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
  #21  
Old August 12th, 2004, 02:33 PM
Lictor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"bencon" wrote in message
om...
I think the key is to eat what your body wants, but just don't
overload on it. Too much of anything is unhealthy.


Yes, but if you follow your body, you will *not* be magazine slim. You will
just be how a normal healthy human body is designed to be. Unfortunately,
it's neither very fat nor very slim, it's just in-between. And then, you
would have some of the trolls here stigmatizing you for being lazy and
overweight. Until you finally stop listening to the truth from your body and
start a diet and yo-yo your way back to obesity... That's where
fat-acceptance *has* a role to play. To get society to accept the whole
range of body shape instead of focussing on the lower limit of normal.
Unfortunately, we have ended up into a completely binary situation and we
are locked between trolls who promote dieting your body to anorexic
proportions and people who seem to promote extreme obesity...


  #22  
Old August 12th, 2004, 03:33 PM
Lady Veteran
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:33:37 +0200, "Lictor"
wrote:

"bencon" wrote in message
. com...
I think the key is to eat what your body wants, but just don't
overload on it. Too much of anything is unhealthy.


Yes, but if you follow your body, you will *not* be magazine slim.
You will just be how a normal healthy human body is designed to be.
Unfortunately, it's neither very fat nor very slim, it's just
in-between. And then, you would have some of the trolls here
stigmatizing you for being lazy and overweight. Until you finally
stop listening to the truth from your body and start a diet and
yo-yo your way back to obesity... That's where
fat-acceptance *has* a role to play. To get society to accept the
whole range of body shape instead of focussing on the lower limit of
normal. Unfortunately, we have ended up into a completely binary
situation and we are locked between trolls who promote dieting your
body to anorexic
proportions and people who seem to promote extreme obesity...

I suggest you do some research. There is no one in this group that
promotes obesity of any kind.

If you think different you should provide an example.

LV


Lady Veteran
- -----------------------------------
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
- ------------------------------------------------
People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
motive but malice.
- ---------------------------------------------
For every person with a spark of genius, there
are a hundred more with ignition trouble.
- -Unknown
- -------------------------------


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBQRt/oMjazA1WMM1JEQKFqgCeOcfS9kzwLYL2ZSwat9dOemgEezgAn1 iE
W/5MnwmZJumTnOv5iJ9Y/j6Y
=a4xb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  #23  
Old August 12th, 2004, 03:33 PM
Lady Veteran
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:33:37 +0200, "Lictor"
wrote:

"bencon" wrote in message
. com...
I think the key is to eat what your body wants, but just don't
overload on it. Too much of anything is unhealthy.


Yes, but if you follow your body, you will *not* be magazine slim.
You will just be how a normal healthy human body is designed to be.
Unfortunately, it's neither very fat nor very slim, it's just
in-between. And then, you would have some of the trolls here
stigmatizing you for being lazy and overweight. Until you finally
stop listening to the truth from your body and start a diet and
yo-yo your way back to obesity... That's where
fat-acceptance *has* a role to play. To get society to accept the
whole range of body shape instead of focussing on the lower limit of
normal. Unfortunately, we have ended up into a completely binary
situation and we are locked between trolls who promote dieting your
body to anorexic
proportions and people who seem to promote extreme obesity...

I suggest you do some research. There is no one in this group that
promotes obesity of any kind.

If you think different you should provide an example.

LV


Lady Veteran
- -----------------------------------
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
- ------------------------------------------------
People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
motive but malice.
- ---------------------------------------------
For every person with a spark of genius, there
are a hundred more with ignition trouble.
- -Unknown
- -------------------------------


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBQRt/oMjazA1WMM1JEQKFqgCeOcfS9kzwLYL2ZSwat9dOemgEezgAn1 iE
W/5MnwmZJumTnOv5iJ9Y/j6Y
=a4xb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  #24  
Old August 12th, 2004, 03:33 PM
Lady Veteran
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:33:37 +0200, "Lictor"
wrote:

"bencon" wrote in message
. com...
I think the key is to eat what your body wants, but just don't
overload on it. Too much of anything is unhealthy.


