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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:
friend Mu wrote: neighbor Caleb wrote: If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions about losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to see them there! Yours, Caleb Why don't you tell us how much you lost on the last 100 day diet, and how much you regained from day 101 onwards? janice So it is him! Yup! It sure is me. I'll be posting on alt.support.diet.low-calorie my progress. I guess one of my points is that it simply is not that difficult or complicated to take the weight off. There is no need for people suffer emotional turmoil, self-doubt, etc. If they follow a sensible dietary approach over time, they WILL lose weight. Nothing rocket science about it. However, following a sensible approach over time is not easy. I've done it before (quite simply) and I'll do it again this time -- hope it's the last time -- but regardless, it's just not that tough to do. I sure am a hell of a lot healthier than when I first started this approach in '99. I am alive, am far more physically fit, etc., etc. Couple of points for people to remember: There's a lot of bad advice out there competing for their attention. It all does break down to calories in versus calories used up. Weighing regularly is probably essential for most people. (I have a simple balance beam system that I have found very helpful since '99 that you can read about if you search "indicator" "caleb" "balance beam" on Google.) Recording calories -- or at least insuring that what you eat adheres to your dietary goals -- is important. Regular exercise is important, although the recent research from Pennington (Ravussin et al) shows that exercise is not a panacea and that some of the vaunted effects of exercise (e.g., muscle speeding up metabolism) are not supported by current data. Most important is just to keep at it -- put your nose down and just keep plugging along. For every one who unreasonably assails you, you might imagine their face at a trough, wonder exactly what their weight loss history is (is there a weight-loss wing of the Mayo Clinic in their name?), etc. As Rosie used to say, "Your mileage may vary!" And certainly it is true that there are different strokes for different folks. To repeat, weight-loss is not rocket science but it still is not easy. Too bad we can't be like a horse in blinders that continually plows a road in a field, undistracted by harmful or inconsequential things. Yours, Caleb Caleb, Mu here. Counting calories is such an inexact computation as to be practically worthless. Would you care for Mu to explain? Cals in, cals out, thermodynamics OK, real usefulness = ZERO. Reg exercise is of no real ongoing value for overconsumption control, so few can or elect to do so. Scratch that. Rubbish...plenty of successful weight loss has been achieved with the assistance of exercise. The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost significant amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or longer. According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be highly active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825 kcal/wk) through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per day in physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort. The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help with the "overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to getting fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what one ingests (at least, it does for many of us).. Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more comfortably and with less injury. Indeed, that has been my own personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose tissue (VAT), which can not be completely lost by exercise but only by eating less down to the optimal amount which does result in becoming hungrier that one has ever been in one's life. And, of course, there are many, many other benefits to being physically active besides just the calories burned - increased cardiovascular fitness (strangely, whacko Chung never mentions this...perhaps he's too tired to exercise due to his eating disorder), increased mental function, decreased depression, etc., etc. Actually, my discussions with Don Kirkman about personally being physically active remain in the Google archives to prove that you remain untruthful. If your intent has been to deceive, you have now provided evidence for you to be judged a liar. Clearly you remain convicted by the Holy Spirit: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts May you wisely choose to surrender to HIM by publicly confessing with your mouth that "Jesus is LORD:" http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/TheWay Andrew -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD http://EmoryCardiology.com |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
ps.com... convicted neighbor GaryG wrote: friend Mu wrote: neighbor Caleb wrote: If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions about losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to see them there! Yours, Caleb Why don't you tell us how much you lost on the last 100 day diet, and how much you regained from day 101 onwards? janice So it is him! Yup! It sure is me. I'll be posting on alt.support.diet.low-calorie my progress. I guess one of my points is that it simply is not that difficult or complicated to take the weight off. There is no need for people suffer emotional turmoil, self-doubt, etc. If they follow a sensible dietary approach over time, they WILL lose weight. Nothing rocket science about it. However, following a sensible approach over time is not easy. I've done it before (quite simply) and I'll do it again this time -- hope it's the last time -- but regardless, it's just not that tough to