Eating less does not result in weight loss

RLW writes:

There are other articles which show that type of calories consumed can
affect fat loss, if one cares to look.

There are articles that appear to show all kinds of things. The ones
having to do with diet are notoriously unreliable, because imposing the
strict controls necessary to obtain truly reliable results often is
impractical or even unethical.

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

Crafting Mom writes:

Fat does, true, if you guzzle it. However, have you actually *tried*
to eat plain fat ?

A few days ago I tried to eat some straight virgin olive oil, and it was
quite a chore! I managed three tablespoons before I felt queasy, and I
like the taste of olive oil, too. Of course, that was still equivalent
to a sandwich.

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

Bob Ward writes:

Do you actually know anything about dieting other than the stuff you
readf in the checkout stand at the market?

Everything I know about dieting comes from sources outside the checkout
line.

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

Bob Ward writes:

But Mr. Snyder is not talking of being in a coma, on a precisely
controlled feeding regimin - he is talking about lying in bed
consuming food all day.

He is suggesting notions that are incorrect. There is a slight increase
in metabolism while eating, because energy must be expended to digest
food and absorb nutrients, but it is trivial--not nearly as significant
as he would seem to wish to have others believe.

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

Bob Ward writes:

I certainly haven't seen you provide any FACTS to support your
wild-eyed theories.

I expect intelligent people to do their own research, by consulting
reliable sources. They should never believe what they read here without
independent verification.

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

"Mxsmanic" :

RLW writes:

There are other articles which show that type of calories consumed can
affect fat loss, if one cares to look.

There are articles that appear to show all kinds of things. The ones
having to do with diet are notoriously unreliable, because imposing the
strict controls necessary to obtain truly reliable results often is
impractical or even unethical.

If you discount any research you don't agree with because it may be
'unreliable', how can you possibly come to any logical conclusion about
anything related to diet? And what's the point of debating the subject?

Rowena

On 10/7/2003 5:54 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
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?

I'm not sure that this blanket statement is true...

Obese Americans - 33%
Overweight/Obese Australians - 56%
Obese British Men - 20%
Overweight British Men - 50%

Total number of overweight adults: (20 through 74 years old)
approximately one-third or 58 million Americans.2 (numbers derived from
NHANES III, 1988-91, which defines overweight as a BMI value of 27.3
percent or more for women and 27.8 percent or more for men) --
http://www.healthgoods.com/Education...sity_facts.htm

1995 National Nutrition Survey showing that 56% of adult Australians are
either overweight or obese --
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/...baur/baur.html

Obesity in British men is fast approaching U.S. levels, raising their
risk of cancer, scientists said Wednesday. About 20 percent of men in
Britain are obese and a further 50 percent are overweight, according to
research compiled by the charity Cancer Research UK. --
http://www.ivillage.com/diet/news/di...a=adid=6349328

RLW writes:

If you discount any research you don't agree with because it may be
'unreliable', how can you possibly come to any logical conclusion about
anything related to diet?

If you discount the laws of thermodynamics because they require you to
eat less, how do you expect to ever lose weight?

And what's the point of debating the subject?

Some people are interested in unbiased information.

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

On 10/7/2003 11:56 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
Ralph DuBose writes:


I was referring to the type of difference that is actually
genetically determined to a large degree and that effects energy
consumption.


There is no such difference. If obesity were genetically determind,
then Europeans would be just as fat as Americans, since they have the
same genes. But Europeans are much thinner, so clearly the obesity of
Americans is not genetic.

On what is this assertation based?

On 10/7/2003 11:01 PM, Michael Snyder wrote:
SuperSpark ® wrote in message ...

In article ,
"Michael Snyder" wrote:


Mxsmanic wrote in message ...

Bob Ward writes:


Eating less doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE weight loss.

It does if it results in consuming fewer calories than you burn.
Otherwise it does not.

But eating less often CAUSES you to burn less calories --
so the simple equation is obviously invalid.


You don't burn less than your BMR, no matter what you eat.


Absurd. There is no such thing as a BMR.
If I lie in bed all day and eat, I will consume more calories
than I will if I lie in bed all day and fast.

I thought that BMR was defined as the number of calories burned to fuel
essential bodily processes and keep organs and tissues in working order.

I'm not sure what calorie consumption has to do with that.