Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / February 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Why Weight-Loss Efforts Fail

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Brooke - 25 Feb 2007 22:18 GMT
Why Weight-Loss Efforts Fail
By Kathleen Doheny, HealthDay Reporter
HealthDay

FRIDAY, Feb. 23 (HealthDay News) -- About one in three American adults is
trying to lose weight at any given time, and while their track record for
trying is good, their track record for succeeding is not.

Within five years, most dieters will regain the weight they lost. And,
after five years, they may even weigh more than when they started the
original weight-loss effort, some studies have found.

But weight-loss researchers have begun to uncover insights into what makes
some dieters succeed while others fail. While there are no hard-and-fast
rules that work for everyone, there are ways to maximize your success the
next time you decide to drop those excess pounds -- maybe for good.

A strategy for success begins with getting realistic, experts say.

"Cause number-one [for failure] is setting too unrealistic of goals, losing
too much too fast," said Barbel Knauper, an associate professor of
psychology at McGill University in Montreal. Instead of trying to lose,
say, 15 pounds in a month -- very unrealistic -- most experts suggest a
slow, steady loss, about one or two pounds a week.

Another pitfall, Knauper said, is a lack of advance planning before social
situations. "If people were making 'when, where, how' plans, they would be
more likely to adhere to their goal," he said. For instance, you might say
to yourself, 'When I go out for dinner tonight with friends, I won't order
a large entree, but a smaller one. And I'll stick with my choice even if
they pressure me to eat more.'"

Socializing is one of the top three reasons people eventually fail with a
diet, said Dr. Michael Dansinger, an assistant professor of medicine at
Tufts-New England Medical Center, in Boston.

The other two? "Feelings of deprivation or boredom with the current eating
plan," Dansinger said, "and the healthy foods often seem to be less
available, require more preparation or cost more than the unhealthy foods."

Still another pitfall, Knauper said, is that people often underestimate the
number of calories in foods and overestimate the number of calories burned
through exercise.

In one study, Knauper asked 132 women trying to lose weight on their own to
tell him their strategies -- their dieting "rules," so to speak. In all,
the 132 dieters offered 895 rules, with each woman listing an average of
nearly seven.

Then his research team followed the women to see which rules worked.
Overall, adherence to the self-set rules was low. But the ones deemed most
effective were the simplest -- reducing calories and increasing exercise.
Other rules that worked included: decreasing sugar intake; increasing
consumption of fruits and vegetables, vitamins and water; watching less TV;
and eating at home more often.

If you've tried unsuccessfully to diet many times, Dansinger suggests
getting a "coach." A coach can be your doctor, another health professional,
or a friend who'll hold you accountable to your goals, he said. He also
suggests recording your intake of calories every day, limiting calories,
and exercising seven hours a week, including cardiovascular and weight
workouts.

In a 2005 study published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association, Dansinger also found that adherence to a weight-loss plan --
any plan -- is more important than the diet regimen itself. He compared
people on Weight Watchers, Atkins, Zone and Ornish diets and found no
substantial weight-loss differences at one year, regardless of the diet.
The amount of weight lost ranged from 4.6 to 7.3 pounds.

More information

To learn more about healthy eating, visit the American Dietetic
Association.

Copyright © 2007 ScoutNews, LLC. All rights reserved.
URL:
http://health.msn.com/dietfitness/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100156713>
1=9033
David  Cohen - 25 Feb 2007 22:28 GMT
> To learn more about healthy eating, visit the American Dietetic
> Association.

The Registered Dieticians of the ADA are the most ignorant group of
"professionals" that I have ever encountered. They are supposed to be able
to design diets for my hospitalized patients. They fail at this most of the
time. Their management of diabetic patients is nothing short of criminal.

Keep your dieting advice. I prefer to live a long and healthy life.

David
Caleb - 25 Feb 2007 23:06 GMT
> > To learn more about healthy eating, visit the American Dietetic
> > Association.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> David

David --

Generally, though, most of the insight and advice above seems good,
except maybe the 7 hours of exercise a week. While that may be good
for most people, a lot of people aren't going to be able to adhere to
it.

Yours,

Caleb
Will Brink - 26 Feb 2007 15:02 GMT
> > > To learn more about healthy eating, visit the American Dietetic
> > > Association.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> for most people, a lot of people aren't going to be able to adhere to
> it.

