Eating less does not result in weight loss

Michael Snyder writes:

If you eat just before going to bed, you will gain
more weight than if you eat the same amount upon rising.

No, you won't. Try it for ten years, and you'll see.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Michael Snyder writes:

Ok, I'm going to stop arguing with you now ...

No, you're not. I recognize the pattern.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Michael Snyder writes:

And yet millions of people spend billions of dollars every year,
seeking help with losing weight.

Only because they don't like to hear about the only method that actually
works: eating less and exercising more.

If your advice is any good, (and indeed, even if it isn't),
a portion of those billions is available to you.

I doubt that. See above.

If your advice is BETTER than most, then you
should be able to capture a respectable chunk
of those billions, not to mention put the other
charlatans out of business.

You seem to equate money-making potential with truth. They aren't the
same thing.

It is a free market economy -- a product that works should
sell better than one that doesn't.

True, but it depends on what the buyer expects the product to do. The
purpose of fad diets is to provide excuses, not weight loss.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Michael Snyder writes:


False. Your body is not a car, it is a complex organic system.


Complex organic systems obey the same fundamental physical rules as
automobiles. Twice the work requires twice the fuel.

No. That isn't even true of cars, and cars are far simpler
than human bodies. If you start a car cold, driving two miles
will not require exactly twice the fuel that driving one mile did.
Like your car, your body's energy conversion rate is variable.



The assumption that the fuel-to-motion conversion efficiency of
your body is constant is patently ridiculous.


It is amazingly close to constant.

You make so many claims, and yet you back up none of them.

When you control and measure all the
variables, you find that the human body does indeed follow all the
rules, predictably and consistently.


Your claim is not even consistant with those of physiologists
or fitness trainers, who may tell you that you are likely to
burn off more fat calories in the second 10 miles than you did
in the first.


I've never heard that claim.

Then I'd like to introduce you to the word "aerobics".

Ummm... excreted?


Unlikely. Excretion of unabsorbed calories tends to be an extremely
obvious operation.

Well yes -- everybody does it. We do it behind closed doors, but
no one but you seems to be under the delusion that we don't do it.

Bob wrote:
Michael Snyder wrote:

SuperSpark ® wrote:

In article ,
"Michael Snyder" wrote:


Mr. F. Le Mur wrote in message ...

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 09:54:22 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

-Michael Snyder writes:
-
- And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.
-
-It is the one and only basis of all weight loss. All successful
diets
-work by creating a caloric deficit. All unsuccessful diets have in
-common that they fail to create a caloric deficit. There are no
-exceptions to this rule.

True.

-
- Over-simplifications such as these serve no one --
- least of all people who would like to lose weight.
-
-They serve those people best of all. However, they are unpleasantly
-difficult to deny for people who don't want to face the necessity of
-eating less in order to lose weight.
-
- If you eat less calories on a daily basis, the amount
- of calories you USE will very likely change.
-
-No, it will not. The number of calories you burn is based on your
-weight, sex, body composition, and the amount of exercise you
get. None
-of this suddenly changes just because you decide to eat less,
which is
-why you lose weight if you significantly reduce your intake of food.

Actually one's metabolism does change when calorie intake changes.
Lower calorie intake - lower metabolism.



I was once told, by a professional physical trainer, that I was eating
too little and that if I wanted to lose weight I would need to eat
more.
My body thought it was starving, and therefore was hanging on to
every calory it could get.





Bull**** psuedo science. Caloric deficit always results in weight
loss. Consult an anorexic for more info.



Funny how you guys all want to cite the pathological cases, instead
of looking at what normal people experience in real life.



Normal people obey the laws of thermodynamics. Energy out eventually
equals energy in.

Duh, I'm a physicist; don't lecture your granny. Your body
does not utilize every gram of fuel you take in. It may leave
your body as heat or **** -- and the ratio is variable. The
ratio of useful work to heat is also extremely variable.

Michael Snyder writes:

You make so many claims, and yet you back up none of them.

I've provided all of the supporting material that you have, i.e., none.

I recall also that you said you would no longer reply to my posts ...
and yet here you are, as I predicted.

Anyway ...

Then I'd like to introduce you to the word "aerobics".

