30 pounds in 30 days??

"T5ayLor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi all

I am new to this newsgroup. I saw a friend last week who had lost about

60

Quoted message said:

pounds on LC. I haven't seen him in about a year, so I don't know if I

believe

Quoted message said:

him when he says he lost 30 pounds his first month of dieting!! Is such
dramatic weight loss really possible with LC?

Thanks!!

Possible: Yes
Probable: No

The more weight one has to lose, the faster one loses on low-carb. If
someone is grossly overweight, it would be possible to lose that much in the
first month, but extremely uncommon and highly unlikely. Many people seem
to lose 8 or 10 pounds in the first two weeks as the body's cells give up
their glycogen stores with associated water, but after that the weight loss
slows to a reasonable pace.

--
Peter
270/219/180
website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo

T5ayLor wrote:
|| Hi all
||
|| I am new to this newsgroup. I saw a friend last week who had lost
|| about 60 pounds on LC. I haven't seen him in about a year, so I
|| don't know if I believe him when he says he lost 30 pounds his first
|| month of dieting!! Is such dramatic weight loss really possible
|| with LC?
||
|| Thanks!!

If your friend is very large and has significant muscle mass, then it is
certainly possible to lose 30 lbs in one month.

However, it is likely that a goodly amount of that lose is water, not fat.
A guy with lots of muscle could easily hold 10 to 15 lbs of water in the
muscles that goes away once muscle gylcogen is reduced though following a
low carb diet. Then, if this person is very active and if significant
appetite supression kics in due to low carbing, the remaing weight loss
could be in the form of fat.

However, this is not something everyone should expect (quick water weight
loss is something to expect, the maybe not 15 lbs!). This is a YMMV kind of
thing.

(T5ayLor) said:

Hi all

I am new to this newsgroup. I saw a friend last week who had lost about 60
pounds on LC. I haven't seen him in about a year, so I don't know if I believe
him when he says he lost 30 pounds his first month of dieting!! Is such
dramatic weight loss really possible with LC?

Thanks!!

Yes, especially for those who are grossly overweight and are planning
to quit and put it all back on. Fast off-fast on. ALso people refuse
to accept that 5-10 pounds of what you lose with the glucose/water
storage that it natural to the body. This is 5-10 pounds of weight
that you will regain whenever you consume more carbs and will melt off
within days whenever you go very low on carbs. This is swing weight.
In the beginning it thrills people and they fantasize they will lose
at that rate forever. Others become crushed because the moment they
stop low carbing they regain 5-10 pounds and they give up beause it
wasn't worth it. They have no idea why their body works the way it
does and just flounder around.

I lost 16 pounds in first 4 weeks,
30 pounds by the 9th week
60 pounds by week 20.
75 pound by week 29.
I've maintained about 77-84 lbs down and Jan 12 will be my one year
anniversary.

Low carb isn't for everybody, but for some it may be essential to
getting your body under control. IMHO low-carb is the stricter version
of the diet all diabetics should be on. If you respond well to low
carb it is probably because you are suffering from sugar/insulin
problems that are going undiagnosed. It doesn't appear that doctors
are diagnosing these issues untils years or decades after they start
when enough damage has been done that no one can ignore the problem. I
now have no doubt that I would be diabetic later in life.

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/267/Dec-264/225
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
Maint. not counting (CCLL=50-60)

T5ayLor said:

Hi all

I am new to this newsgroup. I saw a friend last week who had lost about 60
pounds on LC. I haven't seen him in about a year, so I don't know if I believe
him when he says he lost 30 pounds his first month of dieting!! Is such
dramatic weight loss really possible with LC?

Thanks!!

You can see some statistics which chart the weight loss progress of a
bunch of people who have participated here on this newsgroup in Carol
Ann's "Weight Loss Challenge". These stats give you a better idea of
what kind of weight loss you can look forward to achieving through
long-term low carbing.

http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/dietpage.htm

--
--Jenny Type 2 diabetes since 1998. Hba1c 5.7%
Low Carbing for 5 years. 140 lbs (goal)

Cut the "carbs" to respond to my email address.
-----------------------------------------------------
What they Don't Tell You About Diabetes Web Site
http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/

Jenny's Low Carb Diet Facts & Figures site
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/

Looking for help controlling your blood sugar?
Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------

Quoted message said:

"T5ayLor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi all

I am new to this newsgroup. I saw a friend last week who had lost about

60

Quoted message said:

pounds on LC. I haven't seen him in about a year, so I don't know if I

believe

Quoted message said:

him when he says he lost 30 pounds his first month of dieting!! Is such
dramatic weight loss really possible with LC?