Most people don't need 7 hours per week, but yet another mistake they make
is to lump "exercise" into some generic term as if all exercise was
created equal. Type of exercise, intensity of exercise, etc, etc all
matter. People can get away with less, and make solid progress on their
fat loss. For example, I have a feeling many have seen this report, or one
like it, floating around on the Œnet right now regarding a study that
(supposedly) found diet or exercise take off weight equally? Below is the
report. Although the media often does a poor job of reporting on
nutritional research accurately, they do a truly terrible job of it here.
However, it¹s not totally their fault as the researcher themselves totally
missed the mark on the results of their own study, which is not uncommon
BTW.

The funny thing is, all the study actually does is confirm what we have
known for years...The media reports are omitting most of the really
essential facts such as the people were put on low calorie low protein
diets (15%P) and did only low intensity aerobics. In fact, the
participants were allowed to self select the intensity levels! Shock of
all shocks (dripping with sarcasm here), the study found low P diets and
aerobics led to a loss of fat and LBM and that low intensity aerobics does
not protect LBM and does essentially little more then burn calories. Thus,
why diets low in P and lacking any resistance training are a terrible ­
though typical ­ method of losing fat and protecting LBM.

That gets a big ³no duh² from me but appears to be earth shattering
³cutting edge² news to the media outlets and general publicŠ.

There are also some bizarre statements made by the researchers in this
media report that is not even looked at in the study! See if you can catch
themŠ.

Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds

Story Highlights. Eating less, exercising more equally good at helping
take off pounds, study finds

. Research adds to evidence that adding muscle mass does not boost metabolism

. Dieting alone also did not appear to cause loss of muscle mass along with
fat

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Eating less and exercising more are equally good
at helping take off the pounds, U.S. researchers said Friday in a study
that challenges many of the popular tenets of the multibillion dollar diet
and fitness industry.

Tests on overweight people show that a calorie is just a calorie, whether
lost by dieting or by running, they said.

They found there is no way to selectively lose belly fat, for instance, or
trim thighs. And their carefully controlled study added to evidence that
adding muscle mass does not somehow boost metabolism and help dieters take
off even more weight.

"It's all about the calories," said Dr. Eric Ravussin of the Pennington
Biomedical Research Center, part of Louisiana State University in Baton
Rouge.

"So long as the energy deficit is the same, body weight, fat weight, and
abdominal fat will all decrease in the same way."

Ravussin said the study, published in the Journal of Clinical
Endocrinology & Metabolism, is one of the few done under controlled
conditions that can & actually demonstrate what happens to a human body
while dieting and & exercising.

Ravussin's team has been testing volunteers for another reason -- to see
whether taking in fewer calories helps people live longer. Strict diets
have been shown to help animals from worms to dogs live longer, but it
takes longer to study monkeys and humans.

They tested 24 people, 12 who ate a calorie-restricted diet, and 12 who
dieted and also exercised five times a week for six months.

The dieters ate 25 percent less than normal, while the exercisers reduced
their calorie intake by 12.5 percent and increased their physical activity
to lose an extra 12.5 percent in calories.

An additional 10 volunteers acted as controls. All food was provided by
the university in carefully measured portions for most of the study.

The volunteers in both groups lost about 10 percent of their body weight,
24 percent of their fat mass, and 27 percent of their abdominal viscera
fat. Visceral fat is packed in between the internal organs and I
considered the most dangerous type of fat, linked with heart disease and
diabetes.

The distribution of the fat on the body was not altered by either approach
-- helping prove that there is no such thing as "spot reducing", Ravussin
said in a telephone interview.

This suggests that "individuals are genetically programmed for fat storage
in a particular pattern and that this programming cannot easily be
overcome," he added.

Ravussin has published other studies that also dispute the idea that
exercise builds muscle that helps people lose weight.

"If anything, highly trained people are highly efficient, so they burn
fewer calories at rest," Ravussin said.

Dieting alone also did not appear to cause the volunteers to lose muscle
mass along with fat, Ravussin's team found.

"There is a concept that if you exercise, you are going to lose less of
your muscle," he said. But his team found no evidence this is true.

Ravussin believes exercise is crucial to health, however.

"For overall health, an appropriate program of diet and exercise is still
the best," he said.

