If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
On 5 Feb 2007 11:50:10 -0800, "Caleb" wrote:
On Feb 5, 11:46 am, Chris Braun wrote: On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:30:37 -0500, "Jeri" wrote: emember Jenny with the eating disorder who posted here for awhile? So many people tried so hard to get her to realize that eating healthy at this point in her life was more important than starving herself to reach 95 lbs. Well she's over there now. Caleb has just finished congratulating her on her 703 calorie day and has assured her that with that kind of calorie deficit she's sure to lose the weight she wants. Gee, that's a shame. I don't read that group, but I'm awfully sorry to hear that Jenny is getting encouragement in her eating disorder. She really needs professional help. Chris 262/130s/130s started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004 Chris -- Why don't you read what I wrote to her on the other list, as soon as I found out what her goals were. Yours, Caleb If you wrote something advising her against this drastic diet approach -- and preferably against focusing on weight loss at all -- I'm glad of that. I don't read that list, however. Chris 262/130s/130s started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004 |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
"Caleb" wrote:
So, Doug, you too misinterpret my motivations? Jeez! "This was the most unkindest cut of all!" It's my reaction to your pattern of actions not to your words. There is a disconnect between what you do and what you write. But I was responding specifically to what Doug wrote: "So yes, he does in fact plan to gain the weight back again." The first year you tried a fad diet, that made sense. Try something, read the advice of the folks who have been around a long time, disagree with them, do not heed their advice. Come back the next year. The second year, it made some amount of sense in the form of trying again to be certain. But each and every year there's been a failure to learn the source of the issue. Lots of people struggle with maintenance who still do better than you do. The ones who try milder reduction with slower loss tend to last longer and struggle less. The ones who try to stay on their plan all year, even those who don't suceed, last longer and struggle less. In money it's easy-come, easy-go. In diet it's fast-off, fast-back- on. There hasn't been a dieter in history who likes the fact, but folks who keep trying eventually learn that slower loss really does last longer. In dieting it isn't how much work it is to lose but how much work to keep it off that matters the most. Again there hasn't been a dieter in history who likes the fact. But again, the more someone yoyos, the more they need to learn from the folks who have managed, even a little, to not yoyo. So each and every year you come back there is less expectation that you are a newbie diving into the wrong answer because it's the obvious thing to try and more expectation that you are doing it knowing what will happen. Actions speak louder than words and your actions say you know what will happen. The biggest open secret in all of dieting is this - The ones with the best success are the ones who don't quit. and that means the ones who have found a way to sustain. Extreme approaches aren't sustainable. So newbies who try extreme approaches have no idea that it will be a problem. Repeaters, actions speak louder than words. The hundredth day is really the beginning not the end. It is not the goal it is the door at the end of the entryway corridor. Hit that door strolling easynot at a dead run ready to collapse. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
It seems to me I heard somewhere that GaryG wrote in article
: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message ups.com... convicted neighbor GaryG wrote: The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost significant amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or longer. According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be highly active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825 kcal/wk) through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per day in physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort. The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help with the "overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to getting fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what one ingests (at least, it does for many of us).. Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more comfortably and with less injury. Indeed, that has been my own personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose tissue (VAT), That's especially good because in 2004, at the age of 39, Dr. Chung ran a half-marathon (13.1 miles) in 3 hours 27 minutes; he improved to 2:49 in 2005 and I found no record for him in the same race in 2006 (for comparison, I'm a typical mid-pack runner, but in 1989 at the age of 60 I ran a 1:45 half-marathon and a 1:50 the year before that). http://www.silvercomet10k.com/ Hey, that's pretty cool...I'm sure many athletes would be interested in that "training strategy". So, you're saying that you're capable of running an ultramarathon, due only to your lowered body fat levels? Have you ever actually completed an ultramarathon to confirm your assertion? If so, please provide us with a link to the results web page g. To have run an ultra (whether 50 miles or 100, typical distances for ultras), he would have to have been absent from the newsgroups for twenty-four hours or more. Did that ever happen? A Google search for Andrew Chung in ultramarathon results