 |
 | 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 / General Topics / September 2007Weight loss suggestions?
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, "Robin King" <mapletree@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > I say, if you haven't got a method to help these people lose >weight that gives them a better chance of improving their lives than >of killing them, then leave them as is until you come up with one. Someone please help this deluded person out. Robin is of the opinion that losing weight is deadly. > > I say, if you haven't got a method to help these people lose > > weight that gives them a better chance of improving their lives than > > of killing them, then leave them as is until you come up with one. > > Someone please help this deluded person out. Robin is of the opinion > that losing weight is deadly. Dieting is bad for your health and can be deadly. The healthiest thing to do is eat what you want and let your body find its right weight. It's what nature intended. -- That would be true if you ate what nature intended you to eat, wild game, fruits, vegetables, grains.. Not Mcburger, sodas, deep fried foods, hormones loaded meats and chips.. Will~  Signature"Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic." Dave Barry >> > I say, if you haven't got a method to help these people lose >> > weight that gives them a better chance of improving their lives than [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to do is eat what you want and let your body find its right weight. > It's what nature intended. > That would be true if you ate what nature intended you to eat, wild game, > fruits, vegetables, grains.. Yes, and run and jump and climb for it, and occasionally run *from* it. I don't think fat + old go together too well. There are very few obese people who make it into their seventies. > Not Mcburger, sodas, deep fried foods, hormones loaded meats and chips.. My personal theory is that if a person eats the right foods and gets at least some exercise, the body will regulate its weight. For me that's low carb + not much exercise but at least a little. Just eating and eating and saying that "the body will find its own weight" is like putting the pedal to the metal in your car and letting your car naturally find its own speed. My .02, anyway. Mike >> That would be true if you ate what nature intended you to eat, wild game, >> fruits, vegetables, grains.. > > Yes, and run and jump and climb for it, and occasionally run *from* it. Now there's that too... Will~ Another statistic obtained by extrapolating from a very small self observed sample. | I don't think fat + old go together too well. There are very few obese | people who make it into their seventies. > Another statistic obtained by extrapolating from a very small self > observed > sample. There are three kinds of statistics: bullshit, more bullshit and political bullshit. Oh, wait, there's the branch of math called statistics, only understood by some but not all "staticticians". A small, self observed sample it may be. At one point it time, I did meet and was around several hundred "old people" at hospitals, retirment homes, etc., and I will tell you right now that the vast, vast majority were skinny non-smokers. There are all kinds of charts out there comparing the longevity of smokers to non-smokers. I have never seen anything of the sort for obesety. I "highly suspect" that obesety is a bigger killer than cigarettes. In other words, if an obese person who smokes can give up one or the other (smoking or excess weight), losing the weight will probably keep them alive longer. Maybe the fat ones aren't clustered in hospitals or retirememnts homes. I'm a fat old person and you won't see me at either place. I suspect that your suspicions are wrong. I have been seeing a lot of articles lately saying that fat old people live longer than skinny ones. And I definitely believe smoking is worse though lately there has been a lot of propaganda about obesity. | There are three kinds of statistics: bullshit, more bullshit and | political bullshit. Oh, wait, there's the branch of math called [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | other (smoking or excess weight), losing the weight will probably | keep them alive longer. > Maybe the fat ones aren't clustered in hospitals or retirememnts homes. I'm > a fat old person and you won't see me at either place. I suspect that your > suspicions are wrong. I have been seeing a lot of articles lately saying > that fat old people live longer than skinny ones. And I definitely believe > smoking is worse though lately there has been a lot of propaganda about > obesity. For this to make sense, you need to explain how diabetes, joint disease, and high blood pressure helps a person to live longer and stay vigorous in old age. And lots of chronic diseases force a person to be thin. No chronic disease forces a person to be fat. This fact will always skew the numbers. > | There are three kinds of statistics: bullshit, more bullshit and > | political bullshit. Oh, wait, there's the branch of math called [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > | other (smoking or excess weight), losing the weight will probably > | keep them alive longer. > Maybe the fat ones aren't clustered in hospitals or retirememnts homes. > I'm [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > smoking is worse though lately there has been a lot of propaganda about > obesity. I wish you a long, healthy, happy life. I have no real data to back up what I am saying. I do suspect that obesity is worse than smoking. That'll never be proven. Statistics come from two places. One, from an idiotic government. Those stats are picked through by people/groups with some sort of agenda, and whatever supports their cause is what they publicize. The other statistics you will see comes directly from people or groups with some sort of agenda. If you can't trust the American Heart Association, etc., for factual information, who can you trust? Seriously. No one. So far as I know they are still pushing low fat diets and statins for all, not positions I trust. Statistics are just numbers, interpreting them is a different matter. And when it comes to finding cause and effect it's very difficult to pin down causes when there are multiple variables. Could be that obese people exercise less and the lack of exercise is what shortens life. Everyone assumes that all obese people are alike, that they got there by eating junk food and swilling sugary sodas. It ain't necessarily so. | I wish you a long, healthy, happy life. I have no real data to back | up what I am saying. I do suspect that obesity is worse than smoking. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | If you can't trust the American Heart Association, etc., for factual | information, who can you trust? Seriously. > | If you can't trust the American Heart Association, etc., for factual > | information, who can you trust? Seriously. > No one. So far as I know they are still pushing low fat diets and statins > for all, not positions I trust. I had a heart attack, angioplasty and bypass back in May, so it's become more important to me to understand all this stuff. As far as I've been able to tell, the AHA is as useful to heart patients as the ADA is to diabetics. I've been reading this one cardiologist's blog lately. He is a bit over-the-top in criticizing his peers, and a lot of his emphasis is just on having you join his pay website, but a lot of what he says makes sense to me, so I will recommend it: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com He is pro low-carb, anti-saturated fat and uses statins in patients he feels need them. I've taken some of his advice immediatly, in adding fish oil and vitamin D supplements. There's still quite a lot of reading to do on his blog and I've ordered his book. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ > That would be true if you ate what nature intended you to eat, wild game, > fruits, vegetables, grains.. > > Not Mcburger, sodas, deep fried foods, hormones loaded meats and chips.. > > Will~ I so have to agree! Last night I went to a Carribbean style restaurant on the beach which we knew had been given good reviews over the years. It has a lively atmosphere, a good live band playing beach-style oldies (Jimmy Buffet, etc.), an open dining room that sets on the Grand Lagoon Marina, so you get the gulf breezes, and Carribbean dishes like jerk chicken, grilled shrimp, Cuban sandwiches, and tropical drinks like mango daquiris. The last time we were there was as the start of Spring Break. The food was clean tasting, fresh, like you knew everything was made on site. Even the Cuban bread was piping hot from the ovens. In 6 months, this place has taken a total dive in quality, so much so, that we've realised that only places we can actually eat out any more are the Japanese steakhouses and sushi bars. Everywhere we go any more, the food tastes fake, not clean. Even the salad was a bit off. Only thing we didn't leave behind was the drinks and the beer. The waitress was a sweet nerd girl who did her best to please, and even brought the manager down. This young lady did get the nice tip she deserved, but the shift manager was merely giving excuses about why things were the way they were. It was clear she did not care. If Al Quaida is considering poisoning the US food supply, they won't have to. The food corporations and processors have already done it for them. Poster wrote: Dieting is bad for your health and can be deadly. The healthiest thing > to do is eat what you want and let your body find its right weight. > It's what nature intended. Probably true 200 years ago, when the vast majority of people did hard physical work, plus ate very plain, unprocessed foods that were limited in quantity (you can't pig out when there are 15 people to feed at each meal), and also had no ready supply of high fat, high sugar desserts and snacks in the house (couldn't have afforded them other than perhaps as special occasion treats). I've already tested the hypothesis that you can eat what you want and hope your body will find some happy set point. I'm pushing 51, and until I decided enough was enough, I'd packed on 65 extra pounds - I was