Eating less does not result in weight loss

Courageous writes:

An "all fat" diet causes excessive ketosis -- the presence of
keytones in the blood -- one side effect of ketosis is loss of
appetite.

Fat also contains a truckload of calories, however, so the results are
still variable.

I've seen assertions that ketone-driven metabolism only burns fat
at a rate of 7 colories (instead of the traditional 9) per gram.

Fat is always burned at that rate (since it is always burned in the same
way). The 9-kcal figure is the actual energy yield of fat, but 2 kcal
is used to store the fat and then to convert it to a burnable form when
it is time to use it for energy, so the net calorie content is 7 kcal
per gram.

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

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

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.

It's funny how people elsewhere in the world manage to remain thin
without having to worry about how much fat or carbs they are eating,
isn't it?

Yes it is. As it is also funny that a high-carb/low fat/low protein diet
works for SOME people, while a high-protein/low carb diet works for
SOME people, while eating only pineapple and tree frogs works for
SOME people... yet there is not a single diet or practice that works
for ALL people, including eating less and exercising more.

If you walk 10 miles, what does your body use for the calories
needed to do the work? Is energy pulled into you from another Astral
plane? Seriously.
And if you walk 20 miles, you are going to need at least twice the
fuel.
If you put food (calories) in your mouth, what else can happen to
it except 1. burned 2. Stored. There is no other way out.
So of course more activity and less food will work for everyone, no
exception. Russian POWs put into German labor camps did not display
that much variability in how they lost fat content. None of them
remained unchanged.
Another key fact is that what determines whether muscle is laid
down or used as fuel is mostly the activity level of specific muscles.
If an athlete is confined to bed rest, they burn muscles for fuel
regardless of diet. Work out and you make ( or preserve) muscle.
The USMC has been taking flabby young men and producing fitter,
leaner, stronger young men for some years now. And it works every
time.

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

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.

It's funny how people elsewhere in the world manage to remain thin
without having to worry about how much fat or carbs they are eating,
isn't it?

Yes it is. As it is also funny that a high-carb/low fat/low protein diet
works for SOME people, while a high-protein/low carb diet works for
SOME people, while eating only pineapple and tree frogs works for
SOME people... yet there is not a single diet or practice that works
for ALL people, including eating less and exercising more.

If you walk 10 miles, what does your body use for the calories
needed to do the work? Is energy pulled into you from another Astral
plane? Seriously.
And if you walk 20 miles, you are going to need at least twice the
fuel.
If you put food (calories) in your mouth, what else can happen to
it except 1. burned 2. Stored. There is no other way out.
So of course more activity and less food will work for everyone, no
exception. Russian POWs put into German labor camps did not display
that much variability in how they lost fat content. None of them
remained unchanged.
Another key fact is that what determines whether muscle is laid
down or used as fuel is mostly the activity level of specific muscles.
If an athlete is confined to bed rest, they burn muscles for fuel
regardless of diet. Work out and you make ( or preserve) muscle.
The USMC has been taking flabby young men and producing fitter,
leaner, stronger young men for some years now. And it works every
time.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 05:55:40 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Michael Snyder writes:

Right. That's why the all-fat diet works so well.

The all-fat diet is no better or worse than any other diet. Diets work
when the people on those diets consume fewer calories than they burn.
The actual content of the diet is irrelevant. Most fad diets are
designed to trick people into eating less without realizing it, and this
can produce weight loss. For people who are willing to acknowledge that
they overeat and are prepared to discipline themselves to eat less, fad
diets are not required--they can eat anything they want, as long as they
consume fewer calories than they burn, and they will lose weight.


Do you actually know anything about dieting other than the stuff you
readf in the checkout stand at the market? I didn't think so.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 06:00:49 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Michael Snyder writes:

Absurd. There is no such thing as a BMR.

Yes, there is. BMR is the minimum energy required to keep you alive.
It includes the energy required to sustain vital organs (which is
extremely constant), plus the energy required to maintain whatever fat
and muscle tissue you have (which varies with body composition). A
person in a coma burns only the number of calories in his BMR. Everyone
else burns slightly more, since a conscious person always engages in
some amount of extra activity that burns a few extra calories, even
sitting up in bed all day.

