 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / December 200430 pounds in 30 days??
Hi all I am new to this newsgroup. I saw a friend last week who had lost about 60 pounds on LC. I haven't seen him in about a year, so I don't know if I believe him when he says he lost 30 pounds his first month of dieting!! Is such dramatic weight loss really possible with LC? Thanks!! > Hi all > > I am new to this newsgroup. I saw a friend last week who had lost about 60 > pounds on LC. I haven't seen him in about a year, so I don't know if I believe > him when he says he lost 30 pounds his first month of dieting!! Is such > dramatic weight loss really possible with LC? It is possible sometimes for very heavy persons, probably more likely for males. I lost 20 lbs in my first month and I was not even low carbing then.  Signature223/172.4/180 > Hi all > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks!! Possible: Yes Probable: No The more weight one has to lose, the faster one loses on low-carb. If someone is grossly overweight, it would be possible to lose that much in the first month, but extremely uncommon and highly unlikely. Many people seem to lose 8 or 10 pounds in the first two weeks as the body's cells give up their glycogen stores with associated water, but after that the weight loss slows to a reasonable pace. -- Peter 270/219/180 website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo >> Hi all >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> him when he says he lost 30 pounds his first month of dieting!! Is such >> dramatic weight loss really possible with LC? In the 1980s when I was much younger and my metabolism much nicer :) I lost 30 pounds in six weeks. So dramatic weight loss is possible. It's more likely in someone who is dramatically overweight. and men usually lose faster than women. Having said that, when I lost the 30 lbs I was 170 and dropped to 140. In that first month I lost 8 lbs the first week, 5 lbs a week for the next two then it dropped to 3 lbs/week after that . I'm sure a lot of that was water weight but I was thrilled to see it leave! I kept it off for 4-5 years before letting my weight creep back up. Now my weight loss is significantly slower however, low carbing keeps my triglycerides low and that's what I really want out of this. Good luck. Remember it's not a race, it's about getting healthy. Susan || Hi all || [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] || || Thanks!! If your friend is very large and has significant muscle mass, then it is certainly possible to lose 30 lbs in one month. However, it is likely that a goodly amount of that lose is water, not fat. A guy with lots of muscle could easily hold 10 to 15 lbs of water in the muscles that goes away once muscle gylcogen is reduced though following a low carb diet. Then, if this person is very active and if significant appetite supression kics in due to low carbing, the remaing weight loss could be in the form of fat. However, this is not something everyone should expect (quick water weight loss is something to expect, the maybe not 15 lbs!). This is a YMMV kind of thing. >Hi all > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Thanks!! Yes, especially for those who are grossly overweight and are planning to quit and put it all back on. Fast off-fast on. ALso people refuse to accept that 5-10 pounds of what you lose with the glucose/water storage that it natural to the body. This is 5-10 pounds of weight that you will regain whenever you consume more carbs and will melt off within days whenever you go very low on carbs. This is swing weight. In the beginning it thrills people and they fantasize they will lose at that rate forever. Others become crushed because the moment they stop low carbing they regain 5-10 pounds and they give up beause it wasn't worth it. They have no idea why their body works the way it does and just flounder around. I lost 16 pounds in first 4 weeks, 30 pounds by the 9th week 60 pounds by week 20. 75 pound by week 29. I've maintained about 77-84 lbs down and Jan 12 will be my one year anniversary. Low carb isn't for everybody, but for some it may be essential to getting your body under control. IMHO low-carb is the stricter version of the diet all diabetics should be on. If you respond well to low carb it is probably because you are suffering from sugar/insulin problems that are going undiagnosed. It doesn't appear that doctors are diagnosing these issues untils years or decades after they start when enough damage has been done that no one can ignore the problem. I now have no doubt that I would be diabetic later in life. DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/267/Dec-264/225 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 Maint. not counting (CCLL=50-60) > Hi all > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks!! You can see some statistics which chart the weight loss progress of a bunch of people who have participated here on this newsgroup in Carol Ann's "Weight Loss Challenge". These stats give you a better idea of what kind of weight loss you can look forward to achieving through long-term low carbing. http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/dietpage.htm Signature--Jenny Type 2 diabetes since 1998. Hba1c 5.7% Low Carbing for 5 years. 140 lbs (goal) Cut the "carbs" to respond to my email address. ----------------------------------------------------- What they Don't Tell You About Diabetes Web Site http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/ Jenny's Low Carb Diet Facts & Figures site http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Hi all > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks!! It might be possible if your friend weight like 600 or 700 pounds. Otherwise I think that is an unusually large loss. I just lost about 9 lbs in the last week. But that is the first week after starting again. I am sure I won't lose 9 lb/week for the next 3 weeks! doug Being very overweight may help lose more lbs in the first week, when much of the weight loss is water. But if you followed The Biggest Loser on TV, one thing that was apparent was that the most overweight guy, at like 440lbs, was rarely the one that lost the most actual lbs each week. That despite being on a strict diet and doing massive amounts of excercise. In