do. I sure am a hell of a lot healthier than when I first started this approach in '99. I am alive, am far more physically fit, etc., etc. Couple of points for people to remember: There's a lot of bad advice out there competing for their attention. It all does break down to calories in versus calories used up. Weighing regularly is probably essential for most people. (I have a simple balance beam system that I have found very helpful since '99 that you can read about if you search "indicator" "caleb" "balance beam" on Google.) Recording calories -- or at least insuring that what you eat adheres to your dietary goals -- is important. Regular exercise is important, although the recent research from Pennington (Ravussin et al) shows that exercise is not a panacea and that some of the vaunted effects of exercise (e.g., muscle speeding up metabolism) are not supported by current data. Most important is just to keep at it -- put your nose down and just keep plugging along. For every one who unreasonably assails you, you might imagine their face at a trough, wonder exactly what their weight loss history is (is there a weight-loss wing of the Mayo Clinic in their name?), etc. As Rosie used to say, "Your mileage may vary!" And certainly it is true that there are different strokes for different folks. To repeat, weight-loss is not rocket science but it still is not easy. Too bad we can't be like a horse in blinders that continually plows a road in a field, undistracted by harmful or inconsequential things. Yours, Caleb Caleb, Mu here. Counting calories is such an inexact computation as to be practically worthless. Would you care for Mu to explain? Cals in, cals out, thermodynamics OK, real usefulness = ZERO. Reg exercise is of no real ongoing value for overconsumption control, so few can or elect to do so. Scratch that. Rubbish...plenty of successful weight loss has been achieved with the assistance of exercise. The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost significant amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or longer. According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be highly active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825 kcal/wk) through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per day in physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort. The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help with the "overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to getting fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what one ingests (at least, it does for many of us).. Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more comfortably and with less injury. Indeed, that has been my own personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose tissue (VAT), Hey, that's pretty cool...I'm sure many athletes would be interested in that "training strategy". So, you're saying that you're capable of running an ultramarathon, due only to your lowered body fat levels? Have you ever actually completed an ultramarathon to confirm your assertion? If so, please provide us with a link to the results web page g. which can not be completely lost by exercise but only by eating less down to the optimal amount which does result in becoming hungrier that one has ever been in one's life. Again, this obsession with hunger...the more you speak of your experience with the 2 Pound Diet (2PD), the more it sounds like an eating disorder. And, of course, there are many, many other benefits to being physically active besides just the calories burned - increased cardiovascular fitness (strangely, whacko Chung never mentions this...perhaps he's too tired to exercise due to his eating disorder), increased mental function, decreased depression, etc., etc. Actually, my discussions with Don Kirkman about personally being physically active remain in the Google archives to prove that you remain untruthful. You may have made some silly and unproven claims as to your physical prowess, but the vast majority of your advice to others is to lose weight only by focusing on becoming hungry...you never mention the health and/or weight loss benefits of physical activity. If your intent has been to deceive, you have now provided evidence for you to be judged a liar. If your intent has been to insult me, you have failed yet again. Clearly you remain convicted by the Holy Spirit: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convects May you wisely choose to surrender to HIM by publicly confessing with your mouth that "Jesus is LORD:" http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirot/TheWay Andrew -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD http://EmoryCardialogy.com |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
On Feb 5, 2:41 pm, "GaryG" wrote:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in glegroups.com... convicted neighbor GaryG wrote: friend Mu wrote: neighbor Caleb wrote: If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions about losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to see them there! Yours, Caleb Why don't you tell us how much you lost on the last 100 day diet, and how much you regained from day 101 onwards? janice So it is him! Yup! It sure is me. I'll be posting on alt.support.diet.low-calorie my progress. I guess one of my points is that it simply is not that difficult or complicated to take the weight off. There is no need for people suffer emotional turmoil, self-doubt, etc. If they follow a sensible dietary approach over time, they WILL lose weight. Nothing rocket science about it. However, following a sensible approach over time is not easy. I've done it before (quite simply) and I'll do it again this time -- hope it's the last time -- but regardless, it's just not that tough to do. I sure am a hell of a lot healthier than when I first started this approach in '99. I am alive, am far more physically fit, etc., etc. Couple of points for people to remember: There's a lot of bad advice out there competing for their attention. It all does break down to calories in versus calories used up. Weighing regularly is probably essential for most people. (I have a simple balance beam system that I have found very helpful since '99 that you can read about if you search "indicator" "caleb" "balance beam" on Google.) Recording calories -- or at least insuring that what you eat adheres to your dietary goals -- is important. Regular exercise is important, although the recent research from Pennington (Ravussin et al) shows that exercise is not a panacea and that some of the vaunted effects of exercise (e.g., muscle speeding up metabolism) are not supported by current data. Most important is just to keep at it -- put your nose down and just keep plugging along. For every one who unreasonably assails you, you might imagine their face at a trough, wonder exactly what their weight loss history is (is there a weight-loss wing of the Mayo Clinic in their name?), etc. As Rosie used to say, "Your mileage may vary!" And certainly it is true that there are different strokes for different folks. To repeat, weight-loss is not rocket science but it still is not easy. Too bad we can't be like a horse in blinders that continually plows a road in a field, undistracted by harmful or inconsequential things. Yours, Caleb Caleb, Mu here. Counting calories is such an inexact computation as to be practically worthless. Would you care for Mu to explain? Cals in, cals out, thermodynamics OK, real usefulness = ZERO. Reg exercise is of no real ongoing value for overconsumption control, so few can or elect to do so. Scratch that. Rubbish...plenty of successful weight loss has been achieved with the assistance of exercise. The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost significant amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or longer. According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be highly active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825 kcal/wk) through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per day in physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort. The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help with the "overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to getting fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what one ingests (at least, it does for many of us).. Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more comfortably and with less injury. Indeed, that has been my own personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose tissue (VAT), Hey, that's pretty cool...I'm sure many athletes would be interested in that "training strategy". So, you're saying that you're capable of running an ultramarathon, due only to your lowered body fat levels? Have you ever actually completed an ultramarathon to confirm your assertion? If so, please provide us with a link to the results web page g. which can not be completely lost by exercise but only by eating less down to the optimal amount which does result in becoming hungrier that one has ever been in one's life. Again, this obsession with hunger...the more you speak of your experience with the 2 Pound Diet (2PD), the more it sounds like an eating disorder. And, of course, there are many, many other benefits to being physically active besides just the calories burned - increased cardiovascular fitness (strangely, whacko Chung never mentions this...perhaps he's too tired to exercise due to his eating disorder), increased mental function, decreased depression, etc., etc. Actually, my discussions with Don Kirkman about personally being physically active remain in the Google archives to prove that you remain untruthful. You may have made some silly and unproven claims as to your physical prowess, but the vast majority of your advice to others is to lose weight only by focusing on becoming hungry...you never mention the health and/or weight loss benefits of physical activity. If your intent has been to deceive, you have now provided evidence for you to be judged a liar. If your intent has been to insult me, you have failed yet again. Earthquack's intended insults are compliments. The ultimate accolade is "Demon" |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
"The Rev Dr Hugh Jarse NLAHN" wrote in message
ups.com... On Feb 5, 2:41 pm, "GaryG" wrote: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in glegroups.com... convicted neighbor GaryG wrote: friend Mu wrote: neighbor Caleb wrote: If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions about losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to see them there! Yours, Caleb Why don't you tell us how much you lost on the last 100 day diet, and how much you regained from day 101 onwards? janice So it is him! Yup! It sure is me. I'll be posting on alt.support.diet.low-calorie my progress. I guess one of my points is that it simply is not that difficult or complicated to take the weight off. There is no need for people suffer emotional turmoil, self-doubt, etc. If they follow a sensible dietary approach over time, they WILL lose weight. Nothing rocket science about it. However, following a sensible approach over time is not easy. I've done it before (quite simply) and I'll do it again this time -- hope it's the last time -- but regardless, it's just not that tough to do. I sure am a hell of a lot healthier than when I first started this approach in '99. I am alive, am far more physically fit, etc., etc. Couple of points for people to remember: There's a lot of bad advice out there competing for their attention. It all does break down to calories in versus calories used up. Weighing regularly is probably essential for most people. (I have a simple balance