His team found some small suggestion that cutting 25 percent of calories
by either diet or diet and exercise might extend life.

"We found that 2 of the biomarkers of aging were improved ­ core
temperature was 0.4 to 0.5 degrees C less," he said. "Insulin, which has
been shown to be a biomarker of aging, was reduced," Ravussin said. That
finding was published in the Journal of the American Medical Associaton
last April.

Signature

Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

dkw12002@yahoo.com - 26 Feb 2007 15:18 GMT
> In article <1172444806.559734.267...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>
[quoted text clipped - 142 lines]
>
> "It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

I agree with what you said, but a 15% protein diet would not be low
protein. On a 2,000 calorie diet that is 300 calories from protein or
300/4=75 grams. The govt studies show 0.8 gms of protein per Kg of
weight is adequate, so for a 165 pound person (75 Kg.) that would be 1
gram of protein per Kg of weight. Some body builders insist that you
need more, but the 0.8 gms per Kg. is supposed to include 90% of the
population. dkw
Doug Freyburger - 26 Feb 2007 15:59 GMT
On Feb 26, 9:18 am, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I agree with what you said, but a 15% protein diet would not be low
> protein. On a 2,000 calorie diet that is 300 calories from protein or
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> need more, but the 0.8 gms per Kg. is supposed to include 90% of the
> population.

The book to read to figure out your minimum protein requirement is
Protein Power by Drs Eades.  There's a chapter in it with instructions
on taking measurements and doing arithmatic.  The result is your
ideal weight, your minimum protein grams and so on.

When I followed the instructions I found that my minimum protein
grams for the day is 77.  Not being a vegitarian and being a low
carber
I might not go under 100 grams even once in a month.

But thinking about it, any protein grams I go over 77 are just extra
calories as far as protein is concerned.  I figure I need 1800
calories
for maintenance so those calories have to come from somewhere.
Being a low carber I like to stay under 100 grams for maintenance,
50 for loss and that's 400 calories.  The other 1400 need to come
from some mixture of protein and fat and getting my protein all the
way down near 80 ends up mostly greasy foods unless I include
enough cream cheese to get sick of it.

Anyways, lots of Americans get well over their minimum protein
needs daily.
dkw12002@yahoo.com - 26 Feb 2007 17:51 GMT
> On Feb 26, 9:18 am, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> Anyways, lots of Americans get well over their minimum protein
> needs daily.

I am vegetarian. That is why I know a little about protein and watch
my intake in order to get enough. I eat just the opposite of
you...high carb, very low fat, adequate protein, but I also watch my
calories. I weigh 133 lbs and get about 55 gms of protein and under 10
grams of fat a day. All the rest is carbs. People are very versatile.
Apparently so are animals. Dogs do fine on a vegetarian diet, although
I think they would prefer meat, for example. dkw
Doug Freyburger - 26 Feb 2007 18:25 GMT
"dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > The book to read to figure out your minimum protein requirement is
> > Protein Power by Drs Eades.  There's a chapter in it with instructions
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>  I am vegetarian. That is why I know a little about protein and watch
> my intake in order to get enough.

It makes it interesting that while we disagree on so much we end
up agreeing on this bit.

> I eat just the opposite of
> you...high carb, very low fat, adequate protein, but I also watch my
> calories. I weigh 133 lbs and get about 55 gms of protein and under 10
> grams of fat a day. All the rest is carbs. People are very versatile.

There is no one right answer.

> Apparently so are animals. Dogs do fine on a vegetarian diet, although
> I think they would prefer meat, for example.

You can't make your dog a vegitarian.  Feeding a cat vegitarian
is definitely abuse - There is no way to keep a cat healthy with
vegitarian food.  Dogs are more evolved towards omnivores but it
still takes at least as much care and effort to keep a dog healthy
on vegitarian food as a human.  Never think you're doing a dog a
favor by feeding it vegitarian food.  It isn't automatically abuse but
it is definitely wrong.  If you want a vegitarian dog get a rabbit and
call it Bowser.

My stance is simple - Humans can make a choice to decide to
be vegitarian.  Do it for religious/moral/political reasons and it is
good.  Animals can't make such a choice so it is definitely wrong.
dkw12002@yahoo.com - 26 Feb 2007 19:00 GMT
> "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
> be vegitarian.  Do it for religious/moral/political reasons and it is
> good.  Animals can't make such a choice so it is definitely wrong.