If I lie in bed all day and eat, I will consume more calories
than I will if I lie in bed all day and fast.

No, you will not.

Haven't you ever noticed that there are no fat, comatose people? That's
because doctors precisely control the nutrients that comatose patients
receive, and adjust the number of calories to match the BMR plus any
resting energy requirement (usually close to zero). Extra body fat is
gradually lost as the body burns it to provide energy to sustain it,
until body weight stabilizes at an optimal level. If the myriad myths
concerning magic variations in metabolism actually had any basis in
fact, there would be lots of obese, comatose patients--but in reality
all comatose patients are slender.


But Mr. Snyder is not talking of being in a coma, on a precisely
controlled feeding regimin - he is talking about lying in bed
consuming food all day.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 06:02:11 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Michael Snyder writes:

Fascinating -- no wonder you are a billionaire, since you are able to
reliably help anyone lose weight.

I've never tried to make money at it. It would be hard to make money at
it by telling the truth, since the last thing most fat people want to
hear is that they are fat because they overeat.

Your advice works, where so many others does not, so
you must be richer than God.

See above. And it's not my advice, it's the consensus opinion in the
mainstream medical community, backed up by endless mountains of data
that invariably support these conclusions.


I certainly haven't seen you provide any FACTS to support your
wild-eyed theories.

"Cat" wrote in message nk.net...
Eating less does not result in weight loss? Duhhhh.....I'll tell that to the
75 lbs. I've lost so far. They'll be surprised to hear it. G

Cat (snickering)


How dare you snicker!!!!? I went on a diet of sausages, lard, butter
and Big Macs (with weak black tea, no sugar) and I only put on 110
pounds.

steve -- so there!!!

"Dr Chaos" :
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.

Interesting article:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/1/281S

"In slightly overweight men, Bouché et al (C Bouché, SW Rizkalla, J Luo, A
Veronese, and G Slama, unpublished observations, 2000) showed that
consumption of a low-GI diet for 5 wk, compared with a high-GI diet of equal
energy and macronutrient content, decreased total fat mass by 500 g (P
0.05, as measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry), despite no
difference in body weight. The decrease in fat mass was mostly abdominal and
was associated with a decrease in ob gene expression in subcutaneous fat
tissue."

There are other articles which show that type of calories consumed can
affect fat loss, if one cares to look.

Rowena.

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.

Mxsmanic wrote:

The actual content of the diet is irrelevant. Most fad diets are
designed to trick people into eating less without realizing it,

Oh, just because I am not sitting on my hands waiting for the
next ration, forcing myself not to eat, does not mean I am "tricked",
it just means I am actually sated like normal people are.

I can't tell you what a *glorious* feeling it was to actually be
able to say *honestly* "No thank you, I've had enough.", and
actually FEEL it! I used to think that the above phrase was a
polite little lie people used to avoid looking like gluttons (and
I often used it in that fashion). I *never* thought people
actually *meant* it.

Fad diet, schmad diet (I actually made up my own diet, for health
reasons not related to overweight), if it makes eating LESS a
process that is painless and FUN, I'm all for it.

Crafting Mom
http://ca.photos.yahoo.com/craftingmom2001
Modified WOL since spring '02 || Weight at start: over 250 lb
Today's weight: 180.5 lb || Goal/Maintenance: 140 lb

Mxsmanic wrote:

Fat also contains a truckload of calories, however, so the results are
still variable.

Fat does, true, if you guzzle it. However, have you actually *tried*
to eat plain fat ?(without the fries on the side and the sugar in the
ice cream).

I have. I found that in my experience, fat, when not mixed with
sugar or starch to be quite difficult to stuff myself on. I couldn't
get past 600 calories worth. (1 tablespoon of flax oil or olive oil,
both oils of which I *love* the taste, have 120 calories), and that
was trying pretty darn hard.

Crafting Mom
http://ca.photos.yahoo.com/craftingmom2001
Modified WOL since spring '02 || Weight at start: over 250 lb
Today's weight: 180.5 lb || Goal/Maintenance: 140 lb