Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)

FOB wrote:

I have decreased intake but not increased expenditure and I have lost 49.5
pounds. While I agree that exercise is a good thing, it is not a necessary
thing.

Probably "not necessary" in terms of getting your number, but people,
physical problems notwithstanding, are designed to be somewhat active, and
it is very healthy and invigorating to incorporate some form of exercise
into one's lifestyle. JMO
--
The post you just read, unless otherwise noted, is strictly my opinion
and experience. Please interpret accordingly.

Rubystars wrote:
Sorry. This is simply not true.


I think some people have more of a natural tendency than others. This can be
seen in families who don't have bad eating habits but still nearly every
member of the family is big, even the young children. My sister had a friend
whose family was like that. They were all huge (not fat, huge),

the difference being ... ?

even though
they were all trying very hard.

Yes we all believe that. I'm sure they were stuffing their faces very
hard with cheeseburgers.

It could have been a gland problem that ran
in the family, etc. They said the doctor had said they had thyroid issues.


Foods have known
caloric values. Various forms of exercise and activity
burn up fairly well known amounts of calories.


Yes, if people take the effort and time to learn all that (often
contradictory) information, to sift the truth out, then they can make an
eating/exercise plan that will work for them.

What is contradictory about the caloric values of differents foods and
the caloric needs of various forms of exercise ? You are making excuses
again. It's not really complicated: you need to get off your ass and go
exercise.



Metabolism is NOT a constant for any individual: if
you exercise more and are otherwise more active, you
burn more calories. If you burn more calories than you
take in, you lose weight. It's a medical and logical
NECESSITY.


That's true. People can increase their metabolism, or decrease it, but I
think some people have a higher natural metabolism than other people, and so
there is a different range available for different people.

You missed the point entirely. Energy does not come out of nowhere. What
some of you fat people don't realize, is that the only thing to
understand about diets is the need to establish a negative caloric balance.


They may not even know they have a problem with portion control until they
get really big, and then they're bombarded with different people trying to
take their money away to fix the overweight problem, without fixing the
issue that caused it. They may never learn what a regular sized portion is
unless they take the time to find out that specific information.

It's extremely easy to gain weight, and it's difficult to lose it. It takes
no effort at all to gain, it can take monumental effort to lose. So they
spend their money and time on a bunch of fad diets and just get bigger and
bigger and in the mean time they never really learn how much they should
eat, etc.

Please explain your logic: going on a diet makes you fat. I've seen this
kind of fat logic everywhere on this newsgroup, and also on the big fat
blog. I am puzzled by it everytime.


Yes, burning more calories than you consume sounds pretty easy, doesn't it?
It's not. In order to do that you have to know how much you can eat, how
many calories you can eat and still lose, what are good types of exercise
(walking, for example).

Any exercise is good enough for you, although at 130kgs, you might want
to prefer walking to running.

Some people cut their food intake, but not enough,
or are eating smaller portions of high calorie foods, and they are
frustrated because they're unsatisified with the portions they eat but still
gain weight.

Of course diets are frustrating, nobody ever said the contrary. Fat
people seem to think that if a diet is frustrating, then it won't work/
isn't working. You know, some people with more willpower than you are
able to follow the diet and succesfully lose weight with it.


I mean, let's say someone ate 2 patio burritos for lunch every day, heated
up in the microwave with melted cheese over it. They cut it down to one
burrito. They still might not lose weight or stop gaining because it may not
be enough of a drop in calories/fat intake to help them.

Here, fat logic at work again: going on a diet won't make me shed 50kgs
in a week, so I might as well stay fat, because the effort isn't worth
it. I have news for you: diets are a long term effort. Actually, they
are lifetime efforts. To lose weight and keep it off, you have to change
your eating habits permanently.

The caloric intake and the caloric expenditure
are highly variable, and people who cut their caloric
intake but don't lose weight NECESSARILY are still
consuming more in calories than they burn.


Yes that's true! It's just that it takes effort and research to find out how
many calories you can consume, what kinds of foods are more bulky but lower
in fat and calories, etc. It takes no effort at all to buy what tastes good
and eat as much as you want to feel full. So people who don't have the
knowledge base to work from are at a disadvantage. The internet can make it
a lot easier, but in some ways it may make it more difficult, as there are
also a lot of diet scams being promoted over the internet.

Don't fall trap to the diet scams, but don't fall trap to fat logic too.
You only need to remember one thing, and that's "calorie deficit".

--
polar bear

FOB wrote:

I have decreased intake but not increased expenditure and I have lost 49.5
pounds. While I agree that exercise is a good thing, it is not a necessary
thing.

