Obese women can lose twice the weight on a low-carbohydrate diet plan as on a traditional low-fat pl

[Amazingric]

"Obese women who are otherwise healthy can lose twice the
weight on a low-carbohydrate diet plan as on a traditional
low-fat plan. And they can do so without compromising their
cardiovascular health, at least in the short term, new
research concludes.

The new report, published in the April issue of The Journal
of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, promises to refuel
the diet debate over whether low-carb or low-fat is the
better approach.

<...>

The low-carbohydrate group, at the three-month mark, was
averaging 15 percent of calories from carbohydrates, 28
percent from protein and 57 percent from fat. At the six-month
mark, they were eating 30 percent carbs, 23 percent protein
and 46 percent fat.

The low-fat group was averaging 54 percent of calories from
carbohydrates three months into the study, 18 percent from
protein and 28 percent from fat. At six months, the totals
were 53 percent carbs, 18 percent protein and 29 percent fat.

Average calorie intake was similar for both groups - 1 302 a
day for the low-carb group after six months and 1 247 for the
low-fat group... "

Above quotes from this article:

http://www.health24.co.za/news.asp?action=art&SubContentTypeI-
d=5&ContentID=2 1896

Similar article:

http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=22770

Link to the study abstract:
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/4/1617

A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet and
a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and
Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women Bonnie J. Brehm,
Randy J. Seeley, Stephen R. Daniels and David A. D'Alessio
University of Cincinnati and Children's Hospital Medical
Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221

Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to:
Bonnie Brehm, Ph.D., University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box
210038, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0038. E-mail:
bonnie.brehm@uc.edu.

Untested alternative weight loss diets, such as very low
carbohydrate diets, have unsubstantiated efficacy and the
potential to adversely affect cardiovascular risk factors.
Therefore, we designed a randomized, controlled trial to
determine the effects of a very low carbohydrate diet on body
composition and cardiovascular risk factors. Subjects were
randomized to 6 months of either an ad libitum very low
carbohydrate diet or a calorie-restricted diet with 30% of the
calories as fat. Anthropometric and metabolic measures were
assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Fifty-three
healthy, obese female volunteers (mean body mass index, 33.6 ±
.3 kg/m2) were randomized; 42 (79%) completed the trial. Women
on both diets reduced calorie consumption by comparable
amounts at 3 and 6 months. The very low carbohydrate diet
group lost more weight (8.5 ± 1.0 vs. 3.9 ±
1. kg; P < 0.001) and more body fat (4.8 ± 0.67 vs. 2.0 ± 0.75
kg; P < .01) than the low fat diet group. Mean levels of
blood pressure, lipids, fasting glucose, and insulin were
within normal ranges in both groups at baseline. Although
all of these parameters improved over the course of the
study, there were no differences observed between the two
diet groups at 3 or 6 months. ß- Hydroxybutyrate increased
significantly in the very low carbohydrate group at 3
months (P = 0.001). Based on these data, a very low
carbohydrate diet is more effective than a low fat diet for
short-term weight loss and, over 6 months, is not
associated with deleterious effects on important
cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women.

This work was supported by the American Heart Association,
University of Cincinnati Obesity Research Center, University
of Cincinnati Research Council, Children's Hospital Medical
Center Clinical Research Center (supported in part by USPHS
Grant M01-RR-08084 from the General Clinical Research Center
Program, National Center for Research Resources, NIH), and NIH
Grants DK-54263 and DK-56863.

Abbreviations: DEXA, Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry; HDL,
high density lipoprotein; LDL, low density lipoprotein.

--
Rich to email remove "nospam."

[That Guy]

"AmazingRich" <AmazingRich@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b86be1$asi$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Obese women who are otherwise healthy can lose twice the
> weight on a low-carbohydrate diet plan as on a traditional
> low-fat plan. And they can
do
> so without compromising their cardiovascular health, at
> least in the short term, new research concludes.

An "expert" said at the end of the article:

"When you go on such a low-carb diet, there's not much food
left to select from."

My response would be, "And you consider that a bad thing? Have
you stopped to consider that the foods one is restricted from
on a low-carb diet are the ones that contribute to obesity?"

And "exercising for an hour or 90 minutes at a stretch may be
more difficult on such a diet," she says, "because the body
depends on carbohydrates for energy."

Um, hello? A low-carb diet isn't a NO-carb diet. Once you
reach your target weight, you can gradually increase the carbs
until you find how much you can eat without gaining again, and
if you start exercising for an hour or 90 minutes at a
stretch, you can increase it more.

[Patricia H]

That's not what JAMA said. IIRC.

AmazingRich wrote:
>
> "Obese women who are otherwise healthy can lose twice the
> weight on a low-carbohydrate diet plan as on a traditional
> low-fat plan. And they can do so without compromising their
> cardiovascular health, at least in the short term, new
> research concludes.
>
> The new report, published in the April issue of The Journal
> of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, promises to refuel
> the diet debate over whether low-carb or low-fat is the
> better approach.
>
> <...>
>
> The low-carbohydrate group, at the three-month mark, was
> averaging 15 percent of calories from carbohydrates, 28
> percent from protein and 57 percent from fat. At the
> six-month mark, they were eating 30 percent carbs, 23
> percent protein and 46 percent fat.
>
> The low-fat group was averaging 54 percent of calories
> from carbohydrates three months into the study, 18 percent
> from protein and 28 percent from fat. At six months, the
> totals were 53 percent carbs, 18 percent protein and 29
> percent fat.
>
> Average calorie intake was similar for both groups - 1 302 a
> day for the low-carb group after six months and 1 247 for
> the low-fat group... "
>
> Above quotes from this article:
>
> http://www.health24.co.za/news.asp?action=art&SubContentTyp-
> eId=5&ContentID=2 1896
>
> Similar article:
>
> http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=22770
>
> Link to the study abstract:
> http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/4/1617
>
> A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet
> and a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and
> Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women Bonnie J.
> Brehm, Randy J. Seeley, Stephen R. Daniels and David A.
> D'Alessio University of Cincinnati and Children's Hospital
> Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221
>
> Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to:
> Bonnie Brehm, Ph.D., University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box
> 210038, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0038. E-mail:
> bonnie.brehm@uc.edu.
>
> Untested alternative weight loss diets, such as very low
> carbohydrate diets, have unsubstantiated efficacy and the
> potential to adversely affect cardiovascular risk factors.
> Therefore, we designed a randomized, controlled trial to
> determine the effects of a very low carbohydrate diet on
> body composition and cardiovascular risk factors. Subjects
> were randomized to 6 months of either an ad libitum very
> low carbohydrate diet or a calorie-restricted diet with 30%
> of the calories as fat. Anthropometric and metabolic
> measures were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months.
> Fifty-three healthy, obese female volunteers (mean body
> mass index, 33.6 ± .3 kg/m2) were randomized; 42 (79%)
> completed the trial. Women on both diets reduced calorie
> consumption by comparable amounts at 3 and 6 months. The
> very low carbohydrate diet group lost more weight (8.5 ±
> 1.0 vs. 3.9 ±
> 1. kg; P < 0.001) and more body fat (4.8 ± 0.67 vs. 2.0 ±
> 0.75 kg; P < .01) than the low fat diet group. Mean
> levels of blood pressure, lipids, fasting glucose, and
> insulin were within normal ranges in both groups at
> baseline. Although all of these parameters improved over
> the course of the study, there were no differences
> observed between the two diet groups at 3 or 6 months. ß-
> Hydroxybutyrate increased significantly in the very low
> carbohydrate group at 3 months (P = 0.001). Based on
> these data, a very low carbohydrate diet is more
> effective than a low fat diet for short-term weight loss
> and, over 6 months, is not associated with deleterious
> effects on important cardiovascular risk factors in
> healthy women.
>
> This work was supported by the American Heart Association,
> University of Cincinnati Obesity Research Center, University
> of Cincinnati Research Council, Children's Hospital Medical
> Center Clinical Research Center (supported in part by USPHS
> Grant M01-RR-08084 from the General Clinical Research Center
> Program, National Center for Research Resources, NIH), and
> NIH Grants DK-54263 and DK-56863.
>
> Abbreviations: DEXA, Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry; HDL,
> high density lipoprotein; LDL, low density lipoprotein.
>
> --
> Rich to email remove "nospam."

[Lordy]

"AmazingRich" <AmazingRich@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:b86be1$asi$1 @slb5.atl.mindspring.net:

> Average calorie intake was similar for both groups - 1 302 a
> day for the low-carb group after six months and 1 247 for
> the low-fat group... "
>

I guess this is the really contentious point for people more
knowledgable than me. There is no doubt that low-carbing helps
many people regulate their appetites/set-point whatever better
and hence heat less calories without feeling as hungry. But
the claim that you can eat approx the same amount of calories
and lose twice the weight is the hotly debated issue. It would
be interesting to know if thier relative levels of activity
was monitored also. (inc general activity such as, possibly,
having to make your own food etc, which is more likely with
low-carb than low-fat.)

Lordy superceeded - sigh!

[Miss Jaime]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:12:39 GMT, "That Guy"
<webgrunt7@hotmail.com> wrote:

>An "expert" said at the end of the article:
>
>"When you go on such a low-carb diet, there's not much food
>left to select from."
>
>My response would be, "And you consider that a bad thing?
>Have you stopped to consider that the foods one is restricted
>from on a low-carb diet are the ones that contribute to
>obesity?"
>
> And "exercising for an hour or 90 minutes at a stretch may
> be more difficult on such a diet," she says, "because the
> body depends on carbohydrates for energy."
>
>Um, hello? A low-carb diet isn't a NO-carb diet. Once you
>reach your target weight, you can gradually increase the
>carbs until you find how much you can eat without gaining
>again, and if you start exercising for an hour or 90 minutes
>at a stretch, you can increase it more.

Don't you just hate those *experts*? :-)

Miss Jaime (Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA)

[Roger Zoul]

That Guy wrote:
:: "AmazingRich" <AmazingRich@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in
:: message news:b86be1$asi$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
::: "Obese women who are otherwise healthy can lose twice the
::: weight on a low-carbohydrate diet plan as on a traditional
::: low-fat plan. And they can do so without compromising
::: their cardiovascular health, at least in the short term,
::: new research concludes.
::
::
:: An "expert" said at the end of the article:
::
:: "When you go on such a low-carb diet, there's not much food
:: left to select from."
::
:: My response would be, "And you consider that a bad thing?
:: Have you stopped to consider that the foods one is
:: restricted from on a low-carb diet are the ones that
:: contribute to obesity?"
::
:: And "exercising for an hour or 90 minutes at a stretch may
:: be more difficult on such a diet," she says, "because the
:: body depends on carbohydrates for energy."
::
:: Um, hello? A low-carb diet isn't a NO-carb diet. Once you
:: reach your target weight, you can gradually increase the
:: carbs until you find how much you can eat without gaining
:: again, and if you start exercising for an hour or 90
:: minutes at a stretch, you can increase it more.

And not only that....your body adapts to a great degree to
exercising while on restricted carbs....I can do intensite
weight training for 1.5 hours while doing strict LCing....I
could not when I first started....

[Patricia H]

My response would be do you realize how many people stop most
weight plans because they don't offer much selection? And then
they gain the weight right back. So how good can a plan be
that has boredom built into
it. Any by the way you're wrong, for me it's fat that makes
it hard for me to lose weight even when I do exercise and
low-carb diets aren't designed to reduce dietary fat.

That Guy wrote:
>
> "AmazingRich" <AmazingRich@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:b86be1$asi$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> > "Obese women who are otherwise healthy can lose twice the
> > weight on a low-carbohydrate diet plan as on a traditional
> > low-fat plan. And they can
> do
> > so without compromising their cardiovascular health, at
> > least in the short term, new research concludes.
>
> An "expert" said at the end of the article:
>
> "When you go on such a low-carb diet, there's not much food
> left to select from."
>
> My response would be, "And you consider that a bad thing?
> Have you stopped to consider that the foods one is
> restricted from on a low-carb diet are the ones that
> contribute to obesity?"
>
> And "exercising for an hour or 90 minutes at a stretch may
> be more difficult on such a diet," she says, "because the
> body depends on carbohydrates for energy."
>
> Um, hello? A low-carb diet isn't a NO-carb diet. Once you
> reach your target weight, you can gradually increase the
> carbs until you find how much you can eat without gaining
> again, and if you start exercising for an hour or 90 minutes
> at a stretch, you can increase it more.

[Crafting M]

In alt.support.diet.low-carb Patricia Heil
<pjayheil@erols.com> wrote:
>My response would be do you realize how many people stop most
>weight plans because they don't offer much selection? And
>then they gain the weight right back. So how good can a plan
>be that has boredom built into
>it.

Before low carbing... EVERY freaking morning I'd have a bowl
of cheerios or cornflakes... lunch would be a sandwich...
supper would vary but not by a whole lot... I bought whatever
was cheapest.

before low carbing I could eat the same thing every day, with
little variation, and not be tired of it.

There is so much variety out there... pretty much the only
thing I can't eat is a bunch of middle aisle garbage.

Even so, there is no way I *can* go off my diet. I've got food
sensitivities which pretty much default to me low-carbing.

[That Guy]

"Roger Zoul" <RogerZoul@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vadqe7jvjdmfd6@corp.supernews.com...
> That Guy wrote:
> :: "AmazingRich" <AmazingRich@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in
> :: message news:b86be1$asi$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> ::: "Obese women who are otherwise healthy can lose twice
> ::: the weight on a low-carbohydrate diet plan as on a
> ::: traditional low-fat plan. And they can do so without
> ::: compromising their cardiovascular health, at least in
> ::: the short term, new research concludes.
> ::
> ::
> :: An "expert" said at the end of the article:
> ::
> :: "When you go on such a low-carb diet, there's not much
> :: food left to select from."
> ::
> :: My response would be, "And you consider that a bad thing?
> :: Have you stopped to consider that the foods one is
> :: restricted from on a low-carb diet are the ones that
> :: contribute to obesity?"
> ::
> :: And "exercising for an hour or 90 minutes at a stretch
> :: may be more difficult on such a diet," she says,
> :: "because the body depends on carbohydrates for energy."
> ::
> :: Um, hello? A low-carb diet isn't a NO-carb diet. Once you
> :: reach your target weight, you can gradually increase the
> :: carbs until you find how much you can eat without gaining
> :: again, and if you start exercising for an hour or 90
> :: minutes at a stretch, you can increase it more.
>
> And not only that....your body adapts to a great degree to
> exercising
while
> on restricted carbs....I can do intensite weight training
> for 1.5 hours while doing strict LCing....I could not when I
> first started....

Thanks, that's one I didn't know... I seem to remember from
fitness classes that on a regular (high-carb) diet, you have
to exercise aerobically for 20 to 25 minutes before your body
uses up its glycogen stores and has to start burning fat. When
you're in ketosis, isn't your body already burning fat? When
you exercise, wouldn't it just burn more fat?

[That Guy]

"Patricia Heil" <pjayheil@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3EA6F427.CB1798B6@erols.com...
> My response would be do you realize how many people stop
> most weight plans because they don't offer much selection?

Well, the low-carbers on this group seem to be having great
success sticking with it.

And then they gain the weight right back.
> So how good can a plan be that has boredom built into
> it.

Boredom is manufactured in your own mind. There are an
infinite number of low-carb dishes available. If "Doesn't
satisfy my sugar addiction" means boredom to you, then I can
see how you'd call it boring. You know, what low-fat allows
you to eat hamburgers, pork chols, eggs fried in butter, salad
with real oil-and-vinegar or cream dressing, chocolatte mousse
made with real cream (sweetened with artificial sweetener, of
course)... You call THAT boring? You can keep your pretzel
sticks, baked turkey breasts and sherbet, LC food, IMHO,
tastes a LOT better than low-fat. :-)

Any by the way you're wrong, for me it's fat that
> makes it hard for me to lose weight even when I do exercise

How do you know? How long have you been low-carbing? If you
haven't given it a good try, then you can't say it wouldn't
work for you.

and low-carb diets aren't designed to reduce
> dietary fat.

True, but yet they reduce body fat on most people why try
them. In fact, the study showed that low-carbers lost *twice
as much* weight as the low-fatters. Hey, I'm not saying
low-carbing is for you. But it seems like you are saying that
LC eating doesn't work, and the study shows they do in fact
work twice as well as low-fat diets, and the majority of
experiences reported here back up the study.

>
> That Guy wrote:
> >
> > "AmazingRich" <AmazingRich@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in
> > message news:b86be1$asi$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > "Obese women who are otherwise healthy can lose twice
> > > the weight on a low-carbohydrate diet plan as on a
> > > traditional low-fat plan. And they
can
> > do
> > > so without compromising their cardiovascular health, at
> > > least in the
short
> > > term, new research concludes.
> >
> > An "expert" said at the end of the article:
> >
> > "When you go on such a low-carb diet, there's not much
> > food left to
select
> > from."
> >
> > My response would be, "And you consider that a bad thing?
> > Have you
stopped
> > to consider that the foods one is restricted from on a
> > low-carb diet are
the
> > ones that contribute to obesity?"
> >
> > And "exercising for an hour or 90 minutes at a stretch
> > may be more difficult on such a diet," she says, "because
> > the body depends on carbohydrates for energy."
> >
> > Um, hello? A low-carb diet isn't a NO-carb diet. Once you
> > reach your target weight, you can gradually increase the
> > carbs until you find how
much
> > you can eat without gaining again, and if you start
> > exercising for an
hour
> > or 90 minutes at a stretch, you can increase it more.

[Jayjay]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:14:31 -0400, Patricia Heil
<pjayheil@erols.com> wrote:

>My response would be do you realize how many people stop most
>weight plans because they don't offer much selection? And
>then they gain the weight right back. So how good can a plan
>be that has boredom built into
>it.

First off, those people who got off the plan probably did not
educate themselves enough to realize the vast amount of
selection there really
is. Short of the VLCD made up of meal replacement shakes -
almost all the other WOE's out there offere a great
variety. Boredom isn't the problem - lack of education,
lack of research and lack of taking the time to make
something is why they go off the plan. The fact that
just about any WOE out there will limit or eliminate
junk foods and convienence foods is a bigger issue than
boredom. People go off diets and gain weight back
because they want to eat greasy burgers and fries and
potato chips and candy.

>Any by the way you're wrong, for me it's fat that makes it
>hard for me to lose weight even when I do exercise and
>low-carb diets aren't designed to reduce dietary fat.

Um - your ignorance is showing once again and you are
wrong. Low carbers do have to watch their fat content. Fat
is a calorie dense nutrient. It contains more than twice
the amoiunt of calories than carbs or protein. So, even low
carbers can tell you that they don't eat all fat and they
do watch their fat content. Even Doctor Atkins states in
his book, "New Diet Revolution" that you can't go overboard
on the fat.

And if you think "fat" in foods made you fat - then your
ignorance is showing even more. (you are good at that though).
Its because you ate too much is why you got fat. Maybe you ate
too many greasy, fatty foods, but that doesn't matter. If you
ate too many carbs, you'd get just as fat.

It all boils down simply to, calories in verses calories out.

>
>That Guy wrote:
>>
>> "AmazingRich" <AmazingRich@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in
>> message news:b86be1$asi$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>> > "Obese women who are otherwise healthy can lose twice the
>> > weight on a low-carbohydrate diet plan as on a
>> > traditional low-fat plan. And they can
>> do
>> > so without compromising their cardiovascular health, at
>> > least in the short term, new research concludes.
>>
>> An "expert" said at the end of the article:
>>
>> "When you go on such a low-carb diet, there's not much food
>> left to select from."
>>
>> My response would be, "And you consider that a bad thing?
>> Have you stopped to consider that the foods one is
>> restricted from on a low-carb diet are the ones that
>> contribute to obesity?"
>>
>> And "exercising for an hour or 90 minutes at a stretch may
>> be more difficult on such a diet," she says, "because the
>> body depends on carbohydrates for energy."
>>
>> Um, hello? A low-carb diet isn't a NO-carb diet. Once you
>> reach your target weight, you can gradually increase the
>> carbs until you find how much you can eat without gaining
>> again, and if you start exercising for an hour or 90
>> minutes at a stretch, you can increase it more.

[Lyle McDon]

That Guy wrote:
>
> "Patricia Heil" <pjayheil@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3EA6F427.CB1798B6@erols.com...
> > My response would be do you realize how many people stop
> > most weight plans because they don't offer much selection?
>
> Well, the low-carbers on this group seem to be having great
> success sticking with it.

There is an inherent selection bias.

Folks who fail are NOT going to be posting to a lowcarb group.
By definition you're only getting success stories.

> and low-carb diets aren't designed to reduce
> > dietary fat.
>
> True, but yet they reduce body fat on most people why try
> them. In fact, the study showed that low-carbers lost *twice
> as much* weight as the low-fatters.

Extra WEIGHT loss is standard on lowcarb diets due to
increased water losses. This can be very significant (water
losses ranging from 1-15 lbs have been reported in the
literature).

The question is whether increased amounts of true tissue
(fat or muscle) are being lost. See below for more
comments on that.

> Hey, I'm not saying low-carbing is for you. But it seems
> like you are saying that LC eating doesn't work, and the
> study shows they do in fact work twice as well as low-fat
> diets, and the majority of experiences reported here back up
> the study.

Except that this study runs contrary to just about every other
one done on the topic showing little to no true differences in
tissue (fat/muscle, NOT water) losses between diets.

It *sounds* like they were relying on self-reported caloric
intakes and, if so, the study is fundamentally flawed because
study after study shows that people don't estimate their true
caloric intakes worth a shit.

When you consider that controlled calorie studies comparing
diets (i.e. folks are given a meticulously measured number of
calories of differing macronutrient composition) show
basically no difference in true tissue losses, I suspect this
is where the problem lays.

Without reading the full study though, this is only
speculation (based on a wealth of prior evidence, however)
on my part.

Lyle

>
> >
> > That Guy wrote:
> > >
> > > "AmazingRich" <AmazingRich@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in
> > > message news:b86be1$asi$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > "Obese women who are otherwise healthy can lose twice
> > > > the weight on a low-carbohydrate diet plan as on a
> > > > traditional low-fat plan. And they
> can
> > > do
> > > > so without compromising their cardiovascular health,
> > > > at least in the
> short
> > > > term, new research concludes.
> > >
> > > An "expert" said at the end of the article:
> > >
> > > "When you go on such a low-carb diet, there's not much
> > > food left to
> select
> > > from."
> > >
> > > My response would be, "And you consider that a bad
> > > thing? Have you
> stopped
> > > to consider that the foods one is restricted from on a
> > > low-carb diet are
> the
> > > ones that contribute to obesity?"
> > >
> > > And "exercising for an hour or 90 minutes at a stretch
> > > may be more difficult on such a diet," she says,
> > > "because the body depends on carbohydrates for energy."
> > >
> > > Um, hello? A low-carb diet isn't a NO-carb diet. Once
> > > you reach your target weight, you can gradually increase
> > > the carbs until you find how
> much
> > > you can eat without gaining again, and if you start
> > > exercising for an
> hour
> > > or 90 minutes at a stretch, you can increase it more.

[Steve]

"AmazingRich" <AmazingRich@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<b86be1$asi$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...
> "Obese women who are otherwise healthy can lose twice the
> weight on a low-carbohydrate diet plan as on a traditional
> low-fat plan. And they can do so without compromising their
> cardiovascular health, at least in the short term, new
> research concludes.

Losing is only one problem. Keeping the fat off is
another issue.

Any lame diet scheme will take fat off, but the bottom line
is if the regime is sustainable and will it keep the weight
off for years

Steve

[Tony Lew]

"That Guy" <webgrunt7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bQzpa.388$dj1.18700@news7.onvoy.net>...
> "AmazingRich" <AmazingRich@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:b86be1$asi$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> > "Obese women who are otherwise healthy can lose twice the
> > weight on a low-carbohydrate diet plan as on a traditional
> > low-fat plan. And they can
> do
> > so without compromising their cardiovascular health, at
> > least in the short term, new research concludes.
>
>
> An "expert" said at the end of the article:
>
> "When you go on such a low-carb diet, there's not much food
> left to select from."

Quality is not equal to quantity. I think most people would
prefer a smaller selection of foods they like than a larger
selection of foods they don't like.

>
> My response would be, "And you consider that a bad thing?
> Have you stopped to consider that the foods one is
> restricted from on a low-carb diet are the ones that
> contribute to obesity?"
>
> And "exercising for an hour or 90 minutes at a stretch may
> be more difficult on such a diet," she says, "because the
> body depends on carbohydrates for energy."
>
> Um, hello? A low-carb diet isn't a NO-carb diet. Once you
> reach your target weight, you can gradually increase the
> carbs until you find how much you can eat without gaining
> again, and if you start exercising for an hour or 90 minutes
> at a stretch, you can increase it more.

[Elvis Pars]

"That Guy" <webgrunt7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bQzpa.388$dj1.18700@news7.onvoy.net...
>
> An "expert" said at the end of the article:
>
> "When you go on such a low-carb diet, there's not much food
> left to select from."
>
> My response would be, "And you consider that a bad thing?
> Have you
stopped
> to consider that the foods one is restricted from on a
> low-carb diet are
the
> ones that contribute to obesity?"

Any foods can contribute to obesity if you eat more Calories
then you require. Whether it is an overindulgence in carbs and
fat, or protein and fat, to many Calories and any food (or
food group) will contribute to obesity.

> And "exercising for an hour or 90 minutes at a stretch may
> be more difficult on such a diet," she says, "because the
> body depends on carbohydrates for energy."
>
> Um, hello? A low-carb diet isn't a NO-carb diet. Once you
> reach your target weight, you can gradually increase the
> carbs until you find how
much

Another word for carbs is Calories. Control of Calories is the
issue, not carbs, but if cutting back carbs helps you to
control an insatiable appetite, and reduce your appetite, then
power to you, but don't resort to Magick to make your point.

> you can eat without gaining again, and if you start
> exercising for an hour or 90 minutes at a stretch, you can
> increase it more.

[Qubit]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:31:16 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
<RogerZoul@hotmail.com> wrote:

>And not only that....your body adapts to a great degree to
>exercising while on restricted carbs....I can do intensite
>weight training for 1.5 hours while doing strict LCing....I
>could not when I first started....

There are very hard working folks whose lives are low-carb by
style, not by choice. They do fine.

However, if you are starting into ketosis, find another
trainer. This one will not work with you.

[Elvis Pars]

"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
message news:3EA70DAB.64D84B5D@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
>
> There is an inherent selection bias.

Amen to that brother Lyle!

> Folks who fail are NOT going to be posting to a lowcarb
> group. By definition you're only getting success stories.

Possibly because the cult doesn't like to hear about failure
rates, even if it is a matter of just having to cut back
Calories, as that flies in the face of the individual cult
members who can eat 50,000+ Calories and lose 35lbs a week.

> Extra WEIGHT loss is standard on lowcarb diets due to
> increased water losses. This can be very significant (water
> losses ranging from 1-15 lbs have been reported in the
> literature).

Is that because each glycogen molecule that is released,
releases water that is stored with it? Or should I stop
reading the man with the big yellow hat books?

> When you consider that controlled calorie studies comparing
> diets (i.e. folks are given a meticulously measured number
> of calories of differing macronutrient composition) show
> basically no difference in true tissue losses, I suspect
> this is where the problem lays.

Oh my, you are using studies against the cult, that's bloody
fucking hairysea (or is that heresy)!

> Without reading the full study though, this is only
> speculation (based on a wealth of prior evidence, however)
> on my part.

Jeeze Lyle! Prior evidence and studies to anecdotal evidence,
are you insane or something? Next thing you know you are going
to refute the Easter bunny and Satan Clause!

> Lyle

People, please don't listen to the man behind the curtain, you
can eat 100,000+ Calories and still lose 80lbs a week. This is
the word of our Lord, so let it be! AMEN!

[Lyle McDon]

Elvis Parsley wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> message news:3EA70DAB.64D84B5D@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> >
> > There is an inherent selection bias.
>
> Amen to that brother Lyle!
>
> > Folks who fail are NOT going to be posting to a lowcarb
> > group. By definition you're only getting success stories.
>
> Possibly because the cult doesn't like to hear about failure
> rates, even if it is a matter of just having to cut back
> Calories, as that flies in the face of the individual cult
> members who can eat 50,000+ Calories and lose 35lbs a week.

And even if 100% of ASD readers/posters never failed, the
number of regulars is still only going to represent a tiny
portion of:
a. total dieters (some ungodly percentage of adults are
dieting at any one time and only some percentage of those
are using lowcarb in the first place)
b. total lowcarb dieters

Like I said, there's an inherent selection bias which gives a
very skewed idea of success rates. Which is all fine and well,
it demonstrates that there is a percentage of folks who can
maintain a true lowcarb diet in the long term (relatively
speaking of course, long-term diet success and failure is
measured in years, not in weeks or even months). It certainly
doesn't represent a majority or even all.

>
> > Extra WEIGHT loss is standard on lowcarb diets due to
> > increased water losses. This can be very significant
> > (water losses ranging from 1-15 lbs have been reported in
> > the literature).
>
> Is that because each glycogen molecule that is released,
> releases water that is stored with it? Or should I stop
> reading the man with the big yellow hat books?

glygogen associated water storage/loss is part of it ketones
appear to be a natural diuretic as well probably other
mechanisms at work

> > Without reading the full study though, this is only
> > speculation (based on a wealth of prior evidence, however)
> > on my part.
>
> Jeeze Lyle! Prior evidence and studies to anecdotal
> evidence, are you insane or something? Next thing you know
> you are going to refute the Easter bunny and Satan Clause!

Ok, the Easter bunny exists, as I have a photo of myself
sitting on his lap. The magical appearance of a candy filled
basket in my room on Sunday lends further evidence.

And I maintain that, in my youth, I saw first hand Santa's
sleigh. This is based on my observation one X-mas eve of a
single non-flashing light crossing the night sky. Obviously it
was Rudolf since no planes I'm aware of have a single
non-flashing light on them.

As well, the sudden appearance of gifts as well as the
unexplained disappearance of both cookies AND milk (all those
carbs must be why Santa's so damn fat) lend incontrovertible
circumstantial evidence to his existence.

Hell, the 'proof' I gave for Santa's existence is stronger
than half the shit people use to 'prove' claims on Usenet.

Lyle

[Mxsmanic]

All long-term useful (i.e., fat) weight loss results from
calorie deficits in diet. How this deficit is achieved is
irrelevant. For people who are in otherwise normal health
apart from their obesity, personal preference is the only
factor to consider in the choice of method used to reduce
calories, since only total calories matter for weight loss.

"AmazingRich" <AmazingRich@nospam.yahoo.com> a écrit dans le
message de news: b86be1$asi$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Obese women who are otherwise healthy can lose twice the
> weight on a low-carbohydrate diet plan as on a traditional
> low-fat plan. And they can
do
> so without compromising their cardiovascular health, at
> least in the short term, new research concludes.
>
> The new report, published in the April issue of The Journal
> of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, promises to refuel
> the diet debate over whether low-carb or low-fat is the
> better approach.
>
> <...>
>
> The low-carbohydrate group, at the three-month mark, was
> averaging 15 percent of calories from carbohydrates, 28
> percent from protein and 57 percent from fat. At the
> six-month mark, they were eating 30 percent
carbs,
> 23 percent protein and 46 percent fat.
>
> The low-fat group was averaging 54 percent of calories from
> carbohydrates three months into the study, 18 percent from
> protein and 28 percent from fat. At six months, the totals
> were 53 percent carbs, 18 percent protein
and
> 29 percent fat.
>
> Average calorie intake was similar for both groups - 1 302 a
> day for the low-carb group after six months and 1 247 for
> the low-fat group... "
>
> Above quotes from this article:
>
>
http://www.health24.co.za/news.asp?action=art&SubContentTypeI-
d=5&ContentID=2
> 1896
>
> Similar article:
>
> http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=22770
>
> Link to the study abstract:
> http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/4/1617
>
> A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet
> and a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and
> Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women Bonnie J.
> Brehm, Randy J. Seeley, Stephen R. Daniels and David A.
D'Alessio
> University of Cincinnati and Children's Hospital
> Medical Center,
Cincinnati,
> Ohio 45221
>
> Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to:
> Bonnie Brehm, Ph.D., University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box
> 210038, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0038. E-mail:
> bonnie.brehm@uc.edu.
>
> Untested alternative weight loss diets, such as very low
> carbohydrate
diets,
> have unsubstantiated efficacy and the potential to adversely
> affect cardiovascular risk factors. Therefore, we designed a
> randomized,
controlled
> trial to determine the effects of a very low carbohydrate
> diet on body composition and cardiovascular risk factors.
> Subjects were randomized to 6 months of either an ad libitum
> very low carbohydrate diet or a calorie-restricted diet with
> 30% of the calories as fat. Anthropometric
and
> metabolic measures were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and
> 6 months. Fifty-three healthy, obese female volunteers (mean
> body mass index, 33.6 ± .3 kg/m2) were randomized; 42 (79%)
> completed the trial. Women on both diets reduced calorie
> consumption by comparable amounts at 3 and 6 months. The
> very low carbohydrate diet group lost more weight (8.5 ± 1.0
> vs. 3.9 ±
> 1. kg; P < 0.001) and more body fat (4.8 ± 0.67 vs. 2.0 ±
> 0.75 kg; P < .01) than the low fat diet group. Mean
> levels of blood pressure, lipids, fasting glucose, and
> insulin were within normal ranges in both groups at
> baseline. Although all of these parameters improved over
> the course of the study, there were no differences
> observed between the two diet groups at 3 or 6 months. ß-
> Hydroxybutyrate increased significantly in the very low
> carbohydrate group at 3 months (P = 0.001). Based on
> these data, a very
low
> carbohydrate diet is more effective than a low fat diet for
> short-term weight loss and, over 6 months, is not associated
> with deleterious effects on important cardiovascular risk
> factors in healthy women.
>
> This work was supported by the American Heart Association,
> University of Cincinnati Obesity Research Center, University
> of Cincinnati Research Council, Children's Hospital Medical
> Center Clinical Research Center (supported in part by USPHS
> Grant M01-RR-08084 from the General Clinical Research Center
> Program, National Center for Research Resources, NIH), and
> NIH Grants DK-54263 and DK-56863.
>
> Abbreviations: DEXA, Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry; HDL,
> high density lipoprotein; LDL, low density lipoprotein.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Rich to email remove "nospam."

[Mxsmanic]

"lordy" <spam_box@gmx.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
Xns9366EB0A33347lordybigfootcom@130.133.1.4...

> But the claim that you can eat approx the same amount
> of calories and lose twice the weight is the hotly
> debated issue.

It is not debated at all, because it is impossible. Real
weight loss--loss of fat or other tissue, and not just
water--is linked directly to total calorie intake vs. total
calorie expenditure, and the dietary source of calories is
completely irrelevant. Two people burning and eating the same
number of calories each day will lose exactly the same amount
of weight over time, no matter how much difference there might
be in the _composition_ of their diets.

This is a function of fundamental physical laws, and there is
no "debate" on whether or not these laws apply to human
bodies. They apply to everything in the universe.

[Jenny]

Steve wrote:
> Losing is only one problem. Keeping the fat off is
> another issue.
>
> Any lame diet scheme will take fat off, but the bottom line
> is if the regime is sustainable and will it keep the weight
> off for years

Yup. That's why I'm a big fan of low carbing. I maintained a
20 lb weight loss for 3 years by low carbing with no attempt
to control calories . Then I let some idiot doctor talk me
into stopping and I gained it all back over the next year. I
re-started low carbing 6 months ago and now weigh seven pounds
less than when I quit low carbing. In fact, I now weigh what I
weighed ten years ago.

Not bad for a diabetic, post-menopausal old lady! I can count
on the fingers of one thumb the other women of my age in my
circle who weigh less now than they did five years ago.

But yes, that is anecdotal. Albert Einstein Medical School is
currently doing a 5-year study about how well people who have
lost weight by low carbing for 3 months or more maintain their
weight losses over time. Participants have to do periodic
weigh-ins at their doctors and report on what they are
currently eating. I am participating and look forward to
seeing what their results show.

Finally, on the issue of calories. My own experience is that
while low carbing, I do have to watch calories to lose. BUT,
and it's a big but, on a low carb diet I can eat a lot more
food while maintaining a weight loss than I can on a
"balanced" diet. Even more important, on a "balanced" diet I
cannot lose weight at the calorie level that allows weight
loss on a low carb diet.

That's me. And a lot of other people with blood sugar issues.
My personal belief is that if a person can lose weight on a
balanced diet, it's a better approach. It's one I used when I
was young and is why I never had a weight problem until my
50s. But when the strategies that have led to successful
weight control stop working--as they do for most menopausal
women--low carbing may be the diet of last resort. Which is
why it's good to know it can lead to long term success!

-- Jenny
168.5/145/145 Achieved Second Goal!
169/1998 - 8/2001 and 11/10/02 - Now
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/jennypics.htm
Before and After Photos

http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean How to calculate
your need for protein * How much people really lose each
month * Water Weight Gain & Loss * The "Two Gram Cure" for
Hunger Cravings
* Characteristics of Successful Dieters * Indispensible Low
Carb Treats * Should You Count that Low Impact Carb? *
Curing Ketobreath

[Lordy]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:T5Odneg_Yr9iPjqjXTWcrg@giganews.com:

> "lordy" <spam_box@gmx.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> Xns9366EB0A33347lordybigfootcom@130.133.1.4...
>
>> But the claim that you can eat approx the same amount
>> of calories and lose twice the weight is the hotly
>> debated issue.
>
> It is not debated at all, because it is impossible. Real
> weight loss--loss of fat or other tissue, and not just
> water--is linked directly to total calorie intake vs. total
> calorie expenditure, and the dietary source of calories is
> completely irrelevant. Two people burning and eating the
> same number of calories each day will lose exactly the same
> amount of weight over time, no matter how much difference
> there might be in the _composition_ of their diets.
>
> This is a function of fundamental physical laws, and there
> is no "debate" on whether or not these laws apply to human
> bodies. They apply to everything in the universe.

I hear you. and I agree with you. Mainly because this is what
Lyle and others more knowledgable in this area assert and I
respect their knowledge. I think people "debate" the
efficiency of the body in extracting the energy from various
food sources vs how much goes out the back passage etc etc.

I think its an over-simplification to say its fundamental law
of physics because of these things, and thats probably one
reason they do the studies in the first place.

Its similar to how I cant accurately work out how much energy
I burn during a workout by looking just at the weights and
distances moved etc because the body is not 100% efficient and
generates heat etc.

but bottom line is I go with what you said because its
reported here by qualified others that studies have shown no
difference.

Lordy

[Jenny]

"Mxsmanic" wrote:
> Two people burning and eating the same number of calories
> each day will lose exactly the same amount of weight
over
>time, no matter how much difference there might be in the
>_composition_ of their diets.

Well, no. Because the "energy in/energy out" argument ignores
the fact that people have different metabolic rates and
differing hormonal profiles.

Take two people of the same weight and height, one of whom is
significantly hypothyroid, feed them the same diet in a
controlled environment and see whether they lose weight at the
same rate.

People on long-term cortisone therapy also gain weight out of
proportion to normal people.

Women on birth control pills tend to put on weight more than
the same women when they are not.

And almost all older people experience a normal slowing of
metabolism.

People in the very early stages of diabetes also gain weight
extremely quickly--and despite what these people have been
told by ignorant doctors--it is not because they are "lazy" or
not adhering to diets, but because something happens when a
person is extremely insulin resistant which seems to block the
normal process of weight loss.

It's quite possible that the weight gain that is generally
considered to be the cause of diabetes is, in fact, an early
sypmtom of the underlying metabolic disease. In the past,
diabetes was only diagnosed years after the disease process
had been in full swing. Now that screening criteria have
become more sensitive, we're finding a lot more diabetics who
are not, yet, obese, but only heading that way.

