Fat burning furnace?

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

wrote:
Wildbilly wrote:

As shown in Gary Taubes' book
...
obesity cannot be linked to calories consumed , or lack of exercise.

While I have respect for Taubes and think most of what he has to say
is correct, the above quote is the type of nonsense that the
mainstream media loves to jump on to discredit supporters of LC.

Folks love to take stuff to extremes as a why to ignore what the data
actually says. The data isn't as clear as Taubes would like, nor is it
as clear as the anti-Atkins crowd would like either.

For exercise the data on gyms is clear that people exercise more now
than they ever did, but the data on gyms does not count exercise at work
or exercise outside of the gym. Camping and other outdoor hobbies are
much less popular than they were in past generations.

The best that can be learned from the data is that once someone is
*already* obese then they exercise less than their peers.
Problem is that there are too many examples of hard working obese people.
Taubes reminds us of the old adage of "working up an appetite". Given
that there are skinny lazy people, fat industrious people, and there are
fat people who eat fewer calories than skinny people means that the
"calories consumed/exercise" approach is a poor guide to weight loss.
At best
exercise ends up as a preventative but trying to demonstrate that from
the data isn't even easy. The worst that can be learned from the data
is that once someone is already obese exercise helps little during lose
but helps much during maintenance - Exercise becomes like a finger in
the dyke.
One of the guys I studied Tae Kwon Do with is very obese, as is his
entire family (nature vs. nurture?), yet he was a second degree black
belt, when I was a beginner. He did the calisthenics and the forms, and
he worked up an appetite.

At the end of the day, of course calories consumed and lack of
excercise are linked to obesity.

Because it's obvious, right? The trouble is obvious does not equal
true.

Did you see any pictures of obese
German concentration camp victims?

That's a classic logical falacy. They are called victims because they
are not willing. Thus voluntary programs can't use the data. But check
on the obesity rates of released concentration camp victims and see what
it says about rebound gain.

How about the athletes that eat
5000 calories a day, including loads of carbs, and are at normal
weight?

It says that exercise reduces insulin toxic effects. In other words to
get to normal weight it works to drop both exercise and carb count.
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist."
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

On Dec 21, 11:36*am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
wrote:
Wildbilly wrote:

As shown in Gary Taubes' book
...
obesity cannot be linked to calories consumed , or lack of exercise.

While I have respect for Taubes and think most of what he has to say
is correct, the above quote is the type of nonsense that the
mainstream media loves to jump on to discredit supporters of LC.

Folks love to take stuff to extremes as a why to ignore what the data
actually says. *The data isn't as clear as Taubes would like, nor is it
as clear as the anti-Atkins crowd would like either.

For exercise the data on gyms is clear that people exercise more now
than they ever did, but the data on gyms does not count exercise at work
or exercise outside of the gym. *Camping and other outdoor hobbies are
much less popular than they were in past generations.

The best that can be learned from the data is that once someone is
*already* obese then they exercise less than their peers. *At best
exercise ends up as a preventative but trying to demonstrate that from
the data isn't even easy. *The worst that can be learned from the data
is that once someone is already obese exercise helps little during lose
but helps much during maintenance - Exercise becomes like a finger in
the dyke.

At the end of the day, of course calories consumed and lack of
excercise are linked to obesity.

Because it's obvious, right? *The trouble is obvious does not equal
true.

No. Because there is plenty of data that shows that IF you actually
do it, it works. Absolutely in the case of calories. There is not
an obese person on this planet that if actually consuming low enough
calories will not lose weight Maybe there is a tiny percentage, with
some genetic problem that would die instead, but clearly they are not
the core of the obese population today. The concentration camps are
a perfect example. And all the dead victims I've ever seen were skin
and bones, not an obese one among them.

Or how about gastric bypass surgery? Those folks wind up consuming
far less calories and bingo, they lose weight.

The same is true of exercise and there are enough studies and the laws
of physics to back that up too.



Did you see any pictures of obese
German concentration camp victims?

That's a classic logical falacy. *They are called victims because they
are not willing. *

Of course they're not willing, but that doesn't make it a fallacy.
There were no obese concentration camp victims because they were on
extremely low calorie diets. The Taubes statement simply says
there is no link between calories consumed and obesity, which without
at least some proper context or qualification is BS..



Thus voluntary programs can't use the data. *But check
on the obesity rates of released concentration camp victims and see what
it says about rebound gain.

Sure, as they go back to the eating habits of the typical modern diet,
you would expect them to go back to the norm.