Right; it isn't. It definitely helps.

I don't know if increasing expenditure is naturally a
little easier than reducing intake, or not.
Intuitively, it seems to me that it should be, as there
obviously are some, maybe most, morbidly obese people
who get no exercise at all, while, as Rubystars points
out, they may need to acquire some additional knowledge
about which things might to best effect be reduced.


In link.net,
Jonathan Ball stated
|
| I've taken differences in resting metabolism into
| account already; that's why *everything* I've written
| in this thread talks about increases in exercise.
|
| If you cut your caloric intake to something less than
| your caloric expenditure, which probably requires an
| increase in expenditure, you will lose weight. It's
| medically and mathematically necessary.
|

Jonathan Ball wrote:
:: FOB wrote:
::
::: I have decreased intake but not increased expenditure and I have
::: lost 49.5 pounds. While I agree that exercise is a good thing, it
::: is not a necessary thing.
::
:: Right; it isn't. It definitely helps.
::
:: I don't know if increasing expenditure is naturally a
:: little easier than reducing intake, or not.

It sounds as if you have no experience with the matter. So why are you
hawking?

:: Intuitively, it seems to me that it should be, as there
:: obviously are some, maybe most, morbidly obese people
:: who get no exercise at all, while, as Rubystars points
:: out, they may need to acquire some additional knowledge
:: about which things might to best effect be reduced.

Intuitively, for the very obese, it would be easier to NOT exercise and
simply follow a LC woe. That way, appetite would diminish naturally and
weight loss would likely follow easily.

You clearly no little about weight loss.

::
:::
::: In link.net,
::: Jonathan Ball stated
::::
:::: I've taken differences in resting metabolism into
:::: account already; that's why *everything* I've written
:::: in this thread talks about increases in exercise.
::::
:::: If you cut your caloric intake to something less than
:::: your caloric expenditure, which probably requires an
:::: increase in expenditure, you will lose weight. It's
:::: medically and mathematically necessary.

Dawn Taylor wrote:

Stop trying -- he has no interest in facts. He's a cross-posting troll
trying to create another ASDLC/fat-acceptance/misc.consumers logjam.

Dawn is correct; he is a known troll on other newsgroups I've
frequented. I already had him killfiled from elsewhere... and I do not
killfile easily.

He's a known troll and his posts are a serious waste of electrons.

--
As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy
to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has
to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value.
Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets.
-- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food

Roger Zoul, bonehead ordinaire, bull****ted:
Jonathan Ball wrote:
:: FOB wrote:
::
::: I have decreased intake but not increased expenditure and I have
::: lost 49.5 pounds. While I agree that exercise is a good thing, it
::: is not a necessary thing.
::
:: Right; it isn't. It definitely helps.
::
:: I don't know if increasing expenditure is naturally a
:: little easier than reducing intake, or not.

It sounds as if you have no experience with the matter.

It sounds as if you don't know your ass from your face.
I don't have any direct experience because I have
never been overweight. One needn't have been
overweight in order to know something useful about the
topic.

So why are you hawking?

Because I'm right.


:: Intuitively, it seems to me that it should be, as there
:: obviously are some, maybe most, morbidly obese people
:: who get no exercise at all, while, as Rubystars points
:: out, they may need to acquire some additional knowledge
:: about which things might to best effect be reduced.

Intuitively, for the very obese, it would be easier to NOT exercise and
simply follow a LC woe.

No one is talking about what it is "intuitive" to DO,
you blockhead.

That way, appetite would diminish naturally and
weight loss would likely follow easily.

You clearly no [SIC] little about weight loss.

I clearly *know* - not 'no', blockhead - plenty about it.


::
:::
::: In link.net,
::: Jonathan Ball stated
::::
:::: I've taken differences in resting metabolism into
:::: account already; that's why *everything* I've written
:::: in this thread talks about increases in exercise.
::::
:::: If you cut your caloric intake to something less than
:::: your caloric expenditure, which probably requires an
:::: increase in expenditure, you will lose weight. It's
:::: medically and mathematically necessary.

Fat cells actively breed disease

By Daniel Q. Haney

Associated Press

Research into the biology of fat is turning up some
surprising new insights about how obesity kills. The
weight of the evidence: It's the toxic mischief of the
flesh.

Experts have realized for decades that large people die
young, and the explanation long seemed obvious.
Carrying around all those extra pounds must put a
deadly strain on the heart and other organs.