almost 200 lb at 5' 6". I hated it. I felt miserable. I was having health issues related to it. I looked like crap, and I was tired all the time. And....I was continuing to gain, so lord knows where I might have ended up. I'm sure if I was living the life of one of my ancestors raising 11 kids, working the farm, scrubbing and chopping, and hoeing, and swinging cast iron pots around, I'd have been a tough skinny old broad, like the old pictures I've seen of them, and could have eaten anything I wanted....that is, anything I wanted that we had, which probably wouldn't have been much beyond what we raised on the farm. On the other hand, I'd probably have been dead of exhaustion at 45. M >> > I say, if you haven't got a method to help these people lose >> > weight that gives them a better chance of improving their lives than [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to do is eat what you want and let your body find its right weight. > It's what nature intended. That could only work if the person restricts themselves to the diet that 'nature intended', a.k.a. no processed foods, and in the quantities that nature intended, a.k.a. no super-sized portions, etc. And even with all of that, it wold likely be necessary to add the exercise the nature intended, a.k.a. working a garden or farm, or going out and finding/tracking down your meals. If Your plan is to eat what ever You want and let Your body find a good weight, as "nature intended", while living a modern life of minimal physical activity and eating a modern diet of mostly highly processed foods in very large quantities, You will fail, You will end up with excess weight and in very poor health (diabetes, heart disease, etc...). >> I say, if you haven't got a method to help these people lose >>weight that gives them a better chance of improving their lives than >>of killing them, then leave them as is until you come up with one. > > Someone please help this deluded person out. Robin is of the opinion that > losing weight is deadly. The whole point is to improve the person's life. There is no shortage of testimonials to the improvement in quality-of-life and health that are to gained by loosing excess weight. It is not about finding a way to improve their lives. That has been found. The question is how to develop a program that can give the individual person those results (the easy part), and is also a program that the person can both live with, and live up to (that is the difficult part). > >> I say, if you haven't got a method to help these people lose > >>weight that gives them a better chance of improving their lives than [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > testimonials to the improvement in quality-of-life and health that are to > gained by loosing excess weight. Of course there are testimonials. You don't hear many denunciations because nobody profits from them. My question is, how you you distinguish the effects of weight loss from the effects of a) eating healthier food b) regular exercise c) experiencing more social acceptance at a lower weight? > It is not about finding a way to improve their lives. That has been > found. Then somebody should tell them. In the list of 900+ lb. people, there are some who've been put on very low-calorie diets under supervision, which ultimately had the effect of weakening them, so that they couldn't fight off an infection and died of it. One died of starvation at 600 pounds. The question is how to develop a program that can give the > individual person those results (the easy part), and is also a program > that the person can both live with, and live up to (that is the difficult > part). The easy part is to blame the patient when the program doesn't work. What I am wondering is why people are so fixated on the extremes of fatness. Do people in diet groups likewise fixate on skeletal people and their health problems? Robin > Then somebody should tell them. In the list of 900+ lb. > people, there are some who've been put on very low-calorie diets under > supervision, which ultimately had the effect of weakening them, so > that they couldn't fight off an infection and died of it. One died of > starvation at 600 pounds. Hi Robin, That's a good point and definitely worth consideration and discussion. I don't want to throw any maybes out because I have no understanding or point of reference to back me up. There's no maybe, though, about 900+ being life threatening, nor is there any question (in my mind) that the wrong and/or too drastic of an approach can be deadly. Starving a 1/2 ton person so that they'll lose weight makes about as much sense as punching a hole in the gas tank of a jet plane, in mid flight, in order to improve fuel efficience. Can we start by agreeing that 900+ pounds is not where a person's body finds their "natural weight"? If we can do that, then we can start to talk, in a civilized and respectful maner, about what the problem is, what approaches might work, what one's don't, what and where the dangers are, etc. (Of course, trolls are not civilized and have no respect even for themselves, so we ignore the troll posts, no?) On another note, I took