-- Jenny
168.5/145/145 Achieved Second Goal!
169/1998 - 8/2001 and 11/10/02 - Now
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/jennypics.htm
Before and After Photos

http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean How to calculate
your need for protein * How much people really lose each
month * Water Weight Gain & Loss * The "Two Gram Cure" for
Hunger Cravings
* Characteristics of Successful Dieters * Indispensible Low
Carb Treats * Should You Count that Low Impact Carb? *
Curing Ketobreath

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:T5Odneg_Yr9iPjqjXTWcrg@giganews.com...
> "lordy" <spam_box@gmx.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> Xns9366EB0A33347lordybigfootcom@130.133.1.4...
>
> > But the claim that you can eat approx the same amount of
> > calories and lose twice the weight is the hotly debated
> > issue.
>
> It is not debated at all, because it is impossible.
> Real weight
loss--loss
> of fat or other tissue, and not just water--is linked
> directly to total calorie intake vs. total calorie
> expenditure, and the dietary source of calories is
> completely irrelevant. Two people burning and eating the
> same number of calories each day will lose exactly the same
> amount of weight
over
> time, no matter how much difference there might be in the
> _composition_ of their diets.
>
> This is a function of fundamental physical laws, and there
> is no "debate"
on
> whether or not these laws apply to human bodies. They apply
> to everything in the universe.
>

[That Guy]

"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
message news:3EA70DAB.64D84B5D@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> That Guy wrote:
> >
> > "Patricia Heil" <pjayheil@erols.com> wrote in message
> > news:3EA6F427.CB1798B6@erols.com...
> > > My response would be do you realize how many people stop
> > > most weight plans because they don't offer much
> > > selection?
> >
> > Well, the low-carbers on this group seem to be having
> > great success
sticking
> > with it.
>
> There is an inherent selection bias.
>
> Folks who fail are NOT going to be posting to a lowcarb
> group. By definition you're only getting success stories.

Nevertheless, it works for some people.

>

> > True, but yet they reduce body fat on most people why try
> > them. In
fact,
> > the study showed that low-carbers lost *twice as much*
> > weight as the low-fatters.
>
> Extra WEIGHT loss is standard on lowcarb diets due to
> increased water losses. This can be very significant (water
> losses ranging from 1-15 lbs have been reported in the
> literature).

I am really getting tired of this myth. The studies that have
been done show FAT loss, not water loss. There might be a few
pounds of water loss at the onset of induction, but that's it;
and water loss ocurrs on ANY diet, not just LC. If a 200 lb
person lost 15 LBs of water weight, they would be seriously
(and possibly dangerously) dehydrated. Plus, people who stick
with a LC diet continue to lose weight. If it was water weight
they would die of dehydration.

> Except that this study runs contrary to just about every
> other one done on the topic showing little to no true
> differences in tissue (fat/muscle, NOT water) losses
> between diets.

That is funny! I have never heard of any study that showed
weight loss from a LC diet is water and not body fat. In fact
that makes no sense at all. I know people who have lost over
30% of their body weight with a LC WOE. You would be dead of
dehydration long before you lost 30% of your body weight in
water. I would be surprised if you could survive more than a
10% loss, and even then you would have serious symptoms.

>
> It *sounds* like they were relying on self-reported caloric
> intakes and, if so, the study is fundamentally flawed
> because study after study shows that people don't estimate
> their true caloric intakes worth a shit.

That's a good example of a straw man argument. There was no
indication that they were relying on any "estimate" of true
caloric intake. It is a simple matter to have people measure,
weigh and document everything they eat.

Additionally, it doesn't matter. The reason LC works better
than low-fat for so many is that on LC one feels satisfied on
far fewer calories, and carbohydrate cravings fade. Of course,
this is entirely subjective; your mileage may vary. When I was
LCing, I actually thought I was eating 2500 to 2800 cals per
day, but when I started measuring, counting and documenting
every bite, it turned out to be closer to 1800-2200.

>
> When you consider that controlled calorie studies comparing
> diets (i.e. folks are given a meticulously measured number
> of calories of differing macronutrient composition) show
> basically no difference in true tissue losses, I suspect
> this is where the problem lays.

Source, please.

It looks to me like some people have decided to be against low
carbing, and they think this decision is based on actual data,
when in fact it is an emotional decision backed up in their
own mind by ignoring evidence to the contrary.

[That Guy]

"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
message news:3EA7473E.3D2A369C@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> Elvis Parsley wrote:

>
> And even if 100% of ASD readers/posters never failed, the
> number of regulars is still only going to represent a tiny
> portion of:
> a. total dieters (some ungodly percentage of adults are
> dieting at any one time and only some percentage of those
> are using lowcarb in the first place)

True, but that can work against you as easily as for you. It
could be that the success rate among low carbers who are not
on this NG is higher than among the ones who do. And your
assertion that the only ones who post are the ones for whom
it works is obviously false, if you take the time to read
the posts.

> can maintain a true lowcarb diet in the long term
> (relatively speaking of course, long-term diet success and
> failure is measured in years, not in weeks or even months).
> It certainly doesn't represent a majority or even all.

I haven't seen any long-term studies with low-carb WOEs. The
studies in the past (which have not included low-carbing)
have shown that most people who lose weight through dieting
gain it all back. Will this happen to low-carbers in the same
percentages? We won't know until long-term studies on LCers
have been done. My guess is the gainback rate will be
slightly lower among low-carvers, but we'll have to wait to
know for sure.

[Victoria]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<8xSdnRGCVKmHPzqjXTWcog@giganews.com>...
> All long-term useful (i.e., fat) weight loss results from
> calorie deficits in diet. How this deficit is achieved is
> irrelevant. For people who are in otherwise normal health
> apart from their obesity, personal preference is the only
> factor to consider in the choice of method used to reduce
> calories, since only total calories matter for weight loss.
>

It never ceases to amaze me that people on all sides of an
issue will decide on the answer before the data is in, and
then insist to the death that any data contrary to their
specific opionion is wrong. Of course, if a researcher finds
that people on a low carb diet eat more, lose more, and are
healthier, he MUST be lying or deluded.

The FACTS are that this study, and another cited below, show
statistically significant results that a low carb diet results
in HIGHER weight loss with MORE calories than a low fat diet.

"Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and
cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents." Sondike
SB, Copperman N, Jacobson MS. J Pediatr 2003 Mar;142(3):253-8.

There are many possible explanations for these findings. But
your statement is unsupported even by the previously reported
research. Schemes such as food-combining or sequencing have
been shown to be ineffective in changing weight loss that
would otherwise be predicted from caloric content, but data
for the weight effect vs calorie consumption for an entirely
different macronutrient composition is limited and ambiguous.
What data there is shows differences in metabolic impact for
extremes of macronutrient composition, which argues against
the "only calories matter" dogma that you and so many others
repeat without end and without citation.

A low carbohydrate diet, as compared to a high carbohydrate
diet, alters the primary metabolic pathway that the body uses
to convert consumed food into usuable energy. It is far more
likely that the efficiency of the body in converting food
energy (measured in calories in a bomb calorimeter) into body
energy (mechanical, heat, chemical transformations) is
DIFFERENT in the two pathways than that it is the same. A
diesel engine and a gasoline engine both run on hydrocarbon
fuel, but the EFFICIENCY of the two type of engines is vastly
different.

Given a specific engine (ie one person's body in the same
metabolic condition), then more calories in = more calories
available. But it makes more sense from an engineering and
biochemical perspective to assume that energy availability is
DIFFERENT among diets of different macronutrient compositions
than to assume that it is the same. The source of calories may
be be irrelevant, but that is clearly NOT proven.

Victoria

[Tony Lew]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<T5Odneg_Yr9iPjqjXTWcrg@giganews.com>...
> "lordy" <spam_box@gmx.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> Xns9366EB0A33347lordybigfootcom@130.133.1.4...
>
> > But the claim that you can eat approx the same amount of
> > calories and lose twice the weight is the hotly debated
> > issue.
>
> It is not debated at all, because it is impossible. Real
> weight loss--loss of fat or other tissue, and not just
> water--is linked directly to total calorie intake vs. total
> calorie expenditure, and the dietary source of calories is
> completely irrelevant. Two people burning and eating the
> same number of calories each day will lose exactly the same
> amount of weight over time, no matter how much difference
> there might be in the _composition_ of their diets.
>
> This is a function of fundamental physical laws, and there
> is no "debate" on whether or not these laws apply to human
> bodies. They apply to everything in the universe.

No, it's a simplistic application of fundamental physical
laws. You're assuming that total calorie expenditure is
independent of diet. People eating the same number of
calories may not be burning the same number of calories.
It's well known that a very low-cal diet will lower you
metabolism. It's possible that a low fat one might also do
so, or that a high-fat/protein one increase it.

[Lyle McDon]

victoria wrote:
>
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<8xSdnRGCVKmHPzqjXTWcog@giganews.com>...
> > All long-term useful (i.e., fat) weight loss results
> > from calorie deficits in diet. How this deficit is
> > achieved is irrelevant. For people who are in otherwise
> > normal health apart from their obesity, personal
> > preference is the only factor to consider in the choice
> > of method used to reduce calories, since only total
> > calories matter for weight loss.
> >
>
> It never ceases to amaze me that people on all sides of an
> issue will decide on the answer before the data is in, and
> then insist to the death that any data contrary to their
> specific opionion is wrong. Of course, if a researcher finds
> that people on a low carb diet eat more, lose more, and are
> healthier, he MUST be lying or deluded.
>
> The FACTS are that this study, and another cited below, show
> statistically significant results that a low carb diet
> results in HIGHER weight loss with MORE calories than a low
> fat diet.

Ok, so you have two studies (one in children and growing kids
are a different model than full grown adults) contrasted to
many, many, many studies showing no difference (or so little
of a difference that it might as well be nothing).While those
two studies need to be included in the model, you can no more
dismiss the majority of studies done over hte last 30 years in
favor of these 2 than the contrary. A good model must include
all data including these.

So you start looking at other issues to try and figure out
what in the hell is going on:

you might note that studies using food record/estimation
methods for caloric intake show a difference while studies
using controlled food intakes don't

you might note that studies looking at the reliability of food
record/estimations show that people suck at them (and if an
adult can't reliably estimate their food intake)

you might note that studies of ad lib keto diets show that
people tend to spontaneously reduce food intake. Note that
this pediatrics abstract makes no mention of food intake;
considering the tendency to spontaneously reduce food intake
on keto diets, the reason the kids lost more weight is
probably because they ate less. Which is all fine and well
but doesn't support some metabolic magic. It means that any
diet which makes folks eat less without thinking about it is
just peachy.

you note that studies which have directly measured metabolism
under different dietary conditions show minimal differences
between varying macro diets. One study looked at bodyweight
over 2 week spans in hospital patients using diet ranging from
0 to 70% fat and showed NO difference in bodyweight, calories
were meticulously controlled with liquid nutrition so intakes
were as exacting as exacting can get; diet composition at
controlled calorie levels had NO impact on bodyweight. A 2
fold increase in fat loss would predict a monstrously
measurable increase in metabolism and that increase simply has
not shown up in the studies. Contrast that, for example to a
recent study which looked at the effects on metabolic rate of
MCTs vs. long-chain triglycerides which measured metabolic
rate directly. It showed that the MCT diet increased metabolic
rate slightly and this explained the slightly greater fat
loss. A 2 fold increase in fat loss would predict a far
greater (hence, easily measurable) increase in metabolism and
it just hasn't shown up in studies which have done so.
Differences in metabolic rate between diets tend to be small
approaching negligble (see my other post).

The calories can't just mystically disappear (ketone excretion
rates can account for, at most, 100 cal/day and that's at a
very maximum), they all have to be accounted for. Studies
don't support that more calories are being lost fecally
(protein and fat both have extremely high absorption rates) on
a keto diet so that's not where they are going. There's no
indication of caloric wasteage (old term: luxoconsumption; new
term: non-exercise adaptive thermogenesis) or an increase in
metabolic rate.

All of these make such conclusions (that a keto diet causes so
much greater fat loss at the same calorie level) tenuous at
best. The more parsimonius conclusion is that, in studies
where people are self-reporting food intake, they are doing a
bad job of it; they're eating less on the keto diet and that's
why they are losing weight.

Which, to be redundant, is all fine and well. AGain, two
different issues here and it's easy to confuse them.

1. Does a ketogenic diet have a metabolic advantage so that
you lose more weight (fat/muscle) at the same calories
2. Does a keto diet simply make you eat less without thinking
about it or being hungry and that's why you lose weight

#1 is not defensible based on the majority of data that's been
#collected
over the last 30 years

#2 very much is for many people (some find no appetite
#decrease on a
keto diet, do'nt reduce calories and lose no fat; or
even gain it).

Lyle

> "Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and
> cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents."
> Sondike SB, Copperman N, Jacobson MS. J Pediatr 2003
> Mar;142(3):253-8.
>
> There are many possible explanations for these findings. But
> your statement is unsupported even by the previously
> reported research. Schemes such as food-combining or
> sequencing have been shown to be ineffective in changing
> weight loss that would otherwise be predicted from caloric
> content, but data for the weight effect vs calorie
> consumption for an entirely different macronutrient
> composition is limited and ambiguous. What data there is
> shows differences in metabolic impact for extremes of
> macronutrient composition, which argues against the "only
> calories matter" dogma that you and so many others repeat
> without end and without citation.
>
> A low carbohydrate diet, as compared to a high carbohydrate
> diet, alters the primary metabolic pathway that the body
> uses to convert consumed food into usuable energy. It is far
> more likely that the efficiency of the body in converting
> food energy (measured in calories in a bomb calorimeter)
> into body energy (mechanical, heat, chemical
> transformations) is DIFFERENT in the two pathways than that
> it is the same. A diesel engine and a gasoline engine both
> run on hydrocarbon fuel, but the EFFICIENCY of the two type
> of engines is vastly different.
>
> Given a specific engine (ie one person's body in the same
> metabolic condition), then more calories in = more
> calories available. But it makes more sense from an
> engineering and biochemical perspective to assume that
> energy availability is DIFFERENT among diets of different
> macronutrient compositions than to assume that it is the
> same. The source of calories may be be irrelevant, but
> that is clearly NOT proven.
>
> Victoria

[Sue]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:T5Odneg_Yr9iPjqjXTWcrg@giganews.com... (snip)

> Two people burning and eating the same number of calories
> each day will lose exactly the same amount of weight
over
> time, no matter how much difference there might be in the
> _composition_ of their diets.
>

If you mean two people that are at the same height with
similar LBM and no health issues, that may be true. Otherwise,
it's not true when you take a tall man and a short woman and
put them on the same diet with the same number of calories. He
is going to lose weight faster than she because he has more
LBM than she. I am short, moderately exercise, and maintain my
weight around 1,600 calories a day. On the other hand, my
husband who is a foot taller would be losing a lot of weight
on 1,600 calories a day without exercising.

[Hank]

In misc.fitness.weights Jenny <jenny_the_bean@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Well, no. Because the "energy in/energy out" argument
> ignores the fact that people have different metabolic rates
> and differing hormonal profiles.

> Take two people of the same weight and height, one of whom
> is significantly hypothyroid, feed them the same diet in a
> controlled environment and see whether they lose weight at
> the same rate.

Perhaps because someone who is hypothyroid has a lower
basal metabolic rate which alters the "energy out" part of
the equation?

Hank

[Lyle McDon]

Jenny wrote:
>
> "Mxsmanic" wrote:
> > Two people burning and eating the same number of calories
> > each day will lose exactly the same amount of weight
> over
> >time, no matter how much difference there might be in the
> >_composition_ of their diets.
>
> Well, no. Because the "energy in/energy out" argument
> ignores the fact that people have different metabolic rates
> and differing hormonal profiles.
>
> Take two people of the same weight and height, one of whom
> is significantly hypothyroid, feed them the same diet in a
> controlled environment and see whether they lose weight at
> the same rate.

That's all good and well when you're comparing people but
that's not a reasonable comparison. Of course there is
variance in weight loss between people even if put on the
identical diet study. Differences in metabolic rate,
adaptation to dieting (or overfeeding), etc contribute. So
what, who cares what two different people get in terms of
diet. We're concerned with whether FOR ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL a
given diet is going to cause a major difference in anything.
Comparing two people is irrelevant as hell.

But what's being suggested is this

Take someone who is significantly hypothyroid and feed
them either
a. 1800 cal/day lowcarb
b. 1800 cal/day high carb

And you will see differences in weight gain or weight loss.

Low-carb (or any diet) folks argue yes, they say that they
gained on X calories of high carb but magically lose on 2X (or
whatever) lowcarb. That they gained some amazing metabolic
benefit from switching around their macronutrients.

But if the hypothyroid person has a lwoered metabolic rate
(as a consequence of their hypothyroid status), they are not
going to magically lose more weight on 1800 cal of one
nutrient combo vs. 1800 cal of another. B/c if their
maintanance energy requirements are, say, 1600, then 1800
cal/day is still 200 cal/day over maintenance no matter where
the calories come from.

> People in the very early stages of diabetes also gain weight
> extremely quickly--and despite what these people have been
> told by ignorant doctors--it is not because they are "lazy"
> or not adhering to diets, but because something happens when
> a person is extremely insulin resistant which seems to block
> the normal process of weight loss.

Interestingly, the research suggests the exact opposite:
insulin resistance DEVELOPS to try and prevent further weight
gain. If you think about what insulin resistance (esp. at the
fat cell) means, this makes sense. When you consider the
hyperglycemic, hypertriglyceridemia and all the rest that
develops with IR, you realize something very simple: with
severe insulin resistance, you can NOT push calories into fat
cells (which is why they build up in the bloodstream), this
PREVENTS further weight gain.

As well, studies using controlled caloric intakes show no
relationship between insulin resistance and weight loss.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cm-
d=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=10022419

For some pertinent studies. note that, in some studies, being
insulin resistant leads to GREATER weight losses.

The issue is that, with some diet interpretations (esp
higher carb/lower fat esp. when the carbs are high on the
glycemic index), insulin resistance folks have trouble
controlling calories and end up eating more. It's the
eating more that causes the weight gain. The insulin
resistance is a precipitating factor, of course, but it's
not the causal issue.

Lyle

[Lyle McDon]

Tony Lew wrote:
>
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<T5Odneg_Yr9iPjqjXTWcrg@giganews.com>...
> > "lordy" <spam_box@gmx.net> a écrit dans le message de
> > news: Xns9366EB0A33347lordybigfootcom@130.133.1.4...
> >
> > > But the claim that you can eat approx the same amount of
> > > calories and lose twice the weight is the hotly debated
> > > issue.
> >
> > It is not debated at all, because it is impossible. Real
> > weight loss--loss of fat or other tissue, and not just
> > water--is linked directly to total calorie intake vs.
> > total calorie expenditure, and the dietary source of
> > calories is completely irrelevant. Two people burning and
> > eating the same number of calories each day will lose
> > exactly the same amount of weight over time, no matter how
> > much difference there might be in the _composition_ of
> > their diets.
> >
> > This is a function of fundamental physical laws, and there
> > is no "debate" on whether or not these laws apply to human
> > bodies. They apply to everything in the universe.
>
> No, it's a simplistic application of fundamental physical
> laws. You're assuming that total calorie expenditure is
> independent of diet. People eating the same number of
> calories may not be burning the same number of calories.
> It's well known that a very low-cal diet will lower you
> metabolism. It's possible that a low fat one might also do
> so, or that a high-fat/protein one increase it.

Right, possible and it should be easily measured.

The studies have been done and the difference tends to be very
small if they show up at all.

Phinney looked at a 4 week keto diet in cyclists and found no
difference in resting oxygen expenditure (used to estimate
basal metabolic rate) between high and low carb diets.

One study found that the higher carb/lower fat diet increased
metabolic rate by about 100 calories/day which is about what
you'd expect based on differences in the thermic effect of
food. Read that again: if anything, metabolism should be
HIGHER on higher carbs which goes well against the claims of
low-carb proponents. Other studies, using direct measurement
under different dietary conditions show little to no
difference.

When you consider that the difference in thermic effect
between carbs and fat is about 3% (6% for carbs, 3% for fat),
this is easy to calculate.

For every 100 calories of fat that you replace with carbs,
you'll burn 3 calories more per day. You'll be skinny in no
time. note that carbs should be BETTER in this case but, of
course, this ASSumes that you eat an identical number of
calories which is not necessarily a safe assumption.

Protein, admittedly had the highest thermic effect (20-25% by
most estimations). Increasing protein while decreasing carbs
or fat has the potential to have the greatest impact on
metabolism. For most people, protein intake tends to be
limited to within a certain realistic range so even this has a
minimal impact overall.

But using 25% thermic effect, let's do math at 50 g/day of
protein (200 cal), the thermic effect is 50 cal increase that
to 100 g/day (400 cal), the thermic effct is 100 cal 200 g/day
(800 cal), the thermic effect is 200 cal

So comparing say 50 g/day to 200 g/day (assume caloric intake
is otherwise identical), you should burn ~150 cal/day more.
Over a month's time that would predict an extra pound or so of
fat (150 * 7 * 4
= 4200 cal/3500 cal/lb fat = 1.2 lbs). But that's a
= pretty extreme
differential in protein intake. And I'd consider a 'high-carb'
diet at 50 g/day protein to be protein insufficient in the
first place. And, again, the studies done on this topic,
lookin at nutrient intakes on ad lib keto don't show nearly
that kind of differential in protein intake.

Of course, since protein also has the greatest satiating
effect, folks on very high protein diets tend to eat less
calories (in one of the more recent, folks on 25% vs. 12%
protein ate nearly 700 cal/day less and lost a ton of weight
becuase of it). Which is also all fine and good.

piont being that small differences in metabolic rate between
different diets tend to be exactly that: small. They certain
pale in comparison to the total caloric intake (in terms of
percentage). Protein is the exception but, in realistic diets,
most people do'nt change protein very much (or enough) and
tend to shuffle carbs and fat. The difference in thermic
effect between those two nutrients amounts to 4/5 of pretty
much nothing.

FWIW, this particular study, ASSuming the diet records were
accurate (and I have little reason to believe they were based
on a wealth of previous studies) showed protein intakes at 78
vs. 55 g/day for the low carb vs. high carb diets. That's 23
grams of protein to the tune of 100 extra calories to the tune
of 25 more calories burned due to the thermic effect. BFD.

Lyle

[Katra]

Hank wrote:
>
> In misc.fitness.weights Jenny
> <jenny_the_bean@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, no. Because the "energy in/energy out" argument
> > ignores the fact that people have different metabolic
> > rates and differing hormonal profiles.
>
> > Take two people of the same weight and height, one of whom
> > is significantly hypothyroid, feed them the same diet in a
> > controlled environment and see whether they lose weight at
> > the same rate.
>
> Perhaps because someone who is hypothyroid has a lower basal
> metabolic rate which alters the "energy out" part of the
> equation?
>
> Hank

Well duh!!!

K.

[Hank]

In misc.fitness.weights Katra <Katra@centurytel.net> wrote:

> Hank wrote:
>>
>> In misc.fitness.weights Jenny
>> <jenny_the_bean@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Well, no. Because the "energy in/energy out" argument
>> > ignores the fact that people have different metabolic
>> > rates and differing hormonal profiles.
>>
>> > Take two people of the same weight and height, one of
>> > whom is significantly hypothyroid, feed them the same
>> > diet in a controlled environment and see whether they
>> > lose weight at the same rate.
>>
>> Perhaps because someone who is hypothyroid has a lower
>> basal metabolic rate which alters the "energy out" part of
>> the equation?
>>
>> Hank

> Well duh!!!

And so how is it the "the 'energy in/energy out' argument
ignores the fact that people have different metabolic rates" ?

Hank

[Lyle McDon]

Lyle McDonald wrote: Since I imagine someone is going to ask
about this:

> In one of the earliest studies of low-carbohydrate
> diets, subjects were fed 1800 calories, 115 grams of
> protein, and varied carbohydrate from 104 grams to
> 60 grams to 30 grams (18). Fat was varied in
> proportion to carbohydrate to keep calories
> constant. The diet was fed for 9 weeks. Total fat
> loss was directly related to carbohydrate content
> with the highest fat loss occurring with the lowest
> carbohydrate content and vice versa. Since there
> were so few subjects in each group, the data for
> each subject is presented. The data from this study
> appears in table 2 on the next page. By examining
> the data for each subject, some patterns emerge.
> First and foremost, there is a definite trend for
> greater fat loss and less LBM loss as carbohydrates
> are decreased in the diet. However, there is a large
> degree of variability (note that subject 3 in the
> medium carbohydrate group lost less muscle than
> subject 3 in the low carbohydrate group). Before
> drawing any ultimate conclusions from this study, it
> should be noted that the protein intake is still
> below what is recommended in this book, which might
> change the results in all diet groups. Additionally,
> the low carbohydrate nature of all three diets,
> relative to current dietary recommendations, makes
> it impossible to draw conclusions between a
> ketogenic diet and a more typical high-carbohydrate
> diet deriving 55-60% of its total calories from
> carbohydrate.
>
> Table 2: changes in body composition
>
Group Carb Protein Fat Weight Fat LBM
> (g) (g) (g) loss (kg) loss (kg)
> loss (kg) High 1 104
> 115 103 8.5 6.6 1.9 2
> 13.9 10.2 2.7
>
> Medium 1 60 115 122 13.4 9.9 3.5 2 11.6 9.9 1.7 3
> 11.8 10.9 0.9
>
> Low 1 30 115 133 Not measured 2 15.3 14.7 0.6 3 16.0
> 15.0 1.0
>
> Source: Young CM et. al. Effect on body composition and
> other parameters in young men of carbohydrate reduction in
> diet. Am J Clin Nutr (1971)
> 24: 290-296.

Since someone will probably ask about this particular study
(it being one of the only other studies to show a major
difference in fat loss between diets), I wanted to offer the
following additional comments (sorry for the formatting). I
had reason to go look at this study again and a few things
jumped out at me that I missed the first time through.
Comments below (someone had asked me about the differences in
body comp changes in another forum).

Lyle

** differences in *weight* loss are pretty easy: water. A
lowered carb diet will result in more water loss so weight
loss is almost always higher.

In terms of fat loss, in the Alford/Golay studies, I comment
that there was a lot of variability among subjects. By
averaging the results, you lose that fact. As well, the
difference in fat loss was slight, 1 kg over 10 weeks in the
Golay study, 1.5 kg over 12 weeks in the Alford study (and the
high carb diet was crappy, protein was too low). The best
bodyfat measurement methods have a 3-5% error and that could
explain a few pounds either way fairly easily.

I think I mentioned that the folks I was getting feedback from
might have reported a 3 lb difference in fat loss for a keto
vs. moderate carb diet over 12 weeks, which is in keeping with
these results. Any difference tends to be fairly small
overall. Even then, some folks lost more fat on moderate
carbs. I imagine that biochemical individuality as well as
error in measurement is contributing. But the differences
under most conditions are extremely slight.

The Young study is a bit tougher to explain. Looking at the
study right now, a couple of things stand out. First and
foremost, there's the tiny sample sizes: a few subjects in
each group. That limits the study's applicability but doesn't
explain the trends. Although note the rather large variance.
One guy in the highest carb group lost more weight than two of
the guys in the moderate carb group. The same guy lost
slightly more fat compared to two of the guys in the moderate
carb group as well.

One thing I note right now is that there was a pretty
monstrous range of bodyweights (79-113 kg or 174-248 lbs) and
bodyfat percentage (19% to 37%). Unfortunately they didn't
indicate the weight/BF% of which subjects lost how much
weight/fat which would have been ideal. I'm willing to bet
that the biggest/fattest subjects lost the most weight/fat,
just as you'd expect.

the best I can do is look at the group averages. The lowest
carb group was heavier on average by about 7 kg (15 lbs) than
the medium carb group and about 4kg (~9 lbs) heavier than the
highest carb group. The lowest carb group was also a little
bit fatter (31.4% bodyfat) than the medium (30% bodyfat) or
highest (28%) carb group.

So we have: Highest carb: 98kg/28% BF Moderate carb:
95kg/30%BF Lowest carb: 102kg/31% BF

Another issue, something I mistakenly left out of the book.
Although they didn't report fat loss for subject 1 in group c,
they did report his weight loss: 10.77 kg. Which is less then
the other two subjects and less than what the moderate carb
group lost. That same person also didn't lose as much bodyfat
in terms of mm skinfolds (I didn't put that data in the book).
Basically it looks like they put the two heaviest/fattest
subjects along with a lighter/leaner guy in the lowest carb
group. The lighter guy only lost 10 kg and a lot less bodyfat
(he lost 137 total mm of bodyfat compared to 199 and 173 mm
for hte other two subjects, folks in the moderate carb group
lost 155, 155 and 164 total mm), compared to 15-16kg for the
other two. Basically here's the data for groups 2 and 3.

Subject Weight loss (kg) Skinfold loss (mm) A1 8.5kg 118
A2 13.88 142

B1 13.38 155 B2 11.56 164 B3 11.8 155

C1 10.77 137 C2 15.25 199 C3 15.99 173

It really does look like they put the two fattest (and
presumably heaviest) subjects in the lowest carb group. They
lost the most weight/fat, which you'd expect since 1800
calories is a larger deficit for them. The third subject in
group C had to have been lighter/leaner since he lost less
weight and total fat (by skinfolds). But he kept the average
weight/BF% of the group down.

But looking at those numbers, the lowest carb group doesn't
come out as superior across the board anymore. Subject C1 lost
less weight and fat than subject A2 for example. And the
entire B group lost more weight/fat than subject C1. And I do
really suspect that the variance in weight/fat loss had more
to do with starting weight/fat than anything else. It's too
bad they didn't list starting weight/BF% for each subject
along with individual results, that would have answered it
once and for all.

Beyond those possibilities: magic.

[Ted]

"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
message news:3EA83A1F.950A0DED@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> That Guy wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> > message news:3EA70DAB.64D84B5D@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> > > That Guy wrote:
<sniped>
> You have no clue who I am do you?
>
> Lyle
>
<sniped>

To "That Guy:" As Lyle said, you need to work on your reading
comprehension. Also, why don't you check out this link:

http://www.theketogenicdiet.com/

That will give you a clue to the question Lyle posed to you in
the above quote.
--
Ted Current quote: "It can't be like this..."
http://hometown.aol.com/rhwbullhead

[Keith Hobm]

In article <CSYpa.5147$366.4566@fed1read06>, Hank
<hank@remove.bitemehard.ath.cx> wrote:

> In misc.fitness.weights Katra <Katra@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Hank wrote:
> >>
> >> In misc.fitness.weights Jenny <jenny_the_bean@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Well, no. Because the "energy in/energy out" argument
> >> > ignores the
fact that
> >> > people have different metabolic rates and differing
> >> > hormonal profiles.
> >>
> >> > Take two people of the same weight and height, one of
> >> > whom is
significantly
> >> > hypothyroid, feed them the same diet in a controlled
> >> > environment and see whether they lose weight at the
> >> > same rate.
> >>
> >> Perhaps because someone who is hypothyroid has a lower
> >> basal metabolic rate which alters the "energy out" part
> >> of the equation?
> >>
> >> Hank
>
> > Well duh!!!
>
>
> And so how is it the "the 'energy in/energy out' argument
> ignores the fact that people have different metabolic
> rates" ?

It doesn't have to worry about it. Metabolism is dependant on
overall size and activity. Holding size constant it basically
means either reduce calories or increase activity or both to
lose weight. It ain't rocket science and the different
metabolic rate argument is most often an excuse for being fat.

The fact there may be a minor difference in metabolic rates is
a copout. So one person who weighs 200 lbs has to take in
2,000 calories to maintain and another person can only take in
1,500 calories. Despite the different setpoints the basic
formula is the same. if you want to lose weight either
increase activity or reduce calories.

Amazing how much energy is wasted looking for excuses.

As for low-carb diets - I like them because I enjoy proteins
and find that it is easy to lose weight by simply reducing my
carbs and I'm not hungry all the time. But I still lose weight
not because of some mystical magical body mechanism. I'm
reducing calories and I keep expenditure about the same.

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

[That Guy]

"Ted" <rhwbullhead@aol.com> wrote in message
news:o0Ypa.3177$%_3.2525583@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> message news:3EA83A1F.950A0DED@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> > That Guy wrote:
> > >
> > > "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote
> > > in message
> > > news:3EA70DAB.64D84B5D@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> > > > That Guy wrote:
> <sniped>
> > You have no clue who I am do you?
> >
> > Lyle
> >
> <sniped>
>
> To "That Guy:" As Lyle said, you need to work on your
> reading comprehension.

LOL! I misunderstood *one* thing he wrote and the arrogant
blowhard couldn't keep himself from insulting me throughout
his whole post about it. That tells me all I need to know
about "who he is." Personally, I prefer to listen to people
who aren't so obviously immature; I find that they are
generally better able to make judgements based on the facts
rather than simply select the facts that correspond with their
judgement.

[That Guy]

"Ted" <rhwbullhead@aol.com> wrote in message
news:o0Ypa.3177$%_3.2525583@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> message news:3EA83A1F.950A0DED@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> > That Guy wrote:
> > >
> > > "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote
> > > in message
> > > news:3EA70DAB.64D84B5D@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> > > > That Guy wrote:
> <sniped>
> > You have no clue who I am do you?
> >
> > Lyle
> >
> <sniped>
>
> To "That Guy:" As Lyle said, you need to work on your
> reading comprehension. Also, why don't you check out
> this link:
>
> http://www.theketogenicdiet.com/

LOL Again!!! I decided to take a look--he's hawking some sort
of diet book. No wonder he's so biased in favor of his ideas
about weight loss!

[Lordy]

"That Guy" <webgrunt7@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:roYpa.54$m3.2686@news7.onvoy.net:

> couldn't keep himself from insulting me throughout his whole
> post about it.

Please re-quote the insults. I missed them. I've seen his
insults before but nothing registered this time.

I deliberately watched this thread for the anticipated sheer
entertainment value in Lyles reply but I thought he was
disapointingly, very respectful and just laid down the facts.

The only insult that I could think of was your lack of
comprehension, and that seemed readily apparent. You read his
prior post assuming he had an agenda that he didnt. Your bad.

Lordy

[Sj]

In article <5rYpa.55$m3.2685@news7.onvoy.net>, That Guy
says...
>
>
>"Ted" <rhwbullhead@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:o0Ypa.3177$%_3.2525583@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
>> message news:3EA83A1F.950A0DED@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
>> > That Guy wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote
>> > > in message
>> > > news:3EA70DAB.64D84B5D@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
>> > > > That Guy wrote:
>> <sniped>
>> > You have no clue who I am do you?
>> >
>> > Lyle
>> >
>> <sniped>
>>
>> To "That Guy:" As Lyle said, you need to work on your
>> reading comprehension. Also, why don't you check out
>> this link:
>>
>> http://www.theketogenicdiet.com/
>
>
>LOL Again!!! I decided to take a look--he's hawking some sort
>of diet book. No wonder he's so biased in favor of his ideas
>about weight loss!

I sincerely hope that you're a troll and you're not really
this dim. Did you happen to notice that "some sort of diet
book" is about KETOGENIC diets? Don't you think that if he
were to be biased in favor of one type of diet it would be
keto diets? Why would you think the author of such a book
would be biased *against* keto diets?

[Lordy]

SJ <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
news:ajZpa.1838$95.464@www.newsranger.com:

>>LOL Again!!! I decided to take a look--he's hawking some
>>sort of diet book. No wonder he's so biased in favor of his
>>ideas about weight loss!
>
> I sincerely hope that you're a troll and you're not really
> this dim. Did you happen to notice that "some sort of diet
> book" is about KETOGENIC diets? Don't you think that if he
> were to be biased in favor of one type of diet it would be
> keto diets? Why would you think the author of such a book
> would be biased *against* keto diets?
>

He is in denial mode. Some people just cant admit they made
a mistake.

Anyway, its nice and sunny here in the UK so I'm going to
absorb some Vitamin-D tomorrow...

Lordy

[Lordy]

lordy <spam_box@gmx.net> wrote in
news:Xns9367ED00C795Clordybigfootcom@
130.133.1.4:

> SJ <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
> news:ajZpa.1838$95.464@www.newsranger.com:
>
>>>LOL Again!!! I decided to take a look--he's hawking some
>>>sort of diet book. No wonder he's so biased in favor of his
>>>ideas about weight loss!
>>
>> I sincerely hope that you're a troll and you're not really
>> this dim. Did you happen to notice that "some sort of diet
>> book" is about KETOGENIC diets? Don't you think that if he
>> were to be biased in favor of one type of diet it would be
>> keto diets? Why would you think the author of such a book
>> would be biased *against* keto diets?
>>
>
> He is in denial mode. Some people just cant admit they made
> a mistake.
>
> Anyway, its nice and sunny here in the UK so I'm going to
> absorb some Vitamin-D tomorrow...
>
> Lordy
>

Better put a smiley on that ---> :)

Lordy

[Mxsmanic]

"victoria" <Claybits@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: 347bcc5e.0304240923.4926e0ed@posting.google.com...

> The FACTS are that this study, and another cited below, show
> statistically significant results that a low carb diet
> results in HIGHER weight loss with MORE calories than a low
> fat diet.

There are no studies--none--in which a carefully verified
calorie deficit has failed to produce weight loss. It is a
physical impossiblity. The composition of the diet is
irrelevant; only the number of calories it contains counts.

> There are many possible explanations for these findings.

But only the ones that provide excuses for people who overeat
and remain fat are likely to be accepted by many fat people,
even if they are highly implausible or downright impossible.

> But your statement is unsupported even by the previously
> reported research.

All research throughout the history of medicine has supported
my statement. There are never any exceptions.

It's easy to verify, too. Just remove the test subject from
the equation, measure input and output correctly, and this
rule is always verified. A good example is someone on TPN or
enteric nutrition through an NG tube in a long-term coma.
Nobody ever remains or becomes obese in a coma, because people
in comas are not awake, and so they cannot overeat.

> ... which argues against the "only calories matter" dogma
> that you and so many others repeat without end and without
> citation.

Since this "dogma" is supported and required by the
fundamental physical laws of the universe, any violation of it
would require some serious rethinking on the part of the
world's physicists.

> A low carbohydrate diet, as compared to a high carbohydrate
> diet, alters the primary metabolic pathway that the body
> uses to convert consumed food into usuable energy.

Only total calories matter.

Few domains of medicine are as afflicated by mythology,
superstition, ignorance, and deliberate misrepresentation as
the domain of nutrition and weight control--although pregnancy
and neonatal child care are probably well in the running.

[Elvis Pars]

"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
message news:3EA845E2.C0027F38@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
>
<excellent Lyle post snipped for protection purposes>

> 1. Does a ketogenic diet have a metabolic advantage so that
> you lose more weight (fat/muscle) at the same calories
> 2. Does a keto diet simply make you eat less without
> thinking about it or being hungry and that's why you lose
> weight
>
> #1 is not defensible based on the majority of data that's
> #been collected
> over the last 30 years
>
> #2 very much is for many people (some find no appetite
> #decrease on a
> keto diet, do'nt reduce calories and lose no fat; or even
> gain it).

As you can see Lyle, you have your work cut out for you. This
magical disappearance of weight that most will claim is not
linked to reduced Calories, is the norm of ASDLC thinking, and
not the exception.

Hell, even the guy on dateline who tried atkins says he went
from eating a 10 egg omlet (just for breakfast) to a 3 egg
omlet and started eating less overall as he just wasn't
hungry, but for some strange reason, losing weight because one
is reducing Calories in ASDLC, is like uttering heresy!