Obvious but wrong, it turns out. Although the physical
burden contributes to arthritis and sleep apnea, among
other things, it is a minor hazard compared with the
complex and insidious damage wrought by the oily,
yellowish globs of fat that cover human bodies like
never before.

A series of recent discoveries suggests that all
fat-storage cells churn out a stew of hormones and
other chemical messengers that fine-tune the body's
energy balance. But when spewed in vast amounts by
cells swollen to capacity with fat, they assault many
organs in ways that are bad for health.

The exact details still are being worked out, but
scientists say there is no doubt this flux of
biological cross talk hastens death from heart disease,
strokes, diabetes and cancer, diseases that are
especially common among the obese.

``When we look at fat tissue now, we see it's not just
a passive depot of fat,'' said Dr. Rudolph Leibel of
Columbia University. ``It's an active manufacturer of
signals to other parts of the body.''

The first real inkling that fat is more than just inert
was the discovery 10 years ago of the substance leptin.
Scientists were amazed to find that this static-looking
flesh helps maintain itself by producing a chemical
that regulates appetite.

Roughly 25 different signaling compounds -- with names
like resistin and adiponectin -- are now known to be
made by fat cells, Leibel estimates, and many more
undoubtedly will be found.

``There is an explosion of information about just what
it is and what it does,'' Dr. Allen Spiegel, director
of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and
Kidney Diseases, says of fat. ``It is a tremendously
dynamic organ.''

Fat tissue is now recognized to be the body's biggest
endocrine organ, and its sheer volume is impressive
even in normal-sized people. A trim woman is typically
30 percent fat, a man 15 percent. That is enough fuel
to keep someone alive without eating for three months.

By far, the biggest single threat of obesity is heart
disease. Someone with a body mass index over 30 has
triple the usual risk.

The American Cancer Society estimates that staying trim
could eliminate 90,000 U.S. cancer deaths a year. Among
the varieties most clearly linked to weight are cancer
of the breast, uterus, colon, kidney, esophagus,
pancreas and gallbladder.

(In the San Jose Mercury-New,
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...8638237.htm?1c)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/st...200549,00.html


Jonathan Ball wrote:
:: Fat cells actively breed disease
::
:: By Daniel Q. Haney
::
:: Associated Press
::
:: Research into the biology of fat is turning up some
:: surprising new insights about how obesity kills. The
:: weight of the evidence: It's the toxic mischief of the
:: flesh.
::
:: Experts have realized for decades that large people die
:: young, and the explanation long seemed obvious.
:: Carrying around all those extra pounds must put a
:: deadly strain on the heart and other organs.
::
:: Obvious but wrong, it turns out. Although the physical
:: burden contributes to arthritis and sleep apnea, among
:: other things, it is a minor hazard compared with the
:: complex and insidious damage wrought by the oily,
:: yellowish globs of fat that cover human bodies like
:: never before.
::
:: A series of recent discoveries suggests that all
:: fat-storage cells churn out a stew of hormones and
:: other chemical messengers that fine-tune the body's
:: energy balance. But when spewed in vast amounts by
:: cells swollen to capacity with fat, they assault many
:: organs in ways that are bad for health.
::
:: The exact details still are being worked out, but
:: scientists say there is no doubt this flux of
:: biological cross talk hastens death from heart disease,
:: strokes, diabetes and cancer, diseases that are
:: especially common among the obese.
::
:: ``When we look at fat tissue now, we see it's not just
:: a passive depot of fat,'' said Dr. Rudolph Leibel of
:: Columbia University. ``It's an active manufacturer of
:: signals to other parts of the body.''
::
:: The first real inkling that fat is more than just inert
:: was the discovery 10 years ago of the substance leptin.
:: Scientists were amazed to find that this static-looking
:: flesh helps maintain itself by producing a chemical
:: that regulates appetite.
::
:: Roughly 25 different signaling compounds -- with names
:: like resistin and adiponectin -- are now known to be
:: made by fat cells, Leibel estimates, and many more
:: undoubtedly will be found.
::
:: ``There is an explosion of information about just what
:: it is and what it does,'' Dr. Allen Spiegel, director
:: of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and
:: Kidney Diseases, says of fat. ``It is a tremendously
:: dynamic organ.''
::
:: Fat tissue is now recognized to be the body's biggest
:: endocrine organ, and its sheer volume is impressive
:: even in normal-sized people. A trim woman is typically
:: 30 percent fat, a man 15 percent. That is enough fuel
:: to keep someone alive without eating for three months.
::
:: By far, the biggest single threat of obesity is heart
:: disease. Someone with a body mass index over 30 has
:: triple the usual risk.
::
:: The American Cancer Society estimates that staying trim
:: could eliminate 90,000 U.S. cancer deaths a year. Among
:: the varieties most clearly linked to weight are cancer
:: of the breast, uterus, colon, kidney, esophagus,
:: pancreas and gallbladder.
::
:: (In the San Jose Mercury-New,
:: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...8638237.htm?1c)

"Eva Whitley" wrote ...
The morons at PETA have rolled out Veg Eye for the Fat Guy (he
http://goveg.com/feat/vegeye2/ ) targeting Ruben Studdard, Luciano
Pavarotti, Michael Moore, John Goodman, and John Madden.

