Starve and live longer

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06031/647276.stm

Btw, my 1000 C A L O R I E diet has allowed me to lose from 262 - 213
(almost 50 lbs) since Oct 15
and I dont feel hungry any more than I did when NOT dieting...

Bottom line: Folks you have to limit C A L O R I E S to be your natural
weight (as per what those embarrassing public scales say you shud weigh)..

Once they stop losing weight, they are no longer on CR. They have slowed
their metabolism down and are simply maintaining on fewer calories. So they
aren't overeating, they are just operating "slower." The body has an
ability to operate at different points along an energy curve.

Now, you are on a rapid weight loss diet. What you're doing has nothing to
do with what they are doing. You're just a dumbass troll who is losing LBM
and who'll probably regain those 50 lbs. You have no right to say jack
until you keep the pounds (and valuable LBM) off for a couple of years, at
least.

David Frank wrote:
:: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06031/647276.stm
::
:: Btw, my 1000 C A L O R I E diet has allowed me to lose from 262 -
:: 213 (almost 50 lbs) since Oct 15
:: and I dont feel hungry any more than I did when NOT dieting...
::
:: Bottom line: Folks you have to limit C A L O R I E S to be your
:: natural weight (as per what those embarrassing public scales say you
:: shud weigh)..

David Frank wrote:
"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...

Once they stop losing weight, they are no longer on CR. They have slowed
their metabolism down and are simply maintaining on fewer calories. So
they aren't overeating, they are just operating "slower." The body has an
ability to operate at different points along an energy curve.



Nah, its almost certain that as time goes on they get diet
sloppy/overconfident and CHEAT without knowing it..
Your body burns calories every day as per the exercise performed and there
is no such thing as metabolism allowing you to perform at same exercise
level on fewer calories, however there is the fact that one uses more
calories when overweight to perform at the same exercise level, so yes, one
has to be aware of that and pick up the slack...

"Things are seldom what they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream" W.S.
Gilbert





David Frank "Means Well", but may be doing significant harm in trying to
do good.

Remember Marx, Lenin and Stalin - Communism was to be an ideal society
in which people would work and share freely for the common good. They
attributed great inner nobility to man.

However, great inner nobility has never been demonstrated as a
widespread and lifelong trait of humanity.

Communism "Meant Well", but history shows it was highly dangerous.

It attempted to persuade the world to accept false assumptions.

--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

1000 cals sounds very little to me. It's not something you can do for the rest of your life. As soon as you go back to eating normal amount of cals, you'll gain back the weight you lost.

David Frank wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
:: ...
::: Once they stop losing weight, they are no longer on CR. They have
::: slowed their metabolism down and are simply maintaining on fewer
::: calories. So they aren't overeating, they are just operating
::: "slower." The body has an ability to operate at different points
::: along an energy curve.
:::
::
:: Nah, its almost certain that as time goes on they get diet
:: sloppy/overconfident and CHEAT without knowing it..

Perhaps, in the case of those claiming to do CR. Also, I noticed that they
average calories, which is something I do a lot to maintain weight. For
example, if you want to eat at 1000 kcal/day, which is 3000 kcals/3days.
You can eat 1500, 500, and 1000 or 1250, 750, and 1000.


:: Your body burns calories every day as per the exercise performed and
:: there is no such thing as metabolism allowing you to perform at same
:: exercise level on fewer calories,

Your resting metabolism can slow as much as 30%, when you consistently
undereat. That doesn't imply that you won't lose weight, but the rate of
loss will slow due to a metabolism decrease. You might indeed burn the same
calories if you really did the same exersise with the same intensity and
duration. However, once your metabolism decreases there will be slight
changes in output that might only result in a slight decrease in expediture.
One could never really measure that I suppose, but I'd bet money it's there.

however there is the fact that
:: one uses more calories when overweight to perform at the same
:: exercise level, so yes, one has to be aware of that and pick up the
:: slack...

You can rest assured that your metobolism has slowed and that you've lost a
significant amount of LBM as part of your 50 lbs rapid-weight loss. Since
you know you can lose weight, why don't you slow it down a bit and keep some
muscle?


::
:: "Things are seldom what they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream"
:: W.S. Gilbert

David Frank wrote:

Nah, its almost certain that as time goes on they get diet
sloppy/overconfident and CHEAT without knowing it..

And you have exactly what going for you that makes that
trend not apply to you? I take it you have done a close
review of why people end up cheating, and you are using a
new strategy that takes that into account, right? Or are
you just ignorantly charging ahead figuring you're different?

Your body burns calories every day as per the exercise performed and there
is no such thing as metabolism allowing you to perform at same exercise
level on fewer calories,

Statement that has been proven incorrect in numerous
experiements. Humans are not gasoline engines.

however there is the fact that one uses more
calories when overweight to perform at the same exercise level, so yes, one
has to be aware of that and pick up the slack...

You got a part of it correct at least.

So, tell us about your studies and what you've changed compared
to the hundreds of thousands before you who charged in with good
intentions but poor knowledge. Or explain to us how you are
different from them. I do realize you aren't interested in taking
any advice from the folks who've learned the hard ways before you
started.

Give us an idea of what you would eat in a typical day. Tell us what
exactly works for you.

TC

David Frank wrote:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06031/647276.stm

Btw, my 1000 C A L O R I E diet has allowed me to lose from 262 - 213
(almost 50 lbs) since Oct 15
and I dont feel hungry any more than I did when NOT dieting...

Bottom line: Folks you have to limit C A L O R I E S to be your natural
weight (as per what those embarrassing public scales say you shud weigh)..

wrote in message
oups.com...
Give us an idea of what you would eat in a typical day. Tell us what
exactly works for you.


http://home.earthlink.net/~davegemini/diet.txt

My diet table is in daily flux and above is just a current snapshot showing
700 calories, but believe me by the time
I hit the sack at night I usually am near the 1000 calories, e.g. 2 oz of
Fat-free Pringles (140 cal)..

BUT note my table doesnt list carbs or fat, just calories and protein, so
my menu items are UNLIMITED in scope
just like in the so-called "starvation diet" of the article.
btw, the calorie/protein totals are calculated by a little computer program
I wrote

What will be first menu modification when I hit my goal of 200 lbs?
I will add a 2nd beer as recommended by NIH of course!!

I keep screwing up the link to my online files...

http://home.earthlink.net/~dave_gemini/diet.txt

David Frank wrote:

What will be first menu modification when I hit my goal of 200 lbs?
I will add a 2nd beer as recommended by NIH of course!!

One must have priorities. Chuckle. I suggest a really good
Trappist Ale from Belgium. Maybe Chimay. If you're only
going to have one beer, make it the absolute best beer you
can find anywhere. Of course my sugestion of Chimay shows
my tastes in beer not yours so you'll likely chose differently.

I drink very few beers these days. Not every week. So I
figure if I'm going to have one beer in a 1-2 week period, I'm
not interested in usingprice as a guide for my purchase. So
what if I select a beer at $10. Folks who have a case in a
week pay that for a week's supply so why should I pay that
for a week's supply. You can get a lot better beer that
way. ;^) I rarely have beers any worse than Guiness.