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
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:52:29 +0200, "Polar Light"
wrote: Being skinny does come naturally to some people. I believe it was super-model Twiggy who started the skinny trend in the 60s, I also believe she was naturally thin, she didn't starve herself since it hadn't yet become fashionable to be that thin. Desirable in those days meant curvaceous like Marilyn Monroe. I'm not sure if this is quite true. Don't underestimate the huge change in culture and fashion that took place around the early 60s. Marilyn died in the early 60s, and Twiggy's career took off not long after that, by which time the 50s look had been completely replaced by 60s culture. Besides, I believe it's true to say that Marilyn was criticised by some as being too plump even in her lifetime. janice who remembers the 50s and the 60s |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"janice" wrote in message ... On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:52:29 +0200, "Polar Light" wrote: Being skinny does come naturally to some people. I believe it was super-model Twiggy who started the skinny trend in the 60s, I also believe she was naturally thin, she didn't starve herself since it hadn't yet become fashionable to be that thin. Desirable in those days meant curvaceous like Marilyn Monroe. I'm not sure if this is quite true. Don't underestimate the huge change in culture and fashion that took place around the early 60s. Marilyn died in the early 60s, and Twiggy's career took off not long after that, by which time the 50s look had been completely replaced by 60s culture. Besides, I believe it's true to say that Marilyn was criticised by some as being too plump even in her lifetime. janice who remembers the 50s and the 60s You know what they say: if you remember the 60s you weren't there! LOL ;-) |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
So for cancer is it an obsticle to look at the causes for cancer and the
solution to get rid of it? Or should I just have a desire to get rid of cancer? Personally, I'd worry about getting rid of the cancer. Cancer is not as preventable as obesity is. If I'm genetically destined to get breast cancer I can do things to keep myself healthy (exercise, manage weight, don't smoke, etc.) but it's not going to guarantee I don't end up with it some day. Very good point:being a healthy weight, eating healthy & living a healthy lifestyle doesn't guarantee good health, only increases your chances of being in good health. Unless you have Prader-Willi syndrome, obesity is usually preventable ....and usually curable too, without the need for extreme treatments like chemo. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:50:45 -0700, wendy Huffed
and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet: Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote: Decreasing intake down to the **right** amount does work every time for helping folks achieve lasting weight loss: That's the same for any diet. If you could stay on any diet that would work. But people don't stay on a diet. And I know, your approach isn't a diet. the why is it called the 2 pound Diet? |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
"wendy" wrote in message ... GaryG wrote: So, we should all just give up then? Look for help through drugs and surgery? Neither of which work either. I didn't say give up. But you also have to have a realistic idea of what your are trying to accomplish. A wise person once said, "If you think you can, or you think you can't...you are correct." I think i can fly by flapping my arms. I must be correct. All your logic on htis topic suggests you are flapping your wings. No, wait, that would be a form a exercise and a way balance one's caloric intake. You are correct there are other factors that tug you in the wrong direction and mostly self control. Eat a bit less(especially **** sugar crap), exercise a bit more and you will slim down slowly but steady. The science to lose weight is simple, take in less than you need. The rest is willpower and only YOU can decide what quality of life you want. -DF |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
GaryG wrote:
wendy wrote: A while ago there was some discussion on if the body adjusts metabolism after weight loss to maintain the higher weight. Here's an article that talks about the issue: It's a very common topic on ASDLC. Many focus on the simple fact that calories in equals calories out. Then they falsely assume that calories out is fixed and come to the incorrect conclusion that reducing calories in without any further detail must automatically reduce weight. Metabolism does fall in many cases. Why lost weight returns after dieting http://www.news-medical.net/?id=2955 The data suggests that weight loss in obese, obesity-prone rats, induced by caloric restriction, is accompanied by metabolic adaptations that predispose one to regain the lost weight. In rats that are losing weight, this is exhibited by a significant reduction in metabolic rate, measured as both 24-hour energy expenditure and sleeping metabolic rate, both independent of metabolic mass and energy intake. This adaptation persists after eight weeks of intake-regulated weight maintenance, but is no longer present with eight subsequent weeks of feeding at-will where rats are regaining lost weight. While rats that are regaining weight may have a shift in appetite that would contribute to their high rate of weight regain, the drive to increase food intake remains the most critical factor in the predisposition to regain lost weight. This adjustment clearly weighs more on the energy balance equation than the metabolic adjustment on energy expenditure observed in this or any other study. This is why it's important to consider whether what you're doing is reducing your metabolism. While the data suggest that these metabolic