Yes, but if you follow your body, you will *not* be magazine slim.
You will just be how a normal healthy human body is designed to be.
Unfortunately, it's neither very fat nor very slim, it's just
in-between. And then, you would have some of the trolls here
stigmatizing you for being lazy and overweight. Until you finally
stop listening to the truth from your body and start a diet and
yo-yo your way back to obesity... That's where
fat-acceptance *has* a role to play. To get society to accept the
whole range of body shape instead of focussing on the lower limit of
normal. Unfortunately, we have ended up into a completely binary
situation and we are locked between trolls who promote dieting your
body to anorexic
proportions and people who seem to promote extreme obesity...

I suggest you do some research. There is no one in this group that
promotes obesity of any kind.

If you think different you should provide an example.

LV


Lady Veteran
- -----------------------------------
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
- ------------------------------------------------
People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
motive but malice.
- ---------------------------------------------
For every person with a spark of genius, there
are a hundred more with ignition trouble.
- -Unknown
- -------------------------------


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBQRt/oMjazA1WMM1JEQKFqgCeOcfS9kzwLYL2ZSwat9dOemgEezgAn1 iE
W/5MnwmZJumTnOv5iJ9Y/j6Y
=a4xb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  #25  
Old August 12th, 2004, 03:43 PM
Lictor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.

"Lady Veteran" wrote in message
...
I suggest you do some research. There is no one in this group that
promotes obesity of any kind.

If you think different you should provide an example.


I was not specifically talking about this newsgroup. It has, after all, a
very limited impact on public opinion. But if you look at the whole
fat-acceptance movement, put it through the media and look at the end
result, what appears is what I described. The problem is that that end
result is what shapes the opinion.
This is quite unlike most of the fat-acceptance movement in France, which
focusses most of its energy on medium obesity and overweight women and on
investing the fat body with an healthy and sexy image. This seems to survive
through the media a little better (though it does get distorted). But we
have also gone slightly less far in the anorexic look, many actresses still
have a little something left on their bones. Maybe it's just cultural.


  #26  
Old August 12th, 2004, 03:43 PM
Lictor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Lady Veteran" wrote in message
...
I suggest you do some research. There is no one in this group that
promotes obesity of any kind.

If you think different you should provide an example.


I was not specifically talking about this newsgroup. It has, after all, a
very limited impact on public opinion. But if you look at the whole
fat-acceptance movement, put it through the media and look at the end
result, what appears is what I described. The problem is that that end
result is what shapes the opinion.
This is quite unlike most of the fat-acceptance movement in France, which
focusses most of its energy on medium obesity and overweight women and on
investing the fat body with an healthy and sexy image. This seems to survive
through the media a little better (though it does get distorted). But we
have also gone slightly less far in the anorexic look, many actresses still
have a little something left on their bones. Maybe it's just cultural.


  #27  
Old August 12th, 2004, 08:08 PM
The Voice of Reason
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.

"Lictor" wrote in message ...
"Concordia" wrote in message
...
Really? Ever heard of a basal metabolism test? In any case, someone
not knowing their precise current metabolism does not prevent them
from eating less and losing weight.


Isn't renting a man sized calorimeter for a day a bit expensive? Besides, it
will only give you a value for that day, that's pretty useless.


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. If you lose weight at aroudn 1-2 pounds a week then you know
it's the right number. If you don't lose weight then decrease the
number by 500. If you're losing weight too fast then increase the
number until you're losing it at a sensible rate. It's not rocket
science.

When you try a new diet, and it doesn't work, you have two options.
The first is to alter it and experiment until it does work. The second
is to give up. Most fat people chose the second option. That is the
option for failure. Once a fat person has chosen that option, he can
remain fat and claim that he tried to lose weight but failed, so he
must be genetically destined to be fat, it's not his fault, dieting
doesn't work etc.

Sustained weight loss involves hard work and adjustments when
necessary, not giving up when things go slightly wrong. Imagine if
everyone had the same attitude as fat people do with dieting:
Computer programmers saying 'programming doesn't work' if a program
doesn't compile because of a typo, chefs saying 'cooking doesn't work'
because they messed up a single recipe because they slightly
over-cooked it, car drivers saying 'driving doesn't work' because they
once stalled the engine...

