Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:36:48 +0200, "Lictor"
wrote:

"Concordia" wrote in message
.. .

(snip)
I wasn't aware you could get free testing this way.

I didn't say it was free.

(snip)
and also put to rest any concerns that the metabolism is
generally low. A complaint by many obese is that metabolism is
sluggish and that is why they cannot lose weight.

That's because of the general misunderstanding people have on this issue.
And this includes doctors. Metabolism doesn't matter than much, as long as
you match your inputs to it. It's only problematic if it's so low you have
to eat only minimum amounts of food. That's when it's time to exercise some.

I disagree. It _does_ matter to the extent that chances of being able
to match inputs to a higher metabolism are greater. What are people
more prone to do, eat more or less? Wouldn't it be beneficial to
have a higher metabolism, or for that matter increase activity and
muscle mass to aid in that? (Okay, I see you mention exercise too).
Who wouldn't want a higher metabolism?

These are rhetorical questions.

This has been proven time and time again not to be the case, both through
metabolic tests and also by controlled conditions where the patient is
hospitalized and put on a medically supervised diet.

What has been proven is that there is no link between metabolic rate and
obesity.

That is precisely my point.

But *some* obese do have very low metabolism, lower than normal,
either because of crash diets (loss of lean mass) or because of hormnal
problems (thyroid mainly). And some are actually higher than normal.
Guessing from what I have to eat to maintain, I'm rather into the second
category. Which is not a surprise, I have always been muscular, obese or
not.

Isn't this a different way of stating a similar position? Let's not
get too bogged down in semantics

Also, if one were to have a basal metabolism test performed bi-weekly
or monthly over a statistically significant period of time, and graph
the results, metabolism would not generally be all over the place.

If you keep a constant weight and keep the exact same level of exercise. And
if you're not a woman, periods tend to mess things up. Besides, your intakes
have to match basal metabolism + daily activities. So you would have a nice
number, but not many useful things to do with it...

What about those people that insist they eat less than 600 kcal/day,
1000 kcal/day, and so on, and still gain weight. Shouldn't they look
into some testing? However, it seems many more people make such
claims than you'd expect statistically...

In those cases, it could be used to either prove or disprove such
claims. The test doesn't have to yield a precise result to serve such
a function. If it indicates metab. is (for example) somewhere in the
neighborhood of 1500-2000 instead of 600 or 1000, that would be
helpful information. It would also be helpful to know if the person
was actually correct -- but rare. The more likely case is that they
are not being honest with themselves.

Let me remind you, my position wasn't that everyone needed to run out
and get a metabolism test.

You had said:
"The problem is that most obese have no way of knowing how much their
body will burn."

And my counterpoints were (1) one _could_ get a metabolism test, and
that (2) "someone not knowing their precise current metabolism does
not prevent them from eating less and losing weight."

Do you or do you not agree with #2? Yes or no?

(calorie tables)
I'm not talking nth degree. You remember that hot summer we had in Europe?
Hot and warm. Well, farmers reported a 30% increase in the sugar content of
fruits. Likewise, on a bad year, you will have large drops in sugar content.
Same for grapes, being on the good side of the hill is a variation high
enough that one side will give great wine and the other a crappy barely
drinkable beverage. The same applies with a lot of other food. Animals will
have varying fat contents, depending on how they were fed (industrial food,
grazing...) or kept (savage, semi-freedom, battery). That's a lot of
variation you won't find in your calorie table. And I doubt you would have
to go to the nth degree of precision to find it.
Remember that 5% extra on a 2000 calories diet will give out 36000 calories
by the end of the year - that's at least 9 extra pounds... Sure, variations
will cancel each others on average, but 5% is a very small margin of
error...

Gotcha. But it's not that important in the scheme of things when it
comes to weight loss. I seriously doubt people are fat due to these
factors.

Sure, a table will do that. It does have an educative value. You don't need
a large level of precision to sort food items like this. But you do need
that level of precision to keep a stable weight over an extended period of
time. It also becomes problematic when you can't control the food, like with
exotic stuff, at friends or in a restaurant. How do you get the caloric load
of a restaurant meal, if you don't know how it was cooked?

Lack of precision in calorie tables or not knowing exact metabolism
doesn't keep people from losing and maintaining weight. People have
ways to measure weightloss or lack thereof, and can adjust
accordingly.

Besides, I could have told you that by just eat these food. The same amount
of salmon will not give the same lasting satiety as the same amount of
sausage...

True.

(snip what it's like in France, thanks for the insight)

So, you started on Atkins, and eventually ended with a "balanced" diet, or
something pretty close to what doctors recommend (at least what ours
recommend when they don't go crazy on some hyper-proteic ****).

What I am doing is balanced for me, and I have figured this out by
trial and error -- but is not what would be considered a traditional
balanced diet by any means. Note that I rarely eat processed carbs.

This is
still a diet that, in itself, has a high failure rate.

It's not the diets that fail...

There are probably
other factors that explain your success. Like, I doubt the diet itself
solved your bingeing. What did? Did your attitude towards food evolved with
time or do you eat like you used to (except in quantities and kind of food
of course)?

I quit making excuses and started doing what I need to do. Period.

(snip)
Do
you think you would have been successful if you had kept yourself in denial?

No.

Besides admitting what you were doing, did you also come to understand *why*
you were doing it? Do you think that knowledge has allowed you to lose that
weight?

I was hypoglycemic. In my case, eating all those refined carbs were
making me hungry and tired all the time; that was really a large part
of it.

What I'm trying to get at is that most diets only allow people to lose
weight. They don't give them any tool to understand why they became fat and
how to prevent that from happening again (except by sticking to the diet).
Successful dieters seem to be successful because they went beyond the diet
and gained understand of how they work. Their success is a consequence of
their own introspection, not of the diet itself.

Agreed. But I still think they have to find the tools for themselves.

Now, if you scale back to the epidemic level, this means going to an all
diet approach is bound to failure, because it seems only a small numbers of
people are able to make that introspection on their own.

Willing or able? So? If you've got a better solution, let's hear
it.

Again, I just don't buy your premise that there are many of these
"well regulated" slim people running around that have never had to
give a conscious thought to what they eat.

Well, decent dietetic models are rather recent. If you go back in time, all
kind of crap theories were around. Even nowadays, a lot of people do not buy
into the caloric explanation!

Sure they do. They just try quick fixes instead.

(we've discussed this before)

(snip)
If you
limit yourself to the rich part of the population (plenty of food, not much
exercise), obesity was much lower than today. Especially massive obesity.
How could these people maintain their weight? By following the dietetic
advice of the time?

By controlling themselves, I'd imagine.

(snip, it's getting rather long)
That's because noone really believes in the caloric theory. Why? Because we
want to lose weight while being able to eat as much as we want? Yes, in many
aspects we are a bulimic society. We always want more (cars, food, riches,
entertainment, travels...) but we don't want any of it to change us or have
consequences (polution, obesity, poors, evolving...). Our attitude towards
food only mirror our attitude towards society in general.

I agree, but so what? I mean really... it's nice to theorize and
discuss the state of society and all on usenet. And this has been an
interesting conversation, don't get me wrong. However, if one wants
to lose weight, they do the introspection, take the steps, etc.

There is no other way.

But I think there's another factor. The caloric theory is amoral. It doesn't
matter what you eat and how much you enjoy it, as long as you eat just what
you need and with moderation, you will stay slim. There is no evil or good
food. That's dietetic atheism. Somehow, the mind of people seem to revolt at
that. They want some food to be evil. Even in tiny amounts. They want a
price to be paid for pleasure.

Again, you're singing to the choir.

(snip)
That is PRECISELY why I
am advocating the crucial role of personal responsibility in all this.

I still don't think people are responsible. They're not the direct conscious
*cause* of their obesity. That's what being responsible means, being guilty
of something. I don't think they are guilty of being obese. Nor are they
guilty of failing when they try to solve their obesity using the consensual
methods.
Sure, they *can* help themselves, and the only available tool for that is
introspection. Except it's incredibly difficult to access in the current
hostile context. You can't blame people for not finding the gold nugget in
the pile of dung to pay their healthcare with.

