need
for more. the human body can conserve energy so well that people can't
lose weight at 6x multipliers, yet also drop weight at 12x. People
survivie starvation and famine on little. Saying we can't survive
watching TV 15 hours a week is saying the human body wasn't designed
to withstand winters where people would be snowed in for weeks or
hibernate for three months like a bear. Nature is filled with
examples that show--nature has been taking care of far worse extremes
than being a couch potato for millions of years.

When people talk about super-sized meals--well anyone who has eaten a
big meal knows that they may not be hungry until the NEXT DAY! But
the super size argument says no. This never happens. People eat three
supersized meals a day and just keep packing it in without regard to
natural cues.

So why do we get fat-- there is a wrench in the system. SOmething is
broken and it isn't simply will power and lazy cultures. When the
entire population of the US & UK show a near doubling of obesity and
overweight people across a population of over 300 million you know
something is seriously wrong.

I don't believe it is a social engineering problem. Before the obesity
rates skyrocketed there were exercise crazes, Olivia newton john, jane
fonda, jack lalane. These were around 30 years ago. Why did it get
ever worse despite the expansion of exercise and diet that has
infested every aspect of life? People are more aware at every socail
and economic level of diet and exercise and we are far far worse off.
For every ultimate couch potato is a anorexic-Calista-Flockhart girl
or steroid-gym-rat guy. Those types are much more common now than 30
years ago. Yet despite those extremes becoming mainstream the overall
population is worse.

Those are epidemic numbers and I do believe the issue has a biological
trigger. Our diet is defective in a way that our bodies can't
self-regulate properly. Nature can handle absolutely
anything--thinking otherwise is human hubris.

WHen I saw how removing sugar from my diet drove my natural eating
habits from 3500 calories a day to 1900, I knew that I had found
something that had stopped working in my body long ago. I was
overweight by the time I was 5 years old. I have been fat my entire
life. I now weigh less than I did when I was 18 years old (20 years
later). And I have little willpower--I freely admit that. Willpower
didn't get me here. Eliminating carbs was... like magic. Amazing to
me.





Also what is the job of the typical overweight American?

a) 12 hours a day down a mine smashing the rock face with a pickaxe.
b) walking around cleaning things
c) sitting at a desk/behind a counter

It couldn't possibly be that the diet, even those
recommended by the AMA/FDA are in fact a major cause to the sudden
rise of obeisty.

Well I don't remember the AMA/FDA recommending diets consisting of
burgers, chips, chocolate, crisps, beer, all in huge quantities etc.
The FDA may have wrongly suggested a low-fat diet, but it's not like
all these obese people are getting fat by following it. People are fat
because they don't think about their diet they generally just eat the
tastiest thing they have access to when they're hungry.

The FACT that ADULT ONSET DIABETES can't suddenly
can't be called that anymore because children in record numbers are
developing it before puberty--THAT must be because their parents are
gluttons and forcing the children to overdose on sugars or some such
nonsense.

Children these days hardly exist on fruit and vegetables and lean
meats.

In the 1970's and 1980's children in schools had access to a bevy of
junk foods. Local junior and highschool had cages/rooms installed in
the lunch rooms where snacks/sodas were sold. the line was longer
there than to get the school lunch. My brothers were always thin as
twigs and would normally use lunch money to buy soda and snacks and
never ate a balanced meal. They have never been balanced
eaters--skipping vegetables entirely for meat and potatoes their
entire life. They were incredibly thin. Only when they adopted
life-long medication was a body change triggered in them. They did not
lose their WILL to be thin. A metabolic change occcurred. None of them
played sports. One golfed...which means he walked around slowly. (LOL)

The idea that everything is just worse now is a society thing. We all
long for those older, simpler, better days.

DOCTORS couldn't be contributing to it, they "know" too
much. It is just because everyone in the entire ****ry is lazy, and
stupid, and gluttons.

Yeah pretty much. I don't see doctors recommending feeding children
chocolate and cake and sugary breakfast cereal, sugary salty processed
food for dinner then fried starch for tea.

Every single one--they are all too stupid and lazy and gluttonus
overstuffing themselves beyond the human need for food. WHen they are
full they just keep shoveling it in cause that supersize only cost 39
cents more.

I sense sarcasm, but in this case there's no place for sarcasm because
what you're saying is factual even if harshly said.

If you were overweight you need to get over your self-loathing still.

If you sepnt any time here you would have read the ever increasing
list of studies that prove that low carb is jsut as effective at
weightloss long term and better short term than low-calorie diets.

