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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
On 4 Feb 2007 16:35:36 -0800, "Caleb" wrote:
But there are many, many roads to Rome and the one you took worked for. Great again about your success! But you cannot declare by fiat that no other methods work. (Or you can, but it is nonsensical to do so.) I didn't say anything about your method -- other than the quitting after 100 days and regaining part. That is obviously not effective. I also lost weight through a calorie-limiting approach. For me, a less restrictive calorie level seemed likely to be more sustainable over the long run, and practice seems to be bearing that out. However, some people have been very successful with medically-supervised very-low calorie diets. All those plans, though, include an approach to gradually ramp up to a more normal maintenance level and recognize the need for a permanent change in one's eating habits. That's the part of your approach that I feel justified in saying will not work -- the quitting after 100 days part. And your experience supports my view. Life is complicated for everyone - there will never be any more Renaissance people, people who know everything there is to know. But we compartmentalize our ignorance somewhat. (Okay, my computer works - it's magic. These little electrons go zapping around and words appear, etc. I drive over bridges but don't know exactly how the bridges are built, how they're tested for stress, etc.) If I can find techniques that help me do the things - especially the important things -- I want to do, then I am happy with that. And I am happy with some of the simple techniques and insights that have come my way. I'm curious to know what insights those are. Is there something that has improved over the years in the way you're doing this? That hasn't been apparent to me, I guess. It seems like you do just the same thing each year. Our stance should be one of support rather than vitriol, humility rather than arrogance. There are too many cock-sure people in the world who have little reason to be that way. Let's let a thousand flowers bloom! I find it hard to believe that you perceived my posting as vitriolic or arrogant. Chris 262/130s/130s started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004 |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
On Feb 4, 5:04 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Caleb" wrote in message ups.com... On Feb 4, 10:49 am, "teachrmama" wrote: "determined" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "LFM" wrote in message news "teachrmama" wrote in message ... Teachrmama - if you are truely interested in a dialog with this poster, please take it to Alt.support.diet.low-calorie You will find very little support of this poster in here Actually, there are topics here that I do not enter opinions on because they are of no interest to me. It is easy to just skip over them. I understand that you feel great disdain for this poster, but you are not required to read his posts, or any conversations that he is in. I always respond respectfully to other posters, and do not feel that my conversation with Caleb is violating any of this newsgroup's rules and regulations. If you were standing behind me in the grocery store and I were carrying on a conversation with Caleb, would you ask that we go to McDonald's and discuss things, rather than conversing in a public place you just happened to be in? With all due respect, that is how I feel you are speaking to me here. You know what? Caleb is nothing more than a troll... The fact that you want to maintain a dialogue with a troll kind of hurts your own credibility. It doesn't take a whole lot of knowledge of diet/health to know that his approach is not healthy or effective at permanent weight loss. If you can't figure that out for yourself, fine. But it leaves the rest of us here who have seen him go through this countless times absolutely flabbergasted and exasperated. I agree with you that losing weight and regaining it is not a good way to maintain a healthy weight or lifestyle. I certainly have no intentions of following such a plan. I have come too far in my own efforts to want to try a plan that is not a total change to a new way of eating. But I am curious as to Caleb's reasons for the choices he is making, and how he came to make the choices he has. Maybe he comes back here repeatedly because he is learning new approaches each time he comes. I see him as very polite--I haven't seen him trying to force his choices on anyone else. I do hope that he will realize that if he continues with the healthy eating choices he makes in the 100 days, he will be healthier than if he regains and reloses the same weight time after time. But having polite conversations with him does not mean that I am espousing his choices, and I am not certain why it riles up some of the regular posters here. I find that odd. Teachrmama -- I endorse totally what you are saying. I do not want to regain the weight and I sure hope I don't. But I am learning new techniques each time I try this. Rather like stepping into the same stream twice -- things change. Good. I'm glad to hear that. For me, I have found that extremely low calorie approaches lead only to overindulgence when I do begin to eat "normally" again. So the approach I have chosen is to eat the way I want to eat for the rest of my life, and to exercise the way I want to exercise for the rest of my life. Then I never have to go "off a diet." I'm set. And can make minor adjustments here and there as needed. I do hope you have chosen an approach this time that will become a lifestyle rather than just a diet. =c)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - FYI...if you had done any searching at all, you would have found all the answers to your questions. It's quite easy. This one is from 2002: "What Caleb does with his own body is obviously his right. But through many postings, Caleb has made it clear he sees himself on some sort of "mission", to disprove what he sees as some "myths" of dieting. He personifies some of the real problems with diets. Among them: 1) Fixation on "scale" weight. I have never seen him show any concern for what he is actually losing (fat vs muscle). Obviously, he's lost fat. But at this point, he is probably losing far more muscle than fat. 2) Fixation on an "end date". Each year, he pays lip service to continuing on with "maintenance", and keeping up with the supposed "good habits" he learns during his 100 days. IMO, the problem is he is NOT learning "good habits"; he is basically starving himself for a fixed period, after which he feels free to return to his normal eating. 