fact, unless they put some new final twist into the show, he's going to lose, since percentage wise, he's only down somewhere around 11% weight loss, while the leaders are about twice that. I would think that for most people not doing huge amounts of excercise, the daily calorie reqts don't scale anywhere near proportional to an individuals weight. Then, very obese people are more likely to be doing less excercise and may also have metabolic tendencies that helped get them very fat to begin with. || Being very overweight may help lose more lbs in the first week, when || much of the weight loss is water. But if you followed The Biggest [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] || down somewhere around 11% weight loss, while the leaders are about || twice that. Using precentages could be very unfair, because 11% of 440 is 48.4 whereas 11% of 220 is 24.2 lbs. Also, using mere weight says nothing about bodyfat vs LBM, which also could be changing. || I would think that for most people not doing huge || amounts of excercise, the daily calorie reqts don't scale anywhere || near proportional to an individuals weight. I don't know about that. Being large always made it easy for me to lose weight. I started at 367 lbs. I could lose up 0.5 lbs a day on a high carb diet (not sustained for long, though). I would think that calorie burn will scale close to proportional for most people, maybe moreso depending on the type of exercise and weight distributoin. || Then, very obese people || are more likely to be doing less excercise and may also have || metabolic tendencies that helped get them very fat to begin with. There are lots of very obese people who can move and they can exercise. It is foolhard to draw conclusions from a single person, especially one from a TV show. The possibility of losing 30 lbs in a month will only exist for the right kind of person. Very likely a very large male with lots of muscle mass under lots of fat. These are the types of guys who indeed can burn a lot of calories exercising and they certainly can exercise. Who know if the person who is the subject of this post falls into this group. I would think a strict LC diet would still be necessary to see the required drop is scale weight (water loss + fat loss). "There are lots of very obese people who can move and they can exercise. It is foolhard to draw conclusions from a single person, especially one from a TV show." I don't know what you base this on. I didn't draw conclusions from one person or a TV show. I don't think many people would argue that in general the very obese are more likely to be doing less excercise, which is what I said. Sure, there are some exceptions, but in general, someone weighing 440lbs, with almost all of it fat, has a hard time even walking. I have a friend who was a star athlete in high school. Now, he's 100lbs over weight on a 5'7 frame. We went to NYC for dinner and he was totally exhausted, sweating and out of breath from just walking a few blocks and climbing some subway stairs. || "There are lots of very obese people who can move and they can || exercise. It [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] || breath from just walking a few blocks and climbing some subway || stairs. I won't disagree with the info about your friend....but as someone who weighed 367 lbs, I know what I could do at that weight and I've seen other who could do more. These very large people fall into a spectrum, just like anyone else. You can find people who weigh 110 lbs who can't do much, and you can find 400 lb monsters. It's generally all over the map. Your entire comment about obese people and exercise was in response to a question about losing 30 lbs in 30 days and you lead off talking about a 440 lb man doing lots of exercise in an attempt to lose weight. Also, talking about total pounds lost and then using precentages in comparisons makes little sense. " These very large people fall into a spectrum, just like anyone else. You can find people who weigh 110 lbs who can't do much, and you can find 400 lb monsters. It's generally all over the map." That's absolute nonsense. You ride bikes right? How many 440lb guys do you see riding? Sure they fall into a spectrum, but the spectrum of excercise for the very obese is significantly lower than for fit people or the population as a norm. I'm amazed that anyone would argue this. Yes, we've all seen some large people, football players for example that weigh a lot, are fit, get lots of excercise, but I wouldn't classify them as the very obese. "Your entire comment about obese people and exercise was in response to a question about losing 30 lbs in 30 days and you lead off talking about a 440 lb man doing lots of exercise in an attempt to lose weight." That's nonsense too. Perhaps you didn't read the thread. You make it sound like I simply replied to the OP's question of losing 30lbs and started the discusion of the very obese. If you follow the thread, there was plenty of discussion about losing 60, 75 lbs. Then there was a reply from Doug speculating about someone weighing 600 or 700lbs and how fast they could lose weight. That's how the discussion about the very obese came up and it was Doug's reply that I responded to. Do you think 600lb people are exercising as much as the average person too? "Also, talking about total pounds lost and then using precentages in comparisons makes little sense." I'm not advocating using percentages. I only pointed out that is what they happen to be doing on the Biggest Loser and consequently, the guy that was the fattest is almost certainly going to lose, unless they change the rules. But, now that you mention it, what's your problem with percentages all of a sudden? It was you who claimed that daily calorie reqts do scale proportional to an individuals weight. And you also claim that the very obese excercise just as much. Then the very obese should be able to lose just as easily, so why not use percentages and why do you think it's so unfair? And finally, let's go back to that claim that calorie reqts scale proportional with weight. " I would think that calorie burn will scale close to proportional for most people, maybe moreso depending on the type of exercise and weight distributoin." Here's a link to a website that has a calculator where you can put in your