Three reasons why calories probably don't count

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:51:52 -0800, "GaryG"
wrote:

It fails in the real world precisely because people consume more calories
than they burn. With the ready availability of high calorie foods, and the
decreasing requirement for movement in modern life, it's no wonder people
are getting fatter and fatter. This also explains why we're getting fatter
over time - years ago, high fat food was less plentiful (you couldn't buy 64
oz sodas), and there were very few jobs that required sitting down for 8
hours per day. Years ago people also weren't sitting on their butts
watching television for 6 hours per day.

Which also explains why as people grow older and become more sedentary
they become fatter. It also explains why this generation of children
who don't have pysical education, backyard swing sets, playgrounds,
empty lots to play but instead watch tv, play video games, sit in
front of a computer are fatter all while consuming more unhealthy high
(trans) fat (HFCS) foods.

Study after study has demonstrated that overweight people consistently
underestimate how many calories they consume, and consistently overestimate
how many calories they burn through exercise. The results are quite
predictable.

True

jt wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:51:52 -0800, "GaryG"
wrote:

It fails in the real world precisely because people consume more calories
than they burn. With the ready availability of high calorie foods, and the
decreasing requirement for movement in modern life, it's no wonder people
are getting fatter and fatter. This also explains why we're getting fatter
over time - years ago, high fat food was less plentiful (you couldn't buy 64
oz sodas), and there were very few jobs that required sitting down for 8
hours per day. Years ago people also weren't sitting on their butts
watching television for 6 hours per day.

Which also explains why as people grow older and become more sedentary
they become fatter. It also explains why this generation of children
who don't have pysical education, backyard swing sets, playgrounds,
empty lots to play but instead watch tv, play video games, sit in
front of a computer are fatter all while consuming more unhealthy high
(trans) fat (HFCS) foods.

Study after study has demonstrated that overweight people consistently
underestimate how many calories they consume, and consistently overestimate
how many calories they burn through exercise. The results are quite
predictable.

True

It is all useless navel gazing.

There are millions that do put in the effort needed and they still
fail.

TC

On 20 Feb 2006 07:39:23 -0800, "TC" wrote:

1) There is no fundamental science to support it.


Questions:

1. Do you honestly believe all overweight people in the world have
the same dietary patterns? High Carb etc?

2. If the answer to number 1 is no then would it not mean that it
relates to the quantity of food being eaten?

3. Do you accept the fact that if someone starves to death they have
expended more energy than consumed?

4. Has it ever occurred to you that the body's natural inclination is
to store extra energy for times of famine?

5. Do you really believe that or ancestors tens of thousands of years
ago ate 3 meals a day every 6 hours?

6. Do you really believe or ancestors would have survived if when a
big meal was had that only enough energy was stored to get to the next
meal 6 hours later?

7. Does it not make sense that the body is going to store energy
because it does not know when more will become available?

8. In relation to number 7 does it not make sense that the degree to
which it occurs varies among individuals?

9. Does 6 & 7 not explain why extreme dieters always fail because
they slow down their metabolism because it is the body's natural
defense against famine?

10. Do you really believe the body's natural tendency to store excess
energy can be shut down completely just because someone is completely
sedentary and consuming 5000 calories and 6 meals a day?

11. Are you saying in times of famine people should eat high carb
diets because they will put on more weight?

Just wondering since you are so intelligent....

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

jt wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:51:52 -0800, "GaryG"
wrote:

It fails in the real world precisely because people consume more
calories
than they burn. With the ready availability of high calorie foods, and
the
decreasing requirement for movement in modern life, it's no wonder
people
are getting fatter and fatter. This also explains why we're getting
fatter
over time - years ago, high fat food was less plentiful (you couldn't
buy 64
oz sodas), and there were very few jobs that required sitting down for
8
hours per day. Years ago people also weren't sitting on their butts
watching television for 6 hours per day.

Which also explains why as people grow older and become more sedentary
they become fatter. It also explains why this generation of children
who don't have pysical education, backyard swing sets, playgrounds,
empty lots to play but instead watch tv, play video games, sit in
front of a computer are fatter all while consuming more unhealthy high
(trans) fat (HFCS) foods.

Study after study has demonstrated that overweight people consistently
underestimate how many calories they consume, and consistently
overestimate
how many calories they burn through exercise. The results are quite
predictable.

True

It is all useless navel gazing.

There are millions that do put in the effort needed and they still
fail.