Yes. There are vegetarian dog foods with high protein and no animal
products. Natural Balance makes one, but I'm sure there are others.
Apparently rice and corn are the main ingredients in almost all
commercial dog foods, so they are almost vegetarian to begin with. The
vegetarian dog food is supposed to be a complete balanced diet and you
aren't supposed to need to add meat. I get free samples and do mix it
in with my regular dog food which does have duck, lamb, chicken and
beef in it. My dog doesn't know anything is different. I suppose it
could be balanced like FOX NEWS is balanced, though. Nutritionally, it
is probably very good for the dog, but like I said, they might not
prefer it. You can say the same about human food choices. dkw
Will Brink - 26 Feb 2007 18:33 GMT
> I agree with what you said, but a 15% protein diet would not be low
> protein. On a 2,000 calorie diet that is 300 calories from protein or
> 300/4=3D75 grams.

Far too low.

> The govt studies show 0.8 gms of protein per Kg of
> weight is adequate,

That is 100% false. There are plenty of studies that show higher P diets
are superior for preserving LBM, as well as other effects (1). That is one
of many studies.

(1) Obesity 15:421-429 (2007)
© 2007 The North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Original Articles

Higher Protein Intake Preserves Lean Mass and Satiety with Weight Loss in
Pre-obese and Obese Women

Department of Foods and Nutrition, Ingestive Behavior Research Center,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Address correspondence to Heather J. Leidy, Purdue University, 700 West
State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907. E-mail: hleidy@purdue.edu
Objective: To examine the effects of dietary protein and obesity
classification on energy-restriction-induced changes in weight, body
composition, appetite, mood, and cardiovascular and kidney health.
Research Methods and Procedures: Forty-six women, ages 28 to 80, BMI 26 to
37 kg/m2, followed a 12-week 750-kcal/d energy-deficit diet containing
higher protein (HP, 30% protein) or normal protein (NP, 18% protein) and
were retrospectively subgrouped according to obesity classification
[pre-obese (POB), BMI = 26 to 29.9 kg/m2; obese (OB), BMI = 30 to 37
kg/m2).
Results: All subjects lost weight, fat mass, and lean body mass (LBM; p <
0.001). With comparable weight loss, LBM losses were less in HP vs. NP
(­1.5 ± 0.3 vs. ­2.8 ± 0.5 kg; p < 0.05) and POB vs. OB (­1.2 ± 0.3 vs.
­2.9 ± 0.4 kg; p < 0.005). The main effects of protein and obesity on LBM
changes were independent and additive; POB-HP lost less LBM vs. OB-NP (p <
0.05). The energy-restriction-induced decline in satiety was less
pronounced in HP vs. NP (p < 0.005). Perceived pleasure increased with HP
and decreased with NP (p < 0.05). Lipid-lipoprotein profile and blood
pressure improved and kidney function minimally changed with energy
restriction (p < 0.05), independently of protein intake.
Discussion: Consuming a higher-protein diet and accomplishing weight loss
before becoming obese help women preserve LBM. Use of a higher-protein
diet also improves perceptions of satiety and pleasure during energy
restriction.
Key Words: cardiovascular function € kidney function € hunger and satiety
€ pleasure € energy restriction

Signature

Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

Del Cecchi - 26 Feb 2007 18:52 GMT
>>I agree with what you said, but a 15% protein diet would not be low
>>protein. On a 2,000 calorie diet that is 300 calories from protein or
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
> Key Words: cardiovascular function € kidney function € hunger and satiety
> € pleasure € energy restriction

Sorry, but in the study the participants in "np" were getting 18 percent
of 750 Cal/day as protein.  that works out to 34 gr/day.  So unless they
weighed less than 42 kg or 93 lb (with a bmi of 26 or more they would
only be 4 feet tall) they are not getting 0.8 gms/kg.

So the study proves that if you starve folks they lose LBM, but they
lose less if given adequate protein.  And you want to generalize that to
say that way more than adequate is even better.  It might be true but
this study doesnt' show it.

(crosspost trimmed)

Signature

Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

Will Brink - 27 Feb 2007 15:25 GMT
> Sorry, but in the study the participants in "np" were getting 18 percent
> of 750 Cal/day as protein.  that works out to 34 gr/day.  So unless they
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> say that way more than adequate is even better.  It might be true but
> this study doesnt' show it.