My god Lyle, you are a heretic!! :)

> Lyle

[Mxsmanic]

"Lordy" <spam_box@gmx.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
Xns93677969A63E6lordybigfootcom@140.99.99.130...

> I think people "debate" the efficiency of the body in
> extracting the energy from various food sources vs how much
> goes out the back passage etc etc.

No, they fantasize. They do this to deny the reality that
overeating causes obesity. Eat fewer calories than you burn,
and you'll lose weight. If you are not losing weight, you're
eating too much. There are no exceptions to these rules, no
matter how badly some fat people might wish to believe
otherwise.

> I think its an over-simplification to say its fundamental
> law of physics because of these things ...

It's not an oversimplification, it's the reality. It's a
matter of conservation of energy. You cannot create energy
where there is none, and so you cannot run a body that burns
2000 kcal a day with an input of only 1800 kcal. The missing
200 kcal has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere turns
out to be primarily fat (and some other body tissue). Thus,
anyone burning 2000 kcal and eating 1800 kcal loses weight,
period. And anyone who is not losing weight is not creating a
calorie deficit.

> Its similar to how I cant accurately work out how much
> energy I burn during a workout by looking just at the
> weights and distances moved etc because the body is not 100%
> efficient and generates heat etc.

The efficiency of the body is irrelevant. Generating heat
requires energy, too.

[Mxsmanic]

"Jenny" <jenny_the_bean@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: b88lcd$425$1@bob.news.rcn.net...

> Well, no.

Well, yes.

> Because the "energy in/energy out" argument ignores the fact
> that people have different metabolic rates and differing
> hormonal profiles.

No. Reasons:

1. People do not have different metabolic rates, once these
rates are computed based on sex, weight, and body
composition.

2. Irrespective of metabolic rates, the rule of calories-in
vs. calories-out is absolute. There are NO exceptions.

3. Hormonal profiles do not affect energy requirements to any
significant degree.

> Take two people of the same weight and height, one of whom
> is significantly hypothyroid, feed them the same diet in a
> controlled environment and see whether they lose weight at
> the same rate.

They may not be burning calories at the same rate. Thus, the
rule is still obeyed.

Additionally, underactive thyroids are far less common than
many fat people would like to believe.

> People on long-term cortisone therapy also gain weight out
> of proportion to normal people.

Most fat people are not on long-term cortisone therapy.

> Women on birth control pills tend to put on weight more than
> the same women when they are not.

The rule of calories-in vs. calories-out is still respected.

> And almost all older people experience a normal slowing of
> metabolism.

The difference is very slight, and not nearly sufficient to
explain obesity.

If any of these factors were truly significant, obesity would
not be far more widespread in the U.S. than elsewhere. After
all, human bodies are the same all over the world--but human
behavior is not.

> People in the very early stages of diabetes also gain weight
> extremely quickly ...

No, they do not. Diabetes mellitus produces weight loss, when
it has any effect on weight at all. In the case of NIDDM, it
is often insensible, but in the case of IDDM, it can be
dramatic (and is often partially diagnostic of DM).

> ... and despite what these people have been told by ignorant
> doctors ...

Doctors, as a general rule, are not ignorant of medicine,
particularly in comparison to the general population.

> ... it is not because they are "lazy" or not adhering to
> diets, but because something happens when a person is
> extremely insulin resistant which seems to block the normal
> process of weight loss.

You have it backwards. People become insulin resistant when
they overeat and make themselves fat. Insulin resistance is an
effect, not a cause. People only get fat by overeating.

> It's quite possible that the weight gain that is generally
> considered to be the cause of diabetes is, in fact, an early
> sypmtom of the underlying metabolic disease.

What underlying metabolic disease?

> Now that screening criteria have become more sensitive,
> we're finding a lot more diabetics who are not, yet, obese,
> but only heading that way.

Now that people are ten times more fat than they used to be,
they are developing NIDDM much more frequently, and at much
younger ages. It is more frequently diagnosed because it is
occurring more often.

[Mxsmanic]

"Tony Lew" <rosescripter@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le
message de news:
5c7896da.0304241042.1d39233e@posting.google.com...

> No, it's a simplistic application of fundamental
> physical laws.

The physical laws are simple, and so are their explanations.

> You're assuming that total calorie expenditure is
> independent of diet.

It is.

> People eating the same number of calories may not be burning
> the same number of calories.

Obviously.

> It's well known that a very low-cal diet will lower you
> metabolism.

No, it will not. Your liver and brain do not require fewer
calories on a low-cal diet than they do on a normal diet. Your
body temperature does not drop by five degrees just because
you are on a low-cal diet.

[Mxsmanic]

"Sue" <x@ok.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
WoZpa.609583$F1.81882@sccrnsc04...

> If you mean two people that are at the same height with
> similar LBM and no health issues, that may be true.

Obviously.

> Otherwise, it's not true when you take a tall man and a
> short woman and put them on the same diet with the same
> number of calories.

It's not true when you put an elephant and a domestic cat on
the same diet, either. So?

[Jenny]

Lyle,

> Low-carb (or any diet) folks argue yes, they say that they
> gained on X calories of high carb but magically lose on 2X
> (or whatever) lowcarb. That they gained some amazing
> metabolic benefit from switching around their
> macronutrients.

Well, when I logged my food and ate 1200 calories of a mostly
vegetarian high carb diet, I lost 1 pound in a month. When I
then switched to an "anything goes" low carb diet (after
another couple months of gaining) I lost 20 lbs (more than 10%
of my initial body wieght) which I kept off for years. I was
as surprised as anyone, but that is how it worked for me.

When I recently attempted to go back to a "balanced" diet
eating at the same counted calorie level as I had been eating
while low carbing for many months, I packed on a pound a month
(after the intial gain from refilling glycogen).

Then--again suggesting that insulin is at issue, I started
taking Precose, a prescription medication that blocks carb
spiking (and hence prevents insulin spiking) and the weight
gain stopped for six more months--as long as my blood sugar
stayed flat enough to discourage insulin spiking.

> Interestingly, the research suggests the exact opposite:
> insulin resistance DEVELOPS to try and prevent further
> weight gain.

Absolutely wrong.

I had IR (documented by GTT) when I weighed 108 lbs. It took
another 20 years for me to move out of the "normal" weight
category for my height. By the time that happened, I'd lost my
first phase insulin response (having burnt out at least half
my beta cells) my blood sugar was no longer normal. It was
only at that point that I started to gain weight --about 20
lbs a year after a lifetime of keeping my weight in control.
This is a common story for many people with diabetes.

Weight gain is a symptom of diabetes NOT the cause. The reason
that this is so misunderstood is that doctors used to diagnose
diabetes only when fasting blood sugar was insanely out of
control--not when post prandial glucose was spiking over 200,
which is when most of the damage starts. By the time fasting
blood sugar is high, people have been dealing with the weight
gain symptom for ten years or more. Hence it looks like weight
gain "caused" the diabetes. In fact, the undiagnosed diabetes
caused the weight gain.

The standards for diagnosing diabetes have changed radically
in the past five years so it is possible that we'll start
seeing more research that reflects the reality that many
people are walking around with diabetic blood sugar levels
long before they become obese.

> with severe insulin resistance, you can NOT push calories
> into fat cells (which is why they build up in the
> bloodstream), this PREVENTS further weight gain

Again, this is a misunderstanding. By the time you stop
gaining weight high sugar levels have destroyed most of your
beta cells. At that point you are no longer making the high
levels of insulin that push fat into cells. That's the only
time you stop gaining weight when you lack insulin. When they
start shooting insulin, many diabetics gain more weight.

But before the beta cells poop out, during the high insulin
phase of hyperinsulinism, people who spiking very high blood
sugars gain weight like crazy. (My blood sugars were
routinely rising into the 240s while I started putting on my
20 lbs a year.)

>
> As well, studies using controlled caloric intakes show no
> relationship between insulin resistance and weight loss.
>
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cm-
d=Display&dopt= pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=10022419
>
It sounds great in the abstract, but there's a HUGE flaw when
you read the actual study.

Looking at the details (and graphs) you see that the group who
made it into the category of "Successes" was mostly filled
with people with lower insulin responses. The graphs only show
the data for the 20 people who made it through the diet and of
them only 5 had insulin responses higher than 400 microU/ml.
The other 15 fell in the lower half of the insulin resistance
curve. No data is given about the insulin resistance of the 11
failures (35% of the initial group.) More importantly, of
those with the higher insulin responses, only 2 lost
significant weight compared to the group as a whole. So I
don't see where they are getting the conclusions they are
drawing. Also, since I know something about statistics, I am
really uneasy about any conclusion drawn on the basis of 20
data points in a study where 35% of the initial data points
have dissappeared.

However, the high failure rate isn't surprising when you look
at the study design. The diet the participants were put onto
was brutal--and that they were not observed while eating it.
Reading the following suggests that diet "failures" were
probably those with high insulin who would not have been
likely to be able to live on the high carb, low fat diet drink
diet that would make anyone with blood sugar problems crazy
within a week

From the study:

"The weight loss diet consisted of a commercial liquid
nutrition formula plus two high fiber muffins and a sodium
supplement daily. Biweekly visits to the General Clinical
Research Center were required of all volunteers for evaluation
of progress, weight measurement, and food disbursement. The
weight loss of all subjects was evaluated at 30 days."

"After the baseline measurements, volunteers were placed on a
hypocaloric diet calculated to lead to a minimum weekly loss
of 1% of ideal body weight. Individuals who met the criteria
after 30 days of dieting were defined as weight loss successes
(n = 20) and continued on the diet for another 30 days.
Individuals not meeting the criteria were designated as weight
loss failures (n = 12) and were discharged from the study

"Twenty of the 31 volunteers who were enrolled in the study
were followed for the entire 60-day diet period

HMMM? We have 31 volunteers, 20 successes and 12 failures.
What happened to the other dieter?

"No historical information was obtained during the biweekly
visits that accounted for the lack of weight loss in the diet
failures." HMMMMMM?????? So the people who couldn't lose
weight on the diet disappear from the statistics. Why don't
they at least show us the insulin resistance profile of these
12 diet failures? Is it possible they were insulin resistant
to where they couldn't lose weight on this stupid diet?

> For some pertinent studies. note that, in some studies,
> being insulin resistant leads to GREATER weight losses.

Again the quality of the nutritional studies is generally so
bad that you have to read the details to find out why it's
bullshit. Alas, 98% of diabetes research is funded by people
with something to sell and it sucks.
>
> The issue is that, with some diet interpretations (esp
> higher carb/lower fat esp. when the carbs are high on the
> glycemic index), insulin resistance folks have trouble
> controlling calories and end up eating more. It's the eating
> more that causes the weight gain. The insulin resistance is
> a precipitating factor, of course, but it's not the causal
issue.
>

This is the old medical approach where you blame the patient
for noncompliance if they don't get better.

I've logged and charted and graphed my own results for months
and the facts that keep emerging are that yes, I have to cut
calories to lose weight, but when I eat carbs I gain weight at
the same calorie level at which I lose when I low carb.

I've read your book several times. In fact, it's helped me
tune my intake so that it works--mostly by cutting protein.
I'm very well aware of the water weight issue. But the bottom
line is that for those of us who have whatever it is that
causes IR (some genetic flaw in my case, it looks like)
lowering insulin by cutting carbs AND PROTEIN makes for
significant weight loss not possible through other diets.

-- Jenny
168.5/145/145 Achieved Second Goal!
169/1998 - 8/2001 and 11/10/02 - Now
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/jennypics.htm
Before and After Photos

http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean How to calculate
your need for protein * How much people really lose each
month * Water Weight Gain & Loss * The "Two Gram Cure" for
Hunger Cravings
* Characteristics of Successful Dieters * Indispensible Low
Carb Treats * Should You Count that Low Impact Carb? *
Curing Ketobreath

[Carmen]

Hi, On 24-Apr-2003, "Elvis Parsley"
<elvisparsley@rogers.com> wrote:

> As you can see Lyle, you have your work cut out for you.
> This magical disappearance of weight that most will claim is
> not linked to reduced Calories, is the norm of ASDLC
> thinking, and not the exception.
>
> Hell, even the guy on dateline who tried atkins says he went
> from eating a 10 egg omlet (just for breakfast) to a 3 egg
> omlet and started eating less overall as he just wasn't
> hungry, but for some strange reason, losing weight because
> one is reducing Calories in ASDLC, is like uttering heresy!

Not really. The longtermers quickly disabuse any newbie who
starts spouting "calories don't count". A few refuse to
believe it (they usually post an "Atkins doesn't work! I'm
outta here!" post and disappear not long thereafter), a few
get pissed off that they'd been "tricked" and leave in a huff,
and the majority express some disappointment (or relief
because now they have something to work with) and suck it up
and go on. It's difficult to ignore the info when it comes
from folks who lost their extra weight and have kept it off
for years. :-)

> My god Lyle, you are a heretic!! :)

Only to the Atkins Cultists. <G> And they *do* exist........

Carmen

[Mxsmanic]

"Hank" <hank@remove.bitemehard.ath.cx> a écrit dans le message
de news: DlVpa.5060$366.2713@fed1read06...

> Perhaps because someone who is hypothyroid has a lower basal
> metabolic rate which alters the "energy out" part of the
> equation?

Correct. However, the differences attributable to
hypothyroidism, even in someone who actually suffers from it,
pale in comparison with the discrepancies created by chronic
overeating.

[~ Wysong ~]

"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote
in message
> There is an inherent selection bias. Folks who fail are NOT
> going to be posting to a lowcarb group. By definition you're
> only getting success stories.
=======================
When they do post many are attacked by others who can't accept
that their particular diet doesn't work for everyone. Or they
get frightened that maybe it wont work for them either. Some
people just love to "blame the victim".... if it didn't work
for someone then that person cheated or didn't stick to the
diet. I wish we would hear more from those who failed so we
can maybe learn WHY they failed and how to avoid failure for
ourselves.

After 5 months the low-carb diet failed for me. It never
worked again.
--
Wysong - age 58 5'6" tall. Started WW again on 4/21/03
at 170 lbs.
170/168/130

Started Atkins July 2001 207-170 goal 130 Stopped losing Nov
2001 on Atkins. No loss since. Loss on WW - 5 lbs in 6 months
- 1999 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ }<((((0

[Mxsmanic]

"Jenny" <jenny_the_bean@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: b89t8j$gmq$1@bob.news.rcn.net...

> Well, when I logged my food and ate 1200 calories of a
> mostly vegetarian high carb diet, I lost 1 pound in a month.
> When I then switched to an "anything goes" low carb diet
> (after another couple months of gaining) I lost 20 lbs (more
> than 10% of my initial body wieght) which I kept off for
> years. I was as surprised as anyone, but that is how it
> worked for me.

Next time, track your calories more carefully, and all the
magic will disappear.

> ... after the intial gain from refilling glycogen.

The gain from glycogen is practically non-existent.

> Absolutely wrong.

Because you say so?

> Weight gain is a symptom of diabetes NOT the cause.

No. Weight gain is a cause of NIDDM. It is never a
symptom of DM.

> The reason that this is so misunderstood is that doctors
> used to diagnose diabetes only when fasting blood sugar was
> insanely out of control--not when post prandial glucose was
> spiking over 200 ...

Doctors have been measuring postprandial glucose for decades.

> ... which is when most of the damage starts.

Long-term damage from DM is caused by chronic hyperglycemia,
not by occasional hyperglycemic excursions.

> Hence it looks like weight gain "caused" the diabetes. In
> fact, the undiagnosed diabetes caused the weight gain.

Odd that you know all this, but "ignorant doctors" do not.

> The standards for diagnosing diabetes have changed radically
> in the past five years ...

In what way? Last I read, they had changed only slightly.

> Again, this is a misunderstanding.

Well, no, it's exactly how things work. An impaired insulin
response (or secretion) leaves glucose circulating, which is
what causes the hyperglycemia of DM.

> By the time you stop gaining weight high sugar levels have
> destroyed most of your beta cells.

No, they have not. Most people with NIDDM still secrete
substantial amounts of insulin. Clearly, they still have beta
cells in signifcant quantities. If they didn't, they'd be
losing weight dramatically, since you can't gain weight with
no insulin.

> When they start shooting insulin, many diabetics gain
> more weight.

Following your logic, just about everything causes people to
gain weight. How convenient.

> My blood sugars were routinely rising into the 240s while I
> started putting on my 20 lbs a year.

You must have been eating a ton of food.

> It sounds great in the abstract, but there's a HUGE flaw
> when you read the actual study.

Not only are doctors ignorant in comparison to you, but
researchers conduct studies with flaws that only you can
detect.

> Is it possible they were insulin resistant to where they
> couldn't lose weight on this stupid diet?

No. Insulin resistance does not impair the ability to lose
weight. It is ALWAYS possible to lose weight by eating less or
exercising more, even with severe untreated diabetes mellitus.

> Again the quality of the nutritional studies is generally so
> bad that you have to read the details to find out why it's
> bullshit. Alas, 98% of diabetes research is funded by people
> with something to sell and it sucks.

So now 98% of all studies are nonsense? Is there anyone
qualified to speak on the subject besides yourself?

> This is the old medical approach where you blame the patient
> for noncompliance if they don't get better.

Yes. It's the approach that works. There are no obese persons
anywhere in the world who do not overeat.

> I've logged and charted and graphed my own results for
> months and the facts that keep emerging are that yes, I
> have to cut calories to lose weight, but when I eat carbs I
> gain weight at the same calorie level at which I lose when
> I low carb.

No, you do not.

> But the bottom line is that for those of us who have
> whatever it is that causes IR (some genetic flaw in my
> case, it looks like) lowering insulin by cutting carbs AND
> PROTEIN makes for significant weight loss not possible
> through other diets.

Perhaps some people simply have a genetic flaw that causes
them to vigorously deny responsibility for their own behavior,
no matter what the evidence.

[Hank]

In misc.fitness.weights Keith Hobman
<khobman@sasktel.net> wrote:
> In article <CSYpa.5147$366.4566@fed1read06>, Hank
> <hank@remove.bitemehard.ath.cx> wrote:

>> In misc.fitness.weights Katra <Katra@centurytel.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Hank wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In misc.fitness.weights Jenny <jenny_the_bean@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Well, no. Because the "energy in/energy out" argument
>> >> > ignores the
> fact that
>> >> > people have different metabolic rates and differing
>> >> > hormonal profiles.
>> >>
>> >> > Take two people of the same weight and height, one of
>> >> > whom is
> significantly
>> >> > hypothyroid, feed them the same diet in a controlled
>> >> > environment and see whether they lose weight at the
>> >> > same rate.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps because someone who is hypothyroid has a lower
>> >> basal metabolic rate which alters the "energy out" part
>> >> of the equation?
>> >>
>> >> Hank
>>
>> > Well duh!!!
>>
>>
>> And so how is it the "the 'energy in/energy out' argument
>> ignores the fact that people have different metabolic
>> rates" ?

> It doesn't have to worry about it.

It is a factor and you even acknowledge this a few sentences
down. If your BMR is lower and you burn less calories just
sittin' on your ass then you have to either lower calories to
account for this or rev up your metabolism in some way.

> Metabolism is dependant on overall size and activity.

And hormonal issues and LBM and genetics and probably a few
other factors.

> Holding size constant it basically means either reduce
> calories or increase activity or both to lose weight.

And/or improve the other factors.

> It ain't rocket science and the different metabolic rate
> argument is most often an excuse for being fat.

Ain't that the truth.

> The fact there may be a minor difference in metabolic rates
> is a copout. So one person who weighs 200 lbs has to take in
> 2,000 calories to maintain and another person can only take
> in 1,500 calories. Despite the different setpoints the basic
> formula is the same. if you want to lose weight either
> increase activity or reduce calories.

That's what I was (tersely) trying to say above. Energy
in/energy out is a basic, unavoidable principle. You have to
burn more energy than you consume in order to get rid of those
dense chemical energy stores otherwise known as fat. But
burning energy does involve more than just activity. And if
someone has a slow metabolism then they have to deal with that
by either adjusting intake down, figuring out how to crank the
metabolism up, increasing activity, or some combination of
these. In cases like hypothyroidism using drugs to up
metabolism is probably an important step.

And then there are all the other issues that play into that
such as actual versus misreported intake so that people think
they're eating a lot less than they are, starvation reactions
(leptin drops and so forth) that cause the metabolism to slow,
and a lot of others. But *none* of them violates the idea that
you have to take in less than you burn. They just modify one
of the sides of the equation in some way or another.

If someone can righteously document their food intake and
show that they really are not dropping weight with very low
calories, they'd be better served at finding out what's
wrong with and fixing their metabolism rather than whining
about how basic human physiology and physics don't apply to
them. But since part of that would involve effort, it's far
easier to whine.

Hank

[Elvis Pars]

"That Guy" <webgrunt7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:roYpa.54$m3.2686@news7.onvoy.net...
>
> LOL! I misunderstood *one* thing he wrote and the arrogant
> blowhard

You misunderstood the whole post, and then you went on to
create the facts of a 200lb man with 15 pounds of water loss.
Where did you pull out a 200lb man? Just out of curiosity, the
300+ man who lost 13 pounds on atkins the first week, just how
much of that do you think was fat and how much was water?

> couldn't keep himself from insulting me throughout his whole
> post about
it.
> That tells me all I need to know about "who he is."
> Personally, I prefer
to
> listen to people who aren't so obviously immature; I find
> that they are

You prefer to listen to people who aren't so obviously
immature? That's a good example of a straw man argument to me.
There was no indication that there was any insult. Unless of
course you consider your inability to comprehend the post, and
his pointing out that fact, insulting.

> generally better able to make judgements based on the facts
> rather than simply select the facts that correspond with
> their judgement.

You mean like your inability to comprehend, so you create a
friend who just lost 30% body weight and now are claiming Lyle
stated it was all water. So let me get this straight. Lyle
says 2-15lbs water loss, and you jump that to 30% full water
loss to attempt to make your argument and prove him wrong. Um,
yeah, right.

[Lyle McDon]

Hank wrote:
>
> In misc.fitness.weights Keith Hobman
> <khobman@sasktel.net> wrote:

> > The fact there may be a minor difference in metabolic
> > rates is a copout. So one person who weighs 200 lbs has to
> > take in 2,000 calories to maintain and another person can
> > only take in 1,500 calories. Despite the different
> > setpoints the basic formula is the same. if you want to
> > lose weight either increase activity or reduce calories.
>
> That's what I was (tersely) trying to say above. Energy
> in/energy out is a basic, unavoidable principle. You have to
> burn more energy than you consume in order to get rid of
> those dense chemical energy stores otherwise known as fat.

The point, as i see it is this: this only matters if you're
comparing two people to one another.

So you have two people, one has a total energy reuqiement of
2000, the other 1500.

Obviously if you put both on the same calorie level (say
1200 for the sake of argument), you will see differences.
B/c one has an 800 cal/day deficit, the other 300 cal/day.
YOu'd generally expect to see greater weight/fat losses for
the 800 cal/day deficit but it might also be that the first
person's metabolic rate adapts that much faster b/c the
deficit is higher.

Tangentially: this is a big part of why I don't like absolute
caloric recommendations (or even absolute reductions). Giving
two people with maintenance requirements of 1500 and 2000
respectively the same 1200 calories is looking for trouble.
Telling them both to reduce by 500 cal/day is as well (not
only is the first going to end up at 1000 cal/day, they are
getting a 33% reduction in calories vs. a 25% reduction for
the second person). It's why I recommend reducing current
maintenance by 10-20% (or using 12 cal/lb which takes weight
into consideration). Because 20% of current is 20% of current
no matter what your current maintenance levels are. It simply
means that someone with a 3000 cal/day maintenance level will
reduce by 600 cal/day and someone with a 1500 cal/day
maintenance level will only reuduce by 300 cal/day. YOu'd
expect faster weight/fat loss for the first guy as a consuence
of the larger deficit but they are still both 20%. AS well,
after starting with a moderate deficit, make changes based on
your individual body comp changes. That takes into account
YOUR individual metabolism.

So fine, you put 30 people in a study. Yes, you try to
equalize their bodyweight and/or BF% and activity levels as
well as you can (this was a glaring flaw in the Young study,
starting bodyweight and hence energy requirements were vastly
different between folks and you'd predict vastly different fat
loss on that fact alone) and you feed them different diets or
whatever. Yes, you will see variable results (some will lose
more than others). This doesn't mean that the energy balance
equation is invalid or calories don't count; simply that there
is variance (typically on the energy out side of thing, I've
seen nothing convincing that folks differ to any great degree
in nutrient absorption or utilization).

There are various reasons for this.

Even at the same bodyweight, two people can have slightly
different metabolic rates (the variance is something like 15%
which works out to ~200 calories between the high and low
extreme). So two 200 lb people, who might have a predicted
maintenance requirement of 3000 cal/day (15 cal/lb) might have
actual metabolic rates of 3100 and 2900 respectively. Put 'em
both on 2000 calories and you'll see different results in
terms of weight loss. Alternately, put both on exactly 3000
cal/day and the first will be losing weight and the second
gaining. AHA! Calories don't count. Umm, no, you're ignoring
the energy out side of the equation.

Recent sutudies have pointed out that people vary drastically
in how much/fast their bodies adapt to caloric restriction.
Some adapt more than others even at the same caloric deficit.
Meaning that the energy out part of the equation is going down
more for those people.

You have to look at the individual response data of the
following study to see this. At the 2 week mark, some folks
only dropped metabolic rate by like 50 cal/day, others were at
nearly 200 cal/day (as I recall, been a while since I read
it). Meaning that at the same starting weight, at the same
apparent caloric deficit, one person is losing less weight
than the other b/c their effective deficit is lower.

Doucet E, St-Pierre S, Almeras N, Despres JP, Bouchard C,
Tremblay A. Evidence for the existence of adaptive
thermogenesis during weight loss. Br J Nutr 2001
Jun;85(6):715-23

By the same token, studies on overfeeding show that some
people ramp up metabolic rate drastically more than tohers,
burning off more of hte excess (and gaining less fat
because of it).

For example: Vanltallie TB. Resistance to weight gain during
overfeeding: a NEAT explanation. Nutr Rev. 2001
Feb;59(2):48-51. Review.

In that one, folks were overfed 1000 cal/day for a while. Some
folks ramped up metabolic rat (through spontaneous movement
like fidgeting) by nearly 700 cal/day; gainning very little
fat. Others had no such increase, stored nearly the entire
1000 cal/day.

It looks like the same folks who ramp up metabolic rate the
most during overfeeding drop metabolic rate the least during
dieting (starvation in this particular case) and vice versa;
the folks who ramp up metabolic rate the least drop metabolic
rate the most. the researchers in this study referred to it as
thrifty (raise least/drop most) and spendthrift (raise
most/drop least) phenotypes.

Weyer C, Vozarova B, Ravussin E, Tataranni PA. Changes in
energy metabolism in response to 48 h of overfeeding and
fasting in Caucasians and Pima Indians. Int J Obes Relat Metab
Disord 2001 May;25(5):593-600

The reason? It probably has to do with variations in leptin,
insulin, thyroid, other hormones and varying sensitivities to
those hormones. Other factors such as genetic facotrs
controlling uncoupling proteins or what have you probablay
also play a role.

The variations in response on the energy out side of it can
more than explain differences in weight/fat loss in studies
when you compare two individuals to one another.

But this ONLY applies if you're comparing two people to
one another.

But who gives a crap about comparing two people to one
another? It's an irrelevant point and says nothing about the
energy balance equation itself. It says more about most
people's inability to comprehend the equation.

We're concerned here with the claims that a given
individual is getting magically different results by
shuffling their macros.

So we have Joe Blow with a maintenance energy reuqirement of
2000 cal/day. He is claiming to have gained on 1800 cal/day of
high carb but lost on 1800 cal/day of lowcarb (or whatever the
numbers work out to be).

But whatever genetic/physiological/metabolic propensities are
present (whether it's a lower than predicted metabolic rate
or a higher adaptive componenet to caloric restriction) are
going to be present across the board. YOu have to come up
with some mechanism by which a given macro intake is going to
change that.

now, that said, I've seen enough empirical evidence to sugest
that extrmeely imbalanced diets (usually lacking in protein
and frequently far too low in fat) seem to cause problems. of
course, they usually come with too few calories which causes
it's own set of problems.

I don't have a mechanism to explain it but considering the
influence of protein intake on thermogenesis (see: Stock MJ.
Gluttony and thermogenesis revisited. Int J Obes Relat Metab
Disord. 1999 Nov;23(11):1105-17. Review.), it wouldn't
surprise me. It might be that extremely low protein diets
cause metabolic rate (and hence the energy out side of the
equation) to drop more than higher protein diets. At least one
study "JM Whithead et. al. The effect of protein intake on
24-h energy expenditure during energy restriction" Int J Obes
(1996) 20: 727-732) supports that concept. Obviously if
metabolic rate crashes more on a given diet, weight loss is
going to be less.

I've also seen some women who seem to stall when dietary fat
is taken too low. Again, I don't have a mechanism but I've
seen it enough times.

Of cousre, I've been making the point for YEARS that extreme
caloric deficits tend to do more harm than good, they cause
metabolism to crash far moreso than more moderate deficits. A
couple of papers just came out pointing out hormonal problems
(loss of LH pulsatility) in women who were getting
insufficient energy (output was high, intake was low), this
was taken as evidence of an overall hypometabolic state.

De Souza MJ, Van Heest J, Demers LM, Lasley BL. Luteal phase
deficiency in recreational runners: evidence for a
hypometabolic state. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003
Jan;88(1):337-46.

Ok, so there are some observed problems with protein, fat or
calories are too low to begin with.

And what do you commonly hear "I was on high carbs/low fat/low
protein and veyr low calories and I went to lowcarb
(translation: increased protein and fat) and raised calories
and I started losing weight. Sign me up for the cult of
lowcarb" In my experience 'high carb/low fat/low protein is
usually closer to 'all carbs/no fat/no protein' and calories
are always absurdly low for bodyweight.

It wouldn't surprise me to find that metabolic rate is
crashing that much more on such an extreme (and poorly set up
diet). Then again, the studies still don't even support that
conclusion (folks in those studies were calories are
rigorously controlled ALWAYS lose weight) but they rarely use
such extremes (you'll usually see at least the 50 g/day RDA
for protein and fat is always present but I've literally seen
female dieters get protein and fat to the near trace range).

Unfortunately, it's a poor comparison because you're comparing
a more well set up diet to something that was, fundamentally
speaking, retarded in the first place. Just about anything
would have been an improvement and moving from one extreme to
the other gives no indication of the effects something in the
middle (i.e. a diet of 25-30% protein, 25-30% fat and 40-50%
carbs with a moderate deficit which works just peachy for a
great majority of people). It's like the super high volume
trainees who move to HIT and conclude that HIT is magic; no,
your previous training was just retarded as all hell.

Basically, I have this hunch that there are certain thresholds
for the various macros (protein especially, fat maybe, carbs
maybe) in terms of optimal intakes: below that (or perhaps
above that) and you see problems. Cross that threshold and
you're fine but further increases (or decreases) cause little
to no further improvement. Or at least, differences far out of
proportion to the change.

To put it in different terms, there is usually an inverted U
shaped response curve for this stuff: both low and high
extremes cause less of a response than something in the middle
(near and optimum).

This is certainly the case for calorie deficits: some
reduction is good but greater reductions tend to do more harm
than good (both metabolically and from an adherence
standpoint).

I've seen rat data where there is a threshold for normal brain
functioning in terms of protein intake; below that and brain
function is skewed, above that and it's normal but taking it
higher and higher does nothing further).

There is some data on dietary fat and lipid profiles being
used to recommend moderate fat intakes. Can't find the ref
right now. But extremely low fat (by definition, higer
carb) diets cause problems with increased triglycerides and
small LDL particles and high fat diets cause different sets
of problems.

I have this hunch that the same goes for humans: get to the
extremes with certain nutrients and metabolism just gets
fucked (to use a technical term). If nothing else, a
lowcarb diet will tend to ensure adequate protein and more
than sufficient dietary fat. Invariably the diet folks are
moving to lowcarb FROM is just fucked up in the first place
(IMO of course).

That still doesn't say anything about a PROPERLY set up
carb-based diet (as per above, yo'ud be looking at 50% carbs
max assuming you met 25% protein and fat) at a moderate
caloric deficit. Look at how many of the Zone cultists
(another diet that ensures adequate protein and fat even if I
think the caloric intakes tend to be too low) report the same
type of near metabolic 'magic' as the keto cultists. Most of
them seem to be coming from absurd high carb/near zero
protein/near zero fat diets as well.

Meaning that the problem seems to be the absurd high carb/near
zero protein/near zero fat diet.

Speaking of which: time to eat.

Lyle

[Mxsmanic]

"Hank" <hank@remove.bitemehard.ath.cx> a écrit dans le message
de news: wD_pa.5168$366.3780@fed1read06...

> It is a factor and you even acknowledge this a few
> sentences down.

It is not a significant factor. Obesity is caused by
overeating, not by differences in metabolic rates.

> If your BMR is lower and you burn less calories just sittin'
> on your ass then you have to either lower calories to
> account for this or rev up your metabolism in some way.

Correct, but the differences involved may only be the
equivalent of a glass of soda. This isn't going to help
someone who overeats by 1500 kcal a day, and it is not
sufficient to explain away obesity.

> And hormonal issues and LBM and genetics and probably a few
> other factors.

Irrelevant. All of these put together are insignificant
compared to chronic overeating.

> And/or improve the other factors.

There are no other factors. The only way to lose weight is to
eat less and/or exercise more.

> If someone can righteously document their food intake and
> show that they really are not dropping weight with very
> low calories, they'd be better served at finding out
> what's wrong with and fixing their metabolism rather than
> whining about how basic human physiology and physics don't
> apply to them.

I agree.

I've been logging every single calorie I put into my mouth and
every calorie I burn for three years now, and the data show
that "calories-in vs. calories-out" is an absolutely reliable
rule. No other factors intervene.

[Hank]

In misc.fitness.weights SJ <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:
> In article <5rYpa.55$m3.2685@news7.onvoy.net>, That
> Guy says...
>>
>>
>>"Ted" <rhwbullhead@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:o0Ypa.3177$%_3.2525583@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>> "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
>>> message news:3EA83A1F.950A0DED@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
>>> > That Guy wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>
>>> > > wrote in message
>>> > > news:3EA70DAB.64D84B5D@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
>>> > > > That Guy wrote:
>>> <sniped>
>>> > You have no clue who I am do you?
>>> >
>>> > Lyle
>>> >
>>> <sniped>
>>>
>>> To "That Guy:" As Lyle said, you need to work on your
>>> reading comprehension. Also, why don't you check out
>>> this link:
>>>
>>> http://www.theketogenicdiet.com/
>>
>>
>>LOL Again!!! I decided to take a look--he's hawking some
>>sort of diet book. No wonder he's so biased in favor of his
>>ideas about weight loss!

> I sincerely hope that you're a troll and you're not really
> this dim.

I'm guessing you hope for naught.

> Did you happen to notice that "some sort of diet book" is
> about KETOGENIC diets? Don't you think that if he were to be
> biased in favor of one type of diet it would be keto diets?
> Why would you think the author of such a book would be
> biased *against* keto diets?

You're assuming he knows the meaning of 'ketogenic'.

Hank

[Lyle McDon]

lordy wrote:

> You read his prior post assuming he had an agenda that he
> didnt. Your bad.

An interesting dichotomy I've noticed

If you write honestly about lowcarb diets to anti-lowcarb
folks, they will accuse you of having a pro-keto agenda (Hi
Hamish, you Aussie fuckwit; I know you're lurking because
you posted in the Mel Siff thread) and criticize you on
those grounds.

If you write honestly about lowcarb diets to pro-lowcarb
folks, they will accuse you of having an anti-keto agenda and
criticize you on those grounds.

Why?

B/c most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber
than that.

Lyle

pro only what is appropriate and 'ideal' for a given
individual under a given set of circumstances. Keto/lowere
carb is appropriate for some, Zone is appropriate for others,
higher carb is appropriate for others still; just as various
types of training are more or less appropriate under a given
set of circumstances, just as certain exercise selections are
more or less appropriate, etc, etc.

Unfortunately, since that means not giving out cookie cutter
advice, and forces people to think and figure out stuff for
themselves, and will invariably piss off various
cult/hive-mind types (who only see their ONE approach as THE
valid approach), I've come to terms with most people not
really liking what I have to say.

To which I can only respond 'Ah, fuck 'em'.

[Lee Michae]

"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
message news:3EA898A1.CDF3B803@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> lordy wrote:
>
> > You read his prior post assuming he had an agenda that he
> > didnt. Your
bad.
>
> An interesting dichotomy I've noticed
>
> If you write honestly about lowcarb diets to anti-lowcarb
> folks, they will accuse you of having a pro-keto agenda (Hi
> Hamish, you Aussie fuckwit; I know you're lurking because
> you posted in the Mel Siff thread) and criticize you on
> those grounds.
>
> If you write honestly about lowcarb diets to pro-lowcarb
> folks, they will accuse you of having an anti-keto agenda
> and criticize you on those
grounds.
>
> Why?
>
> B/c most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber
> than that.
>
> Lyle
>

Accusing Lyle of having an agenda is ridiculous. Of course
he has an agenda. And if is far beyond the imaginations of
diet retards. It is so fucking scary we DON'T want to know
what it is.

<digging my bomb shelter now

[Ted]

"Hank" <hank@remove.bitemehard.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:22_pa.5167$366.1631@fed1read06...
> In misc.fitness.weights SJ <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:
> > In article <5rYpa.55$m3.2685@news7.onvoy.net>, That Guy
> > says...
> >>
> >>
> >>"Ted" <rhwbullhead@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>news:o0Ypa.3177$%_3.2525583@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
> >>>
> >>> "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote
> >>> in message
> >>> news:3EA83A1F.950A0DED@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> >>> > That Guy wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>
> >>> > > wrote in message
> >>> > > news:3EA70DAB.64D84B5D@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> >>> > > > That Guy wrote:
> >>> <sniped>
> >>> > You have no clue who I am do you?
> >>> >
> >>> > Lyle
> >>> >
> >>> <sniped>
> >>>
> >>> To "That Guy:" As Lyle said, you need to work on your
> >>> reading comprehension. Also, why don't you check out
> >>> this link:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.theketogenicdiet.com/
> >>
> >>
> >>LOL Again!!! I decided to take a look--he's hawking some
> >>sort of diet
book.
> >>No wonder he's so biased in favor of his ideas about
> >>weight loss!
>
> > I sincerely hope that you're a troll and you're not really
> > this dim.
>
> I'm guessing you hope for naught.
>
> > Did you happen to notice that "some sort of diet book" is
> > about KETOGENIC diets?
Don't
> > you think that if he were to be biased in favor of one
> > type of diet it
would be
> > keto diets? Why would you think the author of such a book
> > would be
biased
> > *against* keto diets?
>
>
> You're assuming he knows the meaning of 'ketogenic'.
>
>
> Hank
Hehe. That's exactly what I was thinking when I read "That
Guy's" response. He either is a troll, or more likely he
doesn't know what ketogenic means. I say this is more likely
as he showed us already that he lacks reading comprehension.
Why should we be surprised that he didn't bother to look up a
term he didn't understand?

--
Ted Current quote: "It can't be like this..."
http://hometown.aol.com/rhwbullhead

[Carmen]

Hi Lee, On 24-Apr-2003, "Lee Michaels"
<leemichaels*nada-spam*@attbi.com> wrote:

> Accusing Lyle of having an agenda is ridiculous. Of course
> he has an agenda. And if is far beyond the imaginations of
> diet retards. It is so fucking scary we DON'T want to know
> what it is.
>
> <digging my bomb shelter now>

I think we're pretty safe. Lyle is, by his own admission, a
tad bit on the leisurely side (see also "lazy"). <G>

Carmen

[Dj Delorie]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> writes:
> 1. People do not have different metabolic rates, once these
> rates are computed based on sex, weight, and body
> composition.

