What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??

They used to feed us 3K-calorie breakfasts during Army basic training.
Them MREs are supposed to be like 5K calories! I was in the best shape
of my life, despite having accrued problems like a bad back, etc.

How many calories does the body need if you're staying home all day
reading a book or watching one of them holiday season re-run marathons
(Honeymooners, Star Trek, Three's Company, Godzilla)?

How many calories if you go to the gym three times a week
weight-lifting for about an hour each session?

I must say, I'm impressed to learn that the Dalai Lama is, what, close
to seventy? He really looks forty-something!

Also, I wonder what effect sex and the sex drive have on all this...I
feel most alive when having sex, but in between girls I also feel
great, just in a different way...kinda like the strength you feel
before a workout, and the sense of strength you have after it....



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/he...&ex=1162530000


EXCERPTS

"In mice, calorie restriction doesn't just extend life span,"
said Leonard P. Guarente, professor of biology at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. "It mitigates many diseases of aging:
cancer, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative disease. The gain is
just enormous."

....

Despite widespread scientific enthusiasm, the evidence that calorie
restriction works in humans is indirect at best. The practice was
popularized in diet books by Dr. Roy Walford, a legendary pathologist
at the University of California, Los Angeles, who spent much of the
last 30 years of his life following a calorie-restricted regimen. He
died of Lou Gehrig's disease in 2004 at 79.

....

Animals on restricted diets seem particularly resistant to
environmental stresses like oxidation and heat, perhaps even radiation.
"It is a very deep, very important function," Dr. Miller said.
Experts theorize that limited access to energy alarms the body, so to
speak, activating a cascade of biochemical signals that tell each cell
to direct energy away from reproductive functions, toward repair and
maintenance. The calorie-restricted organism is stronger, according to
this hypothesis, because individual cells are more efficiently
repairing mutations, using energy, defending themselves and mopping up
harmful byproducts like free radicals.

....

"The stressed cell is really pulling out all the stops" to preserve
itself, said Dr. Cynthia Kenyon, a molecular biologist at the
University of California, San Francisco. "This system could have
evolved as a way of letting animals take a timeout from reproduction
when times are harsh."

....

Despite the initially promising results from studies of primates, some
scientists doubt that calorie restriction can ever work effectively in
humans. A mathematical model published last year by researchers at
University of California, Los Angeles, and University of California,
Irvine, predicted that the maximum life span gain from calorie
restriction for humans would be just 7 percent. A more likely figure,
the authors said, was 2 percent.

....

While an anti-aging pill may be the next big blockbuster, some
ethicists believe that the all-out determination to extend life span is
veined with arrogance. As appointments with death are postponed, says
Dr. Leon R. Kass, former chairman of the President's Council on
Bioethics, human lives may become less engaging, less meaningful, even
less beautiful.

"Mortality makes life matter," Dr. Kass recently wrote.
"Immortality is a kind of oblivion - like death itself."

That man's time on this planet is limited, and rightfully so, is a
cultural belief deeply held by many. But whether an increasing life
span affords greater opportunity to find meaning or distracts from the
pursuit, the prospect has become too great a temptation to ignore -
least of all, for scientists.

"It's a just big waste of talent and wisdom to have people die in
their 60s and 70s," said Dr. Sinclair of Harvard.

NYC XYZ wrote:
> What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??

It's when CALORIES_EATEN < CALORIES_BURNED.

CALORIES_BURNED = (Basal Metabolic Rate * Activity Factor) + (Extra
Exercise)

> They used to feed us 3K-calorie breakfasts during Army basic training.
> Them MREs are supposed to be like 5K calories! I was in the best shape
> of my life, despite having accrued problems like a bad back, etc.

When I was in good shape, I often gulped down a protein drink before a
climb even when I wasn't hungry. Still, the above rules are in effect.

*** BMR ***

Harris-Benedict (normal):
BMR(men) = 66.473 + 5.003 x (length) + 13.752 x (weight) - 6.755 x
(age)
BMR(women) = 655.096 + 1.850 x (length) + 9.563 x (weight) - 4.676 x
(age)

Harris-Benedict/Rosa (obese):
BMR (men) = 88.362 + 4.799 x (length) + 13.397 x (weight) - 5.677 x
(age);
BMR (women) = 447.593 + 3.098 x (length) + 9.247 x (weight) - 4.330 x
(age)

There are plenty of online calculators that do this for you.

> How many calories does the body need if you're staying home all day
> reading a book or watching one of them holiday season re-run marathons
> (Honeymooners, Star Trek, Three's Company, Godzilla)?

*** Activity Factor ***
BMR x 1.1 (sedentary) is probably appropriate.

> How many calories if you go to the gym three times a week
> weight-lifting for about an hour each session?

*** Activity Factor ***
BMR x 1.4 (light-to-moderate exercise) is probably appropriate.

> Despite widespread scientific enthusiasm, the evidence that calorie
> restriction works in humans is indirect at best.

Dieting works for some, and the only alternatives are drugs and surgery.

These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control groups
are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for food. Then
when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live longer
than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted calories.
Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is that
simple. It has nothing to do with calories.

TC

NYC XYZ wrote:
> What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??
>
> They used to feed us 3K-calorie breakfasts during Army basic training.
> Them MREs are supposed to be like 5K calories! I was in the best shape
> of my life, despite having accrued problems like a bad back, etc.
>
> How many calories does the body need if you're staying home all day
> reading a book or watching one of them holiday season re-run marathons
> (Honeymooners, Star Trek, Three's Company, Godzilla)?
>
> How many calories if you go to the gym three times a week
> weight-lifting for about an hour each session?
>
> I must say, I'm impressed to learn that the Dalai Lama is, what, close
> to seventy? He really looks forty-something!
>
> Also, I wonder what effect sex and the sex drive have on all this...I
> feel most alive when having sex, but in between girls I also feel
> great, just in a different way...kinda like the strength you feel
> before a workout, and the sense of strength you have after it....
>
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/he...&ex=1162530000
>
>
> EXCERPTS
>
> "In mice, calorie restriction doesn't just extend life span,"
> said Leonard P. Guarente, professor of biology at the Massachusetts
> Institute of Technology. "It mitigates many diseases of aging:
> cancer, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative disease. The gain is
> just enormous."
>
> ...
>
> Despite widespread scientific enthusiasm, the evidence that calorie
> restriction works in humans is indirect at best. The practice was
> popularized in diet books by Dr. Roy Walford, a legendary pathologist
> at the University of California, Los Angeles, who spent much of the
> last 30 years of his life following a calorie-restricted regimen. He
> died of Lou Gehrig's disease in 2004 at 79.
>
> ...
>
> Animals on restricted diets seem particularly resistant to
> environmental stresses like oxidation and heat, perhaps even radiation.
> "It is a very deep, very important function," Dr. Miller said.
> Experts theorize that limited access to energy alarms the body, so to
> speak, activating a cascade of biochemical signals that tell each cell
> to direct energy away from reproductive functions, toward repair and
> maintenance. The calorie-restricted organism is stronger, according to
> this hypothesis, because individual cells are more efficiently
> repairing mutations, using energy, defending themselves and mopping up
> harmful byproducts like free radicals.
>
> ...
>
> "The stressed cell is really pulling out all the stops" to preserve
> itself, said Dr. Cynthia Kenyon, a molecular biologist at the
> University of California, San Francisco. "This system could have
> evolved as a way of letting animals take a timeout from reproduction
> when times are harsh."
>
> ...
>
> Despite the initially promising results from studies of primates, some
> scientists doubt that calorie restriction can ever work effectively in
> humans. A mathematical model published last year by researchers at
> University of California, Los Angeles, and University of California,
> Irvine, predicted that the maximum life span gain from calorie
> restriction for humans would be just 7 percent. A more likely figure,
> the authors said, was 2 percent.
>
> ...
>
> While an anti-aging pill may be the next big blockbuster, some
> ethicists believe that the all-out determination to extend life span is
> veined with arrogance. As appointments with death are postponed, says
> Dr. Leon R. Kass, former chairman of the President's Council on
> Bioethics, human lives may become less engaging, less meaningful, even
> less beautiful.
>
> "Mortality makes life matter," Dr. Kass recently wrote.
> "Immortality is a kind of oblivion - like death itself."
>
> That man's time on this planet is limited, and rightfully so, is a
> cultural belief deeply held by many. But whether an increasing life
> span affords greater opportunity to find meaning or distracts from the
> pursuit, the prospect has become too great a temptation to ignore -
> least of all, for scientists.
>
> "It's a just big waste of talent and wisdom to have people die in
> their 60s and 70s," said Dr. Sinclair of Harvard.