It does not have to. It tells us that different % of P in a diet can and
do have different effects, and a low cal diet combined with low P (18% in
the study cited here and 15% in the other) is hard on LBM as well as other
effects. In general, using a % of cals is problematic as 15% of cal X diet
may be too low while 15% of diet Y may be too high. As cals go down % of P
needs to go up. Thus, I am not saying "more than adequate" I am saying the
recommendations are not adequate to begin with and low cal diets combined
with low P is a terrible - though common - method of weight loss.

Signature

Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

Scott - 28 Feb 2007 01:24 GMT
>> Research Methods and Procedures: Forty-six women, ages 28 to 80, BMI 26 to
>> 37 kg/m2, followed a 12-week 750-kcal/d energy-deficit diet containing
>> higher protein (HP, 30% protein) or normal protein (NP, 18% protein)
>
> Sorry, but in the study the participants in "np" were getting 18 percent
> of 750 Cal/day as protein.

No, it says they were eating a 750 kcal/day deficit.  I don't see anywhere
that it required subjects to have an energy requirement of 1500 kcals in
order to participate.  ;)  It would be interesting to know at least some
ranges though, so that we could run your numbers.

--Scott
Hollywood - 26 Feb 2007 19:28 GMT
On Feb 26, 10:18 am, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > In article <1172444806.559734.267...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>
[quoted text clipped - 150 lines]
> need more, but the 0.8 gms per Kg. is supposed to include 90% of the
> population. dkw

This number is, like most things that come out of your federal
government, a compromise around a middle. And it might be the least
helpful.

Recall, if you will, that your federal government pushes a low fat,
low calorie diet as the solution to health. Their diet includes 10% of
calories coming from free sugar. That's a winner.

Far better to tailor protein intake to lean body mass. So, if the
proverbial 165 lb person is 92% LBM, that .8g/kg is not going to feed
his need. If, otoh, the proverbial 165lb person is, say, 35% LBM,
well, the Eades would suggest that you have to eat a lot of protein
before you are overfeeding on it.

Me, I have ~175 lbs of LBM. The Eades suggest, based on my activity
level, that I should have .7g/lb of LBM. This works to about 125g/day,
broken out evenly. Nice.In rough math, that's 500 calories, which
isn't huge. Course, I'm a protein powered LC'er, so I get ~50% of my
cals from fats (yeah! Fat!... I resolve to eat cheese and nuts in the
face of every anti-fat nitwit.) And I lose weight like this. About 1.3
lbs / week since late August. Nice!

Lotta different ways to go about it, but only one that lets you lose
weight while eating pork chops, pan-broiled, with a pan sauce heavy on
the cream.
dkw12002@yahoo.com - 26 Feb 2007 20:01 GMT
> On Feb 26, 10:18 am, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 178 lines]
> weight while eating pork chops, pan-broiled, with a pan sauce heavy on
> the cream.

The 0.8 gms per Kg is not supposed to be a measure of central
tendency, because in the govt. studies, it is adequate for over 90% of
the population. I see no problem with upping it a little to be sure,
but there is some evidence that too much protein can be harmful to the
kidneys. Protein supplements seem to be unneeded though and probably a
waste of money, since you can get cheap high quality protein very
inexpensively...in egg whites, milk, soy milk, and many cereals. Oats
has 5 gm. of protein per serving and cost about 6 cents. Add a half
cup of nonfat milk and you get 9 gms of protein.

Most nutritionists say getting adequate protein in America is no
problem and most people get more than 2X what they need. I tend to
accept their recommendation on protein, but getting 30% of your
calories in fat seems excessive, and I woudn't be surprised to see
that lowered dramatically. dkw
Will Brink - 26 Feb 2007 22:41 GMT
> The 0.8 gms per Kg is not supposed to be a measure of central
> tendency, because in the govt. studies, it is adequate for over 90% of
> the population.

It's worthless and not based on current data. For non exercising lazy
American types, it's "adequate." It's not optimal for many groups, such as
people trying to lose fat and retain LBM, some athletes, etc,

> I see no problem with upping it a little to be sure,
> but there is some evidence that too much protein can be harmful to the
> kidneys.