I'm familiar with it.

Well yes -- everybody does it. We do it behind closed doors, but
no one but you seems to be under the delusion that we don't do it.

Malabsorption syndromes are rather dramatically different. When you
have a lot of fats or sugars going through the gut without being
absorbed, it produces some pretty explosive symptoms. It is not subtle,
and it is not normal.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Michael Snyder writes:

Well yes -- everybody does it. We do it behind closed doors, but
no one but you seems to be under the delusion that we don't do it.


Malabsorption syndromes are rather dramatically different. When you
have a lot of fats or sugars going through the gut without being
absorbed, it produces some pretty explosive symptoms. It is not subtle,
and it is not normal.

By definition, since YOU introduced the term "mal" into it.
Nevertheless, *normal* excreta does contain available fuel --
which is why flies eat it. Thus the recourse to thermodynamics
is not justified -- food energy in does not equal metabolic
energy expended. As I said, the system is more complex than that.

Michael Snyder writes:

Nevertheless, *normal* excreta does contain available fuel --
which is why flies eat it.

Most solid waste produced by human beings is dead bacteria from the gut,
not unabsorbed nutrients.

Thus the recourse to thermodynamics is not justified --
food energy in does not equal metabolic energy expended.

All the rules of thermodynamics hold. Any fuel excreted is not burned.
However, the amount lost in this way is very small in healthy
individuals, and when it is large, the patient knows it.

As I said, the system is more complex than that.

Complex as it is, the basic rules are simple and reliable.


--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Michael Snyder writes:

Duh, I'm a physicist; don't lecture your granny.

Then you understand conservation of energy.

Your body does not utilize every gram of fuel you
take in.

It uses about 999 out of 1000 grams. It is pretty efficient.

It may leave your body as heat or **** -- and
the ratio is variable.

If it is leaving your body as heat, that means that your body used it.
Body heat is produced by metabolism of nutrients, which is why one
speaks of "burning" calories. In fact, a 1° C change in body
temperature can increase or decrease fuel consumption by about 10%.
However, normally body temperature is held constant to within a small
fraction of a degree.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Michael Snyder wrote:
Bob wrote:

Michael Snyder wrote:

SuperSpark ® wrote:

In article ,
"Michael Snyder" wrote:


Mr. F. Le Mur wrote in message ...

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 09:54:22 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

-Michael Snyder writes:
-
- And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.
-
-It is the one and only basis of all weight loss. All successful
diets
-work by creating a caloric deficit. All unsuccessful diets have in
-common that they fail to create a caloric deficit. There are no
-exceptions to this rule.

True.

-
- Over-simplifications such as these serve no one --
- least of all people who would like to lose weight.
-
-They serve those people best of all. However, they are
unpleasantly
-difficult to deny for people who don't want to face the
necessity of
-eating less in order to lose weight.
-
- If you eat less calories on a daily basis, the amount
- of calories you USE will very likely change.
-
-No, it will not. The number of calories you burn is based on your
-weight, sex, body composition, and the amount of exercise you
get. None
-of this suddenly changes just because you decide to eat less,
which is
-why you lose weight if you significantly reduce your intake of
food.

Actually one's metabolism does change when calorie intake changes.
Lower calorie intake - lower metabolism.




I was once told, by a professional physical trainer, that I was eating
too little and that if I wanted to lose weight I would need to eat
more.
My body thought it was starving, and therefore was hanging on to
every calory it could get.






Bull**** psuedo science. Caloric deficit always results in weight
loss. Consult an anorexic for more info.




Funny how you guys all want to cite the pathological cases, instead
of looking at what normal people experience in real life.



Normal people obey the laws of thermodynamics. Energy out eventually
equals energy in.


Duh, I'm a physicist; don't lecture your granny. Your body
does not utilize every gram of fuel you take in. It may leave
your body as heat or **** -- and the ratio is variable. The
ratio of useful work to heat is also extremely variable.


Nope. You may be a physicist, but why are you claiming that bodies
violate the laws of thermodynamics, or that the standard chemical
process is "extremely variable" when it is the same process.

The energy consumed is proportional to the mass moved and the amount of
movement. It always ends up the same.

Bob