How about the athletes that eat
5000 calories a day, including loads of carbs, and are at normal
weight?

It says that exercise reduces insulin toxic effects. *In other words to
get to normal weight it works to drop both exercise and carb count.

Again, I'm not arguing mechanism. Just that with enough hard
exercise people can obviously stay fit even on a high calorie diet,
showing there is a link. Even Atkins emphasized the importance of
exercise

On Dec 21, 2:06*pm, Wildbilly wrote:
In article
,





" wrote:
On Dec 20, 9:07*pm, Wildbilly wrote:
In article
,

*Ted wrote:
Why not?:O
If you google that one it has just good reviews.
I think I have to test it ,though.

As shown in Gary Taubes' book
"Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science
of Diet and
Health"http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400
...
62/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261360457&sr=1-1
obesity cannot be linked to calories consumed , or lack of exercise.

While I have respect for Taubes and think most of what he has to say
is correct, the above quote is the type of nonsense that the
mainstream media loves to jump on to discredit supporters of LC.
At the end of the day, of course calories consumed and lack of
excercise are linked to obesity. * Did you see any pictures of obese
German concentration camp victims? * How about the athletes that eat
5000 calories a day, including loads of carbs, and are at normal
weight?

So you use concentration camps to achieve weight loss? Boy, I bet that's
a tough sell.

Don't be a smart ass. I never suggested any such thing. I only used
the concentration camps as an obvious example that the blanket
statement that "obesity can't be linked to calories consumed or
exercise" is nonsense. Whether people can voluntarily stay on a
calorie restricted diet or exercise enough for it to work for most
people is an entirely different matter.

I just get annoyed that guys like Taubes go around handing out foolish
statements like this which the media love to use to discredit diet and
exercise approaches that work.

Answer me this. Let take two groups of similar age males.

Group A weighs 300-350 lbs and is morbidly obese
Group B weighs 150-170 lbs and is at their normal weight range

Do you not believe that group A is consuming significantly more
calories than group B?

Do you not believe that if group A, taken as a whole, were put on a
1800 calorie a day diet and they actually stuck to it, they would lose
weight?



What Taubes points out are thin sedentary shop keepers and obese manual
laborer, not in all cases but enough to unlink the popular myth of sloth
leading to obesity and activity leading to weight loss.

Finding SOME counter examples does not disprove a link. For example,
some people can abuse alcohol or cigarettes for their entire lives and
not die from it. That doesn't equate to undoing the linkage between
those and disease, does it?



As I said, exercise is good/healthy (for most people, check with your
doctor) but don't expect to lose weight.

So I shared with you. What fat burning foods do you have for us?

Why would you expect me to have any fat burning foods to share? Do
you even know who's post you're replying to?

On Dec 21, 11:26*am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Ted wrote:

you ever heard of fat burning furnace?
I found it on google today.It says that you can raise your fatburning
by some easy tricks.

Sure I've heard of it, not that I'll follow your links.

When I started Atkins in 1999 I read the instructions and wondered why
he recommends increasing carb intake to CCLL as the optimal level when
it seems so obvious that if low is good lower must be better. *Yet again
and again folks who stall at 20 resume loss at higher carb intakes.
Sure enough Dr A had spent decades designing a system that works better
than what's obvious.


And once again, for those just joining us, I'll quote what Atkins
actually said on the subject of increasing carbs and weight loss.
From Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution 2002:

"Before you even think about stepping up from induction consider the
possibility of staying with it for a while longer. A lot of people
think of induction as ONLY two weeks, but it can be followed for a
longer time.
If you have a lot of weight to lose or have difficulty losing weight,
you might want to do induction for quite a while. That way you'll
see dramatic progress before moving on to the more moderate phases of
the program........

While the next phase--Ongoing Weight Loss---may likely slow your rate
of weight loss, this is not a bad thing."

"When you do Atkins, your rate of weight loss is generally
proportional to the amount of carbohydrate you consume."

Note in the last sentence, he should have said inversely proportional,
but taken in the context of the rest of that page, the intent is
clear.



Once I'd gotten myself to step out in faith of the directions as written
I launched onto a hobby of figuring out the underlying science of why
lower carb works better than lowest carb and why low carb works better
than low carb.

One of the things I learned was about how fatty acids enter the Krebs
citric acid cycle and why "fat burns best in a fire of carbs". *The way
the Krebs cycle works, the optimal burning rate of fatty acids is
acheived with some portion of glucose present. *I was quite surprised to
find this as it coincides with the concept of the CCLL.