beam system that I have found very helpful since '99 that you can read about if you search "indicator" "caleb" "balance beam" on Google.) Recording calories -- or at least insuring that what you eat adheres to your dietary goals -- is important. Regular exercise is important, although the recent research from Pennington (Ravussin et al) shows that exercise is not a panacea and that some of the vaunted effects of exercise (e.g., muscle speeding up metabolism) are not supported by current data. Most important is just to keep at it -- put your nose down and just keep plugging along. For every one who unreasonably assails you, you might imagine their face at a trough, wonder exactly what their weight loss history is (is there a weight-loss wing of the Mayo Clinic in their name?), etc. As Rosie used to say, "Your mileage may vary!" And certainly it is true that there are different strokes for different folks. To repeat, weight-loss is not rocket science but it still is not easy. Too bad we can't be like a horse in blinders that continually plows a road in a field, undistracted by harmful or inconsequential things. Yours, Caleb Caleb, Mu here. Counting calories is such an inexact computation as to be practically worthless. Would you care for Mu to explain? Cals in, cals out, thermodynamics OK, real usefulness = ZERO. Reg exercise is of no real ongoing value for overconsumption control, so few can or elect to do so. Scratch that. Rubbish...plenty of successful weight loss has been achieved with the assistance of exercise. The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost significant amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or longer. According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be highly active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825 kcal/wk) through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per day in physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort. The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help with the "overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to getting fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what one ingests (at least, it does for many of us).. Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more comfortably and with less injury. Indeed, that has been my own personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose tissue (VAT), Hey, that's pretty cool...I'm sure many athletes would be interested in that "training strategy". So, you're saying that you're capable of running an ultramarathon, due only to your lowered body fat levels? Have you ever actually completed an ultramarathon to confirm your assertion? If so, please provide us with a link to the results web page g. which can not be completely lost by exercise but only by eating less down to the optimal amount which does result in becoming hungrier that one has ever been in one's life. Again, this obsession with hunger...the more you speak of your experience with the 2 Pound Diet (2PD), the more it sounds like an eating disorder. And, of course, there are many, many other benefits to being physically active besides just the calories burned - increased cardiovascular fitness (strangely, whacko Chung never mentions this...perhaps he's too tired to exercise due to his eating disorder), increased mental function, decreased depression, etc., etc. Actually, my discussions with Don Kirkman about personally being physically active remain in the Google archives to prove that you remain untruthful. You may have made some silly and unproven claims as to your physical prowess, but the vast majority of your advice to others is to lose weight only by focusing on becoming hungry...you never mention the health and/or weight loss benefits of physical activity. If your intent has been to deceive, you have now provided evidence for you to be judged a liar. If your intent has been to insult me, you have failed yet again. Earthquack's intended insults are compliments. The ultimate accolade is "Demon" LOL - I think the order of progression is "Dear Neighbor", "Liar/Untruthful", "Convicted", "Mark of Satan", and finally "Demon" (though I may have overlooked some intermediate categories). GG |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
On Feb 4, 11:52 pm, "GaryG" wrote:
"Mu" wrote in message ... On 2 Feb 2007 09:06:46 -0800, Caleb wrote: If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions about losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to see them there! Yours, Caleb Why don't you tell us how much you lost on the last 100 day diet, and how much you regained from day 101 onwards? janice So it is him! Yup! It sure is me. I'll be posting on alt.support.diet.low-calorie my progress. I guess one of my points is that it simply is not that difficult or complicated to take the weight off. There is no need for people suffer emotional turmoil, self-doubt, etc. If they follow a sensible dietary approach over time, they WILL lose weight. Nothing rocket science about it. However, following a sensible approach over time is not easy. I've done it before (quite simply) and I'll do it again this time -- hope it's the last time -- but regardless, it's just not that tough to do. I sure am a hell of a lot healthier than when I first started this approach in '99. I am alive, am far more physically fit, etc., etc. Couple of points for people to remember: There's a lot of bad advice out there competing for their attention. It all does break down to calories in versus calories used up. Weighing regularly is probably essential for most people. (I have a simple balance beam system that I have found very helpful since '99 that you can read about if you search "indicator" "caleb" "balance beam" on Google.) Recording calories -- or at least insuring that what you eat adheres to your dietary goals -- is important. Regular