weight, age, height and amount of excercise and it will give you the estimate of your daily calorie reqts. I didn't do an exhaustive search to come up with this, it was the first one I found. It does list the scientific references the formula is based on. Put in 40 yr old 5-10 175lb guy doing very light work 12 hrs a day, resting 12 and you get 2225 calories. That seems very reasonable, since that's about the accepted avg for an adult male. Then change the weight to 350 and you get 3593. So, the first 175 lbs requires 2225 calories, the second 175lbs only requires 1368 calories. That was exactly my point, that a typical 350 lb guy doesn't burn anywhere near double the calories of a 175lb guy. || " These very large people fall into a spectrum, just like || anyone else. You can find people who weigh 110 lbs who can't do much, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] || That's absolute nonsense. You ride bikes right? How many 440lb guys || do you see riding? Go hang out in the biking ng...there is at least one person there who weighs 400 lbs and rides. I've also seen some rather large guys riding bikes, though I don't know who much they weigh. || Sure they fall into a spectrum, but the spectrum || of excercise for the very obese is significantly lower than for fit || people or the population as a norm. Perhaps so for fit people. But your average joe isn't doing much exericse, he just isn't very fat, or fit, for that matter I'm amazed that anyone would || argue this. Why don't you simply read what I wrote? Yes, we've all seen some large people, football players || for example that weigh a lot, are fit, get lots of excercise, but I || wouldn't classify them as the very obese. According to BMI they are indeed obese. But still, that's not my point as I wasn't referring to just football players.. I'm simply saying that they are lots of obese people who can exercise and burn significant energy to increase the rate of loss. You're making blanket statements that the very obese won't or can't move. It's untrue in general when they are motivated to lose weight. Sure, they likely weren't doing much as they crept up the scale, but that doesn't mean they can't exercise, if they are otherwise healthy. || "Your entire comment about obese people and exercise was in response || to a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] || I responded to. Do you think 600lb people are exercising as much as || the average person too? Why don't you pay attention? Very large people probably haven't BEEN exercising that much (BTW, the "average" person probably doesn't exercise much at all - so your comparison is daft) but the fact is many very obese people CAN exercise to lose weight. The real difference here is that very obese people are just eating way, way more than normal weight people (once you start consuming lots of calories the effects of exercise diminsh greatly in terms of weight control). Just because they are very large doesn't mean that CAN'T execise, even if it's just walking morning, noon, and in the evenings. The assumption is that if someone wants to lose 30 lbs in a month, they are going to have to do some execise. Couple that with LCing, then it would become possible to lose 30 lbs in a month, for some people, given the water weight drop when starting LC. It's very doubtful that anyone could sustain that kind of weight loss. || "Also, talking about total pounds lost and then using precentages in || comparisons makes little sense." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] || unless they change the rules. But, now that you mention it, what's || your problem with percentages all of a sudden? What is this "all of a sudden" business? You mentioned how a 440 lb person (who was doing massive amounts of exercise, according to you) had lost 11% of weight when the smaller person had loss almost twice that percentage. So who loses the most depends on what they each weigh (and body composition), not the percentages. Other issues come in to play in terms of how much someone loses, so even if the bigger person doesn't lose more pounds than the smaller person, it proves nothing. || It was you who || claimed that daily calorie reqts do scale proportional to an || individuals weight. I said "close to". You do know what that means? It doesn't mean "proportional to". And you also claim that the very obese || excercise just as much. You can't read. Why don't you find where I said that? I said that some CAN, not that they all do. You provided evidence for my claim with your own words. Then the very obese should be able to lose || just as easily, so why not use percentages and why do you think it's || so unfair? You are math challenged? There are things going on the body that simply don't work by percentages. It is silly to even compare things this way. If you compare a pound to a pound of fat, the larger person will lose more raw pounds than the smaller person, all things being the same (exercise duration & intensity and eating at the same deficit wrt to maintenance). However, you seem to be basing your statements on the results of this one, silly TV show. || And finally, let's go back to that claim that calorie reqts scale || proportional with weight. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] || your weight, age, height and amount of excercise and it will give you || the estimate of your daily calorie reqts. I see no link. I didn't do an exhaustive || search to come up with this, it was the first one I found. It does || list the scientific references the formula is based on. Thought to be inaccurate, but okay. || Put in 40 yr old 5-10 175lb guy doing very light work 12 hrs a day, || resting 12 and you get 2225 calories. That seems very reasonable, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] || was exactly my point, that a typical 350 lb guy doesn't burn || anywhere near double the calories of a 175lb guy. I think 1.6 is certainly is "anywhere near double", espeically given how inaccurate this is. But you seem to not understand much about this. In terms of burning calories via exercise, it depends greatly on the exercise. In general, a very heavy person will have more muscle mass (and LBM in general) in the lower body compared to a more normal weight person. So, just to follow your approach, I'll use a caloire