You give people way too little credit for the ability to make their
own choices, and tacit permission to be victims subject to the forces
of society. That is a shame.

(snip)
I don't dispute at all that there is a psychological component. In
fact, I think it is a rather significant factor in overeating.

It's a significant factor that gets little coverage in the press or books or
even in doctors' office. It also gets little research. A lot more energy is
devoted in finding the *genetic* roots of over-eating. What's the likehood
that genetics play a large role in the over-eating habits of the majority of
the American population?

I agree, for the most part.

Learned helplessness never helped anyone improve their circumstances.

Understanding why you are helpless is the first step on the path to finding
a way around it.

Lol, that is my point.

(snip)
How are you eating and what are your particular circumstances?

Not hungry = I don't eat. Hungry = I eat. Satieted = I stop eating. Whatever
I want (or crave for, or feel like eating or however you call it), whenever
I want (no set number of meals, no set time, no obligation to eat at any
particular meal), as long as I'm hungry.

Yet you manage to lose weight without knowing your precise metabolism.

"The Voice of Reason" wrote in message
om...
You don't need one. Select a number of calories to eat per day. Your
bodyweight in pounds * 12 is a good start. Then eat that many calories
a day.

You don't have that level of precision on the calorie table. The only way to
reach that level of precision would be to eat only industrially prepared
food.

If you lose weight at aroudn 1-2 pounds a week then you know
it's the right number. If you don't lose weight then decrease the
number by 500. If you're losing weight too fast then increase the
number until you're losing it at a sensible rate. It's not rocket
science.

It's not rocket science, because it's not science. It doesn't take into
account the fact that you don't have the needed level of precision. It
confuses variables with constants.

When you try a new diet, and it doesn't work, you have two options.
The first is to alter it and experiment until it does work. The second
is to give up.

The third option is to understand that if the reality doesn't match the
theory, then it means that the theory is wrong, not reality.
Diets do not work. When they work, they only do for a limited time. Then,
apply reason and try to find another theory that works in the real world.
Thankfully, I didn't wait on your advice to lose weight. Otherwise, I would
still be morbidly obese instead of being on the way to overweight...

Most fat people chose the second option.

No, most fat people keep going the wrong way without doubting what people
like you or their doctor said. Then, what must fail fails, and they gain
back all the weight and then more. All direct consequence of the diet.

Once a fat person has chosen that option, he can
remain fat and claim that he tried to lose weight but failed, so he
must be genetically destined to be fat, it's not his fault, dieting
doesn't work etc.

You have a chronic disease. In its current state, it is annoying, but not
yet life threatening. You have two options :
1) try a cure that has 15% of chances to cure you partly, but 85% of chances
to fail. If it fails, it is likely to make your disease worse.
2) stop the evolution in its track and deal with the disease in its current
state.
Obviously, you pick #1. That might be because you're daring, idiot or just
because you don't have the disease and it is purely hypothetical for you.
Some people prefer #2. In a choice like that, there is no correct answer.

Computer programmers saying 'programming doesn't work' if a program
doesn't compile because of a typo

So, a diet not working because it's flawed is like a typo in a program? You
seem to have problems making correct analogies.
Sometimes, courageous programmers admit they have made a mistake and go back
to the design phase when it really doesn't work. Cowards produce some piece
of bloatware and pretend it works as intended.

chefs saying 'cooking doesn't work'
because they messed up a single recipe because they slightly
over-cooked it,

Well, if their hundredth reciple is still over-cooked, I do hope they give
up cooking.
You do realise that most people do not stop dieting on their first diet,
right? Some people have done dozens of them.

car drivers saying 'driving doesn't work' because they
once stalled the engine...

I wish, would improve air pollution in my city...

However thankfully they don't think like that. When something goes
wrong they work out what went wrong and go about fixing it, they don't
just give up.

Yes, they are stubborn people.
And sometimes, some people realize the *way* of doing things is wrong.
Instead of keeping at it, hoping that eventually it will work despite the
fact that it has failed dozens of time, they stop and think. Then, they
invent a new and better way of doing things.
You seem to have an endless admiration for stubborn people. I admire
intelligent ones much more.

What...you're saying all the nutritional information on food packaging
is made up? That all these scientists across the world are involved in
a giant conspiracy to make you fat?

No, information on industrial food is rather reliable, because it is
extremelly standardized. Do you suggest we should use only industrial
prepared products?
But, I can guarantee you that the random apple you bought and are ready to
eat doesn't have the exact calorie value written on your table. Likewise,
the "spaghetti bolognaire" on your table has nothing to do with the one
served at your local Italian restaurant. It's not a conspiracy, it's just
easy concepts to grasp, such as "sample", "average", "individual variations"
and "error margin". Calorie table have a large margin of error, because they
are built on samples of natural living products that can display a *huge*
range of individual variations.

Trying to match a complex biological process with elementary school
mathematics is not going to bring you anywhere. It's like a T1 diabetic
trying to mimick a pancreas with his insulin shoots, it's close to
impossible to get a perfect match.

Yet they manage to get by somehow... Maybe it's because they just get
on with it rather than whining about how difficult everything is.

No, they don't. Sadly, most T1 cannot get their A1c bellow 6.5%, which is
already considered a very good value (for a T1), which is way above the
norm. So, no, they don't manage to mimick nature. That's why many do not
escape having complications. Besides, T1 do have better tools to mimick
nature. They can get their glycemia whenever they need to. They can also
inject insulin in a dose that has a very predictable amount of insulin. Now,
replace their meter with one with a +-30% level of precision and give them
poor quality insulin with +-30% the advertised amount of insulin. How good
their control will be?

No, it was hard and disciplined. I watched nearly everything I ate and
forced myself into the gym twice a week, not to mention a
not-insignificant amount of cardio outside of the gym.

So, you became what psychologists call a slim obese. Most obese have a very
high level of empathy, but you burnt it in your quest for becoming slim. You
are so egocentrist that you lost the ability to project yourself into
others. You are also bitter that you had to suffer so much to lose your
weight. So, you hate obese for not suffering like you do. You also probably
hate them because they remind you of what you are.
You haven't slimmed down, you're still obese in your head. Otherwise you
would not spend so much time hating them.

No-one said it was supposed to be easy.

Why not? Because you have to suffer to receive redemption?
I don't think so. It doesn't have to be hard, it just has to be done the
right way. All the weight I have lost has been effortless. Better, it has
been pleasureable. I have never enjoyed food as much as I do now, I have
never enjoyed my body more than I do now.

I think that is the real issue for fat people
saying that dieting is impossible. It's not impossible, it's just
harder than they want it to be.

It's neither. Dieting is close to impossible. Losing weight isn't.

Once I lose enough fat I don't plan to maintain, I plan to then start
to put on muscle mass. Looking after your body is a life-time
commitment, not something you do once then give up.

Ah, so you're still losing?
Why not put the muscle right now btw?

I got fat from eating everything I could lay my eyes on, and through
doing absolutely no exercise. I lost the weight from doing the
opposite.

Then, you got fat the easy way, and you're also losing fat the easy way. For
your type of obesity (no compulsion, no genetics), losing weight is not a
problem, maintening is. That's the reverse for compulsive types. Once they
have mastered their compulsions, the rest tends to be easy.

Ah ok, obese people are obese because they sleepwalk and eat 9000
calories worth of food in the night... I won't ask why 9000 calories
of prepared food was so readibly available though

Because, when you binge, you don't stop at having prepared food. Plain
butter or flour with water does the job...

, or why you didn't think to put a lock on the fridge door or something...

Because it doesn't solve the problem, it just hides it.
Solving the problem will involve removing the lock and putting food in the
fridge anyway.

You have to deal with large
psychological issues too, and peer presure sometimes (some people often
do
not want you to lose weight).

Of course, surely that's even more inspiration to do it?