i've noticed as people age past 60 there are less fat ones
NYC XYZ wrote:
> What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??
>
> They used to feed us 3K-calorie breakfasts during Army basic training.
> Them MREs are supposed to be like 5K calories! I was in the best shape
> of my life, despite having accrued problems like a bad back, etc.
>
> How many calories does the body need if you're staying home all day
> reading a book or watching one of them holiday season re-run marathons
> (Honeymooners, Star Trek, Three's Company, Godzilla)?
>
> How many calories if you go to the gym three times a week
> weight-lifting for about an hour each session?
>
> I must say, I'm impressed to learn that the Dalai Lama is, what, close
> to seventy? He really looks forty-something!
>
> Also, I wonder what effect sex and the sex drive have on all this...I
> feel most alive when having sex, but in between girls I also feel
> great, just in a different way...kinda like the strength you feel
> before a workout, and the sense of strength you have after it....
>
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/he...&ex=1162530000
>
>
> EXCERPTS
>
> "In mice, calorie restriction doesn't just extend life span,"
> said Leonard P. Guarente, professor of biology at the Massachusetts
> Institute of Technology. "It mitigates many diseases of aging:
> cancer, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative disease. The gain is
> just enormous."
>
> ...
>
> Despite widespread scientific enthusiasm, the evidence that calorie
> restriction works in humans is indirect at best. The practice was
> popularized in diet books by Dr. Roy Walford, a legendary pathologist
> at the University of California, Los Angeles, who spent much of the
> last 30 years of his life following a calorie-restricted regimen. He
> died of Lou Gehrig's disease in 2004 at 79.
>
> ...
>
> Animals on restricted diets seem particularly resistant to
> environmental stresses like oxidation and heat, perhaps even radiation.
> "It is a very deep, very important function," Dr. Miller said.
> Experts theorize that limited access to energy alarms the body, so to
> speak, activating a cascade of biochemical signals that tell each cell
> to direct energy away from reproductive functions, toward repair and
> maintenance. The calorie-restricted organism is stronger, according to
> this hypothesis, because individual cells are more efficiently
> repairing mutations, using energy, defending themselves and mopping up
> harmful byproducts like free radicals.
>
> ...
>
> "The stressed cell is really pulling out all the stops" to preserve
> itself, said Dr. Cynthia Kenyon, a molecular biologist at the
> University of California, San Francisco. "This system could have
> evolved as a way of letting animals take a timeout from reproduction
> when times are harsh."
>
> ...
>
> Despite the initially promising results from studies of primates, some
> scientists doubt that calorie restriction can ever work effectively in
> humans. A mathematical model published last year by researchers at
> University of California, Los Angeles, and University of California,
> Irvine, predicted that the maximum life span gain from calorie
> restriction for humans would be just 7 percent. A more likely figure,
> the authors said, was 2 percent.
>
> ...
>
> While an anti-aging pill may be the next big blockbuster, some
> ethicists believe that the all-out determination to extend life span is
> veined with arrogance. As appointments with death are postponed, says
> Dr. Leon R. Kass, former chairman of the President's Council on
> Bioethics, human lives may become less engaging, less meaningful, even
> less beautiful.
>
> "Mortality makes life matter," Dr. Kass recently wrote.
> "Immortality is a kind of oblivion - like death itself."
>
> That man's time on this planet is limited, and rightfully so, is a
> cultural belief deeply held by many. But whether an increasing life
> span affords greater opportunity to find meaning or distracts from the
> pursuit, the prospect has become too great a temptation to ignore -
> least of all, for scientists.
>
> "It's a just big waste of talent and wisdom to have people die in
> their 60s and 70s," said Dr. Sinclair of Harvard.

NYC XYZ wrote:
>
> What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??

And how do you map rat results to human results? If they even DO map.

Note that rats are fed a high carb grain based diet. Reduce their feed
30% and they live longer. The calorie people will point at the reduced
calorie count and say eat less. The carb people will point at the
reduced carb count and say eat low carb. The grain intolerance
people will look at rats and ask "mooo?" figuring rats eat grain and
are therefore related to cattle. The vegans will point out that the
rats
aren't getting meat are the ones that are healthy.

We can't put a bunch of humans in cages for their entire lives and feed
each set a different number of calories and see how it comes out 120
years later.

"TC" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control groups
> are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for food. Then
> when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live longer
> than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted calories.
> Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is that
> simple. It has nothing to do with calories.


How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he see's
ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.

-DF

Doug Freese wrote:
> "TC" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control groups
> > are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for food. Then
> > when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live longer
> > than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted calories.
> > Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is that
> > simple. It has nothing to do with calories.
>
>
> How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he see's
> ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.
>
> -DF

Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.

TC

"Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message oups.com...
> NYC XYZ wrote:
> >
> > What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??
>
> And how do you map rat results to human results? If they even DO map.
>
> Note that rats are fed a high carb grain based diet. Reduce their feed
> 30% and they live longer. The calorie people will point at the reduced
> calorie count and say eat less. The carb people will point at the
> reduced carb count and say eat low carb. The grain intolerance
> people will look at rats and ask "mooo?" figuring rats eat grain and
> are therefore related to cattle. The vegans will point out that the
> rats
> aren't getting meat are the ones that are healthy.
>
> We can't put a bunch of humans in cages for their entire lives and feed
> each set a different number of calories and see how it comes out 120
> years later.
>

Now you've done it. You've gone and trampled upon a religion called CRON whose god is the late Roy Walford, M.D. Walford wrote the CRON bible The 120 Year Diet. He didn't make it past 79. But dying of ALS doesn't count. He would have lived to 120 if he hadn't died.

When you're an athiest there is no afterlife except if you have faith in getting frozen and later revivified, so you've got to believe CRON will enable you to live forever. It's not nice to trample on other people's religion.

On 1 Nov 2006 19:09:26 -0800, "TC" > wrote:

>
>Doug Freese wrote:
>> "TC" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control groups
>> > are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for food. Then
>> > when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live longer
>> > than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted calories.
>> > Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is that
>> > simple. It has nothing to do with calories.
>>
>>
>> How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he see's
>> ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.
>>
>> -DF
>
>Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.
>
>TC

Reading and understanding are two different things.

wrote:
> On 1 Nov 2006 19:09:26 -0800, "TC" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Doug Freese wrote:
> >> "TC" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> > These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control groups
> >> > are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for food. Then
> >> > when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live longer
> >> > than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted calories.
> >> > Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is that
> >> > simple. It has nothing to do with calories.
> >>
> >>
> >> How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he see's
> >> ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.
> >>
> >> -DF
> >
> >Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.
> >
> >TC
>
> Reading and understanding are two different things.