3) And again, IMO Caleb is a walking, talking example of what some refer to as "starvation mode". For example, Caleb has just spent 10 or so days, at 1000 cals or less, at 203 lbs. Unless one assumes he is just eating more than he knows, the metabolic effect is undeniable. Caleb's answer? Starve himself more to break this "plateau", by eating what, 200 calories? Seriously, I wish Caleb the best of luck, and hope he somehow comes to find a way of maintaining his weight loss. I know he will not listen to criticism of his approach, and the suggestions some have made to help him. That doesn't mean, however, that the errors he makes shouldn't be pointed out at times, to help others avoid the same mistakes." Well, obviously, as he reappears year after year after year after year, he hasn't learned a thing since 2002 and before. Go ahead and do some searching, it will answer all your questions. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
"The Queen of Cans and Jars" wrote in message . .. teachrmama wrote: I'm just not clear on why you think that gives you the right to tell me I shouldn't talk to him either. Talk to him all you want - in the group that he set up for talking about it. Is it really all that hard to understand? Actually, yes it is. Why shouldn't we be free to talk here? There are certainly some extremely obnoxious threads here right now that haven't been jumped on the way this rather innocuous thread has been. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
teachrmama wrote:
"The Queen of Cans and Jars" wrote in message . .. teachrmama wrote: I'm just not clear on why you think that gives you the right to tell me I shouldn't talk to him either. Talk to him all you want - in the group that he set up for talking about it. Is it really all that hard to understand? Actually, yes it is. Why shouldn't we be free to talk here? You are free to talk about it here, but don't whine when people complain. No one wants to hear Caleb's bull**** for the umpteenth time. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
"SFrunner" wrote in message oups.com... On Feb 4, 5:04 pm, "teachrmama" wrote: "Caleb" wrote in message ups.com... On Feb 4, 10:49 am, "teachrmama" wrote: "determined" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "LFM" wrote in message news "teachrmama" wrote in message ... Teachrmama - if you are truely interested in a dialog with this poster, please take it to Alt.support.diet.low-calorie You will find very little support of this poster in here Actually, there are topics here that I do not enter opinions on because they are of no interest to me. It is easy to just skip over them. I understand that you feel great disdain for this poster, but you are not required to read his posts, or any conversations that he is in. I always respond respectfully to other posters, and do not feel that my conversation with Caleb is violating any of this newsgroup's rules and regulations. If you were standing behind me in the grocery store and I were carrying on a conversation with Caleb, would you ask that we go to McDonald's and discuss things, rather than conversing in a public place you just happened to be in? With all due respect, that is how I feel you are speaking to me here. You know what? Caleb is nothing more than a troll... The fact that you want to maintain a dialogue with a troll kind of hurts your own credibility. It doesn't take a whole lot of knowledge of diet/health to know that his approach is not healthy or effective at permanent weight loss. If you can't figure that out for yourself, fine. But it leaves the rest of us here who have seen him go through this countless times absolutely flabbergasted and exasperated. I agree with you that losing weight and regaining it is not a good way to maintain a healthy weight or lifestyle. I certainly have no intentions of following such a plan. I have come too far in my own efforts to want to try a plan that is not a total change to a new way of eating. But I am curious as to Caleb's reasons for the choices he is making, and how he came to make the choices he has. Maybe he comes back here repeatedly because he is learning new approaches each time he comes. I see him as very polite--I haven't seen him trying to force his choices on anyone else. I do hope that he will realize that if he continues with the healthy eating choices he makes in the 100 days, he will be healthier than if he regains and reloses the same weight time after time. But having polite conversations with him does not mean that I am espousing his choices, and I am not certain why it riles up some of the regular posters here. I find that odd. Teachrmama -- I endorse totally what you are saying. I do not want to regain the weight and I sure hope I don't. But I am learning new techniques each time I try this. Rather like stepping into the same stream twice -- things change. Good. I'm glad to hear that. For me, I have found that extremely low calorie approaches lead only to overindulgence when I do begin to eat "normally" again. So the approach I have chosen is to eat the way I want to eat for the rest of my life, and to exercise the way I want to exercise for the rest of my life. Then I never have to go "off a diet." I'm set. And can make minor adjustments here and there as needed. I do hope you have chosen an approach this time that will become a lifestyle rather than just a diet. =c)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - FYI...if you had done any searching at all, you would have found all the answers to your questions. It's quite easy. This one is from 2002: "What Caleb does with his own body is obviously his right. But through many postings, Caleb has made it clear he sees himself on some sort of "mission", to disprove what he sees as some "myths" of dieting. He personifies some of the real problems with diets. Among them: 1) Fixation on "scale" weight. I have never seen him show any concern for what he is actually losing (fat vs muscle). Obviously, he's lost fat. But at this point, he is probably losing far more muscle than fat. 2) Fixation on an "end date". Each year, he pays lip service to continuing on with "maintenance", and keeping up with the supposed "good habits" he learns during his 100 days. IMO, the problem is he is NOT learning "good habits"; he is basically starving himself for a fixed period, after which he feels free to return to his normal eating. 