Which of course is wrong because the whole concept of CCLL is that
when doing Atkins, as you slowly increase carbs each week, your weight
loss SLOWS. The point where it stops is your CCLL. That sure
doesn't sound like the optimum point of burning off fat or that fat
burns best in a fire of carbs. In fact, it sounds like exactly the
opposite. Which makes sense, considering Atkins recommended a fat
fast, during which 0 carbs are consumed, as a measure of last resort
for breaking stalls.

In article
,
" wrote:

On Dec 21, 2:06*pm, Wildbilly wrote:
In article
,





" wrote:
On Dec 20, 9:07*pm, Wildbilly wrote:
In article
,

*Ted wrote:
Why not?:O
If you google that one it has just good reviews.
I think I have to test it ,though.

As shown in Gary Taubes' book
"Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial
Science
of Diet and
Health"http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/
1400
...
62/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261360457&sr=1-1
obesity cannot be linked to calories consumed , or lack of exercise.

While I have respect for Taubes and think most of what he has to say
is correct, the above quote is the type of nonsense that the
mainstream media loves to jump on to discredit supporters of LC.
At the end of the day, of course calories consumed and lack of
excercise are linked to obesity. * Did you see any pictures of obese
German concentration camp victims? * How about the athletes that eat
5000 calories a day, including loads of carbs, and are at normal
weight?

So you use concentration camps to achieve weight loss? Boy, I bet that's
a tough sell.

Don't be a smart ass. I never suggested any such thing. I only used
the concentration camps as an obvious example that the blanket
statement that "obesity can't be linked to calories consumed or
exercise" is nonsense. Whether people can voluntarily stay on a
calorie restricted diet or exercise enough for it to work for most
people is an entirely different matter.

I just get annoyed that guys like Taubes go around handing out foolish
statements like this which the media love to use to discredit diet and
exercise approaches that work.
I don't have the expertise to answer that question, and you haven't
shown that you do either. What I can tell you is that in his book, "Good
Calories, Bad Calories", Taubes names the studies that have shown that
often obese people eat about the same amount of calories as "normal"
people, and the studies that disprove sloth and activity as causes.

Answer me this. Let take two groups of similar age males.

Group A weighs 300-350 lbs and is morbidly obese
Group B weighs 150-170 lbs and is at their normal weight range

Do you not believe that group A is consuming significantly more
calories than group B?

Do you not believe that if group A, taken as a whole, were put on a
1800 calorie a day diet and they actually stuck to it, they would lose
weight?
That is the common wisdom, but Taubes gives the lie to it with studies
to disprove it.



What Taubes points out are thin sedentary shop keepers and obese manual
laborer, not in all cases but enough to unlink the popular myth of sloth
leading to obesity and activity leading to weight loss.

Finding SOME counter examples does not disprove a link. For example,
some people can abuse alcohol or cigarettes for their entire lives and
not die from it. That doesn't equate to undoing the linkage between
those and disease, does it?

Logic is only as good as its' premise.

Because you are thirty times more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke
cigarettes doesn't mean that sloth and over eating are the causes of
obesity.

Linus Pauling outraged the "Abstinence" people when he said that a glass
or two of alcohol a day may let you live longer. Who am I to argue with
a two time Nobel Prize winner? More importantly, who are you?


As I said, exercise is good/healthy (for most people, check with your
doctor) but don't expect to lose weight.

So I shared with you. What fat burning foods do you have for us?

Why would you expect me to have any fat burning foods to share? Do
you even know who's post you're replying to?

Oh, what happened to the love? I know that you posted with a different
name than the OP, so I presume you are a different person, but I've been
wrong before.

The OP is a spammer, and you seem to be trying to defend his position.
I've given you what I know, and my source for the information.

I think we are done here.
--
³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.²
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

In article
,
" wrote:

On Dec 21, 11:36*am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
wrote:
Wildbilly wrote:

As shown in Gary Taubes' book
...
obesity cannot be linked to calories consumed , or lack of exercise.

While I have respect for Taubes and think most of what he has to say
is correct, the above quote is the type of nonsense that the
mainstream media loves to jump on to discredit supporters of LC.

Folks love to take stuff to extremes as a why to ignore what the data
actually says. *The data isn't as clear as Taubes would like, nor is it
as clear as the anti-Atkins crowd would like either.

