 |
 | 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 / October 2005Do you count calories or fast?
I am having a discussion(cough-fight)with some peeps on another board. WTH would anyone low carb and then do crazy stuff like count cals or fast? Just wondering. Lynn On 11/10/05 8:12 PM, in article 1129025527.517885.189790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, > I am having a discussion(cough-fight)with some peeps on another board. > WTH would anyone low carb and then do crazy stuff like count cals or > fast? > Just wondering. > Lynn Maybe they want to lose weight? Eating low carb alone won't do it, you still have to limit calories. SS : > I am having a discussion(cough-fight)with some peeps on another board. : > WTH would anyone low carb and then do crazy stuff like count cals or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : : SS Funny, it worked for me. I lost 44 pounds without even being aware of calories. I practically live on cheese! Pat in TX > : > I am having a discussion(cough-fight)with some peeps on another board. > : > WTH would anyone low carb and then do crazy stuff like count cals or [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Pat in TX That does not work for me. Too many sugar carbs in cheese (lactose). Cottage cheese especially stops my ketosis and weight loss dead in it's tracks. :-( It really does vary from person to person. Tolerances vary.  SignatureOm. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson > On 11/10/05 8:12 PM, in article > 1129025527.517885.189790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > SS This is what I am discovering/puzzling over with low carb. I am trying SBD and it never mentions calorie control, in fact, say disregard - only eat until you are satisfied. Eating until I was satisfied hasn't cut it. I've not had a chip/dish of pasta/rice/reg soda since first of August. I've lived pretty much on bacon, eggbeaters, diet soda, eaten enough ricotta cheese dessert concoctions to write my own cookbooks. For weeks not one piece of any sort of fruit. Smoked almonds are my snacky friend. 17 a day, one at a time. Total loss - 2 pounds and cravings for whole hearty grained breads that never went away. In the last couple of weeks I've sort of thrown in the towel, eating less bacon and other meats and having a slice of good bread each day instead. Seems to stay with me longer than bacon. Haven't brought myself back to rice or potatoes. Don't miss them, so why add them. Ditto for Coke. The fact, at least to me, is you DO have to count calories/portions/as well as carbs. And of you are going to do the first two, might as well go on weight watchers and count points. This is not to disparage at all the obvious and wonderful success stories I have read on this forum. Only to say that the simple truth is for me must be less food, period. It doesn't matter what kind, just less of it. I'll find something that works. There's that one little not so nice person on this forum that will say eating like a pig got me fat in the first place. Maybe so. Menopause is a cruel trickster. But I will also say that I have the physical strength of a bear from years of working out so if Texas ever wants to come up to Ohio, we'll have us an arm rassllin' contest best three out of four. :) Peace and congrats to you all who have found this program a success. (the)duckster : This is what I am discovering/puzzling over with low carb. I am trying SBD : and it never mentions calorie control, in fact, say disregard - only eat [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : : (the)duckster I don't think that the South Beach Diet tells you to cut out all fruit for weeks--and you say you have been on it since August? That's nearly 12 weeks into it and you aren't eating fruit? Maybe you should read the book again. Pat in TX > : This is what I am discovering/puzzling over with low carb. I am trying > SBD [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > weeks--and you say you have been on it since August? That's nearly 12 weeks > into it and you aren't eating fruit? Maybe you should read the book again. Pat, I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. The first two weeks one abstains completely from fruit - phase I. After that you can begin to reintroduce those things, or stay on Phase I if you choose to do so. Since I hadn't seen any results, I stayed on Phase I for about six weeks. After that I began to eat things again like apples, small quantities of grapes, small quantities of canteloupe, strawberries, blueberries. However, I did continue to eliminate any breads, pasta, rice, processed sugars. About two weeks ago I added hearty grained bread back into my diet, still no process sugars, pastas, rice. No sugared soda. My problem as I have mentioned before is I simply eat too much for my metabolism to process it. Regardless of whether its largely fats/protein or carbs. Again, this is no criticism of anyone or thing but myself. Until I hit 45 I never had to diet. I exercised, ate right, didn't drink/smoke and stayed a robust and healthy 155-160 pounds. In two years my weight jumped to 206 eating the same/exercising same. There comes the time when the solution is simply pushing away the plate and in my case calories and only calories count. (the)duckster Eating like a pig is what got you fat in the first place, not menopause. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >> On 11/10/05 8:12 PM, in article >> 1129025527.517885.189790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > (the)duckster I was speaking of YOU going through the change you bonehead. You couldn't possibly be such an idiot under normal circumstances. (the)duckster > Eating like a pig is what got you fat in the first place, not menopause. > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > > > (the)duckster It seems that you're the bonehead that can't even figure out how to lose a little weight. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >I was speaking of YOU going through the change you bonehead. You couldn't > possibly be such an idiot under normal circumstances. [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] >> > >> > (the)duckster While you're down there flanking yer w.nker for lack of a life my invite stands: next time you're up towards Ohio, stop in. I'll lay my culinary expertise on ya fat/protein full or carb loaded whatever is your preference before I thump yer fanny, choose your weapon. Stay out the son, boy, it's fryin' yer brain. (the)duckster > It seems that you're the bonehead that can't even figure out how to lose a > little weight. [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > >> > > >> > (the)duckster Your fried brain can't even manage to spell sun properly, so I'll sidestep any "expertise" you may wish to impart. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW > While you're down there flanking yer w.nker for lack of a life my invite > stands: next time you're up towards Ohio, stop in. I'll lay my culinary [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] >> >> > >> >> > (the)duckster Just as I thought all blow, no brain, no back. Plonk. > Your fried brain can't even manage to spell sun properly, so I'll sidestep > any "expertise" you may wish to impart. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >> >> Eating like a pig is what got you fat in the first place, not > > menopause. hat. -- > > MFW > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > >> >> > > >> >> > (the)duckster That's why you're still so fat. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW > Just as I thought all blow, no brain, no back. > [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] >> >> >> > >> >> >> > (the)duckster > Eating until I was satisfied hasn't cut it. I've not had a chip/dish of > pasta/rice/reg soda since first of August. I've lived pretty much on bacon, > eggbeaters, diet soda, eaten enough ricotta cheese dessert concoctions to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > towel, eating less bacon and other meats and having a slice of good bread > each day instead. Seems to stay with me longer than bacon. How about veggies? I eat lots of green vieggies, which adds variety and I think helps int he weight loss. > On 11/10/05 8:12 PM, in article > 1129025527.517885.189790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > SS I 've lost and kept off 50 lbs without ever counting a calorie in over 7 years of lowcarbing. It's easy to get down to 20% bodyfat without counting calories. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >> On 11/10/05 8:12 PM, in article >> 1129025527.517885.189790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I 've lost and kept off 50 lbs without ever counting a calorie in over 7 > years of lowcarbing. ::: On 11/10/05 8:12 PM, in article ::: 1129025527.517885.189790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] :: I 've lost and kept off 50 lbs without ever counting a calorie in :: over 7 years of lowcarbing. You don't need to count calories to limit calories. Low carb is good for that, up to a certain point, that is. > I am having a discussion(cough-fight)with some peeps on another board. > WTH would anyone low carb and then do crazy stuff like count cals or > fast? > Just wondering. > Lynn Because they haven't figured out that the low-carb method shows that calories mean squat. People are so fixated on calories that they cannot concieve that you could possibly lose weight without calories being the center piece of the weight loss. Counting calories fails to achieve weight loss in better than 95% of cases. Statistically, that means that restricting calories does exactly the opposite of what is expected, and that even a random diet will work better. But so far no one can explain exactly how calories are monitored by the body. How does the body know that there is an excess of calories or a deficiency of calories? And how does it then trigger fat storage or fat usage based on the caloric status. There is no known bio-chemical or hormonal mechanism that detects the caloric status of the body. There is no known mechanism that triggers fat storage or weight usage based on caloric status. There is no known cascade of biological events that is triggered by caloric status and ends up is fat storage or fat usage. For those wedded to the caloric theory of weight management, the body is one big black box that just does what they say it does, except that the reality isn't co-operating. If it was just a matter of the caloric balance, anyone who put even a moderate amount of effort to restrict the amounts of foods eaten, and increase their daily exercise slightly, would easily take the pounds off. It is not hard to eat slightly less food over a period of time and walk a bit every day (many, many people do just that, every day, religiously). But we know that that has failed to work for most people. TC > > I am having a discussion(cough-fight)with some peeps on another board. > > WTH would anyone low carb and then do crazy stuff like count cals or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > concieve that you could possibly lose weight without calories being the > center piece of the weight loss. <snipped rest of Deja-moo> > TC Have you managed to lose weight by pigging out on all the fat and protein that you want? Well, congratulations. You are genetically gifted... SignatureOm. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson > > > I am having a discussion(cough-fight)with some peeps on another board. > > > WTH would anyone low carb and then do crazy stuff like count cals or [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > -- > Om. I have managed to lose weight by pigging out on all the fat and protein that I want. I am always satiated at the end of a meal, and I always eat when I get hungry. I add loads of butter (real butter) to my food. I splash on liberal amounts of EVOO (extra virgin olive oil) on my food. An eight ounce steak with a nice half-inch ring of fat around the outside, is not out of bounds for me. A double burger with cheese and bacon finds its way onto my plate every once in a while. I eat eggs, yolk and all, fried in butter, often. My salads are copiously bathed in homemade oil and vinegar dressings. If I have ice cream, which I never crave, but indulge in once in a while, it is high-fat whole-cream ice cream and nothing but. My favorite breakfast is three eggs over-easy, sausages and bacon. Rye toast with lots of butter and only a little bit of hash browns. I often make soup from bones, with all the fat that oozes from them. I insist on my chicken to have the bone in and the skin on. I love fatty pork chops. Pork Ribs, slow grilled on the BBQ, slathered with my own BBQ sauce, yummmmmmm. I eat as much as I want and my weight stays at 184, +-2 or 3 lbs. Been like that for over 5 years. I don't eat added-sugar crap, cereals, pasta, white bread, soda, potato chips, or any other refined and high GI carbs in any appreciable amounts. I do enjoy the odd sweet snack (a chocolate bar), and since I don't eat it every single day, it is truly a snack and I enjoy it that much more. And since my weight is steady where I want it to be, I have no fear of food, no sense of lack of control over my health whatsoever. I am in 100% control of my weight and my health. My bg levels are spot on normal, my cholesterol perfectly normal, my blood pressure a titch low from the normal, no signs of syndrome X or pre-diabetes. No prescriptions in over 5 years. No colds in 5 years. Not a single sick day off work in over 5 years. No infections. No mood swings, no anxiety, no depression, plenty of energy, low back condition virtually pain free. I heal quickly for an old man of 40-something. Life is great. I wonder when the fat I am eating in copious amounts is going to kick in and make me fat and sick with cholesterol and heart problems. My guess is.... NEVER. TC > > > > I am having a discussion(cough-fight)with some peeps on another board. > > > > WTH would anyone low carb and then do crazy stuff like count cals or [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > skin on. I love fatty pork chops. Pork Ribs, slow grilled on the BBQ, > slathered with my own BBQ sauce, yummmmmmm. I must confess... that worked for me too, but only for the first 50 lbs. :-( I've been stalled for phreaking EVER it seems! <sigh> But, on my lab work, my frickin' T-4 (thyroxine) level has dropped below normal damned range again. My Endocrinologist and I are working on that. I imagine that is the problem... <sigh> I still have 70 lbs. to lose. I've got Lyle's book still on the way. The first one got lost. :-( Just got the re-order confirmation today. > I eat as much as I want and my weight stays at 184, +-2 or 3 lbs. Been > like that for over 5 years. I hate you. :-( > I don't eat added-sugar crap, cereals, pasta, white bread, soda, potato > chips, or any other refined and high GI carbs in any appreciable > amounts. Neither do I. > I do enjoy the odd sweet snack (a chocolate bar), and since I > don't eat it every single day, it is truly a snack and I enjoy it that > much more. I don't dare. > And since my weight is steady where I want it to be, I have no fear of > food, no sense of lack of control over my health whatsoever. I am in > 100% control of my weight and my health. You are lucky. Bet your thyroid is normal. <snipped rest of disgustingly healthy report> Cheers! > TC > SignatureOm. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson > I still have 70 lbs. to lose. > I've got Lyle's book still on the way. The first one got lost. :-( > Just got the re-order confirmation today. Shoot me an e-mail at the obvious fix for this address with a returnable address. Ryan Signature295/278/225 monthly-goal: 10 month-start: 285 since: 19/9/05 > > I still have 70 lbs. to lose. > > I've got Lyle's book still on the way. The first one got lost. :-( [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ryan Ok, thanks! SignatureOm. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson > > > > > I am having a discussion(cough-fight)with some peeps on another board. > > > > > WTH would anyone low carb and then do crazy stuff like count cals or [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > -- > Om. Do you watch the amounts of flouride you get? And do you eat a lot of soy products? Both of these can mess with your thyroid function. Teas, especially iced teas, can have ridiculously high amounts of fluoride. TC > Do you watch the amounts of flouride you get? And do you eat a lot of > soy products? Both of these can mess with your thyroid function. Teas, > especially iced teas, can have ridiculously high amounts of fluoride. > > TC I don't eat a lot of soy products, no. Tofu is a rare treat. Just every few months in soups. I was using Green Tea extract which is supposed to be high in fluoride, but the problem occured PRIOR to that... and I stopped using it after I was warned. And no, I don't drink tea either. City water maybe? Yeah. Just called them. :-( They add 0.8 parts per million of fluoride to our water, and I drink about 1 gallon of tap water per day! I'm dumping my bottles now and will switch back to the water from the vending machines. It's purified of that crap. Thanks! It will be interesting to see if my T-4 levels come back up. SignatureOm. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson ... >> Have you managed to lose weight by pigging out on all the fat and >> protein that you want? >> >> Well, congratulations. >> >> You are genetically gifted... ... > I have managed to lose weight by pigging out on all the fat and protein > that I want. I am always satiated at the end of a meal, and I always ... > I eat as much as I want and my weight stays at 184, +-2 or 3 lbs. Been > like that for over 5 years. But for the sig & eMail addy, that could have been my reply. You're both correct and absolutely spot-on, "tunderbar". DustyB San Jose :: <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message :: news:1129058481.192314.269960@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] :: But for the sig & eMail addy, that could have been my reply. You're :: both correct and absolutely spot-on, "tunderbar". Spot-on about what? That he only "wants" enough food to not make him fat? Big deal. He's a normal guy and not a fat person. IIRC, he only had 20 lbs to lose. Switching to LC and staying there probaby got him half of that due to water loss. ... > ::: I have managed to lose weight by pigging out on all the fat and > ::: protein that I want. I am always satiated at the end of a meal, and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > lbs to lose. Switching to LC and staying there probaby got him half of > that due to water loss. Yeah? So? He made his goal...water loss or no. You got a problem with that? Like