Just How Many Calories, Then?

Doug Freese wrote:
"TC" wrote in message
ps.com...

wrote:
On 1 Nov 2006 19:09:26 -0800, "TC" wrote:


Doug Freese wrote:
"TC" wrote in message
oups.com...
These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control
groups
are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for
food. Then
when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live
longer
than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted
calories.
Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is
that
simple. It has nothing to do with calories.


How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he
see's
ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.

-DF

Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.

TC

Reading and understanding are two different things.

It isn't rocket science. Trust me, it isn't rocket science.

We agree, it isn't rocket science. Eat too much you get fat. Eat
balanced, avoid simple sugars and overly processed food and by all
means, exercise and you will be healthy and not fat. Very simple indeed!

Food science has only succeeded in giving us
the highest rates of obesity and diet related chronic disease in world
history, which is diametrically opposite to their stated goals.

To many calories has caused the obesity.


I suggest you start reading these nutrition studies closely and with
an, at least, mildly critical eye. You will get an education on what
garbage science really is.

And there is a boogie man hiding behind very tree.

-DF

Since 1970, we've increased carb consumption by 12% and reduced fat
consumtion by 10%. That was supposed to result in less calories and
less obesity. The opposite has happened. And I've not seen any evidence
that our levels of exercise has changed much since then either.

So your whole idea of this problem being a *strictly* a matter of
calories is kinda hard for you to support. Especially in the face of a
number of studies that showed that low carbing worked better than low
calorie even when low-carbers ate as many as 300 calories more per day
than the low fatters. The low carbers continued to lose weight eating
more calories than the low-calorie dieters.

Calories are NOT a reliable predictor of weight loss or weight gain.
And I don't care if it is the dieters fault that they can't accurately
count calories or whether the it is because the fundamental scientific
concept of calories is false, or anything in between, the fact remaiins
that more than 95% of low calories diets fail. And many many people who
do not exercise can still maintain their weight with diet alone and
many many people who exercise their asses off, day after day, still
cannot attain their goal weights.

Diet has a much much stonger impact on weight control than exercise
ever will. And the aspect of diet that impacts weigh the most is the
quality of the diet and not the quantity.

TC

1. God enjoys making us suffer--for a wide variety of reasons
2. CR (and exercise, for most) makes us exquisitely miserable
3. Ergo God will keeps the CR'g/exercising rabble around longer, for the
show.
ta-daaaa
4. I will live forever, CR or not.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"DZ" wrote in message
...
Hobbes wrote:
The Scientist online mag suggested today that lowering the core
temperature of mice .5 celcius resulted in a 15% increase in life span.
The suggestion was the mechanism for calorie restriction working was
lowered core temperature. If so it would be interesting to see if people
(who live in more regulated environments) have a corresponding core
temperature reduction.

The article did not suggest that it is THE mechanism, e.g. the comment
by Guarente there implies it might only be one, far from most
important aspect:

"... you can isolate one of the seemingly small aspects of the many
physiological effects of caloric restriction and still get an effect
on lifespan, although not as much as with real caloric
restriction. This suggests each of the effects caloric restriction has
may contribute incrementally."

Can you really have confidence in those 10%, 12% stats??
These fukn people will write *anything* they goddamm want for a story.
And, if these stats are really from primary sources, ie, unadulterated
gummint stats, how can you be sure THOSE are even accurate?
After all, look at the fukn sociopaths IN gummint!
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"TC" wrote in message
oups.com...

Doug Freese wrote:
"TC" wrote in message
ps.com...

wrote:
On 1 Nov 2006 19:09:26 -0800, "TC" wrote:


Doug Freese wrote:
"TC" wrote in message
oups.com...
These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control
groups
are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for
food. Then
when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live
longer
than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted
calories.
Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is
that
simple. It has nothing to do with calories.


How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he
see's
ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.

-DF

Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.

TC

Reading and understanding are two different things.

It isn't rocket science. Trust me, it isn't rocket science.

We agree, it isn't rocket science. Eat too much you get fat. Eat
balanced, avoid simple sugars and overly processed food and by all
means, exercise and you will be healthy and not fat. Very simple indeed!

Food science has only succeeded in giving us
the highest rates of obesity and diet related chronic disease in world
history, which is diametrically opposite to their stated goals.

To many calories has caused the obesity.


