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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
In m,
The Voice of Reason typed: "Lictor" wrote in message ... "The Voice of Reason" wrote in message om... You don't need one. Select a number of calories to eat per day. Your bodyweight in pounds * 12 is a good start. Then eat that many calories a day. You don't have that level of precision on the calorie table. The only way to reach that level of precision would be to eat only industrially prepared food. Well I really don't think they're that inaccurate, they're often near identical to ones on the packaging, I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. It's not rocket science, because it's not science. It doesn't take into account the fact that you don't have the needed level of precision. It confuses variables with constants. Calories are precise enough for what you're measuring them for, you don't need anything beyond accuracy to the nearest calorie. Calorie counting works for everyone who seriously uses it, you're the only one I've heard complaining about inaccurate numbers. [snip] I didn't feel like reading all that. Was that person arguing that Calorie counting is impossible or so difficult as to be impractical and thus possible only in principle? Can someone give me the executive summary on that because I can't believe anyone would seriously argue that. August Pamplona -- The waterfall in Java is not wet. - omegazero2003 on m.f.w. a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages reaching this address are deleted without human intervention. In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message. To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me, make sure that my e-mail address is not hot. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
What is the point? The Osmonds had weight problems cuz they all had big
round heads? I saw that coming 25 years ago. Now..its an issue! They should have known. Jim |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
What is the point? The Osmonds had weight problems cuz they all had big
round heads? I saw that coming 25 years ago. Now..its an issue! They should have known. Jim |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
You wrote at 22:33:53 on Thu, 12 Aug 2004:
I didn't feel like reading all that. Was that person arguing that Calorie counting is impossible or so difficult as to be impractical and thus possible only in principle? Can someone give me the executive summary on that because I can't believe anyone would seriously argue that. The latter, I think. The point is that to count the precise amount of calories needed for your personal metabolism, you need to eat foods whose calorific value can be determined very precisely. While this is easy if you eat bought food, out of a packet, it is far less easy if you cook for yourself - you can estimate, certainly, but at best it will only be an estimate. -- Annabel - "Mrs Redboots" 90/89/70kg |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
You wrote at 22:33:53 on Thu, 12 Aug 2004:
I didn't feel like reading all that. Was that person arguing that Calorie counting is impossible or so difficult as to be impractical and thus possible only in principle? Can someone give me the executive summary on that because I can't believe anyone would seriously argue that. The latter, I think. The point is that to count the precise amount of calories needed for your personal metabolism, you need to eat foods whose calorific value can be determined very precisely. While this is easy if you eat bought food, out of a packet, it is far less easy if you cook for yourself - you can estimate, certainly, but at best it will only be an estimate. -- Annabel - "Mrs Redboots" 90/89/70kg |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
On 8/12/2004 11:33 PM, August Pamplona wrote:
I didn't feel like reading all that. Was that person arguing that Calorie counting is impossible or so difficult as to be impractical and thus possible only in principle? Can someone give me the executive summary on that because I can't believe anyone would seriously argue that. August Pamplona Actually, I have not found it to be difficult at all. I calculate the calories using my recipe program -- I happen to use Living Cookbook but I think that MasterCook and other popular programs also do this. The first time I make it, I measure it out so I know what a portion size is (total volume/# of portions). Then I put it in my food log. I eat at home at least 6 days out of 7. I lost weight, met my goal and I have been maintaining using a food and exercise log. So, call it impossible. Call it impractical. The fact of the matter is, it worked for me and I understand that it has worked for many others on this ng. P.S. removed cross posts -- jmk in NC |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
On 8/12/2004 11:33 PM, August Pamplona wrote:
I didn't feel like reading all that. Was that person arguing that Calorie counting is impossible or so difficult as to be impractical and thus possible only in principle? Can someone give me the executive summary on that because I can't believe anyone would seriously argue that. August Pamplona Actually, I have not found it to be difficult at all. I calculate the calories using my recipe program -- I happen to use Living Cookbook but I think that MasterCook and other popular programs also do this. The first time I make it, I measure it out so I know what a portion size is (total volume/# of portions). Then I put it in my food log. I eat at home at least 6 days out of 7. I lost weight, met my goal and I have been maintaining using a food and exercise log. So, call it impossible. Call it impractical. The fact of the matter is, it worked for me and I understand that it has worked for many others on this ng. P.S. removed cross posts -- jmk in NC |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:22:55 +0100, Annabel Smyth