me, he eats all of the fats & oils he wants. Like me, he's always satiated with his meals. Like me, he can and does eat those things he likes--esp. with lots of fatty meat Like me, he enjoys a double-burger with cheese! Like me, he likes his eggs fried in butter. ...and so on... Sounds like he has things figured out. I, and others posting here do as well. Do you? But hey! If it's not in your cards to follow suit (pardon the pun), that's fine with me. But I don't think that empowers you to denigrate his RESULTS! No matter what the imputed reason (or lack thereof...). My hat's off to him... Regards t'all, DustyB San Jose :> ... :>> ::: I have managed to lose weight by pigging out on all the fat and [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] :> :> My hat's off to him... Are you stupid or what? None of what he claims means that calories don't count. And I didn't denigrate his results, I just refute his claim about calories. > :> ... > :>> ::: I have managed to lose weight by pigging out on all the fat and [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > And I didn't denigrate his results, I just refute his claim about calories. Actually, it clearly shows that calories don't count. I tried, as have millions of people, to lose weight by counting calories. And the result is either failure to lose weight or actually putting on more weight (you know, the diametrically opposite of what is supposed to happen) . I then stopped even considering calories and started restricting the lower calorie carbs and eating more higher calorie fats. I ate more calories than ever and started to lose weight. And here I am still eating liberal amounts of high calorie fats and cutting out the lower calorie carbs and I am still easily maintaining my weight where I want it. If calories mattered, anyone who cut back their eating a little bit and started exercising a bit more would either stop gaining weight, slow down in their gaining weight or would start slowly losing weight. The pattern would be easy to see and would occur in every case. And the reverse would occur and be obvious too. But we know that that is most definitely not the case. But, when I cut back on my carbs, an obvious loss of weight does occur. And when I eat too many carbs, my weight goes up accordingly. I have maybe five pounds or so that I could still lose if I really wanted to, but I am not concerned about it. When I go a full weekend eating mostly meat products with very little carbs (as in summer BBQ's), I do lose a pound or three. When we are visiting friends or family over a weekend and I end up eating too many carbs, my weight goes up a pound or three. The pattern is absolutely unmistakable and very obvious. TC :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: Dusty Bleher <bakerboy2@innerREMOVETHISlodge.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] :: :: Actually, it clearly shows that calories don't count. I disagree. :: I tried, as have millions of people, to lose weight by counting :: calories. And the result is either failure to lose weight or actually :: putting on more weight (you know, the diametrically opposite of what :: is supposed to happen) . The fault is rarely due to simply having counting calories. Much of it time the issue is people just getting fed up and quitting the courting and backsliding back to eating too much. :: I then stopped even considering calories and started restricting the :: lower calorie carbs and eating more higher calorie fats. I ate more :: calories than ever and started to lose weight. And here I am still :: eating liberal amounts of high calorie fats and cutting out the lower :: calorie carbs and I am still easily maintaining my weight where I :: want it. Let me ask you directly one more time, so that I'll have my facts straight: How much did you lose? I remember reading that 5 years ago you lost 20 lbs after having gone low carb. Am I right or wrong? If you had been eating high carb before going low carb, then after the switch you're going to drop some water weight. If it is true that you lost 20 lbs, then a good portion of your loss could have been water weight. You very likely did lose some fat too, though, because going low carb would have reduced your appetite, and resulted in your wanting less food, and hence eating less (i.e., lowering calories even though you didn't count). :: If calories mattered, anyone who cut back their eating a little bit :: and started exercising a bit more would either stop gaining weight, :: slow down in their gaining weight or would start slowly losing :: weight. And so what about those people for whom this works? :: The pattern would be easy to see and would occur in every :: case. And the reverse would occur and be obvious too. But we know :: that that is most definitely not the case. :: :: But, when I cut back on my carbs, an obvious loss of weight does :: occur. I personally know people who claim that cutting back on carbs doesn't produce weight loss for them, but cutting back on calories does (with carbs, too). What about that? I, personally, as I type 2 diabetic, prone to insulin resistance, lost 100 lbs eating a low fat diet with lots of exercise. I also loss 142 lbs on low carb, with exercise but less of it. I'm maintaining too. I claim that I simply ate less food on LC because my appetite diminished, even though I was eating mostly fatty foods. Yes, low carb definitely works and I prefer it to low fat, but in my opinion they work for the same reasons. If I were to start eating lots of carbs again, I first gain water weight. If I kept on, then my appetite would increase and I'd be overeating most of the time. The weight would pile back on. Hence, for me, the key to controlling appetite is to control carbs. The weight gain on LC is a lot slower as a LCer as compared to HC because if a LCer starts eating carbs, a big rush in water weight happens to push scale weight and bloating up quickly. As a LCer, when you gain on LC, you don't see a big water weight rush. But if you're eating a lot of food, which may be low in carbs, those carbs eventually add up. Carb creep happens over time, and before you know it, you're eating more as a routine matter. So I do tend to agree that it is harder to gain on LC, but it is very possible for a LCer to gain by simply eating a lot of low carb foods. :: And when I eat too many carbs, my weight goes up accordingly. Well, again, if you've been low carbing for a while and you reintroduce carbs, you gain water weight. :: I have maybe five pounds or so that I could still lose if I really :: wanted to, but I am not concerned about it. When I go a full weekend [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: goes up a pound or three. The pattern is absolutely unmistakable and :: very obvious. Sounds like water weight gain. Tunder, Give up, don't you know this place has been taken over by alt.support.diet.low CALORIE? Nobobdy reads all the facts that Atkins spent years studying and posted in his old books about being able to eat more calories on low carb, they just follow the "calories do count" but take it to the extreme. That's why I rarely look here. It ain't even worth arguing about here, all it is are low calorie counters and water fasters. That's why you're still fat. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW > Tunder, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > even worth arguing about here, all it is are low calorie counters and > water fasters. and yet that's why you're still an a.shole I'm an a.shole because you're still fat? The logic seems a bit flawed. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW > and yet that's why you're still an a.shole I can and will lose the weight, you'll always be an a.shole. Now get lost. Prove it. You have great theories about how you can lose the weight while eating as much as you feel like, but they remain unproven and you remain obese. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >I can and will lose the weight Hmm...so you see me and know what I look like? Sorry I won't bite to your bait. I am losing and have lost over 20 pounds since July without really trying. I just don't post here to you and you asanine attitude. So take a f.cking leap. It's easy to lose 20 pounds when you're obese. HTH SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW > Hmm...so you see me and know what I look like? Sorry I won't bite to > your bait. I am losing and have lost over 20 pounds since July without > really trying. I just don't post here to you and you asanine attitude. > So take a f.cking leap. It's easy to lose 20 pounds when you're obese. And yet again you prove how hard it is to quit being an unsupportive a.shole. I'll never support your bad habits. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW > It's easy to lose 20 pounds when you're obese. > > And yet again you prove how hard it is to quit being an unsupportive > a.shole. JC >From what I see, you've never supported anything except criticism. I have never seen you post anything constructive, positive, or relevant. I see you sit in your little world, spititng poison and posting where you aren't wanted, needed, or appreciated. Tell me, what do you get from just posting crap like, "so that's why you are fat" and such??? Have you ever considered trying to encourage rather than trash others? Or are you just such a sick, sad person that you cannot do anything positive? I truly feel sorry for you because you are so pathetic. You truly are. So you are blind and obese. That must really suck. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW > JC > >>From what I see, you've never supported anything except criticism. I > have never seen you post anything constructive, positive, or relevant. > JC > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > positive? I truly feel sorry for you because you are so pathetic. You > truly are. It looks as if you are arguing with yourself. Put him in your killfile, it will make your life so much easier. SignatureNo Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes It looks as if you are arguing with yourself. Put him in your killfile, it will make your life so much easier. Unless Google has a killfile, I'm stuck. I don't use the Outlook on this computer. I can imagine those people who have this jerk killfiled think I have an empty argument. :-) On 16/10/05 1:22 AM, in article 1129389748.202803.26530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "gweebles" <gweeble_1998@yahoo.com> wrote: > Tunder, > > Give up, don't you know this place has been taken over by > alt.support.diet.low CALORIE? Nobobdy reads all the facts that Atkins > spent years studying and posted in his old books I notice that you refer only to his old books, not his more recent ones where he corrects his errors and points out that calories do count. Good thinking 99, focus on published errors, not established facts, you can kid yourself that you have more support that way. You just go right on doing things your way, just ignore all the mirth you leave in your wake. I am sure those people will stop pointing at you and laughing at your foolish logic eventually. Probably when they are distracted by your next asinine statement. SS Squirrel, Let's see, 6 years of new published, versus over 20 of old that worked. If you read his book, he says nothing of water fasts and under 1000 calories, does he? THAT is the point I'm making, I average about 1800 calories daily. There is no way I could eat 3000 calories like some think they can on this woe. My point is that most people on this ng are trying to do a severe calorie restriction, combined with fasts and then claim they are on Atkins. I have all his Diet Revolution books, yes, including the new one. Give me a page number where he talks about not eating for several days. <snip> > My point is that most people on this ng > are trying to do a severe calorie restriction, combined with fasts and > then claim they are on Atkins. <snip> Care to back this assertion up with a couple of links to folks on this group who are fasting and using severe calorie restriction under the guise of Atkin's? Most of the posts that come to mind for me from the Atkin's folks here deal with induction and fat fasts. Yes, *I* am in severe calorie restriction. But, I do not claim to be doing Atkin's. This is an interesting group for folks doing all kinds of things that may or may not include Atkin's low carbing. I currently eat only lean protien and fiberous vegetables. You know what? It ends up being low carb, mebbe not Atkin's low carb, but low carb none the less. I also don't remember anyone telling me that this was alt.support.diet.lowcarbAtkinsonlyyouprick. Ryan Signature295/278/225 monthly-goal: 10 month-start: 285 since: 19/9/05 > > Give up, don't you know this place has been taken over by > > alt.support.diet.low CALORIE? Nobobdy reads all the facts that Atkins > > spent years studying and posted in his old books > > I notice that you refer only to his old books, not his more recent ones > where he corrects his errors and points out that calories do count. All his books forbid overeating and therefore they all say that calories count. The point has always been that calories are less important on low carb and that depending on your suseptibility to ketosis you could end up losing all the way down to near your ideal weight so long as you never overeat. The trouble is a lot of people aren't suseptible enough to lose easily while in ketosis and most lose any edge somewhere in the range of 10-20 pounds left to lose. > Good thinking 99, focus on published errors, not established facts, you can > kid yourself that you have more support that way. Actually, check out Dr A's history and you'll see that his old books have more data in support of them than his new books. In the 1970s he gathered extensive tabular data about his patients at the time and his system of progressively higher carbs until falling out of ketosis to find the body's custom CCL was based on that data. Then he tried to publish his data and was told that without a double-blind comparison his data was not valid. Then his book became popular and the AMA went after him trying to discredit him. The fact that he was correct and they were incorrect allowed him to outlast them and over time the AMA has gradually turned towards favoring the low carb stance. However, those events changed his attitude about tabular data. In his later years - especially in the years after the 1999 edition came out - he came to brag that he was a clinician not a scientist. It is known that he gathered large amounts of tabular data in support of his 1972 and 1993 editions. There is no sign that he gathered any data whatsoever for his 2002 edition. Going from edition to edition, each one is better written (more accurately each one is less poorly written), but each one has less and less supporting data. Pick a claim in the 2002 edition, find an opposing claim in the 1972 edition, and it is the 1972 claim that has the better supporting data. Guess which claim that's very popular appears in the 2002 edition not the 1972? Less carbs give better loss. ... > :> My hat's off to him... > > Are you stupid or what? None of what he claims means that calories don't > count. Yeah. That's it Roger...'tunderbar' & I are stupid, and only you understand what's going on. Hey! No problem there...you're in good company...with, what, 45% or so of Americans well over weight...? > And I didn't denigrate his results, I just refute his claim about > calories. Refute away! Whatever you claim to be the "actual" truth, is probably just that--at least in your mind anyway... I found his observations and experiences well in line with my own. YMMV. I plan on continuing my habits, and don't really care what you do--or don't. AFAICT; calorie counting isn't a winning combination. I do find that eating LC causes me to eat less, overall. And in that vein, I'd suppose that my overall caloric intake will be less--as opposed to eating the quantities that I was before LC. But that's an apples and oranges comparison. I eat less. But I eat different stuff. So how's one to compare them? How do 100 calories of something like oatmeal compare to 100 calories of prime beef? Do you know? Does anybody? I've never found any studies that compared those values. And, to continue that thought, counting--and then restricting caloric intake by count--will indeed yield a weight loss. Why? Mostly cuz you're eating so much less. That's the point of calorie counting. The problem with that is, to myself and most folks that I know, you're constantly hungry and it's a real drag. So long-term compliance is difficult at best. Like 'tunderbar', I find that, screw calories! I eat what I like and just work at keeping the carbs low. I don't count anything. I do know what the general carb content of things are...and avoid the worst of 'em. I do cheat occasionally when we go out to visit or such, but I cheat with an eye on my goal. I don't indulge in sweets and known high carb foods (rice, potatoes, pasta, breads (except sourdough), sweetened drinks, deserts, etc) but I'll eat a forkful or two of everything my host offers. While your experience may be different, I've lost weight and continue to zero in on my goal. Considering that calories are "measured" by burning the food sample in question in a water-jacketed, pure oxygen environment containment device known as a 'bomb-calorimeter'; I'd submit that that process isn't quite the same as my gut & liver "processing" it. But hey! Your system may well be more like the calorimeter...mine's clearly not. The use of the "calorie" as a unit of the measure of food value became ubiquitous some years back. That you fell for that scheme isn't my fault (I once did as well...(:-o)!). That you're unwilling to climb back out of the hole of that particular ignorance isn't my fault either...we each travel this road in our own way. Everyday they bury folks that religiously ate "low-fat" and "high-carb" from the "food pyramid" as their docs instructed 'em...and they died of obesity, arterial plaque, liver failure, heart failure, diabetic trauma, and so on anyway. So cling to whatever floats your boat...as long as you'll forgive me for not wanting to do the same. BTDT! Found it wasn't working...decided that I knew the difference between dumb and stupid...and chose to change that paradigm. The short version is that our bodies can ONLY ingest three primary nutrient groups: fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. And ONLY the glucose from the carbs can be stored in a fat cell. And it's the excess storage of said fats that's at the heart of why most of us are reading here. You can count and pontificate upon whatever you like. Call me stupid if that makes you feel smug, clever, and ever so morally superior. Me? I'm gonna eat lots of fats and proteins, and select my carbs carefully. I'll leave the counting to those that can't do anything else... L8r all, DustyB :: ... ::::: My hat's off to him... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: understand what's going on. Hey! No problem there...you're in good :: company...with, what, 45% or so of Americans well over weight...? I'm certainly not alone in my view that calories count. I'm sure i can find more support than you can... ::: And I didn't denigrate his results, I just refute his claim about ::: calories. :: Refute away! Whatever you claim to be the "actual" truth, is :: probably just that--at least in your mind anyway... And i'm sure you think you have "actual" truth in your mind too :: I found his observations and experiences well in line with my own. :: YMMV. I plan on continuing my habits, and don't really care what :: you do--or don't. Same here, expect I'll use my own observations in place of yours. :: AFAICT; calorie counting isn't a winning combination. Calorie counting is a combination of what? I do find :: that eating LC causes me to eat less, overall. And in that vein, :: I'd suppose that my overall caloric intake will be less--as opposed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: oatmeal compare to 100 calories of prime beef? Do you know? Does :: anybody? I've never found any studies that compared those values. We understand the difference between 100 calores of carbs, fat, and protein, yes. The act differently in the body. That's why LCers restrict carbs. :: And, to continue that thought, counting--and then restricting :: caloric intake by count--will indeed yield a weight loss. Geez...that was my entire point. My main issue with tunderbar is not that I think he's not successful with this adopted way of eating...just that I think calories count. More food, more calories. More food, leads to eating too much. Why? :: Mostly cuz you're eating so much less. That's the point of calorie :: counting. The problem with that is, to myself and most folks that I :: know, you're constantly hungry and it's a real drag. So long-term :: compliance is difficult at best. Again....with low carb you can eat a lot less than normal and not feel hungry. It's the miracle of low carb! :: Like 'tunderbar', I find that, screw calories! I eat what I like :: and just work at keeping the carbs low. See...I don't have a problem with that at all. I'm not saying you must count calories, I'm saying that they count. And it seems you really do agree with it. If you can lose/maintain without counting, please, please, PLEASE, be my guest! I don't count anything. I :: do know what the general carb content of things are...and avoid the :: worst of 'em. I do cheat occasionally when we go out to visit or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: or two of everything my host offers. While your experience may be :: different, I've lost weight and continue to zero in on my goal. My experience is no different except that I find it useful to count. Others here do as well. Take Cubit as an example. :: Considering that calories are "measured" by burning the food sample :: in question in a water-jacketed, pure oxygen environment containment :: device known as a 'bomb-calorimeter'; I'd submit that that process :: isn't quite the same as my gut & liver "processing" it. But hey! :: Your system may well be more like the calorimeter...mine's clearly :: not. How do you know? Are you saying you can't lose weight if you limit calories and carbs, too? :: The use of the "calorie" as a unit of the measure of food value :: became ubiquitous some years back. That you fell for that scheme [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: BTDT! Found it wasn't working...decided that I knew the difference :: between dumb and stupid...and chose to change that paradigm. Please...now you're completely off track...babbling, even. :: The short version is that our bodies can ONLY ingest three primary :: nutrient groups: fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. And ONLY the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :: and select my carbs carefully. I'll leave the counting to those :: that can't do anything else... So dietary fat can not be stored as fat in the body.... And you're not pontificating...and tunderbar wasn't either. Yeah....the word stupid comes to mind again.... ... > I'm certainly not alone in my view that calories count. I'm sure i can > find more support than you can... Well then. I guess that's it. Game over! You win! You can find more simpletons that will bow to the almighty calorie god, so by definition you're the better person and most certain to be right. No studies or supporting or corroborative evidence needed. Must be so-o-o nice that way. All neat & tidy, and so easy to dispense. ... > ::: And I didn't denigrate his results, I just refute his claim about > ::: calories. > :: Refute away! Whatever you claim to be the "actual" truth, is > :: probably just that--at least in your mind anyway... > And i'm sure you think you have "actual" truth in your mind too Nope. I was simply citing the results I saw working in actual practice. I wasn't even trying to convince you or anybody else that what I saw and experienced really was the way I saw it. I really don't give a rat's-hinny whether you believe that or not. > :: I found his observations and experiences well in line with my own. > :: YMMV. I plan on continuing my habits, and don't really care what > :: you do--or don't. > Same here, expect I'll use my own observations in place of yours. Please do. > :: AFAICT; calorie counting isn't a winning combination. > Calorie counting is a combination of what? Now don't be playing dim on me, Roger. Calorie counting and losing weight by reducing the amount of stored body fat don't seem to coincide...*that* combination. It's probably just me, but I thought that was the discussion under way... ... > We understand the difference between 100 calories of carbs, fat, and > protein, We do? What is that "difference" then? Color, weight, food value, size, nutritional value, texture, taste? Lay it on me (if you know). > yes. The act differently in the body. That's why LCers restrict carbs. Better 'splain it to me then, Roger. Cuz I've not been able to scare up a single research paper that lays that out for someone as simple as myself to grasp. Clearly you've managed that leap. So, it should be easy for you to convey that to those of us reading here. In fact, I've not even been able to find a single paper that describes just how or what a calorie does in the human body. But, I'll give ya a teeny-tiny hint as a freebie; it's an arbitrary value that has, at best, only a loose relationship to the food value of the item being rated (as it concerns the human body). I think that we can probably agree that a 6-oz measure of steak&eggs probably carries more "food value" for the human body than, say 6-oz of chopped celery. So, we can't measure reliably by weight. Okay, then let's use a 6-inch long piece of a carrot and a 6-inch long chicken-leg. That won't work either...so apparently length is out as well. I know! Let's use calories. We'll just burn 'em in oxygen and measure the temperature increase, and the one that raises the water temperature the highest, is the winner since it contains the most nutrients. Lot'sa calories in a piece of Oak. But hard to eat it is... And that's the point. Burning something in an oxygen environment IS NOT the same as digesting and enzymatically making use of the result of that process. Almost all of what we can't digest (in the global sense of getting nourishment out of it) will burn and becomes part of the calorie value. But it doesn't do anything for the body. Pher another instance, a potato has a fair amount of calories, about 200-250 or so if memory serves. Eat one. Raw. And those calories will have a net ZERO effect on your nutritional uptake. Because your body can't assimilate anything out of a raw potato. You could eat 10,000 calories of raw potatoes a day (about what Lance Armstrong eats on a race day) and starve to death. So again, a calorie is simply an arbitrary value, cuz here it means nothing at all. > :: And, to continue that thought, counting--and then restricting > :: caloric intake by count--will indeed yield a weight loss. > Geez...that was my entire point. My main issue with tunderbar is not that > I think he's not successful with this adopted way of eating...just that I > think calories count. More food, more calories. More food, leads to > eating Fortunately, no one reading here has to give a darn what you "think", Roger. It's what you "know" that interests me (and probably others as well). And what you don't know is the effective food value of 100 calories of 'item-A' as opposed to 100 calories of 'item-B'. And that's what is at the bottom of this issue. While we agree, calories could count; size and weight count as well, as does both/either quantity or a piece count. From my observations and experience, the better measure of quantifying the food is to reduce the overall quantity. You may call that "calorie counting", I call it what I do with it, and that's quantity monitoring. I contend that 1,000 calories of fats & proteins will put ZERO lard on your butt as compared to 1,000 calories of some high-carb food. Which is why after all we're all here sharing the LC experience. ... > Again....with low carb you can eat a lot less than normal and not feel > hungry. It's the miracle of low carb! While I hesitate to ascribe the label of a supernatural event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature to LC'ing, I will agree that eating LC leaves one with much better BGL's and from that we're less hungry. But that's not from counting calories, that's simple mechanics of the digestion process (okay, not *so* simple...