In the 1980s when I was much younger and my metabolism much nicer 🙂
I lost 30 pounds in six weeks. So dramatic weight loss is possible. It's more
likely in someone who is dramatically overweight. and men usually lose faster
than women.

Having said that, when I lost the 30 lbs I was 170 and dropped to 140.
In that first month I lost 8 lbs the first week, 5 lbs a week for the next two
then it dropped to 3 lbs/week after that . I'm sure a lot of that was water
weight but I was thrilled to see it leave! I kept it off for 4-5 years before
letting my weight creep back up. Now my weight loss is significantly slower
however, low carbing keeps my triglycerides low and that's what I really want
out of this.

Good luck.
Remember it's not a race, it's about getting healthy.

Susan

T5ayLor said:

Hi all

I am new to this newsgroup. I saw a friend last week who had lost about 60
pounds on LC. I haven't seen him in about a year, so I don't know if I believe
him when he says he lost 30 pounds his first month of dieting!! Is such
dramatic weight loss really possible with LC?

Thanks!!

It might be possible if your friend weight like 600 or 700 pounds.
Otherwise I think that is an unusually large loss.

I just lost about 9 lbs in the last week. But that is the first week
after starting again. I am sure I won't lose 9 lb/week for the next 3 weeks!

doug

Being very overweight may help lose more lbs in the first week, when
much of the weight loss is water. But if you followed The Biggest
Loser on TV, one thing that was apparent was that the most overweight
guy, at like 440lbs, was rarely the one that lost the most actual lbs
each week. That despite being on a strict diet and doing massive
amounts of excercise. In fact, unless they put some new final twist
into the show, he's going to lose, since percentage wise, he's only
down somewhere around 11% weight loss, while the leaders are about
twice that. I would think that for most people not doing huge amounts
of excercise, the daily calorie reqts don't scale anywhere near
proportional to an individuals weight. Then, very obese people are
more likely to be doing less excercise and may also have metabolic
tendencies that helped get them very fat to begin with.

[email hidden] wrote:
|| Being very overweight may help lose more lbs in the first week, when
|| much of the weight loss is water. But if you followed The Biggest
|| Loser on TV, one thing that was apparent was that the most overweight
|| guy, at like 440lbs, was rarely the one that lost the most actual lbs
|| each week. That despite being on a strict diet and doing massive
|| amounts of excercise. In fact, unless they put some new final twist
|| into the show, he's going to lose, since percentage wise, he's only
|| down somewhere around 11% weight loss, while the leaders are about
|| twice that.

Using precentages could be very unfair, because 11% of 440 is 48.4 whereas
11% of 220 is 24.2 lbs. Also, using mere weight says nothing about bodyfat
vs LBM, which also could be changing.

|| I would think that for most people not doing huge
|| amounts of excercise, the daily calorie reqts don't scale anywhere
|| near proportional to an individuals weight.

I don't know about that. Being large always made it easy for me to lose
weight. I started at 367 lbs. I could lose up 0.5 lbs a day on a high carb
diet (not sustained for long, though). I would think that calorie burn will
scale close to proportional for most people, maybe moreso depending on the
type of exercise and weight distributoin.

|| Then, very obese people
|| are more likely to be doing less excercise and may also have
|| metabolic tendencies that helped get them very fat to begin with.

There are lots of very obese people who can move and they can exercise. It
is foolhard to draw conclusions from a single person, especially one from a
TV show.

The possibility of losing 30 lbs in a month will only exist for the right
kind of person. Very likely a very large male with lots of muscle mass
under lots of fat. These are the types of guys who indeed can burn a lot of
calories exercising and they certainly can exercise. Who know if the person
who is the subject of this post falls into this group. I would think a
strict LC diet would still be necessary to see the required drop is scale
weight (water loss + fat loss).

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Hi all

I am new to this newsgroup. I saw a friend last week who had lost about 60
pounds on LC. I haven't seen him in about a year, so I don't know if I

believe

Quoted message said:

him when he says he lost 30 pounds his first month of dieting!! Is such
dramatic weight loss really possible with LC?