It isn't rocket science. Trust me, it isn't rocket science. Rocket
science has actually succeeded and has actually placed a man on the
moon and probes on Mars. Food science has only succeeded in giving us
the highest rates of obesity and diet related chronic disease in world
history, which is diametrically opposite to their stated goals.

I suggest you start reading these nutrition studies closely and with
an, at least, mildly critical eye. You will get an education on what
garbage science really is.

TC

DZ wrote:
> TC > wrote:
> > wrote:
> >>"TC" > wrote:
> >>>Doug Freese wrote:
> >>>> "TC" > wrote:
> >>>>> These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control
> >>>>> groups are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap
> >>>>> for food. Then when they feed the test group less of the crap
> >>>>> food, they live longer than the control group. Then they
> >>>>> attribute it to restricted calories. Hey, the less poison you
> >>>>> eat the longer you will live. It is that simple. It has nothing
> >>>>> to do with calories.
> >>>>
> >>>> How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he see's
> >>>> ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.
> >>>
> >>>Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.
> >>
> >> Reading and understanding are two different things.
> >
> > It isn't rocket science. Trust me, it isn't rocket science. Rocket
> > science has actually succeeded and has actually placed a man on the
> > moon and probes on Mars. Food science has only succeeded in giving
> > us the highest rates of obesity and diet related chronic disease in
> > world history, which is diametrically opposite to their stated
> > goals. I suggest you start reading these nutrition studies closely
> > and with an, at least, mildly critical eye. You will get an
> > education on what garbage science really is.
>
> CR studies are not a subset of "nutrition science". Here is a good
> recent review:
>
> http://www.sciam.com/print_version.c...8083414B7F0000

CR studies are not a subset of "nutrition science", it is "nutrition
science", whether you want it to be or not.

YV

people lived hundreds of years before the flood
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...er=5&version=9 and
120 was the age limit set in Genesis 6:3
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...er=6&version=9
TP wrote:
> "Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message oups.com...
> > NYC XYZ wrote:
> > >
> > > What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??
> >
> > And how do you map rat results to human results? If they even DO map.
> >
> > Note that rats are fed a high carb grain based diet. Reduce their feed
> > 30% and they live longer. The calorie people will point at the reduced
> > calorie count and say eat less. The carb people will point at the
> > reduced carb count and say eat low carb. The grain intolerance
> > people will look at rats and ask "mooo?" figuring rats eat grain and
> > are therefore related to cattle. The vegans will point out that the
> > rats
> > aren't getting meat are the ones that are healthy.
> >
> > We can't put a bunch of humans in cages for their entire lives and feed
> > each set a different number of calories and see how it comes out 120
> > years later.
> >
>
> Now you've done it. You've gone and trampled upon a religion called CRON whose god is the late Roy Walford, M.D. Walford wrote the CRON bible The 120 Year Diet. He didn't make it past 79. But dying of ALS doesn't count. He would have lived to 120 if he hadn't died.
>
> When you're an athiest there is no afterlife except if you have faith in getting frozen and later revivified, so you've got to believe CRON will enable you to live forever. It's not nice to trample on other people's religion.
> ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C6FDFB.5F6F8300
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Google-AttachSize: 2617
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1561" name=GENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"Doug Freyburger" &lt;</FONT><A
> "><FONT face=Arial
> </FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>&gt; wrote in
> message </FONT><A
> oglegroups.com"><FONT
> face=Arial
> ooglegroups.com</FONT></A><FONT
> face=Arial size=2>...</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>&gt; NYC XYZ wrote:<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; What
> makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; And how do you map rat
> results to human results?&nbsp; If they even DO map.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Note that
> rats are fed a high carb grain based diet.&nbsp; Reduce their feed<BR>&gt; 30%
> and they live longer.&nbsp; The calorie people will point at the reduced<BR>&gt;
> calorie count and say eat less.&nbsp; The carb people will point at the<BR>&gt;
> reduced carb count and say eat low carb.&nbsp; The grain intolerance<BR>&gt;
> people will look at rats and ask "mooo?" figuring rats eat grain and<BR>&gt; are
> therefore related to cattle.&nbsp; The vegans will point out that the<BR>&gt;
> rats<BR>&gt; aren't getting meat are the ones that are healthy.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;
> We can't put a bunch of humans in cages for their entire lives and feed<BR>&gt;
> each set a different number of calories and see how it comes out 120<BR>&gt;
> years later.<BR>&gt; </FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now you've done it.&nbsp; You've gone and trampled
> upon a religion called CRON&nbsp;whose&nbsp;god is&nbsp;the late Roy Walford,
> M.D.&nbsp;Walford wrote the CRON bible <U>The 120 Year Diet</U>.&nbsp;
> He&nbsp;didn't make it past 79. But dying of ALS
> doesn't&nbsp;count.&nbsp;&nbsp;He would have lived to 120 if he hadn't
> died.&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>When you're an athiest there is no afterlife except
> if you&nbsp;have faith in getting frozen and later revivified, so you've got to
> believe CRON will enable you to live forever.&nbsp; It's not nice to trample on
> other people's religion.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C6FDFB.5F6F8300--

"TC" > wrote in message
ps.com...

>
> It isn't rocket science. Trust me, it isn't rocket science. Rocket
> science has actually succeeded and has actually placed a man on the
> moon and probes on Mars. <<<snip>>>
> TC
>

Dude, we never went to the moon.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...the+moon&hl=en

"TC" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> wrote:
>> On 1 Nov 2006 19:09:26 -0800, "TC" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Doug Freese wrote:
>> >> "TC" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> > These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control
>> >> > groups
>> >> > are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for
>> >> > food. Then
>> >> > when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live
>> >> > longer
>> >> > than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted
>> >> > calories.
>> >> > Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is
>> >> > that
>> >> > simple. It has nothing to do with calories.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he
>> >> see's
>> >> ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.
>> >>
>> >> -DF
>> >
>> >Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.
>> >
>> >TC
>>
>> Reading and understanding are two different things.
>
> It isn't rocket science. Trust me, it isn't rocket science.

We agree, it isn't rocket science. Eat too much you get fat. Eat
balanced, avoid simple sugars and overly processed food and by all
means, exercise and you will be healthy and not fat. Very simple indeed!

< Food science has only succeeded in giving us
> the highest rates of obesity and diet related chronic disease in world
> history, which is diametrically opposite to their stated goals.

To many calories has caused the obesity.

>
> I suggest you start reading these nutrition studies closely and with
> an, at least, mildly critical eye. You will get an education on what
> garbage science really is.

And there is a boogie man hiding behind very tree.

-DF

Doug Freese wrote:
> "TC" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >
> > wrote:
> >> On 1 Nov 2006 19:09:26 -0800, "TC" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Doug Freese wrote:
> >> >> "TC" > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> > These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control
> >> >> > groups
> >> >> > are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for
> >> >> > food. Then
> >> >> > when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live
> >> >> > longer
> >> >> > than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted
> >> >> > calories.
> >> >> > Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > simple. It has nothing to do with calories.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he
> >> >> see's
> >> >> ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.
> >> >>
> >> >> -DF
> >> >
> >> >Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.
> >> >
> >> >TC
> >>
> >> Reading and understanding are two different things.
> >
> > It isn't rocket science. Trust me, it isn't rocket science.
>
> We agree, it isn't rocket science. Eat too much you get fat. Eat
> balanced, avoid simple sugars and overly processed food and by all
> means, exercise and you will be healthy and not fat. Very simple indeed!
>
> < Food science has only succeeded in giving us
> > the highest rates of obesity and diet related chronic disease in world
> > history, which is diametrically opposite to their stated goals.
>
> To many calories has caused the obesity.
>
> >
> > I suggest you start reading these nutrition studies closely and with
> > an, at least, mildly critical eye. You will get an education on what
> > garbage science really is.
>
> And there is a boogie man hiding behind very tree.
>
> -DF

Since 1970, we've increased carb consumption by 12% and reduced fat
consumtion by 10%. That was supposed to result in less calories and
less obesity. The opposite has happened. And I've not seen any evidence
that our levels of exercise has changed much since then either.