I do. My *measured* RMR is way off from all the online RMR
computations. And my metabolic rate increases every time I
exercise, even though my sex, weight, and body composition
don't change.

> 2. Irrespective of metabolic rates, the rule of calories-in
> vs. calories-out is absolute. There are NO exceptions.

However, both calories-in and calories-out can be changed by
so many factors, that the "absoluteness" of this rule is
mostly useless.

And I am *still* waiting for an explanation of why starvation
metabolism seems to violate that rule, even with drastic
caloric restrictions and measured RMR.

> 3. Hormonal profiles do not affect energy requirements to
> any significant degree.

Sure they do. They can change core body temperature, for
starters.

> > ... and despite what these people have been told by
> > ignorant doctors ...
>
> Doctors, as a general rule, are not ignorant of medicine,
> particularly in comparison to the general population.

Most doctors aren't nutrition specialists, though.

> Insulin resistance is an effect, not a cause.

After you have it, IR is a cause too.

[Lyle McDon]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> "Tony Lew" <rosescripter@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message
> de news:
> 5c7896da.0304241042.1d39233e@posting.google.com...
>
> > No, it's a simplistic application of fundamental
> > physical laws.
>
> The physical laws are simple, and so are their explanations.
>
> > You're assuming that total calorie expenditure is
> > independent of diet.
>
> It is.
>
> > People eating the same number of calories may not be
> > burning the same number of calories.
>
> Obviously.
>
> > It's well known that a very low-cal diet will lower you
> > metabolism.
>
> No, it will not.

Yes it will. adaptations in metabolic rate due to dieting are
well established.

Part of this is simly due to a loss of bodyweight. Less mass =
fewer calories burned.

There is an additional adaptive component (I posted one study
on the topic but there are numerous others) where metabolic
rate/kg mass goes down.

Lyle

[Katra]

DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> writes:
> > 1. People do not have different metabolic rates, once
> > these rates are computed based on sex, weight, and body
> > composition.
>
> I do. My *measured* RMR is way off from all the online RMR
> computations. And my metabolic rate increases every time I
> exercise, even though my sex, weight, and body composition
> don't change.
>
> > 2. Irrespective of metabolic rates, the rule of
> > calories-in
> > vs. calories-out is absolute. There are NO exceptions.
>
> However, both calories-in and calories-out can be changed by
> so many factors, that the "absoluteness" of this rule is
> mostly useless.
>
> And I am *still* waiting for an explanation of why
> starvation metabolism seems to violate that rule, even with
> drastic caloric restrictions and measured RMR.
>
> > 3. Hormonal profiles do not affect energy requirements to
> > any significant degree.
>
> Sure they do. They can change core body temperature, for
> starters.
>
> > > ... and despite what these people have been told by
> > > ignorant doctors ...
> >
> > Doctors, as a general rule, are not ignorant of medicine,
> > particularly in comparison to the general population.
>
> Most doctors aren't nutrition specialists, though.
>
> > Insulin resistance is an effect, not a cause.
>
> After you have it, IR is a cause too.

Good lord! I missed part of this thread, (due to a wonky
server that does not download all the posts...)

BMR can be different for different people, especially
females!!! it's that whole testosterone thing. BMR directly
affects the calories in vs. calories out equation.

Where does "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> get it's data???
It is soooo full of shit especially where Hypothyrodism and
Wilson's syndrome are concerned.

Sheesh!!!
K. (who can gain weight on less than 1,000 kcals per day of
the wrong types of calories...)

[Meremale©]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:09:43 GMT, "That Guy"
<webgrunt7@hotmail.com> wrote:

>.>"Ted" <rhwbullhead@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:o0Ypa.3177$%_3.2525583@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...

>> To "That Guy:" As Lyle said, you need to work on your
>> reading comprehension.
>
>LOL! I misunderstood *one* thing he wrote and the arrogant
>blowhard couldn't keep himself from insulting me throughout
>his whole post about it. That tells me all I need to know
>about "who he is." Personally, I prefer to listen to people
>who aren't so obviously immature; I find that they are
>generally better able to make judgements based on the facts
>rather than simply select the facts that correspond with
>their judgement.
>
i prefer to listen to people who at least make an effort to
publish *original* cliches

_

MereMale© ~i||content MAY offend||i~ *.·´¨¨)) ¸.·´ .·´¨¨))*
*((¸¸.·´ ..·´ ((¸¸.·´* BEAN COUNTERS
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/npc/anzfa_npc/
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html
http://www.rjhsoftware.com USENET ESSENTIALS
http://tgos.org/newbie/rules.html
http://livinginternet.com/u/ua.htm http://www.forteinc.com
alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent LOOKING FOR REPETITIVE
SUBJECT MATERIAL....
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search YOU DO NOT
UNDERSTAND THE POST....
1. ask in the thread
2. try: http://www.urbandictionary.com
3. ask <a_dent0nATyahoo.com.uk> IRREVERENT LOGIC AKA "THE
UNHOLY GHOST/S"....
WesleyWillis_+_MontyPython_+_KevinWilson
http://www.x-entertainment.com/messages/396.html
http://www.mwscomp.com/python.html
http://kevin.bloody.wilson.com.au/dictionary.htm NONE OF
THE ABOVE? http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/index.html
NEED A FRIEND?
http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza-cgi-bin/eliza_script

[Lyle McDon]

Lee Michaels wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> message news:3EA898A1.CDF3B803@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> > lordy wrote:
> >
> > > You read his prior post assuming he had an agenda that
> > > he didnt. Your
> bad.
> >
> > An interesting dichotomy I've noticed
> >
> > If you write honestly about lowcarb diets to anti-lowcarb
> > folks, they will accuse you of having a pro-keto agenda
> > (Hi Hamish, you Aussie fuckwit; I know you're lurking
> > because you posted in the Mel Siff thread) and criticize
> > you on those grounds.
> >
> > If you write honestly about lowcarb diets to pro-lowcarb
> > folks, they will accuse you of having an anti-keto agenda
> > and criticize you on those
> grounds.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > B/c most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber
> > than that.
> >
> > Lyle
> >
>
> Accusing Lyle of having an agenda is ridiculous. Of course
> he has an agenda. And if is far beyond the imaginations of
> diet retards. It is so fucking scary we DON'T want to know
> what it is.

My agenda is love, baby. Love.

Lyle

[Mxsmanic]

"DJ Delorie" <dj@delorie.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
xnof2vcgco.fsf@delorie.com...

> My *measured* RMR is way off from all the online RMR
> computations.

How was it measured, and how far off is it, and what is
its level?

> However, both calories-in and calories-out can be changed by
> so many factors, that the "absoluteness" of this rule is
> mostly useless.

On the contrary, it's the only rule that is useful for weight
loss. No matter how much these figures can be changed, you
still have to figure them out if you want to guarantee weight
loss, because you must create a deficit in order to lose
weight. Short of dramatically undereating or fasting, you need
to do some calculations to guarantee the deficit. Creating a
deficit without trying to look at the numbers requires dieting
so severe that it is unlikely to be healthy and sustainable
(e.g., starvation obviously creates a deficit, and no
calculations are required, but it's not a good way to diet).

> And I am *still* waiting for an explanation of why
> starvation metabolism seems to violate that rule, even with
> drastic caloric restrictions and measured RMR.

It doesn't violate the rule. That's why people die if they go
long enough without eating. That's also why they lose weight
if they stop eating.

> Sure they do. They can change core body temperature, for
> starters.

Not enough to significantly affect metabolism ("significantly"
meaning in a way that would allow fat people to use this as an
excuse for not losing weight).

> Most doctors aren't nutrition specialists, though.

Most doctors aren't as woefully ignorant of human nutrition
and weight control as their patients, either. And virtually no
patients are better informed in the area of nutrition than
their doctors--especially the fat ones who claim that they
cannot lose weight.

> After you have it, IR is a cause too.

Stay thin, and you won't get it.

[Steve Gall]

"Jenny" <jenny_the_bean@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<b89t8j$gmq$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> Lyle,
>
> > Low-carb (or any diet) folks argue yes, they say that they
> > gained on X calories of high carb but magically lose on 2X
> > (or whatever) lowcarb. That they gained some amazing
> > metabolic benefit from switching around their
> > macronutrients.
>
> Well, when I logged my food and ate 1200 calories of a
> mostly vegetarian high carb diet, I lost 1 pound in a month.
> When I then switched to an "anything goes" low carb diet
> (after another couple months of gaining) I lost 20 lbs (more
> than 10% of my initial body wieght) which I kept off for
> years. I was as surprised as anyone, but that is how it
> worked for me.
>
> When I recently attempted to go back to a "balanced" diet
> eating at the same counted calorie level as I had been
> eating while low carbing for many months, I packed on a
> pound a month (after the intial gain from refilling
> glycogen).
>
> Then--again suggesting that insulin is at issue, I started
> taking Precose, a prescription medication that blocks carb
> spiking (and hence prevents insulin spiking) and the weight
> gain stopped for six more months--as long as my blood sugar
> stayed flat enough to discourage insulin spiking.
>
> > Interestingly, the research suggests the exact opposite:
> > insulin resistance DEVELOPS to try and prevent further
> > weight gain.
>
> Absolutely wrong.

Kewl. Someone is ramping up to debate diet studies with Lyle.
This is always such great sport.

[Jenny]

What a loser! Whatever your problem with other people's weight
is, your hostility is a tipoff that it's personal.

I'm not going to waste energy replying to your unsupported
spewing because it's clear you're not interested in
information. But for others who are reading here, you are
quite wrong about diabetes. High post prandial blood sugars
are now understood to cause complications. The recommendation
for "healthy" blood sugar levels has dropped from "under 200"
at 2 hrs pp (in
1998) to "Under 140" 2 hrs pp, with many doctors now
suggesting under 120. The recommendated Hb1ac level has
dropped.
http://www.endo-nurses.org/documents/worldleaders.doc
(The American College of Endocrinology)

If you don't think a lot of doctors are idiots where diabetes
is concerned, scan alt.support.diabetes for a while and
observe the parade of victims whose doctors tell them not to
worry about blood sugar levels that are routinely above 200
mg/dl or hb1acs that are in the 8 and above range. And the
doctors who tell people to test once a day and prescribe diets
loaded with carbohydrates that worsen people's blood sugars.
The poor treatment that diabetics get is a national scandal.

-- Jenny
1998.1/1/145 Achieved Second Goal!
1999/1998 - 8/2001 and 11/10/02 - Now
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/jennypics.htm
Before and After Photos

http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean How to calculate
your need for protein * How much people really lose each
month * Water Weight Gain & Loss * The "Two Gram Cure" for
Hunger Cravings
* Characteristics of Successful Dieters * Indispensible Low
Carb Treats * Should You Count that Low Impact Carb? *
Curing Ketobreath

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NtednUhPhapCMzWjXTWcrg@giganews.com...
> "Jenny" <jenny_the_bean@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message
> de news: b89t8j$gmq$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> > Well, when I logged my food and ate 1200 calories of a
> > mostly vegetarian high carb diet, I lost 1 pound in a
> > month. When I then switched to an "anything goes" low carb
> > diet (after another couple months of gaining) I lost 20
> > lbs (more than 10% of my initial body wieght) which I kept
> > off for years. I was as surprised as anyone, but that is
> > how it worked for me.
>
> Next time, track your calories more carefully, and all the
> magic will disappear.
>
> > ... after the intial gain from refilling glycogen.
>
> The gain from glycogen is practically non-existent.
>
> > Absolutely wrong.
>
> Because you say so?
>
> > Weight gain is a symptom of diabetes NOT the cause.
>
> No. Weight gain is a cause of NIDDM. It is never a
> symptom of DM.
>
> > The reason that this is so misunderstood is that doctors
> > used to diagnose diabetes only when fasting blood sugar
> > was insanely out of control--not when post prandial
> > glucose was spiking over 200 ...
>
> Doctors have been measuring postprandial glucose for
> decades.
>
> > ... which is when most of the damage starts.
>
> Long-term damage from DM is caused by chronic hyperglycemia,
> not by occasional hyperglycemic excursions.
>
> > Hence it looks like weight gain "caused" the diabetes. In
> > fact, the undiagnosed diabetes caused the weight gain.
>
> Odd that you know all this, but "ignorant doctors" do not.
>
> > The standards for diagnosing diabetes have changed
> > radically in the past five years ...
>
> In what way? Last I read, they had changed only slightly.
>
> > Again, this is a misunderstanding.
>
> Well, no, it's exactly how things work. An impaired insulin
> response (or secretion) leaves glucose circulating, which is
> what causes the hyperglycemia of DM.
>
> > By the time you stop gaining weight high sugar levels have
> > destroyed most of your beta cells.
>
> No, they have not. Most people with NIDDM still secrete
> substantial
amounts
> of insulin. Clearly, they still have beta cells in
> signifcant quantities. If they didn't, they'd be losing
> weight dramatically, since you can't gain weight with no
> insulin.
>
> > When they start shooting insulin, many diabetics gain more
> > weight.
>
> Following your logic, just about everything causes people to
> gain weight. How convenient.
>
> > My blood sugars were routinely rising into the 240s while
> > I started putting on my 20 lbs a year.
>
> You must have been eating a ton of food.
>
> > It sounds great in the abstract, but there's a HUGE flaw
> > when you read the actual study.
>
> Not only are doctors ignorant in comparison to you, but
> researchers
conduct
> studies with flaws that only you can detect.
>
> > Is it possible they were insulin resistant to where they
> > couldn't lose weight on this stupid diet?
>
> No. Insulin resistance does not impair the ability to lose
> weight. It is ALWAYS possible to lose weight by eating less
> or exercising more, even
with
> severe untreated diabetes mellitus.
>
> > Again the quality of the nutritional studies is generally
> > so bad that you have to read the details to find out why
> > it's bullshit. Alas, 98% of diabetes research is funded by
> > people with something to sell and it sucks.
>
> So now 98% of all studies are nonsense? Is there anyone
> qualified to
speak
> on the subject besides yourself?
>
> > This is the old medical approach where you blame the
> > patient for noncompliance if they don't get better.
>
> Yes. It's the approach that works. There are no obese
> persons anywhere
in
> the world who do not overeat.
>
> > I've logged and charted and graphed my own results for
> > months and the facts that keep emerging are that yes, I
> > have to cut calories to lose weight, but when I eat carbs
> > I gain weight at the same calorie level at which I lose
> > when I low carb.
>
> No, you do not.
>
> > But the bottom line is that for those of us who have
> > whatever it is that causes IR (some genetic flaw in my
> > case, it looks like) lowering insulin by cutting carbs AND
> > PROTEIN makes for significant weight loss not possible
> > through other diets.
>
> Perhaps some people simply have a genetic flaw that causes
> them to vigorously deny responsibility for their own
> behavior, no matter what the evidence.

[Mxsmanic]

"Katra" <Katra@centurytel.net> a écrit dans le message de
news: 3EA8E495.23867FDE@centurytel.net...

> BMR can be different for different people, especially
> females!!!

BMR can be different from hour to hour, but these differences
are not important to weight control, after adjustment for body
weight and body composition.

The notion that metabolism varies so dramatically that it can
prevent fat people from losing weight is a myth, created and
embraced by some fat people in order to deny responsibility
for their own obesity.

It is interesting to note that, if all these alleged
pathological and physiological processes really produced
enough differences to make or keep people fat, obesity would
be equally a problem everywhere in the world. In fact,
obesity doesn't seem to be a problem anywhere except in a few
countries, most notably the United States. Are Americans
somehow fundamentally different in their physiology, or
somehow more prone to bizarre illnesses that magically
produce obesity?

> It is soooo full of shit especially where Hypothyrodism and
> Wilson's syndrome are concerned.

Virtually no one has pathology that can influence obesity.

> K. (who can gain weight on less than 1,000 kcals per day of
> the wrong types of calories...)

No, you can't. Have yourself fed exclusively by NG tube for a
few weeks, under the exclusive control of a doctor, and we'll
see how much weight you lose on 1000 kcal per day.

Indeed, one can argue that obesity is caused by the human
mouth more than anything else, because as long as fat people
have the freedom to put things into their mouths, they tend to
remain fat, no matter how few calories they claim to be
eating. Prevent them from putting anything into their mouths,
and feed them via tube or needle, and suddenly the rule of
calories-in vs. calories-out abruptly begins to apply. Hmm.

[Keith Hobm]

In article <9443feb6.0304250540.4ab6d37e@posting.google.com>,
jeng_steveg@hotmail.com (Steve Gallagher) wrote:

> "Jenny" <jenny_the_bean@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<b89t8j$gmq$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> > Lyle,
> >
> > > Low-carb (or any diet) folks argue yes, they say that
> > > they gained on X calories of high carb but magically
> > > lose on 2X (or whatever) lowcarb. That they gained some
> > > amazing metabolic benefit from switching around their
> > > macronutrients.
> >
> > Well, when I logged my food and ate 1200 calories of a
> > mostly vegetarian high carb diet, I lost 1 pound in a
> > month. When I then switched to an "anything goes" low carb
> > diet (after another couple months of gaining) I lost 20
> > lbs (more than 10% of my initial body wieght) which I kept
> > off for years. I was as surprised as anyone, but that is
> > how it worked for me.
> >
> > When I recently attempted to go back to a "balanced" diet
> > eating at the same counted calorie level as I had been
> > eating while low carbing for many months, I packed on a
> > pound a month (after the intial gain from refilling
> > glycogen).
> >
> > Then--again suggesting that insulin is at issue, I started
> > taking Precose, a prescription medication that blocks carb
> > spiking (and hence prevents insulin spiking) and the
> > weight gain stopped for six more months--as long as my
> > blood sugar stayed flat enough to discourage insulin
> > spiking.
> >
> > > Interestingly, the research suggests the exact opposite:
> > > insulin resistance DEVELOPS to try and prevent further
> > > weight gain.
> >
> > Absolutely wrong.
>
>
> Kewl. Someone is ramping up to debate diet studies with
> Lyle. This is always such great sport.

I don't think its going to happen. When someone disputes Jenny
and her 'n=1' research she just responds by labelling (him in
this case) a 'loser'.

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

[Dj Delorie]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> writes:
> "DJ Delorie" <dj@delorie.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news: xnof2vcgco.fsf@delorie.com...
>
> > My *measured* RMR is way off from all the online RMR
> > computations.
>
> How was it measured, and how far off is it, and what is
> its level?

BodyMed (indirect calorimeter) RMR 1470, daily burn 1950.
That's for a male 5'10" 150lbs 36y.

> On the contrary, it's the only rule that is useful for
> weight loss.

No, it's not. There are many other things to consider when
trying to figure out your deficit. Just reducing your intake
500 cals/day will not guarantee an extra 1 lb/week loss.

> It doesn't violate the rule. That's why people die if they
> go long enough without eating. That's also why they lose
> weight if they stop eating.

I didn't say it violated the rule. I said it *seems* to
violate the rule. My wife was on a 1300 cal/day (or less)
diet, had a measured RMR of 1640, and wasn't losing weight.
This was long term, and we measured the food carefully (she
was usually under). I agree it doesn't make sense, but nobody
has explained what's wrong with the math yet.

> > Sure they do. They can change core body temperature, for
> > starters.
>
> Not enough to significantly affect metabolism
> ("significantly" meaning in a way that would allow fat
> people to use this as an excuse for not losing weight).

I didn't say it was significant. I said it was possible. Why
do you insist on putting words in my mouth?

> > After you have it, IR is a cause too.
>
> Stay thin, and you won't get it.

What does that have to do with anything?

[Mxsmanic]

"Jenny" <jenny_the_bean@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: b8b635$e1o$2@bob.news.rcn.net...

> What a loser!

I've lost quite a bit thus far; I hope to lose a bit more. I
do it without any gimmicks, though; I just count calories.

> Whatever your problem with other people's weight is, your
> hostility is a tipoff that it's personal.

There is no hostility in my posts. I just don't mince words;
it wastes time, and it certainly doesn't help fat people to
comfort them in their illusions. I don't care if other people
are fat, personally, as it has no effect on my own health.

> I'm not going to waste energy replying to your unsupported
> spewing because it's clear you're not interested in
> information.

In other words, you disagree with me. And even though you say
that you're not going to waste energy replying to me, here you
are, replying to me.

> High post prandial blood sugars are now understood to cause
> complications.

Indeed? One wonders how this could possibly be verified,
without measuring postprandial glucose after every single meal
for 20-30 years.

> If you don't think a lot of doctors are idiots where
> diabetes is concerned, scan alt.support.diabetes for a while
> and observe the parade of victims whose doctors tell them
> not to worry about blood sugar levels that are routinely
> above 200 mg/dl or hb1acs that are in the 8 and above range.

My experience is that idiots are far more plentiful in the
alt.* hierarchy of USENET than in the medical profession.

[Mxsmanic]

"DJ Delorie" <dj@delorie.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
xnist2d4cn.fsf@delorie.com...

> BodyMed (indirect calorimeter) RMR 1470, daily burn 1950.
> That's for a male 5'10" 150lbs 36y.

Sounds reasonable. What did the online calculators say?

> Just reducing your intake 500 cals/day will not guarantee an
> extra 1 lb/week loss.

It will if your calorie requirements do not change at the
same time.

> My wife was on a 1300 cal/day (or less) diet, had a measured
> RMR of 1640, and wasn't losing weight. This was long term,
> and we measured the food carefully (she was usually under).
> I agree it doesn't make sense, but nobody has explained
> what's wrong with the math yet.

I'd suspect the measurement rather than the math.

> I didn't say it was significant. I said it was possible. Why
> do you insist on putting words in my mouth?

The fact that you mention it will cause most people to
interpret it as significant. I wanted to make sure it was not
interpreted in that way.

> What does that have to do with anything?

It means that IR doesn't make you fat.

[Hank]

In misc.fitness.weights Lyle McDonald
<lylemcd@grandecomimretarded.net> wrote:

<snipped a really long and very informative message>

Damn, Lyle... your fingers tired?

Good info. Thanks.

Hank

[September]

Claybits@hotmail.com (victoria) wrote in message
news:<347bcc5e.0304240923.4926e0ed@posting.google.com>...
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<8xSdnRGCVKmHPzqjXTWcog@giganews.com>...
> > All long-term useful (i.e., fat) weight loss results
> > from calorie deficits in diet. How this deficit is
> > achieved is irrelevant. For people who are in otherwise
> > normal health apart from their obesity, personal
> > preference is the only factor to consider in the choice
> > of method used to reduce calories, since only total
> > calories matter for weight loss.
> >
>
> It never ceases to amaze me that people on all sides of an
> issue will decide on the answer before the data is in, and
> then insist to the death that any data contrary to their
> specific opionion is wrong. Of course, if a researcher finds
> that people on a low carb diet eat more, lose more, and are
> healthier, he MUST be lying or deluded.
>
> The FACTS are that this study, and another cited below, show
> statistically significant results that a low carb diet
> results in HIGHER weight loss with MORE calories than a low
> fat diet.
>
> "Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and
> cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents."
> Sondike SB, Copperman N, Jacobson MS. J Pediatr 2003
> Mar;142(3):253-8.

I have the full text of this study. There's a very interesting
bar graph on page 256 that depicts each subject's total weight
loss. I'm no statistician, but it appears to me that most of
the difference in the average weight loss between the low-carb
& low-fat groups is attributable to 3 exceptional individuals
in the low-carb group who lost a tremendous amount of weight
compared to the other subjects. IOW, if these 3 individual's
results were excluded from the statistical analysis, I doubt
there would be much difference in the average weight loss b/t
the two diet groups. Interesting...

[Hank]

In misc.fitness.weights Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A good example is someone on TPN or enteric nutrition
> through an NG tube in a long-term coma. Nobody ever remains
> or becomes obese in a coma, because people in comas are not
> awake, and so they cannot overeat.

That's it. I'm writing a diet book.

The Coma Diet: How to Lose Weight Without Diet or Exercise

Of course the no exercise part is ignoring the physical
therapy required after a year or two of bedrest.

Hank

[Lyle McDon]

September wrote:
>
> Claybits@hotmail.com (victoria) wrote in message
> news:<347bcc5e.0304240923.4926e0ed@posting.google.com>...
> > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<8xSdnRGCVKmHPzqjXTWcog@giganews.com>...
> > > All long-term useful (i.e., fat) weight loss results
> > > from calorie deficits in diet. How this deficit is
> > > achieved is irrelevant. For people who are in otherwise
> > > normal health apart from their obesity, personal
> > > preference is the only factor to consider in the choice
> > > of method used to reduce calories, since only total
> > > calories matter for weight loss.
> > >
> >
> > It never ceases to amaze me that people on all sides of an
> > issue will decide on the answer before the data is in, and
> > then insist to the death that any data contrary to their
> > specific opionion is wrong. Of course, if a researcher
> > finds that people on a low carb diet eat more, lose more,
> > and are healthier, he MUST be lying or deluded.
> >
> > The FACTS are that this study, and another cited below,
> > show statistically significant results that a low carb
> > diet results in HIGHER weight loss with MORE calories than
> > a low fat diet.
> >
> > "Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and
> > cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents."
> > Sondike SB, Copperman N, Jacobson MS. J Pediatr 2003
> > Mar;142(3):253-8.
>
> I have the full text of this study. There's a very
> interesting bar graph on page 256 that depicts each
> subject's total weight loss. I'm no statistician, but it
> appears to me that most of the difference in the average
> weight loss between the low-carb & low-fat groups is
> attributable to 3 exceptional individuals in the low-carb
> group who lost a tremendous amount of weight compared to the
> other subjects. IOW, if these 3 individual's results were
> excluded from the statistical analysis, I doubt there would
> be much difference in the average weight loss b/t the two
> diet groups. Interesting...

But not necessarily surprising, one of the old 'keto and
aerobic endurance' studies had the same problem: 5 subjects,
one of whom showed massive improvements in performance (other
4 showed little), led to an overall average improvement.

Of course, that raises a different question: what is
determining why one (or a few) individuals are such hyper
responders while the others aren't?

Question: how did they determine caloric intake for the groups
in the J Pediatrics study?

Thanks, Lyle

[J . Thiess]

In article <KSdqa.5293$366.2840@fed1read06>, Hank wrote:
> In misc.fitness.weights Mxsmanic
> <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> A good example is someone on TPN or enteric nutrition
>> through an NG tube in a long-term coma. Nobody ever remains
>> or becomes obese in a coma, because people in comas are not
>> awake, and so they cannot overeat.
>
>
> That's it. I'm writing a diet book.
>
> The Coma Diet: How to Lose Weight Without Diet or Exercise

To be quickly parodied in:

The Comma Diet: Weight Loss Through Short,
Grammatically-Utilitarian Pauses

J.

[Tree]

Carmen wrote:
> Hi, On 24-Apr-2003, "Elvis Parsley"
> <elvisparsley@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> As you can see Lyle, you have your work cut out for you.
>> This magical disappearance of weight that most will claim
>> is not linked to reduced Calories, is the norm of ASDLC
>> thinking, and not the exception.
>>
>> Hell, even the guy on dateline who tried atkins says he
>> went from eating a 10 egg omlet (just for breakfast) to a 3
>> egg omlet and started eating less overall as he just wasn't
>> hungry, but for some strange reason, losing weight because
>> one is reducing Calories in ASDLC, is like uttering heresy!
>
> Not really. The longtermers quickly disabuse any newbie who
> starts spouting "calories don't count". A few refuse to
> believe it (they usually post an "Atkins doesn't work! I'm
> outta here!" post and disappear not long thereafter), a few
> get pissed off that they'd been "tricked" and leave in a
> huff, and the majority express some disappointment (or
> relief because now they have something to work with) and
> suck it up and go on. It's difficult to ignore the info when
> it comes from folks who lost their extra weight and have
> kept it off for years. :-)
>
>> My god Lyle, you are a heretic!! :)
>
> Only to the Atkins Cultists. <G> And they *do* exist........
>
> Carmen

And you forgot those that fail and hang around to malign the
rest of us with, "it didn't work for me no matter what I
did" posts.

--
--------------------------------------------------------
----------
Tree /|\ perdita-nitt@carolina.rr.com
http://forums.delphiforums.com/lowcarbrecipes/start

[Qubit]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 02:23:06 GMT, "Carmen "
<CarmenSRT@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Only to the Atkins Cultists. <G> And they *do* exist........

Where? When?

Oh, here?

[Dawn Taylo]

On 25 Apr 2003 06:40:11 -0700, jeng_steveg@hotmail.com (Steve
Gallagher) wrote:

>Kewl. Someone is ramping up to debate diet studies with Lyle.
>This is always such great sport.

Lyle is very good at debating on Usenet. He's very good at
research and he's a fine writer. He's an extremely intelligent
man with a lot of valuable information to share.

What he isn't, however, is always right. His ability to crush
his critics through sheer force of will seems to blur that
distinction for some people.

Dawn

[Kris Dow]

In article <Kqicnd0zjY7jhzSjXTWcoQ@giganews.com>,
Mxsmanic wrote:
> "DJ Delorie" <dj@delorie.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news: xnof2vcgco.fsf@delorie.com...
>
>> And I am *still* waiting for an explanation of why
>> starvation metabolism seems to violate that rule, even with
>> drastic caloric restrictions and measured RMR.
>
> It doesn't violate the rule. That's why people die if they
> go long enough without eating. That's also why they lose
> weight if they stop eating.
>

As I understand it, the starvation response applies not when
you stop eating entirely, but when you are eating, but eating
too little regularly.

I assume the body accomplishes this by making some fairly
drastic cuts in what it's using the availible energy for-
reduced immune response, that type of thing. Never looked for
any studies or anything like that, though, so I don't know if
the exact changes the body makes in this state are documented.

I assume there is some level of intake below which the body
simply cannot adapt, and in that case, even if you are eating
something daily, you will waste away slowly and die.

At any rate, I've experienced this for myself- daily intake of
between 800 and 1200 calories (charted on fitday religiously
for several weeks, was my normal eating habits) and I
certainly wasn't losing weight, and seemed to be gaining
occasionally, albeit slowly. Increased my intake to between
1800 and 2000 daily (which is still maintaining a caloric
deficit, of about 500 calories/day) and I'm losing weight
pretty consistently now. I also feel better generally, and
don't get as many joint pains and muscle soreness doesn't last
anything like as long.

*shrug*

-Kris

[Carmen]

Hi Q, On 25-Apr-2003, Qubit <qubitnospam@usa.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 02:23:06 GMT, "Carmen "
> <CarmenSRT@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Only to the Atkins Cultists. <G> And they *do*
> >exist........
>
> Where? When?
>
> Oh, here?

Shocking, isn't it? <G>

Take care, Carmen

[Mxsmanic]

"Kris Dow" <kris@vilnya.rings> a écrit dans le message de
news: slrnbaj4qg.1r9t.kris@vilnya.rings...

> As I understand it, the starvation response applies not when
> you stop eating entirely, but when you are eating, but
> eating too little regularly.

The "starvation response" is overestimated and always
temporary.

> I assume the body accomplishes this by making some fairly
> drastic cuts in what it's using the availible energy for-
> reduced immune response, that type of thing.

Yes, and it cannot do that for long.

> I assume there is some level of intake below which the body
> simply cannot adapt, and in that case, even if you are
> eating something daily, you will waste away slowly and die.

Any intake below the number of calories required for energy
will cause death in very short order, unless there is fat or
muscle or something that can be converted to fuel. Whenever
that runs out, death ensues.

> At any rate, I've experienced this for myself- daily intake
> of between 800 and 1200 calories (charted on fitday
> religiously for several weeks, was my normal eating habits)
> and I certainly wasn't losing weight, and seemed to be
> gaining occasionally, albeit slowly.

A measurement error or change in fluid balance, no doubt.

[September]

Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
message news:<3EA99AFA.13253336@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>...
> September wrote:
> >
> > Claybits@hotmail.com (victoria) wrote in message
> > news:<347bcc5e.0304240923.4926e0ed@posting.google.com>...
> > > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<8xSdnRGCVKmHPzqjXTWcog@giganews.com>...
> > > > All long-term useful (i.e., fat) weight loss results
> > > > from calorie deficits in diet. How this deficit is
> > > > achieved is irrelevant. For people who are in
> > > > otherwise normal health apart from their obesity,
> > > > personal preference is the only factor to consider in
> > > > the choice of method used to reduce calories, since
> > > > only total calories matter for weight loss.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It never ceases to amaze me that people on all sides of
> > > an issue will decide on the answer before the data is
> > > in, and then insist to the death that any data contrary
> > > to their specific opionion is wrong. Of course, if a
> > > researcher finds that people on a low carb diet eat
> > > more, lose more, and are healthier, he MUST be lying or
> > > deluded.
> > >
> > > The FACTS are that this study, and another cited below,
> > > show statistically significant results that a low carb
> > > diet results in HIGHER weight loss with MORE calories
> > > than a low fat diet.
> > >
> > > "Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and
> > > cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents."
> > > Sondike SB, Copperman N, Jacobson MS. J Pediatr 2003
> > > Mar;142(3):253-8.
> >
> > I have the full text of this study. There's a very
> > interesting bar graph on page 256 that depicts each
> > subject's total weight loss. I'm no statistician, but it
> > appears to me that most of the difference in the average
> > weight loss between the low-carb & low-fat groups is
> > attributable to 3 exceptional individuals in the low-carb
> > group who lost a tremendous amount of weight compared to
> > the other subjects. IOW, if these 3 individual's results
> > were excluded from the statistical analysis, I doubt there
> > would be much difference in the average weight loss b/t
> > the two diet groups. Interesting...
>
> But not necessarily surprising, one of the old 'keto and
> aerobic endurance' studies had the same problem: 5 subjects,
> one of whom showed massive improvements in performance
> (other 4 showed little), led to an overall average
> improvement.
>
> Of course, that raises a different question: what is
> determining why one (or a few) individuals are such hyper
> responders while the others aren't?
>
> Question: how did they determine caloric intake for the
> groups in the J Pediatrics study?
>
> Thanks, Lyle

From the paper:

"Dietary adherence was monitored at baseline and biweekly by a
registered dietician. Adolescents and parents were instructed
in the accurate completion of consecutive 3-day food records
that included 2 weekdays and 1 weekend day. Food record
nutrient calculations were performed with the use of the
Nutrient Data System for Research software, version 4.01,
developed by the Nutrition Coordinating Center, University of
Minnesota.34 The macronutrients analyzed were energy, fat,
carbohydrate, protein, cholesterol, and saturated,
monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fatty acids."

[September]

Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
message news:<3EA99AFA.13253336@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>...
> September wrote:
> >
> > Claybits@hotmail.com (victoria) wrote in message
> > news:<347bcc5e.0304240923.4926e0ed@posting.google.com>...
> > > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<8xSdnRGCVKmHPzqjXTWcog@giganews.com>...
> > > > All long-term useful (i.e., fat) weight loss results
> > > > from calorie deficits in diet. How this deficit is
> > > > achieved is irrelevant. For people who are in
> > > > otherwise normal health apart from their obesity,
> > > > personal preference is the only factor to consider in
> > > > the choice of method used to reduce calories, since
> > > > only total calories matter for weight loss.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It never ceases to amaze me that people on all sides of
> > > an issue will decide on the answer before the data is
> > > in, and then insist to the death that any data contrary
> > > to their specific opionion is wrong. Of course, if a
> > > researcher finds that people on a low carb diet eat
> > > more, lose more, and are healthier, he MUST be lying or
> > > deluded.
> > >
> > > The FACTS are that this study, and another cited below,
> > > show statistically significant results that a low carb
> > > diet results in HIGHER weight loss with MORE calories
> > > than a low fat diet.
> > >
> > > "Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and
> > > cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents."
> > > Sondike SB, Copperman N, Jacobson MS. J Pediatr 2003
> > > Mar;142(3):253-8.
> >
> > I have the full text of this study. There's a very
> > interesting bar graph on page 256 that depicts each
> > subject's total weight loss. I'm no statistician, but it
> > appears to me that most of the difference in the average
> > weight loss between the low-carb & low-fat groups is
> > attributable to 3 exceptional individuals in the low-carb
> > group who lost a tremendous amount of weight compared to
> > the other subjects. IOW, if these 3 individual's results
> > were excluded from the statistical analysis, I doubt there
> > would be much difference in the average weight loss b/t
> > the two diet groups. Interesting...
>
> But not necessarily surprising, one of the old 'keto and
> aerobic endurance' studies had the same problem: 5 subjects,
> one of whom showed massive improvements in performance
> (other 4 showed little), led to an overall average
> improvement.
>
> Of course, that raises a different question: what is
> determining why one (or a few) individuals are such hyper
> responders while the others aren't?
>
> Question: how did they determine caloric intake for the
> groups in the J Pediatrics study?
>
> Thanks, Lyle

Oops, I meant to mention this before...

I don't think I'm breaking any copyright laws by pointing out
that if you go to this site...

http://www.ulb.uni-bonn.de/Datenbanken/Zugang/password.htm

...you will find a username and password to get the full text
of the J Periatrics study.

[Micky Snir]

"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
message news:3EA8C3BB.EE087110@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> >
> > "Tony Lew" <rosescripter@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le
> > message de news:
> > 5c7896da.0304241042.1d39233e@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > No, it's a simplistic application of fundamental
> > > physical laws.
> >
> > The physical laws are simple, and so are their
> > explanations.
> >
> > > You're assuming that total calorie expenditure is
> > > independent of diet.
> >
> > It is.
> >
> > > People eating the same number of calories may not be
> > > burning the same number of calories.
> >
> > Obviously.
> >
> > > It's well known that a very low-cal diet will lower you
> > > metabolism.
> >
> > No, it will not.
>
> Yes it will. adaptations in metabolic rate due to dieting
> are well established.
>
> Part of this is simly due to a loss of bodyweight. Less mass
> = fewer calories burned.
>
> There is an additional adaptive component (I posted one
> study on the topic but there are numerous others) where
> metabolic rate/kg mass goes
down.
>
> Lyle

I believe that the real answer is yes an no. Paraphrasing
Michael Rae: Yes, metabolic *rate* will temporarily drop, but
no, it will bounce back after a few weeks or months (1-4). And
yes, total metabolism will be lower, due to lower mass (less
active tissue, and less tissue to take around), and maybe less
fidgeting, but that is *total* metabolism, and not the
metabolic *rate*.

Micky.

1: Greenberg JA, Boozer CN. Metabolic mass, metabolic rate,
caloric restriction, and aging in male Fischer 344 rats.
Mech Ageing Dev. 2000 Jan 24;113(1):37-48. PMID: 10708248
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2: McCarter RJ, Palmer J. Energy metabolism and aging: a
lifelong study of Fischer 344 rats. Am J Physiol. 1992
Sep;263(3 Pt 1):E448-52. PMID: 1415524 [PubMed - indexed
for MEDLINE]

3: McCarter RJ, McGee JR. Transient reduction of metabolic
rate by food restriction. Am J Physiol. 1989 Aug;257(2 Pt
1):E175-9. PMID: 2764100 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

4: McCarter R, Masoro EJ, Yu BP. Does food restriction retard
aging by reducing the metabolic rate? Am J Physiol. 1985
Apr;248(4 Pt 1):E488-90. PMID: 3157325

[Lyle McDon]

September wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> message news:<3EA99AFA.13253336@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>...
> > September wrote:

> > Question: how did they determine caloric intake for the
> > groups in the J Pediatrics study?
> >
> > Thanks, Lyle
>
> From the paper:
>
> "Dietary adherence was monitored at baseline and biweekly by
> a registered dietician. Adolescents and parents were
> instructed in the accurate completion of consecutive 3-day
> food records that included 2 weekdays and 1 weekend day.
> Food record nutrient calculations were performed with the
> use of the Nutrient Data System for Research software,
> version 4.01, developed by the Nutrition Coordinating
> Center, University of Minnesota.34 The macronutrients
> analyzed were energy, fat, carbohydrate, protein,
> cholesterol, and saturated, monounsaturated, and
> polyunsaturated fatty acids."