3) And again, IMO Caleb is a walking, talking example of what some refer to as "starvation mode". For example, Caleb has just spent 10 or so days, at 1000 cals or less, at 203 lbs. Unless one assumes he is just eating more than he knows, the metabolic effect is undeniable. Caleb's answer? Starve himself more to break this "plateau", by eating what, 200 calories? Seriously, I wish Caleb the best of luck, and hope he somehow comes to find a way of maintaining his weight loss. I know he will not listen to criticism of his approach, and the suggestions some have made to help him. That doesn't mean, however, that the errors he makes shouldn't be pointed out at times, to help others avoid the same mistakes." Well, obviously, as he reappears year after year after year after year, he hasn't learned a thing since 2002 and before. Go ahead and do some searching, it will answer all your questions. 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. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
On Feb 4, 5:26 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"The Queen of Cans and Jars" wrote in messagenews:1ht0swr.1rbq7wg2vjgl0N%dhrravr@ohatzha pu.bet... teachrmama wrote: I'm just not clear on why you think that gives you the right to tell me I shouldn't talk to him either. Talk to him all you want - in the group that he set up for talking about it. Is it really all that hard to understand? Actually, yes it is. Why shouldn't we be free to talk here? There are certainly some extremely obnoxious threads here right now that haven't been jumped on the way this rather innocuous thread has been. Gee, Teachrmama -- Don't you know you should ignore the people behind the curtain? Maybe they'll make sense! We can't have that! Just kidding, of course. And I agree with you that at most my thread is innocuous, and not obnoxious, vituperative, etc. Also, I think I'm reasonably polite. Also, I rarely swear at people (at rarely when I'm not watching our politicians). "The Queen" certainly seems very patronizing with her statement:"Is it really all that hard to understand?" (I would imagine The Queen is female.) She decrees -- You obey! You probably didn't know you had to agree to such restrictions when you joined this group. Matter of fact -- neither did (or should) anybody else. I wonder what this group would look like if there were restrictions to the effect that if someone posted on another group, he/she could not post to this group. Hmmm... Like a ghost town. Yours truly, Caleb Caleb |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
On Feb 4, 5:04 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Caleb" wrote in message ups.com... On Feb 4, 10:49 am, "teachrmama" wrote: "determined" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "LFM" wrote in message news "teachrmama" wrote in message ... Teachrmama - if you are truely interested in a dialog with this poster, please take it to Alt.support.diet.low-calorie You will find very little support of this poster in here Actually, there are topics here that I do not enter opinions on because they are of no interest to me. It is easy to just skip over them. I understand that you feel great disdain for this poster, but you are not required to read his posts, or any conversations that he is in. I always respond respectfully to other posters, and do not feel that my conversation with Caleb is violating any of this newsgroup's rules and regulations. If you were standing behind me in the grocery store and I were carrying on a conversation with Caleb, would you ask that we go to McDonald's and discuss things, rather than conversing in a public place you just happened to be in? With all due respect, that is how I feel you are speaking to me here. You know what? Caleb is nothing more than a troll... The fact that you want to maintain a dialogue with a troll kind of hurts your own credibility. It doesn't take a whole lot of knowledge of diet/health to know that his approach is not healthy or effective at permanent weight loss. If you can't figure that out for yourself, fine. But it leaves the rest of us here who have seen him go through this countless times absolutely flabbergasted and exasperated. I agree with you that losing weight and regaining it is not a good way to maintain a healthy weight or lifestyle. I certainly have no intentions of following such a plan. I have come too far in my own efforts to want to try a plan that is not a total change to a new way of eating. But I am curious as to Caleb's reasons for the choices he is making, and how he came to make the choices he has. Maybe he comes back here repeatedly because he is learning new approaches each time he comes. I see him as very polite--I haven't seen him trying to force his choices on anyone else. I do hope that he will realize that if he continues with the healthy eating choices he makes in the 100 days, he will be healthier than if he regains and reloses the same weight time after time. But having polite conversations with him does not mean that I am espousing his choices, and I am not certain why it riles up some of the regular posters here. I find that odd. Teachrmama -- I endorse totally what you are saying. I do not want to regain the weight and I sure hope I don't. But I am learning new techniques each time I try this. Rather like stepping into the same stream twice -- things change. Good. I'm glad to hear that. For me, I have found that extremely low calorie approaches lead only to overindulgence when I do begin to eat "normally" again. So