a long, hard look at the acceptance group a few weeks back. There was so much trolling in that group that I was not able to cut through through the noise and understand what the group was really (supposed to be) about. I'd appreciate a link to the group's charter or faq or some such thing. > Robin Mike >> Then somebody should tell them. In the list of 900+ lb. >>people, there are some who've been put on very low-calorie diets under [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >(supposed to be) about. I'd appreciate a link to the group's charter or >faq or some such thing. http://tinyurl.com/2nx4s5 > > Then somebody should tell them. In the list of 900+ lb. > > people, there are some who've been put on very low-calorie diets under [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > they'll lose weight makes about as much sense as punching a hole in the gas > tank of a jet plane, in mid flight, in order to improve fuel efficience. A sensible view. I think of it like sleeping - if someone is sleeping 18 hours a day, it's clearly interfering with his/her life. I doubt the solution to that would be to bombard the person with loud music ten hours a day to cut them down to only eight hours. Putting the 900+ lb people on ordinary diets is equivalent to doing just that. It would be better to find out what is making them so large in the first place. > Can we start by agreeing that 900+ pounds is not where a person's body finds > their "natural weight"? If we can do that, then we can start to talk, in a > civilized and respectful maner, about what the problem is, what approaches > might work, what one's don't, what and where the dangers are, etc. (Of > course, trolls are not civilized and have no respect even for themselves, so > we ignore the troll posts, no?) Fine with me. What newsgroup shall we do it in? I really would prefer not to interfere with the dieters' support groups. > On another note, I took a long, hard look at the acceptance group a few > weeks back. There was so much trolling in that group that I was not able to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Mike The FAQ may be outdated, no one's touched it for years, AFAIK. However, the charter states that this group is emphatically not for pro-weight loss talk or encouragement, which can be easily had elsewhere. It is about getting along in life as a fat person. Robin > The FAQ may be outdated, no one's touched it for years, AFAIK. > However, the charter states that this group is emphatically not for > pro-weight loss talk or encouragement, which can be easily had > elsewhere. It is about getting along in life as a fat person. > > Robin Perhaps I am not understanding you about what the charter states alt.support.diet is for. The home page says its Description is Seeking enlightenment through weight loss. That does seem kind of general. I have found that the people here seem rather kind compared to some other groups. You seem to have concerns that extra heavy people are not welcome here. I think the goal of the support in this group is weight loss. The person trying to lose weight can be any size determined to lose any amount of weight. If you look at the bottom of some messages you will see that some people have slimmed down very much over a period of time. > Putting > the 900+ lb people on ordinary diets is equivalent to doing just that. > It would be better to find out what is making them so large in the > first place. What's making them so large is that they're not eating anything even remotely resembling a normal diet (ie they are eating a whole lot more calories than a typical person does). Now, the question of exactly why they are eating so many calories is much more difficult and much more interesting, but any beneficial effect from answering it would solely consist of ways to make it easier for the person in question to follow an ordinary diet. Able@wasi.com wrote: >What's making them so large is that they're not eating anything even >remotely resembling a normal diet (ie they are eating a whole lot more >calories than a typical person does). You must know that there is no such thing as a typical diet, since different people can consume widely varying caloric amounts without becoming obese. >Now, the question of exactly why >they are eating so many calories is much more difficult and much more >interesting, but any beneficial effect from answering it would solely >consist of ways to make it easier for the person in question to follow an >ordinary diet. Sometimes, people simply need to adjust their desires for food to what their metabolisms and rate of physical activity can support. Someone who exercises a lot or has a high metabolism can eat pretty much any amount of anything they want, while people like me, with a slow metabolism and sedentary lifestyle, must be vigilant. Orlando > Sometimes, people simply need to adjust their desires for food to what > their metabolisms and rate of physical activity can support. Someone More so for physical activity than for basal metabolism. > who exercises a lot or has a high metabolism can eat pretty much any > amount of anything they want, People who