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

Eating less does not result in weight loss



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 7th, 2003, 03:21 AM
Bob Ward
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Eating less does not result in weight loss

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 01:49:55 GMT, "Cat" wrote:

Eating less does not result in weight loss? Duhhhh.....I'll tell that to the
75 lbs. I've lost so far. They'll be surprised to hear it. G

Cat (snickering)


Snickers are fattening.

Eating less doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE weight loss.

There are other factors to consider, too.


  #12  
Old October 7th, 2003, 07:47 AM
MadJock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Eating less does not result in weight loss

Snickers are fattening.

Eating less doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE weight loss.

There are other factors to consider, too.


I beg to differ. If you eat less calories than you use on a daily basis,
you will lose weight. It's a very simple formula. You say that there are
other factors - and there are other factors to consider if you want to stay
healthy, but if it is purely weight loss you are looking for, eating less
will make you lose weight.

MadJock
204/191/165


  #13  
Old October 7th, 2003, 07:53 AM
Michael Snyder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Eating less does not result in weight loss


MadJock wrote in message ...
Snickers are fattening.

Eating less doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE weight loss.

There are other factors to consider, too.


I beg to differ. If you eat less calories than you use on a daily basis,
you will lose weight. It's a very simple formula.


And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.
Over-simplifications such as these serve no one --
least of all people who would like to lose weight.
If you eat less calories on a daily basis, the amount
of calories you USE will very likely change.





  #14  
Old October 7th, 2003, 08:51 AM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Eating less does not result in weight loss

Bob Ward writes:

Eating less doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE weight loss.


It does if it results in consuming fewer calories than you burn.
Otherwise it does not.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #15  
Old October 7th, 2003, 08:54 AM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Eating less does not result in weight loss

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.

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.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #16  
Old October 7th, 2003, 11:17 AM
Ralph DuBose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Eating less does not result in weight loss

"Michael Snyder" wrote in message ...
MadJock wrote in message ...
Snickers are fattening.

Eating less doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE weight loss.

There are other factors to consider, too.


I beg to differ. If you eat less calories than you use on a daily basis,
you will lose weight. It's a very simple formula.


And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.
Over-simplifications such as these serve no one --
least of all people who would like to lose weight.
If you eat less calories on a daily basis, the amount
of calories you USE will very likely change.


Basal etabolism is the only type that really can change and it can
change (decrease) only a small amount before you would die of
hypothermia.
Calorie comsumption from muscle activity does not and cannot vary
that much per unit of exercise. A 10 mile walk is a 10 mile walk and
doing it requires fuel. "X" number of calories are required to get
there. Actually, fat people must use more calories to get there.
The real difference between "naturally" thin people and the
easy-to-be-fat variety is in the difference in the amount of
spontaneous, unconscious activity that is carried out. Fat people just
sit there. Thin people squirm, fidget, climb around in their chair.
Exercise per se may not burn huge amounts of calories but it
increases muscle tone and makes it more likely that a person will be
more mobile and active in every area of life.
Being as active as possible is the key because nobody is really
going to eat the tiny number of calories needed to balance with a low
activity lifesyle.
  #17  
Old October 7th, 2003, 11:20 AM
Mr. F. Le Mur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Eating less does not result in weight loss

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.

For example: "However, the major factor affecting resting metabolic
rate is decreased food intake with age."
http://www.merck.com/pubs/mm_geriatrics/sec8/ch62.htm



  #18  
Old October 7th, 2003, 02:15 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Eating less does not result in weight loss

Mr. F. Le Mur writes:

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


The change is slight and largely temporary.

For example: "However, the major factor affecting resting metabolic
rate is decreased food intake with age."


BMR stays mostly the same to the extent that health is maintained. In
any case, falling BMR is not an excuse for obesity, nor is it an excuse
for failing to lose weight. These minor changes in metabolic rate are
never enough to make much difference in a diet program--their importance
is routinely exaggerated by those who are grasping for any way to avoid
responsibility for their own obesity.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #19  
Old October 7th, 2003, 02:19 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Eating less does not result in weight loss

Ralph DuBose writes:

The real difference between "naturally" thin people and the
easy-to-be-fat variety is in the difference in the amount of
spontaneous, unconscious activity that is carried out. Fat people just
sit there. Thin people squirm, fidget, climb around in their chair.


The real difference is that thin people eat less food than fat people.

Fat people claim that thin people "eat all they want" and never gain
weight. Well, thin people don't want to eat very much. If you actually
observe what thin people eat during the course of a single day, and what
fat people eat during the course of a day, it's very easy to see why the
thin people stay thin, and the fat people stay fat.

Exercise per se may not burn huge amounts of calories but it
increases muscle tone and makes it more likely that a person will be
more mobile and active in every area of life.


Exercise is always a good thing. However, one should not assume (as fat
people often do) that increasing exercise makes eating restrictions
unnecessary. To lose weight, you really _must_ eat less; most fat
people cannot afford to exercise enough to burn off all the calories
they consume by overeating, and often they are in such poor shape that
exercising to that extreme might be dangerous. So cutting calories is
necessary whether you exercise or not, and fat people who think that
they can just exercise a bit more and become thin, while still eating
double portions at every meal, are dreaming.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #20  
Old October 7th, 2003, 02:49 PM
Mr. F. Le Mur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Eating less does not result in weight loss

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 15:15:31 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

-Mr. F. Le Mur writes:
-
- Actually one's metabolism does change when calorie intake changes.
- Lower calorie intake - lower metabolism.
-
-The change is slight and largely temporary.
-
- For example: "However, the major factor affecting resting metabolic
- rate is decreased food intake with age."
-
-BMR stays mostly the same to the extent that health is maintained. In
-any case, falling BMR is not an excuse for obesity, nor is it an excuse
-for failing to lose weight. These minor changes in metabolic rate are
-never enough to make much difference in a diet program--their importance
-is routinely exaggerated by those who are grasping for any way to avoid
-responsibility for their own obesity.

I wonder about that though, since I never get fat no matter how
much I eat. Back in my younger days the only way I could vary my
weight was either by running a lot (10-15 miles/day = lose weight,
including muscle weight) or lifting weights (= gain weight). I
haven't done either for quite a while and I still weigh about the
same as 20 years, if not slightly less. FWIW, I eat whatever I
feel like eating, and it's usually high in fat and sugar.
(So I think there might be something to recent theory that low-fat
diets tend to make people fat.)


 




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
Hi - anyone else tried "no dieting" approach to finally getting weight under control? Jennifer Austin General Discussion 9 September 26th, 2003 04:41 PM
Some Lapband facts (Can we retire the myths?) Sharon C General Discussion 1 September 25th, 2003 12:20 PM
Dr. Phil's weight loss plan Steve General Discussion 6 September 24th, 2003 10:33 PM
Medifast diet Jennifer Austin General Discussion 17 September 23rd, 2003 05:50 AM
"Ideal weight" followup beeswing General Discussion 8 September 20th, 2003 01:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:35 PM.


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