wrote: On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 at 06:19:46, Concordia wrote: (snip) Thanks to calorie tables, it's pretty clear that a pound of sausage has more calories than a pound of salmon. Would that not be clear without calorie tables? Yep. (snip) And yes, the majority of people in France still appear to have no need to lose weight - I always feel grotesquely fat when I'm over there, whereas in the USA I feel positively slender! I do too . It has really gotten bad over here; and quite noticeably so in the last 3-5 years. I don't think it is effortless for the vast majority of people. Most of the "naturally" thin people I know will tell you (if they are honest) that they will occasionally pass on dessert and second helpings, _consciously_ decide to have a light dinner if they ate a lot for lunch, etc. What's funny is now that I am thin, people occasionally comment on what and how they seem to think I can get away with eating, based on their limited observation. Especially other women. People see what they want to see. Partly conscious, partly because they are genuinely not hungry for a heavy meal in the evening if they've had a lot for lunch. Or for a pudding if they've had a large main course. That is what us fatties don't have, naturally - a natural appetite regulator. We eat because the food is there, not because we are actively hungry for it. (snip) Well, even my naturally thin friends (*) generally all tell me that they do consciously watch what they eat when I quiz them a bit. That's what I'm going on. That, and observation. Certainly it is easier to varying degrees for some people to do this, though. Not disputing that. Having struggled quite a bit in the past with controlling appetite myself, I certainly do understand how difficult it can be! (It has gotten much easier over time, though) (*) defined as one who has never been overweight for discussion purposes. PS interesting website, btw. The pics are quite charming. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:22:55 +0100, Annabel Smyth
wrote: On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 at 06:19:46, Concordia wrote: (snip) Thanks to calorie tables, it's pretty clear that a pound of sausage has more calories than a pound of salmon. Would that not be clear without calorie tables? Yep. (snip) And yes, the majority of people in France still appear to have no need to lose weight - I always feel grotesquely fat when I'm over there, whereas in the USA I feel positively slender! I do too . It has really gotten bad over here; and quite noticeably so in the last 3-5 years. I don't think it is effortless for the vast majority of people. Most of the "naturally" thin people I know will tell you (if they are honest) that they will occasionally pass on dessert and second helpings, _consciously_ decide to have a light dinner if they ate a lot for lunch, etc. What's funny is now that I am thin, people occasionally comment on what and how they seem to think I can get away with eating, based on their limited observation. Especially other women. People see what they want to see. Partly conscious, partly because they are genuinely not hungry for a heavy meal in the evening if they've had a lot for lunch. Or for a pudding if they've had a large main course. That is what us fatties don't have, naturally - a natural appetite regulator. We eat because the food is there, not because we are actively hungry for it. (snip) Well, even my naturally thin friends (*) generally all tell me that they do consciously watch what they eat when I quiz them a bit. That's what I'm going on. That, and observation. Certainly it is easier to varying degrees for some people to do this, though. Not disputing that. Having struggled quite a bit in the past with controlling appetite myself, I certainly do understand how difficult it can be! (It has gotten much easier over time, though) (*) defined as one who has never been overweight for discussion purposes. PS interesting website, btw. The pics are quite charming. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Concordia wrote in alt.support.diet on Sat, 14 Aug 2004:
Well, even my naturally thin friends (*) generally all tell me that they do consciously watch what they eat when I quiz them a bit. I was thinking about this last night; yesterday, we went out for brunch, and then out to dinner in the evening. My husband, a naturally thin person, was genuinely not very hungry in the evening, and contented himself with one course, where I had two (although I didn't finish my main course), which I didn't really need. (All the same, I seem to have lost another lb, which is brilliant considering we've had guests!) That's what I'm going on. That, and observation. Certainly it is easier to varying degrees for some people to do this, though. Not disputing that. Having struggled quite a bit in the past with controlling appetite myself, I certainly do understand how difficult it can be! (It has gotten much easier over time, though) It does get easier. PS interesting website, btw. The pics are quite charming. How kind, thank you! -- Annabel - "Mrs Redboots" 90/88.5/80kg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. | Annabel Smyth | General Discussion | 25 | August 13th, 2004 10:24 AM |
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. | Cheri | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | August 9th, 2004 06:50 PM |
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. | ClabberHead 4.01 | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | August 9th, 2004 03:17 AM |
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. | LucaBG | General Discussion | 0 | August 8th, 2004 08:16 AM |
Saturday Night Live Atkins Mention | Pook! | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 2 | October 22nd, 2003 08:56 AM |