Interesting that you ignore or discredit studies which are
anti-low-carb but love to bring them up when they support you. It's
probably better if we just stopped citing studies and research.

No only offer up the side of the story that the OP couldn't find
despite all his intense "research". WHatever point you wish to make,
there is a study out there you can use to back you up.

it. Low fat research is based upon ridiculously high levels of carb
consumption.

Not necessarily, no more than low carb research is based upon
ridiculously high levels of saturated fat consumption.

You missed the point.

I'm offering something that
has worked for me for over 8 years and shows no signs of failure.
It's
not a fad,

Low-carb diets have been around throughout the world for 130 years.
Low-fat has been around for 30 years. Which is the fad??

I'm sure that both diets have been around in one form or another for
much longer than that, but arguing over which is a 'fad' is
meaningless, a diet stands on its own merits.

Not for the OP. Perhaps you missed the threading
DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/273/Jul-269/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
Maint.-70 carbs/day (CCLL=50-60)

"Cubit" wrote:

I liked your post Digy. I agree about the internal calorie regulator having
mysterious and profound powers. I too vary by a wide margin from day to day
in calorie consumption, but broad averages in FitDay show an amazing
consistency.

Calorie Chart:
http://techmart.com/~cubit/Chart39.gif

As you can see on the chart, I have been almost exactly at 1400 calories per
day, when averaged a month at a time. I sure as hell didn't do that
intentionally. My original goal was 1600 calories per day. Something else
picked 1400.

I disagree with your comments on people losing at 12x, but not losing at 6x.
I believe those reports were false data.

Having experienced a near overnight shift in metabolic numbers I am
willing to believe in this.

Those particular numbers I used from myself. I did a backwards
calulcation using two week averages to figure out how many calories
per pound my body was using. While I dropped 3-4 pounds a week I was
between 10x-14x--varies depending upon activity level. Then I upped my
carbs to 70/day and right on cue that number dove for a few weeks to
6x-9x. I went from losing 3-4 pounds a week to losing ZERO pounds for
three weeks--and my calorie count was actually decreasing at the time.
I then dropped carbs back down and lost 7.5 lbs in 7 days. My
multipler of course went through the roof. So it seems my body can
vary just how many calories it needs by a great deal by adjusting my
"metabolism". I won't pretend to understand all the mechanics, but I'm
convinced that the body has the ability to conserve or burn greater
than most give it credit for.

Part of what the internal calorie
thermostat does is change our perception of food quantities. I would guess
85% of my FitDay log items were actually measured on a digital kitchen
scale. I'm guessing that measuring process is not typical.

Cubit


"DigitalVinyl" wrote in message
.. .
(The Voice of Reason) wrote:

DigitalVinyl wrote in message
...

It's all about will power.
snip
Everyone in america is simply lazy couch potatoes.

What do you think is the most common thing the typical overweight
American does when he gets home from work?

a) goes for a 5-mile bike ride to the gym, does a 40-minute
weight-lifting session, then cycles home again and works in the
garden.
b) does five minutes on an exercise bike and a half-arsed attempt at
some press-ups.
b) watches TV.

Okay, here's a basic concept that I don't see anyone getting. The
body is a machine--very complex, but it is. And it was ****ing'
ingeniously conceived by whatever/whoever put us together. It knows
better than every scientist and mother on the planet put together what
we need and how to keep the body going. This is true throughout the
entire scope of living species, from bacteria to giant whales.

We EAT for sustenance, for energy. We have attached various other
meanings for psychological as well as Cultural. But it still comes
back to we eat for sustenance. You may gorge on Thanksgiving, but you
won't keep doing that. Your hunger simply won't be there. And hunger
is undeniable. You either will eventually do what it tells you or it
will kill you off. Pretty powerful mechanism there.

SO if I workout like crazy, i get hungrier, and need great sustenance.
Many here have noted the absence of energy without carbs for heavy
duty workouts. The carb-up becomes necessary for some. We've all
experienced the big appetite and the no appetite at all. I've tracked
my calories for months and while I'll eat as little as 800 calories
one day, another I'll eat 3500. But the average constantly comes back
to 1900-2000. Amazing that my body has no problem with the extreme
variants... it balances it out and I don't think or do anything to
make it balance. WHich is cool--and I believe what nature built in all
creatures as the most basic part of the system.