came up empty. Since ultra running is such a small, tight-knit community I think the sudden appearance of an unknown would have been remarked on by somebody along the way. [. . .] Actually, my discussions with Don Kirkman about personally being physically active remain in the Google archives to prove that you remain untruthful. Actually archiving your opinions adds nothing to their veracity. Garbage into Google, garbage out. The same goes for your constant self-referential "proofs" on your Web pages. You may have made some silly and unproven claims as to your physical prowess, but the vast majority of your advice to others is to lose weight only by focusing on becoming hungry...you never mention the health and/or weight loss benefits of physical activity. If your intent has been to deceive, you have now provided evidence for you to be judged a liar. If your intent has been to insult me, you have failed yet again. Clearly you remain convicted by the Holy Spirit: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convects Oh, oh, no! the macro's broken (or maybe it's just a climate change) -- Don Kirkman |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
On Feb 5, 12:01 pm, "LFM" wrote:
"Caleb" wrote in message ups.com... On Feb 4, 6:43 pm, "LFM" wrote: "Patricia Heil" wrote in message news Who was it said that the definition of stupidity is doing something, getting a bad result, and doing the same thing expecting it to come out differently? Sound like anybody we know? That would be the definition of Insanity. And yes, that same definition has been posted to Caleb every year he tries this. As a clinical psychologist, you'd think he'd know the definition of insanity. LFM -- I know what has worked for me in the past and it will work for me again in the future. Caleb Correction Caleb, you know what has FAILED for you in the past, and you will continue to do it again and again, because you are clincally insane. I'm sorry, LFM -- perhaps you missed my posting about how exactly you decided I was a troll and that my messages were off-topic for ASD. If you get a chance to dig out that information, I'd be interested in what you have to say about it. And contrary to what you say, my methods have proven to be very successful for me in my preivous attempts to lose weight. (How have your attempts gone? I hope very well.) And as for your "over the internet diagnosis" -- himmm.... I would not presume to diagnose people over the internet. Yours, Caleb |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
On Feb 5, 12:05 pm, "Nunya B." wrote:
"Caleb" wrote in message ups.com... On Feb 5, 11:28 am, "Nunya B." wrote: "Caleb" wrote in message groups.com... On Feb 5, 10:24 am, "Doug Freyburger" wrote: "teachrmama" wrote: You really don't get it, do you? Caleb's not stumbling. He *deliberately* loses and regains weight. Wake the hell up and pay attention to what people are telling you. You honestly think he *deliberately* regains weight? What makes you say that? For several years in a row he has planned in advance for his diet to last 100 days and then quit. Simple cause and effect says if we go back to eating the way that got us fat in the first place then we gain it all back again. So yes, he does in fact plan to gain the weight back again. it's why folks have issues with Caleb - He resists advice to try to convert his methods to sustainable. So Caleb, What is your maintenance plan this time? You have learned again and again that planning to quit equals planning to gain it all back. You have learned again and again that reducing your caloric intake below some point leads to your body requiring a refeed to the point you can no longer resist the urge. Are you this time following a milder loss plan that is slower to not trigger this refeed mandate? Do you have a maintenance phase planned out in advance? If not, why are you trying a fad diet again and again? If you gain it back of what use was the losing? So, Doug, you too misinterpret my motivations? Jeez! "This was the most unkindest cut of all!" Just kidding -- I don't remember your posts from before but perhaps we interacted. You can see what I told Teachrmama about trying to maintain weight loss in the future. (See my reaction above to "The Queen" for more about whether I intentionally "rall off the wagon.") So if something unfortunate happens to people repeatedly, they intend for it to happen? Like asthma attacks? Seizures? Should we blame all the victims and tell them they deserve whatever maladies they have? Not very humane to do so. Caleb But you're not a victim of anything except for poor planning and execution here. If you don't get over the victim mentality, you can't succeed and really, you ought to know that. Overeating on a regular basis is not the same as an asthma attack. If you suffer from binge eating disorder then there are methods of treatment (mostly cognitive) that can provide some success. What you do to yourself year after year may be some type of eating disorder (some bizzare form of binge/purge maybe), but it's certainly not equivalent to a disease like asthma or seizures. -- the volleyballchick I don't have a victrim mentality. I know basic arithmetic and I know that I have eaten more food than I should and that's why I put on weight. It's not rocket science. But I was responding specifically to what Doug wrote: "So yes, he does in fact plan to gain the weight back again." Well you're taking it out of context to make it look like you're being victimized by anyone who doesn't agree with you. In context the claim that you're planning to gain the weight is the fact that you limit your eating less and moving more to 100 days rather than making