Right, food records. Why am I not shocked at this? Knowing how
badly adults do at this type of thing, anybody that expects
kids to do a decent job of it well...

Also, based on other data, I doubt that they spontaneously ate
so few calories on the lowfat diet (reported intakes were 1100
+- 297 cal/day in the lowfat group). that is, does anybody
honestly beleive that kids on an ad lib lowfat diet really
only ate that few calories?

Your point about the hyperresponders is a good one. The range
of weight lost in the lowcarb group is monstrous: one kid lost
~2 kg (funny how the lowcarb freaks ignore that data point),
one lost 28 kg (that's 56 lbs in 12 weeks, fuck me). The three
kids who lost ~22 kg, 22 kg and 28kg respectively skewed the
average way up. If you remove them and the one high responder
in the lowfat group (who lost ~12 kg), the weight losses of
the two groups are nearly identical.

Another issue is the range of reported caloric intakes on
lowcarb: 1830 +-615. ASSuming it's accurate (and I'm not
saying that's a correct assumption but those values are at
least w/in standard ranges for ad lib keto diets), that gives
1200 cal/day at the low end and 2450 cal/day at the high end.
A 1200 cal/day difference over 12 weeks works out to

1200 * 7 * 12 = 100,800 cal difference / 3500 = 28.8 lbs

That is, based on the differences in caloric intake alone,
you'd expect a 29 lb difference in weight loss between the
highest and lowest responders. The actual value was closer to
57 lbs (26 kg * 2.2) which is strange.

But, even the study points out that the food report
methodology and uncontrolled activity patterns confound the
study. To a very great degree, it wasn't terribly controlled.

And that, again, is the rub. Here we have two studies (this
one and the more recent study in adults) using food record
methodology reporting tehse vast differences while controlled
calorie studies (Alford and Golay, which gave measured food
portions to the subjects) reporting no such difference.
Considering the vast problems in food recording that have been
documented, well, I'm beating a fucking dead horse at this
point. But I'll take strictly controlled studies where caloric
intake is controlled against these types of fairly
uncontrolled studies any day.

Another issue, the range of starting bodyweights was pretty
vast which makes the results questionable at best. Difficult
to interpret.

lowcarb: 202 +- 32.7 lbs lowfat: 219 +- 60 lbs

that means a range of weight of 170 to 235 in the lowcarb
group and 160 to 280 in the lowfat group. That's worse than
the Young study from the 80's.

The interesting data, which the study of course did not
provide, would have been to show the starting weight, reported
caloric intake, and final weight loss of each subject. That
would have given the best picture of what actually went on
becuase you could estimate a deficit (based on estimated
maintenance needs compared to reported caloric intakes) to see
how much weight loss would have been predicted for each
subject and see how well it conformed to the actual weight
loss. By aggregating the averages, and considering the huge
range of starting weights, reported caloric intakes, and
measured weight loss, individual results are hard to
determine.

Finally, the accompanying editorial in the journal points out
that no measure of body composition was made, only bodyweight.
So we have that pesky water loss issue to take into account.
As per previous comments (HI That Guy!), that can account for
a fairly significant amount of the total weight loss. Measure
that and many of the differences disappear.

Lyle To quote The Ever Loving Blue Eyed Thing: It's
titty bar time!

[Carmen]

Hi Tree, On 25-Apr-2003, "Tree"
<Perdita-nitt@carolina.rr.com> wrote:

> > Not really. The longtermers quickly disabuse any newbie
> > who starts spouting "calories don't count". A few refuse
> > to believe it (they usually post an "Atkins doesn't work!
> > I'm outta here!" post and disappear not long thereafter),
> > a few get pissed off that they'd been "tricked" and leave
> > in a huff, and the majority express some disappointment
> > (or relief because now they have something to work with)
> > and suck it up and go on. It's difficult to ignore the
> > info when it comes from folks who lost their extra weight
> > and have kept it off for years. :-)
> >
> >> My god Lyle, you are a heretic!! :)
> >
> > Only to the Atkins Cultists. <G> And they *do*
> > exist........
> >
> > Carmen
>
> And you forgot those that fail and hang around to malign the
> rest of us with, "it didn't work for me no matter what I
> did" posts.

I was being merciful. :-) I also left out the "I screwed up
again, that <insert whatever> just *jumped* into my mouth!"
types - not the once-in-a-while ones, the serial (cereal? <G>)
offenders.

Take care, Carmen

[Lyle McDon]

Micky Snir wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> message news:3EA8C3BB.EE087110@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> > >
> > > "Tony Lew" <rosescripter@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le
> > > message de news:
> > > 5c7896da.0304241042.1d39233e@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > > No, it's a simplistic application of fundamental
> > > > physical laws.
> > >
> > > The physical laws are simple, and so are their
> > > explanations.
> > >
> > > > You're assuming that total calorie expenditure is
> > > > independent of diet.
> > >
> > > It is.
> > >
> > > > People eating the same number of calories may not be
> > > > burning the same number of calories.
> > >
> > > Obviously.
> > >
> > > > It's well known that a very low-cal diet will lower
> > > > you metabolism.
> > >
> > > No, it will not.
> >
> > Yes it will. adaptations in metabolic rate due to dieting
> > are well established.
> >
> > Part of this is simly due to a loss of bodyweight. Less
> > mass = fewer calories burned.
> >
> > There is an additional adaptive component (I posted one
> > study on the topic but there are numerous others) where
> > metabolic rate/kg mass goes
> down.
> >
> > Lyle
>
> I believe that the real answer is yes an no.
> Paraphrasing Michael Rae: Yes, metabolic *rate* will
> temporarily drop, but no, it will bounce back after a
> few weeks or months (1-4).

I'll stick with studies in humans thanks.

> And yes, total metabolism will be lower, due to lower mass
> (less active tissue, and less tissue to take around), and
> maybe less fidgeting, but that is *total* metabolism, and
> not the metabolic *rate*.

What distinction are you making here in that last sentence?

Lyle

>
> Micky.
>
> 1: Greenberg JA, Boozer CN. Metabolic mass, metabolic rate,
> caloric restriction, and aging in male Fischer 344 rats.
> Mech Ageing Dev. 2000 Jan 24;113(1):37-48. PMID:
> 10708248 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>
> 2: McCarter RJ, Palmer J. Energy metabolism and aging: a
> lifelong study of Fischer 344 rats. Am J Physiol. 1992
> Sep;263(3 Pt 1):E448-52. PMID: 1415524 [PubMed - indexed
> for MEDLINE]
>
> 3: McCarter RJ, McGee JR. Transient reduction of metabolic
> rate by food restriction. Am J Physiol. 1989 Aug;257(2
> Pt 1):E175-9. PMID: 2764100 [PubMed - indexed for
> MEDLINE]
>
> 4: McCarter R, Masoro EJ, Yu BP. Does food restriction
> retard aging by reducing the metabolic rate? Am J
> Physiol. 1985 Apr;248(4 Pt 1):E488-90. PMID: 3157325

Rats aren't humans the last time I checked.

Lyle

[Ted]

"Katra" <Katra@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:3EA8E495.23867FDE@centurytel.net...
>
>
> DJ Delorie wrote:
> >
> > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> writes:
> > > 1. People do not have different metabolic rates, once
> > > these rates are computed based on sex, weight, and
> > > body composition.
> >
> > I do. My *measured* RMR is way off from all the online RMR
> > computations. And my metabolic rate increases every time I
> > exercise, even though my sex, weight, and body composition
> > don't change.
> >
> > > 2. Irrespective of metabolic rates, the rule of
> > > calories-in
> > > vs. calories-out is absolute. There are NO exceptions.
> >
> > However, both calories-in and calories-out can be changed
> > by so many factors, that the "absoluteness" of this rule
> > is mostly useless.
> >
> > And I am *still* waiting for an explanation of why
> > starvation metabolism seems to violate that rule, even
> > with drastic caloric restrictions and measured RMR.
> >
> > > 3. Hormonal profiles do not affect energy requirements
> > > to any significant degree.
> >
> > Sure they do. They can change core body temperature, for
> > starters.
> >
> > > > ... and despite what these people have been told by
> > > > ignorant doctors ...
> > >
> > > Doctors, as a general rule, are not ignorant of
> > > medicine, particularly in comparison to the general
> > > population.
> >
> > Most doctors aren't nutrition specialists, though.
> >
> > > Insulin resistance is an effect, not a cause.
> >
> > After you have it, IR is a cause too.
>
> Good lord! I missed part of this thread, (due to a wonky
> server that does not download all the posts...)
>
> BMR can be different for different people, especially
> females!!! it's that whole testosterone thing. BMR directly
> affects the calories in vs. calories out equation.
>
> Where does "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> get it's
> data??? It is soooo full of shit especially where
> Hypothyrodism and Wilson's syndrome are concerned.
>
> Sheesh!!!
> K. (who can gain weight on less than 1,000 kcals per day of
> the wrong types of calories...)

Oh no. Not this again...

[Micky Snir]

"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
message news:3EA9C06C.27024032@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> Micky Snir wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> > message news:3EA8C3BB.EE087110@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> > > Mxsmanic wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Tony Lew" <rosescripter@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le
> > > > message de news:
> > > > 5c7896da.0304241042.1d39233e@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > > No, it's a simplistic application of fundamental
> > > > > physical laws.
> > > >
> > > > The physical laws are simple, and so are their
> > > > explanations.
> > > >
> > > > > You're assuming that total calorie expenditure is
> > > > > independent of diet.
> > > >
> > > > It is.
> > > >
> > > > > People eating the same number of calories may not be
> > > > > burning the same number of calories.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously.
> > > >
> > > > > It's well known that a very low-cal diet will lower
> > > > > you metabolism.
> > > >
> > > > No, it will not.
> > >
> > > Yes it will. adaptations in metabolic rate due to
> > > dieting are well established.
> > >
> > > Part of this is simly due to a loss of bodyweight. Less
> > > mass = fewer calories burned.
> > >
> > > There is an additional adaptive component (I posted one
> > > study on the topic but there are numerous others) where
> > > metabolic rate/kg mass goes
> > down.
> > >
> > > Lyle
> >
> > I believe that the real answer is yes an no. Paraphrasing
> > Michael Rae: Yes, metabolic *rate* will temporarily drop,
> > but no, it will bounce back after a few weeks or months
> > (1-4).
>
> I'll stick with studies in humans thanks.

Do you have evidence from *long term* calorie restriction that
shows reduced metabolic rate (as defined below)?

>
> > And yes, total metabolism will be lower, due to lower mass
> > (less active tissue, and less tissue to take around), and
> > maybe less fidgeting, but
that
> > is *total* metabolism, and not the metabolic *rate*.
>
> What distinction are you making here in that last sentence?

You are right, I was not clear. I meant that a cell's
metabolism does not slow (on the long run). Sure, the total
metabolism of all cells is less when you lose weight, but
metabolism per unit of active mass (or cell) does not.

Micky.
>
> Lyle
>
> >
> > Micky.
> >
> > 1: Greenberg JA, Boozer CN. Metabolic mass, metabolic
> > rate, caloric restriction, and aging in male Fischer
> > 344 rats. Mech Ageing Dev. 2000 Jan 24;113(1):37-48.
> > PMID: 10708248 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> >
> > 2: McCarter RJ, Palmer J. Energy metabolism and aging: a
> > lifelong study of Fischer 344 rats. Am J Physiol. 1992
> > Sep;263(3 Pt 1):E448-52. PMID: 1415524 [PubMed -
> > indexed for MEDLINE]
> >
> > 3: McCarter RJ, McGee JR. Transient reduction of
> > metabolic rate by food restriction. Am J Physiol. 1989
> > Aug;257(2 Pt 1):E175-9. PMID: 2764100 [PubMed -
> > indexed for MEDLINE]
> >
> > 4: McCarter R, Masoro EJ, Yu BP. Does food restriction
> > retard aging by reducing the metabolic rate? Am J
> > Physiol. 1985 Apr;248(4 Pt 1):E488-90. PMID: 3157325
>
> Rats aren't humans the last time I checked.
>
> Lyle

[Lyle McDon]

Micky Snir wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> message news:3EA9C06C.27024032@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> > Micky Snir wrote:
> > >
> > > "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote
> > > in message
> > > news:3EA8C3BB.EE087110@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> > > > Mxsmanic wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tony Lew" <rosescripter@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le
> > > > > message de news:
> > > > > 5c7896da.0304241042.1d39233e@posting.google.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > > No, it's a simplistic application of fundamental
> > > > > > physical laws.
> > > > >
> > > > > The physical laws are simple, and so are their
> > > > > explanations.
> > > > >
> > > > > > You're assuming that total calorie expenditure is
> > > > > > independent of diet.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is.
> > > > >
> > > > > > People eating the same number of calories may not
> > > > > > be burning the same number of calories.
> > > > >
> > > > > Obviously.
> > > > >
> > > > > > It's well known that a very low-cal diet will
> > > > > > lower you metabolism.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it will not.
> > > >
> > > > Yes it will. adaptations in metabolic rate due to
> > > > dieting are well established.
> > > >
> > > > Part of this is simly due to a loss of bodyweight.
> > > > Less mass = fewer calories burned.
> > > >
> > > > There is an additional adaptive component (I posted
> > > > one study on the topic but there are numerous others)
> > > > where metabolic rate/kg mass goes
> > > down.
> > > >
> > > > Lyle
> > >
> > > I believe that the real answer is yes an no.
> > > Paraphrasing Michael Rae: Yes, metabolic *rate* will
> > > temporarily drop, but no, it will bounce back after a
> > > few weeks or months (1-4).
> >
> > I'll stick with studies in humans thanks.
>
> Do you have evidence from *long term* calorie restriction
> that shows reduced metabolic rate (as defined below)?

Here's a meta analysis on the topic for ya.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/69/6/1117.pdf

Lyle

[Lyle McDon]

Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
> Micky Snir wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> > message news:3EA9C06C.27024032@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> > > Micky Snir wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>
> > > > wrote in message
> > > > news:3EA8C3BB.EE087110@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> > > > > Mxsmanic wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Tony Lew" <rosescripter@yahoo.com> a écrit dans
> > > > > > le message de news:
> > > > > > 5c7896da.0304241042.1d39233e@posting.google.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, it's a simplistic application of fundamental
> > > > > > > physical laws.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The physical laws are simple, and so are their
> > > > > > explanations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're assuming that total calorie expenditure
> > > > > > > is independent of diet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > People eating the same number of calories may
> > > > > > > not be burning the same number of calories.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Obviously.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's well known that a very low-cal diet will
> > > > > > > lower you metabolism.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, it will not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes it will. adaptations in metabolic rate due to
> > > > > dieting are well established.
> > > > >
> > > > > Part of this is simly due to a loss of bodyweight.
> > > > > Less mass = fewer calories burned.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is an additional adaptive component (I posted
> > > > > one study on the topic but there are numerous
> > > > > others) where metabolic rate/kg mass goes
> > > > down.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lyle
> > > >
> > > > I believe that the real answer is yes an no.
> > > > Paraphrasing Michael Rae: Yes, metabolic *rate* will
> > > > temporarily drop, but no, it will bounce back after a
> > > > few weeks or months (1-4).
> > >
> > > I'll stick with studies in humans thanks.
> >
> > Do you have evidence from *long term* calorie restriction
> > that shows reduced metabolic rate (as defined below)?
>
> Here's a meta analysis on the topic for ya.
>
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/69/6/1117.pdf

And since you're into the whole CR thing, this might be worth
a read too.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/72/4/946

interesting to note that even after reagining all the weight
and fat lost, total energy expenditure was still lower in the
Biospherians although most of hte difference was in
spontaneous activity. But RMR/kg was lower when they first
came out. I would expect it to have stayed down (since they
were SO lean) had they maintained the weight loss. This is
consistent with data from the Minnesota Semi-Starvation
experiment.

there are other studies where, post-diet there is no apparent
metabolic adjustment (i.e. no drop in metabolic rate per unit
mass). This typically occurs in fatter individuals. But when
you get really lean, if you stay there, it looks like there is
always a reduction in thermogenesis (yielding a drop in
metabolic rate per unit mass). Dulloo and Jacquet have written
extensively about the mechanisms behind this.

Lyle

[Mxsmanic]

"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> a écrit dans
le message de news:
3EA9CB1D.1256F3A@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...

> Here's a meta analysis on the topic for ya.

The meta analysis finds a difference of only 43 kcal per day
in RMR. I'm afraid that's not going to work very well as an
excuse for staying fat.

[Lyle McDon]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> a écrit
> dans le message de news:
> 3EA9CB1D.1256F3A@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
>
> > Here's a meta analysis on the topic for ya.
>
> The meta analysis finds a difference of only 43 kcal per day
> in RMR. I'm afraid that's not going to work very well as an
> excuse for staying fat.

That's not what the paper was about at all, at all.

Lyle

[Tony Lew]

Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
message news:<3EA99AFA.13253336@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>...
> September wrote:
> >
> > Claybits@hotmail.com (victoria) wrote in message
> > news:<347bcc5e.0304240923.4926e0ed@posting.google.com>...
> > > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<8xSdnRGCVKmHPzqjXTWcog@giganews.com>...
> > > > All long-term useful (i.e., fat) weight loss results
> > > > from calorie deficits in diet. How this deficit is
> > > > achieved is irrelevant. For people who are in
> > > > otherwise normal health apart from their obesity,
> > > > personal preference is the only factor to consider in
> > > > the choice of method used to reduce calories, since
> > > > only total calories matter for weight loss.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It never ceases to amaze me that people on all sides of
> > > an issue will decide on the answer before the data is
> > > in, and then insist to the death that any data contrary
> > > to their specific opionion is wrong. Of course, if a
> > > researcher finds that people on a low carb diet eat
> > > more, lose more, and are healthier, he MUST be lying or
> > > deluded.
> > >
> > > The FACTS are that this study, and another cited below,
> > > show statistically significant results that a low carb
> > > diet results in HIGHER weight loss with MORE calories
> > > than a low fat diet.
> > >
> > > "Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and
> > > cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents."
> > > Sondike SB, Copperman N, Jacobson MS. J Pediatr 2003
> > > Mar;142(3):253-8.
> >
> > I have the full text of this study. There's a very
> > interesting bar graph on page 256 that depicts each
> > subject's total weight loss. I'm no statistician, but it
> > appears to me that most of the difference in the average
> > weight loss between the low-carb & low-fat groups is
> > attributable to 3 exceptional individuals in the low-carb
> > group who lost a tremendous amount of weight compared to
> > the other subjects. IOW, if these 3 individual's results
> > were excluded from the statistical analysis, I doubt there
> > would be much difference in the average weight loss b/t
> > the two diet groups. Interesting...
>
> But not necessarily surprising, one of the old 'keto and
> aerobic endurance' studies had the same problem: 5 subjects,
> one of whom showed massive improvements in performance
> (other 4 showed little), led to an overall average
> improvement.

This has been a problem with salt/hypertension studies for
years. Blacks generally show much greater blood pressure
improvement than whites, who generally show little
improvement. Some researchers "stack the deck" with black
subjects to get the desired results. (One study a couple of
years ago had 57% black subjects).

>
> Of course, that raises a different question: what is
> determining why one (or a few) individuals are such hyper
> responders while the others aren't?
>
> Question: how did they determine caloric intake for the
> groups in the J Pediatrics study?
>
> Thanks, Lyle

[September]

Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
message news:<3EA9FCB9.6E0E211B@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>...
> September wrote:
> >
> > Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> > message
> > news:<3EA99AFA.13253336@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>...
> > > September wrote:
>
> > > Question: how did they determine caloric intake for the
> > > groups in the J Pediatrics study?
> > >
> > > Thanks, Lyle
> >
> > From the paper:
> >
> > "Dietary adherence was monitored at baseline and biweekly
> > by a registered dietician. Adolescents and parents were
> > instructed in the accurate completion of consecutive 3-day
> > food records that included 2 weekdays and 1 weekend day.
> > Food record nutrient calculations were performed with the
> > use of the Nutrient Data System for Research software,
> > version 4.01, developed by the Nutrition Coordinating
> > Center, University of Minnesota.34 The macronutrients
> > analyzed were energy, fat, carbohydrate, protein,
> > cholesterol, and saturated, monounsaturated, and
> > polyunsaturated fatty acids."
>
> Right, food records. Why am I not shocked at this? Knowing
> how badly adults do at this type of thing, anybody that
> expects kids to do a decent job of it well...
>
> Also, based on other data, I doubt that they spontaneously
> ate so few calories on the lowfat diet (reported intakes
> were 1100 +- 297 cal/day in the lowfat group). that is, does
> anybody honestly beleive that kids on an ad lib lowfat diet
> really only ate that few calories?

They also reported eating only 15 +/- 2 grams of fat per day.
They were "allowed" to eat 40 grams per day. Weird...

[Ron Ritzma]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 05:47:28 +0200, "Mxsmanic"
<mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Otherwise, it's not true when you take a tall man and a
>> short woman and put them on the same diet with the same
>> number of calories.
>
>It's not true when you put an elephant and a domestic cat on
>the same diet, either. So?

Because in <T5Odneg_Yr9iPjqjXTWcrg@giganews.com> you didn't
point out that the two people would have to have been
identical twins to lose exactly the same amount of weight on a
diet of equal calories and even then it wouldn't be exact any
more then 2 cars of the same model would have exactly the same
gas milage. Different driving conditions and different states
of repair and maintenance could mean a non-negligible
difference.

Why would it be any different with humans? Different levels of
daily activity and different states of health could mean a
difference in calorie expenditure in identical twins, more so
for people who might have the same body mass but be different
in build, body composition, gender etc. If course the
differences wouldn't be enough to keep any fat person from
reducing if he really wanted to.

It's all well and good that you want to take the excuses away
from fat people but you often go too far in the opposite
direction and refuse to acknowledge "variables" at all. Yes
"variables" are often used as excuses by fat people but it's
counterproductive to pretend they don't exist. One has to know
about obstacles in order to go around them rather then trip
over them.

--
Ron Ritzman http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart Smart people can
figure out my email address

[Ron Ritzma]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 05:43:25 +0200, "Mxsmanic"
<mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> ... after the intial gain from refilling glycogen.
>
>The gain from glycogen is practically non-existent.

In thin people this is true but an overfat or overmuscular
person can hold quite a bit of glycogen. Once during a carb
load following 2 weeks of low carb dieting I did literally
gain 18lbs in 2 days. (I was also loading creatine (20grams a
day) for the first time and some of the weight gain was due to
more food going through the gut) Half of it was gone after a
few workouts and the rest disappeared as the week went by. By
the next carb up I was down 2 pounds.

However, for a thin person glycogen only accounts for a
few pounds.

--
Ron Ritzman http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart Smart people can
figure out my email address

[Ron Ritzma]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 23:47:14 +0200, "Mxsmanic"
<mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> I assume the body accomplishes this by making some fairly
>> drastic cuts in what it's using the availible energy for-
>> reduced immune response, that type of thing.

Of course. Dying from lack of fuel today is a more immediate
concern then some germ that might kill you tomorrow. It's
interesting to note that anorectic females often stop
mensturating. When one is starving, making babies should be
the last thing on one's mind so the body shuts down that non
critical system. it seems that women have a convenient way of
knowing if they are cutting calories too hard.

>Yes, and it cannot do that for long.

It can do it for as long as calories are restricted.

[Ron Ritzma]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:02:47 +0200, "Mxsmanic"
<mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Just reducing your intake 500 cals/day will not guarantee
>> an extra 1 lb/week loss.
>
>It will if your calorie requirements do not change at the
>same time.

Which of course they will as you get leaner. That's why
it's probably better to calculate your daily calorie intake
on a sensible post diet target weight/body fat% (I'm not to
crazy about the term "goal weight") rather then on your
current weight.

When I first started, I calculated my calories on a target
weight of 199lbs (I'm 5,11 with a large frame (dare I say "big
boned"?)) but it doesn't really matter to me if I ever see the
scale say "199". I'l lose what my body wants to lose and
maintain at a weight that's comfortable for me.

--
Ron Ritzman http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart Smart people can
figure out my email address

[Ron Ritzma]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 09:17:58 +0200, "Mxsmanic"
<mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> a écrit
>dans le message de news:
>3EA9CB1D.1256F3A@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
>
>> Here's a meta analysis on the topic for ya.
>
>The meta analysis finds a difference of only 43 kcal per day
>in RMR. I'm afraid that's not going to work very well as an
>excuse for staying fat.

Lyle wasn't offering it as an excuse for staying fat. Lyle
would be the last person to offer fat people excuses for
staying fat. He was simply pointing out that a post diet
lowering of metabolic rate, though negligible, does exist.

Also, I think you are smart enough to know that he wasn't
offering fat people excuses.

--
Ron Ritzman http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart Smart people can
figure out my email address

[Mxsmanic]

"Ron Ritzman" <ritzlart@paniximretarded.com> a écrit dans le
message de news: s8onavgnqh50mb46vgdta6a2kn4bac6adk@4ax.com...

> It's all well and good that you want to take the
> excuses away from fat people but you often go too far
> in the opposite direction and refuse to acknowledge
> "variables" at all.

Once you acknowledge them, many fat people will latch onto
them and hear and read nothing thereafter.

[Lyle McDon]

September wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> message news:<3EA9FCB9.6E0E211B@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>...
> > September wrote:
> > >
> > > Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> > > message
> > > news:<3EA99AFA.13253336@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>...
> > > > September wrote:
> >
> > > > Question: how did they determine caloric intake for
> > > > the groups in the J Pediatrics study?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Lyle
> > >
> > > From the paper:
> > >
> > > "Dietary adherence was monitored at baseline and
> > > biweekly by a registered dietician. Adolescents and
> > > parents were instructed in the accurate completion of
> > > consecutive 3-day food records that included 2 weekdays
> > > and 1 weekend day. Food record nutrient calculations
> > > were performed with the use of the Nutrient Data System
> > > for Research software, version 4.01, developed by the
> > > Nutrition Coordinating Center, University of
> > > Minnesota.34 The macronutrients analyzed were energy,
> > > fat, carbohydrate, protein, cholesterol, and saturated,
> > > monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fatty acids."
> >
> > Right, food records. Why am I not shocked at this? Knowing
> > how badly adults do at this type of thing, anybody that
> > expects kids to do a decent job of it well...
> >
> > Also, based on other data, I doubt that they spontaneously
> > ate so few calories on the lowfat diet (reported intakes
> > were 1100 +- 297 cal/day in the lowfat group). that is,
> > does anybody honestly beleive that kids on an ad lib
> > lowfat diet really only ate that few calories?
>
> They also reported eating only 15 +/- 2 grams of fat per
> day. They were "allowed" to eat 40 grams per day. Weird...

I'd replace the word weird with the phrase 'wholly
unbelievable'.

Points to some really major problems in the food reports.

Lyle

[Mxsmanic]

"Ron Ritzman" <ritzlart@paniximretarded.com> a écrit dans le
message de news: f8tnav09en9u3rpfludqm525eldcl2u16o@4ax.com...

> Once during a carb load following 2 weeks of low carb
> dieting I did literally gain 18lbs in 2 days.

32,700 kcal in 48 hours? Where did all this glycogen go? And
what were you eating?

[Kris Dow]

In article <PRqdnTTG1ud-MTSjXTWcoQ@giganews.com>,
Mxsmanic wrote:
> "Kris Dow" <kris@vilnya.rings> a écrit dans le message de
> news: slrnbaj4qg.1r9t.kris@vilnya.rings...
>
>> At any rate, I've experienced this for myself- daily intake
>> of between 800 and 1200 calories (charted on fitday
>> religiously for several weeks, was my normal eating habits)
>> and I certainly wasn't losing weight, and seemed to be
>> gaining occasionally, albeit slowly.
>
> A measurement error or change in fluid balance, no doubt.
>

I wasn't in the habit of weighing myself regularly when I
wasn't eating well, so I don't know what the trend was
precisely. (We didn't even own a scale other than the little
kitchen one until just before this past Christmas. I'm not
that interested in my exact weight. I've been overweight on
the BMI chart since I was about 10- and when I was 10 my
school measured all of the students bf% with calipers as part
of some study or another, and mine was well within the normal
healthy range. I think I just tend towards more muscle mass
than the 'average' the BMI is based on.)

*shrug* I certainly wasn't wasting away on 800-1200
calories/day- I was tired more often, more prone to aches and
pains, and more likely to catch any cold or case of sniffles
that came my way, but I wasn't getting any skinnier.

What seems possible is that the 'starvation response' doesn't
just include metabolic changes which directly effect your BMR,
but also behavioral changes through the aforementioned
problems (tired, sick, sore) which result not just in less
intentional exercise, but less general movement. Conservation
of energy through increased tendency to laziness, if you will.
:) Not as a conscious thing, but simply as a result of the
dieter's general feeling of health (or lack thereof.)

I know I've seen mention of studies where there are people who
unconsciously figit more, for example, after a higher-calorie
meal than they normally consume, thus helping to burn off the
extra calories. Seems not unreasonable that something similar
would happen the other way around. *shrug* All just conjecture
on my part, though. :)

It's entirely possible that I also wouldn't represent a
'normal' subject in a dieting study or something, because my
lifestyle is abnormal. Due to my husband's disability and my
subsequent need to do a lot of work looking after him, I end
up lifting ~90lb in odd positions at least once ever 4-6 hours
during each span of 24 hours, and frequently more often than
that, for varying lengths of time, etc. I would imagine that
the constant demand on muscle and the odd sleeping patterns
have some kind of impact on my metabolism, which may or may
not be significant in a dieting survey.

What I really want to understand isn't the excuses that people
use for why they're still fat- I want to know why it is that
some people appear to *have* to be following some fad diet
plan rather than just eating sensibly[1]. If someone hasn't
written a book or been on a talk show about it, it can't
possibly be good?

-Kris

[1]- Where sensibly is defined as 'in a way which is fairly
nutritionally complete, and works for you.' rather than 'as
dictated by the food pyramid' or anything like that.
I.e. if carbs make you hungry, then don't eat the problem
carbs. If you do better if you have a little protein in
every meal, then have protein in every meal. Whatever
works for you with your body and your lifestyle.

[Lyle McDon]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> "Ron Ritzman" <ritzlart@paniximretarded.com> a écrit dans le
> message de news:
> f8tnav09en9u3rpfludqm525eldcl2u16o@4ax.com...
>
> > Once during a carb load following 2 weeks of low carb
> > dieting I did literally gain 18lbs in 2 days.
>
> 32,700 kcal in 48 hours? Where did all this glycogen go? And
> what were you eating?

Every gram of glycogen stores 3-4 grams of water.

So 18 total lbs of weight realistically means 13.5-14.4
(75-80%) lbs of water and maybe 4.5-3.5 lbs (1.6-2.2 kg) of
weight as glycogen. That'd equate to 1600-2200 grams of
glycogen stored. That's doable over 48 hours if you force
feed carbs.

Maximal whole body glycogen storage has been estimated at 16
g/kg. That'd imply a weight of 100-137.g kg for Ron which he
can validate. Those values are realistic.

That ignores the contribution of increased fecal matter which
would lower those values.

Lyle

[Lyle McDon]

Kris Dow wrote:

> What seems possible is that the 'starvation response'
> doesn't just include metabolic changes which directly effect
> your BMR, but also behavioral changes through the
> aforementioned problems (tired, sick, sore) which result not
> just in less intentional exercise, but less general
> movement.

Yes. General lethargy, which means less spontaneous activity
(you sit around more) tends to accompany caloric restriction.
Some studies also show lowered caloric expenditure during
exercis and other activities.

Basically, there's a whole coordinated response to dieting
that acts to conserve energy to keep you alive as long as
possible (in evolutionary terms, hopefully until you found
food again). The response tends to be more pronounced in women
for various reasons.

> What I really want to understand isn't the excuses that
> people use for why they're still fat- I want to know why it
> is that some people appear to *have* to be following some
> fad diet plan rather than just eating sensibly[1].

Arguably the single biggest problem with diet interventions
(or exercise interventions) is adherence. part of the
adherence stuff is purely
psychological. I think for many people, the salesmanship that
goes on in the first few chapters of most diet books
convinces them that the diet is valid or magic or THE
ANSWER (tm). Having been convinced, adherence (at least
short-term) may be increased. You're more likely to follow
something that you believe in and adhere to it more closely
than something you do NOT believe in or haven't been
convinced of.

That is, if you believe in something, you're more likely to
follow it than if you're not. Most diet books spend chapters
'selling' the diet
(b/c most actual diets can be summed up in a few sentences or
a page at most) to the reader. Convince them that it's
magic, that it's THE ANSWER (tm) to their problems and they
are probably more likely to follow it (again, at least in
the short-term).

Of course, even then most people fail at most lifestyle
interventions that they try (doesn't matter if it's diet,
exercise, smoking, drinking, etc) so even believing in it
with all your heart isn't any guarantee. Some of the problems
are purely psychological, some are purely physiological
(inasmuch as you can separate psychological from
physiological, Hi Jack!) and the issues of 'Why people fail'
is a much more important question that obesity (and other
folks) need to adress than 'What diet works best?' or 'How do
people lose weight?'

How to lose weight is a, fundamentally, trivial question. What
the 'optimal' diet for weight loss (assuming any single diet
can be optimal under all conditions) is a slighly less trivial
question but there's 30 years of data out there and I doubt
any new ideas are going to come through. How to get people to
maintain that weight loss (i.e. maintain the habits necessary
to avoid weight regain) is a distinctly non-trivial question
and, as I see it, where the real problem lies (lays? never
could keep those straight).

Lyle

[Kris Dow]

In article <gclnavksepmbg69ptbrcr2rca9oubeesgu@4ax.com>, Ron
Ritzman wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 23:47:14 +0200, "Mxsmanic"
> <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I assume the body accomplishes this by making some fairly
>>> drastic cuts in what it's using the availible energy for-
>>> reduced immune response, that type of thing.
>
> Of course. Dying from lack of fuel today is a more immediate
> concern then some germ that might kill you tomorrow. It's
> interesting to note

Well, I wasn't suggesting that it's a reduction on the level
of AIDS or something. Just that you might find yourself more
liable to catch cold and that sort of thing- all the annoying
little things that you might shake off and barely notice when
you're properly nourished.

> that anorectic females often stop mensturating. When one is
> starving, making babies should be the last thing on one's
> mind so the body shuts down that non critical system. it
> seems that women have a convenient way of knowing if they
> are cutting calories too hard.
>

I thought I'd heard that the stop in mensturation is connected
to bodyfat%, not actual caloric intake. (Of course, a
sufficently low intake over a sufficently long period will
probably eventually result in that lower bf%, but the caloric
intake isn't the driving mechanism of the stop.)

I think it was in some study of gymnasts and those sorts of
athletes... Can't recall well enough to get a direct
reference.

-Kris

[Mxsmanic]

"Ron Ritzman" <ritzlart@paniximretarded.com> a écrit dans le
message de news: gclnavksepmbg69ptbrcr2rca9oubeesgu@4ax.com...

> It can do it for as long as calories are restricted.

It cannot do it at all if normal function is to be
maintained. Calorie restrictions of this kind usually have
very obvious manifestations (amenorrhea certainly tends to be
pretty obvious).

[Mxsmanic]

"Kris Dow" <kris@vilnya.rings> a écrit dans le message de
news: slrnbao760.1r9t.kris@vilnya.rings...

> ... I want to know why it is that some people appear to
> *have* to be following some fad diet plan rather than just
> eating sensibly[1].

Because they are unwilling to accept the fact that their
overeating makes them fat. By following a fad diet, if it
works, they can claim that some aspect of the diet did the
job, and not a mere reduction in calories.

Remember that, if a fat person makes excuses for years for
not losing weight, and then manages to do so through mere
calorie restriction and exercise, acknowledging the
effectiveness of this simple method will make him or her look
like a liar throughout all of his previous life. For some
people, they'd rather stay fat than face that, or at least
lose weight through some magic diet so that they can say
"see, I wouldn't have lost weight if it weren't for [fill in
gimmick of the month]".

[Micky Snir]

"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
message news:3EA9CBF0.EBFF776B@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> >
> > Micky Snir wrote:
> > >
> > > "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote
> > > in message
> > > news:3EA9C06C.27024032@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> > > > Micky Snir wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > news:3EA8C3BB.EE087110@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> > > > > > Mxsmanic wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Tony Lew" <rosescripter@yahoo.com> a écrit dans
> > > > > > > le message de
news:
> > > > > > > 5c7896da.0304241042.1d39233e@posting.google.com-
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, it's a simplistic application of
> > > > > > > > fundamental physical laws.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The physical laws are simple, and so are their
> > > > > > > explanations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You're assuming that total calorie expenditure
> > > > > > > > is independent of diet.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > People eating the same number of calories may
> > > > > > > > not be burning the same number of calories.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Obviously.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's well known that a very low-cal diet will
> > > > > > > > lower you metabolism.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, it will not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes it will. adaptations in metabolic rate due to
> > > > > > dieting are well
established.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Part of this is simly due to a loss of bodyweight.
> > > > > > Less mass =
fewer
> > > > > > calories burned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is an additional adaptive component (I
> > > > > > posted one study on
the
> > > > > > topic but there are numerous others) where
> > > > > > metabolic rate/kg
mass goes
> > > > > down.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lyle
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe that the real answer is yes an no.
> > > > > Paraphrasing Michael Rae: Yes, metabolic *rate* will
> > > > > temporarily drop, but no, it will
bounce back
> > > > > after a few weeks or months (1-4).
> > > >
> > > > I'll stick with studies in humans thanks.
> > >
> > > Do you have evidence from *long term* calorie
> > > restriction that shows
reduced
> > > metabolic rate (as defined below)?
> >
> > Here's a meta analysis on the topic for ya.
> >
> > http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/69/6/1117.pdf

i quote: "Conclusions: Formely obese subjects had a 3-5% lower
mean relative RMR than control subjects; the difference could
be explained by low RMR being more frequent among the formerly
obese subjects than among control subject [...]"

So this proves nothing, though it might suggest your point.

>
> And since you're into the whole CR thing, this might be
> worth a read too.
>
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/72/4/946
>

I read the abstract. It talks about "spontaneous physical
activity " and not about "mean relative RMR".

> interesting to note that even after reagining all the weight
> and fat lost, total energy expenditure was still lower in
> the Biospherians although most of hte difference was in
> spontaneous activity.

Which is my point

> But RMR/kg was lower when they first came out. I would
> expect it to have stayed down (since they were SO lean) had
> they maintained the weight loss. This is consistent with
> data from the Minnesota Semi-Starvation
experiment.
>
> there are other studies where, post-diet there is no
> apparent metabolic adjustment (i.e. no drop in metabolic
> rate per unit mass). This typically occurs in fatter
> individuals. But when you get really lean, if you stay
> there, it looks like there is always a reduction in
> thermogenesis (yielding a drop in metabolic rate per unit
> mass). Dulloo and Jacquet have written extensively about the
> mechanisms behind this.

Well... maybe you're right. I tried my 2 cents.

Micky.

>
> Lyle

[Howard Lee]

Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:

>How to lose weight is a, fundamentally, trivial question.

True enough. Simple calorie deficit, although that consists of
the difference between *2* quantities. The calories out part
can be more important than the calories in. You can lose
weight on any diet that restricts calories enough, but there
are documented cases of sustained MR of less than 700
kcal/day, and it would be tough to restrict that much.