However thankfully they don't think like that. When something goes
wrong they work out what went wrong and go about fixing it, they don't
just give up.

And that
would be a pretty useless value anyway, it's not like you would have any
reliable data to use to match your food with it, calorie tables are all but
reliable...


What...you're saying all the nutritional information on food packaging
is made up? That all these scientists across the world are involved in
a giant conspiracy to make you fat?

Trying to match a complex biological process with elementary school
mathematics is not going to bring you anywhere. It's like a T1 diabetic
trying to mimick a pancreas with his insulin shoots, it's close to
impossible to get a perfect match.


Yet they manage to get by somehow... Maybe it's because they just get
on with it rather than whining about how difficult everything is.

So, how did you lose your weight?


I can't speak for him but I for one have lost a not-insignificant
amount of weight.

Was it easy or effortless?


No, it was hard and disciplined. I watched nearly everything I ate and
forced myself into the gym twice a week, not to mention a
not-insignificant amount of cardio outside of the gym. No-one said it
was supposed to be easy. I think that is the real issue for fat people
saying that dieting is impossible. It's not impossible, it's just
harder than they want it to be.

And for how
long have you maintained? Are you positive you will be able to maintain for
life?


Once I lose enough fat I don't plan to maintain, I plan to then start
to put on muscle mass. Looking after your body is a life-time
commitment, not something you do once then give up.

Did you ever suffer from eating disorders or were you just the average
over-eater?


I got fat from eating everything I could lay my eyes on, and through
doing absolutely no exercise. I lost the weight from doing the
opposite.

The fact that to you losing weight was effortless doesn't mean it is the
case for everyone.


He hasn't even replied saying whether it was effortless or not and
you're already replying as if he'd replied that it was.

For most obeses, it isn't. On the other hand, maintening
a constant weight *is* effortless for well regulated slim people.


Well, if it's easy for them, and not for you, that's just tough ****.
Not everything is equal and fair.

snip excuse making

Sure they can; no one said it was easy. It's matter of choosing to
eat less than the body burns and stick with it. There are no
shortcuts.


Again, are you familliar with binge eating? Do you know how it feels to wake
up in the morning only to discover you have raided the fridge while you were
"sleeping"? Do you know how it feels to black out and return to reason with
9000 calories worth of food in your belly?


Ah ok, obese people are obese because they sleepwalk and eat 9000
calories worth of food in the night... I won't ask why 9000 calories
of prepared food was so readibly available though, or why you didn't
think to put a lock on the fridge door or something... Fat people
aren't fat through sleep-eating, it's through over-eating at every
meal and through under-exercising.

Dieting is not a simple process. It's not like when you quit smoking and you
just have to stop smoking cigarettes just because you don't want to smoke
anymore. You can't stop eating altogether.


Who said anything about stopping eating altogether? You don't stop
eating, you start eating a sensible diet. That's not the hardest thing
in the world, it just takes discipline.

You have to deal with large
psychological issues too, and peer presure sometimes (some people often do
not want you to lose weight).


Of course, surely that's even more inspiration to do it?

You are being repetitive here; I've already spoken to this point more
than once. See below where I've mentioned the importance of a proper
eating plan.


But you still miss my point. It's your proper eating plan that *has* that
85% failure rate!


When followed it has a 0% failure rate. If people are lazy,
ill-disciplined, gluttonous etc and give up, that's not the diet's
fault, that's the fault of the people following it (or not following
it!).

If you know of any "plan" with a higher success rate, by
all mean, publish it and get rich!


So in other words you want a magic bullet that will make you start
taking responsibility for your own life.

No, they told them "here is a cure for you", and people believed them.

Please be more specific. What cures are you referring to?

The low fat diet. The FDA pyramid. The balanced diet. The low carb diet
(which will probably become official sooner or later).


How many fat people have stuck to a sensible, balanced diet of the
correct portions with regular exercise and not lost weight? Stop
blaming other people for your failures and start taking responsiblity.

Huh? I am clearly advocating a sensible eating plan that can be
followed for life (and finetuned as necessary), not a quickie weight
loss method. This was stated before, read further down in the post
where I had mentioned just that.


Yes, like many doctors and the government has done before you. Except it
doesn't work much better than most fad diets.


