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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
"marengo" wrote in message ...
The Voice of Reason wrote: snip A high | protein intake and resistance exercise is crucial to any plan to lose | fat. Sorry, but you are incorrect. This is your own theory and should not be presented as fact. I have a disability and get very little exercise. I do not eat high amounts of protein; only about the same amount as before low. carb. I've lost 60 pounds so far, mostly fat as evidenced by my pictures. My own weight loss is proof that you're wrong. Peter 270/213/180 Before/Current Pix: http://users.thelink.net/marengo/wei...htlosspix.html looks to me like you can make that statement after you are 35 pounds lighter. I'm guessing you'll stall pretty quick using the all-you-can-eat diet plan. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
He didn't say anything about an all-you-can-eat plan, you can't even read
right. In om, billydee stated || || || Sorry, but you are incorrect. This is your own theory and should || not be presented as fact. || || I have a disability and get very little exercise. I do not eat high || amounts of protein; only about the same amount as before low. carb. || I've lost 60 pounds so far, mostly fat as evidenced by my pictures. || My own weight loss is proof that you're wrong. || || Peter || 270/213/180 || Before/Current Pix: || http://users.thelink.net/marengo/wei...htlosspix.html | | looks to me like you can make that statement after you are 35 pounds | lighter. I'm guessing you'll stall pretty quick using the | all-you-can-eat diet plan. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
He didn't say anything about an all-you-can-eat plan, you can't even read
right. In om, billydee stated || || || Sorry, but you are incorrect. This is your own theory and should || not be presented as fact. || || I have a disability and get very little exercise. I do not eat high || amounts of protein; only about the same amount as before low. carb. || I've lost 60 pounds so far, mostly fat as evidenced by my pictures. || My own weight loss is proof that you're wrong. || || Peter || 270/213/180 || Before/Current Pix: || http://users.thelink.net/marengo/wei...htlosspix.html | | looks to me like you can make that statement after you are 35 pounds | lighter. I'm guessing you'll stall pretty quick using the | all-you-can-eat diet plan. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
billydee wrote:
| "marengo" wrote in message | ... || The Voice of Reason wrote: || || snip || A high ||| protein intake and resistance exercise is crucial to any plan to ||| lose fat. || || || Sorry, but you are incorrect. This is your own theory and should || not be presented as fact. || || I have a disability and get very little exercise. I do not eat high || amounts of protein; only about the same amount as before low. carb. || I've lost 60 pounds so far, mostly fat as evidenced by my pictures. || My own weight loss is proof that you're wrong. || || Peter || 270/213/180 || Before/Current Pix: || http://users.thelink.net/marengo/wei...htlosspix.html | | looks to me like you can make that statement after you are 35 pounds | lighter. I'm guessing you'll stall pretty quick using the | all-you-can-eat diet plan. Huh? What are you talking about? Do you call losing 57 pounds in 6-1/2 months "stalling pretty quick?" I limit my calories to 1400 or so a day (70% of these calories from fat, 25% from protein and 5% from carbohydrates). I record everything I eat and track all my daily intake - including nutritional values -- on Fitday. I certainly do not use the "all you can eat diet plan." You must have the thread mixed up and have me confused with someone else || Peter || 270/213/180 || Before/Current Pix: || http://users.thelink.net/marengo/wei...htlosspix.html |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
On 12 Aug 2004 21:40:43 GMT, jamie wrote:
Did you read the study extract? Above lies a perfect example of why discussions outside of the science community regarding "extracts", citations and (non)empirical studies have little to no merit in alt.diet.support groups. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
On 12 Aug 2004 21:40:43 GMT, jamie wrote:
Did you read the study extract? Above lies a perfect example of why discussions outside of the science community regarding "extracts", citations and (non)empirical studies have little to no merit in alt.diet.support groups. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
"PJx" wrote in message ... On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 05:02:59 GMT, "jk" wrote: "Luna" wrote in message ... In article , "jk" wrote: Oh really? Why not give it a try. Start today by eating ONLY 5000 calories of butter, or lard, or heavy cream, and see if you gain or lose weight. Please report back, we're all anxiously waiting for your report. Oh, now I get it. It won't make you fat to eat that way because you'll puke most of it back up. -- Michelle Levin Now that's yet another reason aside from diahrea. But seriously... eating 5000 calories of fat all by itself won't make you fat. It's a fact that dietary fat doesn't convert to serum or body fat. It's only when you add carbs to it, that the body starts converting. I agree with you. And so does several million others who went from low-fat to low-carb high protein/fat and consumed double the calories and started losing weight. It's a fact, jack, regardless of what the trolls on here say. I think you'll agree that while it's true that you can eat more calories and lose weight on a LC diet, you cannot eat *unlimited* calories and lose weight on a LC diet. Most people on a LC diet can eat whatever they want as long as they keep the carbs down and still lose weight, because LC helps control your appetite, whereas carbohydrates (especially refined ones) stimulate your appetite. You know this already, I'm sure. But what you might not know is that some people are addicted to compulsive overeating, and will stuff themselves when they are not even hungry, and do this on a daily basis. I am one of those people. It is very hard to give up an addiction to overeating. Overeating addictions are unique, because an alcohol or drug addict can stay away from alcohol or drugs and that will help them fight the addiction, but overeaters still have to eat three times a day, and that means facing their addiction head-on three times a day... |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
MU wrote:
