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

"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.

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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