Yes, it does, you just don't want to believe it does, because if you
know it does, then you know that it's your own fault that you're fat,
which means you can't carry on blaming other people for your own
failings.

You're being repetitive again. Asked and addressed.


Not really. I still don't know what you diet is. And I still don't see why
this miracle diet is supposed to work any better than all the existing
diets.


A 'miracle' diet is 10-12*(body weight in pounds) in calories a day,
with 0.8g of protein per pound of body weight, adjusted when
necessary. This also involves weight-lifting, working out the whole
body 1-2* a week, and regular cardio.

This works as it allows you to lose fat and maintain muscle at a
steady rate and also doesn't place heavy restrictions on what you can
eat. However it has its downsides: it involves planning, discipline
and hard work, those horrible old-fashioned things.

Margarine, which was advertised as healthy food. Low fat (whatever), which a
lot of doctors tell you is better than regular options. Protein powders that
a lot of of dietitians will actually tell you to use...


What's wrong with protein powder?

Nonsense. The majority of mainstream nutritionists have always taken
a position that calories matter. So has the government (here).


When did the FDA create their pyramid then? Why the campain about cutting
fats? Why do most diabete or likewise official documents recommend cutting
fats? If calories are all that matter, why don't they just write it down?


The US government doesn't equal the whole world of nutritionists. The
world doesn't end at America's borders.

In and of itself, it does not. But it certainly helps in weight loss
and maintenance. As I mentioned before, weight training is
particularly beneficial in building and maintaining muscle mass.


I know. It does help you after you lost weight. But it didn't make you gain
weight in the first place. There are plenty of slim people with barely
enough muscles to move from the couch to the bed.


So? They're not you. Stop blaming your problems on other people.

Do you understand the role of lean muscle mass in metabolism, or do I
need to spell it out for you?


I do understand it, except I don't see the point. As long as your metabolism
is within the norm (that is, you burn more than 1200 calories a day), who
cares how high or low it is?


Wow, you really are clueless, no wonder you have such trouble losing
weight. A higher metabolism means you burn more calories so you lose
fat more easily. A lower metabolism means you lose weight much more
difficultly.

Naturally slim people are able to maintain
weight on a low metabolism.


If you're not naturally slim then what applies to them is irrelevent
to you. Stop trying to deflect criticisms onto other people. Also
you'll find that 'naturally slim' people either have naturally higher
metabolisms or eat less food than normal. Either way it probably
doesn't apply to you.

No study has shown obese to have any specific
kind of metabolism. Some obeses are much lower than the average (mostly
those who have dieted a lot), but others are much higher than the norm
(mostly those who never dieted).


You've completely missed the point.

If you've really got your head stuck in the sand that far, and can't
see how people have free will and ultimately make their own choices
about how they treat their bodies, there's not much point of
explaining it to you yet again.


No , I don't believe people have free will when they have to go through a
bunch of misinformation and conditionning.


There's information all over the place, it's up to you to work out
which is good information and which is bad. Nothing comes on a silver
plate. This is another example of you not taking responsiblity for
your own actions but instead blaming other people.

Sure I do. I've lost weight and kept it off. I've also had the
unfortunate experience of failing at diets. But do go on.


No thank you. I don't believe in beating the same old path that has failed
time and time again. If something fails repetitively, it's probably that
that something is flawed.


Or perhaps you haven't adjusted it to make it work, or perhaps you
just can't follow it properly.

And I believe that diets are flawed, because of
the very way they are built and their ignorance of basic psychological
issues.


No, people are flawed because they don't follow the diets. The diets
themselves are fine, they work. If you chose to follow it badly it's
not the diet's fault. Stop blaming your obesity on other people, it's
not their fault for not making a magic bullet to stop you stuffing
yourself with food.

- and it means hard work.

Lol, didn't I just mention hard work above?


So, obeses should work a lot harder than normal people, just to achieve
equality with them at something normal people do not even have to think
about... Isn't that what social security is supposed to be all about? You
know, the whole "we will give you equal chances so you can compete" and
all...