So, why were we not fat back in the 1940's? Have our genetics or
metabolisms changed since then? Or, are we sitting more, and eating less?
I think the more likely answer is the latter.

GG


TC

On 20 Feb 2006 11:50:53 -0800, "TC" wrote:


jt wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:51:52 -0800, "GaryG"
wrote:

It fails in the real world precisely because people consume more calories
than they burn. With the ready availability of high calorie foods, and the
decreasing requirement for movement in modern life, it's no wonder people
are getting fatter and fatter. This also explains why we're getting fatter
over time - years ago, high fat food was less plentiful (you couldn't buy 64
oz sodas), and there were very few jobs that required sitting down for 8
hours per day. Years ago people also weren't sitting on their butts
watching television for 6 hours per day.

Which also explains why as people grow older and become more sedentary
they become fatter. It also explains why this generation of children
who don't have pysical education, backyard swing sets, playgrounds,
empty lots to play but instead watch tv, play video games, sit in
front of a computer are fatter all while consuming more unhealthy high
(trans) fat (HFCS) foods.

Study after study has demonstrated that overweight people consistently
underestimate how many calories they consume, and consistently overestimate
how many calories they burn through exercise. The results are quite
predictable.

True

It is all useless navel gazing.

There are millions that do put in the effort needed and they still
fail.

TC

They don't put in they effort needed which is why they fail. Some
have to put in more effort then others but nobody ever said life was
fair.

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

Roger Zoul wrote:
TC wrote:
:: 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
::

[snipped the useless stuff]

You snipped the most important stuff. How am I to view your input when
you fail to grasp the importance of what you snipped? I suggest you
read it again carefully and fully appreciate what is being said.


::
:: ************************
::
:: 2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight
:: loss in humans fails 95% of the time.

Now, had your subject reflected this statement, TC, then I'd have no
issue
with you. This statement suggests that as a practical matter, people
refuse
to restrict calories 95% of the time to achieve or maintain weight loss.
Agreed. In times of cheap but good tasting junk foods, people would
rather
stuff their faces than go hungry or do without something that makes them
feel good. Understandable, really. But, you're saying calories don't
count.
That, I'm not so sure about....

Less calories = less nutrient-containing food = less usable matter =
less
energy for the body = less body

::
:: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/309/6955/655
::
:: "Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
:: ineffective
:: C S Wooley, D M Garner
::
:: University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
:: 45267, USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research, Bala
:: Cynwood, Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr Wooley.
::
:: It is surprising that debate continues about the effectiveness of
:: dietary treatments for obesity. Perhaps this is partly related to
:: ambiguity in the term effectiveness. It is well known that most
:: treatments produce temporary weight loss. But it is equally well
:: known that 90% to 95% of those who lose weight regain it within
:: several years.1 This poor outcome has led to charges that traditional
:: treatments for obesity should be abandoned and countercharges that it
:: is irresponsible to withhold treatment for such a serious problem.
:: The failure of reducing diets to produce lasting improvement was
:: recently reiterated at a National Institutes of Health consensus
:: conference, which also warned about the adverse effects of
:: treatment.2 "

I have no problem with that statement as it stands.

::
:: If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
:: exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of effort
:: would lose at least weight over time and they would successfully keep
:: it off.

The vast majority of people who try, do lose weight. The vast majorit
of
people who lose weight using mere calorie restriction, fail at
maintaining
calorie restriction.


There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local
:: grocer. And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine
:: effort and succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the
:: expected and desired results.

This is where you aren't seeing clearly. "If you do what you've always
done, you'll get what you've always got."

:: Applying the low calorie diet and the
:: very low calorie diet in the real world does not result in the
:: desired weight loss in 90 to 95% of cases.
::

It does not result in maintaining the weight loss because people get
bored
with 1) counting, 2) eating boring foods, 3) being without stuff they
like,
4) etc.

:: *******************
::
:: 3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors or
:: is triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage and
:: weight loss or fat loss.
::
:: Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients that
:: we consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals, water, air
:: and light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that handles and
:: metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good bio-chemistry textbook
:: will give you the whole story of how our bodies use and process these
:: various nutrients.
::
:: Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels which
:: in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn triggers our body
:: to create and store fat.
::
:: There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is
:: triggered by calories specifically. It is a black box concept that
:: has never gone further than the mysterious black box. And it does
:: not fit into any bio-chemical explanation of the various
:: bio-chemical and metabolic processes of the human body. In light of
:: the entire metabolic systems bio-chemical processes and various
:: chemical cascades involved in fat storage and fat breakdown,
:: calories become the red-headed step-child with no role to play
:: whatsoever.