counter for exercise (thought to be inaccurate), say this one (the first I found, as you did): http://www.prevention.com/caloriecalcsub/1,,s1-4-121-48-1158-1--1,00.html and assume your 175 lb guy vs a 350 lb guy doing 30 minutes of cycling at 10-11.9 mph. You find this: 175 lb guy: burns 239 kcals 350 lb guy: burns 477 kcals so that ratio is 477/239=1.9958 ~ 2. Thus, since a pound is a pound, the heavier person should be able to create the same deficit in half the time of the lighter guy. And if you think that a 350 lb guy can't ride a bike for extended periods of time to burn significant calories (maybe not those given by this calculator), you're just clueless. "Go hang out in the biking ng...there is at least one person there who weighs 400 lbs and rides. I've also seen some rather large guys riding bikes, though I don't know who much they weigh. My statements were for groups on average, not individuals.. Sure you can find a 400LB fat guy riding a bike somewhere, which wasn't my point and I think you know it. This is precisely what I said and stand by: Then, very obese people are more likely to be doing less excercise and may also have metabolic tendencies that helped get them very fat to begin with. You apparently had a problem with that. Yet now you post: "I'm simply saying that they are lots of obese people who can exercise and burn significant energy to increase the rate of loss. You're making blanket statements that the very obese won't or can't move. It's untrue in general when they are motivated to lose weight. Sure, they likely weren't doing much as they crept up the scale, but that doesn't mean they can't exercise, if they are otherwise healthy. Sure they could excercise a lot more to burn more calories. They could do lots of things, but it's not realistic to expect, as a group, for very obese people to suddenly start excercising a lot more. And a lot of people go on LC and don't change their excercise level much, if at all and do perfectly fine. "Sure they fall into a spectrum, but the spectrum || of excercise for the very obese is significantly lower than for fit || people or the population as a norm Perhaps so for fit people. But your average joe isn't doing much exericse, he just isn't very fat, or fit, for that matter Say what? "You are math challenged? There are things going on the body that simply don't work by percentages. It is silly to even compare things this way. If you compare a pound to a pound of fat, the larger person will lose more raw pounds than the smaller person, all things being the same (exercise duration & intensity and eating at the same deficit wrt to maintenance). However, you seem to be basing your statements on the results of this one, silly TV show. So, now you have to get nasty because you're losing the silly pissing match that you started? I saw in another recent thread where you blasted a newbie for asking a simple question. Why the sudden change? And why do you keep saying I'm basing everything on a TV show? The rest of this section doesn't even make sense. Just because there are some "things" going on in the body that don't work by percentages, doesn't change anything. If what you maintain is true, that daily calorie reqts are close to proportional to weight and very obese can excercise just as much/easily as others, then using percentage of body weight lost as a measure of who lost the most in a contest isn't unreasonable at all. Unless you're now going to tell us that "things" only happen in the very obese group's bodies and not in the other's. " I said "close to". You do know what that means? It doesn't mean "proportional to". Let's look at that in context: I posted: I would think that for most people not doing huge || amounts of excercise, the daily calorie reqts don't scale anywhere || near proportional to an individuals weight To which you replied: I would think that calorie burn will scale close to proportional for most people, "I think 1.6 is certainly is "anywhere near double", espeically given how inaccurate this is. " Ok, I'm the one that's math challenged and you're arguing that 1.6 is "anywhere near double?" And now the std is just anywhere, when you said "I would think that calorie burn will scale close to proportional" I think you meant to say "I think 1.6 is certainly near double now that I've been proven wrong. "But you seem to not understand much about this. In terms of burning calories via exercise, it depends greatly on the exercise. In general, a very heavy person will have more muscle mass (and LBM in general) in the lower body compared to a more normal weight person. So, just to follow your approach, I'll use a caloire counter for exercise (thought to be inaccurate), say this one (the first I found, as you did):" Oh really? Then why, in the first post you raised the objection to, did I specifically include the qualifier about excercise? And we're arguing about what? "I would think that for most people not doing huge || amounts of excercise, the daily calorie reqts don't scale anywhere || near proportional to an individuals weight" And all that excercising stuff at the end is nice, but perhaps you forgot, or never knew that wasn't what the discussion was even about. I specifically put in the qualifier about excercise. I don't disagree that excercise can help even things out. Of course the big hole in your argument above is that the calorie equivalency, which I agree is very close to proportional is while doing vigorous excercise for 30 mins. That leaves another 23.5 hours, so yeah the closer a very obese person comes to cycling 10mph for 24 hrs, the closer he'll be to proportional. "I would think that for most people not doing huge || amounts of excercise, the daily calorie reqts don't scale anywhere || near proportional to an individuals weight" I'm happy to leave that where it is. We have a situation where for something to be exactly proportional, it should be a factor of 2.0. Instead it turns out to be 1.6 Everyone can decide for themselves if this is: a - not anywhere near proportional, as I claimed b - close to proportional as you claim All, I can say, is if people think it's B, I want them to come work for me so I can pay them close to proportional for the amount of work they do. || "Go hang out in the biking ng...there is at least one person there || who weighs || 400 lbs and rides. I've also seen some rather large guys riding || bikes, though I don't know who much they weigh. || || My statements were for groups on average, not individuals.. You didn't say so. Your comment was so matter of fact that you come off pushing the notion that very obese people never do anything (but eat). Sure you || can find a 400LB fat guy || riding a bike somewhere, Didn't have to look far. which wasn't my point and I think you know || it. This is || precisely what I said and stand by: || || Then, very obese people are more likely to be doing less excercise Less than what or who? Given that most people don't exercise at all, you're not saying much. || and may also have metabolic || tendencies that helped get them very fat to begin with. Don't have a problem with that. || You apparently had a problem with that. Yet now you post: || [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] || change their excercise || level much, if at all and do perfectly fine. I never said anything about 'as a group' nor did you. So don't try to change your statement. I simply said that some very obese people can exercise and lots do, once they decide to lose weight. || "Sure they fall into a spectrum, but the spectrum |||| of excercise for the very obese is significantly lower than for fit [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] || So, now you have to get nasty because you're losing the silly pissing || match that you started? You started it. I simply disagreed with what you said. Apparently, you don't like to be disagree with. Too bad. || I saw in another recent thread where you blasted a newbie for asking || a simple question. || Why the sudden change? Everything is a sudden change in your world, huh? And why do you keep saying I'm basing || everything on a TV show? Because you seem to be doing so. || The rest of this section doesn't even make sense. Just because there || are some "things" || going on in the body that don't work by percentages, doesn't change || anything. If what || you maintain is true, that daily calorie reqts are close to || proportional to weight I never said this...geez... and very obese || can excercise just as much/easily as others, AS much? As easily? Who said that? Everything is a moving target with you, huh? But I'll address your new, modified claim. The very obese (who are healthy) can exercise and due to their greater weight, then can burn significant calories doing so. Depending on the exercise, it can be as much, especially if the build up over time. As for as easily, I'd say no because the more overweight you are, the more energy expended doing most activities that involve moving bodyweight around. This is why walking and other nonimpact exercises are best for the very overweight. then using percentage of || body weight lost || as a measure of who lost the most in a contest isn't unreasonable at || all. Unless you're now going to || tell us that "things" only happen in the very obese group's bodies || and not in the other's. Nonsense. The same would be true for smaller people too. The entire notion doesn't make sense as no two people are exacly alike. || " || I said "close to". You do know what that means? It doesn't mean [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] || Ok, I'm the one that's math challenged and you're arguing that 1.6 is || "anywhere near double?" In the world where everything is a rough guess anyway, absolutely. || And now the std is just anywhere, when you said "I would think that || calorie burn will || scale close to proportional" I think you meant to say "I think 1.6 || is certainly near double || now that I've been proven wrong. Nonsense. I hope you don't think you've proven anything. || "But you seem to not understand much about this. In terms of burning || calories via exercise, it depends greatly on the exercise. In [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] || arguing about || what? Because, losing 30 lbs in 30 days will require most anyone to exercise assuming they're not trying to strave. If a very obese person burns calories at a higher rate than someone of much lighter weight (see your example), they can create a calorie deficit with less time spent exercising. Further, your assumption that they will exercise less is just wrong, if they choose to exercise to lose weight. I claim that happens more often than you think it does, since you seem to think that very obese people never exercise. Sure, as a group they don't, but neither do normal weight people, as a group. As a group, very obese people aren't trying to lose weight, either. So what does that prove? It would be better to compare very obese people interested in losing weight via exercise to others doing the same thing. || "I would think that for most people not doing huge |||| amounts of excercise, the daily calorie reqts don't scale anywhere [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] || in the qualifier about || excercise. so? I made another, slightly different comment. I'll exapand. It doesn't take hugh amounts of exercise to swing the balance once eating is under control. A very large person gets extra bang for the exercise buck. So the daily calorie requirements aren't even important. In fact, a very obese person carrying lots of metabocially inactive fat can eat way below the so-called "daily calorie requirements" needed to maintain weight. That's another reason very large people can lose so fast compared to much smaller people. Just because the guy on the TV didn't (apparently) doesn't prove anything. You have no idea what that person was really doing when not in front of a camera. I don't disagree that excercise can help even things || out. Of course the big hole || in your argument above is that the calorie equivalency, which I agree [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] || a very obese person comes to cycling 10mph for 24 hrs, the closer || he'll be to proportional. That's not important when viewed from the standpoint of creating and maintaining a calorie deficit. It only comes down to what it takes to lose a pound of fat. This discussion isn't about this "proportional" thing you're harping on now. || "I would think that for most people not doing huge |||| amounts of excercise, the daily calorie reqts don't scale anywhere [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] || for me so I can || pay them close to proportional for the amount of work they do. First, surely you know that a factor of 1.6 is proportional. The burn factor doesn't have to scale exactly with weight in order to be proportional. Ever heard of the term "proportionality factor"? But you seem to think that very obese people can't and don't exercise. Some, a goodly number of them do, can, and will (if they want to). Lots don't. Absolutely. I freely admit that. But then, lots of overweight and normal weight people don't exercise either. I see them everyday. > . It doesn't > take hugh amounts of exercise to swing the balance once eating is under [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > another reason very large people can lose so fast compared to much smaller > people. This is borne out in fact especially in Chung's cardiology practice where he deal with obese ppl much more frequently than I do. Caloric content is a secondary issue to food volumes = eating under control. Exercise with body weight becomes a much simpler protocol. No gyms required. Short engagements of walking around the house, walking up and down the driveway and as weight is reduced, repetitions increase. This can go along for quite some time and as Roger points out, to what would appear, at first, to be a skewed weight loss curve. The psychological benefits are obvious. Exercise tolerances increase rapidly and proportional to weight loss. "You didn't say so. Your comment was so matter of fact that you come off pushing the notion that very obese people never do anything (but eat)." I think most everyone reading this except you would agree that the very obese, as a group, exercise less than the average person. Perhaps you were one of the exceptions, but that doesn't change the facts. The two principal ways to get very obese are through eating too much and/or excercising too little. "Sure you || can find a 400LB fat guy || riding a bike somewhere, Didn't have to look far." This is so plain silly as to be laughable. I don't know where you live, but the rest of us pass cyclists on roads everyday. Very rarely is anyone of them anywhere near this weight. I've never seen anyone that was anywhere near that weight riding a bicycle. "The very obese (who are healthy) can exercise " This is a new and interesting qualifier. Up until now, we were talking about the very obese as a group, not restricting it to a sub-group. And isn't "very obese who are healthy" somewhat of an oxymoron? "I never said this...geez..." Oh yes you did and here it is: "You are math challenged? There are things going on the body that simply don't work by percentages. It is silly to even compare things this way. " So according to you, using percentages of weight lost is no good, because "things" go on in the body. BTW, still waiting for your answer on a better and fairer way to judge a weight loss contest than using percentages of weight lost. "This is why walking and other nonimpact exercises are best for the very overweight." No argument there. And that's what I had in mind too, when I made my original statement that it was unlikely that the very obese were going to be doing a lot of exercise. . "since you seem to think that very obese people never exercise. Sure, as a group they don't, but neither do normal weight people, as a group. " We all know that normal weight people don't get as much exercise as recommended. And most of us know that the obese group get even less exercise. There have been studies done that showed a direct correlation between hours of TV watched and obesity, which directly supports that the couch potato syndrome is at work. "Because, losing 30 lbs in 30 days will require most anyone to exercise assuming they're not trying to strave. If a very obese person burns calories at a higher rate than someone of much lighter weight (see your example), they can create a calorie deficit with less time spent exercising." Losing 30 lbs in 30 days would be easy for a very obese person, if calorie reqts did in fact scale close to proportional with body weight, as you claimed. It takes about a 3500 calorie deficit to burn away one pound of body weight. So, to lose 30lbs, we need to burn 105,000 more calories over 30 days. That works out to 3500 calories a day. I think we agree the average man just doing normal activity, needs about 2200 calories a day to maintain. Then, if calories required scaled by weight, a 453LB guy would need 5700 calories to maintain. So, just by cutting back to the avg diet of 2200 calories, he'd have a deficit of 3500 calories a day and in a month he'd lose 30LBs. That was the core of your argument wasn't it? That calories were closely proportional to weight? But now somehow it's not possible without a lot of excercise? "That's not important when viewed from the standpoint of creating and maintaining a calorie deficit." No, it's only important to the very obese guy trying to cycle for 24 hours a day to try to make your 1.6 turn into a 2.0 so it will be proportional. "First, surely you know that a factor of 1.6 is proportional. The burn factor doesn't have to scale exactly with weight in order to be proportional. Ever heard of the term "proportionality factor"? " And now it's come to this. After calling me the one that's math challenged this is a real gem. For a relationship between two variables to be proportional, the constant must be fixed. It can't be 1.0 for the relationship between the first 175lbs and 2200 calories and 1.6 for the next 175lbs and 1320 calories. For the first 175lbs, it's 12.6 calories/lb, from 175 to 350, it's 7.5 calories/lb. If you like, plot it on a graph. If it's proportional, you get a straight line. The above relationship is not a straight line. It is, in fact, exactly what I said it was, which is not anywhere near proportional to weight for those not doing extensive exercise. || "You didn't say so. Your comment was so matter of fact that you come || off [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] || I think most everyone reading this except you would agree that the || very obese, as a group, exercise less than the average person. As a group, as a group...as a group....why don 't you say what you mean? As for what the average person does, what evidence do you have? Some warm