Eating less does not result in weight loss

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.
You burn more with more activity, no matter what you eat.
As you lose/gain weight, your BMR rate adjusts.

The end.

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


Mxsmanic wrote in message ...

Mr. F. Le Mur writes:


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

The change is slight and largely temporary.

No, it is not. In fact, once your body decides that it is starving,
it is rather difficult to dissuade it of the notion. It can persist
indefinitely.



Is this why concentration camp victims were so fat?

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?

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

Michael Snyder writes:

No, it is not. In fact, once your body decides that it is starving,
it is rather difficult to dissuade it of the notion. It can persist
indefinitely.

As I've said, the change is slight and temporary. People who do not eat
enough eventually starve. People who do not starve are eating enough,
or living on fat.

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

SuperSpark ® writes:

Is this why concentration camp victims were so fat?

Concentration camp victims were lard balls because they ate too many
empty calories in the form of carbs (bread rations, etc.). Some of them
also got empty calories in the form of rancid grease. This is why they
stayed enormously fat enough though they hardly ate any calories at all.
They were living proof that you can gain weight no matter how few
calories you eat. How can anyone dispute this hard evidence?

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

Mr. F. Le Mur wrote:
I wonder about that though, since I never get fat no matter how
much I eat.

The body resists changes in both directions. But, as anyone knows
who's ever watch Survivor, weight WILL change and change substantially
if the body's pushed far enough. That's just as true going up as
it is going down.

There is, in fact, a slow secular variation in weight with respect
to changes in activity level. You may not notice it, if you're
not actually logging both the weight and activity level over the
long term in detail. There's also a large seasonal component in
weight variation, that could get up as far as 5-10 pounds, peaking
(in the Northern Hemisphere) in March and ebbing in September.
There are also subtantial weekly variations, in the 5-10 pound
range, and even large daily variations (and even variations in
a matter of minutes if, for instance, comparing pre-bathroom-trip
weight vs. post-bathroom-trip weight; since the bathroom is
where and when most weight loss actually takes place).

Michael Snyder writes:

Bull****. Utterly and completely absurd.

I'm afraid that emotional outbursts do not persuade me.

For the most trivial example, your simple formula
completely ignores what KIND of calories one consumes.

That's because all dietary calories are the same.

For another, it ignores the active relationship between
how much you eat and how much you burn.

There is very little "active" about that relationship. How much you
burn depends on your BMR and your rate of activity or exercise. How
much you eat depends on what you put into your mouth. Neither is a
function of the other.

This type of mindless oversimplification is what gets
in the way of millions of people actually losing weight.

No, this type of reality check is what upsets fat people who are looking
for some way--any way--to deny their own responsibility for being fat.

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

Michael Snyder writes:

But eating less often CAUSES you to burn less calories --

No, it does not. Losing weight will reduce the number of calories you
burn, however (since there is less of you to keep nourished).

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

SuperSpark ® writes:

As you lose/gain weight, your BMR rate adjusts.

Additionally, the portion of BMR represented by vital organs remains
essentially constant, even with changes in weight. Your brain requires
the same number of calories no matter how much you weigh or what you eat
or what caloric deficit you create or how much you exercise. The same
is true of your liver, kidneys, etc., for the most part. There is no
magic way to increase or decrease these numbers.

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

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:57:24 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

SuperSpark ® writes:

Is this why concentration camp victims were so fat?

Concentration camp victims were lard balls because they ate too many
empty calories in the form of carbs (bread rations, etc.). Some of them
also got empty calories in the form of rancid grease. This is why they
stayed enormously fat enough though they hardly ate any calories at all.
They were living proof that you can gain weight no matter how few
calories you eat. How can anyone dispute this hard evidence?


What "hard evidence" are you talking about? All I see are your
unsupported claims.