Not really. I don't care what other people think about me anymore. That's
what allowed me to start losing weight in the first place.

When followed it has a 0% failure rate. If people are lazy,
ill-disciplined, gluttonous etc and give up, that's not the diet's
fault, that's the fault of the people following it (or not following
it!).

Wait and see, you're only at the beginning. The 85% failure rate is at the
five year mark. Are you there yet? Are you so afraid you *will* fail that
you refuse the statistics?

If you know of any "plan" with a higher success rate, by
all mean, publish it and get rich!

So in other words you want a magic bullet that will make you start
taking responsibility for your own life.

No, I just want a methodology that works, not some badly put together piece
of pseudo-science advertised as a diet.

How many fat people have stuck to a sensible, balanced diet of the
correct portions with regular exercise and not lost weight? Stop
blaming other people for your failures and start taking responsiblity.

85%. These statistics come from doctors - that's the number for diets
monitored by a professionnal.

A 'miracle' diet is 10-12*(body weight in pounds) in calories a day,
with 0.8g of protein per pound of body weight, adjusted when
necessary. This also involves weight-lifting, working out the whole
body 1-2* a week, and regular cardio.

That's what doctors sell you. It still doesn't work for most people.

What's wrong with protein powder?

It's one of the worst diet. Very fast weight loss, very fast fat regain.
Besides, it tastes awful.

The US government doesn't equal the whole world of nutritionists. The
world doesn't end at America's borders.

Thankfully, that would be annoying for me.

So? They're not you. Stop blaming your problems on other people.

I'm not blaming *my* problems. I was sensible enough to stop doing diets
very early on.

Wow, you really are clueless, no wonder you have such trouble losing
weight.

Errr... I don't have troubles... Looking at what you have to do to lose it,
I would say I'm having a much easier time than you do

A higher metabolism means you burn more calories so you lose
fat more easily. A lower metabolism means you lose weight much more
difficultly.

And? Is it a race to lose as quickly as possible? I thought it was a long
distance run, to maintain as long as you can... Who cares who covers the
first 100 yards in a marathon, what's important is to be there at the finish
line... If you're in deficit, you will lose anyway, no matter where your
metabolism is at.

If you're not naturally slim then what applies to them is irrelevent
to you.

I'm naturally slim. As you keep saying, if I'm overweight, it's not because
of my genetics, it's because I ate too much. This means I'm unnaturally
obese. Still naturally slim then...

Either way it probably doesn't apply to you.

It does now. It still doesn't apply to you though, you have to exercise
yourself and watch what you eat.


No , I don't believe people have free will when they have to go through
a
bunch of misinformation and conditionning.

There's information all over the place, it's up to you to work out
which is good information and which is bad.

I did. 99% is bad. So, I stopped believing most of it, and just believed my
own feelings. Works much better.

Nothing comes on a silver plate.

When you try to cure a major epidemia, as a government, your job *is* to put
clear and efficient information on a silver plate...

No, people are flawed because they don't follow the diets.

Ah, true, if the theory doesn't work, it's the reality that has to be
changed.
The inability of people to follow the diet *is* a major flaw of the diets.
It's like designing a cure that requires people to swallow a 10m wide pill
whole, and pretending it's the fault of the patients if it didn't work.

"The Voice of Reason" wrote in message
om...
You don't need one. Select a number of calories to eat per day. Your
bodyweight in pounds * 12 is a good start. Then eat that many calories
a day.

You don't have that level of precision on the calorie table. The only way to
reach that level of precision would be to eat only industrially prepared
food.

If you lose weight at aroudn 1-2 pounds a week then you know
it's the right number. If you don't lose weight then decrease the
number by 500. If you're losing weight too fast then increase the
number until you're losing it at a sensible rate. It's not rocket
science.

It's not rocket science, because it's not science. It doesn't take into
account the fact that you don't have the needed level of precision. It
confuses variables with constants.

When you try a new diet, and it doesn't work, you have two options.
The first is to alter it and experiment until it does work. The second
is to give up.

The third option is to understand that if the reality doesn't match the
theory, then it means that the theory is wrong, not reality.
Diets do not work. When they work, they only do for a limited time. Then,
apply reason and try to find another theory that works in the real world.
Thankfully, I didn't wait on your advice to lose weight. Otherwise, I would
still be morbidly obese instead of being on the way to overweight...

Most fat people chose the second option.

No, most fat people keep going the wrong way without doubting what people
like you or their doctor said. Then, what must fail fails, and they gain
back all the weight and then more. All direct consequence of the diet.

Once a fat person has chosen that option, he can
remain fat and claim that he tried to lose weight but failed, so he
must be genetically destined to be fat, it's not his fault, dieting
doesn't work etc.

You have a chronic disease. In its current state, it is annoying, but not
yet life threatening. You have two options :
1) try a cure that has 15% of chances to cure you partly, but 85% of chances
to fail. If it fails, it is likely to make your disease worse.
2) stop the evolution in its track and deal with the disease in its current
state.
Obviously, you pick #1. That might be because you're daring, idiot or just
because you don't have the disease and it is purely hypothetical for you.
Some people prefer #2. In a choice like that, there is no correct answer.

Computer programmers saying 'programming doesn't work' if a program
doesn't compile because of a typo

So, a diet not working because it's flawed is like a typo in a program? You
seem to have problems making correct analogies.
Sometimes, courageous programmers admit they have made a mistake and go back
to the design phase when it really doesn't work. Cowards produce some piece
of bloatware and pretend it works as intended.

chefs saying 'cooking doesn't work'
because they messed up a single recipe because they slightly
over-cooked it,

Well, if their hundredth reciple is still over-cooked, I do hope they give
up cooking.
You do realise that most people do not stop dieting on their first diet,
right? Some people have done dozens of them.

car drivers saying 'driving doesn't work' because they
once stalled the engine...

I wish, would improve air pollution in my city...

However thankfully they don't think like that. When something goes
wrong they work out what went wrong and go about fixing it, they don't
just give up.

Yes, they are stubborn people.
And sometimes, some people realize the *way* of doing things is wrong.
Instead of keeping at it, hoping that eventually it will work despite the
fact that it has failed dozens of time, they stop and think. Then, they
invent a new and better way of doing things.
You seem to have an endless admiration for stubborn people. I admire
intelligent ones much more.

What...you're saying all the nutritional information on food packaging
is made up? That all these scientists across the world are involved in
a giant conspiracy to make you fat?

No, information on industrial food is rather reliable, because it is
extremelly standardized. Do you suggest we should use only industrial
prepared products?
But, I can guarantee you that the random apple you bought and are ready to
eat doesn't have the exact calorie value written on your table. Likewise,
the "spaghetti bolognaire" on your table has nothing to do with the one
served at your local Italian restaurant. It's not a conspiracy, it's just
easy concepts to grasp, such as "sample", "average", "individual variations"
and "error margin". Calorie table have a large margin of error, because they
are built on samples of natural living products that can display a *huge*
range of individual variations.

Trying to match a complex biological process with elementary school
mathematics is not going to bring you anywhere. It's like a T1 diabetic
trying to mimick a pancreas with his insulin shoots, it's close to
impossible to get a perfect match.

Yet they manage to get by somehow... Maybe it's because they just get
on with it rather than whining about how difficult everything is.

No, they don't. Sadly, most T1 cannot get their A1c bellow 6.5%, which is
already considered a very good value (for a T1), which is way above the
norm. So, no, they don't manage to mimick nature. That's why many do not
escape having complications. Besides, T1 do have better tools to mimick
nature. They can get their glycemia whenever they need to. They can also
inject insulin in a dose that has a very predictable amount of insulin. Now,
replace their meter with one with a +-30% level of precision and give them
poor quality insulin with +-30% the advertised amount of insulin. How good
their control will be?

No, it was hard and disciplined. I watched nearly everything I ate and
forced myself into the gym twice a week, not to mention a
not-insignificant amount of cardio outside of the gym.