exercise is important, although the recent research from Pennington (Ravussin et al) shows that exercise is not a panacea and that some of the vaunted effects of exercise (e.g., muscle speeding up metabolism) are not supported by current data. Most important is just to keep at it -- put your nose down and just keep plugging along. For every one who unreasonably assails you, you might imagine their face at a trough, wonder exactly what their weight loss history is (is there a weight-loss wing of the Mayo Clinic in their name?), etc. As Rosie used to say, "Your mileage may vary!" And certainly it is true that there are different strokes for different folks. To repeat, weight-loss is not rocket science but it still is not easy. Too bad we can't be like a horse in blinders that continually plows a road in a field, undistracted by harmful or inconsequential things. Yours, Caleb Caleb, Mu here. Counting calories is such an inexact computation as to be practically worthless. Would you care for Mu to explain? Cals in, cals out, thermodynamics OK, real usefulness = ZERO. Reg exercise is of no real ongoing value for overconsumption control, so few can or elect to do so. Scratch that. Rubbish...plenty of successful weight loss has been achieved with the assistance of exercise. The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost significant amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or longer. According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be highly active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825 kcal/wk) through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per day in physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort. The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help with the "overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to getting fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what one ingests (at least, it does for many of us).. And, of course, there are many, many other benefits to being physically active besides just the calories burned - increased cardiovascular fitness (strangely, whacko Chung never mentions this...perhaps he's too tired to exercise due to his eating disorder), increased mental function, decreased depression, etc., etc. GG ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- GaryG -- I agree with you about the general usefulness of exercise! Helps us feel better, reduces BP, etc. Also it helps in other ways -- e.g., I might treat overeating in a different light. (e.g., I might ask myself: How many trips up my hill to get rid of the calories in this sandwich? How does extra weight affect my backpacking in June? etc.) From my perspective, one can overdo the exercise component, and I'm pretty sure you'll agree with this. Expecting the average person to spend two hours a day at the gym is a bit much, but hopefully exercise can be fit into a daily, or at least a three time a week activity schedule. Yours truly, Caleb |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
On Feb 4, 7:46 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"The Queen of Cans and Jars" wrote in messagenews:1ht0z55.fetlsf16uxn0cN%dhrravr@ohatzha pu.bet... teachrmama wrote: Gosh, I am so glad nobody gave up on me because of all the times I tried to do things my way. Or on certain family members who went to 12 step meetings for "support" but really didn't follow the program. All of us seem to have stumbled and bumbled our way to truths that we were blind to--sometimes by choice--in the past. If I were to be judged only by my past choices, I would never be free to be the person I am becoming today. 2002 was 5 years ago--I'm talking to him today. You really don't get it, do you? Caleb's not stumbling. He *deliberately* loses and regains weight. Wake the hell up and pay attention to what people are telling you. You honestly think he *deliberately* regains weight? What makes you say that? YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How dense are you??? Wait, don't answer that, I think we know the answer. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Luke 6:21
convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: convicted neighbor GaryG wrote: friend Mu wrote: neighbor Caleb wrote: If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions about losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to see them there! Yours, Caleb Why don't you tell us how much you lost on the last 100 day diet, and how much you regained from day 101 onwards? janice So it is him! Yup! It sure is me. I'll be posting on alt.support.diet.low-calorie my progress. I guess one of my points is that it simply is not that difficult or complicated to take the weight off. There is no need for people suffer emotional turmoil, self-doubt, etc. If they follow a sensible dietary approach over time, they WILL lose weight. Nothing rocket science about it. However, following a sensible approach over time is not easy. I've done it before (quite simply) and I'll do it again this time -- hope it's the last time -- but regardless, it's just not that tough to do. I sure am a hell of a lot healthier than when I first started this approach in '99. I am alive, am far more physically fit, etc., etc. Couple of points for people to remember: There's a lot of bad advice out there competing for their attention. It all does break down to calories in versus calories used up. Weighing regularly is probably essential for most people. (I have a simple balance beam system that I have found very helpful since '99 that you can read about if you search "indicator" "caleb" "balance beam" on Google.) Recording calories -- or at least insuring that what you eat adheres to your dietary goals -- is important. Regular exercise is important, although the recent research from Pennington (Ravussin et al) shows that exercise is not a panacea and that