So when people say we are lazy couch potatoes--I think that doesn't
matter. The body would naturally curb appetite because it has no need
for more. the human body can conserve energy so well that people can't
lose weight at 6x multipliers, yet also drop weight at 12x. People
survivie starvation and famine on little. Saying we can't survive
watching TV 15 hours a week is saying the human body wasn't designed
to withstand winters where people would be snowed in for weeks or
hibernate for three months like a bear. Nature is filled with
examples that show--nature has been taking care of far worse extremes
than being a couch potato for millions of years.

When people talk about super-sized meals--well anyone who has eaten a
big meal knows that they may not be hungry until the NEXT DAY! But
the super size argument says no. This never happens. People eat three
supersized meals a day and just keep packing it in without regard to
natural cues.

So why do we get fat-- there is a wrench in the system. SOmething is
broken and it isn't simply will power and lazy cultures. When the
entire population of the US & UK show a near doubling of obesity and
overweight people across a population of over 300 million you know
something is seriously wrong.

I don't believe it is a social engineering problem. Before the obesity
rates skyrocketed there were exercise crazes, Olivia newton john, jane
fonda, jack lalane. These were around 30 years ago. Why did it get
ever worse despite the expansion of exercise and diet that has
infested every aspect of life? People are more aware at every socail
and economic level of diet and exercise and we are far far worse off.
For every ultimate couch potato is a anorexic-Calista-Flockhart girl
or steroid-gym-rat guy. Those types are much more common now than 30
years ago. Yet despite those extremes becoming mainstream the overall
population is worse.

Those are epidemic numbers and I do believe the issue has a biological
trigger. Our diet is defective in a way that our bodies can't
self-regulate properly. Nature can handle absolutely
anything--thinking otherwise is human hubris.

WHen I saw how removing sugar from my diet drove my natural eating
habits from 3500 calories a day to 1900, I knew that I had found
something that had stopped working in my body long ago. I was
overweight by the time I was 5 years old. I have been fat my entire
life. I now weigh less than I did when I was 18 years old (20 years
later). And I have little willpower--I freely admit that. Willpower
didn't get me here. Eliminating carbs was... like magic. Amazing to
me.





Also what is the job of the typical overweight American?

a) 12 hours a day down a mine smashing the rock face with a pickaxe.
b) walking around cleaning things
c) sitting at a desk/behind a counter

It couldn't possibly be that the diet, even those
recommended by the AMA/FDA are in fact a major cause to the sudden
rise of obeisty.

Well I don't remember the AMA/FDA recommending diets consisting of
burgers, chips, chocolate, crisps, beer, all in huge quantities etc.
The FDA may have wrongly suggested a low-fat diet, but it's not like
all these obese people are getting fat by following it. People are fat
because they don't think about their diet they generally just eat the
tastiest thing they have access to when they're hungry.

The FACT that ADULT ONSET DIABETES can't suddenly
can't be called that anymore because children in record numbers are
developing it before puberty--THAT must be because their parents are
gluttons and forcing the children to overdose on sugars or some such
nonsense.

Children these days hardly exist on fruit and vegetables and lean
meats.

In the 1970's and 1980's children in schools had access to a bevy of
junk foods. Local junior and highschool had cages/rooms installed in
the lunch rooms where snacks/sodas were sold. the line was longer
there than to get the school lunch. My brothers were always thin as
twigs and would normally use lunch money to buy soda and snacks and
never ate a balanced meal. They have never been balanced
eaters--skipping vegetables entirely for meat and potatoes their
entire life. They were incredibly thin. Only when they adopted
life-long medication was a body change triggered in them. They did not
lose their WILL to be thin. A metabolic change occcurred. None of them
played sports. One golfed...which means he walked around slowly. (LOL)

The idea that everything is just worse now is a society thing. We all
long for those older, simpler, better days.

DOCTORS couldn't be contributing to it, they "know" too
much. It is just because everyone in the entire ****ry is lazy, and
stupid, and gluttons.

Yeah pretty much. I don't see doctors recommending feeding children
chocolate and cake and sugary breakfast cereal, sugary salty processed
food for dinner then fried starch for tea.

Every single one--they are all too stupid and lazy and gluttonus
overstuffing themselves beyond the human need for food. WHen they are
full they just keep shoveling it in cause that supersize only cost 39
cents more.

I sense sarcasm, but in this case there's no place for sarcasm because
what you're saying is factual even if harshly said.

If you were overweight you need to get over your self-loathing still.

If you sepnt any time here you would have read the ever increasing
list of studies that prove that low carb is jsut as effective at
weightloss long term and better short term than low-calorie diets.

Interesting that you ignore or discredit studies which are
anti-low-carb but love to bring them up when they support you. It's
probably better if we just stopped citing studies and research.

No only offer up the side of the story that the OP couldn't find
despite all his intense "research". WHatever point you wish to make,
there is a study out there you can use to back you up.

it. Low fat research is based upon ridiculously high levels of carb
consumption.

Not necessarily, no more than low carb research is based upon
ridiculously high levels of saturated fat consumption.

You missed the point.

I'm offering something that
has worked for me for over 8 years and shows no signs of failure.
It's
not a fad,

Low-carb diets have been around throughout the world for 130 years.
Low-fat has been around for 30 years. Which is the fad??

I'm sure that both diets have been around in one form or another for
much longer than that, but arguing over which is a 'fad' is
meaningless, a diet stands on its own merits.

Not for the OP. Perhaps you missed the threading
DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/273/Jul-269/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
Maint.-70 carbs/day (CCLL=50-60)


DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/273/Jul-269/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
Maint.-70 carbs/day (CCLL=50-60)

"Cubit" wrote:

I liked your post Digy. I agree about the internal calorie regulator having
mysterious and profound powers. I too vary by a wide margin from day to day
in calorie consumption, but broad averages in FitDay show an amazing
consistency.

Calorie Chart:
http://techmart.com/~cubit/Chart39.gif

As you can see on the chart, I have been almost exactly at 1400 calories per
day, when averaged a month at a time. I sure as hell didn't do that
intentionally. My original goal was 1600 calories per day. Something else
picked 1400.

I disagree with your comments on people losing at 12x, but not losing at 6x.
I believe those reports were false data.

Having experienced a near overnight shift in metabolic numbers I am
willing to believe in this.

Those particular numbers I used from myself. I did a backwards
calulcation using two week averages to figure out how many calories
per pound my body was using. While I dropped 3-4 pounds a week I was
between 10x-14x--varies depending upon activity level. Then I upped my
carbs to 70/day and right on cue that number dove for a few weeks to
6x-9x. I went from losing 3-4 pounds a week to losing ZERO pounds for
three weeks--and my calorie count was actually decreasing at the time.
I then dropped carbs back down and lost 7.5 lbs in 7 days. My
multipler of course went through the roof. So it seems my body can
vary just how many calories it needs by a great deal by adjusting my
"metabolism". I won't pretend to understand all the mechanics, but I'm
convinced that the body has the ability to conserve or burn greater
than most give it credit for.

Part of what the internal calorie
thermostat does is change our perception of food quantities. I would guess
85% of my FitDay log items were actually measured on a digital kitchen
scale. I'm guessing that measuring process is not typical.

Cubit


"DigitalVinyl" wrote in message
.. .
(The Voice of Reason) wrote:

DigitalVinyl wrote in message
...

It's all about will power.
snip
Everyone in america is simply lazy couch potatoes.

What do you think is the most common thing the typical overweight
American does when he gets home from work?

a) goes for a 5-mile bike ride to the gym, does a 40-minute
weight-lifting session, then cycles home again and works in the
garden.
b) does five minutes on an exercise bike and a half-arsed attempt at
some press-ups.
b) watches TV.

Okay, here's a basic concept that I don't see anyone getting. The
body is a machine--very complex, but it is. And it was ****ing'
ingeniously conceived by whatever/whoever put us together. It knows
better than every scientist and mother on the planet put together what
we need and how to keep the body going. This is true throughout the
entire scope of living species, from bacteria to giant whales.

We EAT for sustenance, for energy. We have attached various other
meanings for psychological as well as Cultural. But it still comes
back to we eat for sustenance. You may gorge on Thanksgiving, but you
won't keep doing that. Your hunger simply won't be there. And hunger
is undeniable. You either will eventually do what it tells you or it
will kill you off. Pretty powerful mechanism there.

SO if I workout like crazy, i get hungrier, and need great sustenance.
Many here have noted the absence of energy without carbs for heavy
duty workouts. The carb-up becomes necessary for some. We've all
experienced the big appetite and the no appetite at all. I've tracked
my calories for months and while I'll eat as little as 800 calories
one day, another I'll eat 3500. But the average constantly comes back
to 1900-2000. Amazing that my body has no problem with the extreme
variants... it balances it out and I don't think or do anything to
make it balance. WHich is cool--and I believe what nature built in all
creatures as the most basic part of the system.