I suggest you start reading these nutrition studies closely and with
an, at least, mildly critical eye. You will get an education on what
garbage science really is.

And there is a boogie man hiding behind very tree.

-DF

Since 1970, we've increased carb consumption by 12% and reduced fat
consumtion by 10%. That was supposed to result in less calories and
less obesity. The opposite has happened. And I've not seen any evidence
that our levels of exercise has changed much since then either.

So your whole idea of this problem being a *strictly* a matter of
calories is kinda hard for you to support. Especially in the face of a
number of studies that showed that low carbing worked better than low
calorie even when low-carbers ate as many as 300 calories more per day
than the low fatters. The low carbers continued to lose weight eating
more calories than the low-calorie dieters.

Calories are NOT a reliable predictor of weight loss or weight gain.
And I don't care if it is the dieters fault that they can't accurately
count calories or whether the it is because the fundamental scientific
concept of calories is false, or anything in between, the fact remaiins
that more than 95% of low calories diets fail. And many many people who
do not exercise can still maintain their weight with diet alone and
many many people who exercise their asses off, day after day, still
cannot attain their goal weights.

Diet has a much much stonger impact on weight control than exercise
ever will. And the aspect of diet that impacts weigh the most is the
quality of the diet and not the quantity.

TC

On 3 Nov 2006 07:10:15 -0800, "TC" wrote:


Doug Freese wrote:
"TC" wrote in message
ps.com...

wrote:
On 1 Nov 2006 19:09:26 -0800, "TC" wrote:


Doug Freese wrote:
"TC" wrote in message
oups.com...
These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control
groups
are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for
food. Then
when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live
longer
than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted
calories.
Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is
that
simple. It has nothing to do with calories.


How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he
see's
ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.

-DF

Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.

TC

Reading and understanding are two different things.

It isn't rocket science. Trust me, it isn't rocket science.

We agree, it isn't rocket science. Eat too much you get fat. Eat
balanced, avoid simple sugars and overly processed food and by all
means, exercise and you will be healthy and not fat. Very simple indeed!

Food science has only succeeded in giving us
the highest rates of obesity and diet related chronic disease in world
history, which is diametrically opposite to their stated goals.

To many calories has caused the obesity.


I suggest you start reading these nutrition studies closely and with
an, at least, mildly critical eye. You will get an education on what
garbage science really is.

And there is a boogie man hiding behind very tree.

-DF

Since 1970, we've increased carb consumption by 12% and reduced fat
consumtion by 10%. That was supposed to result in less calories and
less obesity. The opposite has happened. And I've not seen any evidence
that our levels of exercise has changed much since then either.

The important thing is the amount of calories. Even if fat makes up a
smaller percentage of the diet the total amount of fat consumed has
still increased due to the increase in total calories consumed.

So your whole idea of this problem being a *strictly* a matter of
calories is kinda hard for you to support. Especially in the face of a
number of studies that showed that low carbing worked better than low
calorie even when low-carbers ate as many as 300 calories more per day
than the low fatters.

Low carb is bull**** and does not work. It also promotes less
physical activity.

The low carbers continued to lose weight eating
more calories than the low-calorie dieters.

Really? Someone who is 6' weighs 350 pounds just has to low carb and
not watch calories or exercise and they will eventually weigh between
150-170 pounds?? LOL!

Calories are NOT a reliable predictor of weight loss or weight gain.

So if we reduce carb consumption by 12 % and increase fat consumtpion
by 10% everyone will go back to 1970 norms? Yawn

And I don't care if it is the dieters fault that they can't accurately
count calories or whether the it is because the fundamental scientific
concept of calories is false,

You do realize there aret people in Africa who eat mostly a grain diet
who are starving and consume very few calories are very thin? Is this
where you go back to your bull**** response to this by saying they are
losing weight because grains provide no nutrition?

or anything in between, the fact remaiins
that more than 95% of low calories diets fail.

I don't eat a low calorie diet as I just exercise which is a lot
easier.

And many many people who
do not exercise can still maintain their weight with diet alone and
many many people who exercise their asses off, day after day, still
cannot attain their goal weights.

Everyone has a different metabolism but it does not change the
underlying truth. Reading books is still the best way to learn though
not everyone is going to comprehend or remember at the same level.

Diet has a much much stonger impact on weight control than exercise
ever will.