That is wrong. That myth has been 100% debunked. Studies can be listed if
you want.

> Most nutritionists say getting adequate protein in America is no
> problem and most people get more than 2X what they need.

Depends. It's a useless statement. Most older adults don't get enough,
some athletes get more then they need, some don't, etc, etc.

> I tend to
> accept their recommendation on protein,

Sorry to hear that.

> but getting 30% of your
> calories in fat seems excessive,

Then you are not following what most nutritionists and the 'gubment"
recommend, which is...drum roll...30%

http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/executivesummary.htm

> and I woudn't be surprised to see
> that lowered dramatically.

I would not hold your breath on that. Studies find the "Mediterranean"
type diets far better for you then US guidlines and higher in fat! Around
40% in fact. Fat is not the bad guy many think it is.

Signature

Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

dkw12002@yahoo.com - 26 Feb 2007 23:00 GMT
> In article <1172520062.117548.152...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>,
>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>
> "It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

Sorry, but fat IS BAD. You can make all the fat your body needs except
for the essential fatty acids which you can get very easily. Each to
his own, but I don't think you are even close to eating healthy on 40%
fat diet...not to mention, YOU WOULD likely be fat on such a diet
since fat has 9 cal per gram whereas protein and carbs have 4. I'll
stick with my high carb, vegetarian diet and live forever. Good luck
to you. If you have good genes, you can probably eat anything though.
dkw
Sir Jackery - 26 Feb 2007 23:21 GMT
>> In article <1172520062.117548.152...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
> to you. If you have good genes, you can probably eat anything though.
> dkw

Forty percent calories from fat contain the same amount of chemical energy
as forty percent calories from carbohydrates. By weight fat has a higher
calorie density. Saturated glucose solutions are more dense than lipids and
thus the difference in energy density between them by volume is not as
substantial as by weight.

My point is that you are assuming a "by weight" 40% when I believe it was
clear that Will meant 40% "by energy." Fat is not bad. It is a very
natural things for humans to consume and our body processes it very
easily. Like most things too much fat can have negative effects (as can
too much sugar).

--Sir Jackery
Will Brink - 27 Feb 2007 01:02 GMT
> Sorry, but fat IS BAD.

Make up your mind. You listen to nutritionists about your protein intake
but ignore them on your fat intake? Do i have that right? You now know
more then the USDA or American Heart a.s.? You clearly have no training or
knowledge of the topic and should stop giving advice on the topic.

>You can make all the fat your body needs except
> for the essential fatty acids which you can get very easily. Each to
> his own, but I don't think you are even close to eating healthy on 40%
> fat diet...

What you "think" does not matter. Studies prove otherwise.

>not to mention, YOU WOULD likely be fat on such a diet
> since fat has 9 cal per gram whereas protein and carbs have 4.

Not the brightest bulb in the lamp are you? How do people lose weight on
Atkins  diet when it's so high in fat? Low total calories that's how.
Again, stop giving advice and opinions on a topic you know so little about
and do us all a favor.

> I'll
> stick with my high carb, vegetarian diet and live forever.

Um no, you wont. You will die like the rest of us, and may or may not
outlive others. BTW, the longest lived people on the planet are not
vegetarians. You sure are not helping the vegetarian image with your
amazingly ignorant comments..

>Good luck
> to you. If you have good genes, you can probably eat anything though.

About the first (almost) correct thing you have saidd so far.

Signature

Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

dkw12002@yahoo.com - 27 Feb 2007 04:06 GMT
> In article <1172530850.562813.38...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> "It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

Very funny. The point is you get to eat more than 2X the amount by
weight of carbs or protein vs. fat. You could try and make the point
that you get more full on fat I suppose so less might work. Last I
looked, Atkins folks had better count calories like the rest of us.
Personally, I like eating a lot of nutritious carbs like bread and
cereals which I know are good for me. Not too many people believe
fatty meat is good for you, pal. Atkins is  a fad that is almost run
its course. It is not a reasonable diet to follow for the rest of your
life. A vegetarian diet however, is, and you don't have to try and
trick your body or throw yourself into ketosis, or risk
hypercholesterolemia. "Live forever" is an idiom, idiot. dkw
Sir Jackery - 27 Feb 2007 06:04 GMT
>> In article <1172530850.562813.38...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
> trick your body or throw yourself into ketosis, or risk
> hypercholesterolemia. "Live forever" is an idiom, idiot. dkw

I'd say Atkin's is a fad that HAS run its course.

