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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin W. Smith" wrote
But the statement made was about what LCers "claim". It makes no sense (or very little) to say that eating anything can boost "energy expediture," but the claim that is typically made by newbie LCers is that they have more energy, so I addressed the comment in that sense. Don't treat statements made by lay people as precise -- and who knows who got the wording fouled up -- it could be the researcher since the other comment made about losing weight due to boredom is nonsense too. It is important to correct such false claims, because people who don't know the truth will read them and assume they are written correctly. The claim made in the article is very different from what LCers actually claim. There's a language/ jargon disjunct in this conversation that is driving me nuts. The original article referred to "energy" in the usual metabolic sense, as typically seen in the scientific literature, in which "energy" is synonymous with "calories" . It's pretty clear from the context that is what was meant. I think they were referring to the claims for "metabolic advantage" associated with a low-calorie diet in which the LC dieter can eat unlimited and still show weight loss or greater weight loss.than someone on a higher-carb diet at the same calorie ("energy") level. That's been debated on this ng over and over. There are some studies that do indeed show better weight/fat loss on lc diets, compared to dieters eating the same number of calories but a higher proportion of carbs and less fat. What most people here seem to mean when they refer to "energy" is the feeling of being able to do more work, partly a physical and partly a psychological phenomenon. It's a "non-scientific", subjective and kind of nebulous thing. But we all know it when we feel it. Many people, including myself, do have the feeling of much more of this subjective "energy" when they become established on a lc diet, although capacity for exercise, especially anaerobic and high intensity exercise may be somewhat impaired. The extent to which training on lc helps with higher-intensity aerobic exercise has also been debated and probably varies from person to person. This discussion would have made a lot more sense if people had first established definitions of key terms. As is, you've been kind of arguing past one another. HG |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin W. Smith" wrote
But the statement made was about what LCers "claim". It makes no sense (or very little) to say that eating anything can boost "energy expediture," but the claim that is typically made by newbie LCers is that they have more energy, so I addressed the comment in that sense. Don't treat statements made by lay people as precise -- and who knows who got the wording fouled up -- it could be the researcher since the other comment made about losing weight due to boredom is nonsense too. It is important to correct such false claims, because people who don't know the truth will read them and assume they are written correctly. The claim made in the article is very different from what LCers actually claim. There's a language/ jargon disjunct in this conversation that is driving me nuts. The original article referred to "energy" in the usual metabolic sense, as typically seen in the scientific literature, in which "energy" is synonymous with "calories" . It's pretty clear from the context that is what was meant. I think they were referring to the claims for "metabolic advantage" associated with a low-calorie diet in which the LC dieter can eat unlimited and still show weight loss or greater weight loss.than someone on a higher-carb diet at the same calorie ("energy") level. That's been debated on this ng over and over. There are some studies that do indeed show better weight/fat loss on lc diets, compared to dieters eating the same number of calories but a higher proportion of carbs and less fat. What most people here seem to mean when they refer to "energy" is the feeling of being able to do more work, partly a physical and partly a psychological phenomenon. It's a "non-scientific", subjective and kind of nebulous thing. But we all know it when we feel it. Many people, including myself, do have the feeling of much more of this subjective "energy" when they become established on a lc diet, although capacity for exercise, especially anaerobic and high intensity exercise may be somewhat impaired. The extent to which training on lc helps with higher-intensity aerobic exercise has also been debated and probably varies from person to person. This discussion would have made a lot more sense if people had first established definitions of key terms. As is, you've been kind of arguing past one another. HG |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin W. Smith" wrote
But the statement made was about what LCers "claim". It makes no sense (or very little) to say that eating anything can boost "energy expediture," but the claim that is typically made by newbie LCers is that they have more energy, so I addressed the comment in that sense. Don't treat statements made by lay people as precise -- and who knows who got the wording fouled up -- it could be the researcher since the other comment made about losing weight due to boredom is nonsense too. It is important to correct such false claims, because people who don't know the truth will read them and assume they are written correctly. The claim made in the article is very different from what LCers actually claim. There's a language/ jargon disjunct in this conversation that is driving me nuts. The original article referred to "energy" in the usual metabolic sense, as typically seen in the scientific literature, in which "energy" is synonymous with "calories" . It's pretty clear from the context that is what was meant. I think they were referring to the claims for "metabolic advantage" associated with a low-calorie diet in which the LC dieter can eat unlimited and still show weight loss or greater weight loss.than someone on a higher-carb diet at the same calorie ("energy") level. That's been debated on this ng over and over. There are some studies that do indeed show better weight/fat loss on lc diets, compared to dieters eating the same number of calories but a higher proportion of carbs and less fat. What most people here seem to mean when they refer to "energy" is the feeling of being able to do more work, partly a physical and partly a psychological phenomenon. It's a "non-scientific", subjective and kind of nebulous thing. But we all know it when we feel it. Many people, including myself, do have the feeling of much more of this subjective "energy" when they become established on a lc diet, although capacity for exercise, especially anaerobic and high intensity exercise may be somewhat impaired. The extent to which training on lc helps with higher-intensity aerobic exercise has also been debated and probably varies from person to person. This discussion would have made a lot more sense if people had first established definitions of key terms. As is, you've been kind of arguing past one another. HG |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Martin W. Smith wrote in message
Feeling you had less energy and feeling you have more energy say nothing about whether eating less sugar and more fat boosts energy expenditure. Your statement and the alleged claim are not at all the same. Let's not forget that there is more than one type of energy. Work is one type of energy and most of us agree that while on LC diets, at least at first, we are not as inclined to do as much endurance exercise (but weight training is not a problem). Thus we expend less energy doing work if we did endurance training before. But we can also expend energy through heat. If you recall Magellan's crew noticed Indians at frozen Tierra del Fuego who were nude and yet were not bothered by the cold. And they were surely eating a low-carb diet by force. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Martin W. Smith wrote in message
Feeling you had less energy and feeling you have more energy say nothing about whether eating less sugar and more fat boosts energy expenditure. Your statement and the alleged claim are not at all the same. Let's not forget that there is more than one type of energy. Work is one type of energy and most of us agree that while on LC diets, at least at first, we are not as inclined to do as much endurance exercise (but weight training is not a problem). Thus we expend less energy doing work if we did endurance training before. But we can also expend energy through heat. If you recall Magellan's crew noticed Indians at frozen Tierra del Fuego who were nude and yet were not bothered by the cold. And they were surely eating a low-carb diet by force. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
JPG wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixportal.html The low-carbohydrate Atkins diet may help shed excess pounds simply because it is so boring, a research paper claims today. Danish nutritionists say the "monotony and simplicity" of the regime could suppress the appetite and reduce a dieter's calorie intake. LOL! If I counted up the different types of foods I eat now as compared to three years ago, I think the variety has gone up at least ten-fold, if not more. I'm eating and enjoying vegetables I probably couldn't have even identified three years ago ;-) Both my wife and I enjoy cooking and I can't say that monotony of LC has been much of a problem at our house. Dan 325/199/180 Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution) Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
JPG wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixportal.html The low-carbohydrate Atkins diet may help shed excess pounds simply because it is so boring, a research paper claims today. Danish nutritionists say the "monotony and simplicity" of the regime could suppress the appetite and reduce a dieter's calorie intake. LOL! If I counted up the different types of foods I eat now as compared to three years ago, I think the variety has gone up at least ten-fold, if not more. I'm eating and enjoying vegetables I probably couldn't have even identified three years ago ;-) Both my wife and I enjoy cooking and I can't say that monotony of LC has been much of a problem at our house. Dan 325/199/180 Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution) Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Before low-carbing, my diet was pretty boring as well. Cereal w fruit for
breakfast, sandwiches/bagel for lunch, and a standard 4 color supper. I think every diet has its "mainstays", and everyone has their general staple foods that they rely on. Low carb is no different. I still have my mainstays and vary it a little every now and then. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Before low-carbing, my diet was pretty boring as well. Cereal w fruit for
breakfast, sandwiches/bagel for lunch, and a standard 4 color supper. I think every diet has its "mainstays", and everyone has their general staple foods that they rely on. Low carb is no different. I still have my mainstays and vary it a little every now and then. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet | Diarmid Logan | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 127 | May 27th, 2004 09:11 PM |
Dr. ATKINS IS A QUACK | Irv Finkleman | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | March 31st, 2004 12:37 PM |
WHAT'S THIS? Atkins Revises the Diet! | Witchy Way | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 83 | February 14th, 2004 03:25 AM |
Low carb diets | General Discussion | 249 | January 8th, 2004 11:15 PM | |
Playing games | Logorrhea | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 102 | November 9th, 2003 08:39 PM |