it a complete lifestyle change. And actually, overeating can lead to additional asthma attacks in some people, certainly sleep apnea, congestive heart failoure, other pulmonary difficulties, cancer, diabetes, strokes, etc, etc., etc. And so if people regain their weight (perhaps by frequenting McDonald's on a meal by meal basis) and develop hypertension again, should we assume that they do "in fact plan to gain the weight back again"? I don't think so. Yes, if they're ordering big macs and quarter pounders with cheese instead of the salads and are doing nothing else to compensate for the extra calories then yes, they're planning to regain. It's one thing to enjoy eating whatever you wish after losing weight and it's another to not understand that you always need to compensate whether it's by cutting back for a few days or exercising more, or both. But we can certainly accuse them of doing so, as too many people have done over the years. Or better yet, in your opinion we can consider them helpless vicitims of society. People who have lost weight know what it takes to take it off. Keeping it off isn't easy but it is simple and doable if you want it bad enough to learn that it's actually work. It's perfectly ok to fail, but to keep doing the same thing over and over as if magicallly it will work eventually doesn't make you a victim. In combination with my eating disorder (under control for now), I also have a propensity for gaining weight very very easily. I could kick back and complain about the fact that for me an hour a day of exercise and 1600 calories will never make me a size six so therefore I shouldn't bother trying, or I can continue to do what I'm doing to keep myself from being over 300 lbs again. If I splurge on good food like I do when on vacation, I know that I have to compensate by spending many hours walking. However, you don't seem to want a reasoned discussion and I do happen to agree with Jeri that you're an attention seeker. You will snip or restate what I wrote to make it look like I'm also victimizing you as you have others who have tried to respond to you with reason. While not the psychotic freakazoid that is Mu/Chung or the stalker boy like other trolls in this group, your responses to what people write are made to paint yourself as some kind of put upon soul while really saying nothing of worth (though with plenty of words). This is similar in the manner of other trolls so I'm choosing not to waste my limited time on your circular "reasoning." I do wish you the best though I also wish you would follow through with taking your discussions to your other group. -- the volleyballchick Volleyballchick -- Probably best to ignore me if you feel I'm wasting your time. I don't think my reasoning is circular but others might. And I don't think that we should ask label people as willingly wanting to be unhealthy ... if they're ordering big macs and quarter pounders with cheese instead of the salads and are doing nothing else to compensate for the extra calories then yes, they're planning to regain. It's one thing to enjoy eating whatever you wish after losing weight and it's another to not understand that you always need to compensate whether it's by cutting back for a few days or exercising more, or both. A lot of people live in toxic envrironments, don't know how to escape or how easy it is to escape, etc., etc. The question is not who is to blame but how to fix the situation. In terms of overweight, "Fastfood Nation" is still one of the best books around. In a competition between Nike and fast foods, it's not even close. Fast foods win hands down. Anyway, I wish you the best! Yours, Caleb |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
On Feb 5, 1:26 pm, "Doug Freyburger" wrote:
"Caleb" wrote: So, Doug, you too misinterpret my motivations? Jeez! "This was the most unkindest cut of all!" It's my reaction to your pattern of actions not to your words. There is a disconnect between what you do and what you write. But I was responding specifically to what Doug wrote: "So yes, he does in fact plan to gain the weight back again." The first year you tried a fad diet, that made sense. Try something, read the advice of the folks who have been around a long time, disagree with them, do not heed their advice. Come back the next year. The second year, it made some amount of sense in the form of trying again to be certain. But each and every year there's been a failure to learn the source of the issue. Lots of people struggle with maintenance who still do better than you do. The ones who try milder reduction with slower loss tend to last longer and struggle less. The ones who try to stay on their plan all year, even those who don't suceed, last longer and struggle less. In money it's easy-come, easy-go. In diet it's fast-off, fast-back- on. There hasn't been a dieter in history who likes the fact, but folks who keep trying eventually learn that slower loss really does last longer. In dieting it isn't how much work it is to lose but how much work to keep it off that matters the most. Again there hasn't been a dieter in history who likes the fact. But again, the more someone yoyos, the more they need to learn from the folks who have managed, even a little, to not yoyo. So each and every year you come back there is less expectation that you are a newbie diving into the wrong answer because it's the obvious thing to try and more expectation that you are doing it knowing what will happen. Actions speak louder than words and your actions say you know what will happen. The biggest open secret in all of dieting is this - The ones with the best success are the ones who don't quit. and that means the ones who have found a way to sustain. Extreme approaches aren't sustainable. So newbies who try extreme approaches have no idea that it will be a problem. Repeaters, actions speak louder than words. The hundredth day is really the beginning not the end. It is not the goal it is the door at the end of the entryway corridor. Hit that door strolling easynot at a dead run ready to collapse. Doug -- I thnk that deadlines have positive and negative aspects to them. The positive aspects include: 1. Short term motivational focus. (versus the "tomorrow I'll get in shape" approach to things) 2. An ability to get people to do what is healthy in the long run by focusing on a goal. (Such as marathon clinics that prepare people once a year for a given marathon.) 