Where is your reference for this? Are these your statements?

Can you describe the metabolic process or the biological mechanism that
is triggered by caloric balance that, in turn, triggers fat storage or
loss? If I am wrong then you will be able to give em simple and concise
description. Go for it.

I can give you references that explain the effects of carbs, fats and
proteins on our physiology. But that is easy. Just read any bio-chem
textbook available.


Maybe we should hold a contest where people just eat 6000 calories / day
steak or the fatty meats for a week and see if there is no weight gain.
I'd
enjoy that. Zero carb for one week at a fix calorie level that would
produced weight gain. One of us would have to shut the hell up at the
end
of that week, TC. Would you enjoy that?

::
:: ********
::
:: I am sure that calories mean something somewhere.

More calories from food = more bio-usable mass entering the body = more
weight stored on body

How exactly? By what explicit mechanism? You keep saying it but you
fail to show the exact biological processes that do this in direct
response to calories consumed.


Possibly at the
:: extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
:: calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at the
:: other extreme, way too many calories will cause some problems. But in
:: the middle area where we are eating within normal ranges of food, the
:: actual number of calories consumed and the amounts expended cannot be
:: used to reliably predict weight gain or loss. The basic and simple
:: math of the calorie deficit concept simply does not work in the real
:: world.
::
:: It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
:: Except it fails in the real world.

No, for thoses who do it, it works.

90 to 95% failure rates.

The problem is, most can't sustain it
for various reasons.

Because it does not work.

Think about it. A lot of people get fat over time.

Every one who gets fat gets fat over time.

They get used to eating a certain way and having the foods they enjoy.
They
get used to a lifestyle. Then, they become unsightly or unhealthy. To
address it requires a major lifestyle change which has been developed
over a
period of time. But most would apparently rather live with the
consequences
than do the work to make the major change in lifestyle.

They get used to eating a high-grain high-sugar high-carb diet. Then
they try to lose weight by restricting high-fat high-calorie foods and
eating more low calorie grains starches. They eat less calories but
still fail to lose weight, esoecially long term.


TC, you're a good LCer for sure. But I think the reason you don't
really
get this is because you were only ever 20 lbs overweight. You found LC
and
it diminshed your appetite without any discomfort and you got your
weight
under control. And you continue that without any major lifestyle change
since you eat foods you like (cause LC food is good). Good deal, really.
However, you, to your benefit, have never been a true fat person like
me.
Hence, you don't have the 'monkey on your back' as people like me do. We
have to work harder to maintain. That's just how it is. Most don't want
to
do they work. I do, because if I don't, my future will indeed not be a
good
one.

I will agree with you. Once you pack on that much weight, it becomes
nearly impossible to take it off. You really have your work cut out for
you.

But it wasn't the fat that packed it on and it wasn't the calories that
packed it on in the first place. That is the fallacy that we much
recognise and understand.

When you eat primarily animal fats and proteins, and fresh whole
(non-starchy) produce in your diet with little or no refined and highly
manufactured carbs, it is actually difficult to eat enough to gain
excess fat. the calories seem to not make any difference either way.
And when most of your diet is refined and high GI carbs, grains
specifically, with little animal fats and proteins, it is virtually
impossible to not gain weight. Calories seem to not matter either way,
yet again. And studies have shown that low carbers can eat up to 300
calories more than low-cal dieters and still lose as much or more
weight. That study was well controlled and showed this clearly.

That was approximately 15 or more percent variance. Were they wrong in
their calorie counts by 15% in a controlled study with professionals
doing the counting? If pros are that far off in a controlled study then
of what use are calories to us laymen. So which is wrong: the calorie
counts on the food labels? the people doing the counting at every meal?
The initial calorie valuations that pegged it at 4 cal per gram of
proteins and carbs and 9 per gram of fat? Or the concept that this all
is directly applicable to animals and their weights?

Where is it wrong? Just the dieters? I don't think so.

And this takes us back to the most important part of the equation.
There is no science that specifically found that calories are
applicable to animals as far as fat management is concerned.

LOL - tell that to a rancher. They feed their animals just enough excess
calories to "marble" the beef.