fuzzy? || Perhaps you were one of the exceptions, but that doesn't change the || facts. What are the facts? || The two principal ways to get very obese are through eating || too much and/or excercising too little. You can become very obese simply by eating too much as there is always a point where you can't compensate by exercise. || "Sure you |||| can find a 400LB fat guy [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] || rarely is anyone of them anywhere near this weight. I've never seen || anyone that was anywhere near that weight riding a bicycle. Again, there you go trying to use the experience of one to draw conclusions. || "The very obese (who are healthy) can exercise " || || This is a new and interesting qualifier. It not new. I've mentioned it before, it just that you only read what you want to see. Up until now, we were || talking about the very obese as a group, I was never talking about "as a group". From the beginning I said "some" or "many". You just failed to read. not || restricting it to a sub-group. And isn't "very obese who are || healthy" somewhat of an oxymoron? Hell no. This shows your obvious bias agaisnt and lack of understanding about obese people in general. And I mean those who can exercise. Many health conditions don't prevent exercise, so a person simply has to be able to exercise. || "I never said this...geez..." || [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] || don't work by percentages. It is silly to even compare things this || way. " Read this part: You said: || you maintain is true, that daily calorie reqts are close to || proportional to weight I said: I never said this...geez... Again: I never said "that daily calorie requirements are close to proportional to weight." I was talking about calorie burn that results from exercise. How can you even talk about daily calorie requirements when referring to how much weight one loses? It's the deficit that counts and the ability to create that deficit is what affects the rate. The very obese simply can create bigger deficits more easily than smaller people. || So according to you, using percentages of weight lost is no good, || because "things" go on in the body. || BTW, still waiting for your answer on a better and fairer way to || judge a weight loss contest than using || percentages of weight lost. Pounds. || "This is why walking and other nonimpact exercises are best for the || very [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] || that it was unlikely that the very obese were going to be doing a lot || of exercise. How are those two statements related? Very obese people can burn significant calories without doing a "lot of exercise". I have explained how this is so but you choose to ignore it. || . || [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] || between hours of TV watched and obesity, which directly supports that || the couch potato syndrome is at work. Please. These days, if you're overweight, you're referred to as obese. Obesity does have a definition, you know. You must have little experience with losing weight. One can lose just fine with just an hour a day of walking, if consumption it controlled. That leaves plenty of time for sitting on the couch and watching TV. The correlation between watching TV and obesity is just ridiculous. One can draw all kinds of correlations with the obese that have nothing to do with how fat they are. Gosh, you want to correlate obesity with breathing? All people have to breathe in order to live and all obese people are alive. There is definitely a "direct correlation" there, dimwit. || "Because, losing 30 lbs in 30 days will require most anyone to || exercise assuming they're not trying to strave. If a very obese [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] || weight, as || you claimed. I never claimed that and your use of the word "proportional" is improper. It takes about a 3500 calorie deficit to burn away one || pound of body weight. So, to lose 30lbs, we need to burn || 105,000 more calories over 30 days. That works out to 3500 calories [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] || he'd lose 30LBs. || That was the core of your argument wasn't it? No, dumbass. I've said repeatedly that one could do it on low carb and it would partly be water loss since some very large people have significant lower body muscle mass. So once the glycogen stores deplete, water weight drops. After than, they'd need to control eating and exercise to get the rest. the 30 lbs of loss would not be all fat. That calories were || closely proportional to weight? ?? They are, but the line doesn't have to have a slope of one. But now somehow it's not possible || without || a lot of excercise? why don't you go back and reread what I've said instead of making sh.t up. I've always been talking about exercise. And not necessarily a lot. That's all your added bullshit in a weakassed attempt to veer off-topic. || "That's not important when viewed from the standpoint of creating and || maintaining a calorie deficit." || || No, it's only important to the very obese guy trying to cycle for 24 || hours a day to try to make your 1.6 turn into a 2.0 so it will be || proportional. It doesn't need to be "proportional" (as in 2.0 - a factor of 1.6 will do just fine) for the heavier person to lose more weight. The person simply has to create a greater calorie deficit and certainly has more ability to do so. || "First, surely you know that a factor of 1.6 is proportional. The || burn factor doesn't have to scale exactly with weight in order to be [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] || which is not anywhere near proportional || to weight for those not doing extensive exercise. The above relationship has nothing to do with a human being, either, since you can't partition a person up in this way. What you wrote is pure nonsense. But you should consider that lines have slopes. You're assuming that "proprotional" means a slope of one, so that if weight doubles, so does calorie burn (not calorie requirements). I'm simply saying that the slope could be less than one and that would still be proportional. I'm also saying that since people in general can have very different body compositions, it makes little sense to try to extrapolate this way as everyone is using a line of