Thanks!!

Most of it is water in the beginning. But even then, losing that much in that
short amount of time is not a healthy thing. 3-4 pounds a week is much more
safe.

(T5ayLor) said:

Hi all

I am new to this newsgroup. I saw a friend last week who had lost
about 60
pounds on LC. I haven't seen him in about a year, so I don't know
if I believe
him when he says he lost 30 pounds his first month of dieting!! Is
such
dramatic weight loss really possible with LC?

Thanks!!

You are NOT new to this newsgroup. I thought I recognized the
question and Googled. You've been asking us this same question since
June of 2002.
Pick a new line at least.

Carmen

Handy guide to modern science: If it's green or wriggles, it's
biology. If it stinks, it's chemistry. If it doesn't work, it's
physics.

"There are lots of very obese people who can move and they can
exercise. It
is foolhard to draw conclusions from a single person, especially one
from a
TV show."

I don't know what you base this on. I didn't draw conclusions from one
person or a TV show. I don't think many people would argue that in
general the very obese are more likely to be doing less excercise,
which is what I said. Sure, there are some exceptions, but in
general, someone weighing 440lbs, with almost all of it fat, has a hard
time even walking. I have a friend who was a star athlete in high
school. Now, he's 100lbs over weight on a 5'7 frame. We went to NYC
for dinner and he was totally exhausted, sweating and out of breath
from just walking a few blocks and climbing some subway stairs.

[email hidden] wrote:
|| "There are lots of very obese people who can move and they can
|| exercise. It
|| is foolhard to draw conclusions from a single person, especially one
|| from a
|| TV show."
||
|| I don't know what you base this on. I didn't draw conclusions from
|| one person or a TV show. I don't think many people would argue that
|| in general the very obese are more likely to be doing less excercise,
|| which is what I said. Sure, there are some exceptions, but in
|| general, someone weighing 440lbs, with almost all of it fat, has a
|| hard time even walking. I have a friend who was a star athlete in
|| high school. Now, he's 100lbs over weight on a 5'7 frame. We went
|| to NYC for dinner and he was totally exhausted, sweating and out of
|| breath from just walking a few blocks and climbing some subway
|| stairs.

I won't disagree with the info about your friend....but as someone who
weighed 367 lbs, I know what I could do at that weight and I've seen other
who could do more. These very large people fall into a spectrum, just like
anyone else. You can find people who weigh 110 lbs who can't do much, and
you can find 400 lb monsters. It's generally all over the map.

Your entire comment about obese people and exercise was in response to a
question about losing 30 lbs in 30 days and you lead off talking about a 440
lb man doing lots of exercise in an attempt to lose weight.

Also, talking about total pounds lost and then using precentages in
comparisons makes little sense.

" These very large people fall into a spectrum, just like
anyone else. You can find people who weigh 110 lbs who can't do much,
and
you can find 400 lb monsters. It's generally all over the map."

That's absolute nonsense. You ride bikes right? How many 440lb guys
do you see riding? Sure they fall into a spectrum, but the spectrum of
excercise for the very obese is significantly lower than for fit people
or the population as a norm. I'm amazed that anyone would argue this.
Yes, we've all seen some large people, football players for example
that weigh a lot, are fit, get lots of excercise, but I wouldn't
classify them as the very obese.

"Your entire comment about obese people and exercise was in response to
a
question about losing 30 lbs in 30 days and you lead off talking about
a 440
lb man doing lots of exercise in an attempt to lose weight."

That's nonsense too. Perhaps you didn't read the thread. You make it
sound like I simply replied to the OP's question of losing 30lbs and
started the discusion of the very obese. If you follow the thread,
there was plenty of discussion about losing 60, 75 lbs. Then there was
a reply from Doug speculating about someone weighing 600 or 700lbs and
how fast they could lose weight. That's how the discussion about the
very obese came up and it was Doug's reply that I responded to. Do you
think 600lb people are exercising as much as the average person too?

"Also, talking about total pounds lost and then using precentages in
comparisons makes little sense."