Er, sorry to disappoint you, but people aren't created equal. If you
have a tendency to put on more weight than other people, then you're
going to have to work harder to get rid of it. If you don't like it's
tough ****, no-one ever said life was fair. You seem to be surprised
by the requirement of hard work in losing weight. Somehow this doesn't
surprise me.
  #28  
Old August 12th, 2004, 08:33 PM
The Voice of Reason
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.

"Lictor" wrote in message ...

Yes, but if you follow your body, you will *not* be magazine slim. You will
just be how a normal healthy human body is designed to be. Unfortunately,
it's neither very fat nor very slim, it's just in-between. And then, you
would have some of the trolls here stigmatizing you for being lazy and
overweight. Until you finally stop listening to the truth from your body and
start a diet and yo-yo your way back to obesity...


You could do that, or you could follow a diet that leads to low
body-fat whilst maintaining muscle, which wouldn't lead to obesity but
an even better body. W

That's where
fat-acceptance *has* a role to play. To get society to accept the whole
range of body shape instead of focussing on the lower limit of normal.


I would agree, IF fat acceptance meant accepting slightly over-weight
bodies of people in the process of weight loss. However fat acceptance
in its current form seems to be promoting obesity and attacking any
thought of weight-loss. Just look how the poster 'Lady Veteran'
responds to diet tips posted in soc.support.fat-acceptance, you'd
think that gas-chamber building tips had been posted to a Jewish
newsgroup!

In theory fat acceptance would be a good thing, promoting positive
body image to help in the process of healthy weight loss, however it
has ended up as something very sinister.

Unfortunately, we have ended up into a completely binary situation and we
are locked between trolls who promote dieting your body to anorexic
proportions and people who seem to promote extreme obesity...


Or trolls like me who promote muscular bodies with low body-fat!!!
  #29  
Old August 12th, 2004, 08:33 PM
The Voice of Reason
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Lictor" wrote in message ...

Yes, but if you follow your body, you will *not* be magazine slim. You will
just be how a normal healthy human body is designed to be. Unfortunately,
it's neither very fat nor very slim, it's just in-between. And then, you
would have some of the trolls here stigmatizing you for being lazy and
overweight. Until you finally stop listening to the truth from your body and
start a diet and yo-yo your way back to obesity...


You could do that, or you could follow a diet that leads to low
body-fat whilst maintaining muscle, which wouldn't lead to obesity but
an even better body. W

That's where
fat-acceptance *has* a role to play. To get society to accept the whole
range of body shape instead of focussing on the lower limit of normal.


I would agree, IF fat acceptance meant accepting slightly over-weight
bodies of people in the process of weight loss. However fat acceptance
in its current form seems to be promoting obesity and attacking any
thought of weight-loss. Just look how the poster 'Lady Veteran'
responds to diet tips posted in soc.support.fat-acceptance, you'd
think that gas-chamber building tips had been posted to a Jewish
newsgroup!

In theory fat acceptance would be a good thing, promoting positive
body image to help in the process of healthy weight loss, however it
has ended up as something very sinister.

Unfortunately, we have ended up into a completely binary situation and we
are locked between trolls who promote dieting your body to anorexic
proportions and people who seem to promote extreme obesity...


Or trolls like me who promote muscular bodies with low body-fat!!!
  #30  
Old August 12th, 2004, 10:44 PM
Concordia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:36:48 +0200, "Lictor"
wrote:

"Concordia" wrote in message
.. .


(snip)
I wasn't aware you could get free testing this way.


I didn't say it was free.

(snip)
and also put to rest any concerns that the metabolism is
generally low. A complaint by many obese is that metabolism is
sluggish and that is why they cannot lose weight.


That's because of the general misunderstanding people have on this issue.
And this includes doctors. Metabolism doesn't matter than much, as long as
you match your inputs to it. It's only problematic if it's so low you have
to eat only minimum amounts of food. That's when it's time to exercise some.


I disagree. It _does_ matter to the extent that chances of being able
to match inputs to a higher metabolism are greater. What are people
more prone to do, eat more or less? Wouldn't it be beneficial to
have a higher metabolism, or for that matter increase activity and
muscle mass to aid in that? (Okay, I see you mention exercise too).
Who wouldn't want a higher metabolism?

These are rhetorical questions.