So your whole idea of this problem being a *strictly* a matter of
calories is kinda hard for you to support. Especially in the face of a
number of studies that showed that low carbing worked better than low
calorie even when low-carbers ate as many as 300 calories more per day
than the low fatters. The low carbers continued to lose weight eating
more calories than the low-calorie dieters.

Calories are NOT a reliable predictor of weight loss or weight gain.
And I don't care if it is the dieters fault that they can't accurately
count calories or whether the it is because the fundamental scientific
concept of calories is false, or anything in between, the fact remaiins
that more than 95% of low calories diets fail. And many many people who
do not exercise can still maintain their weight with diet alone and
many many people who exercise their asses off, day after day, still
cannot attain their goal weights.

Diet has a much much stonger impact on weight control than exercise
ever will. And the aspect of diet that impacts weigh the most is the
quality of the diet and not the quantity.

TC

On 3 Nov 2006 07:10:15 -0800, "TC" > wrote:

>
>Doug Freese wrote:
>> "TC" > wrote in message
>> ps.com...
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 1 Nov 2006 19:09:26 -0800, "TC" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Doug Freese wrote:
>> >> >> "TC" > wrote in message
>> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> > These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control
>> >> >> > groups
>> >> >> > are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for
>> >> >> > food. Then
>> >> >> > when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live
>> >> >> > longer
>> >> >> > than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted
>> >> >> > calories.
>> >> >> > Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > simple. It has nothing to do with calories.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he
>> >> >> see's
>> >> >> ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -DF
>> >> >
>> >> >Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.
>> >> >
>> >> >TC
>> >>
>> >> Reading and understanding are two different things.
>> >
>> > It isn't rocket science. Trust me, it isn't rocket science.
>>
>> We agree, it isn't rocket science. Eat too much you get fat. Eat
>> balanced, avoid simple sugars and overly processed food and by all
>> means, exercise and you will be healthy and not fat. Very simple indeed!
>>
>> < Food science has only succeeded in giving us
>> > the highest rates of obesity and diet related chronic disease in world
>> > history, which is diametrically opposite to their stated goals.
>>
>> To many calories has caused the obesity.
>>
>> >
>> > I suggest you start reading these nutrition studies closely and with
>> > an, at least, mildly critical eye. You will get an education on what
>> > garbage science really is.
>>
>> And there is a boogie man hiding behind very tree.
>>
>> -DF
>
>Since 1970, we've increased carb consumption by 12% and reduced fat
>consumtion by 10%. That was supposed to result in less calories and
>less obesity. The opposite has happened. And I've not seen any evidence
>that our levels of exercise has changed much since then either.

The important thing is the amount of calories. Even if fat makes up a
smaller percentage of the diet the total amount of fat consumed has
still increased due to the increase in total calories consumed.
>
>So your whole idea of this problem being a *strictly* a matter of
>calories is kinda hard for you to support. Especially in the face of a
>number of studies that showed that low carbing worked better than low
>calorie even when low-carbers ate as many as 300 calories more per day
>than the low fatters.

Low carb is bullshit and does not work. It also promotes less
physical activity.

>The low carbers continued to lose weight eating
>more calories than the low-calorie dieters.

Really? Someone who is 6' weighs 350 pounds just has to low carb and
not watch calories or exercise and they will eventually weigh between
150-170 pounds?? LOL!
>
>Calories are NOT a reliable predictor of weight loss or weight gain.

So if we reduce carb consumption by 12 % and increase fat consumtpion
by 10% everyone will go back to 1970 norms? Yawn

>And I don't care if it is the dieters fault that they can't accurately
>count calories or whether the it is because the fundamental scientific
>concept of calories is false,

You do realize there aret people in Africa who eat mostly a grain diet
who are starving and consume very few calories are very thin? Is this
where you go back to your bullshit response to this by saying they are
losing weight because grains provide no nutrition?

> or anything in between, the fact remaiins
>that more than 95% of low calories diets fail.

I don't eat a low calorie diet as I just exercise which is a lot
easier.

> And many many people who
>do not exercise can still maintain their weight with diet alone and
>many many people who exercise their asses off, day after day, still
>cannot attain their goal weights.
>
Everyone has a different metabolism but it does not change the
underlying truth. Reading books is still the best way to learn though
not everyone is going to comprehend or remember at the same level.

>Diet has a much much stonger impact on weight control than exercise
>ever will.

Well it is true that you can consume calories a lot easier and quicker
than they can be burned off. However exercise should be done for
health and appearance unless you think flabbiness, cottage cheese, etc
is a good thing.

> And the aspect of diet that impacts weigh the most is the
>quality of the diet and not the quantity.
>
No actually its calories. 8 glasses of water a day is healthy while
180 glasses is not. You can have too much of a good thing and there
is no reason to consume more food once nutrition and energy
requirements are met. Consuming anything more than is required
whether it is beef, poptarts, milk, etc is going to be added to you
ever expanding waist. Though I suppose if one insists on overeating
than it would be better to eat nutritous foods/real foods as opposed
to overeating on poptarts.

"TC" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Since 1970, we've increased carb consumption by 12% and reduced fat
> consumtion by 10%.

I don't trust you numbers so a legit web page will do and please not by
your pal weston. I completely agree that we eat too many carbs but I
also think we eat to much fat also. As for the carbs they are soda, and
pounds of simple carbs, the ones we both agree are bad, like ice-cream,
candy and cake. It isn't from eating too much grain,corn or even soy.


> That was supposed to result in less calories and less obesity.

A bgus statement and where you go out to lunch. We eat TOO MANY calories
regardless of carb or fat. It';s total pigdom and not to realize this
means you have your head in the sand or some other dark place.


> The opposite has happened. And I've not seen any evidence
> that our levels of exercise has changed much since then either.

The number of people exercising has increased but sad to say not as many
should. Wanna bet those people that have taken up steady exercise are
by far thinner and healthier then those that try only try food?




> So your whole idea of this problem being a *strictly* a matter of
> calories is kinda hard for you to support.

It is not ansd everytime they take N people and put them in an
environment where every calorie counted they ALL lose weight. It's when
people have to after the fact, count their calories when it gets gray.


> Diet has a much much stonger impact on weight control than exercise
> ever will. And the aspect of diet that impacts weigh the most is the
> quality of the diet and not the quantity.

You keep saying the same crap over and over. Do you think if you keep
repeating it, it become true? I have chopped off a segment of the
population such as runners, biker, hikers, etc comprising millions of
people that flat out defy your asinine premises that your keep
repeating.

If you're bored Sunday tune into the NYC marathon and look at the 40+
thousand people and have been chomping down primarily CARBS for at
least three months in prep for this race and count the fat runners.
According to your physiology they should all be obese or very fat from
turning into GI freaks throwing down Snicker Bars by the dozens from the
GI blast. There are thousands of very fast and healthy vegans in that
race and psst, they get almost all their calories from those evil carbs.


You really need understand basic physiology and then you may have a
health epiphany. You need to come out of cave and see the light of day.
Confess you just trolling otherwise no one will play with you.