So, you became what psychologists call a slim obese. Most obese have a very
high level of empathy, but you burnt it in your quest for becoming slim. You
are so egocentrist that you lost the ability to project yourself into
others. You are also bitter that you had to suffer so much to lose your
weight. So, you hate obese for not suffering like you do. You also probably
hate them because they remind you of what you are.
You haven't slimmed down, you're still obese in your head. Otherwise you
would not spend so much time hating them.

No-one said it was supposed to be easy.

Why not? Because you have to suffer to receive redemption?
I don't think so. It doesn't have to be hard, it just has to be done the
right way. All the weight I have lost has been effortless. Better, it has
been pleasureable. I have never enjoyed food as much as I do now, I have
never enjoyed my body more than I do now.

I think that is the real issue for fat people
saying that dieting is impossible. It's not impossible, it's just
harder than they want it to be.

It's neither. Dieting is close to impossible. Losing weight isn't.

Once I lose enough fat I don't plan to maintain, I plan to then start
to put on muscle mass. Looking after your body is a life-time
commitment, not something you do once then give up.

Ah, so you're still losing?
Why not put the muscle right now btw?

I got fat from eating everything I could lay my eyes on, and through
doing absolutely no exercise. I lost the weight from doing the
opposite.

Then, you got fat the easy way, and you're also losing fat the easy way. For
your type of obesity (no compulsion, no genetics), losing weight is not a
problem, maintening is. That's the reverse for compulsive types. Once they
have mastered their compulsions, the rest tends to be easy.

Ah ok, obese people are obese because they sleepwalk and eat 9000
calories worth of food in the night... I won't ask why 9000 calories
of prepared food was so readibly available though

Because, when you binge, you don't stop at having prepared food. Plain
butter or flour with water does the job...

, or why you didn't think to put a lock on the fridge door or something...

Because it doesn't solve the problem, it just hides it.
Solving the problem will involve removing the lock and putting food in the
fridge anyway.

You have to deal with large
psychological issues too, and peer presure sometimes (some people often
do
not want you to lose weight).

Of course, surely that's even more inspiration to do it?

Not really. I don't care what other people think about me anymore. That's
what allowed me to start losing weight in the first place.

When followed it has a 0% failure rate. If people are lazy,
ill-disciplined, gluttonous etc and give up, that's not the diet's
fault, that's the fault of the people following it (or not following
it!).

Wait and see, you're only at the beginning. The 85% failure rate is at the
five year mark. Are you there yet? Are you so afraid you *will* fail that
you refuse the statistics?

If you know of any "plan" with a higher success rate, by
all mean, publish it and get rich!

So in other words you want a magic bullet that will make you start
taking responsibility for your own life.

No, I just want a methodology that works, not some badly put together piece
of pseudo-science advertised as a diet.

How many fat people have stuck to a sensible, balanced diet of the
correct portions with regular exercise and not lost weight? Stop
blaming other people for your failures and start taking responsiblity.

85%. These statistics come from doctors - that's the number for diets
monitored by a professionnal.

A 'miracle' diet is 10-12*(body weight in pounds) in calories a day,
with 0.8g of protein per pound of body weight, adjusted when
necessary. This also involves weight-lifting, working out the whole
body 1-2* a week, and regular cardio.

That's what doctors sell you. It still doesn't work for most people.

What's wrong with protein powder?

It's one of the worst diet. Very fast weight loss, very fast fat regain.
Besides, it tastes awful.

The US government doesn't equal the whole world of nutritionists. The
world doesn't end at America's borders.

Thankfully, that would be annoying for me.

So? They're not you. Stop blaming your problems on other people.

I'm not blaming *my* problems. I was sensible enough to stop doing diets
very early on.

Wow, you really are clueless, no wonder you have such trouble losing
weight.

Errr... I don't have troubles... Looking at what you have to do to lose it,
I would say I'm having a much easier time than you do

A higher metabolism means you burn more calories so you lose
fat more easily. A lower metabolism means you lose weight much more
difficultly.

And? Is it a race to lose as quickly as possible? I thought it was a long
distance run, to maintain as long as you can... Who cares who covers the
first 100 yards in a marathon, what's important is to be there at the finish
line... If you're in deficit, you will lose anyway, no matter where your
metabolism is at.

If you're not naturally slim then what applies to them is irrelevent
to you.

I'm naturally slim. As you keep saying, if I'm overweight, it's not because
of my genetics, it's because I ate too much. This means I'm unnaturally
obese. Still naturally slim then...

Either way it probably doesn't apply to you.

It does now. It still doesn't apply to you though, you have to exercise
yourself and watch what you eat.


No , I don't believe people have free will when they have to go through
a
bunch of misinformation and conditionning.

There's information all over the place, it's up to you to work out
which is good information and which is bad.

I did. 99% is bad. So, I stopped believing most of it, and just believed my
own feelings. Works much better.

Nothing comes on a silver plate.

When you try to cure a major epidemia, as a government, your job *is* to put
clear and efficient information on a silver plate...

No, people are flawed because they don't follow the diets.

Ah, true, if the theory doesn't work, it's the reality that has to be
changed.
The inability of people to follow the diet *is* a major flaw of the diets.
It's like designing a cure that requires people to swallow a 10m wide pill
whole, and pretending it's the fault of the patients if it didn't work.

I have mixed thoughts on fat acceptance. In my line of thinking, it is
important to accept and appreciate your body at any size. When you value
it, you will be in a better position to make better choices. Consider if
you wake up every morning hating yourself because you are overweight. You
end up with no self esteem and lack of confidence that you can do anything
about it. By appreciating everything that is good about your body and
striving to make it healthier, it makes more sense not to down the Oreos.

Normal, healthy bodies come in all shapes and sizes. To be certain, fashion
has always played a role in what is considered beautiful but even fashion
changes. We no longer aspire to be the Kate Moss waif type of the 80's.
Many of today's models and actresses are stronger and healthier than in the
past two decades. When the goal is health and not vanity, body fat
percentage is a key number. The incidence of multiple disease processes
increases at an alarming rate with the percentage of body fat.

I am just beginning maintenance after reaching my goal of 115 (I am 5'4").
Although my 'dieting' days are over, I am not going to abandon my way of
eating. It works for me on multiple levels. I will not only maintain my
level of exercise but now that have no more pounds to lose, I intend to
build muscle to help maintain my loss.

Am I listening to my body or am I trying to be magazine thin? Let's see -
chronic knee problems are gone. PMS not nearly as intense as before. I
sleep better. I have more energy. I no longer crave sugar or get sleepy
two hours after lunch. I enjoy my food and feel good about it - never
deprived. My allergies are lessened but I have not been able to figure that
one out. My blood pressure was to the point that I had to take medicine.
Now it is hanging in the 90's and 100's over 60's. At one point, it was
177/120 earlier in the year. After getting past the crisis point it stayed
in the 140 range over 90 to 100. My fasting blood sugar has gone from 109
to 87 and I would like to see that lower still. I am playing really good
tennis and having fun with it. Am I magazine thin? Of course not. Will I
ever have a perfect body? I think not. Am I satisfied with my body?
Absolutely. The point is that when you choose foods and activities to
promote health and not vanity,

Just my two cents worth.

j

"The Voice of Reason" wrote in message
om...
"Lictor" wrote in message
...

Yes, but if you follow your body, you will *not* be magazine slim. You
will
just be how a normal healthy human body is designed to be.
Unfortunately,
it's neither very fat nor very slim, it's just in-between. And then, you
would have some of the trolls here stigmatizing you for being lazy and
overweight. Until you finally stop listening to the truth from your body
and
start a diet and yo-yo your way back to obesity...

You could do that, or you could follow a diet that leads to low
body-fat whilst maintaining muscle, which wouldn't lead to obesity but
an even better body. W

That's where
fat-acceptance *has* a role to play. To get society to accept the whole
range of body shape instead of focussing on the lower limit of normal.