I'm not advocating using percentages. I only pointed out that is what
they happen to be doing on the Biggest Loser and consequently, the guy
that was the fattest is almost certainly going to lose, unless they
change the rules. But, now that you mention it, what's your problem
with percentages all of a sudden? It was you who claimed that daily
calorie reqts do scale proportional to an individuals weight. And you
also claim that the very obese excercise just as much. Then the very
obese should be able to lose just as easily, so why not use percentages
and why do you think it's so unfair?

And finally, let's go back to that claim that calorie reqts scale
proportional with weight.

" I would think that calorie burn will
scale close to proportional for most people, maybe moreso depending on
the
type of exercise and weight distributoin."

Here's a link to a website that has a calculator where you can put in
your weight, age, height and amount of excercise and it will give you
the estimate of your daily calorie reqts. I didn't do an exhaustive
search to come up with this, it was the first one I found. It does
list the scientific references the formula is based on.

Put in 40 yr old 5-10 175lb guy doing very light work 12 hrs a day,
resting 12 and you get 2225 calories. That seems very reasonable,
since that's about the accepted avg for an adult male. Then change the
weight to 350 and you get 3593. So, the first 175 lbs requires 2225
calories, the second 175lbs only requires 1368 calories. That was
exactly my point, that a typical 350 lb guy doesn't burn anywhere near
double the calories of a 175lb guy.

[email hidden] wrote:
|| " These very large people fall into a spectrum, just like
|| anyone else. You can find people who weigh 110 lbs who can't do much,
|| and
|| you can find 400 lb monsters. It's generally all over the map."
||
|| That's absolute nonsense. You ride bikes right? How many 440lb guys
|| do you see riding?

Go hang out in the biking ng...there is at least one person there who weighs
400 lbs and rides. I've also seen some rather large guys riding bikes,
though I don't know who much they weigh.

|| Sure they fall into a spectrum, but the spectrum
|| of excercise for the very obese is significantly lower than for fit
|| people or the population as a norm.

Perhaps so for fit people. But your average joe isn't doing much exericse,
he just isn't very fat, or fit, for that matter

I'm amazed that anyone would
|| argue this.

Why don't you simply read what I wrote?

Yes, we've all seen some large people, football players
|| for example that weigh a lot, are fit, get lots of excercise, but I
|| wouldn't classify them as the very obese.
||

According to BMI they are indeed obese. But still, that's not my point as I
wasn't referring to just football players.. I'm simply saying that they are
lots of obese people who can exercise and burn significant energy to
increase the rate of loss. You're making blanket statements that the very
obese won't or can't move. It's untrue in general when they are motivated
to lose weight. Sure, they likely weren't doing much as they crept up the
scale, but that doesn't mean they can't exercise, if they are otherwise
healthy.

|| "Your entire comment about obese people and exercise was in response
|| to a
|| question about losing 30 lbs in 30 days and you lead off talking
|| about a 440
|| lb man doing lots of exercise in an attempt to lose weight."
||
|| That's nonsense too. Perhaps you didn't read the thread. You make
|| it sound like I simply replied to the OP's question of losing 30lbs
|| and started the discusion of the very obese. If you follow the
|| thread, there was plenty of discussion about losing 60, 75 lbs.
|| Then there was a reply from Doug speculating about someone weighing
|| 600 or 700lbs and how fast they could lose weight. That's how the
|| discussion about the very obese came up and it was Doug's reply that
|| I responded to. Do you think 600lb people are exercising as much as
|| the average person too?

Why don't you pay attention? Very large people probably haven't BEEN
exercising that much (BTW, the "average" person probably doesn't exercise
much at all - so your comparison is daft) but the fact is many very obese
people CAN exercise to lose weight. The real difference here is that very
obese people are just eating way, way more than normal weight people (once
you start consuming lots of calories the effects of exercise diminsh greatly
in terms of weight control). Just because they are very large doesn't mean
that CAN'T execise, even if it's just walking morning, noon, and in the
evenings. The assumption is that if someone wants to lose 30 lbs in a
month, they are going to have to do some execise. Couple that with LCing,
then it would become possible to lose 30 lbs in a month, for some people,
given the water weight drop when starting LC. It's very doubtful that anyone
could sustain that kind of weight loss.

||
|| "Also, talking about total pounds lost and then using precentages in
|| comparisons makes little sense."
||
|| I'm not advocating using percentages. I only pointed out that is
|| what they happen to be doing on the Biggest Loser and consequently,
|| the guy that was the fattest is almost certainly going to lose,
|| unless they change the rules. But, now that you mention it, what's
|| your problem with percentages all of a sudden?

