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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
In article ,
"Michael Snyder" wrote: Mxsmanic wrote in message ... 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. But eating less often CAUSES you to burn less calories -- so the simple equation is obviously invalid. You don't burn less than your BMR, no matter what you eat. You burn more with more activity, no matter what you eat. As you lose/gain weight, your BMR rate adjusts. The end. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
SuperSpark ® wrote:
In article , "Michael Snyder" wrote: Mxsmanic wrote in message ... 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. No, it is not. In fact, once your body decides that it is starving, it is rather difficult to dissuade it of the notion. It can persist indefinitely. Is this why concentration camp victims were so fat? |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
Mr. F. Le Mur writes:
True, but I think the idea is if you don't eat anough fat, then you still have cravings (for fat) and eat more calories-worth of stuff with less fat. It's funny how people elsewhere in the world manage to remain thin without having to worry about how much fat or carbs they are eating, isn't it? -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
Michael Snyder writes:
No, it is not. In fact, once your body decides that it is starving, it is rather difficult to dissuade it of the notion. It can persist indefinitely. As I've said, the change is slight and temporary. People who do not eat enough eventually starve. People who do not starve are eating enough, or living on fat. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
SuperSpark ® writes:
Is this why concentration camp victims were so fat? Concentration camp victims were lard balls because they ate too many empty calories in the form of carbs (bread rations, etc.). Some of them also got empty calories in the form of rancid grease. This is why they stayed enormously fat enough though they hardly ate any calories at all. They were living proof that you can gain weight no matter how few calories you eat. How can anyone dispute this hard evidence? -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
Mr. F. Le Mur wrote:
I wonder about that though, since I never get fat no matter how much I eat. The body resists changes in both directions. But, as anyone knows who's ever watch Survivor, weight WILL change and change substantially if the body's pushed far enough. That's just as true going up as it is going down. There is, in fact, a slow secular variation in weight with respect to changes in activity level. You may not notice it, if you're not actually logging both the weight and activity level over the long term in detail. There's also a large seasonal component in weight variation, that could get up as far as 5-10 pounds, peaking (in the Northern Hemisphere) in March and ebbing in September. There are also subtantial weekly variations, in the 5-10 pound range, and even large daily variations (and even variations in a matter of minutes if, for instance, comparing pre-bathroom-trip weight vs. post-bathroom-trip weight; since the bathroom is where and when most weight loss actually takes place). |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
Michael Snyder writes:
Bull****. Utterly and completely absurd. I'm afraid that emotional outbursts do not persuade me. For the most trivial example, your simple formula completely ignores what KIND of calories one consumes. That's because all dietary calories are the same. For another, it ignores the active relationship between how much you eat and how much you burn. There is very little "active" about that relationship. How much you burn depends on your BMR and your rate of activity or exercise. How much you eat depends on what you put into your mouth. Neither is a function of the other. This type of mindless oversimplification is what gets in the way of millions of people actually losing weight. No, this type of reality check is what upsets fat people who are looking for some way--any way--to deny their own responsibility for being fat. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
Michael Snyder writes:
But eating less often CAUSES you to burn less calories -- No, it does not. Losing weight will reduce the number of calories you burn, however (since there is less of you to keep nourished). -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
SuperSpark ® writes:
As you lose/gain weight, your BMR rate adjusts. Additionally, the portion of BMR represented by vital organs remains essentially constant, even with changes in weight. Your brain requires the same number of calories no matter how much you weigh or what you eat or what caloric deficit you create or how much you exercise. The same is true of your liver, kidneys, etc., for the most part. There is no magic way to increase or decrease these numbers. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:57:24 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: SuperSpark ® writes: Is this why concentration camp victims were so fat? Concentration camp victims were lard balls because they ate too many empty calories in the form of carbs (bread rations, etc.). Some of them also got empty calories in the form of rancid grease. This is why they stayed enormously fat enough though they hardly ate any calories at all. They were living proof that you can gain weight no matter how few calories you eat. How can anyone dispute this hard evidence? What "hard evidence" are you talking about? All I see are your unsupported claims. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |