Eating less does not result in weight loss

Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Bob Ward writes:

Eating less doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE weight loss.

It does if it results in consuming fewer calories than you burn.
Otherwise it does not.

But eating less often CAUSES you to burn less calories --
so the simple equation is obviously invalid.

Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Michael Snyder writes:

And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.

It is the one and only basis of all weight loss

Bull****. Utterly and completely absurd. For the most trivial
example, your simple formula completely ignores what KIND
of calories one consumes. For another, it ignores the active
relationship between how much you eat and how much you
burn. This type of mindless oversimplification is what gets
in the way of millions of people actually losing weight.

Mr. F. Le Mur wrote in message ...
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 09:54:22 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

-Michael Snyder writes:
-
- And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.
-
-It is the one and only basis of all weight loss. All successful diets
-work by creating a caloric deficit. All unsuccessful diets have in
-common that they fail to create a caloric deficit. There are no
-exceptions to this rule.

True.

-
- Over-simplifications such as these serve no one --
- least of all people who would like to lose weight.
-
-They serve those people best of all. However, they are unpleasantly
-difficult to deny for people who don't want to face the necessity of
-eating less in order to lose weight.
-
- If you eat less calories on a daily basis, the amount
- of calories you USE will very likely change.
-
-No, it will not. The number of calories you burn is based on your
-weight, sex, body composition, and the amount of exercise you get. None
-of this suddenly changes just because you decide to eat less, which is
-why you lose weight if you significantly reduce your intake of food.

Actually one's metabolism does change when calorie intake changes.
Lower calorie intake - lower metabolism.

I was once told, by a professional physical trainer, that I was eating
too little and that if I wanted to lose weight I would need to eat more.
My body thought it was starving, and therefore was hanging on to
every calory it could get.

Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Mr. F. Le Mur writes:

Actually one's metabolism does change when calorie intake changes.
Lower calorie intake - lower metabolism.

The change is slight and largely temporary.

No, it is not. In fact, once your body decides that it is starving,
it is rather difficult to dissuade it of the notion. It can persist
indefinitely.

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:28:19 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

-Mr. F. Le Mur writes:
-
- I wonder about that though, since I never get fat no matter how
- much I eat.
-
-That's because you don't eat that much. If you tried to eat as much as
-the average fat person, you might feel stuffed and sick.

Probably.

-
- FWIW, I eat whatever I feel like eating, and it's usually
- high in fat and sugar.
-
-Only calories matter with respect to weight; you can eat anything you
-want.

True, but I think the idea is if you don't eat anough fat, then
you still have cravings (for fat) and eat more calories-worth
of stuff with less fat.
http://www.reason.com/0303/fe.mf.big.shtml
As you can see, it's still controversial.

I used to have an obese friend. One of the comments she made to me was that
she didn't know what hunger felt like. She had gone years never allowing
herself to get "hungry".

While I didn't agree with everything I read in the "Weigh Down" book, that
was one of the first things mentioned. People who have gone years eating way
too much needed to learn how to be hungry again. The "eat when hungry...stop
when full" thing was the whole idea. If we listen to our bodies, we would
naturally eat the proper amount of food to fuel our bodies, not to make us
feel better. Hunger itself should not be looked on as something "bad", the
same with food. There is no "good food" or "bad food". We aren't better if
we don't eat, and we aren't bad if we have some ice cream once in a while.

Those of us who have dealt with emotional eating have a much tougher time
learning to do that on a consistent basis. I know for myself, the more
"well" I am emotionally, the more I just plain eat right and don't have the
"need" to stuff my face. It can be a learned thing. For me, staying on a
routine exercise schedule helps too, because I feel better physically, and
better about myself because I am doing something good for ME.

I'm sure a great deal of how we face food comes from our upbringing. Letting
junior eat 4 hamburgers because he's a "growing boy" isn't doing the kid any
favors. Sticking a bottle of pop or or a piece of candy in a little one's
mouth to quiet them only teaches them that food makes them "feel better".

Melissa




"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Mr. F. Le Mur writes:

... it's easier to be hungry.