This has been proven time and time again not to be the case, both through
metabolic tests and also by controlled conditions where the patient is
hospitalized and put on a medically supervised diet.


What has been proven is that there is no link between metabolic rate and
obesity.


That is precisely my point.

But *some* obese do have very low metabolism, lower than normal,
either because of crash diets (loss of lean mass) or because of hormnal
problems (thyroid mainly). And some are actually higher than normal.
Guessing from what I have to eat to maintain, I'm rather into the second
category. Which is not a surprise, I have always been muscular, obese or
not.


Isn't this a different way of stating a similar position? Let's not
get too bogged down in semantics

Also, if one were to have a basal metabolism test performed bi-weekly
or monthly over a statistically significant period of time, and graph
the results, metabolism would not generally be all over the place.


If you keep a constant weight and keep the exact same level of exercise. And
if you're not a woman, periods tend to mess things up. Besides, your intakes
have to match basal metabolism + daily activities. So you would have a nice
number, but not many useful things to do with it...


What about those people that insist they eat less than 600 kcal/day,
1000 kcal/day, and so on, and still gain weight. Shouldn't they look
into some testing? However, it seems many more people make such
claims than you'd expect statistically...

In those cases, it could be used to either prove or disprove such
claims. The test doesn't have to yield a precise result to serve such
a function. If it indicates metab. is (for example) somewhere in the
neighborhood of 1500-2000 instead of 600 or 1000, that would be
helpful information. It would also be helpful to know if the person
was actually correct -- but rare. The more likely case is that they
are not being honest with themselves.

Let me remind you, my position wasn't that everyone needed to run out
and get a metabolism test.

You had said:
"The problem is that most obese have no way of knowing how much their
body will burn."

And my counterpoints were (1) one _could_ get a metabolism test, and
that (2) "someone not knowing their precise current metabolism does
not prevent them from eating less and losing weight."

Do you or do you not agree with #2? Yes or no?

(calorie tables)
I'm not talking nth degree. You remember that hot summer we had in Europe?
Hot and warm. Well, farmers reported a 30% increase in the sugar content of
fruits. Likewise, on a bad year, you will have large drops in sugar content.
Same for grapes, being on the good side of the hill is a variation high
enough that one side will give great wine and the other a crappy barely
drinkable beverage. The same applies with a lot of other food. Animals will
have varying fat contents, depending on how they were fed (industrial food,
grazing...) or kept (savage, semi-freedom, battery). That's a lot of
variation you won't find in your calorie table. And I doubt you would have
to go to the nth degree of precision to find it.
Remember that 5% extra on a 2000 calories diet will give out 36000 calories
by the end of the year - that's at least 9 extra pounds... Sure, variations
will cancel each others on average, but 5% is a very small margin of
error...


Gotcha. But it's not that important in the scheme of things when it
comes to weight loss. I seriously doubt people are fat due to these
factors.

Sure, a table will do that. It does have an educative value. You don't need
a large level of precision to sort food items like this. But you do need
that level of precision to keep a stable weight over an extended period of
time. It also becomes problematic when you can't control the food, like with
exotic stuff, at friends or in a restaurant. How do you get the caloric load
of a restaurant meal, if you don't know how it was cooked?


Lack of precision in calorie tables or not knowing exact metabolism
doesn't keep people from losing and maintaining weight. People have
ways to measure weightloss or lack thereof, and can adjust
accordingly.

Besides, I could have told you that by just eat these food. The same amount
of salmon will not give the same lasting satiety as the same amount of
sausage...


True.

(snip what it's like in France, thanks for the insight)

So, you started on Atkins, and eventually ended with a "balanced" diet, or
something pretty close to what doctors recommend (at least what ours
recommend when they don't go crazy on some hyper-proteic ****).


What I am doing is balanced for me, and I have figured this out by
trial and error -- but is not what would be considered a traditional
balanced diet by any means. Note that I rarely eat processed carbs.

This is
still a diet that, in itself, has a high failure rate.


It's not the diets that fail...

There are probably
other factors that explain your success. Like, I doubt the diet itself
solved your bingeing. What did? Did your attitude towards food evolved with
time or do you eat like you used to (except in quantities and kind of food
of course)?