For exercise the data on gyms is clear that people exercise more now
than they ever did, but the data on gyms does not count exercise at work
or exercise outside of the gym. *Camping and other outdoor hobbies are
much less popular than they were in past generations.

The best that can be learned from the data is that once someone is
*already* obese then they exercise less than their peers. *At best
exercise ends up as a preventative but trying to demonstrate that from
the data isn't even easy. *The worst that can be learned from the data
is that once someone is already obese exercise helps little during lose
but helps much during maintenance - Exercise becomes like a finger in
the dyke.

At the end of the day, of course calories consumed and lack of
excercise are linked to obesity.

Because it's obvious, right? *The trouble is obvious does not equal
true.

No. Because there is plenty of data that shows that IF you actually
do it, it works.

If there is plenty of data, could you give me a cite?

Absolutely in the case of calories. There is not
an obese person on this planet that if actually consuming low enough
calories will not lose weight
Will they have the energy to carry on normal activities, like go to work?
Under extreme dieting, energy expenditures are reduced.


Maybe there is a tiny percentage, with
some genetic problem that would die instead, but clearly they are not
the core of the obese population today. The concentration camps are
a perfect example. And all the dead victims I've ever seen were skin
and bones, not an obese one among them.

Concentration camps also created mental and physical damage to their
victims with starvation. Under these conditions, people sometimes lose
muscle before they lose fat.

How about some statistics on extreme dieting and its' success rate?

Or how about gastric bypass surgery? Those folks wind up consuming
far less calories and bingo, they lose weight.

They absorb far fewer nutrients of all kinds.

The same is true of exercise and there are enough studies and the laws
of physics to back that up too.



Did you see any pictures of obese
German concentration camp victims?

That's a classic logical falacy. *They are called victims because they
are not willing. *

Of course they're not willing, but that doesn't make it a fallacy.
There were no obese concentration camp victims because they were on
extremely low calorie diets.

The "diet" that they were on was how much work can we get from them with
the least expenditure of resources. The victims weren't expected to
survive the camps.

The Taubes statement simply says
there is no link between calories consumed and obesity, which without
at least some proper context or qualification is BS..

The context, which was given, was that an obese person and a "normal"
person may eat the same number of calories with different results. You
supplied the B.S.

Thus voluntary programs can't use the data. *But check
on the obesity rates of released concentration camp victims and see what
it says about rebound gain.

Sure, as they go back to the eating habits of the typical modern diet,
you would expect them to go back to the norm.




How about the athletes that eat
5000 calories a day, including loads of carbs, and are at normal
weight?

It says that exercise reduces insulin toxic effects. *In other words to
get to normal weight it works to drop both exercise and carb count.

Again, I'm not arguing mechanism. Just that with enough hard
exercise people can obviously stay fit even on a high calorie diet,
showing there is a link.

Then it shouldn't be too difficult to give a link supporting your
statement with a case study.

Even Atkins emphasized the importance of
exercise
--
³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.²
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

Wildbilly wrote:

Logic is only as good as its' premise.

No, logic is only as good as the data that backs it up.

Linus Pauling outraged the "Abstinence" people when he said that a glass
or two of alcohol a day may let you live longer. Who am I to argue with
a two time Nobel Prize winner? More importantly, who are you?

Eventually the data wins. The initial studies that showed a drink or
two a day were more healthy used biased subject groups that put the
conclusions in doubt. More careful studies failed to show an advantage
of 1-2 drinks over 0 drinks but confirmed that problems start at 3+
drinks per day.

On 2009-12-23, Wildbilly wrote:
In article
,
" wrote:
Absolutely in the case of calories. There is not
an obese person on this planet that if actually consuming low enough
calories will not lose weight
Will they have the energy to carry on normal activities, like go to work?
Under extreme dieting, energy expenditures are reduced.

Obesity is the result of a /gross/ upside errors in the intake quantity.

Most obese are still consuming hundreds, if not thousands of calories more than
they should be, even when they /think/ they are suffering on a diet.

Maybe there is a tiny percentage, with
some genetic problem that would die instead, but clearly they are not
the core of the obese population today. The concentration camps are
a perfect example. And all the dead victims I've ever seen were skin
and bones, not an obese one among them.

Concentration camps also created mental and physical damage to their
victims with starvation. Under these conditions, people sometimes lose
muscle before they lose fat.

The photographic evidence clearly shows figures with low body fat, as well as
muscle loss.

)
How about some statistics on extreme dieting and its' success rate?