Very revealing. For fat people, it's _never_ easier to be hungry! They
_will_ go out and find a place to eat. This reluctance on your part
alone may be sufficient to explain why you are not fat.

My free advice to people concerned about getting fat is to
quit thinking that it's terrible to feel hungry, and probably
also quit "couting calories" and other things that turn food
into something symbolic or an intermittent reward; like
instead of thinking about what you're supposed to eat and when
and how much, think about staying hungry as long as you can.

Not a bad idea. But a characteristic of fat people is that they cannot
tolerate hunger, nor does anything seem to distract them from hunger.
My extremely fat grandmother had to stop to eat several times a day,
whether she actually felt hungry or not, and no matter what she was
doing. No wonder she was extremely fat.

Then when you've been hungry long enough, eat whatever you
feel like eating.

Not a good idea. Fat people usually feel like eating a great deal.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 18:20:29 GMT, Michael Snyder wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Michael Snyder writes:

And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.

It is the one and only basis of all weight loss

Bull****. Utterly and completely absurd. For the most trivial
example, your simple formula completely ignores what KIND
of calories one consumes.

scientific evidence shows that ignoring this is valid to
answer the question.

For another, it ignores the active
relationship between how much you eat and how much you
burn.

what is this exactly and how does it invalidate the statement.

This type of mindless oversimplification is what gets
in the way of millions of people actually losing weight.

No it doesn't. Thinking that people can do things other than maintain
a caloric imbalance that in their hearts they don't want to do gets in
the way of losing weight. This is because people would prefer to hear
that the problem is something exotic that they didn't know about
before rather than eating too much.

On 10/7/2003 2:26 PM, Mr. F. Le Mur wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:28:19 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

-Mr. F. Le Mur writes:
-
- I wonder about that though, since I never get fat no matter how
- much I eat.
-
-That's because you don't eat that much. If you tried to eat as much as
-the average fat person, you might feel stuffed and sick.

Probably.

-
- FWIW, I eat whatever I feel like eating, and it's usually
- high in fat and sugar.
-
-Only calories matter with respect to weight; you can eat anything you
-want.

True, but I think the idea is if you don't eat anough fat, then
you still have cravings (for fat) and eat more calories-worth
of stuff with less fat.
http://www.reason.com/0303/fe.mf.big.shtml
As you can see, it's still controversial.

Don't studies show that fiber releases the same hunger hormone as fat?
Maybe I'm confusing that with the PYY hormone that was in the news a few
weeks ago...

In article ,
"Michael Snyder" wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote in message ...
Mr. F. Le Mur writes:

Actually one's metabolism does change when calorie intake changes.
Lower calorie intake - lower metabolism.

The change is slight and largely temporary.

No, it is not. In fact, once your body decides that it is starving,
it is rather difficult to dissuade it of the notion. It can persist
indefinitely.


Is this why concentration camp victims were so fat?

In article ,
"Michael Snyder" wrote:

Mr. F. Le Mur wrote in message ...
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 09:54:22 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

-Michael Snyder writes:
-
- And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.
-
-It is the one and only basis of all weight loss. All successful diets
-work by creating a caloric deficit. All unsuccessful diets have in
-common that they fail to create a caloric deficit. There are no
-exceptions to this rule.

True.

-
- Over-simplifications such as these serve no one --
- least of all people who would like to lose weight.
-
-They serve those people best of all. However, they are unpleasantly
-difficult to deny for people who don't want to face the necessity of
-eating less in order to lose weight.
-
- If you eat less calories on a daily basis, the amount
- of calories you USE will very likely change.
-
-No, it will not. The number of calories you burn is based on your
-weight, sex, body composition, and the amount of exercise you get. None
-of this suddenly changes just because you decide to eat less, which is
-why you lose weight if you significantly reduce your intake of food.

Actually one's metabolism does change when calorie intake changes.
Lower calorie intake - lower metabolism.

I was once told, by a professional physical trainer, that I was eating
too little and that if I wanted to lose weight I would need to eat more.
My body thought it was starving, and therefore was hanging on to
every calory it could get.


Bull**** psuedo science. Caloric deficit always results in weight loss.
Consult an anorexic for more info.