-DF

Doug Freese wrote:
> "TC" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Since 1970, we've increased carb consumption by 12% and reduced fat
> > consumtion by 10%.
>
> I don't trust you numbers so a legit web page will do and please not by
> your pal weston. I completely agree that we eat too many carbs but I
> also think we eat to much fat also. As for the carbs they are soda, and
> pounds of simple carbs, the ones we both agree are bad, like ice-cream,
> candy and cake. It isn't from eating too much grain,corn or even soy.
>
>
> > That was supposed to result in less calories and less obesity.
>
> A bgus statement and where you go out to lunch. We eat TOO MANY calories
> regardless of carb or fat. It';s total pigdom and not to realize this
> means you have your head in the sand or some other dark place.
>
>
> > The opposite has happened. And I've not seen any evidence
> > that our levels of exercise has changed much since then either.
>
> The number of people exercising has increased but sad to say not as many
> should. Wanna bet those people that have taken up steady exercise are
> by far thinner and healthier then those that try only try food?
>
>
>
>
> > So your whole idea of this problem being a *strictly* a matter of
> > calories is kinda hard for you to support.
>
> It is not ansd everytime they take N people and put them in an
> environment where every calorie counted they ALL lose weight. It's when
> people have to after the fact, count their calories when it gets gray.
>
>
> > Diet has a much much stonger impact on weight control than exercise
> > ever will. And the aspect of diet that impacts weigh the most is the
> > quality of the diet and not the quantity.
>
> You keep saying the same crap over and over. Do you think if you keep
> repeating it, it become true? I have chopped off a segment of the
> population such as runners, biker, hikers, etc comprising millions of
> people that flat out defy your asinine premises that your keep
> repeating.
>
> If you're bored Sunday tune into the NYC marathon and look at the 40+
> thousand people and have been chomping down primarily CARBS for at
> least three months in prep for this race and count the fat runners.
> According to your physiology they should all be obese or very fat from
> turning into GI freaks throwing down Snicker Bars by the dozens from the
> GI blast. There are thousands of very fast and healthy vegans in that
> race and psst, they get almost all their calories from those evil carbs.
>
>
> You really need understand basic physiology and then you may have a
> health epiphany. You need to come out of cave and see the light of day.
> Confess you just trolling otherwise no one will play with you.
>
> -DF

Is that all you have? Watch a marathon. Watch a 5k or a 10k. Is that
all?

You are an idiot of the first class. I'm done arguing with a moron.

TC

"TC" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Is that all you have? Watch a marathon. Watch a 5k or a 10k. Is that
> all?

Try it for starter, you will get to see first hand what exercise and
balanced carb nutrition can do for 40+ thousand people. I guess they
are all freaks who low carb. If nothing else there is visual proof but
it assumes you know how to stand erect and not have your knuckles drag
the ground.

-DF

Doug Freese wrote:
> "TC" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Is that all you have? Watch a marathon. Watch a 5k or a 10k. Is that
> > all?
>
> Try it for starter, you will get to see first hand what exercise and
> balanced carb nutrition can do for 40+ thousand people. I guess they
> are all freaks who low carb. If nothing else there is visual proof but
> it assumes you know how to stand erect and not have your knuckles drag
> the ground.
>
> -DF

So your solution is for everyone to become marathon runners to lose
weight. Real practical.

TC

TC wrote:
> Doug Freese wrote:
>
> > Try it for starter, you will get to see first hand what exercise and
> > balanced carb nutrition can do for 40+ thousand people. I guess they
> > are all freaks who low carb. If nothing else there is visual proof but
> > it assumes you know how to stand erect and not have your knuckles drag
> > the ground.
>
> So your solution is for everyone to become marathon runners to lose
> weight. Real practical.

The whole point of the marathon is that normally conditioned
people *die* from doing it. Not just practical but a nice way to
reverse the overpopulation problem.

Marathoners tend to eat high carb? So what? Maybe it helps
them not die from doing something tuned to kill them. Show me
even one low carber marathoner and the point gets blown, though.
Guess what, it wouldn't take me long to find a low carber who did
a marathon. Plenty of low carb support boards have exercise
support sub-boards and the topic does come up. Will a low
carber end up competitive? Nope. Will a low carber who trained
patiently end up completing? Yup.

"TC" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> So your solution is for everyone to become marathon runners to lose
> weight. Real practical.

As usual an ignorant statement. I tend to think you have a selective
reading problem. One does not need to do marathons but just some
practical exercise. Even those that do dinky 5 an 10k races show you
that your hypothesis about low carbs yada yada is all bull shit. Have
everyone and especailly you, get off your lazy asses and the weight
will come off and self respect come back.

It seems that those that do minimal to ultra races all have one thing in
common, great heath and no weight problems. Those that try playing with
just food, end up like you paranoid as to what to eat. I guess it's
easier to say that all the MD's and PhD's that study nutrition and
exercise are all on the take then face the facts. The body craves
exercise to function and stay healthy.

You're the only 150 IQ person that is as dumb as a rock. Meds dude, you
need some serious meds.

-DF

Doug Freese wrote:
> "TC" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > So your solution is for everyone to become marathon runners to lose
> > weight. Real practical.
>
> As usual an ignorant statement. I tend to think you have a selective
> reading problem. One does not need to do marathons but just some
> practical exercise. Even those that do dinky 5 an 10k races show you
> that your hypothesis about low carbs yada yada is all bull shit. Have
> everyone and especailly you, get off your lazy asses and the weight
> will come off and self respect come back.
>
> It seems that those that do minimal to ultra races all have one thing in
> common, great heath and no weight problems. Those that try playing with
> just food, end up like you paranoid as to what to eat. I guess it's
> easier to say that all the MD's and PhD's that study nutrition and
> exercise are all on the take then face the facts. The body craves
> exercise to function and stay healthy.
>
> You're the only 150 IQ person that is as dumb as a rock. Meds dude, you
> need some serious meds.
>
> -DF

I think it is clear who exactly here is "dumb as a rock", given that
you still haven't provided as much as one iota of evidence to back up
your point of view. Put up or shut the **** up.

TC

TC wrote:
> wrote:
> > On 1 Nov 2006 19:09:26 -0800, "TC" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Doug Freese wrote:
> > >> "TC" > wrote in message
> > >> oups.com...
> > >> > These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control groups
> > >> > are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for food. Then
> > >> > when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live longer
> > >> > than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted calories.
> > >> > Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is that
> > >> > simple. It has nothing to do with calories.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he see's
> > >> ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.
> > >>
> > >> -DF
> > >
> > >Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.
> > >
> > >TC
> >
> > Reading and understanding are two different things.
>
> It isn't rocket science. Trust me, it isn't rocket science.

Rocket science it is not. Hunger is your gage. The trick is to
satisfy your hunger without twinkies, doughnuts, etc.

Rocket
> science has actually succeeded and has actually placed a man on the
> moon and probes on Mars. Food science has only succeeded in giving us
> the highest rates of obesity and diet related chronic disease in world
> history, which is diametrically opposite to their stated goals.
>
> I suggest you start reading these nutrition studies closely and with
> an, at least, mildly critical eye. You will get an education on what
> garbage science really is.
>
> TC

> We can't put a bunch of humans in cages for their entire lives and feed
> each set a different number of calories and see how it comes out 120
> years later.