3. The chance to refine techniques and make them more effective. 4. The chance for people facing similar dilemmas to learn from the approaches that others take. etc. Negative aspects: 1. There sure is no guarrantee that the person will practice the behaviors after the deadline is reached, the goal attained. (so maybe one needs a longer-term goal, or other methods) But frankly, I really haven't obsessed about eating at various times of the year -- I intend to focus more on it when I reach my goal. I don't even obsess about it now. I doubt if I have anywhere close to the hunger that a variety of dieters have. Perhaps this is just constitution, or the fact I don't have to prepare food for others, etc. I don't know. I think a large part of it is the restriction of variety of foods and my awareness that I have to restrict calories and so various foods are beyond the pale, off the reservation, are verboten, tabu, etc., etc. Different strokes for different folks! And, as Rosie used to say, "Your mileage may vary!" Caleb |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "determined" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "LFM" wrote in message . .. "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "The Queen of Cans and Jars" wrote in message . .. teachrmama wrote: I'm just not clear on why you think that gives you the right to tell me I shouldn't talk to him either. Talk to him all you want - in the group that he set up for talking about it. Is it really all that hard to understand? Actually, yes it is. Why shouldn't we be free to talk here? There are certainly some extremely obnoxious threads here right now that haven't been jumped on the way this rather innocuous thread has been. Caleb posts are considered trolling and off topid to ASD. Therefore if you want to continue with an off topic dialog with a troll, then do not be surprised with others chose to classify you in the same category as they do him, and kill file you, ignore you and lose respect in you. Your credibility is at risk by continuing your dialog with him in this forum. Why are you so upset about something so minor? You are making yourself look like a control freak. Just ignore the threads you do not want to participate in. That's what I do. I guess we're just a bunch of control freaks then. Have fun with Caleb. "We"? "A bunch"? How many people are you including in this? I just think you are overreacting. Especially since there are a few threads right now that are far worse than this one. Don't you know anything about Web courtesy? Posting to an unrelated newsgroup is rude. Take your discussion to the group Caleb set up |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
Mu wrote:
To repeat, weight-loss is not rocket science but it still is not easy. Too bad we can't be like a horse in blinders that continually plows a road in a field, undistracted by harmful or inconsequential things. Yours, Caleb Caleb, Mu here. Counting calories is such an inexact computation as to be practically worthless. Would you care for Mu to explain? Bull****, don't bother. Cals in, cals out, thermodynamics OK, real usefulness = ZERO. Bull****. Reg exercise is of no real ongoing value for overconsumption control, so few can or elect to do so. Scratch that. Bull****. No wonder you are Chung's "neighbor". -- "To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
GaryG wrote:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message ups.com... convicted neighbor GaryG wrote: friend Mu wrote: neighbor Caleb wrote: If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions about losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to see them there! Yours, Caleb Why don't you tell us how much you lost on the last 100 day diet, and how much you regained from day 101 onwards? janice So it is him! Yup! It sure is me. I'll be posting on alt.support.diet.low-calorie my progress. I guess one of my points is that it simply is not that difficult or complicated to take the weight off. There is no need for people suffer emotional turmoil, self-doubt, etc. If they follow a sensible dietary approach over time, they WILL lose weight. Nothing rocket science about it. However, following a sensible approach over time is not easy. I've done it before (quite simply) and I'll do it again this time -- hope it's the last time -- but regardless, it's just not that tough to do. I sure am a hell of a lot healthier than when I first started this approach in '99. I am alive, am far more physically fit, etc., etc. Couple of points for people to remember: There's a lot of bad advice out there competing for their attention. It all does break down to calories in versus calories used up. Weighing regularly is probably essential for most people. (I have a simple balance beam system that I have found very helpful since '99 that you can read about if you search "indicator" "caleb" "balance beam" on Google.) Recording calories -- or