Or how about gastric bypass surgery? Those folks wind up consuming
far less calories and bingo, they lose weight.

They absorb far fewer nutrients of all kinds.

That separate problem is fixed by eating nutritionally dense food,
rather than merely lower quantities of junk food.

In article ,
Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2009-12-23, Wildbilly wrote:
In article
,
" wrote:
Absolutely in the case of calories. There is not
an obese person on this planet that if actually consuming low enough
calories will not lose weight
Will they have the energy to carry on normal activities, like go to work?
Under extreme dieting, energy expenditures are reduced.

Obesity is the result of a /gross/ upside errors in the intake quantity.

Most obese are still consuming hundreds, if not thousands of calories more
than
they should be, even when they /think/ they are suffering on a diet.

Maybe there is a tiny percentage, with
some genetic problem that would die instead, but clearly they are not
the core of the obese population today. The concentration camps are
a perfect example. And all the dead victims I've ever seen were skin
and bones, not an obese one among them.

Concentration camps also created mental and physical damage to their
victims with starvation. Under these conditions, people sometimes lose
muscle before they lose fat.

The photographic evidence clearly shows figures with low body fat, as well as
muscle loss.

)
How about some statistics on extreme dieting and its' success rate?

Or how about gastric bypass surgery? Those folks wind up consuming
far less calories and bingo, they lose weight.

They absorb far fewer nutrients of all kinds.

That separate problem is fixed by eating nutritionally dense food,
rather than merely lower quantities of junk food.

Let me put it this way, on pg. 278 of "Good Calories, Bad Calories"
there is a reference to a study by Francis Benedict. In this study of
basal metabolism, men who weighted roughly 175 lbs consumed daily
sixteen to twenty-one hundred calories. That five hundred calorie is
approximately equivalent to a quarter pounder w/ cheese from Mc Donalds.
Those 175 pounders who ate the five hundred calories more, didn't gain
weight.

The point is that our bodies handle calories differently. An obese
person may or may not over eat, when compared with the general
population. Strictly speaking, it isn't the calories, but how the
calories are processed.
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist."
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

On 2009-12-24, Wildbilly wrote:
In article ,
Kaz Kylheku wrote:

Obesity is the result of a /gross/ upside errors in the intake quantity.

Let me put it this way, on pg. 278 of "Good Calories, Bad Calories"

.... we find more of the same drivel as on pages 1 through 277.

there is a reference to a study by Francis Benedict. In this study of
basal metabolism, men who weighted roughly 175 lbs consumed daily
sixteen to twenty-one hundred calories. That five hundred calorie is
approximately equivalent to a quarter pounder w/ cheese from Mc Donalds.
Those 175 pounders who ate the five hundred calories more, didn't gain
weight.

That's right; there is a range of adaptability in the metabolism.

That's precisely why I wrote that it requires a /gross/ upside error
in intake.

Five hundred calories isn't a great spread. And note that the spread
in this study is from a low 1600 to merely 2100.

The 2100 kcal/d subjects were not eating 500 calories over what they
should be, but over the subjects who were under-eating.

1600 kcal for a 175 pound male is a fairly low intake.

The point is that our bodies handle calories differently.

The study only proves that the body can adapt to a 500 calorie intake
variance.

Of course the body has to adapt to some extent, otherwise it would be
impossible for humans and animals to maintain a stable weight, without
externally-imposed calorie counting.

It appears that within a range, the body is able to ``count calories''
by itself and regulate expenditure to match intake.

The obese far, far exceed that range, by thousands of calories,
even when they think they are on a diet.

An obese
person may or may not over eat, when compared with the general
population.

Nonsense. An obese person typically consumes several times the calories
taken in by even the fastest-burning thin people.

The cases where there is a true disorder of this sort (runaway fat
accumulation on a small caloric intake) are vanishingly rare. Every tub
wants to believe that he has a rare metabolic problem. The problem is,
it's impossible for all of them to have such a disorder, at the same
time.

You'd also expect such a disorder to strike in the same way everywhere
in the world.

In America, you have people from all kinds of ethnic backgrounds
becoming fat, even if they are first or second generation immigrants
from thin countries. Their own uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, cousins,
parents, grandparents overseas are of normal weight.

Maybe it's the U.S. customs passport stamp that causes obesity, yeah!

Strictly speaking, it isn't the calories, but how the
calories are processed.

It's calories in minus calories out, except that calories out can adjust
somewhat to compensate for small variations in calories in.