GG

We base
our beliefs in this system on what? Because they said so? There is no
study that supports the "establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785
of the law of conservation of energy in its application of animals"

It does not exist.

TC

GaryG wrote:
:: "TC" wrote in message
:: oups.com...
:::
::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::: TC wrote:
:::::: 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
::::::
::::
:::: [snipped the useless stuff]
:::
::: You snipped the most important stuff. How am I to view your input
::: when you fail to grasp the importance of what you snipped? I
::: suggest you read it again carefully and fully appreciate what is
::: being said.
:::
::::
::::::
:::::: ************************
::::::
:::::: 2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight
:::::: loss in humans fails 95% of the time.
::::
:::: Now, had your subject reflected this statement, TC, then I'd have
:::: no issue with you. This statement suggests that as a practical
:::: matter, people refuse to restrict calories 95% of the time to
:::: achieve or maintain weight loss. Agreed. In times of cheap but
:::: good tasting junk foods, people would rather stuff their faces
:::: than go hungry or do without something that makes them feel good.
:::: Understandable, really. But, you're saying calories don't count.
:::: That, I'm not so sure about....
::::
:::: Less calories = less nutrient-containing food = less usable matter
:::: = less energy for the body = less body
::::
::::::
:::::: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/309/6955/655
::::::
:::::: "Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
:::::: ineffective
:::::: C S Wooley, D M Garner
::::::
:::::: University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
:::::: 45267, USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research,
:::::: Bala Cynwood, Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr
:::::: Wooley.
::::::
:::::: It is surprising that debate continues about the effectiveness of
:::::: dietary treatments for obesity. Perhaps this is partly related to
:::::: ambiguity in the term effectiveness. It is well known that most
:::::: treatments produce temporary weight loss. But it is equally well
:::::: known that 90% to 95% of those who lose weight regain it within
:::::: several years.1 This poor outcome has led to charges that
:::::: traditional treatments for obesity should be abandoned and
:::::: countercharges that it is irresponsible to withhold treatment
:::::: for such a serious problem. The failure of reducing diets to
:::::: produce lasting improvement was recently reiterated at a
:::::: National Institutes of Health consensus conference, which also
:::::: warned about the adverse effects of treatment.2 "
::::
:::: I have no problem with that statement as it stands.
::::
::::::
:::::: If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
:::::: exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of
:::::: effort would lose at least weight over time and they would
:::::: successfully keep it off.
::::
:::: The vast majority of people who try, do lose weight. The vast
:::: majorit of people who lose weight using mere calorie restriction,
:::: fail at maintaining calorie restriction.
::::
::::
:::: There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local
:::::: grocer. And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine
:::::: effort and succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the
:::::: expected and desired results.
::::
:::: This is where you aren't seeing clearly. "If you do what you've
:::: always done, you'll get what you've always got."
::::
:::::: Applying the low calorie diet and the
:::::: very low calorie diet in the real world does not result in the
:::::: desired weight loss in 90 to 95% of cases.
::::::
::::
:::: It does not result in maintaining the weight loss because people
:::: get bored with 1) counting, 2) eating boring foods, 3) being
:::: without stuff they like, 4) etc.
::::
:::::: *******************
::::::
:::::: 3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors
:::::: or is triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage
:::::: and weight loss or fat loss.
::::::
:::::: Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients
:::::: that we consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals,
:::::: water, air and light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that
:::::: handles and metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good
:::::: bio-chemistry textbook will give you the whole story of how our
:::::: bodies use and process these various nutrients.
::::::
:::::: Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels
:::::: which in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn
:::::: triggers our body to create and store fat.
::::::
:::::: There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is
:::::: triggered by calories specifically. It is a black box concept
:::::: that has never gone further than the mysterious black box. And
:::::: it does not fit into any bio-chemical explanation of the various
:::::: bio-chemical and metabolic processes of the human body. In light
:::::: of the entire metabolic systems bio-chemical processes and
:::::: various chemical cascades involved in fat storage and fat
:::::: breakdown, calories become the red-headed step-child with no
:::::: role to play whatsoever.
::::
:::: Where is your reference for this? Are these your statements?
:::
::: Can you describe the metabolic process or the biological mechanism