at least insuring that what you eat adheres to your dietary goals -- is important. Regular exercise is important, although the recent research from Pennington (Ravussin et al) shows that exercise is not a panacea and that some of the vaunted effects of exercise (e.g., muscle speeding up metabolism) are not supported by current data. Most important is just to keep at it -- put your nose down and just keep plugging along. For every one who unreasonably assails you, you might imagine their face at a trough, wonder exactly what their weight loss history is (is there a weight-loss wing of the Mayo Clinic in their name?), etc. As Rosie used to say, "Your mileage may vary!" And certainly it is true that there are different strokes for different folks. To repeat, weight-loss is not rocket science but it still is not easy. Too bad we can't be like a horse in blinders that continually plows a road in a field, undistracted by harmful or inconsequential things. Yours, Caleb Caleb, Mu here. Counting calories is such an inexact computation as to be practically worthless. Would you care for Mu to explain? Cals in, cals out, thermodynamics OK, real usefulness = ZERO. Reg exercise is of no real ongoing value for overconsumption control, so few can or elect to do so. Scratch that. Rubbish...plenty of successful weight loss has been achieved with the assistance of exercise. The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost significant amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or longer. According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be highly active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825 kcal/wk) through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per day in physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort. The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help with the "overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to getting fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what one ingests (at least, it does for many of us).. Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more comfortably and with less injury. Indeed, that has been my own personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose tissue (VAT), Hey, that's pretty cool...I'm sure many athletes would be interested in that "training strategy". So, you're saying that you're capable of running an ultramarathon, due only to your lowered body fat levels? Have you ever actually completed an ultramarathon to confirm your assertion? If so, please provide us with a link to the results web page g. which can not be completely lost by exercise but only by eating less down to the optimal amount which does result in becoming hungrier that one has ever been in one's life. Again, this obsession with hunger...the more you speak of your experience with the 2 Pound Diet (2PD), the more it sounds like an eating disorder. And, of course, there are many, many other benefits to being physically active besides just the calories burned - increased cardiovascular fitness (strangely, whacko Chung never mentions this...perhaps he's too tired to exercise due to his eating disorder), increased mental function, decreased depression, etc., etc. Actually, my discussions with Don Kirkman about personally being physically active remain in the Google archives to prove that you remain untruthful. You may have made some silly and unproven claims as to your physical prowess, but the vast majority of your advice to others is to lose weight only by focusing on becoming hungry...you never mention the health and/or weight loss benefits of physical activity. If your intent has been to deceive, you have now provided evidence for you to be judged a liar. If your intent has been to insult me, you have failed yet again. Where does this supposed "medical doctor" get this nonsense? Does Chung just make it up as he goes along? -- "To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
The Rev Dr Hugh Jarse NLAHN wrote:
And, of course, there are many, many other benefits to being physically active besides just the calories burned - increased cardiovascular fitness (strangely, whacko Chung never mentions this...perhaps he's too tired to exercise due to his eating disorder), increased mental function, decreased depression, etc., etc. Actually, my discussions with Don Kirkman about personally being physically active remain in the Google archives to prove that you remain untruthful. You may have made some silly and unproven claims as to your physical prowess, but the vast majority of your advice to others is to lose weight only by focusing on becoming hungry...you never mention the health and/or weight loss benefits of physical activity. If your intent has been to deceive, you have now provided evidence for you to be judged a liar. If your intent has been to insult me, you have failed yet again. Earthquack's intended insults are compliments. The ultimate accolade is "Demon" Yes, as the official "netcabal.com demon" and "sockpuppet of satan" who is "loitering on usenet", I can confirm this statement. -- "To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My favorite calorie counter / weight loss program | sandra | General Discussion | 2 | May 2nd, 2006 11:36 PM |
My favortie calorie counter / weight loss program | sandra | Weightwatchers | 0 | May 2nd, 2006 07:50 PM |
Zero Calorie Diet Sodas: Good Or Bad For Weight Loss? | ianmason | General Discussion | 1 | June 15th, 2005 08:50 AM |
Weight loss is more than calorie-counting | reenum | General Discussion | 2 | January 29th, 2005 07:39 PM |
Weight Loss Diets with Negative Calorie Foods | pcm19 | General Discussion | 1 | October 8th, 2004 10:59 PM |