On 12 Aug 2004 21:40:43 GMT, jamie wrote: Did you read the study extract? Above lies a perfect example of why discussions outside of the science community regarding "extracts", citations and (non)empirical studies have little to no merit in alt.diet.support groups. If you have access to the full study, rather than the extract, I'd like to see it. It might answer my questions about the extract. It was less a matter, IMO, of any problem discussing an extract in a laypersons' group, than misleading math used in the way it's often used in advertisements. The sixty-six percent more calories cited from in the study sounds like a lot more than it is, until the "more than what" number (1100) is actually examined. It did say the children were ages 12 to 18, ranging from 20 to 100 pounds overweight. Speaking as a 5-foot-tall woman, my frame is about the height of the average 12 year-old, and surely less active than a 12 to 18 year-old, and 1100 calories would be very low for me. I maintain goal at about 1400 to 1600 calories, and I'm not all that active (although I have very large, dense bones for my height, and a fortunate genetic tendency to be somewhat more muscley than my activity level suggests, which skews my numbers from the average.) 1100 would be even lower for the older, larger teens in the study, and those with a lot to lose. It's very possible that the ones on the 1100 cal diet didn't have as much energy to be as active as the ones eating a few hundred more calories on the low-carb diet, or was low enough to promote muscle mass loss that would lower their basal metabolism and reduce the amount of fat loss. With the limit for the low-fat group set so low, and no further details, it can't necessarily be assumed that it was low-carbing accounting for higher losses at ~1700 calories, rather than a more reasonable calorie level maintaining more muscle mass, and perhaps energy for more activity. -- jamie ) "There's a seeker born every minute." |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
MU wrote:
On 12 Aug 2004 21:40:43 GMT, jamie wrote: Did you read the study extract? Above lies a perfect example of why discussions outside of the science community regarding "extracts", citations and (non)empirical studies have little to no merit in alt.diet.support groups. If you have access to the full study, rather than the extract, I'd like to see it. It might answer my questions about the extract. It was less a matter, IMO, of any problem discussing an extract in a laypersons' group, than misleading math used in the way it's often used in advertisements. The sixty-six percent more calories cited from in the study sounds like a lot more than it is, until the "more than what" number (1100) is actually examined. It did say the children were ages 12 to 18, ranging from 20 to 100 pounds overweight. Speaking as a 5-foot-tall woman, my frame is about the height of the average 12 year-old, and surely less active than a 12 to 18 year-old, and 1100 calories would be very low for me. I maintain goal at about 1400 to 1600 calories, and I'm not all that active (although I have very large, dense bones for my height, and a fortunate genetic tendency to be somewhat more muscley than my activity level suggests, which skews my numbers from the average.) 1100 would be even lower for the older, larger teens in the study, and those with a lot to lose. It's very possible that the ones on the 1100 cal diet didn't have as much energy to be as active as the ones eating a few hundred more calories on the low-carb diet, or was low enough to promote muscle mass loss that would lower their basal metabolism and reduce the amount of fat loss. With the limit for the low-fat group set so low, and no further details, it can't necessarily be assumed that it was low-carbing accounting for higher losses at ~1700 calories, rather than a more reasonable calorie level maintaining more muscle mass, and perhaps energy for more activity. -- jamie ) "There's a seeker born every minute." |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
On 13 Aug 2004 19:41:38 GMT, jamie wrote:
Did you read the study extract? Above lies a perfect example of why discussions outside of the science community regarding "extracts", citations and (non)empirical studies have little to no merit in alt.diet.support groups. On 13 Aug 2004 19:41:38 GMT, jamie wrote: If you have access to the full study, rather than the extract, I'd like to see it. It might answer my questions about the extract. If I did, I wouldn't publish it here. See above. As for extracts, the only one I have at the moment is vanilla. It was less a matter, IMO, of any problem discussing an extract in a laypersons' group, than misleading math used in the way it's often used in advertisements. Math aside, discussing citations in a lay group is a waste of time. It did say the children were ages 12 to 18, ranging from 20 to 100 pounds overweight. Speaking as a 5-foot-tall woman, my frame is about the height of the average 12 year-old, and surely less active than a 12 to 18 year-old, and 1100 calories would be very low for me. I maintain goal at about 1400 to 1600 calories, and I'm not all that active (although I have very large, dense bones for my height, and a fortunate genetic tendency to be somewhat more muscley than my activity level suggests, which skews my numbers from the average.) 1100 would be even lower for the older, larger teens in the study, and those with a lot to lose. It's very possible that the ones on the 1100 cal diet didn't have as much energy to be as active as the ones eating a few hundred more calories on the low-carb diet, or was low enough to promote muscle mass loss that would lower their basal metabolism and reduce the amount of fat loss. With the limit for the low-fat group set so low, and no further details, it can't necessarily be assumed that it was low-carbing accounting for higher losses at ~1700 calories, rather than a more reasonable calorie level maintaining more muscle mass, and perhaps energy for more activity. Look, jamie, all of the above is nice conversation but the use of your analyses of either an abstract or the cited study itself is practically valueless. Put simply, you don't have the background, the education, the experience or the credentials to analyze these studies. Hence, there is little credibility in waht you have posted. But it is nice conversation for conversations sake. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret | Robin Smith | Low Calorie | 9 | October 15th, 2010 02:51 PM |
Something new | MOM PEAGRAM | Weightwatchers | 7 | June 13th, 2004 01:35 AM |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret | tcomeau | Low Calorie | 113 | February 14th, 2004 03:26 PM |
Table 3. Hit List of Weight-Gaining Behaviors from Dr. Phil's book | That T Woman | General Discussion | 45 | January 20th, 2004 02:23 PM |
Low carb diets | Weightwatchers | 245 | January 9th, 2004 12:15 AM |