exercise a lot certainly can, but people who exercise to that extent are fairly rare relative to the size of the population. > while people like me, with a slow > metabolism and sedentary lifestyle, must be vigilant. Most adults actually have basal metabolic rates (BMR) that are fairly similar, when adjusted for lean body mass. There is some variation, of course, but not nearly enough to explain the large variations seen in body weight. In fact, the current thinking in the field is that you can probably eliminate almost all of the variation between measured and calculated BMR if you can determine the precise contribution of various types of tissue that constitute lean body mass. That is, lean body mass is made up of some tissues that have very high resting energy consumption (like kidney or cardiac muscle) and some that have a fairly low consumption (like skeletal muscle). If you can determine a person's exact body composition (including adipose tissue, which does consume a bit of energy at rest), then you can probably calculate their BMR very precisely. >>Sometimes, people simply need to adjust their desires for food to what >>their metabolisms and rate of physical activity can support. Someone [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > adipose tissue, which does consume a bit of energy at rest), then you can > probably calculate their BMR very precisely. . . . I looked into the metabolism thing some time ago because of books that claim that they can marvelously boost your metabolism. Web searches, including medical sites, provided little factual information. Tons of fantastic claims, however, from sites selling you something. What I managed to read stated that only about half of the components controling metabolism are currently known -- the usual suspects of lean body mass and total body mass. The "thinking" in the field is not necessarily definitive knowledge. I can understand the thinking that one "ought" to be able to calculate basal metabolism. > Then somebody should tell them. In the list of 900+ lb. >people, there are some who've been put on very low-calorie diets under >supervision, which ultimately had the effect of weakening them, so >that they couldn't fight off an infection and died of it. One died of >starvation at 600 pounds. Cite? >> > On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, "Robin King" <mapletree@worldnet.att.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > that they couldn't fight off an infection and died of it. One died of > starvation at 600 pounds. That is ridiculous, no matter what the goal was. Somebody somewhere wasn't doing their job! > The question is how to develop a program that can give the >> individual person those results (the easy part), and is also a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The easy part is to blame the patient when the program doesn't > work. That goes both ways though.. just this morning I had someone cry to me that my program (WW) doesn't work, after questioning, she is NOT following the plan.Then the Plan isn't the problem.. It's like complaining that your car doesn't work, but you didn't put any fuel in it.. On the other hand, I don't believe in on solution for everybody.. there is a way out there for everybody.. if there's a will, there's a way. WW offers 2 different plans, both of which have brought great results.. there's a lot of different approaches out there.. it's a matter of decided how you will cut down on calories consumed, and add on calories burned.. > What I am wondering is why people are so fixated on the > extremes of fatness. Do people in diet groups likewise fixate on > skeletal people and their health problems? Absolutely, being too skinny isn't any healthier than being overweight. We do keep an eye on members at WW (believe me, there are more than one would imagine) about both current weight (based on BMI, which admitedly is a limited measurement) and rate of weight loss. > Robin Will~ On Sep 23, 7:26 pm, "Willow Herself" <willowki...@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote: > That goes both ways though.. just this morning I had someone cry to me that > my program (WW) doesn't work, after questioning, she is NOT following the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > On the other hand, I don't believe in one solution for everybody.. there is a > way out there for everybody.. if there's a will, there's a way. And ultimately it almost always is a question of will, isn't it? Neil 385/242/225 > And ultimately it almost always is a question of will, isn't it? > > Neil > 385/242/225 It is, or rather it's a question of "want". I'm not a big believer in "will power" as in just white-knuckling my way through it. I'd rather work with "want power", that way I can plan ahead, put together strategies, so that I don't have to rely on "will power" alone. I want this enough to put in the efforts I need to put in. The great thing is, I'm now enjoying the rewards of it.. makes it even easier to walk the walk! Will~ Signature"Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic." Dave Barry |
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.