(:-o)!). ... > See...I don't have a problem with that at all. I'm not saying you must > count calories, I'm saying that they count. And it seems you really do You've had ample opportunity in these last few notes to make your case for counting. You've neglected to do so. So now either "put-up" or "shut-up!" How does a calorie count? > agree with it. If you can lose/maintain without counting, please, please, > PLEASE, be my guest! Thank you. I shall... ... > My experience is no different except that I find it useful to count. > Others Ah. hah! At last. We're getting to the crux of this matter from _your_ point of view. You said, "... *I* find it useful to count. ...". Exactly right! I have no quarrel with that, and I'm sure you *do* count. But it doesn't follow that counting is either correct (or incorrect), or better (or worse) than any other method. It's just a method. One that apparently works for you (and perhaps others), but apparently NOT for the vast majority of those that have tried it. To assert that it's the only method that should be used or the only one that's significant is absurd to the extreme. Given that something like 95% of all of the folks that try dieting fail, should be an indication that something's not going too well here. And almost to a person, all of those start out by trying to diet by calorie counting. And it doesn't take a statistical genius to go to the mall, look around, and conclude that IT'S NOT WORKING! It's only relatively recently that folks have begun to count carbs en masse. And, human nature being what it is, I'd say that the jury is still out as to the long term success of this whole adventure... ... > :: Considering that calories are "measured" by burning the food sample > :: in question in a water-jacketed, pure oxygen environment containment [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > How do you know? Are you saying you can't lose weight if you limit > calories and carbs, too? You read that out of my remarks in the preceding sentence? Remarkable! I believe that what I was saying was that the way calorie values are derived in the laboratory is in a manner completely incompatible with how the human body perceives and therefore processes that caloric value in actual practice. At least incompatible to mine. I left compatibility to your own an open invitation... ... > Please...now you're completely off track...babbling, even. Hmmm. Yes. I surely must be if you say so...especially with you being so spot-on and well read about everything else... > :: The short version is that our bodies can ONLY ingest three primary > :: nutrient groups: fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. And ONLY the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > :: that can't do anything else... > So dietary fat can not be stored as fat in the body.... Exactly right! Fats & oils are processed to become fatty acids. And the only thing they can be used for is building/repairing cell-walls and such. And don't start nit-picking that with me. The human body is a marvelous mechanism. There are a few "corner-cases" where the EFA's can be used for other things, but cell building and repair is their primary function. The glucose and similar sugars derived either directly or indirectly from the ingestion of carbohydrates can only be used for motility (muscle motion). They can not be built with. But they can be stored...under the influence of insulin...in a fat cell...(don't I know it!). And again, there's a few corner-cases where they can do other things...but motility is their primary function. > And you're not pontificating...and tunderbar wasn't either. I donno 'bout 'tunderbar', but I can and do often pontificate...albeit not here at this moment...(:-o)! > Yeah....the word stupid comes to mind again.... Yes. I'm sure at your level of personal value, achievement, and understanding; that probably happens a lot... L8r all, DustyB :> ... :>> I'm certainly not alone in my view that calories count. I'm sure i [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] :> what I saw and experienced really was the way I saw it. I really :> don't give a rat's-hinny whether you believe that or not. If you're not trying to convince anyone, why bother writing it? Quit lying. :>> :: I found his observations and experiences well in line with my :>> :: own. YMMV. I plan on continuing my habits, and don't really [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :> coincide...*that* combination. It's probably just me, but I thought :> that was the discussion under way... Why don't you say what you mean, if you can....calorie counting isn't a winning combination...speak English. :> ... :>> We understand the difference between 100 calories of carbs, fat, and :>> protein, :> We do? What is that "difference" then? Color, weight, food value, :> size, nutritional value, texture, taste? Lay it on me (if you know). Carbs and fat can be used as energy in the body. Carbs will convert to glucose, which can be stored in muscle and liver (excess carbs gets stored as fat in the cells), and used for certain types of activity and by certain tissues, etc. So the energy derived from these macronutrients can be quantified within the body. The macronutrients contain energy and it can go to different places. :>> yes. The act differently in the body. That's why LCers restrict :>> carbs. :> Better 'splain it to me then, Roger. Cuz I've not been able to :> scare up a single research paper that lays that out for someone as :> simple as myself to grasp. Clearly you've managed that leap. So, :> it should be easy for you to convey that to those of us reading here. Maybe that's your problem...looking in the wrong places. :> In fact, I've not even been able to find a single paper that :> describes just how or what a calorie does in the human body. But, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :> carries more "food value" for the human body than, say 6-oz of :> chopped celery. So, we can't measure reliably by weight. Yeah, but 6-oz of steak and eggs carries more calories and thus energy than 6-oz of chopped celery...so calories work here. :> Okay, then let's use a 6-inch long piece of a carrot and a 6-inch :> long chicken-leg. That won't work either...so apparently length is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :> nutrients. Lot'sa calories in a piece of Oak. But hard to eat it :> is... What does that matter? The fact is food contains energy and some food contains more than other foods, and our bodies can extract energy and materials from that food. You'll note that stuff that gets burned in the lab but not in our bodies is termed "fiber" and fiber calories are factored out of net calories in food. So yes, a piece of Oak probably won't provide a whole lot of useful energy in the body. So it calorie content will be very low or zero. :> And that's the point. Burning something in an oxygen environment IS :> NOT the same as digesting and enzymatically making use of the result :> of that process. Almost all of what we can't digest (in the global :> sense of getting nourishment out of it) will burn and becomes part :> of the calorie value. But it doesn't do anything for the body. AGain, stuff that we can't digest but that gets burned will get lumped as fiber and won't count in the energy total. :> Pher another instance, a potato has a fair amount of calories, about :> 200-250 or so if memory serves. Eat one. Raw. And those calories [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :> calorie is simply an arbitrary value, cuz here it means nothing at :> all. Okay....cook the potato and the calories it contains will be assimilated in the body. So all of a sudden calories have meaning again. Calories are just a measure of energy that they body can derive from food. So when you ask how X calories from the various marconutrients are used in the body, just look at how the body breaks down and uses the macronutriets. Generally, speaking, the energy consumption ranges for humans to maintain weight have been worked out through observation. Hence, even if how one determines a calorie is somewhat arbitrary, a range of values can be assigned that predicts weight maintenance for humans. A calibration of sorts. :>> :: And, to continue that thought, counting--and then restricting :>> :: caloric intake by count--will indeed yield a weight loss. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :> value of 100 calories of 'item-A' as opposed to 100 calories of :> 'item-B'. And that's what is at the bottom of this issue. I disagree. 