Well it is true that you can consume calories a lot easier and quicker
than they can be burned off. However exercise should be done for
health and appearance unless you think flabbiness, cottage cheese, etc
is a good thing.

And the aspect of diet that impacts weigh the most is the
quality of the diet and not the quantity.

No actually its calories. 8 glasses of water a day is healthy while
180 glasses is not. You can have too much of a good thing and there
is no reason to consume more food once nutrition and energy
requirements are met. Consuming anything more than is required
whether it is beef, poptarts, milk, etc is going to be added to you
ever expanding waist. Though I suppose if one insists on overeating
than it would be better to eat nutritous foods/real foods as opposed
to overeating on poptarts.

"TC" wrote in message
oups.com...
Since 1970, we've increased carb consumption by 12% and reduced fat
consumtion by 10%.

I don't trust you numbers so a legit web page will do and please not by
your pal weston. I completely agree that we eat too many carbs but I
also think we eat to much fat also. As for the carbs they are soda, and
pounds of simple carbs, the ones we both agree are bad, like ice-cream,
candy and cake. It isn't from eating too much grain,corn or even soy.


That was supposed to result in less calories and less obesity.

A bgus statement and where you go out to lunch. We eat TOO MANY calories
regardless of carb or fat. It';s total pigdom and not to realize this
means you have your head in the sand or some other dark place.


The opposite has happened. And I've not seen any evidence
that our levels of exercise has changed much since then either.

The number of people exercising has increased but sad to say not as many
should. Wanna bet those people that have taken up steady exercise are
by far thinner and healthier then those that try only try food?




So your whole idea of this problem being a *strictly* a matter of
calories is kinda hard for you to support.

It is not ansd everytime they take N people and put them in an
environment where every calorie counted they ALL lose weight. It's when
people have to after the fact, count their calories when it gets gray.


Diet has a much much stonger impact on weight control than exercise
ever will. And the aspect of diet that impacts weigh the most is the
quality of the diet and not the quantity.

You keep saying the same crap over and over. Do you think if you keep
repeating it, it become true? I have chopped off a segment of the
population such as runners, biker, hikers, etc comprising millions of
people that flat out defy your asinine premises that your keep
repeating.

If you're bored Sunday tune into the NYC marathon and look at the 40+
thousand people and have been chomping down primarily CARBS for at
least three months in prep for this race and count the fat runners.
According to your physiology they should all be obese or very fat from
turning into GI freaks throwing down Snicker Bars by the dozens from the
GI blast. There are thousands of very fast and healthy vegans in that
race and psst, they get almost all their calories from those evil carbs.


You really need understand basic physiology and then you may have a
health epiphany. You need to come out of cave and see the light of day.
Confess you just trolling otherwise no one will play with you.

-DF

Doug Freese wrote:
"TC" wrote in message
oups.com...
Since 1970, we've increased carb consumption by 12% and reduced fat
consumtion by 10%.

I don't trust you numbers so a legit web page will do and please not by
your pal weston. I completely agree that we eat too many carbs but I
also think we eat to much fat also. As for the carbs they are soda, and
pounds of simple carbs, the ones we both agree are bad, like ice-cream,
candy and cake. It isn't from eating too much grain,corn or even soy.


That was supposed to result in less calories and less obesity.

A bgus statement and where you go out to lunch. We eat TOO MANY calories
regardless of carb or fat. It';s total pigdom and not to realize this
means you have your head in the sand or some other dark place.


The opposite has happened. And I've not seen any evidence
that our levels of exercise has changed much since then either.

The number of people exercising has increased but sad to say not as many
should. Wanna bet those people that have taken up steady exercise are
by far thinner and healthier then those that try only try food?




So your whole idea of this problem being a *strictly* a matter of
calories is kinda hard for you to support.

It is not ansd everytime they take N people and put them in an
environment where every calorie counted they ALL lose weight. It's when
people have to after the fact, count their calories when it gets gray.


Diet has a much much stonger impact on weight control than exercise
ever will. And the aspect of diet that impacts weigh the most is the
quality of the diet and not the quantity.

You keep saying the same crap over and over. Do you think if you keep
repeating it, it become true? I have chopped off a segment of the
population such as runners, biker, hikers, etc comprising millions of
people that flat out defy your asinine premises that your keep
repeating.