--Sir Jackery
Will Brink - 27 Feb 2007 16:52 GMT
> I'd say Atkin's is a fad that HAS run its course.

Nah, in one form or another low carb/ketogenic diets are here to stay.
Some people respond evry well to them. They may not always be classic
Atkins per se, but the basic idea remains.

Signature

Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

Hollywood - 27 Feb 2007 14:14 GMT
On Feb 26, 11:06 pm, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Very funny. The point is you get to eat more than 2X the amount by
> weight of carbs or protein vs. fat. You could try and make the point
> that you get more full on fat I suppose so less might work.

Not to bore anyone, but let's suggest a mechanism where a calorie is
not exactly a calorie and there are forces at work that complicate the
Cash Accounting T-Account that is "Calorie is a Calorie". For example,
let's suggest that perhaps one macronutrient that gets 4 kcal to the g
is harder to digest than another with the same energy potential. That
is to say, perhaps one takes more work to digest than another. So,
I've taken in 100 kcals of one or the other, but my end result might
be very different. Funny thing, Protein and Carb both have 4kcal/g.
And protein is harder to digest than carb. So, my 100 kcals of protein
cals might wind up looking like 75 kcals of available energy, while my
carbs might look like 90 kcals. Over a larger number of grams (say 150
a piece) this gets large.

The other thing is, perhaps one macronutrient stimulates hunger while
others create satiation. If you want to stick with your flawed t-
account, it is possible that one nutrient actually, by a mechanism
that your accounting doesn't capture, creates over consumption,
inherently. And, so it is, with carbs and insulin. And so it is, with
the filling nature of protein and fats.

> Last I
> looked, Atkins folks had better count calories like the rest of us.

I get calorie data because the thing I use to track my protein and
carbs gives it to me. I don't count them. I am 45 lbs down, which I
suppose might be all water. None of it is lean body mass (at least by
the 6 formulas and the EI scale I use to figure such things). Course,
I'm not an Atkins folk. I'm Protein Powered. But, the differences are
smaller than the similarities.

> Personally, I like eating a lot of nutritious carbs like bread and
> cereals which I know are good for me. Not too many people believe
> fatty meat is good for you, pal.

So, other than vitamin fortification (you are better off getting it
from veggies and meat anyway) and fiber (again, veggies are a better
source), what good are the bread and cereals doing you exactly? Leaky
gut syndrome? I dunno about you, but my ancestors didn't grow up
eating grain.

In my 45 pound loss (average of 1.3+ lbs per week mind you), I have
eaten, pretty consistently, about 50% of my calories from fat. About
about 40% of those from heavy duty saturated fat. Butter is yummy. And
good for you. Oh, and in case you are wondering, my total cholesterol
has dropped by over 80 points, with no decrease in HDL, and a very
minor dip in Triglycerides (they were mid range healthy to start
with). Oh, and BP which was slightly elevated (130/82) is regularly in
the 110/75 range. Heart rate was in the 60-80 range, is now in the
50-60 range. And all that fat! Yummy butter. And Olive oil. And steak.
Rib Eye! Yeah!

> Atkins is  a fad that is almost run
> its course. It is not a reasonable diet to follow for the rest of your
> life. A vegetarian diet however, is, and you don't have to try and
> trick your body or throw yourself into ketosis, or risk
> hypercholesterolemia.

See above. I was hyper, now I'm so healthy, my doc doesn't want to
cholesterol for 3 years. I'm annoyed. I want to get more up to date
numbers to show another good data point for the anti-fat crowd.

On the flip side, I'm not interested in developing diabetes with a
vegetarian diet. Sorry.

> "Live forever" is an idiom, idiot. dkw

With the miracle of google's group archives, we can all live forever.

Hollywood, retaking his resolution to eat cheese and nuts in the face
of every anti-fat nitwit I meet. This pecan's for you, DKW.
Jbuch - 27 Feb 2007 15:53 GMT
> On Feb 26, 11:06 pm, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> inherently. And, so it is, with carbs and insulin. And so it is, with
> the filling nature of protein and fats.