::: that is triggered by caloric balance that, in turn, triggers fat
::: storage or loss? If I am wrong then you will be able to give em
::: simple and concise description. Go for it.
:::
::: I can give you references that explain the effects of carbs, fats
::: and proteins on our physiology. But that is easy. Just read any
::: bio-chem textbook available.
:::
::::
:::: Maybe we should hold a contest where people just eat 6000 calories
:::: / day steak or the fatty meats for a week and see if there is no
:::: weight gain. I'd enjoy that. Zero carb for one week at a fix
:::: calorie level that would produced weight gain. One of us would
:::: have to shut the hell up at the end of that week, TC. Would you
:::: enjoy that?
::::
::::::
:::::: ********
::::::
:::::: I am sure that calories mean something somewhere.
::::
:::: More calories from food = more bio-usable mass entering the body =
:::: more weight stored on body
:::
::: How exactly? By what explicit mechanism? You keep saying it but you
::: fail to show the exact biological processes that do this in direct
::: response to calories consumed.
:::
::::
:::: Possibly at the
:::::: extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
:::::: calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at
:::::: the other extreme, way too many calories will cause some
:::::: problems. But in the middle area where we are eating within
:::::: normal ranges of food, the actual number of calories consumed
:::::: and the amounts expended cannot be used to reliably predict
:::::: weight gain or loss. The basic and simple math of the calorie
:::::: deficit concept simply does not work in the real world.
::::::
:::::: It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
:::::: Except it fails in the real world.
::::
:::: No, for thoses who do it, it works.
:::
::: 90 to 95% failure rates.
:::
:::: The problem is, most can't sustain it
:::: for various reasons.
:::
::: Because it does not work.
:::
:::: Think about it. A lot of people get fat over time.
:::
::: Every one who gets fat gets fat over time.
:::
:::: They get used to eating a certain way and having the foods they
:::: enjoy. They get used to a lifestyle. Then, they become unsightly
:::: or unhealthy. To address it requires a major lifestyle change
:::: which has been developed over a period of time. But most would
:::: apparently rather live with the consequences than do the work to
:::: make the major change in lifestyle.
:::
::: They get used to eating a high-grain high-sugar high-carb diet. Then
::: they try to lose weight by restricting high-fat high-calorie foods
::: and eating more low calorie grains starches. They eat less calories
::: but still fail to lose weight, esoecially long term.
:::
::::
:::: TC, you're a good LCer for sure. But I think the reason you don't
:::: really get this is because you were only ever 20 lbs overweight.
:::: You found LC and it diminshed your appetite without any discomfort
:::: and you got your weight under control. And you continue that
:::: without any major lifestyle change since you eat foods you like
:::: (cause LC food is good). Good deal, really. However, you, to your
:::: benefit, have never been a true fat person like me. Hence, you
:::: don't have the 'monkey on your back' as people like me do. We have
:::: to work harder to maintain. That's just how it is. Most don't
:::: want to do they work. I do, because if I don't, my future will
:::: indeed not be a good one.
:::
::: I will agree with you. Once you pack on that much weight, it becomes
::: nearly impossible to take it off. You really have your work cut out
::: for you.
:::
::: But it wasn't the fat that packed it on and it wasn't the calories
::: that packed it on in the first place. That is the fallacy that we
::: much recognise and understand.
:::
::: When you eat primarily animal fats and proteins, and fresh whole
::: (non-starchy) produce in your diet with little or no refined and
::: highly manufactured carbs, it is actually difficult to eat enough
::: to gain excess fat. the calories seem to not make any difference
::: either way. And when most of your diet is refined and high GI
::: carbs, grains specifically, with little animal fats and proteins,
::: it is virtually impossible to not gain weight. Calories seem to not
::: matter either way, yet again. And studies have shown that low
::: carbers can eat up to 300 calories more than low-cal dieters and
::: still lose as much or more weight. That study was well controlled
::: and showed this clearly.
:::
::: That was approximately 15 or more percent variance. Were they wrong
::: in their calorie counts by 15% in a controlled study with
::: professionals doing the counting? If pros are that far off in a
::: controlled study then of what use are calories to us laymen. So
::: which is wrong: the calorie counts on the food labels? the people
::: doing the counting at every meal? The initial calorie valuations
::: that pegged it at 4 cal per gram of proteins and carbs and 9 per
::: gram of fat? Or the concept that this all is directly applicable to
::: animals and their weights?
:::
::: Where is it wrong? Just the dieters? I don't think so.
:::
::: And this takes us back to the most important part of the equation.
::: There is no science that specifically found that calories are
::: applicable to animals as far as fat management is concerned.
::
:: LOL - tell that to a rancher. They feed their animals just enough
:: excess calories to "marble" the beef.
::

Oh no! You proved this point - they feed them CARBS (grain) to marble the
beef!