So when people say we are lazy couch potatoes--I think that doesn't
matter. The body would naturally curb appetite because it has no need
for more. the human body can conserve energy so well that people can't
lose weight at 6x multipliers, yet also drop weight at 12x. People
survivie starvation and famine on little. Saying we can't survive
watching TV 15 hours a week is saying the human body wasn't designed
to withstand winters where people would be snowed in for weeks or
hibernate for three months like a bear. Nature is filled with
examples that show--nature has been taking care of far worse extremes
than being a couch potato for millions of years.

When people talk about super-sized meals--well anyone who has eaten a
big meal knows that they may not be hungry until the NEXT DAY! But
the super size argument says no. This never happens. People eat three
supersized meals a day and just keep packing it in without regard to
natural cues.

So why do we get fat-- there is a wrench in the system. SOmething is
broken and it isn't simply will power and lazy cultures. When the
entire population of the US & UK show a near doubling of obesity and
overweight people across a population of over 300 million you know
something is seriously wrong.

I don't believe it is a social engineering problem. Before the obesity
rates skyrocketed there were exercise crazes, Olivia newton john, jane
fonda, jack lalane. These were around 30 years ago. Why did it get
ever worse despite the expansion of exercise and diet that has
infested every aspect of life? People are more aware at every socail
and economic level of diet and exercise and we are far far worse off.
For every ultimate couch potato is a anorexic-Calista-Flockhart girl
or steroid-gym-rat guy. Those types are much more common now than 30
years ago. Yet despite those extremes becoming mainstream the overall
population is worse.

Those are epidemic numbers and I do believe the issue has a biological
trigger. Our diet is defective in a way that our bodies can't
self-regulate properly. Nature can handle absolutely
anything--thinking otherwise is human hubris.

WHen I saw how removing sugar from my diet drove my natural eating
habits from 3500 calories a day to 1900, I knew that I had found
something that had stopped working in my body long ago. I was
overweight by the time I was 5 years old. I have been fat my entire
life. I now weigh less than I did when I was 18 years old (20 years
later). And I have little willpower--I freely admit that. Willpower
didn't get me here. Eliminating carbs was... like magic. Amazing to
me.





Also what is the job of the typical overweight American?

a) 12 hours a day down a mine smashing the rock face with a pickaxe.
b) walking around cleaning things
c) sitting at a desk/behind a counter

It couldn't possibly be that the diet, even those
recommended by the AMA/FDA are in fact a major cause to the sudden
rise of obeisty.

Well I don't remember the AMA/FDA recommending diets consisting of
burgers, chips, chocolate, crisps, beer, all in huge quantities etc.
The FDA may have wrongly suggested a low-fat diet, but it's not like
all these obese people are getting fat by following it. People are fat
because they don't think about their diet they generally just eat the
tastiest thing they have access to when they're hungry.

The FACT that ADULT ONSET DIABETES can't suddenly
can't be called that anymore because children in record numbers are
developing it before puberty--THAT must be because their parents are
gluttons and forcing the children to overdose on sugars or some such
nonsense.

Children these days hardly exist on fruit and vegetables and lean
meats.

In the 1970's and 1980's children in schools had access to a bevy of
junk foods. Local junior and highschool had cages/rooms installed in
the lunch rooms where snacks/sodas were sold. the line was longer
there than to get the school lunch. My brothers were always thin as
twigs and would normally use lunch money to buy soda and snacks and
never ate a balanced meal. They have never been balanced
eaters--skipping vegetables entirely for meat and potatoes their
entire life. They were incredibly thin. Only when they adopted
life-long medication was a body change triggered in them. They did not
lose their WILL to be thin. A metabolic change occcurred. None of them
played sports. One golfed...which means he walked around slowly. (LOL)

The idea that everything is just worse now is a society thing. We all
long for those older, simpler, better days.

DOCTORS couldn't be contributing to it, they "know" too
much. It is just because everyone in the entire ****ry is lazy, and
stupid, and gluttons.

Yeah pretty much. I don't see doctors recommending feeding children
chocolate and cake and sugary breakfast cereal, sugary salty processed
food for dinner then fried starch for tea.

Every single one--they are all too stupid and lazy and gluttonus
overstuffing themselves beyond the human need for food. WHen they are
full they just keep shoveling it in cause that supersize only cost 39
cents more.

