 |
 | 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 / February 2006Starve and live longer
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06031/647276.stm Btw, my 1000 C A L O R I E diet has allowed me to lose from 262 -> 213 (almost 50 lbs) since Oct 15 and I dont feel hungry any more than I did when NOT dieting... Bottom line: Folks you have to limit C A L O R I E S to be your natural weight (as per what those embarrassing public scales say you shud weigh).. Once they stop losing weight, they are no longer on CR. They have slowed their metabolism down and are simply maintaining on fewer calories. So they aren't overeating, they are just operating "slower." The body has an ability to operate at different points along an energy curve. Now, you are on a rapid weight loss diet. What you're doing has nothing to do with what they are doing. You're just a dumbass troll who is losing LBM and who'll probably regain those 50 lbs. You have no right to say jack until you keep the pounds (and valuable LBM) off for a couple of years, at least. :: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06031/647276.stm :: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :: natural weight (as per what those embarrassing public scales say you :: shud weigh).. > Once they stop losing weight, they are no longer on CR. They have slowed > their metabolism down and are simply maintaining on fewer calories. So > they aren't overeating, they are just operating "slower." The body has an > ability to operate at different points along an energy curve. Nah, its almost certain that as time goes on they get diet sloppy/overconfident and CHEAT without knowing it.. Your body burns calories every day as per the exercise performed and there is no such thing as metabolism allowing you to perform at same exercise level on fewer calories, however there is the fact that one uses more calories when overweight to perform at the same exercise level, so yes, one has to be aware of that and pick up the slack... "Things are seldom what they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream" W.S. Gilbert >>Once they stop losing weight, they are no longer on CR. They have slowed >>their metabolism down and are simply maintaining on fewer calories. So [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "Things are seldom what they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream" W.S. > Gilbert David Frank "Means Well", but may be doing significant harm in trying to do good. Remember Marx, Lenin and Stalin - Communism was to be an ideal society in which people would work and share freely for the common good. They attributed great inner nobility to man. However, great inner nobility has never been demonstrated as a widespread and lifelong trait of humanity. Communism "Meant Well", but history shows it was highly dangerous. It attempted to persuade the world to accept false assumptions.  Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) > >>Once they stop losing weight, they are no longer on CR. They have slowed > >>their metabolism down and are simply maintaining on fewer calories. So [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > It attempted to persuade the world to accept false assumptions. Interesting comparison. You know also that capitalism was supposed to be just as utopic, with a car in every garage, and a chicken in every pot, and the streets being paved with gold, and the land of the free and the home of the brave, etc. The American capitalist way was *also* supposed to resolve all of societies ills. All men being created equal, the pursuit of happiness, and all that jazz. What happened? Is capitalized medicine really any better than socialized medicine when almost 50% of the country can't get any coverage? I think unchecked capitalism has as many pitfalls as unchecked communism. Somewhere in between the two extremes is a good balance. TC => =>Interesting comparison. You know also that capitalism was supposed to =>be just as utopic, with a car in every garage, and a chicken in every =>pot, and the streets being paved with gold, and the land of the free =>and the home of the brave, etc. => =>The American capitalist way was *also* supposed to resolve all of =>societies ills. All men being created equal, the pursuit of happiness, =>and all that jazz. => =>What happened? => =>Is capitalized medicine really any better than socialized medicine when =>almost 50% of the country can't get any coverage? => =>I think unchecked capitalism has as many pitfalls as unchecked =>communism. Somewhere in between the two extremes is a good balance. => =>TC Capitalism promotes selfishness. Communism promotes non-selfishness. Both are non human nature. I prefer human nature. But there is no perfect solutions. So they all meet almost half way with gap from the exact half which might be best or worst. >>>>Once they stop losing weight, they are no longer on CR. They have slowed >>>>their metabolism down and are simply maintaining on fewer calories. So [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > The American capitalist way was *also* supposed to resolve all of > societies ills. I really can't subscribe to this assertion of what American Capitalism was "supposed" to do. American capitalism was in existance (1800's or earlier) before there were cars or many garages. Nobody takes "streets paved with gold" seriously. Etc. may have been your most accurate statement. All men being created equal, the pursuit of happiness, > and all that jazz. "All men being created equal" doesn't have anything to do with capitalism. "The pursuit of happiness" doesn't have anything to do with capitalism. "all that jazz" isn't a useful description of any philosophical system. > What happened? > > Is capitalized medicine really any better than socialized medicine when > almost 50% of the country can't get any coverage? Certain of our leaders would evidently assert that the