Eating less does not result in weight loss

Bob wrote in message ...
Courageous wrote:
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.


Oh, this is totally true. This is because during the first 10
miles, you are burning glucose and glycogen. But this is neither
here nor there.

C//


Your body has to make up the energy eventually, either by eating more
later or using up reserves. The laws of thermodynamics always hold.

They certainly do -- they just don't imply the conclusions being held forth
here. The person who walks 10 miles one day and 20 miles the next
will NOT burn exactly 2x the amount of fuel -- but of course the amt.
of energy that enters his body will, in the long run, equal the amount
that comes out. The two statements are basically unrelated.

SuperSpark (R) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Michael Snyder wrote:

lynne whitley wrote:
Eating less does not result in weight loss?
Okay, I think I'll call up a few of the starving,
skeletal children in North Korea and tell them the great news. I'm sure
they will be overjoyed.

Good. While you're at it, call a few of the overweight people
who have tried eating less any number of times, and are still
overweight.


Diets do not fail if followed correctly.

A ridiculous and unsupportable premise.

SuperSpark ® wrote in message ...
In article ,
Michael Snyder wrote:

SuperSpark ® wrote:
In article ,
"Michael Snyder" wrote:


Mxsmanic wrote in message ...

Mr. F. Le Mur writes:


True, but I think the idea is if you don't eat anough fat, then
you still have cravings (for fat) and eat more calories-worth
of stuff with less fat.

It's funny how people elsewhere in the world manage to remain thin
without having to worry about how much fat or carbs they are eating,
isn't it?

Yes it is. As it is also funny that a high-carb/low fat/low protein diet
works for SOME people, while a high-protein/low carb diet works for
SOME people, while eating only pineapple and tree frogs works for
SOME people... yet there is not a single diet or practice that works
for ALL people, including eating less and exercising more.


Eating less and excercising more works 100% of the time, for all people,
if applied correctly. Simple, basic human physiology.

So you say. And yet, the evidence says otherwise. The lesson being,
I think: "if you want weight-loss advice, do not ask a mathematician".



Please provide proof that anyone, living or dead, American or otherwise,
followed a calorie restrictive diet and did not lose weight.

Well, you won't regard it as "proof", but I am such a person.
At the age of 44 I reduced my dietary intake by more than half,
began going to the gym 3 times a week (following a program
outlined for me by a professional fitness trainer), and followed
this regimen for more than 6 months. During the first 6 weeks
I lost 10 pounds, and after that nothing. For the subsequent
4.5 months my weight did not budge, even though I had plenty
of spare body fat to lose.

SuperSpark ® wrote in message ...
In article ,
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.



Irrelevant.
Less caloric intake equals weight loss.

So you keep saying, without offering anything to back it up.
It's a foolishly simplistic statement which only someone with
no empirical knowledge of the subject could believe.

Ralph DuBose wrote in message ...
Michael Snyder wrote in message ...
Ralph DuBose wrote:
"Michael Snyder" wrote in message ...

Mxsmanic wrote in message ...

Mr. F. Le Mur writes:


True, but I think the idea is if you don't eat anough fat, then
you still have cravings (for fat) and eat more calories-worth
of stuff with less fat.

It's funny how people elsewhere in the world manage to remain thin
without having to worry about how much fat or carbs they are eating,
isn't it?

Yes it is. As it is also funny that a high-carb/low fat/low protein diet
works for SOME people, while a high-protein/low carb diet works for
SOME people, while eating only pineapple and tree frogs works for
SOME people... yet there is not a single diet or practice that works
for ALL people, including eating less and exercising more.


If you walk 10 miles, what does your body use for the calories
needed to do the work? Is energy pulled into you from another Astral
plane? Seriously.

Energy derived from the food you eat, and the air you breathe.


Oxygen is needed for aerobic metabolic processes but it is not
"energy" per se. My point is not nit picking because you do not seem
to understand anything about this subject.

It is not nit-picking -- it is a red herring. Show me where I claimed
that oxygen is energy per se. I said you cannot derive metabolic
energy from food without oxygen. The rest of your statement is
content-free and reveals information about you, not me.

"Michael Snyder" wrote in message
...
Well, you won't regard it as "proof", but I am such a person.
At the age of 44 I reduced my dietary intake by more than half,
began going to the gym 3 times a week (following a program
outlined for me by a professional fitness trainer), and followed
this regimen for more than 6 months. During the first 6 weeks
I lost 10 pounds, and after that nothing. For the subsequent
4.5 months my weight did not budge, even though I had plenty
of spare body fat to lose.

What happened after that 4.5 months? Did you start losing weight again
then? I've heard of people getting stuck and not losing for long periods
of time, but it must have still improved your fitness level so it was
still worthwhile.

Michael Snyder writes:

And why do they like Atkins, Scarsdale, Grapefruit, and Richard
Simmons better?

Because they can fantasize that they are not eating any less on these
diets. When the diets work, it's because they cause dieters to eat
less; when they don't work, it's because they fail to cause dieters to
eat less. Whether or not these diets persuade a dieter to eat less
depends a lot on the dieter's personality. Whether or not the dieter
loses weight depends on how much he _really_ eats, irrespective of the
diet.

Why do they follow programs that require equal
or greater effort and sacrifice, if yours works for all?

Because it is still psychologically more comforting to think that
they've somehow been misled into eating the "wrong" foods than it is to
acknowledge that they simply stuff themselves with too much food,
period.

How is it that the multi-billion-dollar weight loss industry
is able to convince people that the simple plan that everyone
knows about doesn't work for everyone?

They don't need to be convinced. That's what they believe already, and
the fad diet industry simply panders to their belief. You can always
make money by telling people what they want to hear.

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

Michael Snyder writes:

Well, you won't regard it as "proof", but I am such a person.

You're right. Try again.

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

Michael Snyder writes:

Diets do not fail if followed correctly.

A ridiculous and unsupportable premise.

Not if the diet is hypocaloric. All hypocaloric diets produce weight
loss.

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

Courageous writes:

Intense weight lifting actually causes *more* fat loss over time,
because of the increased metabolic load required by both the
addition of new muscle tissue, as well as its maintenance.

It also dramatically increases the risk of serious incidents resulting
from acute, severe hypertensive episodes.

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