:: GG
::
::: We base
::: our beliefs in this system on what? Because they said so? There is
::: no study that supports the "establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace
::: in 1785 of the law of conservation of energy in its application of
::: animals"
:::
::: It does not exist.
:::
::: TC

jt wrote:
:: On 20 Feb 2006 07:39:23 -0800, "TC" wrote:
::
::: 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
:::
::
:: Questions:
::
:: 1. Do you honestly believe all overweight people in the world have
:: the same dietary patterns? High Carb etc?
::
:: 2. If the answer to number 1 is no then would it not mean that it
:: relates to the quantity of food being eaten?
::
:: 3. Do you accept the fact that if someone starves to death they have
:: expended more energy than consumed?
::
:: 4. Has it ever occurred to you that the body's natural inclination
:: is to store extra energy for times of famine?
::
:: 5. Do you really believe that or ancestors tens of thousands of
:: years ago ate 3 meals a day every 6 hours?
::
:: 6. Do you really believe or ancestors would have survived if when a
:: big meal was had that only enough energy was stored to get to the
:: next meal 6 hours later?
::
:: 7. Does it not make sense that the body is going to store energy
:: because it does not know when more will become available?
::
:: 8. In relation to number 7 does it not make sense that the degree to
:: which it occurs varies among individuals?
::
:: 9. Does 6 & 7 not explain why extreme dieters always fail because
:: they slow down their metabolism because it is the body's natural
:: defense against famine?
::
:: 10. Do you really believe the body's natural tendency to store
:: excess energy can be shut down completely just because someone is
:: completely sedentary and consuming 5000 calories and 6 meals a day?
::
:: 11. Are you saying in times of famine people should eat high carb
:: diets because they will put on more weight?

Yes, he's probably saying that!

::
:: Just wondering since you are so intelligent....