The broader (and to me, more important) question is how to
live a long and healthy life. I have concluded that in order
to do so, you need to reduce the amount of insulin needed by
the body. There appear to be 3 roughly equally-important ways
to reduce the body's insulin requirement:

1) Reduce intake of sugar, starch, and trans-fats (there's
more to dieting than that, but for the truly obese, that is
often sufficient), and remove any other items from the diet
to which you have any sensitivities (for me, that includes
any grains, certain preservatives, and :( strawberries).
I'm still looking for counter-examples, but so far, I have
not located a single study in which the total carb load (or
the glycemic index) of the diet was reduced without
producing some health improvements.

2) Get enough sleep. Lack of sleep has been clinically
demonstrated to significantly increase insulin resistance
and adversely affect blood lipids.

3) Lift weights or do other high-intensity weight-bearing
exersize. In the long term, this has been shown to
dramatically reduce insulin resistance, but it does have
the short-term effect of increasing blood glucose levels.
If this is a problem, it can be controlled by mixing
aerobics with weight training.

Losing weight can be a welcome side-effect of all that. For
me, I have achieved significant weight loss simply because I'm
no longer hungry all the damned time, which has made it easy
to restrict calories.

No doubt there are some other important health factors related
to those 3, like getting certain vitamins and minerals, and
avoiding known poisons. And, of course, there are unrelated
factors, but I avoid certain places after dark, I don't smoke,
and I always wear a seat belt. And I hope that I can avoid
slipping on an ice patch when I'm in my 70's (I plan to stay
in Texas, which should help there).

--
Howard Lee Harkness LifeAndHealth@ev1.net /
HomeAndAuto@ev1.net Texas Licensed Independent Life, Health,
Property & Casualty Insurance Agent Healthcare Savings:
http://www.careentree.com/324020

[Lyle McDon]

Kris Dow wrote:
>
> In article <gclnavksepmbg69ptbrcr2rca9oubeesgu@4ax.com>, Ron
> Ritzman wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 23:47:14 +0200, "Mxsmanic"
> > <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>

> > that anorectic females often stop mensturating. When one
> > is starving, making babies should be the last thing on
> > one's mind so the body shuts down that non critical
> > system. it seems that women have a convenient way of
> > knowing if they are cutting calories too hard.
> >
>
> I thought I'd heard that the stop in mensturation is
> connected to bodyfat%, not actual caloric intake. (Of
> course, a sufficently low intake over a sufficently long
> period will probably eventually result in that lower
> bf%, but the caloric intake isn't the driving mechanism
> of the stop.)

That is the old view which happens to be incomplete.

Yes, BF% does interact here but it comes down, ultimately, to
caloric availiability. A sufficient energy imblance (energy in
- energy out) can induce loss of a menstrual cycle (I posted a
paper on LH pulsatility loss a couple of days ago) even if BF%
isn't extremely low to begin with (of course, low is a
relative term here; you're not going to see the menstrual
cycle stopping in a woman at 40% bodyfat).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cm-
d=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=11701675

Are some papers on the topic.

Lyle

[Mxsmanic]

"Ron Ritzman" <ritzlart@paniximretarded.com> a écrit dans le
message de news:

> Also, I think you are smart enough to know that he wasn't
> offering fat people excuses.

I am, but many fat people aren't, which is why I pointed it
out.

[Aaron]

"victoria" <Claybits@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:347bcc5e.0304240923.4926e0ed@posting.google.com...
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<8xSdnRGCVKmHPzqjXTWcog@giganews.com>...
> > All long-term useful (i.e., fat) weight loss results from
> > calorie
deficits
> > in diet. How this deficit is achieved is irrelevant. For
> > people who
are in
> > otherwise normal health apart from their obesity, personal
> > preference is
the
> > only factor to consider in the choice of method used to
> > reduce calories, since only total calories matter for
> > weight loss.
> >
>
> It never ceases to amaze me that people on all sides of an
> issue will decide on the answer before the data is in, and
> then insist to the death that any data contrary to their
> specific opionion is wrong. Of course, if a researcher finds
> that people on a low carb diet eat more, lose more, and are
> healthier, he MUST be lying or deluded.
>
> The FACTS are that this study, and another cited below, show
> statistically significant results that a low carb diet
> results in HIGHER weight loss with MORE calories than a low
> fat diet.
>
> "Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and
> cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents."
> Sondike SB, Copperman N, Jacobson MS. J Pediatr 2003
> Mar;142(3):253-8.
>

I read this article (well, quickly read anyway) there are a
number of things that look funny. The kids on a low fat diet
only ate 1100kcals/day yet origonally weighed on average
100kg. Fuck off, sounds like bullshit to me. They state they
measured dietary intake by 3ddr, conducted on 2 weekdays and 1
weekend. But refuse to give information on how often they
conducted these(not that I could find anyway). The 1100kcal
was the mean intake, yeah fucking right, with their SD it
would give a 95% range of around 920-1280kcals per day. There
is little chance that any of them could eat that amount
consistently over 12 weeks. There is no measures of bodyfat.
And as somebody else pointed out, there is hyper-responders in
both groups, 1 in the low fat, 3 in the high fat. One subject
gained weight on an average of 1100kcals/day over 12 weeks. Ya
right, and my nuts aint hairy.

In terms of the other study mentioned origonally, there are a
few things that make little sense.

These obese women were supposedly maintaining body weight
prior to the study on 1600-1700kcal/day high fat high carb
diet. Yeah, uhuh. They supposedly measured dietaryintake
weekly (3ddr) but only show information of baseline, 3 and 6
months, why not a lovely graphic of calories over time? Leptin
over the 6motnh period was different as well. Here goes hte
list, matched with calories over time Low fat High fat BL 3 6
BL 3 6 Calories 1707 1245 1247 1608 1156 1302 Leptin 30.08
25.35 29.4
25.43 16.23 21.68 Bodyfat (kg) 37.8 35.3 35.8
26.3 33 32.5

Lyle, would that be a normal response? Bodyweight isnt clearly
listed, but during the 3-6month follow up low fat gained fuck
all weight, and low carb a little more. Calories changed fuck
all. is it normal for that to happen with leptin?

--
Aaron

[Darrz]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 20:27:21 GMT, Howard Lee Harkness
<harkness@suespammers.org> wrote:
>...
>1) Reduce intake of sugar, starch, and trans-fats (there's
> more to dieting than that, but for the truly obese, that
> is often sufficient), and remove any other items from the
> diet to which you have any sensitivities (for me, that
> includes any grains, certain preservatives, and :(
> strawberries). I'm still looking for counter-examples, but
> so far, I have not located a single study in which the
> total carb load (or the glycemic index) of the diet was
> reduced without producing some health improvements.
>

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

I think as a whole, WITHOUT A DOUBT, we eat too many
simple sugars.

How did you discover your sensitivity to all grains?

darrz

[Howard Lee]

darrz <darrz@earthlink.net> wrote:

>How did you discover your sensitivity to all grains?

Just after I eliminated them, the pain in my hands and knees
went away. I am still not 100% sure that was the cause, but it
fits with what Audette wrote.

The strawberries were harder to pin down, because I was having
a rash reaction to about a dozen other things, and allergies
tend to be threshold phenomena.

--
Howard Lee Harkness LifeAndHealth@ev1.net /
HomeAndAuto@ev1.net Texas Licensed Independent Life, Health,
Property & Casualty Insurance Agent Healthcare Savings:
http://www.careentree.com/324020

[Riff Rafer]

They can lose even more if you chain them to a pole in your
basement and whip them when they ask for food.

Trust me, these cunts look like pigs because they eat like
pigs. They think they're getting away with something when they
sneak a hot fudge sundae and then smirk like they're some
funny little bad girl. Well guess what bitch, you can't sneak
anything because your ass is going to tell on you.

What we need in America is a disease that kills based on body
fat percentage because these fat mother fuckers make me sick.
They waddle through your house on the holidays like a herd of
fucking cattle, sweating and stinking like a cross between
body odor and rotting shrimp. And forget about left overs with
these fat fucks because they don't understand the concept of
saving something for later, it's as alien to them as a heroin
addict not slamming all their junk.

You should no more coddle these fat sucking mother fucking
pigs than you should coddle and accept an alcoholic or junkie.

If they offer you food tell them no thanks, I don't want to
become a fat fucking slob. At least most alcoholics have the
decency to be ashamed of it, these pigs have the nerve to want
you to accept them... Fuck them...

If they want to be loved tell them to go to New Guinea,
they'll be loved all right and get the biggest free steak they
ever saw... Up their ass!

[Mxsmanic]

"Riff Raferty" <kuntpatrol@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le
message de news:
8a5168f.0304282209.1a156128@posting.google.com...

> What we need in America is a disease that kills based on
> body fat percentage ...

We have quite a few diseases like that.

[Katra]

Same goes for fat MEN!!! They are even more shameless than fat
women. ;-) At lease WE pull our pants up past our cracks!

Howsabout I chain you to a universal gym???

Loser.....

FYI, there is a little hormone called "testosterone" that
makes it easier for men to lose weight. You would not like us
much if WE took test'.

Many, many fat women don't really eat all that much. The
incidence of Wilson's syndrome is wide spread, and it makes us
"wide spread". You have to find a doctor that knows what the
hell he/she is doing.

Don't be so judgmental! Sheesh!

K.

Riff Raferty wrote:
>
> They can lose even more if you chain them to a pole in your
> basement and whip them when they ask for food.
>
> Trust me, these cunts look like pigs because they eat like
> pigs. They think they're getting away with something when
> they sneak a hot fudge sundae and then smirk like they're
> some funny little bad girl. Well guess what bitch, you can't
> sneak anything because your ass is going to tell on you.
>
> What we need in America is a disease that kills based on
> body fat percentage because these fat mother fuckers make me
> sick. They waddle through your house on the holidays like a
> herd of fucking cattle, sweating and stinking like a cross
> between body odor and rotting shrimp. And forget about left
> overs with these fat fucks because they don't understand the
> concept of saving something for later, it's as alien to them
> as a heroin addict not slamming all their junk.
>
> You should no more coddle these fat sucking mother
> fucking pigs than you should coddle and accept an
> alcoholic or junkie.
>
> If they offer you food tell them no thanks, I don't want to
> become a fat fucking slob. At least most alcoholics have the
> decency to be ashamed of it, these pigs have the nerve to
> want you to accept them... Fuck them...
>
> If they want to be loved tell them to go to New Guinea,
> they'll be loved all right and get the biggest free steak
> they ever saw... Up their ass!

[Ted]

"Riff Raferty" <kuntpatrol@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8a5168f.0304282209.1a156128@posting.google.com...

> shrimp. And forget about left overs with these fat fucks
> because they don't understand the concept of saving
> something for later, it's as alien to them as a heroin
> addict not slamming all their junk.

That pretty much describes me at a holiday party or
buffet. Does that mean I wouldn't be invited to a function
at your house?
--
Ted Current quote: "It can't be like this..."
http://hometown.aol.com/rhwbullhead

[Mxsmanic]

"Katra" <Katra@centurytel.net> a écrit dans le message de
news: 3EAE25E8.5E8C9942@centurytel.net...

> Many, many fat women don't really eat all that much.

All fat women overeat.

> The incidence of Wilson's syndrome is wide spread, and it
> makes us "wide spread".

There is no such thing as Wilson's syndrome.

See

http://www.thyroid.org/publications/statements/99_11_16_wi-
lsons.html

> You have to find a doctor that knows what the hell he/she
> is doing.

A doctor who will tell you what you want to hear, you mean?

> Don't be so judgmental! Sheesh!

When fat people start inventing imaginary diseases to explain
obesity that is simply the result of their overeating, there
is a problem.

[Sj]

In article <se2dnRw1GYXGuDOjXTWcoQ@giganews.com>,
Mxsmanic says...
>
>"Riff Raferty" <kuntpatrol@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le
>message de news:
>8a5168f.0304282209.1a156128@posting.google.com...
>
>> What we need in America is a disease that kills based on
>> body fat percentage ...
>
>We have quite a few diseases like that.

Yeah, but they take freakin FOREVER to kill people, and in the
meantime they cost billions of dollars. Not only that, the
majority of people who have them are in denial that the
diseases have anything at all to do with being fat.

[Victoria]

Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
message news:<3EA845E2.C0027F38@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>...

>
> Ok, so you have two studies (one in children and growing
> kids are a different model than full grown adults)
> contrasted to many, many, many studies showing no
> difference (or so little of a difference that it might as
> well be nothing).While those two studies need to be
> included in the model, you can no more dismiss the majority
> of studies done over hte last 30 years in favor of these 2
> than the contrary. A good model must include all data
> including these.

I am certainly not proposing to dismiss previous research.
However, one must consider the possibility that erroneous
conclusions have been drawn from the studies performed. Since
this is a well-recognized problem, particularly in non-drug
medical research, it is not outside the realm of possibility.
Often, statements are made that even the reported study data
don't support.

The current controversy over fat and its role (or lack
thereof) in CAD is a shining example. When you actually read
many studies that essentially conclude that saturated fat
consumption causes heart disease, you find out that the
"high-fat" groups are also heavy smokers or consume lots of
trans-fats, or consume lots of simple sugars. One glaring
example - although I don't have the citation at hand - was a
study purported to "prove" that high carb diets don't increase
triglycerides. When you read the details, you find out 1) that
"low-carb" is 40% by calories and "high-carb" is 55% and 2)
the "high-carb" group was counseled and reported eliminating
refined carbohydrates from their diets. The "low-carb" group
was eating a classic American junk food diet. Unfortunately,
you really do have to read all this stuff in order to judge
the quality of the information. Very little is highly
reliable, at least to someone used to the standards of the
physical sciences.
>
> So you start looking at other issues to try and figure out
> what in the hell is going on:
>
> you might note that studies using food record/estimation
> methods for caloric intake show a difference while studies
> using controlled food intakes don't
>

Not universally true. There are several studies using prepared
meals or liquid protein replacements that show differences (or
conversely, DON'T show differences when calories are
different) at least for subgroups. Small studies and people
could cheat, but it's not an unmixed picture. If you add the
paucity of studies that look at ketogenic diets, it gets
worse. I am speculating that a difference may exist in
efficiency for glucose and fatty acid metabolism, so it is
helpful to have some assurance that you have the two different
mechanisms operating.

> you might note that studies looking at the reliability of
> food record/estimations show that people suck at them (and
> if an adult can't reliably estimate their food intake)
>

Absolutely true, but does not explain why people on a
ketogenic diet are more accurate than people on a low-fat
diet. The two studies under discussion are both random
clinical trials, where, at least reportedly, the participants
got the same instructions about reporting intake. In the
pediatric study, the low-fat group would have to have
underreported intake by 1200 calories/day (more than 100%) for
the results to have been on calories alone. That assumes that
the low-carb group members were accurate.

> you might note that studies of ad lib keto diets show that
> people tend to spontaneously reduce food intake. Note that
> this pediatrics abstract makes no mention of food intake;
> considering the tendency to spontaneously reduce food intake
> on keto diets, the reason the kids lost more weight is
> probably because they ate less. Which is all fine and well
> but doesn't support some metabolic magic. It means that any
> diet which makes folks eat less without thinking about it is
> just peachy.
>

That data is in the study (1100 calories/day low fat, 1830/day
for low-carb), along with lots of speculation about what else
could account for the difference. This study was done to prove
that only calories counted, so the results were not expected.

> you note that studies which have directly measured
> metabolism under different dietary conditions show minimal
> differences between varying macro diets. One study looked at
> bodyweight over 2 week spans in hospital patients using diet
> ranging from 0 to 70% fat and showed NO difference in
> bodyweight, calories were meticulously controlled with
> liquid nutrition so intakes were as exacting as exacting can
> get; diet composition at controlled calorie levels had NO
> impact on bodyweight.

I'm not sure which specific study you are referring to, but I
have read several liquid nutrition studies. All but one were
extremely low calorie, which I think poses certain problems in
extrapolation to more normal intake levels, due to the
relatively well-established "starvation effect". One
interesting study showed no difference in weight loss over a
six month period, even when the CALORIE content was varied
from about 400 to 800 calories per day. I had this citation
handy, since it was in the JAMA review in 4/9.

Foster GD, Wadden TA, Peterson FJ, Letizia KA, Bartlett SJ,
Conill AM. A controlled comparison of three very-low-calorie
diets: effects on weight, body composition, and symptoms. Am J
Clin Nutr. 1992;55: 811-817.

> 2 fold increase in fat loss would predict a monstrously
> measurable increase in metabolism and that increase simply
> has not shown up in the studies. Contrast that, for example
> to a recent study which looked at the effects on metabolic
> rate of MCTs vs. long-chain triglycerides which measured
> metabolic rate directly.
<snip>
> Differences in metabolic rate between diets tend to be small
> approaching negligble (see my other post).
>

Did see the post. Of course, I believe that the study you are
referring to provides as much evidence for the hypothesis that
food composition (and not just calories) matter, and for this
reason. I don't have easy access to the study itself, so I'm
only working from the abstract. The study looked at a small
change - replacing one kind of fat with another - and got an
average of about 60 calories/day in metabolic rate. I'll guess
that at 2%, not having details of the baseline of the
participants. The average difference in very low carb vs
non-low carb diets weight loss generally works out to about
200-300 calories per day (the UC study works out to 196). This
is only about 4x the impact reported in this study.

>
> The calories can't just mystically disappear
<snip>

Haven't got a bit of the mystic about me. I'm so analytical it
causes significant social issues.

<snip>
> Studies don't support that more calories are being lost
> fecally (protein and fat both have extremely high absorption
> rates) on a keto diet so that's not where they are going.
> There's no indication of caloric wasteage (old term:
> luxoconsumption; new term: non-exercise adaptive
> thermogenesis) or an increase in metabolic rate.
>

Lots of potential factors here, but if the studies haven't
been done at extreme macronutrient composition levels for
adequate periods of time, one's ability to extrapolate results
to the extremes is limited.

> All of these make such conclusions (that a keto diet causes
> so much greater fat loss at the same calorie level) tenuous
> at best. The more parsimonius conclusion is that, in studies
> where people are self-reporting food intake, they are doing
> a bad job of it; they're eating less on the keto diet and
> that's why they are losing weight.
>

And so while underreporting is the demonstrated problem in
self-reporting food intake studies, people on ketogenic diets
are somehow so euphoric they over-report? What evidence is
there of that particular conclusion ?

> Which, to be redundant, is all fine and well. AGain, two
> different issues here and it's easy to confuse them.
>
> 1. Does a ketogenic diet have a metabolic advantage so that
> you lose more weight (fat/muscle) at the same calories
> 2. Does a keto diet simply make you eat less without
> thinking about it or being hungry and that's why you lose
> weight
>
> #1 is not defensible based on the majority of data that's
> #been collected
> over the last 30 years

We do of course disagree, but I don't think it's an
indefensible conclusion. 30 years of improperly designed
studies with poor quality conclusions do not convince me.
Several good quality, double blind, properly designed studies
with pre-defined analysis protocols and carefully drawn
conclusions would - no matter what the results were.

>
> #2 very much is for many people (some find no appetite
> #decrease on a
> keto diet, do'nt reduce calories and lose no fat; or even
> gain it).
>

Of course people are less hungry and eat less. I have to admit
that I've never understood why this was considered a problem,
but I'm rather dense.

I don't know the answer, but I think it is a reasonable
position to doubt that only calories matter, if for no other
reason than the contents of the recently published review of
diets in JAMA (4/9). Although the abstract clearly states that
only three things matter to weight loss - starting weight,
duration of diet and calorie content - when you read the study
in full, you find out that their analysis of the studies shows
that calories DON'T matter in weight loss, unless you are
obese or diabetic. Gender, on the other hand, is significant,
but not mentioned. Look at the matrix for variance analysis (I
believe it's the last table).

So if a medical establishment analysis of 30 years of studies
show that, overall, calories are not a significant factor in
weight loss, don't the other conclusions made by the medical
establishment bear at least a little scrutiny ?

> Lyle

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Victoria

[Ron Ritzma]

On 28 Apr 2003 23:09:58 -0700, kuntpatrol@yahoo.com (Riff
Raferty) wrote:

>They can lose even more if you chain them to a pole in your
>basement and whip them when they ask for food.
>
>Trust me, these cunts look like pigs because they eat
>like pigs.

You're trolling the wrong newsgroup.
soc.support.fat-acceptance is that way ===>

--
Ron Ritzman http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart Smart people can
figure out my email address

[Ron Ritzma]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 02:12:40 -0500, Katra
<Katra@centurytel.net> wrote:

>Same goes for fat MEN!!! They are even more shameless than
>fat women. ;-)

Ever notice that fat bashers attack fat women more then fat
men?

--
Ron Ritzman http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart Smart people can
figure out my email address

[Elvis Pars]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8TydncW-e66rHzOjXTWcow@giganews.com...
>
> There is no such thing as Wilson's syndrome.

Sure there is, you can assign a non-specific group of
symptoms to all kinds of diseases that do not exist, and once
you do, they exist (their validity is another issue). So
people can pick and choose which is the best disease for them
to have. All you have to do is pick about 5-30 symptoms (>30
for the real trendy diseases), name your disease, write a
book, and go on a disease tour to advertise your new disease,
and you will have people who contract it. It's quite a good
feeling, knowing that all those people want your disease!
Throw in weight gain and depression, and I guarantee you will
have a winner.

> http://www.thyroid.org/publications/statements/99_11_16_wil-
> sons.html

See this is just a few people can choose from.

neurasthenia, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, multiple chemical
sensitivity, chronic Ebstein Barr disease, and chronic
candidiasis

More diseases coming soon, to a website near you!

If you create a few new diseases people can diagnose
themselves with, they will be much happier.

> A doctor who will tell you what you want to hear, you mean?

Hey, as long as they pay them, they can have any firken
disease they want. You have no firken right to take away
peoples perfectly good delusions.

> When fat people start inventing imaginary diseases to
> explain obesity that is simply the result of their
> overeating, there is a problem.

Anyone disturbed by my post should really check to see if they
don't have Cerebrum Parsley, you could have one or any number
of the following symptoms.

leaky anus weight gain weight loss high blood pressure low
blood pressure cataracts fatigue headaches migraines poor
memory depression suppession recession cold intolerance heat
intolerance cold tolerance heat tolerance dry skin wet skin
(usually associated with sweating, swimming and showering,
but could indicate a serious condition) allergies acne hives
(bee as well as hairdo types) brittle/thick/thin/shiny/dull
nails low sex drive sex obsession poor memory poor
concentration hair loss thick hair dark yellow urine clear
urine fluid retention Insomnia poor memory extreme agitation
(while reading usenet posts) saturation naturalization low
body temperature high body temperature poor memory fear of
cats long short term memory short long term memory mania
poor memory

If you exhibit one or more of these symptoms, and your
physician can't find anything wrong with you, you could
have Cerebrum Parsley. A devestating disease that could
get progressively worse if it doesn't get better. Over
90% of people live with this disease without even knowing
they are sick.

If you suspect you have this disease, email me, I can help
you.

God Bless!

[Seth Breid]

In article <mt0javck9knts59a6h12hkm41ngjsqelhb@4ax.com>, Dawn
Taylor <dawnetta@pacifier.com> wrote:
>On 25 Apr 2003 06:40:11 -0700, jeng_steveg@hotmail.com (Steve
>Gallagher) wrote:
>
>>Kewl. Someone is ramping up to debate diet studies with
>>Lyle. This is always such great sport.
>
>Lyle is very good at debating on Usenet. He's very good at
>research and he's a fine writer. He's an extremely
>intelligent man with a lot of valuable information to share.
>
>What he isn't, however, is always right.

We've noticed.

> His ability to crush his critics through sheer force of will
> seems to blur that distinction for some people.

Though when he's shown to be wrong, he just admits it and
changes his statements. That's probably why it isn't noticed
much; it's over quickly.

Seth
--
Of course, common logic fails to hold up here on mfw, as a
general rule of thumb. -- Lyle McDonald

[Ron Ritzma]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:08:10 GMT, "Elvis Parsley"
<elvisparsley@rogers.com> wrote:

>See this is just a few people can choose from.
>
>neurasthenia, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, multiple
>chemical sensitivity, chronic Ebstein Barr disease, and
>chronic candidiasis

Don't forget "Fat Bastard Syndrome". The disease that causes
you to gain weight on 600 calories a day by causing the body
to magically make fat out of thin air.

>More diseases coming soon, to a website near you!

The most popular "non-disease" is "obesity". I still don't
understand why the body storing excess calories just as it was
designed to do is considered a "disease".

--
Ron Ritzman http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart Smart people can
figure out my email address

[Victoria]

> There are no studies--none--in which a carefully verified
> calorie deficit has failed to produce weight loss. It is a
> physical impossiblity. The composition of the diet is
> irrelevant; only the number of calories it contains counts.
>

My response to the studies in in previous message in detail.
Metabolic slowdown is demonstrated when the diet is
sufficiently low in calories
- so it is not a "physical impossibility" that lowering
calories does not cause weight loss. The efficiency of the
engine changes under certain circumstances.

> > There are many possible explanations for these findings.
>
> But only the ones that provide excuses for people who
> overeat and remain fat are likely to be accepted by many fat
> people, even if they are highly implausible or downright
> impossible.
>

You missed the point, which was that there are many
explanations for the DIFFERENCE in weight loss between diets
of differing composition. In the UC study, both groups of
women reduced calories by comparable amounts - a reported
calorie deficit - but the low carb group lost more weight. IN
the pediatric study, the low-fat group reported ate 700+
calories less than the low carb group, and lost less weight.

But at least this statement reminds us all that you have
already decided the answer (it's those lasy fat people's fault
that they are fat) and damn any contrary data. You'll find
lots of company on the creation "science" boards.

<snip>>
> Since this "dogma" is supported and required by the
> fundamental physical laws of the universe, any violation of
> it would require some serious rethinking on the part of the
> world's physicists.
>

A high school physics teacher - for that matter, an auto
mechanic - could perhaps explain the concept of engine
efficiency to you, since you clearly don't understand it. The
first law of thermodynamics requires that energy in = energy
out. It does not require that energy in = energy converted to
useful work. Since diet composition and overall caloric level
has been demonstrated in studies to alter metabolic rate in
animals and humans, physicists would have no problem with
differing fuel mixtures to the body result in differing
amounts of energy going to different forms.

> > A low carbohydrate diet, as compared to a high
> > carbohydrate diet, alters the primary metabolic pathway
> > that the body uses to convert consumed food into usuable
> > energy.
>
> Only total calories matter.
>

And you'll deny to the death, without explanation, any
evidence to the contrary. Well, it's certainy easier not to
have to think, I suppose.

Cheers,

Victoria

[\"A-Tt\]

I would agree with one below that it depends on your body's
metabolism. Mine is extremely sensitive to carbs! The ONLY
success I've had in losing weight and keeping it off for years
at a time is by following a low carb strategy to get it off
and a modified strategy (allowing ONLY a few carbs per day
that consist of starch type items). On low carb the caloric
intake might be high, but it's the "type" of calories consumed
that your body begins to manage differently.

I've been a "lifetime" dieter for over 20+ years. Each time I
do calorie restriction, by body goes into plateau mode and
resists losing weight (weeks at a time....miserable). When I
start with low carb programs, I begin to see immediate, yet
moderate results (usually 1.5 lbs to week on average). The
calories do not line up between the two programs, I assure
you. I'm proof positive of my take on this by measurable
results.....I would say.

"victoria" <Claybits@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:347bcc5e.0304300212.593c6893@posting.google.com...
> >
> > There are no studies--none--in which a carefully verified
> > calorie
deficit
> > has failed to produce weight loss. It is a physical
> > impossiblity. The composition of the diet is irrelevant;
> > only the number of calories it contains counts.
> >
>
> My response to the studies in in previous message in detail.
> Metabolic slowdown is demonstrated when the diet is
> sufficiently low in calories
> - so it is not a "physical impossibility" that lowering
> calories does not cause weight loss. The efficiency of the
> engine changes under certain circumstances.
>
>
> > > There are many possible explanations for these findings.
> >
> > But only the ones that provide excuses for people who
> > overeat and remain
fat
> > are likely to be accepted by many fat people, even if they
> > are highly implausible or downright impossible.
> >
>
> You missed the point, which was that there are many
> explanations for the DIFFERENCE in weight loss between diets
> of differing composition. In the UC study, both groups of
> women reduced calories by comparable amounts - a reported
> calorie deficit - but the low carb group lost more weight.
> IN the pediatric study, the low-fat group reported ate 700+
> calories less than the low carb group, and lost less weight.
>
> But at least this statement reminds us all that you have
> already decided the answer (it's those lasy fat people's
> fault that they are fat) and damn any contrary data. You'll
> find lots of company on the creation "science" boards.
>
> <snip>>
> > Since this "dogma" is supported and required by the
> > fundamental physical laws of the universe, any violation
> > of it would require some serious rethinking on the part of
> > the world's physicists.
> >
>
> A high school physics teacher - for that matter, an auto
> mechanic - could perhaps explain the concept of engine
> efficiency to you, since you clearly don't understand it.
> The first law of thermodynamics requires that energy in =
> energy out. It does not require that energy in = energy
> converted to useful work. Since diet composition and overall
> caloric level has been demonstrated in studies to alter
> metabolic rate in animals and humans, physicists would have
> no problem with differing fuel mixtures to the body result
> in differing amounts of energy going to different forms.
>
> > > A low carbohydrate diet, as compared to a high
> > > carbohydrate diet, alters the primary metabolic pathway
> > > that the body uses to convert consumed food into usuable
> > > energy.
> >
> > Only total calories matter.
> >
>
> And you'll deny to the death, without explanation, any
> evidence to the contrary. Well, it's certainy easier not to
> have to think, I suppose.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Victoria

[Mxsmanic]

"Ron Ritzman" <ritzlart@paniximretarded.com> a écrit dans le
message de news: 899uavo41kra9kjr48a89scj9pajct3rba@4ax.com...

> The most popular "non-disease" is "obesity". I still don't
> understand why the body storing excess calories just as it
> was designed to do is considered a "disease".

People consider something a disease when they don't want to
take responsibility for it. Obesity and alcoholism are two
excellent examples of this.

[Ignorcrew]

What I don't understand is why they can't do a study where all
the normal issues with these studies are addressed. These are
already known:

1. People under-reporting caloric intake-- Provide controlled
caloric intake
2. Different obesety levels-- Pick people with 30% bf and be
done with it
3. Over-reported activity level-- Mandate activity
level. ... etc

You can even have a control group that gets to monitor it's
own calories on keto and one that does the same on
self-selected diet.

You can easily review all the previous studies and identify
what was wrong with the setup. And I am sure they could find
the subjects if they tried.

I think these studies are not performed because the results
would be so uninteresting. No new diet books could be
written based on findings, which would be (IMO) "just count
the damn calories"

Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
message news:<3EA845E2.C0027F38@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>...
> victoria wrote:
> >
> > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<8xSdnRGCVKmHPzqjXTWcog@giganews.com>...
> > > All long-term useful (i.e., fat) weight loss results
> > > from calorie deficits in diet. How this deficit is
> > > achieved is irrelevant. For people who are in otherwise
> > > normal health apart from their obesity, personal
> > > preference is the only factor to consider in the choice
> > > of method used to reduce calories, since only total
> > > calories matter for weight loss.
> > >
> >
> > It never ceases to amaze me that people on all sides of an
> > issue will decide on the answer before the data is in, and
> > then insist to the death that any data contrary to their
> > specific opionion is wrong. Of course, if a researcher
> > finds that people on a low carb diet eat more, lose more,
> > and are healthier, he MUST be lying or deluded.
> >
> > The FACTS are that this study, and another cited below,
> > show statistically significant results that a low carb
> > diet results in HIGHER weight loss with MORE calories than
> > a low fat diet.
>
> Ok, so you have two studies (one in children and growing
> kids are a different model than full grown adults)
> contrasted to many, many, many studies showing no
> difference (or so little of a difference that it might as
> well be nothing).While those two studies need to be
> included in the model, you can no more dismiss the majority
> of studies done over hte last 30 years in favor of these 2
> than the contrary. A good model must include all data
> including these.
>
> So you start looking at other issues to try and figure out
> what in the hell is going on:
>
> you might note that studies using food record/estimation
> methods for caloric intake show a difference while studies
> using controlled food intakes don't
>
> you might note that studies looking at the reliability of
> food record/estimations show that people suck at them (and
> if an adult can't reliably estimate their food intake)
>
> you might note that studies of ad lib keto diets show that
> people tend to spontaneously reduce food intake. Note that
> this pediatrics abstract makes no mention of food intake;
> considering the tendency to spontaneously reduce food intake
> on keto diets, the reason the kids lost more weight is
> probably because they ate less. Which is all fine and well
> but doesn't support some metabolic magic. It means that any
> diet which makes folks eat less without thinking about it is
> just peachy.
>
> you note that studies which have directly measured
> metabolism under different dietary conditions show minimal
> differences between varying macro diets. One study looked at
> bodyweight over 2 week spans in hospital patients using diet
> ranging from 0 to 70% fat and showed NO difference in
> bodyweight, calories were meticulously controlled with
> liquid nutrition so intakes were as exacting as exacting can
> get; diet composition at controlled calorie levels had NO
> impact on bodyweight. A 2 fold increase in fat loss would
> predict a monstrously measurable increase in metabolism and
> that increase simply has not shown up in the studies.
> Contrast that, for example to a recent study which looked at
> the effects on metabolic rate of MCTs vs. long-chain
> triglycerides which measured metabolic rate directly. It
> showed that the MCT diet increased metabolic rate slightly
> and this explained the slightly greater fat loss. A 2 fold
> increase in fat loss would predict a far greater (hence,
> easily measurable) increase in metabolism and it just hasn't
> shown up in studies which have done so. Differences in
> metabolic rate between diets tend to be small approaching
> negligble (see my other post).
>
> The calories can't just mystically disappear (ketone
> excretion rates can account for, at most, 100 cal/day and
> that's at a very maximum), they all have to be accounted
> for. Studies don't support that more calories are being lost
> fecally (protein and fat both have extremely high absorption
> rates) on a keto diet so that's not where they are going.
> There's no indication of caloric wasteage (old term:
> luxoconsumption; new term: non-exercise adaptive
> thermogenesis) or an increase in metabolic rate.
>
> All of these make such conclusions (that a keto diet causes
> so much greater fat loss at the same calorie level) tenuous
> at best. The more parsimonius conclusion is that, in studies
> where people are self-reporting food intake, they are doing
> a bad job of it; they're eating less on the keto diet and
> that's why they are losing weight.
>
> Which, to be redundant, is all fine and well. AGain, two
> different issues here and it's easy to confuse them.
>
> 1. Does a ketogenic diet have a metabolic advantage so that
> you lose more weight (fat/muscle) at the same calories
> 2. Does a keto diet simply make you eat less without
> thinking about it or being hungry and that's why you lose
> weight
>
> #1 is not defensible based on the majority of data that's
> #been collected
> over the last 30 years
>
> #2 very much is for many people (some find no appetite
> #decrease on a
> keto diet, do'nt reduce calories and lose no fat; or even
> gain it).
>
> Lyle
>
> > "Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and
> > cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents."
> > Sondike SB, Copperman N, Jacobson MS. J Pediatr 2003
> > Mar;142(3):253-8.
> >
> > There are many possible explanations for these findings.
> > But your statement is unsupported even by the previously
> > reported research. Schemes such as food-combining or
> > sequencing have been shown to be ineffective in changing
> > weight loss that would otherwise be predicted from caloric
> > content, but data for the weight effect vs calorie
> > consumption for an entirely different macronutrient
> > composition is limited and ambiguous. What data there is
> > shows differences in metabolic impact for extremes of
> > macronutrient composition, which argues against the "only
> > calories matter" dogma that you and so many others repeat
> > without end and without citation.
> >
> > A low carbohydrate diet, as compared to a high
> > carbohydrate diet, alters the primary metabolic pathway
> > that the body uses to convert consumed food into usuable
> > energy. It is far more likely that the efficiency of the
> > body in converting food energy (measured in calories in a
> > bomb calorimeter) into body energy (mechanical, heat,
> > chemical transformations) is DIFFERENT in the two pathways
> > than that it is the same. A diesel engine and a gasoline
> > engine both run on hydrocarbon fuel, but the EFFICIENCY of
> > the two type of engines is vastly different.
> >
> > Given a specific engine (ie one person's body in the same
> > metabolic condition), then more calories in = more
> > calories available. But it makes more sense from an
> > engineering and biochemical perspective to assume that
> > energy availability is DIFFERENT among diets of different
> > macronutrient compositions than to assume that it is the
> > same. The source of calories may be be irrelevant, but
> > that is clearly NOT proven.
> >
> > Victoria

[Mxsmanic]

"victoria" <Claybits@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: 347bcc5e.0304300212.593c6893@posting.google.com...

> Metabolic slowdown is demonstrated when the diet is
> sufficiently low in calories - so it is not a "physical
> impossibility" that lowering calories does not cause
> weight loss.

I didn't say "lowering calories," I said "calorie deficit."

> You missed the point, which was that there are many
> explanations for the DIFFERENCE in weight loss between diets
> of differing composition.

A given deficit will always produce the same weight loss
over time.

> In the UC study, both groups of women reduced calories by
> comparable amounts - a reported calorie deficit - but the
> low carb group lost more weight.

No, they didn't.

> IN the pediatric study, the low-fat group reported ate 700+
> calories less than the low carb group, and lost less weight.

See above.

> But at least this statement reminds us all that you have
> already decided the answer ...

No, I've just decided not to believe what people say just
because they say
it. I know how unreliable "studies" are when there are
insufficient objective controls. A great many studies are
rendered useless by dependence on things like
self-reporting of calorie intake or self-control of
eating habits.

As I've said, put these people in bed, with an NG tube as
their only source of nutrition, and create a calorie deficit,
and they'll lose weight, whether the food going down the tube
is high in carbs or high in fat.

> A high school physics teacher - for that matter, an auto
> mechanic - could perhaps explain the concept of engine
> efficiency to you, since you clearly don't understand it.

I understand it well enough to recognize misceonceptions and
myths when I see them.

> The first law of thermodynamics requires that energy in =
> energy out. It does not require that energy in = energy
> converted to useful work.

So if energy in < energy out, the deficit must come from
somewhere. Which means that if you eat fewer calories than you
burn, you lose weight, whether you are eating fats or
carbohydrates.

> Since diet composition and overall caloric level has been
> demonstrated in studies to alter metabolic rate in animals
> and humans ...

Metabolic rates hardly change at all.

> And you'll deny to the death, without explanation, any
> evidence to the contrary.

No, I understand it and hope to live longer as a result.
Those who deny it, in order to deny their overeating, will
die a lot sooner.

[Mxsmanic]

""A-TT"" <anon@anonymous12d4.nes6.net> a écrit dans le message
de news: NLNra.25994$n2.10245@clmboh1-nws5.columbus.rr.com...

> Mine is extremely sensitive to carbs!

No, it isn't. Test it and you'll see.

> On low carb the caloric intake might be high, but it's the
> "type" of calories consumed that your body begins to manage
> differently.

This is incorrect. All that matters is total calories.

> I've been a "lifetime" dieter for over 20+ years.

The fact that you've been dieting for more than 20 years says
much about the validity of your beliefs.

> Each time I do calorie restriction, by body goes into
> plateau mode and resists losing weight (weeks at a
> time....miserable).

Weeks at a time? You reason in terms of weeks for weight
control? Weight control is something that you plan and
evaluate over years, not weeks.

> The calories do not line up between the two programs, I
> assure you. I'm proof positive of my take on this by
> measurable results.....I would say.

