Eating less does not result in weight loss

Mxsmanic wrote:
Michael Snyder writes:


Duh, I'm a physicist; don't lecture your granny.


Then you understand conservation of energy.


Your body does not utilize every gram of fuel you
take in.


It uses about 999 out of 1000 grams. It is pretty efficient.


It may leave your body as heat or **** -- and
the ratio is variable.


If it is leaving your body as heat, that means that your body used it.
Body heat is produced by metabolism of nutrients, which is why one
speaks of "burning" calories. In fact, a 1° C change in body
temperature can increase or decrease fuel consumption by about 10%.
However, normally body temperature is held constant to within a small
fraction of a degree.


Heat leaving the body is at rest maintenance energy a percentage of
physical work done. Bicycle racers need 8,000 calories per day to stay
alive. Ophra watchers don't need as much to get very fat. You can't
fool the laws of thermodynamics.

Bob

Bob wrote:
Michael Snyder wrote:

Bob wrote:

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.



Duh, I'm a physicist; don't lecture your granny. Your body
does not utilize every gram of fuel you take in. It may leave
your body as heat or **** -- and the ratio is variable. The
ratio of useful work to heat is also extremely variable.


Nope. You may be a physicist, but why are you claiming that bodies
violate the laws of thermodynamics,

I *explicitly* did not claim that. To apply the laws of thermodynamics,
you have to consider ALL of the inputs and outputs. Food in and
energy-expended out is not even remotely a full accounting.

Bob wrote:
\
The energy consumed is proportional to the mass moved and the amount of
movement. It always ends up the same.

Clearly. But food eaten does not equate to energy consumed.
Some of the food comes out again. The "motor" runs at varying
degrees of efficiency. Even automobile engines don't all convert
gasoline to work with the same efficiency. Even the SAME automobile
engine does not convert gasoline to work with a constant efficiency.
Even the same automobile engine running the same course at the same
speed does not convert gasoline to work with a constant efficiency.

"jean and bill" wrote in message
T...

It ain't the fat, it's the carbs.

You're a nut.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Jim Ledford writes:

anytime you point out how the fatties became fatty fatty
fatso porkerbeast creatures, there is going to be outrage
among the fattest of the fat.

Not a very charitable way of putting it,

thank you for that





but yes, fat people who deny
their own responsibility for their obesity generally resist any attempt
to link obesity to overeating, and thus remain fat all their lives.

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

It is more the result of an active imagination. If you eat so little
that you are weak, you are burning fat, and you will lose weight. And
if you are that weak, you certainly cannot exercise, so there is some
contradiction in your statements.

no it was real. My arms would hurt if I had to hold a 5 pound item for more
then a few seconds. I used to really work hard loading concrete all day long.
My legs though are very strong and could go all day long no matter how bad I
feel. so when I got my bike it was pretty hard going a few miles. but now I am
doing 20 miles a day and on less calories. no sore arms or very little anymore.
I cut back on the higher calorie foods and I am not hungry. I do eat 2 to 4 four
more pieces of fruit before I ride. but compared to how much meat I was eating
it's far less calories.
When I don't work my body it seems to start falling apart. and less food does
not fix it. but if I work my body less food does work.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

loss, all of which compete in a free economy. If yours worked,
no one would be paying billions for the others.

Non sequitur. What he says works, the parties in question just
don't *like* it.

C//

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.

Oh, this is totally true. This is because during the first 10
miles, you are burning glucose and glycogen. But this is neither
here nor there.

C//

Courageous wrote:
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.


Oh, this is totally true. This is because during the first 10
miles, you are burning glucose and glycogen. But this is neither
here nor there.

C//


Your body has to make up the energy eventually, either by eating more
later or using up reserves. The laws of thermodynamics always hold.

People who run or bicycle a lot eat huge amounts and never gain weight
because their bodies burn it up running or bicycling.

Bob

Oh, this is totally true. This is because during the first 10
miles, you are burning glucose and glycogen. But this is neither
here nor there.

Your body has to make up the energy eventually, either by eating more
later or using up reserves. The laws of thermodynamics always hold.

This is correct as well. Your body won't "willingly" maintain a low
glucose level for long if it has any conceivable alternative. And if
it does, you are (probably) in kotosis. Congratulations, you'll be
losing fat hand over fist.

C//