It looks several people are trying thing of their own will.
They dont look particularly happy.
I gone on weight control diets for long periods of time in the sub-2K
range.
After a couple weeks of initial discomfort, it gets easy. AT that
point you
switch to a low-metabolism mode and can even stop losing weight.
Its difficult to continue this for a long time.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> NYC XYZ wrote:
> >
> > What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??
>
> And how do you map rat results to human results? If they even DO map.
>
> Note that rats are fed a high carb grain based diet. Reduce their feed
> 30% and they live longer. The calorie people will point at the reduced
> calorie count and say eat less. The carb people will point at the
> reduced carb count and say eat low carb. The grain intolerance
> people will look at rats and ask "mooo?" figuring rats eat grain and
> are therefore related to cattle. The vegans will point out that the
> rats
> aren't getting meat are the ones that are healthy.
>
> We can't put a bunch of humans in cages for their entire lives and feed
> each set a different number of calories and see how it comes out 120
> years later.

No we can't put a bunch of humans in cages for their entire lives and
feed each set a different number of calories and see how it comes out
120 years later. But we can look at the simple fact that more than 95%
of people who try to lose weight by counting calories FAIL.

Forget the calories. They are a waste of time.

TC

wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>> NYC XYZ wrote:
>>>
>>> What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??
>>
>> And how do you map rat results to human results? If they even DO
>> map.
>>
>> Note that rats are fed a high carb grain based diet. Reduce their
>> feed 30% and they live longer. The calorie people will point at the
>> reduced calorie count and say eat less. The carb people will point
>> at the reduced carb count and say eat low carb. The grain
>> intolerance
>> people will look at rats and ask "mooo?" figuring rats eat grain and
>> are therefore related to cattle. The vegans will point out that the
>> rats
>> aren't getting meat are the ones that are healthy.
>>
>> We can't put a bunch of humans in cages for their entire lives and
>> feed each set a different number of calories and see how it comes
>> out 120 years later.
>
> No we can't put a bunch of humans in cages for their entire lives and
> feed each set a different number of calories and see how it comes out
> 120 years later. But we can look at the simple fact that more than
> 95% of people who try to lose weight by counting calories FAIL.
>
> Forget the calories. They are a waste of time.

It's the people who fail, not the calories!!!


--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

"But we can look at the simple fact that more than 95% of people who try
to lose weight by counting calories FAIL.

Forget the calories. They are a waste of time."

But we can look at all people who lose weight and note that many fewer
calories were consumed regardless if they made an effort to count them
or not. Calories can be forgotten if using a loss method which doesn't
count them. What ever your present food intake reduce it by 1/3 and you
will lose weight. In the meantime of course calories are reduced too
but not counted.

Bully wrote:
> wrote:
> > Doug Freyburger wrote:
> >> NYC XYZ wrote:
> >>>
> >>> What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??
> >>
> >> And how do you map rat results to human results? If they even DO
> >> map.
> >>
> >> Note that rats are fed a high carb grain based diet. Reduce their
> >> feed 30% and they live longer. The calorie people will point at the
> >> reduced calorie count and say eat less. The carb people will point
> >> at the reduced carb count and say eat low carb. The grain
> >> intolerance
> >> people will look at rats and ask "mooo?" figuring rats eat grain and
> >> are therefore related to cattle. The vegans will point out that the
> >> rats
> >> aren't getting meat are the ones that are healthy.
> >>
> >> We can't put a bunch of humans in cages for their entire lives and
> >> feed each set a different number of calories and see how it comes
> >> out 120 years later.
> >
> > No we can't put a bunch of humans in cages for their entire lives and
> > feed each set a different number of calories and see how it comes out
> > 120 years later. But we can look at the simple fact that more than
> > 95% of people who try to lose weight by counting calories FAIL.
> >
> > Forget the calories. They are a waste of time.
>

> It's the people who fail, not the calories!!!

Sure. The *people*. Riiiiiight.

For every 100 people that try to lose weight by restricting calories in
their diet and burning more calories thru exercise, more than 95 of
them will fail to achieve their goals. Why is that? Why cannot smart
dedicated and sometimes desperate people not succeed in reducing their
weight by counting calories? Not all are smart and dedicated, but many
are, and they fail too. And even desperate people on VLCDs, eating
between 800 to 1200 calories per day, even they fail almost invariably.


It isn't that difficult to cut back 10 or 20% or even more off of ones
dietary caloric consumption. Especially with all the low fat products
available. And maintaining that is not that hard. I've done it. But it
certainly did not result in the weight loss expected. Millions do it,
and fail to achieve the weight loss projected. Cutting calories
consumed and increasing activities to burn calories is easy to do, and
millions do it, without achieving their weight loss goals. 95% of the
people who do it fail to achieve their goals.

If the program, as described and as applied by real people in the real
world, fails in more than 95% of cases, then it is the program that is
flawed.

You cannot possibly fault more than 95% of the people who genuinely
want to lose weight.

Statistically speaking, if the program works, it *will* work in *more*
than 95% of cases. Which happens to be the exact opposite of what
actually happens in the real world.

You would think that at least 20 or 30 or 40 or 50% would succeed. If
that were the case, I just might buy into the argument that many people
fail to follow the program and they sabotage themselves in various
ways.

But less than 5% success rate? Come on. You're dreaming. In
technicolour.

TC

>
>
> --
> Bully
> Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
>
> "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
> matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

TC wrote:
[...]
> But less than 5% success rate? Come on. You're dreaming. In
> technicolour.
>
> TC
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bully
>> Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
>>
>> "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
>> matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

From where are you getting your stats?

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Bully wrote:
> TC wrote:
> [...]
> > But less than 5% success rate? Come on. You're dreaming. In
> > technicolour.
> >
> > TC
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bully
> >> Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
> >>
> >> "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
> >> matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
>
> From where are you getting your stats?

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/309/6955/655

Garner DM, Wooley SC. Confronting the failure of behavioral and dietary
treatments of obesity. Clinical Psychology Review 1991;6:58-137.

Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
ineffective
C S Wooley, D M Garner

University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio 45267,
USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research, Bala Cynwood,
Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr Wooley.

It is surprising that debate continues about the effectiveness of
dietary treatments for obesity. Perhaps this is partly related to
ambiguity in the term effectiveness. It is well known that most
treatments produce temporary weight loss. But it is equally well known
that 90% to 95% of those who lose weight regain it within several
years.1 This poor outcome has led to charges that traditional
treatments for obesity should be abandoned and countercharges that it
is irresponsible to withhold treatment for such a serious problem. The
failure of reducing diets to produce lasting improvement was recently
reiterated at a National Institutes of Health consensus conference,
which also warned about the adverse effects of treatment.2

The failure of fat people to achieve a goal they seem to want - and to
want almost above all else - must now be admitted for what it is: a
failure not of those people but of the methods of treatment that are
used. It is no longer a mystery why diets have such a poor long term
record of success. Indeed the failure of obese people to become or
remain thin by "normalising" their food intake follows logically from
studies on the heritability of obesity,3 the biology of weight
regulation,4 and the physiology of energy metabolism.5

Demand for treatment is not a justification

Yet many remain enthusiastic about treatment. It could be said that the
main evidence for the value of dieting is that health professionals
continue to prescribe it. Inertia feeds on itself, failure to change
coming to serve as a silent argument that no change is needed. However,
this only partially accounts for the resistance to change among those
treating obesity. Recent findings regarding the benefits of antibiotics
in treating ulcers and the comparative outcomes of procedures for
emergency cardiac care have been rapidly translated into medical
practice. In these cases doctors have only had to adjust what they do;
in the case of obesity treatment, however, there is no replacement
procedure. The question is whether to abandon treatment, putting many
specialists out of business, in the face of relentless popular demand.
Desperate consumers are willing to bear the burden of responsibility
for failure in exchange for continuing access to treatment. This
desperation is best illustrated by Ravitch and Brolin's observation
that patients who had had obesity surgery were unwilling to consider
reversal even when it was discussed in terms of saving their lives.6

As if to avert the central question by introducing more variables, the
debate has shifted from the universal mandate for one treatment, to the
matching of available treatments (from self directed programmes to
surgery) to individual, depending on level of obesity and factors such
as diet history.7 Notably, even for patients as little as 5% overweight
the option of withholding weight loss treatment does not appear on the
decision tree. Wadden has argued that the "no treatment" option "cannot
be universally endorsed until there are definitive research data."8
This is an unusual twist in medical science: demanding proof of
effectiveness of no treatment rather than of active intervention.
Although the no treatment stance has been viewed as radical, it is
actually quite conservative. The drug industry has to show both safety
and efficacy before commercial approval of its products, and, in
general, the burden of proof lies with those advocating treatment.