The fact that you've been doing it for more than 20 years
makes it abundantly clear that it isn't working.

[Christina]

Some of you lot seem a tiny bit narrow minded. I don't know
where you got the idea that the low-carb diet didn't produce
better effects than the low-fat diet. It did and significantly
so. It was also the only plan that the kids stuck to.

I know that most people are fat because they over eat but
there is a small percentage out there with a genuine problem
and getting on your high horses that all fat people are
disgusting and are in some way less human than us thin people
is disgusting.

I would put money on the fact that you fat bashers are hardly
perfect yourselves and you wouldn't like it if someone laid
into you because of something you do or look like.

How about chilling out a bit. After all its there problem not
yours and to be honest, its none of our business whether fat
people believe its an illness or not.

[Ron Ritzma]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 07:37:17 +0200, "Mxsmanic"
<mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Ron Ritzman" <ritzlart@paniximretarded.com> a écrit dans le
>message de news:
>899uavo41kra9kjr48a89scj9pajct3rba@4ax.com...
>
>> The most popular "non-disease" is "obesity". I still don't
>> understand why the body storing excess calories just as it
>> was designed to do is considered a "disease".

Ironically, Michael Fumento (Fat of the Land) whose views are
pretty close to yours, also calls obesity a "disease".

>People consider something a disease when they don't want to
>take responsibility for it. Obesity and alcoholism are two
>excellent examples of this.

Interesting to note that some people do have a genetic
predisposition to alcoholism but that doesn't eliminate the
role of responsibility. If you don't drink the booze you won't
become a drunk. Ditto for any kind of genetic link to obesity.
Genes or not, if you don't eat the food, you won't get fat.
The possible existence of people who can eat metric assloads
of food and not get fat (or take one drink without sliding
into the gutter) is irrelevant to your situation.

--
Ron Ritzman http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart Smart people can
figure out my email address

[Julianne]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mkSdnedWALWN_DKjXTWcqA@giganews.com...
> "Ron Ritzman" <ritzlart@paniximretarded.com> a écrit dans le
> message de news:
> 899uavo41kra9kjr48a89scj9pajct3rba@4ax.com...
>
> > The most popular "non-disease" is "obesity". I still don't
> > understand why the body storing excess calories just as it
> > was designed to do is considered a "disease".
>
> People consider something a disease when they don't want to
> take responsibility for it. Obesity and alcoholism are two
> excellent examples
of
> this.
>
Calling something a disease does not absolve one from
responsibility.

An enormous amount of our health care expenditures are spent
on diseases that could be prevented or made less severe if
people would take responsibility for them. If everyone would
just act right, we could save a ton of money in this country!
No more melanomas from sunburn, no CA from smoking, heart
disease would be lessened if everyone maintained an
appropriate weight and exercised daily, diabetes would drop
off considerably, etc.

We have all been critical of the health care profession's lack
of interest in obesity. Telling a patient to cut back on
calories and exercise more is insufficient treatment for an
obese person. Should obesity be treated more like a disease
you might find family docs and internists scheduling return to
clinic visits to monitor weight or actually prescribing diets
and exercises that fall within the ability of the patients.

I can't imagine a patient walking into a physician's office
and being diagnosed with diabetes or congestive heart failure
and being told to watch what they eat with no additional
follow up. And yet, this happens all the time with the
morbidly obese in spite of reams of data that shows that
excessive weight is strongly correlated with multiple disease
processes.

Even your example of alcoholism as a 'non-disease' has
treatments that work and the only ones that have been
successful repeatedly involves alcoholics taking
responsibility for their own disease.

It must be nice to be morally superior and disease free!

[Victoria]

<snip>
> The interesting data, which the study of course did not
> provide, would have been to show the starting weight,
> reported caloric intake, and final weight loss of each
> subject. That would have given the best picture of what
> actually went on becuase you could estimate a deficit (based
> on estimated maintenance needs compared to reported caloric
> intakes) to see how much weight loss would have been
> predicted for each subject and see how well it conformed to
> the actual weight loss. By aggregating the averages, and
> considering the huge range of starting weights, reported
> caloric intakes, and measured weight loss, individual
> results are hard to determine.
>

One should also report the "normal" intake - both composition
and amount - of the subjects before beginning. Given the
enormous difference in individual response, the more better
independent variable that reported (or measured for that
matter) calories is difference in calories.

Of course, that is a problem with virtually every published
study. The data is not normalized in the first place, so any
conclusion based on "statistical significance" computed using
factors that assume normal distributions is suspect. Attempts
to control this by randomly assigned subjects to different
groups and trying to "match" the various groups is only
partially effective. Individual response is too variable and
the sample sizes are too small.

Even crossover and sequential studies are problematic, if body
changes(overall weight, body fat, RMR, etc.) result from a
trial. Still, they are as good as we're likely to manage when
dealing with human beings.

Proper studies could be designed, but they will be expensive,
and only the government is a practical source of funding. Even
an initial study to determine if there is or is not a
statistically significant difference in weight loss with diets
of varying macronutrient composition would cost millions.
You'd be looking at a minimum of 200-300 subjects in a
sequential or crossover style design with 6-8 trials per
person, 6-12 weeks each with "normal" times between, and a
massive amount of testing and analysis.

Even access to the raw data behind the existing studies would
be useful, although unlikely to completely settle the
question. That's seems even more unlikely than a properly
designed study. Medical researchers are human too - they
don't want to be proved wrong or upstaged - so raw data is
hard to come by.

[Mxsmanic]

"Julianne" <juli882@cox.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
GTOra.31145$XE.1795557@news1.east.cox.net...

> Calling something a disease does not absolve one from
> responsibility.

Yes, it does, at least in this context. Diseases are things
that you catch, or things that develop mysteriously on their
own without any apparent causative behavior on your part.
Thus, by calling obesity a disease, fat people can claim or
fantasize that they got fat independently of the huge amount
of food that they eat.

> Telling a patient to cut back on calories and exercise more
> is insufficient treatment for an obese person.

That depends on the person. In any case, it's the truth, so
why shouldn't it be told?

> Should obesity be treated more like a disease you might find
> family docs and internists scheduling return to clinic
> visits to monitor weight or actually prescribing diets and
> exercises that fall within the ability of the patients.

Obesity is an entire industry. I don't think we need to expand
any further in that domain.

Some people cannot or will not follow any diet or exercise
program that produces a calorie deficit. These people will
always be fat. There is nothing that can be done for them
unless they force a change in their own attitudes. The great
majority of people in this category are extraordinarily quick
to latch onto any excuse for being fat that absolves them of
responsibility for overeating, no matter how absurd.

> I can't imagine a patient walking into a physician's office
> and being diagnosed with diabetes or congestive heart
> failure and being told to watch what they eat with no
> additional follow up. And yet, this happens all the time
> with the morbidly obese in spite of reams of data that shows
> that excessive weight is strongly correlated with multiple
> disease processes.

Some fat people are sufficiently scared by a diagnosis of DM
or CHF that they will lose weight on their own. Those who are
not, and who have been fat for many years, probably will not
lose weight no matter what the doctor does. If serious health
problems are not a motivation, nothing is.

[Victoria]

> > They also reported eating only 15 +/- 2 grams of fat per
> > day. They were "allowed" to eat 40 grams per day. Weird...
>
> I'd replace the word weird with the phrase 'wholly
> unbelievable'.
>
> Points to some really major problems in the food reports.
>
> Lyle

Only anecdotal, of course, but as a teenager I was put on such
a diet, and I was on it for almost 12 months. I did lose
weight - about 20 lbs, or about 12% loss of bodyweight at the
time. My mother was my food cop, and I was too afraid of my
mother to lie or cheat. After 12 months, when the diet no
longer worked (probably because I really didn't need to lose
any more weight, but those were the days when only Twiggy was
thin enough), my mother finally let me off-plan. She was
convinced I was cheating - I wasn't - and she didn't want to
pay for the doctor visits if I wasn't going to cooperate.

Second anecdote. My son also went through the same sort of
diet plan at about 13, in order to make weight for football.
Very low fat, low calorie for about 6 months (3 before
football season, and 3 during), with lots of exercise. He lost
20 lbs, which he regained rapidly when football was over.

The point is simply that a fat teen is perfectly capable of
honestly eating that little for a period of time extending to
months, if they get enough attention and support and their
motivation is high. I'd hazard a guess that that applied to
the study subjects. The problem is maintaining the loss, since
very few people (not just teens) have the discipline to accept
being hungry all the time in a land of plenty. Even if that
means being made fun of and excluded from normal social
activities because you are fat.

[Seth Breid]

In article <347bcc5e.0304300212.593c6893@posting.google.com>,
victoria <Claybits@hotmail.com> wrote:

>My response to the studies in in previous message in detail.
>Metabolic slowdown is demonstrated when the diet is
>sufficiently low in calories
>- so it is not a "physical impossibility" that lowering
> calories does not cause weight loss.

Does metabolic slowdown (measured in calories/day decrease in
bmr) exceed the decrease in dietary intake? That's the
question you claim can have a positive result. I disagree. So
does _all_ the research that has ever been performed in
hospitals or other settings with _controlled_ food intake.

Seth
--
"People that don't listen to me live to regret it." --
Will Brink

[September]

Claybits@hotmail.com (victoria) wrote in message
news:<347bcc5e.0304300611.5ff22cc@posting.google.com>...
> > > They also reported eating only 15 +/- 2 grams of fat per
> > > day. They were "allowed" to eat 40 grams per day.
> > > Weird...
> >
> > I'd replace the word weird with the phrase 'wholly
> > unbelievable'.
> >
> > Points to some really major problems in the food reports.
> >
> > Lyle
>
> Only anecdotal, of course, but as a teenager I was put on
> such a diet, and I was on it for almost 12 months. I did
> lose weight - about 20 lbs, or about 12% loss of bodyweight
> at the time. My mother was my food cop, and I was too afraid
> of my mother to lie or cheat. After 12 months, when the diet
> no longer worked (probably because I really didn't need to
> lose any more weight, but those were the days when only
> Twiggy was thin enough), my mother finally let me off-plan.
> She was convinced I was cheating - I wasn't - and she didn't
> want to pay for the doctor visits if I wasn't going to
> cooperate.
>
> Second anecdote. My son also went through the same sort of
> diet plan at about 13, in order to make weight for
> football. Very low fat, low calorie for about 6 months (3
> before football season, and 3 during), with lots of
> exercise. He lost 20 lbs, which he regained rapidly when
> football was over.
>
> The point is simply that a fat teen is perfectly capable of
> honestly eating that little for a period of time extending
> to months, if they get enough attention and support and
> their motivation is high. I'd hazard a guess that that
> applied to the study subjects. The problem is maintaining
> the loss, since very few people (not just teens) have the
> discipline to accept being hungry all the time in a land of
> plenty. Even if that means being made fun of and excluded
> from normal social activities because you are fat.

That's interesting, but note that you and your son both lost a
good amount of weight. One of the subjects in the pediatric
study *gained* ~4.5 lb. Logic tells me that this is impossible
on a 1100 +/- 297 calorie diet, unless the kid was in a coma,
and even under that circumstance it seems unlikely.

[Seth Breid]

In article <b8oqdj$1ja$1@news.ox.ac.uk>, Christina Billcliffe
<christina.billcliffe@lmh.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>Some of you lot seem a tiny bit narrow minded. I don't know
>where you got the idea that the low-carb diet didn't produce
>better effects than the low-fat diet. It did and
>significantly so. It was also the only plan that the kids
>stuck to.

Well, gee, that would tend to explain why it worked so much
better, wouldn't it?

Seth
--
"There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate" -- Will
Brink Except sushi rice, seaweed, and wasabi.

[Elvis Pars]

"victoria" <Claybits@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:347bcc5e.0304300212.593c6893@posting.google.com...
>
> You missed the point, which was that there are many
> explanations for the DIFFERENCE in weight loss between diets
> of differing composition. In the UC study, both groups of
> women reduced calories by comparable amounts - a reported
> calorie deficit - but the low carb group lost more weight.
> IN the pediatric study, the low-fat group reported ate 700+
> calories less than the low carb group, and lost less weight.
>
>
> > Only total calories matter.
> >
>
> And you'll deny to the death, without explanation, any
> evidence to the contrary. Well, it's certainy easier not to
> have to think, I suppose.

JAMA 2003 Apr 9;289(14):1837-50

Efficacy and safety of low-carbohydrate diets: a
systematic review.

Bravata DM, Sanders L, Huang J, Krumholz HM, Olkin I, Gardner
CD, Bravata
DM.

Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford
University School of Medicine.

CONTEXT: Low-carbohydrate diets have been popularized
without detailed evidence of their efficacy or safety.
The literature has no clear consensus as to what amount
of carbohydrates per day constitutes a low-carbohydrate
diet. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in weight, serum
lipids, fasting serum glucose, and fasting serum insulin
levels, and blood pressure among adults using
low-carbohydrate diets in the outpatient setting. DATA
SOURCES: We performed MEDLINE and bibliographic searches
for English-language studies published between January 1,
1966, and February 15, 2003, with key words such as low
carbohydrate, ketogenic, and diet. STUDY SELECTION: We
included articles describing adult, outpatient recipients
of low-carbohydrate diets of 4 days or more in duration
and 500 kcal/d or more, and which reported both
carbohydrate content and total calories consumed.
Literature searches identified 2609 potentially relevant
articles of low-carbohydrate diets. We included 107
articles describing 94 dietary interventions reporting
data for 3268 participants; 663 participants received
diets of 60 g/d or less of carbohydrates-of whom only 71
received 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates. Study variables
(eg, number of participants, design of dietary
evaluation), participant variables (eg, age, sex,
baseline weight, fasting serum glucose level), diet
variables (eg, carbohydrate content, caloric content,
duration) were abstracted from each study. DATA
EXTRACTION: Two authors independently reviewed articles
meeting inclusion criteria and abstracted data onto
pretested abstraction forms. DATA SYNTHESIS: The included
studies were highly heterogeneous with respect to design,
carbohydrate content (range, -901 g/d), total caloric
content (range, 525-4629 kcal/d), diet duration (range,
4-365 days), and participant characteristics (eg,
baseline weight range, 57-217 kg). No study evaluated
diets of 60 g/d or less of carbohydrates in participants
with a mean age older than 53.1 years. Only 5 studies
(nonrandomized and no comparison groups) evaluated these
diets for more than 90 days. Among obese patients, weight
loss was associated with longer diet duration (P =.002),
restriction of calorie intake (P =.03), but not with
reduced carbohydrate content (P =.90). Low-carbohydrate
diets had no significant adverse effect on serum lipid,
fasting serum glucose, and fasting serum insulin levels,
or blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient
evidence to make recommendations for or against the use
of low-carbohydrate diets, particularly among
participants older than age 50 years, for use longer than
90 days, or for diets of 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates.
Among the published studies, participant weight loss
while using low-carbohydrate diets was principally
associated with decreased caloric intake and increased
diet duration but not with reduced carbohydrate content.

> Cheers,
>
> Victoria

[Revek]

In our last episode, Christina Billcliffe said:

<snip good sense>

But.. but... what would would all the puritans have left?
Bashing fat people is the only legal discrimination left to
the sad little hatemongers.

revek

[Ron Ritzma]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:58:30 GMT, "Julianne"
<juli882@cox.net> wrote:

>> People consider something a disease when they don't want to
>> take responsibility for it. Obesity and alcoholism are two
>> excellent examples
>of
>> this.
>>
>Calling something a disease does not absolve one from
>responsibility.

And whether or not a patient is responsible for his condition
does not determine if that condition is a disease.

Diabetes is a disease. It's a *malfunction* of carbohydrate
metabolism but it's also commonly the result of too much body
fat. Therefore, while a disease, the patient would not have
contracted it if he did not get fat. (if it's obesity related
T2 diabetes) Cirrhosis of the liver caused by alcoholism is a
disease but the patient would not have contracted it is he did
not drink enough booze to float a battleship.

However, if one eats more food then he burns *consistently
over time*, he will become obese but that's not because of any
malfunction. It's because the body stores the extra calories
in adipose tissue just as it's suppose to do. Now obesity can
sometimes cause diseases and it can occasionally be indirectly
caused by a disease but it itself is not a disease.

--
Ron Ritzman http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart Smart people can
figure out my email address

[Julianne]

"Ron Ritzman" <ritzlart@paniximretarded.com> wrote in message
news:utk0bv8pk278p5iv68e3hutlv4pqvdvv9e@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:58:30 GMT, "Julianne"
> <juli882@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> People consider something a disease when they don't want
> >> to take responsibility for it. Obesity and alcoholism are
> >> two excellent
examples
> >of
> >> this.
> >>
> >Calling something a disease does not absolve one from
> >responsibility.
>
> And whether or not a patient is responsible for his
> condition does not determine if that condition is a disease.
>
> Diabetes is a disease. It's a *malfunction* of carbohydrate
> metabolism but it's also commonly the result of too much
> body fat. Therefore, while a disease, the patient would not
> have contracted it if he did not get fat. (if it's obesity
> related T2 diabetes) Cirrhosis of the liver caused by
> alcoholism is a disease but the patient would not have
> contracted it is he did not drink enough booze to float a
> battleship.
>
> However, if one eats more food then he burns *consistently
> over time*, he will become obese but that's not because of
> any malfunction. It's because the body stores the extra
> calories in adipose tissue just as it's suppose to do. Now
> obesity can sometimes cause diseases and it can occasionally
> be indirectly caused by a disease but it itself is not a
> disease.
>
> --
> Ron Ritzman http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart Smart people can
> figure out my email address

I understand what you are saying and I do agree with some of
what you have said. To be sure, there are some very healthy
morbidly obese people who never suffer side effects of their
obesity against all odds. Similarly, we all know people who
really overdid the alcohol thing in college and were able to
settle down once they had a reason to while others went on to
become alcoholics.

While debating semantics is one of my favorite things to do, I
will concede to you on this point. However, I believe that my
original statement was that if obesity was treated more like a
disease, we might have better results.

I am technically not overweight. Two more pounds (or too
much salty food in one meal) and I move into the
'overweight' BMI. My cousins, who are docs, have fully
supported my efforts at losing weight as all my extra weight
is carried in my gut (think insulin resistance). Although I
have had to claim responsibility for my weight and I am the
only one who can do something about it, having docs who
fully support me and understand nutrition has been an
enormous help. I wonder how serious I would have been if
they had informed me that technically I was not overweight.
I do like to look good but my health is the only motivating
factor that can keep me on track.

So, regardless of whether obesity is technically a disease or
not, I still respectfully submit to you that if it were
treated more like a disease with medical support (not the diet
industry based upon vanity), better results would be seen.

j

[Aaron]

"September" <HBrook67@aol.com> wrote in message
news:55f47425.0304301340.3d1662d1@posting.google.com...
> Claybits@hotmail.com (victoria) wrote in message
news:<347bcc5e.0304300611.5ff22cc@posting.google.com>...
> > > > They also reported eating only 15 +/- 2 grams of fat
> > > > per day. They were "allowed" to eat 40 grams per day.
> > > > Weird...
> > >
> >
> > The point is simply that a fat teen is perfectly capable
> > of honestly eating that little for a period of time
> > extending to months, if they get enough attention and
> > support and their motivation is high. I'd hazard a guess
> > that that applied to the study subjects. The problem is
> > maintaining the loss, since very few people (not just
> > teens) have the discipline to accept being hungry all the
> > time in a land of plenty. Even if that means being made
> > fun of and excluded from normal social activities because
> > you are fat.
>
>
> That's interesting, but note that you and your son both lost
> a good amount of weight. One of the subjects in the
> pediatric study *gained* ~4.5 lb. Logic tells me that this
> is impossible on a 1100 +/- 297 calorie diet, unless the kid
> was in a coma, and even under that circumstance it seems
> unlikely.

Most kids today act like they are in a coma :)

[Lyle McDon]

ignorcrew wrote:
>
> What I don't understand is why they can't do a study where
> all the normal issues with these studies are addressed.
> These are already known:
>
> 1. People under-reporting caloric intake-- Provide
> controlled caloric intake
> 2. Different obesety levels-- Pick people with 30% bf and be
> done with it
> 3. Over-reported activity level-- Mandate activity level.
> ... etc
>
> You can even have a control group that gets to monitor it's
> own calories on keto and one that does the same on
> self-selected diet.
>
> You can easily review all the previous studies and identify
> what was wrong with the setup. And I am sure they could find
> the subjects if they tried.
>
> I think these studies are not performed because the results
> would be so uninteresting. No new diet books could be
> written based on findings, which would be (IMO) "just count
> the damn calories"

A problem of expense, mainly. To control over any reasonable
length costs mucho bucks. Back in the 70's, they used to lock
folks in metabolic wards for weeks on end and really control
caloric intake. Now, they usually just give prepared food
packets. But such studies have been done, where calories are
controlled much more rigorously than 'we told folks to do this
and let them report what they think they did, and then we
believed them'.

Those studies, where caloric intake is actually controlled
(usually by giving subjects pre-prepared food packets) show no
such discrepancies in weight loss: it all scales with calories
regardless of the composition of the diet. High carb,
low-carb, whatever you want to pick; everybody loses weight
(yes, there is variance for reasons I've mentioned before).
but none of these claimed metabolic anomalies, folks who
magically failed to lose weight on a low calorie diet has EVER
showed up in the HISTORY of diet studies. Yet there seems to
be literally dozens or more of them on every diet support
group. To which I say this: go to a metabolic ward, have them
lock you in a room and control your caloric intake down the
joule, you'll lose weight no matter what the diet is composed
of. Then please sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

Which makes the results of these vaguely controlled studies
debatable at best and dismissible at worst.

So, to reiterate yet again for the slow readers on asd and
asdlc, we have basically two data sets.

1. A data set of controlled calorie studies (at varying
calorie levels and varying amcronutrient composition), that
is where calories are being controlled (attemps to control
activity are generally made) and the subjects are being
given fed a set amount. I've already references studies by
Golay and Adler on this topic.

2. A data set of studies where subjects are given instructions
and then the researchers rely on self-reporting of food
intake (said self-reports having been shown to be wildly
inaccurate under most conditions). The two studies in
contention fall into this category.

dAta set 1 shows no such major differences in weight loss (and
rarely in tissue loss, that is protein and fat, as long as a
few basic requirements, such as adequate protein and not
setting too high of a caloric deficit) between groups: it's
all about caloric intake.

data set 2 shows major differences.

Which set to believe?

Well, the fat fucks can whine all day long but I'll take
controlled studies (i.e. where caloric intake is being
rigorously controlled) over non-controlled (i.e. where
researchers are relying on subject's notoriously bad
reporting) any day.

And those controlled studies consistently show the same end
result: it's all (ok, 99%, you need adequate protein and
extremely low caloric deficits tend to cause more muscle loss
than less extreme deficits) about caloric intake. Diet
composition basically only matters in terms of adherence
(which is an important but tangential issue).

Oh yeah, most of these studies are done in the obese so your
point about that is sort of moot. It might be that things
change a bit (mostly in terms of the composition of what's
lost) when folks get very lean but none of the studies in
question are testing diets in lean folks (why bother).

Incidentally, in one of the few diet studies done in lean
athletes (wrestlers all at the sub 10% bodyfat range), even
though carbs were nearly 60% of total calories (the study was
looking at variations in protein and such), since the diet was
hypocaloric, EVERY subject lost fat.

Lyle

>
> Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> message news:<3EA845E2.C0027F38@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>...
> > victoria wrote:
> > >
> > > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<8xSdnRGCVKmHPzqjXTWcog@giganews.com>...
> > > > All long-term useful (i.e., fat) weight loss results
> > > > from calorie deficits in diet. How this deficit is
> > > > achieved is irrelevant. For people who are in
> > > > otherwise normal health apart from their obesity,
> > > > personal preference is the only factor to consider in
> > > > the choice of method used to reduce calories, since
> > > > only total calories matter for weight loss.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It never ceases to amaze me that people on all sides of
> > > an issue will decide on the answer before the data is
> > > in, and then insist to the death that any data contrary
> > > to their specific opionion is wrong. Of course, if a
> > > researcher finds that people on a low carb diet eat
> > > more, lose more, and are healthier, he MUST be lying or
> > > deluded.
> > >
> > > The FACTS are that this study, and another cited below,
> > > show statistically significant results that a low carb
> > > diet results in HIGHER weight loss with MORE calories
> > > than a low fat diet.
> >
> > Ok, so you have two studies (one in children and growing
> > kids are a different model than full grown adults)
> > contrasted to many, many, many studies showing no
> > difference (or so little of a difference that it might as
> > well be nothing).While those two studies need to be
> > included in the model, you can no more dismiss the
> > majority of studies done over hte last 30 years in favor
> > of these 2 than the contrary. A good model must include
> > all data including these.
> >
> > So you start looking at other issues to try and figure out
> > what in the hell is going on:
> >
> > you might note that studies using food record/estimation
> > methods for caloric intake show a difference while studies
> > using controlled food intakes don't
> >
> > you might note that studies looking at the reliability of
> > food record/estimations show that people suck at them (and
> > if an adult can't reliably estimate their food intake)
> >
> > you might note that studies of ad lib keto diets show that
> > people tend to spontaneously reduce food intake. Note that
> > this pediatrics abstract makes no mention of food intake;
> > considering the tendency to spontaneously reduce food
> > intake on keto diets, the reason the kids lost more weight
> > is probably because they ate less. Which is all fine and
> > well but doesn't support some metabolic magic. It means
> > that any diet which makes folks eat less without thinking
> > about it is just peachy.
> >
> > you note that studies which have directly measured
> > metabolism under different dietary conditions show minimal
> > differences between varying macro diets. One study looked
> > at bodyweight over 2 week spans in hospital patients using
> > diet ranging from 0 to 70% fat and showed NO difference in
> > bodyweight, calories were meticulously controlled with
> > liquid nutrition so intakes were as exacting as exacting
> > can get; diet composition at controlled calorie levels had
> > NO impact on bodyweight. A 2 fold increase in fat loss
> > would predict a monstrously measurable increase in
> > metabolism and that increase simply has not shown up in
> > the studies. Contrast that, for example to a recent study
> > which looked at the effects on metabolic rate of MCTs vs.
> > long-chain triglycerides which measured metabolic rate
> > directly. It showed that the MCT diet increased metabolic
> > rate slightly and this explained the slightly greater fat
> > loss. A 2 fold increase in fat loss would predict a far
> > greater (hence, easily measurable) increase in metabolism
> > and it just hasn't shown up in studies which have done so.
> > Differences in metabolic rate between diets tend to be
> > small approaching negligble (see my other post).
> >
> > The calories can't just mystically disappear (ketone
> > excretion rates can account for, at most, 100 cal/day and
> > that's at a very maximum), they all have to be accounted
> > for. Studies don't support that more calories are being
> > lost fecally (protein and fat both have extremely high
> > absorption rates) on a keto diet so that's not where they
> > are going. There's no indication of caloric wasteage (old
> > term: luxoconsumption; new term: non-exercise adaptive
> > thermogenesis) or an increase in metabolic rate.
> >
> > All of these make such conclusions (that a keto diet
> > causes so much greater fat loss at the same calorie level)
> > tenuous at best. The more parsimonius conclusion is that,
> > in studies where people are self-reporting food intake,
> > they are doing a bad job of it; they're eating less on the
> > keto diet and that's why they are losing weight.
> >
> > Which, to be redundant, is all fine and well. AGain, two
> > different issues here and it's easy to confuse them.
> >
> > 1. Does a ketogenic diet have a metabolic advantage so
> > that you lose more weight (fat/muscle) at the same
> > calories
> > 2. Does a keto diet simply make you eat less without
> > thinking about it or being hungry and that's why you
> > lose weight
> >
> > #1 is not defensible based on the majority of data that's
> > #been collected
> > over the last 30 years
> >
> > #2 very much is for many people (some find no appetite
> > #decrease on a
> > keto diet, do'nt reduce calories and lose no fat; or even
> > gain it).
> >
> > Lyle
> >
> > > "Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and
> > > cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents."
> > > Sondike SB, Copperman N, Jacobson MS. J Pediatr 2003
> > > Mar;142(3):253-8.
> > >
> > > There are many possible explanations for these findings.
> > > But your statement is unsupported even by the previously
> > > reported research. Schemes such as food-combining or
> > > sequencing have been shown to be ineffective in changing
> > > weight loss that would otherwise be predicted from
> > > caloric content, but data for the weight effect vs
> > > calorie consumption for an entirely different
> > > macronutrient composition is limited and ambiguous. What
> > > data there is shows differences in metabolic impact for
> > > extremes of macronutrient composition, which argues
> > > against the "only calories matter" dogma that you and so
> > > many others repeat without end and without citation.
> > >
> > > A low carbohydrate diet, as compared to a high
> > > carbohydrate diet, alters the primary metabolic pathway
> > > that the body uses to convert consumed food into usuable
> > > energy. It is far more likely that the efficiency of the
> > > body in converting food energy (measured in calories in
> > > a bomb calorimeter) into body energy (mechanical, heat,
> > > chemical transformations) is DIFFERENT in the two
> > > pathways than that it is the same. A diesel engine and a
> > > gasoline engine both run on hydrocarbon fuel, but the
> > > EFFICIENCY of the two type of engines is vastly
> > > different.
> > >
> > > Given a specific engine (ie one person's body in the
> > > same metabolic condition), then more calories in = more
> > > calories available. But it makes more sense from an
> > > engineering and biochemical perspective to assume that
> > > energy availability is DIFFERENT among diets of
> > > different macronutrient compositions than to assume that
> > > it is the same. The source of calories may be be
> > > irrelevant, but that is clearly NOT proven.
> > >
> > > Victoria

[Lyle McDon]

Seth Breidbart wrote:
>
> In article
> <347bcc5e.0304300212.593c6893@posting.google.com>, victoria
> <Claybits@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >My response to the studies in in previous message in
> >detail. Metabolic slowdown is demonstrated when the diet is
> >sufficiently low in calories
> >- so it is not a "physical impossibility" that lowering
> > calories does not cause weight loss.
>
> Does metabolic slowdown (measured in calories/day decrease
> in bmr) exceed the decrease in dietary intake?

I've never seen a study where that was the case. In the most
extreme case of metabolic slowdown I can recall, which was the
Minnesota Semi-Starvation Study, the total amount of metabolic
slowdown was in the range of 25-30% (I'd have to look up the
exact number). Since the subjects were on a 50% deficit from
maintenance, that still left them with an effective deficit.

Metabolic slowdown can slow weight loss by reducing the
effective deficit but, based on the numbers, shouldn't be able
to stall it completely, or cause weight gain.

Lyle

[Mxsmanic]

"ignorcrew" <sevnsprings@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: 1e42dfcf.0304300843.787a05c7@posting.google.com...

> 1. People under-reporting caloric intake-- Provide
> controlled caloric intake

Unless you imprison them and keep them under constant
surveillance, this is very difficult.

Unconscious patients in the hospital do prove the "calories-in
vs. calories-out" reality, however. They cannot overeat or
cheat. They receive only the nutrition they are given by
staff. In these cases, it is easy to bring any patient down to
a normal weight, simply by producing a calorie deficit in the
nutrition given to him by tube or IV. There are no long-term
comatose patients who weight 400 lbs.

[Mxsmanic]

"Christina Billcliffe" <christina.billcliffe@lmh.ox.ac.uk> a
écrit dans le message de news: b8oqdj$1ja$1@news.ox.ac.uk...

> I don't know where you got the idea that the low-carb diet
> didn't produce better effects than the low-fat diet. It did
> and significantly so.

If by "effects" you mean "weight loss," that is solely a
function of calories. If you are referring to the ability of
people to follow a given diet, I'll grant that wide
variations occur.

The important point to retain is that you cannot eat more
calories on one diet than on another and yet still lose the
same amount of weight. That never happens.

> I know that most people are fat because they over eat but
> there is a small percentage out there with a genuine
> problem ...

Everyone who is fat overeats.

> ... its none of our business whether fat people believe its
> an illness or not.

It is in this newsgroup (a.s.d).

[Mxsmanic]

"Julianne" <juli882@cox.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
KR_ra.35298$XE.2013409@news1.east.cox.net...

> To be sure, there are some very healthy morbidly obese
> people who never suffer side effects of their obesity
> against all odds.

Since "morbidly" means "sick now, or sick soon," there are no
very healthy but morbidy obese people.

> ... all my extra weight is carried in my gut (think insulin
> resistance).

Not sure why that would make anyone think insulin
resistance. It does make one think of increased
cardiovascular risk, though.

[Bob]

Now I remember why I used to block Lyle's posts. I don't
really need to see "fat fucks" in a post. Time to turn back on
the block!

--
Bob ctviggen at rcn dot com

"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
message news:3EB0AACB.C9D3BB37@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> ignorcrew wrote:
> >
> > What I don't understand is why they can't do a study where
> > all the normal issues with these studies are addressed.
> > These are already known:
> >
> > 1. People under-reporting caloric intake-- Provide
> > controlled caloric intake
> > 2. Different obesety levels-- Pick people with 30% bf and
> > be done with it
> > 3. Over-reported activity level-- Mandate activity level.
> > ... etc
> >
> > You can even have a control group that gets to monitor
> > it's own calories on keto and one that does the same on
> > self-selected diet.
> >
> > You can easily review all the previous studies and
> > identify what was wrong with the setup. And I am sure they
> > could find the subjects if they tried.
> >
> > I think these studies are not performed because the
> > results would be so uninteresting. No new diet books could
> > be written based on findings, which would be (IMO) "just
> > count the damn calories"
>
> A problem of expense, mainly. To control over any reasonable
> length costs mucho bucks. Back in the 70's, they used to
> lock folks in metabolic wards for weeks on end and really
> control caloric intake. Now, they usually just give prepared
> food packets. But such studies have been done, where
> calories are controlled much more rigorously than 'we told
> folks to do this and let them report what they think they
> did, and then we believed them'.
>
> Those studies, where caloric intake is actually controlled
> (usually by giving subjects pre-prepared food packets) show
> no such discrepancies in weight loss: it all scales with
> calories regardless of the composition of the diet. High
> carb, low-carb, whatever you want to pick; everybody loses
> weight (yes, there is variance for reasons I've mentioned
> before). but none of these claimed metabolic anomalies,
> folks who magically failed to lose weight on a low calorie
> diet has EVER showed up in the HISTORY of diet studies. Yet
> there seems to be literally dozens or more of them on every
> diet support group. To which I say this: go to a metabolic
> ward, have them lock you in a room and control your caloric
> intake down the joule, you'll lose weight no matter what the
> diet is composed of. Then please sit the fuck down and shut
> the fuck up.
>
> Which makes the results of these vaguely controlled studies
> debatable at best and dismissible at worst.
>
> So, to reiterate yet again for the slow readers on asd and
> asdlc, we have basically two data sets.
>
> 1. A data set of controlled calorie studies (at varying
> calorie levels and varying amcronutrient composition),
> that is where calories are being controlled (attemps to
> control activity are generally made) and the subjects are
> being given fed a set amount. I've already references
> studies by Golay and Adler on this topic.
>
> 2. A data set of studies where subjects are given
> instructions and then the researchers rely on
> self-reporting of food intake (said self-reports having
> been shown to be wildly inaccurate under most
> conditions). The two studies in contention fall into this
> category.
>
> dAta set 1 shows no such major differences in weight loss
> (and rarely in tissue loss, that is protein and fat, as long
> as a few basic requirements, such as adequate protein and
> not setting too high of a caloric deficit) between groups:
> it's all about caloric intake.
>
> data set 2 shows major differences.
>
> Which set to believe?
>
> Well, the fat fucks can whine all day long but I'll take
> controlled studies (i.e. where caloric intake is being
> rigorously controlled) over non-controlled (i.e. where
> researchers are relying on subject's notoriously bad
> reporting) any day.
>
> And those controlled studies consistently show the same end
> result: it's all (ok, 99%, you need adequate protein and
> extremely low caloric deficits tend to cause more muscle
> loss than less extreme deficits) about caloric intake. Diet
> composition basically only matters in terms of adherence
> (which is an important but tangential issue).
>
> Oh yeah, most of these studies are done in the obese so your
> point about that is sort of moot. It might be that things
> change a bit (mostly in terms of the composition of what's
> lost) when folks get very lean but none of the studies in
> question are testing diets in lean folks (why bother).
>
> Incidentally, in one of the few diet studies done in lean
> athletes (wrestlers all at the sub 10% bodyfat range), even
> though carbs were nearly 60% of total calories (the study
> was looking at variations in protein and such), since the
> diet was hypocaloric, EVERY subject lost fat.
>
> Lyle
>
>
>
> >
> > Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> > message
news:<3EA845E2.C0027F38@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>...
> > > victoria wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<8xSdnRGCVKmHPzqjXTWcog@giganews.com>...
> > > > > All long-term useful (i.e., fat) weight loss results
> > > > > from calorie
deficits
> > > > > in diet. How this deficit is achieved is irrelevant.
> > > > > For people
who are in
> > > > > otherwise normal health apart from their obesity,
> > > > > personal
preference is the
> > > > > only factor to consider in the choice of method used
> > > > > to reduce
calories,
> > > > > since only total calories matter for weight loss.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It never ceases to amaze me that people on all sides
> > > > of an issue
will
> > > > decide on the answer before the data is in, and then
> > > > insist to the death that any data contrary to their
> > > > specific opionion is wrong. Of course, if a researcher
> > > > finds that people on a low carb diet eat
more,
> > > > lose more, and are healthier, he MUST be lying or
> > > > deluded.
> > > >
> > > > The FACTS are that this study, and another cited
> > > > below, show statistically significant results that a
> > > > low carb diet results in HIGHER weight loss with MORE
> > > > calories than a low fat diet.
> > >
> > > Ok, so you have two studies (one in children and growing
> > > kids are a different model than full grown adults)
> > > contrasted to many, many, many studies showing no
> > > difference (or so little of a difference that it might
> > > as well be nothing).While those two studies need to be
> > > included
in
> > > the model, you can no more dismiss the majority of
> > > studies done over
hte
> > > last 30 years in favor of these 2 than the contrary. A
> > > good model
must
> > > include all data including these.
> > >
> > > So you start looking at other issues to try and figure
> > > out what in the hell is going on:
> > >
> > > you might note that studies using food record/estimation
> > > methods for caloric intake show a difference while
> > > studies using controlled food intakes don't
> > >
> > > you might note that studies looking at the reliability
> > > of food record/estimations show that people suck at them
> > > (and if an adult
can't
> > > reliably estimate their food intake)
> > >
> > > you might note that studies of ad lib keto diets show
> > > that people tend to spontaneously reduce food intake.
> > > Note that this pediatrics
abstract
> > > makes no mention of food intake; considering the
> > > tendency to spontaneously reduce food intake on keto
> > > diets, the reason the kids
lost
> > > more weight is probably because they ate less. Which is
> > > all fine and well but doesn't support some metabolic
> > > magic. It means that any diet which makes folks eat less
> > > without thinking about it is just peachy.
> > >
> > > you note that studies which have directly measured
> > > metabolism under different dietary conditions show
> > > minimal differences between varying macro diets. One
> > > study looked at bodyweight over 2 week spans in hospital
> > > patients using diet ranging from 0 to 70% fat and showed
> > > NO difference in bodyweight, calories were meticulously
> > > controlled with liquid nutrition so intakes were as
> > > exacting as exacting can get; diet composition at
> > > controlled calorie levels had NO impact on bodyweight.
A
> > > 2 fold increase in fat loss would predict a monstrously
> > > measurable increase in metabolism and that increase
> > > simply has not shown up in
the
> > > studies. Contrast that, for example to a recent study
> > > which looked at the effects on metabolic rate of MCTs
> > > vs. long-chain triglycerides
which
> > > measured metabolic rate directly. It showed that the MCT
> > > diet
increased
> > > metabolic rate slightly and this explained the slightly
> > > greater fat loss. A 2 fold increase in fat loss would
> > > predict a far greater
(hence,
> > > easily measurable) increase in metabolism and it just
> > > hasn't shown up
in
> > > studies which have done so. Differences in metabolic
> > > rate between
diets
> > > tend to be small approaching negligble (see my other
> > > post).
> > >
> > > The calories can't just mystically disappear (ketone
> > > excretion rates
can
> > > account for, at most, 100 cal/day and that's at a very
> > > maximum), they all have to be accounted for. Studies
> > > don't support that more
calories
> > > are being lost fecally (protein and fat both have
> > > extremely high absorption rates) on a keto diet so
> > > that's not where they are going. There's no indication
> > > of caloric wasteage (old term: luxoconsumption; new
> > > term: non-exercise adaptive thermogenesis) or an
> > > increase in metabolic rate.
> > >
> > > All of these make such conclusions (that a keto diet
> > > causes so much greater fat loss at the same calorie
> > > level) tenuous at best. The
more
> > > parsimonius conclusion is that, in studies where people
> > > are self-reporting food intake, they are doing a bad job
> > > of it; they're eating less on the keto diet and that's
> > > why they are losing weight.
> > >
> > > Which, to be redundant, is all fine and well. AGain, two
> > > different issues here and it's easy to confuse them.
> > >
> > > 1. Does a ketogenic diet have a metabolic advantage so
> > > that you lose more weight (fat/muscle) at the same
> > > calories
> > > 2. Does a keto diet simply make you eat less without
> > > thinking about it or being hungry and that's why you
> > > lose weight
> > >
> > > #1 is not defensible based on the majority of data
> > > #that's been
collected
> > > over the last 30 years
> > >
> > > #2 very much is for many people (some find no appetite
> > > #decrease on a
> > > keto diet, do'nt reduce calories and lose no fat; or
> > > even gain it).
> > >
> > > Lyle
> > >
> > > > "Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and
cardiovascular
> > > > risk factor in overweight adolescents." Sondike SB,
> > > > Copperman N, Jacobson MS. J Pediatr 2003
> > > > Mar;142(3):253-8.
> > > >
> > > > There are many possible explanations for these
> > > > findings. But your statement is unsupported even by
> > > > the previously reported research. Schemes such as
> > > > food-combining or sequencing have been shown to be
> > > > ineffective in changing weight loss that would
> > > > otherwise be
predicted
> > > > from caloric content, but data for the weight effect
> > > > vs calorie consumption for an entirely different
> > > > macronutrient composition is limited and ambiguous.
> > > > What data there is shows differences in metabolic
> > > > impact for extremes of macronutrient composition,
> > > > which argues against the "only calories matter" dogma
> > > > that you and so many others repeat without end and
> > > > without citation.
> > > >
> > > > A low carbohydrate diet, as compared to a high
> > > > carbohydrate diet, alters the primary metabolic
> > > > pathway that the body uses to convert consumed food
> > > > into usuable energy. It is far more likely that the
> > > > efficiency of the body in converting food energy
> > > > (measured in
calories
> > > > in a bomb calorimeter) into body energy (mechanical,
> > > > heat, chemical transformations) is DIFFERENT in the
> > > > two pathways than that it is
the
> > > > same. A diesel engine and a gasoline engine both run
> > > > on hydrocarbon fuel, but the EFFICIENCY of the two
> > > > type of engines is vastly different.
> > > >
> > > > Given a specific engine (ie one person's body in the
> > > > same metabolic condition), then more calories in =
> > > > more calories available. But it makes more sense from
> > > > an engineering and biochemical perspective to assume
> > > > that energy availability is DIFFERENT among diets of
different
> > > > macronutrient compositions than to assume that it is
> > > > the same. The source of calories may be be irrelevant,
> > > > but that is clearly NOT proven.
> > > >
> > > > Victoria

[Michael Si]

Lyle McDonald wrote:

> I've never seen a study where that was the case. In the most
> extreme case of metabolic slowdown I can recall, which was
> the Minnesota Semi-Starvation Study, the total amount of
> metabolic slowdown was in the range of 25-30% (I'd have to
> look up the exact number). Since the subjects were on a 50%
> deficit from maintenance, that still left them with an
> effective deficit.