I quit making excuses and started doing what I need to do. Period.

(snip)
Do
you think you would have been successful if you had kept yourself in denial?


No.

Besides admitting what you were doing, did you also come to understand *why*
you were doing it? Do you think that knowledge has allowed you to lose that
weight?


I was hypoglycemic. In my case, eating all those refined carbs were
making me hungry and tired all the time; that was really a large part
of it.

What I'm trying to get at is that most diets only allow people to lose
weight. They don't give them any tool to understand why they became fat and
how to prevent that from happening again (except by sticking to the diet).
Successful dieters seem to be successful because they went beyond the diet
and gained understand of how they work. Their success is a consequence of
their own introspection, not of the diet itself.


Agreed. But I still think they have to find the tools for themselves.

Now, if you scale back to the epidemic level, this means going to an all
diet approach is bound to failure, because it seems only a small numbers of
people are able to make that introspection on their own.


Willing or able? So? If you've got a better solution, let's hear
it.

Again, I just don't buy your premise that there are many of these
"well regulated" slim people running around that have never had to
give a conscious thought to what they eat.


Well, decent dietetic models are rather recent. If you go back in time, all
kind of crap theories were around. Even nowadays, a lot of people do not buy
into the caloric explanation!


Sure they do. They just try quick fixes instead.

(we've discussed this before)

(snip)
If you
limit yourself to the rich part of the population (plenty of food, not much
exercise), obesity was much lower than today. Especially massive obesity.
How could these people maintain their weight? By following the dietetic
advice of the time?


By controlling themselves, I'd imagine.

(snip, it's getting rather long)
That's because noone really believes in the caloric theory. Why? Because we
want to lose weight while being able to eat as much as we want? Yes, in many
aspects we are a bulimic society. We always want more (cars, food, riches,
entertainment, travels...) but we don't want any of it to change us or have
consequences (polution, obesity, poors, evolving...). Our attitude towards
food only mirror our attitude towards society in general.


I agree, but so what? I mean really... it's nice to theorize and
discuss the state of society and all on usenet. And this has been an
interesting conversation, don't get me wrong. However, if one wants
to lose weight, they do the introspection, take the steps, etc.

There is no other way.

But I think there's another factor. The caloric theory is amoral. It doesn't
matter what you eat and how much you enjoy it, as long as you eat just what
you need and with moderation, you will stay slim. There is no evil or good
food. That's dietetic atheism. Somehow, the mind of people seem to revolt at
that. They want some food to be evil. Even in tiny amounts. They want a
price to be paid for pleasure.


Again, you're singing to the choir.

(snip)
That is PRECISELY why I
am advocating the crucial role of personal responsibility in all this.


I still don't think people are responsible. They're not the direct conscious
*cause* of their obesity. That's what being responsible means, being guilty
of something. I don't think they are guilty of being obese. Nor are they
guilty of failing when they try to solve their obesity using the consensual
methods.
Sure, they *can* help themselves, and the only available tool for that is
introspection. Except it's incredibly difficult to access in the current
hostile context. You can't blame people for not finding the gold nugget in
the pile of dung to pay their healthcare with.


You give people way too little credit for the ability to make their
own choices, and tacit permission to be victims subject to the forces
of society. That is a shame.

(snip)
I don't dispute at all that there is a psychological component. In
fact, I think it is a rather significant factor in overeating.


It's a significant factor that gets little coverage in the press or books or
even in doctors' office. It also gets little research. A lot more energy is
devoted in finding the *genetic* roots of over-eating. What's the likehood
that genetics play a large role in the over-eating habits of the majority of
the American population?


I agree, for the most part.

Learned helplessness never helped anyone improve their circumstances.


Understanding why you are helpless is the first step on the path to finding
a way around it.


Lol, that is my point.

(snip)
How are you eating and what are your particular circumstances?


Not hungry = I don't eat. Hungry = I eat. Satieted = I stop eating. Whatever
I want (or crave for, or feel like eating or however you call it), whenever
I want (no set number of meals, no set time, no obligation to eat at any
particular meal), as long as I'm hungry.


Yet you manage to lose weight without knowing your precise metabolism.

 




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 06:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.