the approach I have chosen is to eat the way I want to eat for the rest of my life, and to exercise the way I want to exercise for the rest of my life. Then I never have to go "off a diet." I'm set. And can make minor adjustments here and there as needed. I do hope you have chosen an approach this time that will become a lifestyle rather than just a diet. =c) Teachrmama -- For me motivation is a major concern, and for that.reason, a more rapid weight loss helps motivate me and keep my behaviors focused on the goal. I agree with an extremely low calorie approach being difficult to maintain, and also being artificial. I have never lost weight any other way, however, other than fairly rapidly. I prefer this "fire and forget" approach to weight loss. ("Fire and forget" missles are those that our air force can just fire at the target and then ignore. That is, they don't have to be guided in to the target. with a low-enough caloric intake, one is relatively sure of losing weight without worrying about the odd-hundred calories. People's caloric intake oftentimes varies very, very greatly from one day to the next -- as mine has -- and asking them to shave a hundred or two hundred calories off -- as some people do -- presupposed they are on top of their calorie intake to begin with.) Anyway, my physician will be very happy when I see her in the next months, and she and my wife are the most important judges about this stuff. Yours truly, Caleb Whatever works for people. (That's why there are different colored shoes, hats, cars, etc.) |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
On Feb 4, 5:18 pm, Chris Braun wrote:
On 4 Feb 2007 16:35:36 -0800, "Caleb" wrote: But there are many, many roads to Rome and the one you took worked for. Great again about your success! But you cannot declare by fiat that no other methods work. (Or you can, but it is nonsensical to do so.) I didn't say anything about your method -- other than the quitting after 100 days and regaining part. That is obviously not effective. I also lost weight through a calorie-limiting approach. For me, a less restrictive calorie level seemed likely to be more sustainable over the long run, and practice seems to be bearing that out. However, some people have been very successful with medically-supervised very-low calorie diets. All those plans, though, include an approach to gradually ramp up to a more normal maintenance level and recognize the need for a permanent change in one's eating habits. That's the part of your approach that I feel justified in saying will not work -- the quitting after 100 days part. And your experience supports my view. Life is complicated for everyone - there will never be any more Renaissance people, people who know everything there is to know. But we compartmentalize our ignorance somewhat. (Okay, my computer works - it's magic. These little electrons go zapping around and words appear, etc. I drive over bridges but don't know exactly how the bridges are built, how they're tested for stress, etc.) If I can find techniques that help me do the things - especially the important things -- I want to do, then I am happy with that. And I am happy with some of the simple techniques and insights that have come my way. I'm curious to know what insights those are. Is there something that has improved over the years in the way you're doing this? That hasn't been apparent to me, I guess. It seems like you do just the same thing each year. Our stance should be one of support rather than vitriol, humility rather than arrogance. There are too many cock-sure people in the world who have little reason to be that way. Let's let a thousand flowers bloom! I find it hard to believe that you perceived my posting as vitriolic or arrogant. Chris 262/130s/130s started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004 Chris - I don't think your approach specifically has been vitriolic and I hope I didn't state that your words were that, but certainly some of those on this Usenet group have been that way. And I do think that I have been quite successful in losing weight in a systematic fashion. I have done so repeatedly. The same general things I do can be done by anyone, although I think peole should check with medical personnel about the specifics of the application. (e.g., 1200 calories or another caloric approach. I'd imagine you would recommend that people check with their PCPs as well.) Seems to me that in a somewhat trivial way it's like the stem-cell research, just to give people a hope that there are successful methods out there. For a lot of people, that belief is very important. Yours, Caleb |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... I don't doubt that you have a darn good reason for your choices. I'm just not clear on why you think that gives you the right to tell me I shouldn't talk to him either. THAT's the part that I find odd. I didn't say you couldn't/shouldn't talk to him - I suggested to you that if you wish to continue the dialog with him that you take it to the appropriate newsgroup that he setup for his plan, out of respect to the rest of this group. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "The Queen of Cans and Jars" wrote in message . .. teachrmama wrote: I'm just not clear on why you think that gives you the right to tell me I shouldn't talk to him either. Talk to him all you want - in the group that he set up for talking about it. Is it really all that hard to understand? Actually, yes it is. Why shouldn't we be free to talk here? There are certainly some extremely obnoxious threads here right now that haven't been jumped on the way this rather innocuous thread has been. Caleb posts are considered trolling and off topid to ASD. Therefore if you want to continue with an off topic dialog with a troll, then do not be surprised with others chose to classify you in the same category as they do him, and kill file you, ignore you and lose respect in you. Your credibility is at risk by continuing your dialog with him in this forum. |
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 08:39 PM |
Weight Loss Diets with Negative Calorie Foods | pcm19 | General Discussion | 1 | October 8th, 2004 10:59 PM |