100 calories of glucose will provide a different type of fuel than 100 calories of fat. The differences can be quantified and pathways leading to their use is clear. :> While we agree, calories could count; size and weight count as well, :> as does both/either quantity or a piece count. From my observations :> and experience, the better measure of quantifying the food is to :> reduce the overall quantity. You may call that "calorie counting", :> I call it what I do with it, and that's quantity monitoring. So how do you measure quantity? Volume or weight? You know that lettuce takes up a lot of space but provides little energy. Same of celery, so how exactly are you going to use quantity as a measure? Do you limit the quantity of high fat foods you eat on LC? If so, that sounds like a direct contradiction to your and TC's previous claim. Maybe you employ the 2PD. :> I contend that 1,000 calories of fats & proteins will put ZERO lard :> on your butt as compared to 1,000 calories of some high-carb food. This is a silly statement that makes no sense. If your body burns more than 1000 kcals of energy in a day, then most likely neither one will lead to fat gain. If you overeat, then that fat will the easiest to store as fat in the body. If you combine the two, and fill up muscle and liver glycogen stores, while overeating, then fat will straight your a.s. :> Which is why after all we're all here sharing the LC experience. :> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :> less hungry. But that's not from counting calories, that's simple :> mechanics of the digestion process (okay, not *so* simple...(:-o)!). How did this conversation turn into one of counting calories. I've said over and over that it isn't necessary to count calories. However, calories count. If you take in too much food energy (calories) you'll gain weight. :> ... :>> See...I don't have a problem with that at all. I'm not saying you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :> case for counting. You've neglected to do so. So now either :> "put-up" or "shut-up!" How does a calorie count? I don't need to make a case for counting. But calories count because it's simply a measure of food energy. You take in too much food energy and you get fat. Energy gets stored by the body on the body. :>> agree with it. If you can lose/maintain without counting, please, :>> please, PLEASE, be my guest! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :> *do* count. But it doesn't follow that counting is either correct :> (or incorrect), or better (or worse) than any other method. Who said anything about it being correct or incorrect to count calories. It doesn't mean that consuming excess food energy won't make you fat. It's :> just a method. One that apparently works for you (and perhaps :> others), but apparently NOT for the vast majority of those that have :> tried it. It worked for most...however, most quit doing it. To assert that it's the only method that should be used :> or the only one that's significant is absurd to the extreme. And who did that? Again, you're stupid, so why should I expect you to follow logic. :> Given that something like 95% of all of the folks that try dieting :> fail, should be an indication that something's not going too well :> here. Yeah, they fail because they quit and backslide. People even do it on LC. Sad but true. And almost to a person, all of those start out by trying to :> diet by calorie counting. And it doesn't take a statistical genius :> to go to the mall, look around, and conclude that IT'S NOT WORKING! And that has nothing to do with my statements, moron. Calories count. If you can limit them without counting, do so it that works for you.. :> It's only relatively recently that folks have begun to count carbs :> en masse. And, human nature being what it is, I'd say that the jury [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :> You read that out of my remarks in the preceding sentence? :> Remarkable! Not just that, but everything else you've said. First off, you don't know that they body doesn't extract energy from carbs, fat and protein. In fact, you know it does. What's let over doesn't count as food energy in the body. Given that, limiting carbs to control appetite and limiting calories to not over consume food energy should lead to weight loss. And of course, it's been proven here by folks who have dropped a lot more than 20 lbs. :> I believe that what I was saying was that the way calorie values are :> derived in the laboratory is in a manner completely incompatible :> with how the human body perceives and therefore processes that :> caloric value in actual practice. At least incompatible to mine. I :> left compatibility to your own an open invitation... I don't care what you believe...it's what know that matters, and apparently, that not much. :> ... :>> Please...now you're completely off track...babbling, even. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] :> And the only thing they can be used for is building/repairing :> cell-walls and such. You need to do some reading. I refer to you pages 21 and 22 of Lyle's book: "Excess dietary carbohydrates can be converted to fat in the liver through a process called de novo lipognesis (DNL). However short term studies show that DNL does not contribute significantly to fat gain in humans. As long as muscle and liver glycogen stores are not completely filled, the body is able to store or burn off excess dietary carbohydrates. Of course this process occurs at the expense of limiting fat burning, meaning that any dietary fat which is ingested with a high carbohydrate intake is stored as fat. Under certain circumstances, excess dietary carbohydrate can go through DNL, and be stored in fat cells although the contribution to fat gain is thought to be minimal (14). Those circumstances occur when muscle and liver glycogen levels are filled and there is an excess of carbohydrate being consumed. The most likely scenario in which this would occur would be one in which an individual was inactive and consuming an excess of carbohydrates/calories in their diet. As well, the combination of inactivity with a very high carbohydrate AND high fat diet is much worse in terms of fat gain. With chronically overfilled glycogen stores and a high carbohydrate intake, fat utilization is almost completely blocked and any dietary fat consumed is stored." So much for ONLY carbs being stored in fat cells (where fat is stored) and fat not being stored. Geez... And don't start nit-picking that with me. The :> human body is a marvelous mechanism. There are a few "corner-cases" :> where the EFA's can be used for other things, but cell building and :> repair is their primary function. Now you've switched over to taking about EFA...as though steak, eggs, cheese, cream, butter, etc, only contain EFAs. Geez, dude. :> The glucose and similar sugars derived either directly or indirectly :> from the ingestion of carbohydrates can only be used for motility :> (muscle motion). They can not be built with. But they can be :> stored...under the influence of insulin...in a fat cell...(don't I :> know it!). And again, there's a few corner-cases where they can do :> other things...but motility is their primary function. See above. You're wrong. :>> And you're not pontificating...and tunderbar wasn't either. :> I donno 'bout 'tunderbar', but I can and do often [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :> Yes. I'm sure at your level of personal value, achievement, and :> understanding; that probably happens a lot... Genuis... > Pher another instance, a potato has a fair amount of calories, about 200-250 > or so if memory serves. Eat one. Raw. And those calories will have a net [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So again, a calorie is simply an arbitrary value, cuz here it means nothing > at all. Off topic question. Dusty, do you know of a website that has this information? I asked a question on ASDLC a year ago about; potatoes, peas, and carrots, regarding consuming them raw verses cooked. It would seem to me that if cooking vegetables enables the body to extract more calories, then it would be better to eat them raw. Some foods can not be eaten raw, but information as to exactly why that is, is sketchy. Some say(websites), spuds can be eaten raw if the green parts are removed, which contain poisons to protect itself. I did not see anything claiming that the calories from raw potatoes could not be used by the body. Is it that the starches are more like fiber unless it is cooked? I believe in low carb as the proper way to eat. I also tend to believe the Paleo view point that anything that can't be eaten raw, should not be eaten. I'm basically interested in re-affirming my own views on low carb eating by studying the different foods in our diet. Grains and potatoes are the bulk of the average persons diet, and is recommended by the food pyramid for carb consumption. 'Trouble is some foods are either not recommended to be eaten raw, or in the case of grains, nearly impossible to eat raw. Thanks in advance for any info you can direct me to. ... > Off topic question. Not at all. I'd say it's spot-on. > Dusty, do you know of a website that has this information? I asked a Good question. And no, I don't. I said that value as it was one I'd recollected from some point in time when I'd looked it up. A quick Google with 'potato calorie value' yields this site (among others): http://www.ntwrks.com/~mikev/chart1.html According to that one, POTATOES, BAKED FLESH ONLY - 145 POTATOES, BAKED WITH SKIN - 220 POTATOES, BOILED, PEELED AFTER - 120 They don't show a raw only value. My guess is that considering that in order to measure the calories they have to first dry it and then grind it. Then if it has a low combustibility, it's mixed with a known flammability base material. The resultant mixture is ignited by an electric spark in an O2 environment (there are other systems and schemes, but that process follows one on which I got to do the programming). I would think that burning it like that would "cook" it in situ. Although you can see that boiled potatoes do have less calories. Could be the "water wash" from boiling... The other part of the problem comes from the definition of: "1 potato". A pretty arbitrary value. Another site: http://www.annecollins.com/calories/calories_in_vegetables.htm uses a "4-ounce" measure, but they come up with different values. Baked, with (as opposed to without) skin, they show less calories than what I have listed above. The USDA site (a PITA!) lists raw potatoes, and shows a slightly higher calorie value. So it would seem that you can look at a variety of sources, and get different results. <big sigh!