Health effects of dieting

Proponents of dietary treatment point to the health risks of obesity.
Amassing evidence that weight loss would be beneficial does not make
treatment any more effective. Therapies with modest success rates are
defensibly used when the prognosis for an untreated person is poor and
treatment poses no additional risks. But in the case of dietary
treatments for obesity neither of these assumptions is clearly met.
Success rates are not even modest, and the health risks associated with
untreated obesity remain controversial, largely because in societies in
which dieting is common the effects of high weight are confounded with
the effects of weight cycling.1,9 Dieting not only fails the criterion
of being without risk but has been implicated in increased morbidity
and mortality in several large studies.1,9,10 Dieting often has
negative effects on psychosocial functioning and can lead to eating
disorders such as the binge eating disorder and even bulimia nervosa.11
Finally, dietary treatments are costly, unpleasant, and, when they
fail, tend to damage self esteem.

Treat the patient not obesity

Of course obese patients should be treated for illnesses and injuries
like everyone else. They should be counselled to eat a healthy balanced
diet and to get appropriate amounts of exercise. They should be treated
for the emotional disorders they have and not, as is so often the case,
ones they do not have. They should be treated for eating disorders such
as binge eating, if they have them. Some must be helped to stop chronic
overeating caused by despair over repeated failure. Some will need help
in establishing "normal" eating patterns after decades of diets and
diet rebound. They should be helped to deal with the social and
emotional implications of remaining fat and to improve their body
image. One of the highest priorities should be to protect them from
blame for their condition and the enormous costs resulting from fat
prejudice.

Gotmaker et al recently put the costs of prejudice in terms that
everyone can understand: $6710 (pounds sterling 4470) a year in lost
earnings, as well as fewer years of education and a reduced chance of
marriage for American women in the top 5% of weight for height.12 Many
previous studies have documented discrimination in admission to
colleges, employment, promotion, access to housing, and attribution of
personality traits.11,13 In a commentary Stunkard and Sorensen
criticised the medical profession for being "among the chief offenders"
in the perpetuation of prejudice and issued a "call to action against
the stigmatisation of obesity."14

But how? Prejudice is revived daily in the routine interactions of
doctor and patient in which patients are offered dietary treatments and
fail to benefit from them. This ongoing failure demands a culprit:
either the treatment is flawed or the patient is flawed, failing to
comply with the appropriate remedy. As the more credible medical
profession is refusing to blame its prescriptions patients are left to
absorb the stigma of failure.

We should stop offering ineffective treatments aimed at weight loss.
Researchers who think they have invented a better mousetrap should test
it in controlled research before setting out their bait for the entire
population. Only by admitting that our treatments do not work - and
showing that we mean it by refraining from offering them - can we begin
to undo a century of recruiting fat people for failure.

***

TC

>
> --
> Bully
> Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
>
> "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
> matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

TC wrote:
[...]
OK, I didn't realise we were talking about people who are obese. Reducing
kcals will never work for the majority of obese people unless their
underlying psychological problems are addressed. Simple really !

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Bully wrote:
> TC wrote:
> [...]
> OK, I didn't realise we were talking about people who are obese. Reducing
> kcals will never work for the majority of obese people unless their
> underlying psychological problems are addressed. Simple really !
>
> --
> Bully
> Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
>
> "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
> matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Playing the psychological card now are we? I see. 95% of the people are
too mentally unfit to be able to maintain enough calorie restriction to
lose weight.

Yeah. Sure. Riiiiiiight.

TC

TC wrote:
> Bully wrote:
>> TC wrote:
>> [...]
>> OK, I didn't realise we were talking about people who are obese.
>> Reducing kcals will never work for the majority of obese people
>> unless their underlying psychological problems are addressed. Simple
>> really !
>>
>> --
>> Bully
>> Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
>>
>> "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
>> matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
>
> Playing the psychological card now are we? I see. 95% of the people
> are too mentally unfit to be able to maintain enough calorie
> restriction to lose weight.
>
> Yeah. Sure. Riiiiiiight.
>
> TC

So you're telling me anyone who continues to overeat to the point where they
are obese has got all his/her marbles???

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Bully wrote:
> TC wrote:
> > Bully wrote:
> >> TC wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> OK, I didn't realise we were talking about people who are obese.
> >> Reducing kcals will never work for the majority of obese people
> >> unless their underlying psychological problems are addressed. Simple
> >> really !
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bully
> >> Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
> >>
> >> "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
> >> matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
> >
> > Playing the psychological card now are we? I see. 95% of the people
> > are too mentally unfit to be able to maintain enough calorie
> > restriction to lose weight.
> >
> > Yeah. Sure. Riiiiiiight.
> >
> > TC
>
> So you're telling me anyone who continues to overeat to the point where they
> are obese has got all his/her marbles???
>
> --
> Bully

You are an idiot. I get so tired of the low IQs around here.

That is utterly stupid. How can someone as stupid as you sit there and
throw out these inanities. You must be mental yourself to make such
intellectually challenged statements in a public forum. Moron.

There are millions who willingly and enthusiastically cut calories to
lose weight and end up gaining weight. Remember the 95% of people who
try to lose weight cutting calories and fail? These people do not
"continue to overeat to the point where they are obese". They become
obese doing exactly what they are told to do in order to to lose
weight. The calorie counting actually leads either to little or no
weight loss or, in most cases, to more weight gain.

Cutting fat and ignoring carbs leads to weight gain.

Hence the simple concept that counting calories don't work. My guess is
that the 5% who do succeed, succeed, only because they are physically
ill or they just happen to accidentally cut carbs while cutting
calories. I don't think that the 5% that do succeed succeed because
they cut calories but in spite of cutting calories.

TC

TC wrote:
> Bully wrote:
>> TC wrote:
>>> Bully wrote:
>>>> TC wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> OK, I didn't realise we were talking about people who are obese.
>>>> Reducing kcals will never work for the majority of obese people
>>>> unless their underlying psychological problems are addressed.
>>>> Simple really !
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bully
>>>> Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
>>>>
>>>> "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
>>>> matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
>>>
>>> Playing the psychological card now are we? I see. 95% of the people
>>> are too mentally unfit to be able to maintain enough calorie
>>> restriction to lose weight.
>>>
>>> Yeah. Sure. Riiiiiiight.
>>>
>>> TC
>>
>> So you're telling me anyone who continues to overeat to the point
>> where they are obese has got all his/her marbles???
>>
>> --
>> Bully
>
> You are an idiot. I get so tired of the low IQs around here.

Well **** off elsewhere then, douchebag!

[...snipped load of old tosh re. CARBS are the one true EVIL...]


