lowering of metabolism after weight loss

Ignoramus21798 wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:55:30 -0700, wendy wrote:
Ignoramus21798 wrote:
It all depends on how much you want it.

So if you want it bad enough you can be a four minute miler? I think
not. Your physical body establishes what is ultimately possible.

Any fat person can lose weight if they are calorie restricted (for
example, confined in a cage with limited food). It is unlike running.

Numerous people lose weight
and keep it off, not without difficulties. It is not impossible.

Nor is it easy enough to expect even the majority of people to be able
to do it.

Surely, we know that the majority of people cannot lose weight, and
the majority of those who can lose weight does not keep it off. So,
here, I agree with you.

That has not been the experience of the more than 625,550 people who
have used the 2PD-OMER Approach to achieve lasting weight loss for more
than 5 years without regain.

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

Roger Zoul wrote:
All evidence
is going
the other way.


And you know this how? Most who generate this "evidence" aren't even trying.

The increasing rates of obesity throughout the world. Over half of the
people are on a diet at any one time. They may not be trying hard enough
for you but they are trying.

Many yogis can control their breathing so they can stay

in a coffin for days. It's possible. Can the other 99.999956% of
humanity? Unlikely.

Meaningless.

Not if you can tell the difference between something that is easily
under your control and something that is barely on the edge of control.
What is meaningless is your simplistic and magical idea of just eat less.

JC Der Koenig wrote:
Quit looking for excuses: just eat less and exercise more.


Sorry if you had to think a bit.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Surely, we know that the majority of people cannot lose weight, and
the majority of those who can lose weight does not keep it off. So,
here, I agree with you.


That has not been the experience of the more than 625,550 people who
have used the 2PD-OMER Approach to achieve lasting weight loss for more
than 5 years without regain.

Are you saying that 625,550 people exist who could honestly claim that
they had used Andrew B. Chung's 2PD method to lose and maintain their
weight loss over a five year period? People who, if asked, would give
you credit for their success?


David



--

To email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line.

All other mail is automatically deleted.

"wendy" wrote in message
...
Roger Zoul wrote:
All evidence
is going
the other way.


And you know this how? Most who generate this "evidence" aren't even
trying.

The increasing rates of obesity throughout the world. Over half of the
people are on a diet at any one time. They may not be trying hard enough
for you but they are trying.

Many yogis can control their breathing so they can stay

in a coffin for days. It's possible. Can the other 99.999956% of
humanity? Unlikely.

Meaningless.

Not if you can tell the difference between something that is easily
under your control and something that is barely on the edge of control.
What is meaningless is your simplistic and magical idea of just eat less.

You seem to be a very negative person...specifically, a "toxic personality".
Do you ever get referred to as "Whiny Wendy"?

Other than a forum for you to vent about how impossible it is to lose weight
(something many of the regular posters here have managed, somehow, to do),
what's the point of this thread? While it's ostensibly a thread to discuss
a study on starved rat metabolism, it's really telling us much more about
your outlook on life, and your personal issues in coming to grips with your
weight.

GG

"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.

You think you can't, you think you can't, you think you can't...we get it.

In the words of Dr. Phil, "How's that working for you?".

GG

can y'all cut the cross posting.

it invites nutter trolls like chung

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:06:19 -0700, wendy wrote:


Additionally, the effect that energy intake, or more particularly,
carbohydrate intake, has on respiratory quotient [dividing the amount of
CO2 produced (VCO2) by the amount of oxygen uptake (VO2)]. RQ is much
more dramatic than the metabolic adjustment observed from weight
reduction. This drive to increase food intake likely involves
environmental stimuli (diet composition, food palatability, physical
activity) influencing motivational and metabolic components of a
genetically determined set of central systems.

RQ shows just one thing, what you are actually burning as dominant
source.