If you're bored Sunday tune into the NYC marathon and look at the 40+
thousand people and have been chomping down primarily CARBS for at
least three months in prep for this race and count the fat runners.
According to your physiology they should all be obese or very fat from
turning into GI freaks throwing down Snicker Bars by the dozens from the
GI blast. There are thousands of very fast and healthy vegans in that
race and psst, they get almost all their calories from those evil carbs.


You really need understand basic physiology and then you may have a
health epiphany. You need to come out of cave and see the light of day.
Confess you just trolling otherwise no one will play with you.

-DF

Is that all you have? Watch a marathon. Watch a 5k or a 10k. Is that
all?

You are an idiot of the first class. I'm done arguing with a moron.

TC

"TC" wrote in message
ups.com...
Is that all you have? Watch a marathon. Watch a 5k or a 10k. Is that
all?

Try it for starter, you will get to see first hand what exercise and
balanced carb nutrition can do for 40+ thousand people. I guess they
are all freaks who low carb. If nothing else there is visual proof but
it assumes you know how to stand erect and not have your knuckles drag
the ground.

-DF

Doug Freese wrote:
"TC" wrote in message
ups.com...
Is that all you have? Watch a marathon. Watch a 5k or a 10k. Is that
all?

Try it for starter, you will get to see first hand what exercise and
balanced carb nutrition can do for 40+ thousand people. I guess they
are all freaks who low carb. If nothing else there is visual proof but
it assumes you know how to stand erect and not have your knuckles drag
the ground.

-DF

So your solution is for everyone to become marathon runners to lose
weight. Real practical.

TC

Sarcasm noted, and there might be a moral in that thar sarcasm.
And that is, in utterly sedentary lifestyles, it might not only be even more
difficult to lose weight than people think, but perhaps not even possible
with "simple" considerations of the energy equation alone.
Not because the equation doesn't work, but because we *no longer have the
wherewithall to let it work*.
One of TCs points about overall food quality is likely also part and parcel
of not letting it work, such as things like HFCS setting in motion other
cravings, vit. deficiencies, etc.

So yeah, in a lot of cases, people might *have to marathon*, go to a prison
work camp, or the equivalent drastic measure, in order to 'make" the energy
equation work.
Of course, as soon as they stop, back will come the weight, along w/ the old
lifestyle--the two being inextricably intertwined.

Look at Oprah, w/ every g-d resource in the effing world at her 'tips:
She got down to 110 # under the """guidance""" of fidniss guru Bob Greene,
was plastered all over every glamour mag (and apparently there wadn't enuff,
so she had to make her own), and promptly gained it all back.
Made g-dGreene a Millionaire (along w/ everyone else she touches: Dr. Pill,
Billy Blankmind, and now Drs. Roizen & Oz, ekc), but I don't think she got
her money back.
The moral he
If g-dOprah cain't do it, WHO CAN????

Ultimately, we have led ourselves to slaughter, at the hands of the
media/puppeteers.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"TC" wrote in message
oups.com...

Doug Freese wrote:
"TC" wrote in message
ups.com...
Is that all you have? Watch a marathon. Watch a 5k or a 10k. Is that
all?

Try it for starter, you will get to see first hand what exercise and
balanced carb nutrition can do for 40+ thousand people. I guess they
are all freaks who low carb. If nothing else there is visual proof but
it assumes you know how to stand erect and not have your knuckles drag
the ground.

-DF

So your solution is for everyone to become marathon runners to lose
weight. Real practical.

TC

TC wrote:
Doug Freese wrote:

Try it for starter, you will get to see first hand what exercise and
balanced carb nutrition can do for 40+ thousand people. I guess they
are all freaks who low carb. If nothing else there is visual proof but
it assumes you know how to stand erect and not have your knuckles drag
the ground.

So your solution is for everyone to become marathon runners to lose
weight. Real practical.

The whole point of the marathon is that normally conditioned
people *die* from doing it. Not just practical but a nice way to
reverse the overpopulation problem.

Marathoners tend to eat high carb? So what? Maybe it helps
them not die from doing something tuned to kill them. Show me
even one low carber marathoner and the point gets blown, though.
Guess what, it wouldn't take me long to find a low carber who did
a marathon. Plenty of low carb support boards have exercise
support sub-boards and the topic does come up. Will a low
carber end up competitive? Nope. Will a low carber who trained
patiently end up completing? Yup.