I would agree, IF fat acceptance meant accepting slightly over-weight
bodies of people in the process of weight loss. However fat acceptance
in its current form seems to be promoting obesity and attacking any
thought of weight-loss. Just look how the poster 'Lady Veteran'
responds to diet tips posted in soc.support.fat-acceptance, you'd
think that gas-chamber building tips had been posted to a Jewish
newsgroup!

In theory fat acceptance would be a good thing, promoting positive
body image to help in the process of healthy weight loss, however it
has ended up as something very sinister.

Unfortunately, we have ended up into a completely binary situation and
we
are locked between trolls who promote dieting your body to anorexic
proportions and people who seem to promote extreme obesity...

Or trolls like me who promote muscular bodies with low body-fat!!!

I have mixed thoughts on fat acceptance. In my line of thinking, it is
important to accept and appreciate your body at any size. When you value
it, you will be in a better position to make better choices. Consider if
you wake up every morning hating yourself because you are overweight. You
end up with no self esteem and lack of confidence that you can do anything
about it. By appreciating everything that is good about your body and
striving to make it healthier, it makes more sense not to down the Oreos.

Normal, healthy bodies come in all shapes and sizes. To be certain, fashion
has always played a role in what is considered beautiful but even fashion
changes. We no longer aspire to be the Kate Moss waif type of the 80's.
Many of today's models and actresses are stronger and healthier than in the
past two decades. When the goal is health and not vanity, body fat
percentage is a key number. The incidence of multiple disease processes
increases at an alarming rate with the percentage of body fat.

I am just beginning maintenance after reaching my goal of 115 (I am 5'4").
Although my 'dieting' days are over, I am not going to abandon my way of
eating. It works for me on multiple levels. I will not only maintain my
level of exercise but now that have no more pounds to lose, I intend to
build muscle to help maintain my loss.

Am I listening to my body or am I trying to be magazine thin? Let's see -
chronic knee problems are gone. PMS not nearly as intense as before. I
sleep better. I have more energy. I no longer crave sugar or get sleepy
two hours after lunch. I enjoy my food and feel good about it - never
deprived. My allergies are lessened but I have not been able to figure that
one out. My blood pressure was to the point that I had to take medicine.
Now it is hanging in the 90's and 100's over 60's. At one point, it was
177/120 earlier in the year. After getting past the crisis point it stayed
in the 140 range over 90 to 100. My fasting blood sugar has gone from 109
to 87 and I would like to see that lower still. I am playing really good
tennis and having fun with it. Am I magazine thin? Of course not. Will I
ever have a perfect body? I think not. Am I satisfied with my body?
Absolutely. The point is that when you choose foods and activities to
promote health and not vanity,

Just my two cents worth.

j

"The Voice of Reason" wrote in message
om...
"Lictor" wrote in message
...

Yes, but if you follow your body, you will *not* be magazine slim. You
will
just be how a normal healthy human body is designed to be.
Unfortunately,
it's neither very fat nor very slim, it's just in-between. And then, you
would have some of the trolls here stigmatizing you for being lazy and
overweight. Until you finally stop listening to the truth from your body
and
start a diet and yo-yo your way back to obesity...

You could do that, or you could follow a diet that leads to low
body-fat whilst maintaining muscle, which wouldn't lead to obesity but
an even better body. W

That's where
fat-acceptance *has* a role to play. To get society to accept the whole
range of body shape instead of focussing on the lower limit of normal.

I would agree, IF fat acceptance meant accepting slightly over-weight
bodies of people in the process of weight loss. However fat acceptance
in its current form seems to be promoting obesity and attacking any
thought of weight-loss. Just look how the poster 'Lady Veteran'
responds to diet tips posted in soc.support.fat-acceptance, you'd
think that gas-chamber building tips had been posted to a Jewish
newsgroup!

In theory fat acceptance would be a good thing, promoting positive
body image to help in the process of healthy weight loss, however it
has ended up as something very sinister.

Unfortunately, we have ended up into a completely binary situation and
we
are locked between trolls who promote dieting your body to anorexic
proportions and people who seem to promote extreme obesity...

Or trolls like me who promote muscular bodies with low body-fat!!!

"julianne" wrote in message news:rURSc.16288$Yf6.9690@lakeread03...
I have mixed thoughts on fat acceptance. In my line of thinking, it is
important to accept and appreciate your body at any size. When you value
it, you will be in a better position to make better choices. Consider if
you wake up every morning hating yourself because you are overweight. You
end up with no self esteem and lack of confidence that you can do anything
about it. By appreciating everything that is good about your body and
striving to make it healthier, it makes more sense not to down the Oreos.

Yes, being happy is one ingredient in leading a healthier lifestyle.
When you're happy, you're more likely to want to eat in a disciplined
way and to exercise. When you're miserable you don't feel like
exercising and just want to eat nice food.

I am just beginning maintenance after reaching my goal of 115 (I am 5'4").
Although my 'dieting' days are over, I am not going to abandon my way of
eating. It works for me on multiple levels. I will not only maintain my
level of exercise but now that have no more pounds to lose, I intend to
build muscle to help maintain my loss.

That is a good idea.

"julianne" wrote in message news:rURSc.16288$Yf6.9690@lakeread03...
I have mixed thoughts on fat acceptance. In my line of thinking, it is
important to accept and appreciate your body at any size. When you value
it, you will be in a better position to make better choices. Consider if
you wake up every morning hating yourself because you are overweight. You
end up with no self esteem and lack of confidence that you can do anything
about it. By appreciating everything that is good about your body and
striving to make it healthier, it makes more sense not to down the Oreos.

Yes, being happy is one ingredient in leading a healthier lifestyle.
When you're happy, you're more likely to want to eat in a disciplined
way and to exercise. When you're miserable you don't feel like
exercising and just want to eat nice food.

I am just beginning maintenance after reaching my goal of 115 (I am 5'4").
Although my 'dieting' days are over, I am not going to abandon my way of
eating. It works for me on multiple levels. I will not only maintain my
level of exercise but now that have no more pounds to lose, I intend to
build muscle to help maintain my loss.

That is a good idea.

"Lictor" wrote in message ...
"The Voice of Reason" wrote in message
om...
You don't need one. Select a number of calories to eat per day. Your
bodyweight in pounds * 12 is a good start. Then eat that many calories
a day.

You don't have that level of precision on the calorie table. The only way to
reach that level of precision would be to eat only industrially prepared
food.

Well I really don't think they're that inaccurate, they're often near
identical to ones on the packaging, I think you're barking up the
wrong tree here.

It's not rocket science, because it's not science. It doesn't take into
account the fact that you don't have the needed level of precision. It
confuses variables with constants.

Calories are precise enough for what you're measuring them for, you
don't need anything beyond accuracy to the nearest calorie. Calorie
counting works for everyone who seriously uses it, you're the only one
I've heard complaining about inaccurate numbers.

When you try a new diet, and it doesn't work, you have two options.
The first is to alter it and experiment until it does work. The second
is to give up.

The third option is to understand that if the reality doesn't match the
theory, then it means that the theory is wrong, not reality.

Then what if it the theory does match reality?

Diets do not work. When they work, they only do for a limited time.

Yeah, that limited time being until you stop following it, which is
not a failure of the diet but rather of you.

Thankfully, I didn't wait on your advice to lose weight. Otherwise, I would
still be morbidly obese instead of being on the way to overweight...

So other than by changing your eating habits how did you lose weight?

Most fat people chose the second option.

No, most fat people keep going the wrong way without doubting what people
like you or their doctor said. Then, what must fail fails, and they gain
back all the weight and then more. All direct consequence of the diet.

No, all the direct consequences of them not implementing the diet
correctly. It's a common property of obese people that they like to
blame other people for their failings.

You have a chronic disease. In its current state, it is annoying, but not
yet life threatening. You have two options :
1) try a cure that has 15% of chances to cure you partly, but 85% of chances
to fail. If it fails, it is likely to make your disease worse.
2) stop the evolution in its track and deal with the disease in its current
state.
Obviously, you pick #1. That might be because you're daring, idiot or just
because you don't have the disease and it is purely hypothetical for you.
Some people prefer #2. In a choice like that, there is no correct answer.