I sense sarcasm, but in this case there's no place for sarcasm because
what you're saying is factual even if harshly said.

If you were overweight you need to get over your self-loathing still.

If you sepnt any time here you would have read the ever increasing
list of studies that prove that low carb is jsut as effective at
weightloss long term and better short term than low-calorie diets.

Interesting that you ignore or discredit studies which are
anti-low-carb but love to bring them up when they support you. It's
probably better if we just stopped citing studies and research.

No only offer up the side of the story that the OP couldn't find
despite all his intense "research". WHatever point you wish to make,
there is a study out there you can use to back you up.

it. Low fat research is based upon ridiculously high levels of carb
consumption.

Not necessarily, no more than low carb research is based upon
ridiculously high levels of saturated fat consumption.

You missed the point.

I'm offering something that
has worked for me for over 8 years and shows no signs of failure.
It's
not a fad,

Low-carb diets have been around throughout the world for 130 years.
Low-fat has been around for 30 years. Which is the fad??

I'm sure that both diets have been around in one form or another for
much longer than that, but arguing over which is a 'fad' is
meaningless, a diet stands on its own merits.

Not for the OP. Perhaps you missed the threading
DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/273/Jul-269/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
Maint.-70 carbs/day (CCLL=50-60)


DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/273/Jul-269/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
Maint.-70 carbs/day (CCLL=50-60)

Rob wrote:
Tony Lew wrote:




My eating habits don’t conform to the low fat diet standards either.
I eat plenty of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat. It’s the
saturated fats and trans-fats that I limit.



You don't do "low fat". You do "calorie counting". But the same
question applies. "Calorie counting" has been around a LONG time.
I have cookbooks from the 40's and 50's with calorie tables in them.
Where are all the thin people from calorie counting?


"calorie counting" seems to have been a bad term to use. I call it that
since I calculate my resting metabolic rate (RMR) then add it to my
exercise calories to find my max caloric intake.

RMR=13x155+500
RMR=2515 calories

"Portion control" is apparently a more accepted term than counting
calories so lets use that instead. I'm convinced that "most", since
there are exceptions to every rule, fit people portion control their
meals and that's how they stay trim. They may have tried "low fat" or
"low carb." along the way, but portion control was their key to success.
Published diets drop foods, food groups and ingredients but in the end,
it’s less or equal calories in than are burned, that makes the final
difference.

Where are all the thin people from calorie counting?

If it’s any or all of the above, how do we collectively find a solution
that might work for everyone? How would our government, who’s been
blamed for obesity, keep portion control in check?


I suggest that since you posed the question the way that you did, that
you lack understanding of real people.

People aren't like mechanical machines.... they seem supeficially the
same but are internally quite varied.

It is quite difficult to change real people in a mass.

Some examples seem to have been intense propaganda during war. Even
those worked only on some, and not necessarily completely.

Constant repitition is a major factor.

Is that why you keep saying the same things over and over and over?

JIm

Rob wrote:
Tony Lew wrote:




My eating habits don’t conform to the low fat diet standards either.
I eat plenty of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat. It’s the
saturated fats and trans-fats that I limit.



You don't do "low fat". You do "calorie counting". But the same
question applies. "Calorie counting" has been around a LONG time.
I have cookbooks from the 40's and 50's with calorie tables in them.
Where are all the thin people from calorie counting?


"calorie counting" seems to have been a bad term to use. I call it that
since I calculate my resting metabolic rate (RMR) then add it to my
exercise calories to find my max caloric intake.

RMR=13x155+500
RMR=2515 calories

"Portion control" is apparently a more accepted term than counting
calories so lets use that instead. I'm convinced that "most", since
there are exceptions to every rule, fit people portion control their
meals and that's how they stay trim. They may have tried "low fat" or
"low carb." along the way, but portion control was their key to success.
Published diets drop foods, food groups and ingredients but in the end,
it’s less or equal calories in than are burned, that makes the final
difference.

Where are all the thin people from calorie counting?

If it’s any or all of the above, how do we collectively find a solution
that might work for everyone? How would our government, who’s been
blamed for obesity, keep portion control in check?


I suggest that since you posed the question the way that you did, that
you lack understanding of real people.

People aren't like mechanical machines.... they seem supeficially the
same but are internally quite varied.

It is quite difficult to change real people in a mass.

Some examples seem to have been intense propaganda during war. Even
those worked only on some, and not necessarily completely.

Constant repitition is a major factor.

Is that why you keep saying the same things over and over and over?

JIm