some of the vaunted effects of exercise (e.g., muscle speeding up metabolism) are not supported by current data. Most important is just to keep at it -- put your nose down and just keep plugging along. For every one who unreasonably assails you, you might imagine their face at a trough, wonder exactly what their weight loss history is (is there a weight-loss wing of the Mayo Clinic in their name?), etc. As Rosie used to say, "Your mileage may vary!" And certainly it is true that there are different strokes for different folks. To repeat, weight-loss is not rocket science but it still is not easy. Too bad we can't be like a horse in blinders that continually plows a road in a field, undistracted by harmful or inconsequential things. Yours, Caleb Caleb, Mu here. Counting calories is such an inexact computation as to be practically worthless. Would you care for Mu to explain? Cals in, cals out, thermodynamics OK, real usefulness = ZERO. Reg exercise is of no real ongoing value for overconsumption control, so few can or elect to do so. Scratch that. Rubbish...plenty of successful weight loss has been achieved with the assistance of exercise. The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost significant amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or longer. According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be highly active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825 kcal/wk) through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per day in physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort. The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help with the "overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to getting fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what one ingests (at least, it does for many of us).. Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more comfortably and with less injury. Indeed, that has been my own personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose tissue (VAT), Hey, that's pretty cool... The truth is cool. I'm sure many athletes would be interested in that "training strategy". The world class athletes already know that the hungrier they are the more capable they physically become. When an athlete loses in a competition where s/he was a physical match with his/her competitior, s/he knows that s/he was not hungry enough. In countries where the brainwashing that "hunger is bad" does not occur (ie Kenya), the runners are leaner, trimmer, and much faster because they know in their hearts that "hunger is good." Truth is absolute and invincible. "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." -- LORD Jesus Christ Amen ! Laus Deo ! ! ! Marana tha ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Andrew -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD http://EmoryCardiology.com |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
F*&k! You're stupid,Earthquack!
On Feb 5, 4:12 pm, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote: convicted neighbor GaryG wrote: Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: convicted neighbor GaryG wrote: friend Mu wrote: neighbor Caleb wrote: If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions about losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to see them there! Yours, Caleb Why don't you tell us how much you lost on the last 100 day diet, and how much you regained from day 101 onwards? janice So it is him! Yup! It sure is me. I'll be posting on alt.support.diet.low-calorie my progress. I guess one of my points is that it simply is not that difficult or complicated to take the weight off. There is no need for people suffer emotional turmoil, self-doubt, etc. If they follow a sensible dietary approach over time, they WILL lose weight. Nothing rocket science about it. However, following a sensible approach over time is not easy. I've done it before (quite simply) and I'll do it again this time -- hope it's the last time -- but regardless, it's just not that tough to do. I sure am a hell of a lot healthier than when I first started this approach in '99. I am alive, am far more physically fit, etc., etc. Couple of points for people to remember: There's a lot of bad advice out there competing for their attention. It all does break down to calories in versus calories used up. Weighing regularly is probably essential for most people. (I have a simple balance beam system that I have found very helpful since '99 that you can read about if you search "indicator" "caleb" "balance beam" on Google.) Recording calories -- or at least insuring that what you eat adheres to your dietary goals -- is important. Regular exercise is important, although the recent research from Pennington (Ravussin et al) shows that exercise is not a panacea and that some of the vaunted effects of exercise (e.g., muscle speeding up metabolism) are not supported by current data. Most important is just to keep at it -- put your nose down and just keep plugging along. For every one who unreasonably assails you, you might imagine their face at a trough, wonder exactly what their weight loss history is (is there a weight-loss wing of the Mayo Clinic in their name?), etc. As Rosie used to say, "Your mileage may vary!" And certainly it is true that there are different strokes for different folks. To repeat, weight-loss is not rocket science but it still is not easy. Too bad we can't be like a horse in blinders that continually plows a road in a field, undistracted by harmful or inconsequential things. Yours, Caleb Caleb, Mu here. Counting calories is such an inexact computation as to be practically worthless. Would you care for Mu to explain? Cals in, cals out, thermodynamics OK, real usefulness = ZERO. Reg exercise is of no real ongoing value for overconsumption control, so few can or elect to do so. Scratch that. Rubbish...plenty of successful weight loss has been achieved with the assistance of exercise. The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost significant amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or longer. According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be highly active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825 kcal/wk) through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per day in physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort. The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help with the "overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to getting fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what one ingests (at least, it does for many of us).. Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more comfortably and with less injury. Indeed, that has been my own personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose tissue (VAT), Hey, that's pretty cool... The truth is cool. I'm sure many athletes would be interested in that "training strategy". The world class athletes already know that the hungrier they are the more capable they physically become. When an athlete loses in a competition where s/he was a physical match with his/her competitior, s/he knows that s/he was not hungry enough. In countries where the brainwashing that "hunger is bad" does not occur (ie Kenya), the runners are leaner, trimmer, and much faster because they know in their hearts that "hunger is good." Remember, back in 1972, when all those Biafran athletes swept the board. Boy! Were they hungry! |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
"teachrmama" wrote:
You really don't get it, do you? Caleb's not stumbling. He *deliberately* loses and regains weight. Wake the hell up and pay attention to what people are telling you. You honestly think he *deliberately* regains weight? What makes you say that? For several years in a row he has planned in advance for his diet to last 100 days and then quit. Simple cause and effect says if we go back to eating the way that got us fat in the first place then we gain it all back again. So yes, he does in fact plan to gain the weight back again. it's why folks have issues with Caleb - He resists advice to try to convert his methods to sustainable. So Caleb, What is your maintenance plan this time? You have learned again and again that planning to quit equals planning to gain it all back. You have learned again and again that reducing your caloric intake below some point leads to your body requiring a refeed to the point you can no longer resist the urge. Are you this time following a milder loss plan that is slower to not trigger this refeed mandate? Do you have a maintenance phase planned out in advance? If not, why are you trying a fad diet again and again? If you gain it back of what use was the losing? |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
teachrmama wrote:
snip Why are you so upset about something so minor? You are making yourself look like a control freak. Just ignore the threads you do not want to participate in. That's what I do. I'm not going to suggest that you not discuss whatever you wish with Caleb. I do wish you would take him up on his invite though. Here are a few facts about all this. Maybe you'll see that it's not so "minor" afterall. Year after year Caleb comes back to ASD with the same 100 day diet plan. He adopts an unbalanced low calorie diet and rigorous exercise plan so he can lose as much weight as possible in 100 days. He then disappears until the next year when he starts all over again. The first year almost everyone tried to have a civil discussion with him about the unhealthy way in which he was trying to lose weight. The fact that finding a way of eating that he could live with and follow for the rest of his life was so much healthier in the long run, etc etc. He ignored everyone and for 100 days the newsgroup basically degenerated into Caleb's group. Then he disappeared. Now every year he comes back and finds one or two new people who will support him and think they can be the one to set him on the path to a more healthy way to lose weight and keep it off. And they rail against the unsupportive attitude of everyone else. The fact is, he doesn't want to discuss anything. He wants attention, any attention, even if it's negative and he knows exactly which buttons to push to get it. Why do you think he posted here? He has his own newsgroup that he set up. Here's a hint. For 30+ days he's been posting his "progress" over on asd.low-calorie and he wasn't getting the attention he wanted. Ask yourself this..... if he really wanted to enter into a discussion why didn't he reply to you when you asked him a question over there? What's really sad is that he doesn't care who he hurts in the process of getting what he wants. Remember Jenny with the eating disorder who posted here for awhile? So many people tried so hard to get her to realize that eating healthy at this point in her life was more important than starving herself to reach 95 lbs. Well she's over there now. Caleb has just finished congratulating her on her 703 calorie day and has assured her that with that kind of calorie deficit she's sure to lose the weight she wants. -- Jeri |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My favorite calorie counter / weight loss program | sandra | General Discussion | 2 | May 2nd, 2006 11:36 PM |
My favortie calorie counter / weight loss program | sandra | Weightwatchers | 0 | May 2nd, 2006 07:50 PM |
Zero Calorie Diet Sodas: Good Or Bad For Weight Loss? | ianmason | General Discussion | 1 | June 15th, 2005 08:50 AM |
Weight loss is more than calorie-counting | reenum | General Discussion | 2 | January 29th, 2005 07:39 PM |
Weight Loss Diets with Negative Calorie Foods | pcm19 | General Discussion | 1 | October 8th, 2004 10:59 PM |