That's insane. I think the following analogy is better:
You have a chronic disease etc... You have two options:
1) Try a cure that works 100%, but it is hard and requires discipline
and dedication, and will take years to work. You may have to
constantly adjust it to meet your requirements, but when it works the
disease is completely gone.
2) Try a cure for a few days, get tired of it then give up, say that
the cure doesn't work and there's nothing you can do about your
disease.

Computer programmers saying 'programming doesn't work' if a program
doesn't compile because of a typo

So, a diet not working because it's flawed is like a typo in a program? You
seem to have problems making correct analogies.

No, if you try a diet and it doesn't work, it may need adjusting, i.e.
you may have to adjust the number of calories to suit your metabolism,
or may have to increase your protein or decrease your carbs. This is a
rough analogy to incompatabilities in a program. If a program doesn't
work because it requires libraryX version 2.0 rather than 1.4, and you
have 1.4, it doesn't mean that programming is flawed, or that the
program is flawed, it just means you have to get a version that works
with library 1.4.

chefs saying 'cooking doesn't work'
because they messed up a single recipe because they slightly
over-cooked it,

Well, if their hundredth reciple is still over-cooked, I do hope they give
up cooking.

If they cook a recipe and it's a bit over-done, they don't throw the
recipe away, they cook it for a bit less time next time. They
fine-tune the recipe to suit them. The same is true of diets, if a
diet doesn't work you fine-tune it so it works for you, you don't just
give up at the first hurdle.

You do realise that most people do not stop dieting on their first diet,
right? Some people have done dozens of them.

If they were dedicated and logical they would get the first one to
work. If someone can't be bothered to follow a diet and gives up, it
isn't the fault of the diet it's the fault of the person following it.
Why are people so quick to blame other people for their own failings?

However thankfully they don't think like that. When something goes
wrong they work out what went wrong and go about fixing it, they don't
just give up.

Yes, they are stubborn people.
And sometimes, some people realize the *way* of doing things is wrong.
Instead of keeping at it, hoping that eventually it will work despite the
fact that it has failed dozens of time, they stop and think. Then, they
invent a new and better way of doing things.
You seem to have an endless admiration for stubborn people. I admire
intelligent ones much more.

It doesn't take 'dozens of times' to adjust your calorie intake to
start losing weight, it just takes patience and dedication. Are you
saying it's intelligent to give up on a diet when things get a bit
difficult?

What...you're saying all the nutritional information on food packaging
is made up? That all these scientists across the world are involved in
a giant conspiracy to make you fat?

No, information on industrial food is rather reliable, because it is
extremelly standardized. Do you suggest we should use only industrial
prepared products?

Use what works for you.

No, it was hard and disciplined. I watched nearly everything I ate and
forced myself into the gym twice a week, not to mention a
not-insignificant amount of cardio outside of the gym.

So, you became what psychologists call a slim obese.

What on earth is that?

Most obese have a very
high level of empathy, but you burnt it in your quest for becoming slim.

I have empathy, I just can't stand moaning people who make excuses and
blame other people rather than taking responsibility for their own
lives.

You are also bitter that you had to suffer so much to lose your
weight.

Bitter? Not at all. I enjoy the challenge, and I like the fact that my
weight loss was entirely my own effort. I am reaping the rewards of my
hard work and dedication, and that is a great feeling.

So, you hate obese for not suffering like you do. You also probably
hate them because they remind you of what you are.

I don't hate obese people at all. What I do hate is their attitudes. I
hate the excuse making. I hate the blaming other people for their own
flaws. If they just said 'I don't have the discipline to follow this
diet' or 'I can't be bothered exercising' I would admire the honesty,
but that's not what I'm seeing here.

You haven't slimmed down, you're still obese in your head. Otherwise you
would not spend so much time hating them.

I don't hate them, I hate the way they say that their obesity is
someone else's fault, either doctors, the evil diet industry
conspiracists, evil gyms, evil fast food outlets, it's always someone
else's fault. I hate the way they think their obesity is not in their
control, as if there was nothing they could do about it, when the
opposite is true and they just don't want to put in the long-term
commitment necessary.

No-one said it was supposed to be easy.

Why not? Because you have to suffer to receive redemption?

Because that's the way it is.

I think that is the real issue for fat people
saying that dieting is impossible. It's not impossible, it's just
harder than they want it to be.

It's neither. Dieting is close to impossible. Losing weight isn't.

Everyone 'diets', it is merely the process of consuming food. Perhaps
it would be better if you chose a more specific wording.

Once I lose enough fat I don't plan to maintain, I plan to then start
to put on muscle mass. Looking after your body is a life-time
commitment, not something you do once then give up.

Ah, so you're still losing?
Why not put the muscle right now btw?

I'd rather get my bf lower first. That's my main priority. I can't
gain muscle without gaining fat, and I don't want to gain any fat for
a while. I think if I get down to around 10% then I'll start putting
it on. Also I still need to join a gym near to where I live now. I'll
look better with lower-bf and less muscle than I will with more of
both due to the added definition so that is my first goal. Also it
will enable clothes to fit better, including old ones that haven't
seen the light of day for years.

I got fat from eating everything I could lay my eyes on, and through
doing absolutely no exercise. I lost the weight from doing the
opposite.

Then, you got fat the easy way, and you're also losing fat the easy way. For
your type of obesity (no compulsion, no genetics), losing weight is not a
problem, maintening is. That's the reverse for compulsive types. Once they
have mastered their compulsions, the rest tends to be easy.

No compulsion? You'd be surprised at how much I can eat if it's in
front of me. It's not unusual for me to eat 5000 calories+ a day, the
trick is to form the correct shopping and eating habits so that
compulsive eating isn't an issue. This is a lot harder when you live
with someone who regularly buys junk food and leaves it where I end up
seeing it, but that's what discipline's for. The more discipline I
have the closer I am to my goals.

Ah ok, obese people are obese because they sleepwalk and eat 9000
calories worth of food in the night... I won't ask why 9000 calories
of prepared food was so readibly available though

Because, when you binge, you don't stop at having prepared food. Plain
butter or flour with water does the job...

So, out of all the obese people, how many do you think became obese
through sleep-eating flour?

You have to deal with large
psychological issues too, and peer presure sometimes (some people often
do
not want you to lose weight).

Of course, surely that's even more inspiration to do it?

Not really. I don't care what other people think about me anymore. That's
what allowed me to start losing weight in the first place.

Well, it can be inspiring to me, especially when my dad who was giving
me **** before for being fat is still a fat-ass and I'm not anymore.
In fact come to think of it most of my family on my dad side's obese,
I don't know whether that's a genetic or an enviromental thing.

When followed it has a 0% failure rate. If people are lazy,
ill-disciplined, gluttonous etc and give up, that's not the diet's
fault, that's the fault of the people following it (or not following
it!).

Wait and see, you're only at the beginning. The 85% failure rate is at the
five year mark.

Even if it does fail 85%, it's not the diet failing it's the people.

Are you there yet? Are you so afraid you *will* fail that
you refuse the statistics?

What statistics? I've come to learn that statistics are not to be
trusted, neither is anything that starts with 'studies show that...'.

So in other words you want a magic bullet that will make you start
taking responsibility for your own life.
No, I just want a methodology that works, not some badly put together piece
of pseudo-science advertised as a diet.

I dunno, the diet I follow works, and it's based on science, not
'pseudo-science', whatever you mean by that. What sort of methodology
would you recommend following?

How many fat people have stuck to a sensible, balanced diet of the
correct portions with regular exercise and not lost weight? Stop
blaming other people for your failures and start taking responsiblity.
85%. These statistics come from doctors - that's the number for diets
monitored by a professionnal.

How many people have 'professionals' monitoring them 24 hours a day,
measuring everything they eat and watching all their exercise, for 5
years? I am really skeptical of these studies.