failure of individuals to get coverage for medical costs is the fault of the individual to not have worked hard and become rich. Star Shooter said it well.... .............................. Capitalism promotes selfishness. Communism promotes non-selfishness. Both are non human nature. I prefer human nature. .................................. > I think unchecked capitalism has as many pitfalls as unchecked > communism. Somewhere in between the two extremes is a good balance. > > TC Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) > I really can't subscribe to this assertion of what American > Capitalism was "supposed" to do. American capitalism was in > existance (1800's or earlier) before there were cars or many > garages. For that matter, capitalism has existed as long as there have been people. Any time one human being says to another, "Hey, I want that; I'll give you this for it," and the second person agrees, they've committed capitalism. Capitalism isn't really an economic system at all; it's what happens naturally when you don't have one that's imposed politically. All the other economic -isms are ways to prevent/control/limit that natural process. SignatureAaron -- aaron_baugher@yahoo.com -- 285/250/225 http://360.yahoo.com/aaron_baugher ::: Once they stop losing weight, they are no longer on CR. They have ::: slowed their metabolism down and are simply maintaining on fewer [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: Nah, its almost certain that as time goes on they get diet :: sloppy/overconfident and CHEAT without knowing it.. Perhaps, in the case of those claiming to do CR. Also, I noticed that they average calories, which is something I do a lot to maintain weight. For example, if you want to eat at 1000 kcal/day, which is 3000 kcals/3days. You can eat 1500, 500, and 1000 or 1250, 750, and 1000. :: Your body burns calories every day as per the exercise performed and :: there is no such thing as metabolism allowing you to perform at same :: exercise level on fewer calories, Your resting metabolism can slow as much as 30%, when you consistently undereat. That doesn't imply that you won't lose weight, but the rate of loss will slow due to a metabolism decrease. You might indeed burn the same calories if you really did the same exersise with the same intensity and duration. However, once your metabolism decreases there will be slight changes in output that might only result in a slight decrease in expediture. One could never really measure that I suppose, but I'd bet money it's there. however there is the fact that :: one uses more calories when overweight to perform at the same :: exercise level, so yes, one has to be aware of that and pick up the :: slack... You can rest assured that your metobolism has slowed and that you've lost a significant amount of LBM as part of your 50 lbs rapid-weight loss. Since you know you can lose weight, why don't you slow it down a bit and keep some muscle? :: "Things are seldom what they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream" :: W.S. Gilbert > You can rest assured that your metobolism has slowed and that you've lost > a significant amount of LBM as part of your 50 lbs rapid-weight loss. > Since you know you can lose weight, why don't you slow it down a bit and > keep some muscle? I'm retired and 71 and generally walk briskly 5 miles/day (easy enuf to do, I live in Florida) pls explain why my body would lose muscle when its being both actively exercised and stoked with a 80+ gram protein/day fuel supply ?? >> You can rest assured that your metobolism has slowed and that you've lost >> a significant amount of LBM as part of your 50 lbs rapid-weight loss. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > exercised and stoked with > a 80+ gram protein/day fuel supply ?? Because your weight loss is too fast and muscle is being used for energy needs. You still weigh over 200 lbs AND you're walking 5 miles / day. Energy must come from some where and simply eating x grams of protein won't keep your body from using muscle mass. You can minimize muscle loss but can't prevent it - moreso when you lose weight quickly. Of course, you're 71, so perhaps it's more damaging to be heavy than to lose muscle. That is something to consider. => =>"David Frank" <dave_frank@hotmail.com> wrote in message =>news:B5sLf.2390$F56.2017@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... =>> =>> "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message =>> news:11vrhv0bep04tf3@news.supernews.com... =>>> =>>> You can rest assured that your metobolism has slowed and that you've lost =>>> a significant amount of LBM as part of your 50 lbs rapid-weight loss. =>>> Since you know you can lose weight, why don't you slow it down a bit and =>>> keep some muscle? =>>> =>> =>> I'm retired and 71 and generally walk briskly 5 miles/day (easy enuf to =>> do, I live in Florida) =>> pls explain why my body would lose muscle when its being both actively =>> exercised and stoked with =>> a 80+ gram protein/day fuel supply ?? => =>Because your weight loss is too fast and muscle is being used for energy =>needs. You still weigh over 200 lbs AND you're walking 5 miles / day. =>Energy must come from some where and simply eating x grams of protein won't ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ =>keep your body from using muscle mass. You can minimize muscle loss but \ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ =>can't prevent it - moreso when you lose weight quickly. => =>Of course, you're 71, so perhaps it's more damaging to be heavy than to lose =>muscle. That is something to consider. => Most low cal starvation presumes low protein diet. Since there isn't enough protein intake, body protein loss is a fact. As to preserving body protein is more important or preserving body fat is more important, use your brain? Do you see any starving skin wrap around bone kids with lot of body fat