low carb diets, not necessarily
in [Low-Carb]
|
Prev: High protein diet and low eGFR (estimated kidney function below 60)
Next: The Best Weight Loss and Nutritional Products worldwide
From: Kaz Kylheku on 7 Aug 2008 18:39 On 2008-08-07, john <jvbajb(a)cox.net> wrote: > >>The ``support'' part refers to helping people who are trying to diet. It >>doesn't refer to supporting the dieting ideology itself! > > Apparently you still haven't learned how to read. The support refers > to the low-carb diet. Only according to you, an apparently self-supported enforcer of the topic. The ``alt.support.diet'' part in fact refers to the fact that this newsgroup is under the ``alt.support.diet'' hierarchy, along with a number of other newsgroups. Newsgroups not only have titles, but descriptions. Though this newsgroup is missing such a description, a a couple of other newsgroups in the ``alt.support.diet'' hierarchy do have descriptions which unambiguously denote them as discussion groups. alt.support.diet.paleolithic Discussion of the Paleolithic Diet concept (Not: ``Recitations of Paleolithic Diet dogma.'') alt.support.diet.fit-for-life Discuss the Fit-For-Life diet program. (Not: ``Odes sung in praise of Fit-For-Life.'') > Read the title of this group, if you can. At this point it is appropriate to say that I will do as I please within the limits of what I, with utmost care, perceive to be the topicality. >>People who are dieting are not helped by lies, such as that energy >>doesn't matter. > > I think you are citing the first law of thermodynamics. Of course, > that theory is basically irrefutable for all our collective knowledge > but that the problem is that this scientific law is being grossly > misapplied. Tubby, if you apply it properly, it will work. > Issue 1: The body is not a perfect system. The word you are looking for is ``closed system''. > lungs, our noses, and more importantly A closed system is delineated by accounting for the inputs and outputs, which is done. Lung output, feces, etc. All have been studied. > our genitalia and our anuses constantly expunge matter. Like what you're doing now, for instance. > It is uncontestable that fat is turned into > ketoids and we release those ketoids is all sorts of different ways > without necessarily storing it as fat. That may be true, but I woudln't bet on this as an action plan for weight loss, especially based on the past results of the majority of those who have. > Issue 2: Calories are not a physical entity, they are a measure of > potential energy. Calories are a measure of energy, period. Potential energy isn't a different kind of energy with different units. The kinetic energy of a moving train can be expressed as calories. The amount of sunlight hitting a square meter of area can be expressed as calories per second, etc. Kilowatt-hours can be converted to calories, since a watt measures energy per unit time (power), reducing to energy when multiplied by time, etc. A 100 horsepower engine can produce, at its peak output, 17.8 kcal per second. > However, we don't burn "fat", our cells utilize > ketones and glucose. That's a minute detail, after pondering which, you're no thinner. Congratulations on being ... well-googled. > Furthermore there at least 4 different path ways > that foods become usable energy, and by definition, there are most > likely as many discrete levels of efficiency for all these processes. > Two of these are dramatically different in nature (ketones vs. > glucose) which makes the assumption of equal efficiency suspicious. The energy efficiency of various kinds of foods can be summarized as their thermic effect. A dieter doesn't need to understand this to a level deeper than that protein has the greatest thermic effect, followed by carbs, followed by fats. Even that is advanced material that is largely irrelevant to someone with a lot to lose. > Issue 3: A calorie is _not_ equal to how or why your body stores fat. > One is measure of heat, and the other is a complicated metabolic > process. We are concerned with storing fat. It is on its face an > improper comparison. > >>I've tried a lot of different ways of eating. All the ways that worked >>had only one thing in common: reduced calories. > > There have been documented studies which demonstrate that > equal calorie diets based on different caloric composition result in In other words, studies demonstrate that loss is possible on various diets. By the way, does ``documented'' equal well-designed and well-conducted? All studies whose results we can find on the Internet or in libraries are documented. Undocumented studies would be ones that produce no documents, and so we don't know anything about those. > different degrees of weight loss. It's not magic. It's not magic; it's adaptation of expenditure to intake. Except maybe in rarely occuring, bizarre metabolic disorders, this adaptation has a limited range. The composition of the diet can only give you so much advantage. That advantage can be expressed in some kind of finite energy figure. By manipulating what you eat (and perhaps, when and how often), you may be able to get away with eating a more calories, compared to some other way of eating. But if you overeat on this optimized diet, you will get fat. If you get fat or stay fat on this optimized diet, no further manipulation of the diet will help you. Only eating less of it. There is no way of composing the diet such that you can eat unrestricted amounts, without fat gain. No credible low-carb proponents claim that there is. Only a handful of permanently fat loonies on Usenet. Atkins himself wrote that his diet is ``not a license to gorge''. I will even give you this: let's assume that the mainstream low-carb diet is the optimal way to eat so that you can pack away the most calories with the least gain. The problem is that if you approach eating with the attitude of ``how much can I get away with stuffing into myself'', that will generally reflect in the quality of your results. > Its not a subversion > of physics. It's simple biology. Our body has two ways of processing > energy and demonstrates different propensity for fat storage with each > one. It's not a stretch unless you're insisting on a naive model of > how the body operates. If a dieter approaches the problem with the right attitude, the naive model is more than a sufficient level of detail. Detailed models are only applicable for advanced fat loss. If you do the big stuff wrong, the small stuff won't help you. The average tub just needs to eat less, according to the simple model, which will work like a charm for the vast, vast majority. If everyone with fat to lose makes a list of what he is doing wrong, overeating will be at the top of it. For many people, it's the /only/ thing on the list, the only thing they are doing wrong. (Even in cases when they think they have tried ``everything'', in vain, for years!)
From: jcderkoeing on 7 Aug 2008 21:23 "Kaz Kylheku" <kkylheku(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20080807134057.814(a)gmail.com... wrote nothing of note... Wrestlers, boxers, and weightlifters have used a low carb diet for decades to lower their weight and bodyfat, because it works. Now get over it and move along, dimwit.
From: Marsha on 7 Aug 2008 21:28 jcderkoeing wrote: > "Kaz Kylheku" <kkylheku(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:20080807134057.814(a)gmail.com... > > wrote nothing of note... > > > Wrestlers, boxers, and weightlifters have used a low carb diet for decades > to lower their weight and bodyfat, because > it works. > > Now get over it and move along, dimwit. > > A voice of reason in the distance? Nah, couldn't be....difficult to recognize....signal-to-noise ratio too high...SOS Marsha/Ohio
From: Kaz Kylheku on 8 Aug 2008 11:00 On 2008-08-08, jcderkoeing <jcderkoenig(a)ibm.com> wrote: > Wrestlers, boxers, and weightlifters have used a low carb diet for decades Like yourself? LOL > to lower their weight and bodyfat, because > it works. Not the popularized, all-you-can-eat, calories-don't-exist, non-diet imitation of the diet. They are also not on that cutting diet perpetually. > Now get over it and move along, dimwit. Yeah, you're really socking it to me, perma-tub!
From: Kaz Kylheku on 8 Aug 2008 11:05
On 2008-08-08, jcderkoeing <jcderkoenig(a)ibm.com> wrote: ^^ Persistent typo in his own name. > Wrestlers, boxers, and weightlifters have used a low carb diet for decades Like yourself? LOL > to lower their weight and bodyfat, because > it works. Not the popularized, all-you-can-eat, calories-don't-exist, non-diet imitation of the diet. They are also not on that cutting diet perpetually. > Now get over it and move along, dimwit. Yeah, you're really socking it to me, perma-tub! |