A 'miracle' diet is 10-12*(body weight in pounds) in calories a day,
with 0.8g of protein per pound of body weight, adjusted when
necessary. This also involves weight-lifting, working out the whole
body 1-2* a week, and regular cardio.

That's what doctors sell you.

No, doctors are never that precise, most doctors don't know a lot,
they'll just tell you to exercise more and eat a low-fat diet or
something vague. People who 'sell you' that are generally people who
have a lot of first hand experience of losing weight and training
other people. It's based on real-life

It still doesn't work for most people.

How many people follow it? Not many, so you can't really say. Most
people don't want a carefully planned and monitored diet, nor
something that takes months or years.

What's wrong with protein powder?

It's one of the worst diet. Very fast weight loss, very fast fat regain.
Besides, it tastes awful.

It's not a diet it's a food. What on earth are you talking about?

So? They're not you. Stop blaming your problems on other people.

I'm not blaming *my* problems. I was sensible enough to stop doing diets
very early on.

So in other words you ate nothing? Starvation doesn't work sorry.

A higher metabolism means you burn more calories so you lose
fat more easily. A lower metabolism means you lose weight much more
difficultly.

And? Is it a race to lose as quickly as possible? I thought it was a long
distance run, to maintain as long as you can... Who cares who covers the
first 100 yards in a marathon, what's important is to be there at the finish
line... If you're in deficit, you will lose anyway, no matter where your
metabolism is at.

The point is, when your metabolism is higher you lose the same amount
of weight on more food. Also you will find it easier to lose weight
once your weight is lower, as the lighter you are then generally the
lower your metabolism. Also when you are obese, you want to lose
weight a lot quicker, muscle loss is the least of your concerns.

Nothing comes on a silver plate.

When you try to cure a major epidemia, as a government, your job *is* to put
clear and efficient information on a silver plate...

The information's there, it's just that people don't want to follow
it, they want a magic bullet that lets them sit watching TV eating
cake and lose weight.

No, people are flawed because they don't follow the diets.

Ah, true, if the theory doesn't work, it's the reality that has to be
changed.
The inability of people to follow the diet *is* a major flaw of the diets.
It's like designing a cure that requires people to swallow a 10m wide pill
whole, and pretending it's the fault of the patients if it didn't work.

No, it's like designing a cure that requires regular injections.
People might not like the injections and might stop taking them, but
that doesn't mean the cure is flawed, it's that the people won't take
it.

Also you can't compare swallowing a 10m pill to eating a sensible
amount of food and regularly exercising, you're just insane.

"Lictor" wrote in message ...
"The Voice of Reason" wrote in message
om...
You don't need one. Select a number of calories to eat per day. Your
bodyweight in pounds * 12 is a good start. Then eat that many calories
a day.

You don't have that level of precision on the calorie table. The only way to
reach that level of precision would be to eat only industrially prepared
food.

Well I really don't think they're that inaccurate, they're often near
identical to ones on the packaging, I think you're barking up the
wrong tree here.

It's not rocket science, because it's not science. It doesn't take into
account the fact that you don't have the needed level of precision. It
confuses variables with constants.

Calories are precise enough for what you're measuring them for, you
don't need anything beyond accuracy to the nearest calorie. Calorie
counting works for everyone who seriously uses it, you're the only one
I've heard complaining about inaccurate numbers.

When you try a new diet, and it doesn't work, you have two options.
The first is to alter it and experiment until it does work. The second
is to give up.

The third option is to understand that if the reality doesn't match the
theory, then it means that the theory is wrong, not reality.

Then what if it the theory does match reality?

Diets do not work. When they work, they only do for a limited time.

Yeah, that limited time being until you stop following it, which is
not a failure of the diet but rather of you.

Thankfully, I didn't wait on your advice to lose weight. Otherwise, I would
still be morbidly obese instead of being on the way to overweight...

So other than by changing your eating habits how did you lose weight?

Most fat people chose the second option.

No, most fat people keep going the wrong way without doubting what people
like you or their doctor said. Then, what must fail fails, and they gain
back all the weight and then more. All direct consequence of the diet.

No, all the direct consequences of them not implementing the diet
correctly. It's a common property of obese people that they like to
blame other people for their failings.

You have a chronic disease. In its current state, it is annoying, but not
yet life threatening. You have two options :
1) try a cure that has 15% of chances to cure you partly, but 85% of chances
to fail. If it fails, it is likely to make your disease worse.
2) stop the evolution in its track and deal with the disease in its current
state.
Obviously, you pick #1. That might be because you're daring, idiot or just
because you don't have the disease and it is purely hypothetical for you.
Some people prefer #2. In a choice like that, there is no correct answer.

That's insane. I think the following analogy is better:
You have a chronic disease etc... You have two options:
1) Try a cure that works 100%, but it is hard and requires discipline
and dedication, and will take years to work. You may have to
constantly adjust it to meet your requirements, but when it works the
disease is completely gone.
2) Try a cure for a few days, get tired of it then give up, say that
the cure doesn't work and there's nothing you can do about your
disease.

Computer programmers saying 'programming doesn't work' if a program
doesn't compile because of a typo

So, a diet not working because it's flawed is like a typo in a program? You
seem to have problems making correct analogies.

No, if you try a diet and it doesn't work, it may need adjusting, i.e.
you may have to adjust the number of calories to suit your metabolism,
or may have to increase your protein or decrease your carbs. This is a
rough analogy to incompatabilities in a program. If a program doesn't
work because it requires libraryX version 2.0 rather than 1.4, and you
have 1.4, it doesn't mean that programming is flawed, or that the
program is flawed, it just means you have to get a version that works
with library 1.4.

chefs saying 'cooking doesn't work'
because they messed up a single recipe because they slightly
over-cooked it,

Well, if their hundredth reciple is still over-cooked, I do hope they give
up cooking.

If they cook a recipe and it's a bit over-done, they don't throw the
recipe away, they cook it for a bit less time next time. They
fine-tune the recipe to suit them. The same is true of diets, if a
diet doesn't work you fine-tune it so it works for you, you don't just
give up at the first hurdle.

You do realise that most people do not stop dieting on their first diet,
right? Some people have done dozens of them.

If they were dedicated and logical they would get the first one to
work. If someone can't be bothered to follow a diet and gives up, it
isn't the fault of the diet it's the fault of the person following it.
Why are people so quick to blame other people for their own failings?

However thankfully they don't think like that. When something goes
wrong they work out what went wrong and go about fixing it, they don't
just give up.

Yes, they are stubborn people.
And sometimes, some people realize the *way* of doing things is wrong.
Instead of keeping at it, hoping that eventually it will work despite the
fact that it has failed dozens of time, they stop and think. Then, they
invent a new and better way of doing things.
You seem to have an endless admiration for stubborn people. I admire
intelligent ones much more.

It doesn't take 'dozens of times' to adjust your calorie intake to
start losing weight, it just takes patience and dedication. Are you
saying it's intelligent to give up on a diet when things get a bit
difficult?

What...you're saying all the nutritional information on food packaging
is made up? That all these scientists across the world are involved in
a giant conspiracy to make you fat?

No, information on industrial food is rather reliable, because it is
extremelly standardized. Do you suggest we should use only industrial
prepared products?

Use what works for you.

No, it was hard and disciplined. I watched nearly everything I ate and
forced myself into the gym twice a week, not to mention a
not-insignificant amount of cardio outside of the gym.

So, you became what psychologists call a slim obese.

What on earth is that?

Most obese have a very
high level of empathy, but you burnt it in your quest for becoming slim.

I have empathy, I just can't stand moaning people who make excuses and
blame other people rather than taking responsibility for their own
lives.

You are also bitter that you had to suffer so much to lose your
weight.

Bitter? Not at all. I enjoy the challenge, and I like the fact that my
weight loss was entirely my own effort. I am reaping the rewards of my
hard work and dedication, and that is a great feeling.

So, you hate obese for not suffering like you do. You also probably
hate them because they remind you of what you are.