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
GaryG wrote:
:: "TC" wrote in message
:: oups.com...
:::
::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::: TC wrote:
:::::: 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
::::::
::::
:::: [snipped the useless stuff]
:::
::: You snipped the most important stuff. How am I to view your input
::: when you fail to grasp the importance of what you snipped? I
::: suggest you read it again carefully and fully appreciate what is
::: being said.
:::
::::
::::::
:::::: ************************
::::::
:::::: 2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight
:::::: loss in humans fails 95% of the time.
::::
:::: Now, had your subject reflected this statement, TC, then I'd have
:::: no issue with you. This statement suggests that as a practical
:::: matter, people refuse to restrict calories 95% of the time to
:::: achieve or maintain weight loss. Agreed. In times of cheap but
:::: good tasting junk foods, people would rather stuff their faces
:::: than go hungry or do without something that makes them feel good.
:::: Understandable, really. But, you're saying calories don't count.
:::: That, I'm not so sure about....
::::
:::: Less calories = less nutrient-containing food = less usable matter
:::: = less energy for the body = less body
::::
::::::
:::::: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/309/6955/655
::::::
:::::: "Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
:::::: ineffective
:::::: C S Wooley, D M Garner
::::::
:::::: University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
:::::: 45267, USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research,
:::::: Bala Cynwood, Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr
:::::: Wooley.
::::::
:::::: It is surprising that debate continues about the effectiveness of
:::::: dietary treatments for obesity. Perhaps this is partly related to
:::::: ambiguity in the term effectiveness. It is well known that most
:::::: treatments produce temporary weight loss. But it is equally well
:::::: known that 90% to 95% of those who lose weight regain it within
:::::: several years.1 This poor outcome has led to charges that
:::::: traditional treatments for obesity should be abandoned and
:::::: countercharges that it is irresponsible to withhold treatment
:::::: for such a serious problem. The failure of reducing diets to
:::::: produce lasting improvement was recently reiterated at a
:::::: National Institutes of Health consensus conference, which also
:::::: warned about the adverse effects of treatment.2 "
::::
:::: I have no problem with that statement as it stands.
::::
::::::
:::::: If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
:::::: exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of
:::::: effort would lose at least weight over time and they would
:::::: successfully keep it off.
::::
:::: The vast majority of people who try, do lose weight. The vast
:::: majorit of people who lose weight using mere calorie restriction,
:::: fail at maintaining calorie restriction.
::::
::::
:::: There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local
:::::: grocer. And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine
:::::: effort and succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the
:::::: expected and desired results.
::::
:::: This is where you aren't seeing clearly. "If you do what you've
:::: always done, you'll get what you've always got."
::::
:::::: Applying the low calorie diet and the
:::::: very low calorie diet in the real world does not result in the
:::::: desired weight loss in 90 to 95% of cases.
::::::
::::
:::: It does not result in maintaining the weight loss because people
:::: get bored with 1) counting, 2) eating boring foods, 3) being
:::: without stuff they like, 4) etc.
::::
:::::: *******************
::::::
:::::: 3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors
:::::: or is triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage
:::::: and weight loss or fat loss.
::::::
:::::: Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients
:::::: that we consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals,
:::::: water, air and light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that
:::::: handles and metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good
:::::: bio-chemistry textbook will give you the whole story of how our
:::::: bodies use and process these various nutrients.
::::::
:::::: Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels
:::::: which in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn
:::::: triggers our body to create and store fat.
::::::
:::::: There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is
:::::: triggered by calories specifically. It is a black box concept
:::::: that has never gone further than the mysterious black box. And
:::::: it does not fit into any bio-chemical explanation of the various
:::::: bio-chemical and metabolic processes of the human body. In light
:::::: of the entire metabolic systems bio-chemical processes and
:::::: various chemical cascades involved in fat storage and fat
:::::: breakdown, calories become the red-headed step-child with no
:::::: role to play whatsoever.
::::
:::: Where is your reference for this? Are these your statements?
:::
::: Can you describe the metabolic process or the biological mechanism
::: that is triggered by caloric balance that, in turn, triggers fat
::: storage or loss? If I am wrong then you will be able to give em
::: simple and concise description. Go for it.
:::
::: I can give you references that explain the effects of carbs, fats
::: and proteins on our physiology. But that is easy. Just read any
::: bio-chem textbook available.
:::
::::
:::: Maybe we should hold a contest where people just eat 6000 calories
:::: / day steak or the fatty meats for a week and see if there is no
:::: weight gain. I'd enjoy that. Zero carb for one week at a fix
:::: calorie level that would produced weight gain. One of us would
:::: have to shut the hell up at the end of that week, TC. Would you
:::: enjoy that?
::::
::::::
:::::: ********
::::::
:::::: I am sure that calories mean something somewhere.
::::
:::: More calories from food = more bio-usable mass entering the body =
:::: more weight stored on body
:::
::: How exactly? By what explicit mechanism? You keep saying it but you
::: fail to show the exact biological processes that do this in direct
::: response to calories consumed.
:::
::::
:::: Possibly at the
:::::: extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
:::::: calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at
:::::: the other extreme, way too many calories will cause some
:::::: problems. But in the middle area where we are eating within
:::::: normal ranges of food, the actual number of calories consumed
:::::: and the amounts expended cannot be used to reliably predict
:::::: weight gain or loss. The basic and simple math of the calorie
:::::: deficit concept simply does not work in the real world.
::::::
:::::: It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
:::::: Except it fails in the real world.
::::
:::: No, for thoses who do it, it works.
:::
::: 90 to 95% failure rates.
:::
:::: The problem is, most can't sustain it
:::: for various reasons.
:::
::: Because it does not work.
:::
:::: Think about it. A lot of people get fat over time.
:::
::: Every one who gets fat gets fat over time.
:::
:::: They get used to eating a certain way and having the foods they
:::: enjoy. They get used to a lifestyle. Then, they become unsightly
:::: or unhealthy. To address it requires a major lifestyle change
:::: which has been developed over a period of time. But most would
:::: apparently rather live with the consequences than do the work to
:::: make the major change in lifestyle.
:::
::: They get used to eating a high-grain high-sugar high-carb diet. Then
::: they try to lose weight by restricting high-fat high-calorie foods
::: and eating more low calorie grains starches. They eat less calories
::: but still fail to lose weight, esoecially long term.
:::
::::
:::: TC, you're a good LCer for sure. But I think the reason you don't
:::: really get this is because you were only ever 20 lbs overweight.
:::: You found LC and it diminshed your appetite without any discomfort
:::: and you got your weight under control. And you continue that
:::: without any major lifestyle change since you eat foods you like
:::: (cause LC food is good). Good deal, really. However, you, to your
:::: benefit, have never been a true fat person like me. Hence, you
:::: don't have the 'monkey on your back' as people like me do. We have
:::: to work harder to maintain. That's just how it is. Most don't
:::: want to do they work. I do, because if I don't, my future will
:::: indeed not be a good one.
:::
::: I will agree with you. Once you pack on that much weight, it becomes
::: nearly impossible to take it off. You really have your work cut out
::: for you.
:::
::: But it wasn't the fat that packed it on and it wasn't the calories
::: that packed it on in the first place. That is the fallacy that we
::: much recognise and understand.
:::
::: When you eat primarily animal fats and proteins, and fresh whole
::: (non-starchy) produce in your diet with little or no refined and
::: highly manufactured carbs, it is actually difficult to eat enough
::: to gain excess fat. the calories seem to not make any difference
::: either way. And when most of your diet is refined and high GI
::: carbs, grains specifically, with little animal fats and proteins,
::: it is virtually impossible to not gain weight. Calories seem to not
::: matter either way, yet again. And studies have shown that low
::: carbers can eat up to 300 calories more than low-cal dieters and
::: still lose as much or more weight. That study was well controlled
::: and showed this clearly.
:::
::: That was approximately 15 or more percent variance. Were they wrong
::: in their calorie counts by 15% in a controlled study with
::: professionals doing the counting? If pros are that far off in a
::: controlled study then of what use are calories to us laymen. So
::: which is wrong: the calorie counts on the food labels? the people
::: doing the counting at every meal? The initial calorie valuations
::: that pegged it at 4 cal per gram of proteins and carbs and 9 per
::: gram of fat? Or the concept that this all is directly applicable to
::: animals and their weights?
:::
::: Where is it wrong? Just the dieters? I don't think so.
:::
::: And this takes us back to the most important part of the equation.
::: There is no science that specifically found that calories are
::: applicable to animals as far as fat management is concerned.
::
:: LOL - tell that to a rancher. They feed their animals just enough
:: excess calories to "marble" the beef.
::