If RQ is 1, you are burning solely carbohydrates, if it is above 1,
your body produce fat.
When RQ is 0.8, you are burning proteins, and around 0.7, you are
burning fat.
Many human nurition or physiology textbooks mentions these data.
Eg. Davidson and Passmore, Human Nutrition and dietetics, 8. ed p. 18
(Churchill Livingstone 1986

Pizza Face:
By measuring oxygen (O2m) uptake, CO2 (CO2m) production and urinary
nitrogen (UN) content and volume, you have the following equations:
Carbohydrate(g): 4.12*CO2m - 2.91*O2m - 2.54*UN
Fat(g): 1.69*O2m - 1.69*CO2m - 1.94*UN
Protein (g): 6.25*UN

Energy: 15.8*O2m +4.86*CO2m - 12.0*UN

During starvation you get a hormonal depression of BMR, and if you
before slimming had a PAL of 1.3 or so (predominantly sitting in a
chair or laying in bed) and had a BMR of 5kJ/min, and a food intake of
6.51 kJ/min, then start slimming with an energy intake of 3.5 kJ/min
and thus depress BMR hormonically down to maybe 3.8kJ/min, then give
up food restriction and goes back to energy intake of average 6.51
kJ/min and PAL of 1.3, then, because hormonal activity don't normalize
immediately, you would now have a netto gain of 6.51-3.8kJ/min, giving
a netto energy overshoot of 2.7 kJ/min, and gain weight at a
tremendous rate pr day
(The figures are exaggerated to show the case :-)

If you had instead increase PAL to 2 instead of starving, while
keeping eating habits the same, you wouldn't stimulate hormonal
depression in that scale
Food intake still 6.51, BMR 5 as above, but total average EE would be
10 kJ/min since PAL increased from 1.3 to 2.
That is, you burn worth 5 kJ/min just in deposits in your body.
Having enough protein in diet, fat would probably be the thing used.

:-)

On the other hand, BMR is also weight dependent:

If your BMI is above 30, Müller et al 2004 says:
REE(MJ/d)=0.05*weight(kg) + 1.103*sex (f=0,m=1) - 0.01586*age(y)+2.294

BMI btw 25 and 30:
REE(MJ/d)= 0.04507*weight(kg) + 1.006*sex(0/1) - 0.01553*age(y)+3.407

I would believe none of you are below 25 (since you are US citizens
most of you) and don't bother to type the others :-)

GaryG wrote:
"wendy" wrote in message
...

Ignoramus21798 wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:55:30 -0700, wendy wrote:


Ignoramus21798 wrote:


It all depends on how much you want it.

So if you want it bad enough you can be a four minute miler? I think
not. Your physical body establishes what is ultimately possible.


Any fat person can lose weight if they are calorie restricted (for
example, confined in a cage with limited food). It is unlike running.

That's not really the point though. What is important is how do you keep
the weight off when you are free in the wild.



Surely, we know that the majority of people cannot lose weight, and
the majority of those who can lose weight does not keep it off. So,
here, I agree with you.

I don't know about cannot, but it's a lot harder than people want to

admit.

Well...it's not rocket science either. Losing weight simply requires
consuming a few less calories per day than one burns.

That said, in today's world where calorie-dense food is ever present in
enormous quantities, and where most of us spend most of our days sitting on
our rear ends, it does require a degree of dedication to lose weight.

As with many other things in life, anything that requires patience and
persistence will tend to have a low rate of success. It's just a lot easier
for most people to reach for the bag of snacks and the remote control,
rather than get up off the couch and go for a walk. But, that's more an
issue of personal priorities than metabolism.

GG


I agree with you. At the same time, I think weight maintenance after
considerable weight loss is complicated by how bodies work. AFAIK, the
sucess rate is something like 2%. It's lower than in people who quit
smoking.

I believe it isn't all about will power. Overruling the impulses of
you body mentally when your mind is part of your body is tricky.

"J. David Anderson" wrote:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Surely, we know that the majority of people cannot lose weight, and
the majority of those who can lose weight does not keep it off. So,
here, I agree with you.


That has not been the experience of the more than 625,550 people who
have used the 2PD-OMER Approach to achieve lasting weight loss for more
than 5 years without regain.

Are you saying that 625,550 people exist who could honestly claim that
they had used Andrew B. Chung's 2PD method to lose and maintain their
weight loss over a five year period?

I have written that there are **more** than 625,550 people with **more**
than 5 years experience with the 2PD-OMER Approach. All have **not**
regained what they have lost in weight.

People who, if asked, would give you credit for their success?

They are under no obligation to give me any credit.


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