--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

TC wrote:
> Bully wrote:
>> TC wrote:
>>> Bully wrote:
>>>> TC wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> OK, I didn't realise we were talking about people who are obese.
>>>> Reducing kcals will never work for the majority of obese people
>>>> unless their underlying psychological problems are addressed.
>>>> Simple really !
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bully
>>>> Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
>>>>
>>>> "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
>>>> matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
>>>
>>> Playing the psychological card now are we? I see. 95% of the people
>>> are too mentally unfit to be able to maintain enough calorie
>>> restriction to lose weight.
>>>
>>> Yeah. Sure. Riiiiiiight.
>>>
>>> TC
>>
>> So you're telling me anyone who continues to overeat to the point
>> where they are obese has got all his/her marbles???
>>
>> --
>> Bully
>
> You are an idiot. I get so tired of the low IQs around here.
>
> That is utterly stupid. How can someone as stupid as you sit there and
> throw out these inanities. You must be mental yourself to make such
> intellectually challenged statements in a public forum. Moron.
>
> There are millions who willingly and enthusiastically cut calories to
> lose weight and end up gaining weight. Remember the 95% of people who
> try to lose weight cutting calories and fail? These people do not
> "continue to overeat to the point where they are obese". They become
> obese doing exactly what they are told to do in order to to lose
> weight. The calorie counting actually leads either to little or no
> weight loss or, in most cases, to more weight gain.
>
> Cutting fat and ignoring carbs leads to weight gain.
>
> Hence the simple concept that counting calories don't work. My guess
> is that the 5% who do succeed, succeed, only because they are
> physically ill or they just happen to accidentally cut carbs while
> cutting calories. I don't think that the 5% that do succeed succeed
> because they cut calories but in spite of cutting calories.
>
> TC

p.s. ******!

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Bully wrote:
> TC wrote:
>> Bully wrote:
>>> TC wrote:
>>>> Bully wrote:
>>>>> TC wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> OK, I didn't realise we were talking about people who are obese.
>>>>> Reducing kcals will never work for the majority of obese people
>>>>> unless their underlying psychological problems are addressed.
>>>>> Simple really !
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Bully
>>>>> Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
>>>>>
>>>>> "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind
>>>>> don't matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
>>>>
>>>> Playing the psychological card now are we? I see. 95% of the people
>>>> are too mentally unfit to be able to maintain enough calorie
>>>> restriction to lose weight.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah. Sure. Riiiiiiight.
>>>>
>>>> TC
>>>
>>> So you're telling me anyone who continues to overeat to the point
>>> where they are obese has got all his/her marbles???
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bully
>>
>> You are an idiot. I get so tired of the low IQs around here.
>>
>> That is utterly stupid. How can someone as stupid as you sit there
>> and throw out these inanities. You must be mental yourself to make
>> such intellectually challenged statements in a public forum. Moron.
>>
>> There are millions who willingly and enthusiastically cut calories to
>> lose weight and end up gaining weight. Remember the 95% of people who
>> try to lose weight cutting calories and fail? These people do not
>> "continue to overeat to the point where they are obese". They become
>> obese doing exactly what they are told to do in order to to lose
>> weight. The calorie counting actually leads either to little or no
>> weight loss or, in most cases, to more weight gain.
>>
>> Cutting fat and ignoring carbs leads to weight gain.
>>
>> Hence the simple concept that counting calories don't work. My guess
>> is that the 5% who do succeed, succeed, only because they are
>> physically ill or they just happen to accidentally cut carbs while
>> cutting calories. I don't think that the 5% that do succeed succeed
>> because they cut calories but in spite of cutting calories.
>>
>> TC
>
> p.s. ******!

Thanks for the sig file!

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"There are millions who willingly and enthusiastically cut calories to
lose weight and end up gaining weight. " - TC

"Bully" > wrote
> Bully wrote:
>> TC wrote:
>>> Bully wrote:
>>>> TC wrote:
>>>>> Bully wrote:
>>>>>> TC wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> OK, I didn't realise we were talking about people who are obese.
>>>>>> Reducing kcals will never work for the majority of obese people
>>>>>> unless their underlying psychological problems are addressed.
>>>>>> Simple really !
>>>>>
>>>>> Playing the psychological card now are we? I see. 95% of the people
>>>>> are too mentally unfit to be able to maintain enough calorie
>>>>> restriction to lose weight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah. Sure. Riiiiiiight.

>>>> So you're telling me anyone who continues to overeat to the point
>>>> where they are obese has got all his/her marbles???
>>>
>>> You are an idiot. I get so tired of the low IQs around here.
>>>
>>> That is utterly stupid. How can someone as stupid as you sit there
>>> and throw out these inanities. You must be mental yourself to make
>>> such intellectually challenged statements in a public forum. Moron.
>>>
>>> There are millions who willingly and enthusiastically cut calories to
>>> lose weight and end up gaining weight. Remember the 95% of people who
>>> try to lose weight cutting calories and fail? These people do not
>>> "continue to overeat to the point where they are obese". They become
>>> obese doing exactly what they are told to do in order to to lose
>>> weight. The calorie counting actually leads either to little or no
>>> weight loss or, in most cases, to more weight gain.
>>>
>>> Cutting fat and ignoring carbs leads to weight gain.
>>>
>>> Hence the simple concept that counting calories don't work. My guess
>>> is that the 5% who do succeed, succeed, only because they are
>>> physically ill or they just happen to accidentally cut carbs while
>>> cutting calories. I don't think that the 5% that do succeed succeed
>>> because they cut calories but in spite of cutting calories.
>
> Thanks for the sig file!
>
> "There are millions who willingly and enthusiastically cut calories to
> lose weight and end up gaining weight. " - TC

I thought his "Cutting fat and ignoring carbs leads to weight gain." was at
least as moronic, but, your taste in moronic .sig files may vary.

David

Bully wrote:
> Bully wrote:
> > TC wrote:
> >> Bully wrote:
> >>> TC wrote:
> >>>> Bully wrote:
> >>>>> TC wrote:
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> OK, I didn't realise we were talking about people who are obese.
> >>>>> Reducing kcals will never work for the majority of obese people
> >>>>> unless their underlying psychological problems are addressed.
> >>>>> Simple really !
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Bully
> >>>>> Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind
> >>>>> don't matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
> >>>>
> >>>> Playing the psychological card now are we? I see. 95% of the people
> >>>> are too mentally unfit to be able to maintain enough calorie
> >>>> restriction to lose weight.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yeah. Sure. Riiiiiiight.
> >>>>
> >>>> TC
> >>>
> >>> So you're telling me anyone who continues to overeat to the point
> >>> where they are obese has got all his/her marbles???
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Bully
> >>
> >> You are an idiot. I get so tired of the low IQs around here.
> >>
> >> That is utterly stupid. How can someone as stupid as you sit there
> >> and throw out these inanities. You must be mental yourself to make
> >> such intellectually challenged statements in a public forum. Moron.
> >>
> >> There are millions who willingly and enthusiastically cut calories to
> >> lose weight and end up gaining weight. Remember the 95% of people who
> >> try to lose weight cutting calories and fail? These people do not
> >> "continue to overeat to the point where they are obese". They become
> >> obese doing exactly what they are told to do in order to to lose
> >> weight. The calorie counting actually leads either to little or no
> >> weight loss or, in most cases, to more weight gain.
> >>
> >> Cutting fat and ignoring carbs leads to weight gain.
> >>
> >> Hence the simple concept that counting calories don't work. My guess
> >> is that the 5% who do succeed, succeed, only because they are
> >> physically ill or they just happen to accidentally cut carbs while
> >> cutting calories. I don't think that the 5% that do succeed succeed
> >> because they cut calories but in spite of cutting calories.
> >>
> >> TC
> >
> > p.s. ******!
>
> Thanks for the sig file!
>
> --
> Bully
> Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
>
> "There are millions who willingly and enthusiastically cut calories to
> lose weight and end up gaining weight. " - TC

Hey, a 95% failure rate is not something you can ignore. Unless you are
an idiot, then anything is possible.

TC