Right, and this was with extremely or morbidly obese
individuals?

But what I find amusing is when someone says, "But... but...
the weight loss effect is solely due to caloric reduction."
Duh. A diet that provides some appetite satisfaction and
reduces hunger under those conditions is more likely to be
successful.

"Try adding some salt-packed capers to your tuna shakes."

[Dj Delorie]

Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> writes:
> Metabolic slowdown can slow weight loss by reducing the
> effective deficit but, based on the numbers, shouldn't be
> able to stall it completely, or cause weight gain.

What about partitioning? Is it possible to repartition loss
away from adipose tissue completely (or effectively
completely)? Basically, we all seem to agree that a semi-fast
(very low calorie, eat only essential nutrients, no more) is
bad because of muscle loss and other issues. If one wanted to
do a semi-fast to "force the issue", what would you recommend?

[Cl]

Bob wrote:
>
> Now I remember why I used to block Lyle's posts. I don't
> really need to see "fat fucks" in a post. Time to turn back
> on the block!
>

Somehow from your post I could tell this was still being
xposted to the asd groups. Amazing isn't it!

[Lyle McDon]

Michael Sierchio wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
> > I've never seen a study where that was the case. In the
> > most extreme case of metabolic slowdown I can recall,
> > which was the Minnesota Semi-Starvation Study, the total
> > amount of metabolic slowdown was in the range of 25-30%
> > (I'd have to look up the exact number). Since the subjects
> > were on a 50% deficit from maintenance, that still left
> > them with an effective deficit.
>
> Right, and this was with extremely or morbidly obese
> individuals?

No, started with lean men, ended with ripped men. Not sure
what point you were trying to make anyhow.

>
> But what I find amusing is when someone says, "But... but...
> the weight loss effect is solely due to caloric reduction."
> Duh. A diet that provides some appetite satisfaction and
> reduces hunger under those conditions is more likely to be
> successful.

Nobody has said any different. In fact, I usually reiterate
that point constantly.

In this thread alone, I posed the following a while back.

Lyle

***
Basically, to put it simply, there are two issues at stake
here and you're confusing them.

1. Does a keto diet have some inherent metabolic advantage: to
whit, at an identical calorie level, will a keto diet show
greater tissue (fat and muscle NOT water) losses than a
non-keto diet. The studies done where calories are strictly
controlled do not support this (the early studies confused
excess water losses with fat loss)? This study runs
contrary to them suggesting nearly twice as much fat lost
at an identical calorie level compared to the non-keto.

2. Does a keto diet make it easier for people to reduce
calories (or does it cause them to spontaneously reduce
calories) so that they eat less and lose weight.

The answer to #1 is generally no. The grand majority of
studies show no difference (or so small as to be
insignificant): given an identical caloric intake, people lose
the same amount of true weight (fat/muscle) on a keto vs.
non-keto diet. This presumes such things as not taking
calories too low and providing sufficient protein. ASSuming
those two criteria are met, differences in true tissue loss
(again for hte slow, fat and protein) are insignificant.

The answer to #2 is yes for many people. The reasons are many.
IN the 70's, Yudkin pointed out that, when a given food
(carbs) make up ~50% of total food intake, removing it
entirely can not help but reduce total food intake. Most
studies of ad lib food intake on keto diets show that when
people reduce carbs, their protein and fat intakes tend to
stay roughly the same; end results is that total caloric
intake goes way down (1400-1800 calories is fairly typical).
In addition, for hyperinsuleminc folks, removing carbs (or
even moderating their intake) tends to control blood glucose,
energy levels and appetite which *may* make it easier to
reduce total caloric intake.

Does this makes sense to you now, we're dealing with two
different issues. I'm talking about #1 and you're making
points about #2.

[Lyle McDon]

DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> writes:
> > Metabolic slowdown can slow weight loss by reducing the
> > effective deficit but, based on the numbers, shouldn't be
> > able to stall it completely, or cause weight gain.
>
> What about partitioning? Is it possible to repartition loss
> away from adipose tissue completely (or effectively
> completely)?

dunno about completely but the various changes (many
neurochemical) that go on with dieting do work to limit
further fat loss by making mobilization/fat burning, etc more
difficult. Fatter individuals have an easier time mobilizing
fat (although burning can be impaired at the level of teh
muscle) than leaner for a bunch of reasons. As you get diet
and get leaner and a variety of things go on, negative
partitioning definitely occurs.

I guess the bigger question you're getting at is how come
effective stalls do seem to occur which seems to go
against the math of the issue. It's a question I've
pondered for quit some time without a perfect explanation.
Some possible reasons:

a. there are the adaptations in metabolic rate that serve to
decrease the effective deficit but, as stated, I"ve never
seen them reach a point where they cancelled out the
deficit; they simply lower it. This could cause effective
weight loss to slow so significantly to make it look like
no progress was being made. If nothing else, it would lower
effective weekly weight/fat loss to below what our
measurement devices (scale/calipers) can pick up.

That is, say you've got a 700 cal/day deficit (4900 cal/week),
should yield a nice ~1.4 lb/week fat loss (4900 / 3500 = 1.4).
In one study I mentioned some folks showed a metabolic
adaptation close to 400 cal/day (and women seem harder up in
this regards and you mentioned what happened to your wife).
That leaves an effective 300 cal/day deficit, now a 1.5
lb/week fat loss has become a mere 2/3 lb/week fat loss (2100
cal/week / 3500 =~ .6). Bodyweight fluctuations from food in
the GI tract, water levels (which can amount to several
pounds) would more than obscure that in the short-term. Even
calipers with a 3-5% variance couldn't pick up that little fat
loss in a week's span. It might take a solid month for
anything measurable (~ 2.4 lbs/month assuming no further
adaptation) to show up.

b. Now that I think about it, I have to wonder if hormones
causing water retention might not go up during caloric
restriction (enough other hormones go wacky). Never looked
to see if aldosterone went up but I probably should.

c. The French

d. something else entirely (and while there is also the
'cheating when nobody is looking' explanation which
probably accounts for some cases; I've known enough people
whom I do trust in this regards to have observed it).

>Basically, we all seem to agree that a semi-fast (very low
>calorie, eat only essential nutrients, no more) is bad
>because of muscle loss and other issues. If one wanted to do
>a semi-fast to "force the issue", what would you recommend?

Not sure what you're asking here.

Lyle

[Michael Si]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> If by "effects" you mean "weight loss," that is solely a
> function of calories. If you are referring to the ability of
> people to follow a given diet, I'll grant that wide
> variations occur.

There are diets that are equal in calories that produce
different results, however. And there are second order
effects, such as whole milk being better than skim because
it's often a sole source of LA.

[Lee Michae]

"> Bob wrote:
> >
> > Now I remember why I used to block Lyle's posts. I don't
> > really need to
see
> > "fat fucks" in a post. Time to turn back on the block!
> >

Gotta make sure that the information filter is in there. After
all, you wouldn't want to learn too much. Your poor little
brain may explode!!

[Michael Si]

Lyle McDonald wrote:

>>Right, and this was with extremely or morbidly obese
>>individuals?
>
> No, started with lean men, ended with ripped men.

I'm sorry, it wasn't clear that I was being facetious.

[Dj Delorie]

Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> writes:
> b. Now that I think about it, I have to wonder if hormones
> causing water retention might not go up during caloric
> restriction (enough other hormones go wacky). Never
> looked to see if aldosterone went up but I probably
> should.

There was one case of someone who's weight stayed the same
for a while, but noticed that the %bf scale (bioimpedance)
kept changing. Then suddenly the weight would drop and the
%bf would recover, then begin the cycle again. We guessed
that something was converting fat to water retention, then
dumping the water later. She could predict the "whoosh" by
watching the %bf.

> > Basically, we all seem to agree that a semi-fast (very low
> > calorie, eat only essential nutrients, no more) is bad
> > because of muscle loss and other issues. If one wanted to
> > do a semi-fast to "force the issue", what would you
> > recommend?
>
> Not sure what you're asking here.

If one wanted to fast to force a maximal caloric deficit
despite metabolic slowdown, what can one do to maximize fat
loss (vs LBM loss) in that situation. I know it's not ideal
for long term weight loss, but it may serve as an opportunity
for folks to experiment with side effects of various
supplements and techniques in isolation. Once one understands
how one's specific body reacts under those conditions, one
would know what to do long-term to maximize fat loss with a
more ideal caloric level.

[Lyle McDon]

Michael Sierchio wrote:
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > If by "effects" you mean "weight loss," that is solely a
> > function of calories. If you are referring to the ability
> > of people to follow a given diet, I'll grant that wide
> > variations occur.
>
> There are diets that are equal in calories that produce
> different results, however.

Different results in terms of what?

Adherence? Differences in quality of weight lost?

> And there are second order effects, such as whole milk being
> better than skim because it's often a sole source of LA.

Said second order effects typically have minor impact on
overall results. They contribute a small overall percentage to
the results. Calories aren't ALL Taht count as MxsManic is
fond of saying, but they are like 95%+ of what counts.

Additionally, at least when *I* say it, calories are all that
count implies at least three things

a. a moderate but not excessive caloric deficit
b. adequate protein
c. adequate EFA's

you meet those three and the composition of the rest of the
diet is essentially irrelevant EXCEPT for adherence issues
(which are important, but tangential to some degree).

I'm not taking into consideration some stupid fucking diet of
80% snackwells, saturated fat and insufficient protein.

Lyle

[Lyle McDon]

Michael Sierchio wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
> >>Right, and this was with extremely or morbidly obese
> >>individuals?
> >
> > No, started with lean men, ended with ripped men.
>
> I'm sorry, it wasn't clear that I was being facetious.

A high fiber intake should clear that right up.

Lyle

[Lyle McDon]

DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> writes:
> > b. Now that I think about it, I have to wonder if hormones
> > causing water retention might not go up during caloric
> > restriction (enough other hormones go wacky). Never
> > looked to see if aldosterone went up but I probably
> > should.
>
> There was one case of someone who's weight stayed the same
> for a while, but noticed that the %bf scale (bioimpedance)
> kept changing. Then suddenly the weight would drop and the
> %bf would recover, then begin the cycle again. We guessed
> that something was converting fat to water retention, then
> dumping the water later. She could predict the "whoosh" by
> watching the %bf.

this is an interesting comment. Maybe you've found a use for
those silly BIA scales after all. ;)

Way back in college (when dinosaurs ruled the earth, damn I'm
old), I had an exercise physiology prof tell us basically
'After fat (free fatty acids) are mobilzied from the cells,
they temporarily fill back up with water (presumably the
leftover glycerol, which is the backbone of a triglyceride and
which is high hydrophilic, would cause this). After some time,
this water gets dumped and you see the actual fat loss'.

Of course, being that type of class, refs were never presented
for individual concepts (Rule #1 of Undergraduate work: The
Prof's Word is second only to God's) and, despite looking from
time to time, I've never found a single piece of research to
directly support it (the whole glycerol thing up above is
based on my own pondering and supposed knowledge of
biochemistry).

Even looking at it now, I see a glaring problem: when stored
triglycerides are broken down, both fatty acids and glycerol
are released into the system. As I can tell, there's not a
significant amount of glycerol being 'left over' in the fat
cell. If anything, glycerol gets out but sometimes fatty acids
get trapped in the cell.

however, glycerol in the bloodstream could cause overall
water retention (this is what glycerol supplements, aimed at
hyperhydrating endurance weenies, was doing holding extra
water in teh bloodstream and extra cellular space). I guess
the question to be answered is how quickly the body rids
itself of the extra glycerol that's been mobilized out of
fat cells.

I've also observed this type of thing (stall followed by what
seems to be an impossibly large weight/fat loss) in a lot of
women clients, usually beginners. They'll do everything just
fine for 4 weeks. And it'll be nothing, nothing, nothing then
BOOM, a bunch of weight/fat just falls off. It's like some
weird ass built in time delay. I can't begin to explain it but
I've seen it enough times to know that *something* is going
on. Only seems to happen in women, too, suggesting a hormonal
basis of some sort.

>
> > > Basically, we all seem to agree that a semi-fast (very
> > > low calorie, eat only essential nutrients, no more) is
> > > bad because of muscle loss and other issues. If one
> > > wanted to do a semi-fast to "force the issue", what
> > > would you recommend?
> >
> > Not sure what you're asking here.
>
> If one wanted to fast to force a maximal caloric deficit
> despite metabolic slowdown, what can one do to maximize fat
> loss (vs LBM loss) in that situation. I know it's not ideal
> for long term weight loss, but it may serve as an
> opportunity for folks to experiment with side effects of
> various supplements and techniques in isolation. Once one
> understands how one's specific body reacts under those
> conditions, one would know what to do long-term to maximize
> fat loss with a more ideal caloric level.

protein sparing modified fast with fish oil supps, no question
in my mind about it. Maybe add 50 g of carbs to limit the need
for gluconeogenesis from protein.

Lyle

[Michael Si]

Lyle McDonald wrote:

> A high fiber intake should clear that right up.

What you spend on psyllium and bananas, you save on
toilet paper.

[Julianne]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GdOcnWCSW5_6RS2jXTWcrg@giganews.com...
> "Julianne" <juli882@cox.net> a écrit dans le message de
> news: KR_ra.35298$XE.2013409@news1.east.cox.net...
>
> > To be sure, there are some very healthy morbidly obese
> > people who never suffer side effects of their obesity
> > against all odds.
>
> Since "morbidly" means "sick now, or sick soon," there are
> no very healthy but morbidy obese people.
>
> > ... all my extra weight is carried in my gut (think
> > insulin resistance).
>
> Not sure why that would make anyone think insulin
> resistance. It does
make
> one think of increased cardiovascular risk, though.
>
Apparently, excess insulin promotes the storage of visceral
fat. By reducing visceral fat sensitivity to insulin is
increased. People who are insulin resistant do have a much
higher incidence of heart disease, high blood pressure, etc.

The thread originated because of statements that obesity and
alcoholism were hardly diseases. My original contention was
that because obesity precipitated so many diseases that
regardless of semantics, if it were treated like a disease,
and greater support was forthcoming from the medical
profession, there may be more success in treating it.

You are correct that the definition of 'morbidity' pertains to
illness. It is also used when persons are above a certain BMI.

So, regardless of etiology of obesity and regardless of the
consequences that one suffers as a result of obesity, it still
seems to me that if the medical community at large gave diet
and exercise more than a little lip service, we might actually
get somewhere.

j

[Mxsmanic]

"Julianne" <juli882@cox.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
BJ7sa.41042$XE.2185847@news1.east.cox.net...

> ... it still seems to me that if the medical community at
> large gave diet and exercise more than a little lip service,
> we might actually get somewhere.

I think the medical community recognizes two important
realities. One is that motivation to lose weight must come
from the individual; it cannot be instilled by a doctor.
Another is that no form of lifestyle change conducive to the
creation of the calorie deficit necessary for weight loss is
going to be satisfactory for everyone, or even for a
significant minority. From this one might draw two
conclusions: (1) anyone who really wants to lose weight will
find a way to do so, and anyone who doesn't, won't; and (2)
the only person who can really decide the best way to reduce
calories is the person who wants to lose weight.

Given this, about the only thing the medical community can do
is explain to people the essentials of weight loss, and those
essentials are diet and exercise, period. How a given
individual creates his calorie deficit is up to him; any
method that creates a deficit will result in weight loss, and
there are zillions of methods, all of them some variation on
the themes of diet and exercise.

And if a fat person doesn't want to lose weight, no amount of
counseling is going to change that. Some fat people want
excuses to stay fat, not ways to lose weight. They want to be
able to overeat AND lose weight, and they will only listen to
people who pander to this fantasy. Most doctors can recognize
this after a while, I think, and will thus only repeat the
standard realities of diet and exercise. Patients who insist
that they can eat more and still lose weight through the magic
of low-carb, low-fat, low-protein, or low-intelligence diets
are wrong and will not lose weight, but they are achieving
their goal of avoiding responsibility and creating the
impression that they are trying, and for those patients that
is probably all that matters.

[Seth Breid]

In article <cZqdnbL92MuMRC2jXTWcrg@giganews.com>, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The important point to retain is that you cannot eat more
>calories on one diet than on another and yet still lose the
>same amount of weight. That never happens.

Actually, that's only true to a first approximation. You can,
but the difference in calories is smaller than can be measured
in the real world with people eating real food, even ignoring
misreporting.

>Everyone who is fat overeats.

Not true. Maybe they used to overeat but stopped, and have
lost only a little of the weight so far.

Seth
--
"There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate" -- Will
Brink Except sushi rice, seaweed, and wasabi.

[Seth Breid]

In article <3EB12FA2.348C5C39@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>, Lyle
McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
>Michael Sierchio wrote:
>> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>
>> > I've never seen a study where that was the case. In the
>> > most extreme case of metabolic slowdown I can recall,
>> > which was the Minnesota Semi-Starvation Study, the total
>> > amount of metabolic slowdown was in the range of 25-30%
>> > (I'd have to look up the exact number). Since the
>> > subjects were on a 50% deficit from maintenance, that
>> > still left them with an effective deficit.
>> Right, and this was with extremely or morbidly obese
>> individuals?
>No, started with lean men, ended with ripped men.

I've seen some photographs from that study, and I wouldn't
characterize the victims as "ripped" (especially not from a
bodybuilding viewpoint). "Gaunt" would be a better
description.

Seth
--
most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than
that. -- Lyle

[Seth Breid]

In article <3EB14E73.FD576EE8@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>, Lyle
McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
>DJ Delorie wrote:

>> If one wanted to fast to force a maximal caloric deficit
>> despite metabolic slowdown, what can one do to maximize fat
>> loss (vs LBM loss) in that situation. I know it's not ideal
>> for long term weight loss, but it may serve as an
>> opportunity for folks to experiment with side effects of
>> various supplements and techniques in isolation. Once one
>> understands how one's specific body reacts under those
>> conditions, one would know what to do long-term to maximize
>> fat loss with a more ideal caloric level.
>
>protein sparing modified fast with fish oil supps, no
>question in my mind about it. Maybe add 50 g of carbs to
>limit the need for gluconeogenesis from protein.

Weight training too, surely?

Which leads to an interesting question: If on such a
plan (say, 1.2
g/lb protein, EFAs, weight training) what would be the effect
of adding carbs to the post-workout protein shake? Would the
muscle-{sparing,building} effect mean the the amount of fat
lost increased, decreased, or remained the same?

Seth
--
"There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate" -- Will
Brink Except sushi rice, seaweed, and wasabi.

[Top Sirloi]

On Thu, 01 May 2003 11:35:09 GMT, "Bob"
<ctviggen@x.rcn.com> wrote:

>Now I remember why I used to block Lyle's posts. I don't
>really need to see "fat fucks" in a post. Time to turn back
>on the block!

Top posting fat fuck.

That better?

--
Scott Johnson "Always with the excuses for small legs. People
like you are why they only open the top half of caskets."
-Tommy Bowen

[Bob]

Sure! Just another idiot to add to my kill file.

--
Bob ctviggen at rcn dot com

"Top Sirloin" <scottjohnson@notspam.kc.rr.com> wrote in
message news:tdi2bvk8r5mqmltrbdgt36u3laclbpfcj5@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 01 May 2003 11:35:09 GMT, "Bob"
> <ctviggen@x.rcn.com> wrote:
>
> >Now I remember why I used to block Lyle's posts. I don't
> >really need to
see
> >"fat fucks" in a post. Time to turn back on the block!
>
> Top posting fat fuck.
>
> That better?
>
>
> --
> Scott Johnson "Always with the excuses for small legs.
> People like you are why they only open the top half of
> caskets." -Tommy Bowen

[Mxsmanic]

"Michael Sierchio" <kudzu@tenebras.com> a écrit dans le
message de news: fIWcndDvjIvzvyyjXTWcrg@speakeasy.net...

> There are diets that are equal in calories that produce
> different results, however.

No, there are not. Weight loss depends solely on calorie
counts.

[Elvis Pars]

"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
message news:3EB130AA.C00560C2@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
>
> Additionally, at least when *I* say it, calories are all
> that count implies at least three things
>
> a. a moderate but not excessive caloric deficit
> b. adequate protein
> c. adequate EFA's
>
> you meet those three and the composition of the rest of the
> diet is essentially irrelevant EXCEPT for adherence issues
> (which are important, but tangential to some degree).

Lyle, Lyle, Lyle, we already went through that, we don't want
to hear calories count. Only carbs count, and the fact that
lower-carb produces a calorie deficit (when people are
actually losing) is obscuring the forest with the trees.

I mean all you have to do is look at a typical induction
menu in DANDR

southwestern omlette /w tomato, avocado and ham ceaser salad
with grilled chicken Steak au poivre Roasted asparagus Mixed
up green salad with lemon vinagrette Gelatin dessert made with
sucralose celery stuffed with herb cream cheese

As you can see there are huge gobs of calories there, that my
calculator just keeps giving me an E when I try to calculate
them....you may want to take back your "only calories count"
statement.

> I'm not taking into consideration some stupid fucking diet
> of 80% snackwells, saturated fat and insufficient protein.

Shit, so are you telling me I have to re-evaluate my eating
habits. Oh wait a minute, i'm okay, I eat my snackwells with a
cup of hempseed oil; Yummy!!

> Lyle

[Michael Si]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> ...Weight loss depends solely on calorie counts.

Not a believer in endocrinology, are we? ;-)

[Tony Lew]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<8o6dnZ_3m9_lPyyjXTWcoA@giganews.com>...
> "Michael Sierchio" <kudzu@tenebras.com> a écrit dans le
> message de news: fIWcndDvjIvzvyyjXTWcrg@speakeasy.net...
>
> > There are diets that are equal in calories that produce
> > different results, however.
>
> No, there are not. Weight loss depends solely on
> calorie counts.

I guess if you say so, it must be so.

[Mxsmanic]

"Michael Sierchio" <kudzu@tenebras.com> a écrit dans le
message de news: maOdnVzKCtZtWCyjXTWcqw@speakeasy.net...

> Not a believer in endocrinology, are we?

Endocrinology agrees with my statement.

[Mxsmanic]

"Tony Lew" <rosescripter@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le
message de news:
5c7896da.0305011916.101987b@posting.google.com...

> I guess if you say so, it must be so.

You confuse cause and effect. It is so, therefore I say it is
so.

[Kris Dow]

In article <jCqdnQTKR6WOgiyjXTWcpQ@giganews.com>,
Mxsmanic wrote:
> "Julianne" <juli882@cox.net> a écrit dans le message de
> news: BJ7sa.41042$XE.2185847@news1.east.cox.net...
>
>> ... it still seems to me that if the medical community at
>> large gave diet and exercise more than a little lip
>> service, we might actually get somewhere.
>
> I think the medical community recognizes two important
> realities. One is that motivation to lose weight must come
> from the individual; it cannot be instilled by a doctor.
> Another is that no form of lifestyle change conducive to the
> creation of the calorie deficit necessary for weight loss is
> going to be satisfactory for everyone, or even for a
> significant minority. From this one might draw two
> conclusions: (1) anyone who really wants to lose weight will
> find a way to do so, and anyone who doesn't, won't; and (2)
> the only person who can really decide the best way to reduce
> calories is the person who wants to lose weight.
>

If you compare the amount of support and resources availible
for people with various illnesses (diabetes, muscular
dystrophy, etc.) to those availible to people who need to lose
weight (ignoring the small percentage of *extremely*
overweight people who are hospitalised and the like to be on
very very closely controlled diets) I can kind of see the
point- It's not really very helpful for a doctor to just say
"you need to lose weight" and then leave their patient at the
mercy of the diet industry.

My husband has MD, and we have dieticians[1],
physiotherapists,
psychologists- pretty much any medical professional we want
availible to us, because it's recognised that he may find
their services helpful in maintaining or improving his
health. I think it could possibly be very helpful if similar
resources were made availible to people who need to lose
weight to *avoid* medical problems in the future. They
wouldn't necessarily use them, and I think it'd be stupid to
force people to go, but I think having them availible would
be a very good idea- a couple of consultations with a
dietican or a discussion and assessment by a physiotherapist
to help establish a starting point for an excercise program
could mean the difference between someone starting on the
path of finding a way of eating that works for them, and
someone not, because they don't know where to start- or
start and get it wrong and give up because they're not
seeing results.

People who find their eating habits are tied into emotional
issues may even find the psychologist helpful. Or it could
just be something like support groups run by someone with
training to help people.

It may well be that even with those availible, some people
would turn to programs like weight watchers or jenny craig-
just as some people turn to alternative forms of therapy for
their illnesses. But at least the effort will have been made.

I know these sorts of programs *are* availible in some
places. It would be good to see them more generally
availible- and not necessarily restricted to people who are
morbidly obese. It's preventative treatment. Why wait until
there's a huge problem if you can nip it in the bud with less
expensive options sooner?

-Kris

[1]- personally, I think dieticans are pretty much useless and
hopeless, but hey, they might help some people. :)

[Michael Si]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> "Michael Sierchio" <kudzu@tenebras.com> a écrit dans le
> message de news: maOdnVzKCtZtWCyjXTWcqw@speakeasy.net...
>
>
>>Not a believer in endocrinology, are we?
>
>
> Endocrinology agrees with my statement.

Cf. insulin release w/carbs vs fat

[Sj]

In article <hZWdnTH1J-HE8y-jXTWcqQ@speakeasy.net>, Michael
Sierchio says...
>
>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> "Michael Sierchio" <kudzu@tenebras.com> a écrit dans le
>> message de news: maOdnVzKCtZtWCyjXTWcqw@speakeasy.net...
>>
>>
>>>Not a believer in endocrinology, are we?
>>
>>
>> Endocrinology agrees with my statement.
>
>Cf. insulin release w/carbs vs fat

Please explain how that would matter at all on a hypocaloric
diet. Are you suggesting that insulin can somehow put calories
that haven't been eaten into fat cells?

[Lyle McDon]

Michael Sierchio wrote:
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > "Michael Sierchio" <kudzu@tenebras.com> a écrit dans le
> > message de news: maOdnVzKCtZtWCyjXTWcqw@speakeasy.net...
> >
> >
> >>Not a believer in endocrinology, are we?
> >
> >
> > Endocrinology agrees with my statement.
>
> Cf. insulin release w/carbs vs fat

So what.

All of the theoretical reasons why one diet *should* be better
than another don't seem to pan out in the real world. Which is
why studies comparing different macro diets show literally
insignificant differences in tissue loss. The biggest issue is
one of adequate protein intake (and not creating too large of
a deficit). Beyond that, macro composition of the diet seems
to make almost no difference.

Now, you might argue that the rules change when you get to sub
10% bodyfat (most studies are done in obese), as fat
mobilization becomes harder and harder, you need to keep
insulin lower and lower.

But plenty of folks get plenty ripped on carb based diets
which shoots your claim right down. Even Duchaine, in one of
his last columns admitted that all of the goofy diets
(isocaloric, Bodyopus) didn't seem to make a shit's worth of
difference outside of affecting adherence (by removing diet
breaker foods) and/or caloric intake.

Of course, if you can present data (not just theoretical
ponderings) to the contrary, please do.

Lyle

[Cathy D]

In article <slrnbb3ujf.21t1.kris@vilnya.rings>, Kris Dow
<kris@vilnya.rings> wrote:

> Why wait until there's a huge problem if you can nip it in
> the bud with less expensive options sooner?

$

Cathy

--
-------------------------------------------------
e-mail address: cathyd at empire1.net Naturally the 'at'
should be changed! :) The number also needs to be
spelled out. :)

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News
=----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in
the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different
Servers! =-----

[Mxsmanic]

"Michael Sierchio" <kudzu@tenebras.com> a écrit dans le
message de news: hZWdnTH1J-HE8y-jXTWcqQ@speakeasy.net...

> Cf. insulin release w/carbs vs fat

Cf. calories-in < calories-out --> weight loss

There are no exceptions.

[Lyle McDon]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> "Michael Sierchio" <kudzu@tenebras.com> a écrit dans le
> message de news: hZWdnTH1J-HE8y-jXTWcqQ@speakeasy.net...
>
> > Cf. insulin release w/carbs vs fat
>
> Cf. calories-in < calories-out --> weight loss
>
> There are no exceptions.

Learn to read, that's not what Michael was getting at: he was
suggesting that differences in hormone response for one macro
diet vs. another could lead to differential weight (or, more
probably, tissue composition) losses.

Lyle

[Mxsmanic]

"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> a écrit dans
le message de news:
3EB30F20.A8CA1EC1@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...

> Learn to read, that's not what Michael was getting at: he
> was suggesting that differences in hormone response for one
> macro diet vs. another could lead to differential weight
> (or, more probably, tissue composition) losses.

Over non-trivial periods of time, there won't be any
difference in weight loss. Neither insulin nor any other
hormone can make it possible to live on fewer calories than
one burns without losing weight.

[Jenny]

Lyle,

You may have missed the critique I posted about the study that
supposedly showed no difference in weight loss due to insulin
resistance as it was buried in a message that was much too
long. Reading through the actual study, rather than the
abstract revealed some critical flaws.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cm-
d=Display&dopt= pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=10022419
>
Looking at the desscription of how the experiment was run (and
at the graphs) you see that the group who made it into the
category of "Successes" was mostly filled with people with
lower insulin responses. The graphs only show the data for the
20 people who made it through the diet and of them only 5 had
insulin responses higher than 400 microU/ml. The other 15 fell
in the lower half of the insulin resistance curve. No data is
given about the insulin resistance of the 11 failures (35% of
the initial group.)

More importantly, of those with the higher insulin responses,
only 2 lost significant weight compared to the group as a
whole. So I don't see where they are getting the conclusions
they are drawing. Also, since I know something about
statistics, I am really uneasy about any conclusion drawn on
the basis of 20 data points in a study where 35% of the
initial data points have dissappeared.

However, the high failure rate isn't surprising when you look
at the study design. The diet the participants were put onto
was brutal--and that they were not observed while eating it.
Reading the following suggests that diet "failures" were
probably those with high insulin who would not have been
likely to be able to live on the high carb, low fat diet drink
diet that would make anyone with blood sugar problems crazy
within a week

From the study:

"The weight loss diet consisted of a commercial liquid
nutrition formula plus two high fiber muffins and a sodium
supplement daily. Biweekly visits to the General Clinical
Research Center were required of all volunteers for evaluation
of progress, weight measurement, and food disbursement. The
weight loss of all subjects was evaluated at 30 days."

"After the baseline measurements, volunteers were placed on a
hypocaloric diet calculated to lead to a minimum weekly loss
of 1% of ideal body weight. Individuals who met the criteria
after 30 days of dieting were defined as weight loss successes
(n = 20) and continued on the diet for another 30 days.
Individuals not meeting the criteria were designated as weight
loss failures (n = 12) and were discharged from the study

"Twenty of the 31 volunteers who were enrolled in the study
were followed for the entire 60-day diet period

HMMM? We have 31 volunteers, 20 successes and 12 failures.
What happened to the other dieter?

"No historical information was obtained during the biweekly
visits that accounted for the lack of weight loss in the diet
failures." HMMMMMM?????? So the people who couldn't lose
weight on the diet disappear from the statistics. Why don't
they at least show us the insulin resistance profile of these
12 diet failures? Is it possible they were insulin resistant
to where they couldn't lose weight on this stupid diet?
===

It looks to me like more work is needed on this topic.

In my own case, a medication that lowers insulin resistance
(Diovan) has made a huge difference in my ability to lose
weight. I'm counting and weighing everything.When I go off the
Diovan my (diabetic) blood sugar rises and I put on weight on
the same counted 1420-something calories that I lose on when I
take the med.

-- Jenny
168.5/144.5/145 Achieved Second Goal!
169/1998 - 8/2001 and 11/10/02 - Now
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/jennypics.htm
Before and After Photos

http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean How to calculate
your need for protein * How much people really lose each
month * Water Weight Gain & Loss * The "Two Gram Cure" for
Hunger Cravings
* Characteristics of Successful Dieters * Indispensible Low
Carb Treats * Should You Count that Low Impact Carb? *
Curing Ketobreath * NEW! Exercise Starting from Zero

"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
message news:3EB30F20.A8CA1EC1@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> >
> > "Michael Sierchio" <kudzu@tenebras.com> a écrit dans le
> > message de news: hZWdnTH1J-HE8y-jXTWcqQ@speakeasy.net...
> >
> > > Cf. insulin release w/carbs vs fat
> >
> > Cf. calories-in < calories-out --> weight loss
> >
> > There are no exceptions.
>
> Learn to read, that's not what Michael was getting at: he
> was suggesting that differences in hormone response for one
> macro diet vs. another could lead to differential weight
> (or, more probably, tissue composition) losses.
>
> Lyle

[Seth Breid]

In article <3EB0AB2F.42780058@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>, Lyle
McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:

>Metabolic slowdown can slow weight loss by reducing the
>effective deficit but, based on the numbers, shouldn't be
>able to stall it completely, or cause weight gain.

That's what I thought, and it certainly makes sense.
(Metabolic slowdown has its own costs, so doing more of it
than necessary is damaging.)

However, over the short term (1-2 weeks, maybe) during a long
diet, random (water) fluctuations can make the diet appear to
stall completely or even reverse.

Seth
--
"There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate" -- Will
Brink Except sushi rice, seaweed, and wasabi.

[Lyle McDon]

Seth Breidbart wrote:
>
> In article <3EB0AB2F.42780058@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>, Lyle
> McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
>
> >Metabolic slowdown can slow weight loss by reducing the
> >effective deficit but, based on the numbers, shouldn't be
> >able to stall it completely, or cause weight gain.
>
> That's what I thought, and it certainly makes sense.
> (Metabolic slowdown has its own costs, so doing more of it
> than necessary is damaging.)
>
> However, over the short term (1-2 weeks, maybe) during a
> long diet, random (water) fluctuations can make the diet
> appear to stall completely or even reverse.

Yes, see my comments to DJ Delorie in this thread on the
topic.

Considering the rather vast water fluctuations that go on in
women under normal (non-dieting) circumstances throghout the
month, this could readily make tracking progress very
problematic (as well as making it look as if a given diet
isn't working in the short-term). In general, females are
advised to track things like weight and body comp at the
same time of the month (relative to their cycle) to minimize
such effects.

Lyle

[John Tinia]

Hi.

I've just started checking out the nutrition and weight loss
discussion groups. This seems like quite an active group. I
have written a book on permanent weight loss with nutrition
(real foods) and exercise, and I wanted to find out how other
authors on this subject are using the internet.

We just set up a web site (come visit us sometime:
http://www.nulife-weightloss.com). We figured we'd try to
provide important information to people having problems with
their weight. We find that the biggest complaint people have
with dieting is, keeping the weight off once they've lost it.

We think we can help by giving people the facts: what causes
weight gain, and how can a person achieve permanent weight
loss? If you decide to check us out, please let us know what
you think of our site's content. And more importantly, if any
of your questions were answered. We appreciate all the
feedback-help we can get. Thank you.

[Lucas Buck]

On 6 May 2003 23:37:20 -0700, johntiniakos@rogers.com (John
Tiniakos) wrote:

>Hi.
>
>I've just started checking out the nutrition and weight loss
>discussion groups. This seems like quite an active group. I
>have written a book on permanent weight loss with nutrition
>(real foods) and exercise, and I wanted to find out how other
>authors on this subject are using the internet.

Mostly for downloading porn. You'd know that if you were
really reading the group.

>We just set up a web site (come visit us sometime:

GODDAMN SPAMMING CANADIANS!!!!