> > question on ASDLC a year ago about; potatoes, peas, and carrots, regarding > consuming them raw verses cooked. It would seem to me that if cooking > vegetables enables the body to extract more calories, then it would be I don't think that's entirely true. Cooking also causes chemical changes. While this may not be true for all foods, I seem to recollect reading that high-starch foods undergo such a chemical change. > better to eat them raw. Some foods can not be eaten raw, but information > as > to exactly why that is, is sketchy. Yep. To be sure. Some have no nutritional value, others may not taste good raw. > Some say(websites), spuds can be eaten raw if the green parts are > removed, > which contain poisons to protect itself. I did not see anything claiming > that the calories from raw potatoes could not be used by the body. Is it > that the starches are more like fiber unless it is cooked? Yeah. With the appropriate cautions as you'd mentioned, they can be eaten raw. But as a food source they're pretty worthless that way. I recollect reading some time ago that they're basically indigestible when raw. Regretfully, I don't have a ready reference to that info...it was just something I came across a long time ago. I could be wrong. Update me if you can find otherwise... > I believe in low carb as the proper way to eat. I also tend to believe > the > Paleo view point that anything that can't be eaten raw, should not be > eaten. I whole heartedly agree! And that's pretty well what we've altered our WOE to accommodate. > I'm basically interested in re-affirming my own views on low carb eating > by studying the different foods in our diet. Grains and potatoes are the Good move! Keep at it! And yes, carbs in general have become the staple of most of what folks eat. I'm not enough of a conspiracy theorist to implicate the government/agri-industry...but I am pretty convinced that they're enabling each other. I guess the reasons are manifold. Carbs are cheap to grow/culture. Cheap to transport & store. And easy to "process" into any number of desirable things for many to eat. To be true, they also can provide considerable food value. With the possible exception of some of the more militant LC'ers reading/posting here, I'd rather eat a cornflake than starve to death for lack of an LC alternative...(:-o)! > bulk of the average persons diet, and is recommended by the food pyramid > for > carb consumption. 'Trouble is some foods are either not recommended to be > eaten raw, or in the case of grains, nearly impossible to eat raw. > Thanks in advance for any info you can direct me to. Yep. All true and spot on. Once you learn what fats & proteins do & don't do, and what carbs can & can't do, the rest starts to fall into place and (except to a few...(:-o)!) makes perfect sense. We pretty well eat Paleo as well; and things either raw or minimally cooked. While I go out of my way to always buy fresh meats and produce, I may buy canned or frozen foods if necessary. But nothing comes "processed" or in a box! If the can looks to contain tomatoes, it better say only: tomatoes, water, and salt on the label. Otherwise, I leave it for somebody else. But I don't get my knickers all in a twist about eating a few carbs from time-to-time. We eat more veggies to be sure--lots, and less fruits. We don't eat pasta or potatoes (raw or cooked...(:-o)!), and only rarely eat grains such as rice and others. But, I still bake my sourdough breads. It turns out that the SD "critters" work to "process" the flour and significantly reduce the carb count. But still, rather than wolfing down half a freshly baked loaf like we used to do, now it's thin rather timid slice or at most 2, piled high with meats and other rich, fatty things (and lettuce, tomatoes, etc.). And then not every day as was the norm before... You can "common sense" reduce your carbs without much effort. And whether you reduce your overall intake either by counting Rodgers' calories or making smaller piles like I do, you'll end up eating less. Throw in a bit of exercise, and in no time at all you're on the road to better health. When we first started on LC, I did just like just about everybody else reading here did (does); I immediately threw out all of my hi-carb foods, and tried to replace them with "low-carb" this & that. From bread, to ice-cream, to snacks, to main course foods. And then eventually the rest of the understanding kicked in. Rather than eat all of those 'ersatz foods we just blew them all off! Rather than stay stuck in the "you've gotta eat at least 3-meals/day" mindset, I now eat a piece of cheese or a hardboiled egg in the morning with my coffee, and it usually occurs to me around 15-1600 or so that I'd missed lunch. It's amazing how long you can go if you're not fighting the sugar-cycle. If I do have "lunch", I'll have another egg, cheese, or maybe an apple or something. Come dinner, I make a regular dinner always with an eye towards raw, fresh, and minimally processed. Hey! I'm not trying to talk anybody else into that...just relating what works for us... L8r all, DustyB > ... > > Off topic question. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > boiled potatoes do have less calories. Could be the "water wash" from > boiling... Yeah, pretty much what I found on the net regarding calorie values. Nothing in the way of raw calories. By the way you describe the method for finding the values, I can see why it would be difficult to find the raw state values. In high school we did an experiment burning a peanut under a beaker of water to find it's caloric value. Easy to do with something high in fat in regular 21% O2 air. > The other part of the problem comes from the definition of: "1 potato". A > pretty arbitrary value. Another site: > http://www.annecollins.com/calories/calories_in_vegetables.htm uses a > "4-ounce" measure, but they come up with different values. Baked, with (as > opposed to without) skin, they show less calories than what I have listed > above. From what I understand, cooking or baking may remove water; hence to measure 4 oz of potatoes baked would be measured without it's full water content. Making it seem that one method of cooking is better than another for less calories. Makes it a little tricky. > The USDA site (a PITA!) lists raw potatoes, and shows a slightly higher > calorie value. So it would seem that you can look at a variety of sources, > and get different results. <big sigh!> That's what I have found as well. > > question on ASDLC a year ago about; potatoes, peas, and carrots, regarding > > consuming them raw verses cooked. It would seem to me that if cooking > > vegetables enables the body to extract more calories, then it would be > I don't think that's entirely true. Cooking also causes chemical changes. > While this may not be true for all foods, I seem to recollect reading that > high-starch foods undergo such a chemical change. This is what prompted me to ask the questions. Many of the high carb foods must be cooked to be able to digest them. I wasn't sure if it was a chemical change, breaking down of complex to simple, or fiber being broken down to render it edible. > > better to eat them raw. Some foods can not be eaten raw, but information > > as [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > something I came across a long time ago. I could be wrong. Update me if > you can find otherwise... I had basically given up searching by the time I posted my question a year ago. It seems that some things are very difficult to find on the net, as any key words for searches turn up close matches but not exactly what you're looking for. To give another example; I tried to search for human breast milk and how an increased carb diet may influence it's sugar content. Humans, it seems have one the highest sugar and lowest protein values. I was wondering if high carb diets were the reason why, and if the nutrient % of breast milk can be changed through diet, or if it was at a constant ratio. Particularly native peoples like Inuit as opposed to European for diffences in fat, protein, carb values. There are endless sites for healthy eating while breast feeding, or PCB's found in native women's milk. Not much on diet changes and nutrient content. > > I believe in low carb as the proper way to eat. I also tend to believe > > the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > number of desirable things for many to eat. To be true, they also can > provide considerable food value. High carb foods have benef |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message