Eating less does not result in weight loss

SuperSpark ® wrote:
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.

Yes -- and also as you eat more/less.

Bob Ward wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 06:00:49 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


Michael Snyder writes:


Absurd. There is no such thing as a BMR.

Yes, there is. BMR is the minimum energy required to keep you alive.
It includes the energy required to sustain vital organs (which is
extremely constant), plus the energy required to maintain whatever fat
and muscle tissue you have (which varies with body composition). A
person in a coma burns only the number of calories in his BMR. Everyone
else burns slightly more, since a conscious person always engages in
some amount of extra activity that burns a few extra calories, even
sitting up in bed all day.


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.

No, you will not.

But yes -- I will. Particularly if I do it over a protracted period of
time.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:29:35 -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
Ralph DuBose wrote:
If you walk 10 miles, what does your body use for the calories
needed to do the work? Is energy pulled into you from another Astral
plane? Seriously.

Energy derived from the food you eat, and the air you breathe.

I guess that's what they mean about "inhaling" krispy cremes ???

lol, but seriously the air has no energy useful for chemical work, otherwise
we would be driving cars which were air-fueled instead of gasoline
fueled.

And if you walk 20 miles, you are going to need at least twice the
fuel.

False. Your body is not a car, it is a complex organic system.
The assumption that the fuel-to-motion conversion efficiency of
your body is constant is patently ridiculous.

The conversion efficiency is not completely fixed, but there is an
upper bound on the efficiency, and a lower bound on the energy
consumption, which is mandated by the laws of physics.

That bound will scale with the effort.

Your claim is not
even consistant with those of physiologists or fitness trainers,
who may tell you that you are likely to burn off more fat calories
in the second 10 miles than you did in the first.

Nobody said anything about "fat calories" versus other calories.

There are multiple ways to chemically store energy in your body.

Ignoramus792 wrote:
In article , Michael Snyder wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote in message ...

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).

Fascinating -- no wonder you are a billionaire, since you are able to
reliably help anyone lose weight. Your advice works, where so many
others does not, so you must be richer than God.


There is no way to help someone lose weight if they want to gorge on
cakes and junk food, more than they want to lose fat.

And yet millions of people spend billions of dollars every year,
seeking help with losing weight. If your advice is any good,
(and indeed, even if it isn't), a portion of those billions is
available to you. If your advice is BETTER than most, then you
should be able to capture a respectable chunk of those billions,
not to mention put the other charlatans out of business. It is
a free market economy -- a product that works should sell better
than one that doesn't.

Michael Snyder writes:

That is your claim. You provide no evidence.

That's true. But nothing prevents readers of my posts from checking up
on what I say.

I point out that what you advise is but one of many
different approaches to weight loss, all of which compete
in a free economy.

What I describe is the only way to actually lose weight. It has
everything to do with biology, but I'm not sure what it has to do with a
free economy.

If yours worked, no one would be paying billions for
the others.

Sure they would, if they were in search of some other way to lose weight
that didn't require eating less and exercising more.

A lot of fat people do not want to eat less, nor do they want to
exercise more, but they do want to lose weight (just not enough to do
the two other things). These people will spend their lifetimes
searching for other ways to lose weight, and they keep the "billions" of
dollars flowing into the bank accounts of people who develop and promote
fad diets. But the reality does not change, and so these fat people
never actually do lose weight. It's a win-win situation for the diet
promoters, and a lose-lose situation for the fat people.

In fact, I have seen countless people try what you say
ALWAYS works, and either not lose weight, or lose a small
amount and then cease to lose.

What were you saying about not providing evidence?

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

Michael Snyder wrote:
SuperSpark ® wrote:

In article ,
"Michael Snyder" wrote:


Mr. F. Le Mur wrote in message ...

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 09:54:22 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

-Michael Snyder writes:
-
- And like most such, it has very little relation to reality.
-
-It is the one and only basis of all weight loss. All successful
diets
-work by creating a caloric deficit. All unsuccessful diets have in
-common that they fail to create a caloric deficit. There are no
-exceptions to this rule.

True.

-
- Over-simplifications such as these serve no one --
- least of all people who would like to lose weight.
-
-They serve those people best of all. However, they are unpleasantly
-difficult to deny for people who don't want to face the necessity of
-eating less in order to lose weight.
-
- If you eat less calories on a daily basis, the amount
- of calories you USE will very likely change.
-
-No, it will not. The number of calories you burn is based on your
-weight, sex, body composition, and the amount of exercise you
get. None
-of this suddenly changes just because you decide to eat less,
which is
-why you lose weight if you significantly reduce your intake of food.

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


I was once told, by a professional physical trainer, that I was eating
too little and that if I wanted to lose weight I would need to eat more.
My body thought it was starving, and therefore was hanging on to
every calory it could get.




Bull**** psuedo science. Caloric deficit always results in weight
loss. Consult an anorexic for more info.


Funny how you guys all want to cite the pathological cases, instead
of looking at what normal people experience in real life.



Normal people obey the laws of thermodynamics. Energy out eventually
equals energy in.

Bob

Michael Snyder writes:

And yet, the evidence says otherwise.

What evidence? You haven't presented any.

The lesson being, I think: "if you want weight-loss advice,
do not ask a mathematician".

A key element in the success of my own weight-loss program has been
Microsoft Excel.

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

Michael Snyder writes:

False. Your body is not a car, it is a complex organic system.

Complex organic systems obey the same fundamental physical rules as
automobiles. Twice the work requires twice the fuel.

The assumption that the fuel-to-motion conversion efficiency of
your body is constant is patently ridiculous.

It is amazingly close to constant. When you control and measure all the
variables, you find that the human body does indeed follow all the
rules, predictably and consistently.

Your claim is not even consistant with those of physiologists
or fitness trainers, who may tell you that you are likely to
burn off more fat calories in the second 10 miles than you did
in the first.

I've never heard that claim.

Ummm... excreted?

Unlikely. Excretion of unabsorbed calories tends to be an extremely
obvious operation.

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

Michael Snyder writes:

You've said a lot of things, but you haven't backed any
of them up ...

Then again, neither have you.

... most of them fly in the face of real people's
experience ...

That depends on whom you ask, and how accurately they log their
experience.

... and some of them fly in the face of common sense.

There's no such thing as common sense.

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

Michael Snyder writes:

Funny how you guys all want to cite the pathological cases, instead
of looking at what normal people experience in real life.

Normal people follow the rules even more closely than the pathological
cases.

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