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

Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old August 13th, 2004, 04:33 AM
August Pamplona
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 13th, 2004, 04:37 AM
Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 13th, 2004, 04:37 AM
Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 13th, 2004, 10:20 AM
Annabel Smyth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 13th, 2004, 10:20 AM
Annabel Smyth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 13th, 2004, 01:12 PM
jmk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 13th, 2004, 01:12 PM
jmk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 14th, 2004, 06:30 PM
Concordia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 14th, 2004, 06:30 PM
Concordia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 15th, 2004, 10:30 AM
Annabel Smyth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:17 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.