I don't hate obese people at all. What I do hate is their attitudes. I
hate the excuse making. I hate the blaming other people for their own
flaws. If they just said 'I don't have the discipline to follow this
diet' or 'I can't be bothered exercising' I would admire the honesty,
but that's not what I'm seeing here.

You haven't slimmed down, you're still obese in your head. Otherwise you
would not spend so much time hating them.

I don't hate them, I hate the way they say that their obesity is
someone else's fault, either doctors, the evil diet industry
conspiracists, evil gyms, evil fast food outlets, it's always someone
else's fault. I hate the way they think their obesity is not in their
control, as if there was nothing they could do about it, when the
opposite is true and they just don't want to put in the long-term
commitment necessary.

No-one said it was supposed to be easy.

Why not? Because you have to suffer to receive redemption?

Because that's the way it is.

I think that is the real issue for fat people
saying that dieting is impossible. It's not impossible, it's just
harder than they want it to be.

It's neither. Dieting is close to impossible. Losing weight isn't.

Everyone 'diets', it is merely the process of consuming food. Perhaps
it would be better if you chose a more specific wording.

Once I lose enough fat I don't plan to maintain, I plan to then start
to put on muscle mass. Looking after your body is a life-time
commitment, not something you do once then give up.

Ah, so you're still losing?
Why not put the muscle right now btw?

I'd rather get my bf lower first. That's my main priority. I can't
gain muscle without gaining fat, and I don't want to gain any fat for
a while. I think if I get down to around 10% then I'll start putting
it on. Also I still need to join a gym near to where I live now. I'll
look better with lower-bf and less muscle than I will with more of
both due to the added definition so that is my first goal. Also it
will enable clothes to fit better, including old ones that haven't
seen the light of day for years.

I got fat from eating everything I could lay my eyes on, and through
doing absolutely no exercise. I lost the weight from doing the
opposite.

Then, you got fat the easy way, and you're also losing fat the easy way. For
your type of obesity (no compulsion, no genetics), losing weight is not a
problem, maintening is. That's the reverse for compulsive types. Once they
have mastered their compulsions, the rest tends to be easy.

No compulsion? You'd be surprised at how much I can eat if it's in
front of me. It's not unusual for me to eat 5000 calories+ a day, the
trick is to form the correct shopping and eating habits so that
compulsive eating isn't an issue. This is a lot harder when you live
with someone who regularly buys junk food and leaves it where I end up
seeing it, but that's what discipline's for. The more discipline I
have the closer I am to my goals.

Ah ok, obese people are obese because they sleepwalk and eat 9000
calories worth of food in the night... I won't ask why 9000 calories
of prepared food was so readibly available though

Because, when you binge, you don't stop at having prepared food. Plain
butter or flour with water does the job...

So, out of all the obese people, how many do you think became obese
through sleep-eating flour?

You have to deal with large
psychological issues too, and peer presure sometimes (some people often
do
not want you to lose weight).

Of course, surely that's even more inspiration to do it?

Not really. I don't care what other people think about me anymore. That's
what allowed me to start losing weight in the first place.

Well, it can be inspiring to me, especially when my dad who was giving
me **** before for being fat is still a fat-ass and I'm not anymore.
In fact come to think of it most of my family on my dad side's obese,
I don't know whether that's a genetic or an enviromental thing.

When followed it has a 0% failure rate. If people are lazy,
ill-disciplined, gluttonous etc and give up, that's not the diet's
fault, that's the fault of the people following it (or not following
it!).

Wait and see, you're only at the beginning. The 85% failure rate is at the
five year mark.

Even if it does fail 85%, it's not the diet failing it's the people.

Are you there yet? Are you so afraid you *will* fail that
you refuse the statistics?

What statistics? I've come to learn that statistics are not to be
trusted, neither is anything that starts with 'studies show that...'.

So in other words you want a magic bullet that will make you start
taking responsibility for your own life.
No, I just want a methodology that works, not some badly put together piece
of pseudo-science advertised as a diet.

I dunno, the diet I follow works, and it's based on science, not
'pseudo-science', whatever you mean by that. What sort of methodology
would you recommend following?

How many fat people have stuck to a sensible, balanced diet of the
correct portions with regular exercise and not lost weight? Stop
blaming other people for your failures and start taking responsiblity.
85%. These statistics come from doctors - that's the number for diets
monitored by a professionnal.

How many people have 'professionals' monitoring them 24 hours a day,
measuring everything they eat and watching all their exercise, for 5
years? I am really skeptical of these studies.

A 'miracle' diet is 10-12*(body weight in pounds) in calories a day,
with 0.8g of protein per pound of body weight, adjusted when
necessary. This also involves weight-lifting, working out the whole
body 1-2* a week, and regular cardio.

That's what doctors sell you.

No, doctors are never that precise, most doctors don't know a lot,
they'll just tell you to exercise more and eat a low-fat diet or
something vague. People who 'sell you' that are generally people who
have a lot of first hand experience of losing weight and training
other people. It's based on real-life

It still doesn't work for most people.

How many people follow it? Not many, so you can't really say. Most
people don't want a carefully planned and monitored diet, nor
something that takes months or years.

What's wrong with protein powder?

It's one of the worst diet. Very fast weight loss, very fast fat regain.
Besides, it tastes awful.

It's not a diet it's a food. What on earth are you talking about?

So? They're not you. Stop blaming your problems on other people.

I'm not blaming *my* problems. I was sensible enough to stop doing diets
very early on.

So in other words you ate nothing? Starvation doesn't work sorry.

A higher metabolism means you burn more calories so you lose
fat more easily. A lower metabolism means you lose weight much more
difficultly.

And? Is it a race to lose as quickly as possible? I thought it was a long
distance run, to maintain as long as you can... Who cares who covers the
first 100 yards in a marathon, what's important is to be there at the finish
line... If you're in deficit, you will lose anyway, no matter where your
metabolism is at.

The point is, when your metabolism is higher you lose the same amount
of weight on more food. Also you will find it easier to lose weight
once your weight is lower, as the lighter you are then generally the
lower your metabolism. Also when you are obese, you want to lose
weight a lot quicker, muscle loss is the least of your concerns.

Nothing comes on a silver plate.

When you try to cure a major epidemia, as a government, your job *is* to put
clear and efficient information on a silver plate...

The information's there, it's just that people don't want to follow
it, they want a magic bullet that lets them sit watching TV eating
cake and lose weight.

No, people are flawed because they don't follow the diets.

Ah, true, if the theory doesn't work, it's the reality that has to be
changed.
The inability of people to follow the diet *is* a major flaw of the diets.
It's like designing a cure that requires people to swallow a 10m wide pill
whole, and pretending it's the fault of the patients if it didn't work.

No, it's like designing a cure that requires regular injections.
People might not like the injections and might stop taking them, but
that doesn't mean the cure is flawed, it's that the people won't take
it.

Also you can't compare swallowing a 10m pill to eating a sensible
amount of food and regularly exercising, you're just insane.

In m,
The Voice of Reason typed:
"Lictor" wrote in message
...
"The Voice of Reason" wrote in message
om...
You don't need one. Select a number of calories to eat per day. Your
bodyweight in pounds * 12 is a good start. Then eat that many
calories a day.

You don't have that level of precision on the calorie table. The
only way to reach that level of precision would be to eat only
industrially prepared food.

Well I really don't think they're that inaccurate, they're often near
identical to ones on the packaging, I think you're barking up the
wrong tree here.

It's not rocket science, because it's not science. It doesn't take
into account the fact that you don't have the needed level of
precision. It confuses variables with constants.

Calories are precise enough for what you're measuring them for, you
don't need anything beyond accuracy to the nearest calorie. Calorie
counting works for everyone who seriously uses it, you're the only one
I've heard complaining about inaccurate numbers.

[snip]

I didn't feel like reading all that. Was that person arguing that
Calorie counting is impossible or so difficult as to be impractical and
thus possible only in principle? Can someone give me the executive
summary on that because I can't believe anyone would seriously argue
that.

August Pamplona
--
The waterfall in Java is not wet.
- omegazero2003 on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.

To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.