Oh no! You proved this point - they feed them CARBS (grain) to marble the
beef!

Well, I'm agnostic on the issue of low-carb. From what I've read, it can be
a good diet strategy for some folks. Not because it allows your body to
violate the laws of thermodynamics, but because it allows for "satiety". By
feeling "satisifed" one eats less...less *calories*. I think this can be a
prticularly effective strategy if : a) one's "problem foods" are carbs
(e.g., bread, rice, etc.), and b) one is not engaged in endurance sports.

As for the ranchers...they fatten up their beef by feeding grains because
they're cheaper, on a per-calorie basis, than other alternatives. It's the
caloric excess that fatten the cows (bovine and otherwise).

GG


:: GG
::
::: We base
::: our beliefs in this system on what? Because they said so? There is
::: no study that supports the "establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace
::: in 1785 of the law of conservation of energy in its application of
::: animals"
:::
::: It does not exist.
:::
::: TC

GaryG wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
:::
::: Oh no! You proved this point - they feed them CARBS (grain) to
::: marble the beef!
::
:: Well, I'm agnostic on the issue of low-carb. From what I've read,
:: it can be a good diet strategy for some folks.

Make that many folks in the US who are sedentary.

Not because it
:: allows your body to violate the laws of thermodynamics, but because
:: it allows for "satiety". By feeling "satisifed" one eats
:: less...less *calories*.

Of course....

:: I think this can be a prticularly effective
:: strategy if : a) one's "problem foods" are carbs (e.g., bread, rice,
:: etc.), and b) one is not engaged in endurance sports.

Well, if I need to ride a century I eat lots of carbs before and during. If
I'm not, I don't. You do one thing (carbwise) for weight loss and another
for maintenance. Also, most realistic plans match carb intake with physical
activity level. The problem with carbs is that most people overconsume then
in relation to their activity level. It's not they they are purely evil
(well, those from grains are!

:: As for the ranchers...they fatten up their beef by feeding grains
:: because they're cheaper, on a per-calorie basis, than other
:: alternatives. It's the caloric excess that fatten the cows (bovine
:: and otherwise).
::

Yeah, grains are cheap and tasty and that's why we as a whole eat so many of
them. And, we as a whole don't get appetite suppression and hence want to
eat every 20 minutes (ie, after chinese). That ensure we get plenty of
calories. Imagine the poor cows....they're hungry again 20 minutes after the
last feeding....great way to force feed more calories. Make 'em want it by
dicking with their BG levels....yep.