different slope. "You can become very obese simply by eating too much as there is always a point where you can't compensate by exercise." Sure you can. The reality is that while some can, most get very obese by doing too much eating and too little excercise. Only you seem to have a problem with that. "Again: I never said "that daily calorie requirements are close to proportional to weight." I was talking about calorie burn that results from exercise." Oh yes you did. Here it is in context one more time. My very first post: " I would think that for most people not doing huge amounts of excercise, the daily calorie reqts don't scale anywhere near proportional to an individuals weight" You disagreed and replied: "I don't know about that. Being large always made it easy for me to lose weight. I started at 367 lbs. I could lose up 0.5 lbs a day on a high carb diet (not sustained for long, though). I would think that calorie burn will scale close to proportional for most people....." So, there it is, right before your eyes. Not only did you state it, but it was in context of a reply challenging my post where I said it was not proportional. "Pounds." I assume by this you mean LBS lost and I see why you preferred not to explain it. The more you post, the more you contradict yourself. So, now we're to believe that a fair system of measuring a weight loss contest is to judge individuals, one weighing 200LBs, the other 440LBs, by measuring pounds lost? "Please. These days, if you're overweight, you're referred to as obese. Obesity does have a definition, you know. Yes, it does have a definition and I know it, but apparently you do not. Here's the defintion, straight from the CDC: Individuals with a BMI of 25 to 29.9 are considered overweight, while individuals with a BMI of 30 or more are considered obese. So a 5-10" guy is overweight from 174-210 and obese above 210. Got it now? "Gosh, you want to correlate obesity with breathing? All people have to breathe in order to live and all obese people are alive. There is definitely a "direct correlation" there, dimwit." Now Roger, I see you're back to the name calling. It's interesting how it shows up in the sections where you're arguments are most faulty. If you understood anything about statistics, you'd realize how incorrect this is. A correlation between two data series is determined by calculating the correlation coefficient. If the two series are perfectly correlated you get a coefficient of +1 or -1. In the case of weight vs hours of TV watched, studies have been done this, it's positive and statistically significant. Now lets take your example of people breathing. Yes, you could do this, the correlation would be 1.0 for a group of normal people and exactly the same 1.0 for a group of very obese people. Apparently you don't understand that or how a scientific inference can be distilled from the TV example, none can be had from your example. "That calories were || closely proportional to weight? ?? They are, but the line doesn't have to have a slope of one. You're right it doesn't need to have a slope of one. But claiming calorie reqts are close to proportional to body weight means that whatever the slope is, it has to be close to constant. A few posts back, you were arguing that 1.6 was close to 2.0. Actually, that was at least arguable, perhaps you should have stayed with it. "why don't you go back and reread what I've said instead of making sh.t up. I've always been talking about exercise. And not necessarily a lot. That's all your added bullshit in a weakassed attempt to veer off-topic." Sure you have, like when you challenged my first post, and claimed calorie reqts were close to proportional to body weight WHEN I HAD SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED A QUALIFIER LIMITING EXCERCISE. Had you said, the more a very obese person excercises, the closer it will become to being proportional, there would have been no disagreement. Instead, you're left hurling insults, using obscenities, and exposing your limited math knowledge, in a vain attempt to extricate yourself from a quagmire. "But you should consider that lines have slopes. You're assuming that "proprotional" means a slope of one, so that if weight doubles, so does calorie burn (not calorie requirements). Everyone that passed basic math knows that for something to be proportional, it doesn't matter what the factor relating the variables is. You don't realize that to support your argument, requires something very different. It requires that the factor CHANGE. If that were to be, then even a parabola would become proportional. Make a simple chart of weight on the X axis, calorie reqts on the Y 175LB guy needs 2225 calories factor or slope if you plot it 12.7 cal/lb 350LB guy 3593 factor/slope from 175 to 350 7.8 cal/lb For the first 175 lbs the line has a slope of 12.7 cal/lb for the next 175 it has a slope of 7.8 This graph has two segments with clearly different slopes. For the relationship to be proportional, it doesn't matter what the slope is, but IT MUST BE CONSTANT. Anyone that took a high school math test and indentified this as a graph that demonstrated close proportionality would flunk. BTW, your factor of 1.6 is actually the ratio between the two different slopes and shows how different they are. And you're calling me a math challenged dimwitt? > There have > been studies done that showed a direct correlation > between hours of TV watched and obesity, which directly supports that > the couch potato syndrome is at work. lol >Hi all > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Thanks!! Most of it is water in the beginning. But even then, losing that much in that short amount of time is not a healthy thing. 3-4 pounds a week is much more safe. > Hi all > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks!! You are NOT new to this newsgroup. I thought I recognized the question and Googled. You've been asking us this same question since June of 2002. Pick a new line at least. Carmen Handy guide to modern science: If it's green or wriggles, it's biology. If it stinks, it's chemistry. If it doesn't work, it's physics. My answer would be yes, but only with consistent daily exercise. > Hi all > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Thanks!! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.