adaptations might hinder successful weight maintenance, it should not imply that successful weight maintenance is unachievable. Not impossible, just too difficult for 90+% of folks. I notice that after everyone of these pronouncements saying how hard weight is to lose they say something like it's not unachievable. How hard does something have to be before people stop trying to achieve it? Not very hard. Good point but it still misses something. Folks can and do find ways to keep their loss off. Ways that don't drop metabolism and also that don't trigger appetite. That study reduced the rat's food intake rather drastically. Specifically, "weight loss was induced by limiting calories to approximately 60 percent of energy expenditure". This would be equivalent to a person who burns 2500 calories per day being limited to only 1500 calories per day. This is part of the reason why I preach moderate slower approaches. Very many what fad diet systems with the fastest possible loss, but those are exactly the types of fad diets imposed on these test mice. It's possible the effect on metabolism seen in those rats was due to a "starvation" response. Starvation response. Reduced resting metabolism. Two expressions that mean exactly the same thing. Check. If they had lost weight the weight slowly (the same way they had gained it), it's possible the effect on metabolism would have been different. Yup. Non-extreme plans are hard to want, but it is the non-extrem plans that work the best via wroking the longest. For Atkins, staying on Induction is an extreme approach while following all 4 phases on schedule is non-extreme. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Good point but it still misses something. Folks can and do find ways to keep their loss off. Very few. It's interesting when our schools fail to graduate a large percentage of students we want to change the schools to be more effective. We don't say the students should be able to graduate no matter how bad the schools are. Yet for weight, no matter hard it is for someone to lose weight it's their fault and their fault alone. We don't think about how to improve the entire system to help people, which is really what needs to happen for masses of people to change. Talking about individual successes is interesting, but in every other case we call that ancedotal evidence. Ways that don't drop metabolism and also that don't trigger appetite. The problem is appetite isn't the only mechanism that triggers eating. The dopamine reward system is another largely independent system for encouraging eating. As for the diet, people don't stay on diets in general? Why is that? It's rooted in our biology. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Freese wrote:
You are correct there are other factors that tug you in the wrong direction and mostly self control. What if it's not a tug? Some people feel no tug at all. They will be thing without effort. Others find it a tug then yank then a strong pull. Why is there a tug at all? Why is it so hard to practice self control when i don't have the same problems drinking water, for example? By ignoring the why behind you are minimizing and trivializing that "tug" when that's really the heart of the matter. The science to lose weight is simple, take in less than you need. The rest is willpower and only YOU can decide what quality of life you want. People don't seem very interested in science. Talking about willpower is as anti-science as it gets. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 10:14:57 -0400, Ma¢k
wrote: the why is it called the 2 pound Diet? To have an excuse to eat 2 pd lard daily without feeling any guilt. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Stacey Bender wrote:
Doug Freese wrote: You are correct there are other factors that tug you in the wrong direction and mostly self control. What if it's not a tug? Some people feel no tug at all. They will be thing without effort. Others find it a tug then yank then a strong pull. Why is there a tug at all? Why is it so hard to practice self control when i don't have the same problems drinking water, for example? By ignoring the why behind you are minimizing and trivializing that "tug" when that's really the heart of the matter. It is the fear of hunger that drives many people to overeat. Many would be helped if they would choose to recognize that hunger is a healthy appetite. The science to lose weight is simple, take in less than you need. The rest is willpower and only YOU can decide what quality of life you want. People don't seem very interested in science. Talking about willpower is as anti-science as it gets. It does invoke issues of spirituality. From a more scientific standpoint, people do need to learn how to reliably **quantify** how much they are eating and what is the **right** amount of food to eat & drink. At His service, Andrew -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist ** Suggested Reading: (1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048 (2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?V113154DA (3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A (4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A (5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A (6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A (7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ok, fine, whatever, I give up | Luna | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 101 | November 1st, 2005 04:33 AM |
Principles of Effective Weight Loss | Gary Matthews | Weightwatchers | 0 | March 31st, 2005 10:46 AM |
Adherene to, not type of diet important for fat loss ( 4 popular diets compared ) | [email protected] | General Discussion | 5 | January 5th, 2005 06:57 PM |
Ping Dally | Barbara Hirsch | General Discussion | 2 | August 20th, 2004 11:11 AM |
Weight Loss Support Groups | Paul | General Discussion | 0 | November 20th, 2003 04:43 PM |