A) you could be describing a "metabolic advantage" approach
B) your ideas have similarities to dietary arguments that there are
"negative calories" because some foods require more energy for digestion
than they furnish
C) Atkins talked about deep lypolysis (Ketotis) being an appetite
suppressant.

>>Last I
>>looked, Atkins folks had better count calories like the rest of us.

Well, yes and no. If you can't control your eating because of your
mental or physical function, then you surely should be counting calories.

The reasons that Atkins skips the subject are well described in the
books he wrote, that you haven't read, evidently.

In one sense, while the Eades are indeed "God's gift to mankind", they
owe an intellectual heritage to Atkins and the very low carb plan he
popularized.

There is no honor among thieves and diet plan authors. And the dedicated
diet plan followers aren't much better.

> I get calorie data because the thing I use to track my protein and
> carbs gives it to me. I don't count them. I am 45 lbs down, which I
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> Hollywood, retaking his resolution to eat cheese and nuts in the face
> of every anti-fat nitwit I meet. This pecan's for you, DKW.
Will Brink - 27 Feb 2007 16:48 GMT
> There is no honor among thieves and diet plan authors. And the dedicated
> diet plan followers aren't much better.

LOL. Well put!

Signature

Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

Will Brink - 27 Feb 2007 16:46 GMT
> On Feb 26, 11:06 pm, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Very funny. The point is you get to eat more than 2X the amount by
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> not exactly a calorie and there are forces at work that complicate the
> Cash Accounting T-Account that is "Calorie is a Calorie".

I cover that exact topic in an article called:

"A Unified Theory of Nutrition"

Found at:

http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?acatid=3&aid=18

As for the rest of your comments, I enjoyed them, but you are talking to a
brick wall there, an ignoraant brick wall at that. Anyone in this day and
age who would lump all fats together as "bad" is not worth the effort it
took you to respond. Congrats on your weight loss BTW.

Signature

Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

Will Brink - 27 Feb 2007 14:21 GMT
> Very funny.

If you find the facts funny, then yes, it was quite funny.

(idiotic vegetarian babble snipped)

Signature

Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

Doug Freyburger - 27 Feb 2007 19:42 GMT
> "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but fat IS BAD.
>
> Make up your mind. You listen to nutritionists about your protein intake
> but ignore them on your fat intake? Do i have that right?

DKW thinks the fat in a single egg yolk is toxic but eats dozens of
packets of splenda daily.  Don't expect much consistancy.

Low fat works for some or many, just like low carb works for some or
many.  DKW takes low fat to an extreme.  Shrug.  It works for him
and sometimes he phrases it that way.
Omelet - 25 Feb 2007 23:27 GMT
> > To learn more about healthy eating, visit the American Dietetic
> > Association.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> David

<Applause!!!>
Signature

Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Ophelia - 26 Feb 2007 07:56 GMT
>> > To learn more about healthy eating, visit the American Dietetic
>> > Association.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> <Applause!!!>

Hey Om:)))))))) which group are you on?
Will Brink - 26 Feb 2007 00:17 GMT
> > To learn more about healthy eating, visit the American Dietetic
> > Association.
>
> The Registered Dieticians of the ADA are the most ignorant group of
> "professionals" that I have ever encountered.

I don't get too mad at doctors when they give bad/incorrect nutritional
advice as they learn little to nothing about the topic in med school
(which means they should not be giving advice on the topic in the first
place but that's another issue...) but I do get pissed when nutritionists
give terrible advice considering that's suppose to be the one thing they
know something about! I can forgive docs, I can't forgive nutritionists.

Signature

Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

Hollywood - 26 Feb 2007 15:03 GMT
> Why Weight-Loss Efforts Fail
> By Kathleen Doheny, HealthDay Reporter
> HealthDay
<snip>

Missing is the number 1 reason why people don't maintain a loss.

They view GOAL as an ending, not as a beginning. Most people set a
goal like this:
"I will lose X lbs."

Few people set it like this:
"I will lose X lbs and maintain that loss for 5 years."

Most people should set their goal the way they are, then reset it when
they get there. So, once you lose X lbs (or X% bodyfat, or X inches),
the next step is to say, "I will keep this off for six months, with X
margin." When you get to six months, reenlist. Eventually, maintenance
is habit, not a phase or a chance to screw up your work.

-Hollywood, 265/219/213 (since 8/20/06)
 
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.