left over(presume their crazy body trying extremely hard to preserve fat instead of important body parts)? They all lose body fat way faster than body protein in starvation. With enough protein intake, unless one's body is crazy, there has no proof that body is acting according to Mr. Zoul's way that trying extremely hard to preserve body fat instead of body protein and using body protein and protein intake as fuel to preserve body fat. > Nah, its almost certain that as time goes on they get diet > sloppy/overconfident and CHEAT without knowing it.. And you have exactly what going for you that makes that trend not apply to you? I take it you have done a close review of why people end up cheating, and you are using a new strategy that takes that into account, right? Or are you just ignorantly charging ahead figuring you're different? > Your body burns calories every day as per the exercise performed and there > is no such thing as metabolism allowing you to perform at same exercise > level on fewer calories, Statement that has been proven incorrect in numerous experiements. Humans are not gasoline engines. > however there is the fact that one uses more > calories when overweight to perform at the same exercise level, so yes, one > has to be aware of that and pick up the slack... You got a part of it correct at least. So, tell us about your studies and what you've changed compared to the hundreds of thousands before you who charged in with good intentions but poor knowledge. Or explain to us how you are different from them. I do realize you aren't interested in taking any advice from the folks who've learned the hard ways before you started. 1000 cals sounds very little to me. It's not something you can do fo the rest of your life. As soon as you go back to eating normal amoun of cals, you'll gain back the weight you lost -- Gardenia > 1000 cals sounds very little to me. It's not something you can do for > the rest of your life. As soon as you go back to eating normal amount > of cals, you'll gain back the weight you lost. Of course I would if I go back to eating whats considered a normal amount of cals.. However;. I suspect the diet tables are all a fiction subscribed to by medical professionals (to promote ill health and high fees) and food merchants (to sell their wares) and have been set 10-30% TOO HIGH DELIBERATELY... That explains why the starvation dieters can MAINTAIN their body weight with fewer calories than the 2500 etc. listed as normal... Give us an idea of what you would eat in a typical day. Tell us what exactly works for you. TC > http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06031/647276.stm > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Bottom line: Folks you have to limit C A L O R I E S to be your natural > weight (as per what those embarrassing public scales say you shud weigh).. > Give us an idea of what you would eat in a typical day. Tell us what > exactly works for you. http://home.earthlink.net/~davegemini/diet.txt My diet table is in daily flux and above is just a current snapshot showing 700 calories, but believe me by the time I hit the sack at night I usually am near the 1000 calories, e.g. 2 oz of Fat-free Pringles (140 cal).. BUT note my table doesnt list carbs or fat, just calories and protein, so my menu items are UNLIMITED in scope just like in the so-called "starvation diet" of the article. btw, the calorie/protein totals are calculated by a little computer program I wrote What will be first menu modification when I hit my goal of < 200 lbs? I will add a 2nd beer as recommended by NIH of course!! I keep screwing up the link to my online files... http://home.earthlink.net/~dave_gemini/diet.txt > What will be first menu modification when I hit my goal of < 200 lbs? > I will add a 2nd beer as recommended by NIH of course!! One must have priorities. Chuckle. I suggest a really good Trappist Ale from Belgium. Maybe Chimay. If you're only going to have one beer, make it the absolute best beer you can find anywhere. Of course my sugestion of Chimay shows my tastes in beer not yours so you'll likely chose differently. I drink very few beers these days. Not every week. So I figure if I'm going to have one beer in a 1-2 week period, I'm not interested in usingprice as a guide for my purchase. So what if I select a beer at $10. Folks who have a case in a week pay that for a week's supply so why should I pay that for a week's supply. You can get a lot better beer that way. ;^) I rarely have beers any worse than Guiness. "Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote in > for a week's supply. You can get a lot better beer that > way. ;^) I rarely have beers any worse than Guiness. Guinness seems to really fatten me up! :-( >> What will be first menu modification when I hit my goal of < 200 lbs? >> I will add a 2nd beer as recommended by NIH of course!! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > for a week's supply. You can get a lot better beer that > way. ;^) I rarely have beers any worse than Guiness. I only reward myself with a 16 oz draft beer at local pub on my way home from 5 mile walk, (looking at a exercise link I have burned 700 excess calories due to the walk)... I was surprised to find Guinness draft has less alcohol than my Miller's Lite draft but not surprised it had more calories.. (see below how your fav brew fares calorie/alcohol-wise) http://www.realbeer.com/edu/health/calories.php Give us an idea of what you would eat in a typical day. Tell us what exactly works for you. TC > http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06031/647276.stm > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Bottom line: Folks you have to limit C A L O R I E S to be your natural > weight (as per what those embarrassing public scales say you shud weigh).. |
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
|
©2012 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.