If I was one of their celebrity 'targets' I'd be high POd. Hopefully they'll
get some very public "fark off" messages.

--
Rachel
(New Zealand)

Hello Gooseride!

I would say that millions of concentration camp victims and starving
Ethiopians say you're full of beans. I guarantee you that if ANYONE goes
into caloric deficit they will lose weight. Basic thermodynamics. What
you're claiming defies the laws of physics, and of common sense. Yes, people
lose weight with a diet which eliminates high GI foods. But people also lose
weight by eating lots of pasta and exercising intensely. People also lose
weight by achieving a state of caloric deficit.

In basic thermo terms you are completely correct! Unfortunately,
though, the human body is considerably more complex than you are
giving it credit for. This also completely disregards the human
brain/personality factor. It has been my typical experience, as with
most nutritional professionals, that cleaning up a persons diet thru
education about refined foods instead of just looking at caloric
intact is dramatically more effective? Also, since the body
metabolizes foods differently depending on its current state, caloric
intake from a "blood glucose" standpoint is drastically different.
Don't believe me??

Well, let me first put it in a simple context for you... How much
broccoli would it take to constitute the caloric intake of 1 8oz soft
drink? (ie. approx. 230 kcal) Well, it is over 5 cups!! Eating 5
cups of broccoli in one sitting would be extremely difficult for any
one person to take. Telling someone, though, to drink no more than
1/2 can of soft drinks a day, would be very difficult for the
individual to sustain long-term! Starting to see my point now? :-)
OK.. Now lets get a little more technical and explore why the human
body is much more complex than most people ever realize….

To address how the body metabolizes different types of foods, lets
look at the way the body processes carbohydrates, proteins, and fats.
Unless placed in a ketosis state, the body certainly is not going to
break down the fats for blood glucose conversion during a normal
digestion state. In addition, protein is even more difficult for the
body to convert to glucose as it provides very little in conversion.
So what is going to happen when you eat a pretty well balanced meal??
Well, unless your glycogen levels are low in the liver, (ie. Your
bodies natural carb backup storage) the body will absorb the carb
source as glucose and then raise to an anabolic state with the protein
source. (ie. blood PH shift from amino acid absorption). I will leave
the fat out from this example only because it serves a slightly
different purpose to the bodies needs.

Cool the way the body works isn't it?? This is why looking just at
calories alone is almost useless. One should use caloric intake for
reference, but looking at the food ratios are much more important. By
the way, how do you think body builders are about to obtain 10% BF
numbers while on a diet of 3500 calories? If they simply reduced
calories, then their body would just because leaner overall by
breaking down their muscles first and leaving the BF as is! Having a
clear understanding of anabolic/catabolic blood states is critical for
a person to understand if you are ever looking to develop any kind of
muscle tone and definition...

Jim Carver


"Gooserider" wrote in message om...
"Jim Carver" wrote in message
om...
Hello Doug!

Sorry for the long email in advance. I just wanted to provide
information for you just in case you might find it helpful...

I tried a vegetarian diet for a couple of months before starting
low-cal. I
*gained* weight. It's easy to gain weight on a vegetarian diet -
especially
a lacto-vegetarian diet.

This is great that you are trying a new diet! Especially a low-cal
vegetarian diet, which I would think would be exceptionally difficult
to stomach. It shows that you really trying!! Now, I don't really
know if you want the information, but there is a very easy explanation
as to why you gained weight. Let me explain...

What if I was to tell you that for most people, reducing their caloric
intake would have ZERO impact on them loosing weight?



I would say that millions of concentration camp victims and starving
Ethiopians say you're full of beans. I guarantee you that if ANYONE goes
into caloric deficit they will lose weight. Basic thermodynamics. What
you're claiming defies the laws of physics, and of common sense. Yes, people
lose weight with a diet which eliminates high GI foods. But people also lose
weight by eating lots of pasta and exercising intensely. People also lose
weight by achieving a state of caloric deficit.