What is this "all of a sudden" business?

You mentioned how a 440 lb person (who was doing massive amounts of
exercise, according to you) had lost 11% of weight when the smaller person
had loss almost twice that percentage. So who loses the most depends on
what they each weigh (and body composition), not the percentages. Other
issues come in to play in terms of how much someone loses, so even if the
bigger person doesn't lose more pounds than the smaller person, it proves
nothing.

|| It was you who
|| claimed that daily calorie reqts do scale proportional to an
|| individuals weight.

I said "close to". You do know what that means? It doesn't mean
"proportional to".

And you also claim that the very obese
|| excercise just as much.

You can't read. Why don't you find where I said that? I said that some CAN,
not that they all do. You provided evidence for my claim with your own
words.

Then the very obese should be able to lose
|| just as easily, so why not use percentages and why do you think it's
|| so unfair?

You are math challenged? There are things going on the body that simply
don't work by percentages. It is silly to even compare things this way. If
you compare a pound to a pound of fat, the larger person will lose more raw
pounds than the smaller person, all things being the same (exercise duration
& intensity and eating at the same deficit wrt to maintenance). However,
you seem to be basing your statements on the results of this one, silly TV
show.

||
|| And finally, let's go back to that claim that calorie reqts scale
|| proportional with weight.
||
|| " I would think that calorie burn will
|| scale close to proportional for most people, maybe moreso depending
|| on the
|| type of exercise and weight distributoin."
||
|| Here's a link to a website that has a calculator where you can put in
|| your weight, age, height and amount of excercise and it will give you
|| the estimate of your daily calorie reqts.

I see no link.

I didn't do an exhaustive
|| search to come up with this, it was the first one I found. It does
|| list the scientific references the formula is based on.
||

Thought to be inaccurate, but okay.

|| Put in 40 yr old 5-10 175lb guy doing very light work 12 hrs a day,
|| resting 12 and you get 2225 calories. That seems very reasonable,
|| since that's about the accepted avg for an adult male. Then change
|| the weight to 350 and you get 3593. So, the first 175 lbs requires
|| 2225 calories, the second 175lbs only requires 1368 calories. That
|| was exactly my point, that a typical 350 lb guy doesn't burn
|| anywhere near double the calories of a 175lb guy.

I think 1.6 is certainly is "anywhere near double", espeically given how
inaccurate this is.

But you seem to not understand much about this. In terms of burning
calories via exercise, it depends greatly on the exercise. In general, a
very heavy person will have more muscle mass (and LBM in general) in the
lower body compared to a more normal weight person. So, just to follow your
approach, I'll use a caloire counter for exercise (thought to be
inaccurate), say this one (the first I found, as you did):
http://www.prevention.com/caloriecalcsub/1,,s1-4-121-48-1158-1--1,00.html

and assume your 175 lb guy vs a 350 lb guy doing 30 minutes of cycling at
10-11.9 mph. You find this:

175 lb guy: burns 239 kcals
350 lb guy: burns 477 kcals

so that ratio is 477/239=1.9958 ~ 2.

Thus, since a pound is a pound, the heavier person should be able to create
the same deficit in half the time of the lighter guy.

And if you think that a 350 lb guy can't ride a bike for extended periods of
time to burn significant calories (maybe not those given by this
calculator), you're just clueless.

My answer would be yes, but only with consistent daily exercise.

"T5ayLor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi all

I am new to this newsgroup. I saw a friend last week who had lost about
60
pounds on LC. I haven't seen him in about a year, so I don't know if I
believe
him when he says he lost 30 pounds his first month of dieting!! Is such
dramatic weight loss really possible with LC?

Thanks!!

"Go hang out in the biking ng...there is at least one person there who
weighs
400 lbs and rides. I've also seen some rather large guys riding bikes,
though I don't know who much they weigh.

My statements were for groups on average, not individuals.. Sure you
can find a 400LB fat guy
riding a bike somewhere, which wasn't my point and I think you know
it. This is
precisely what I said and stand by:

Then, very obese people are more likely to be doing less excercise and
may also have metabolic
tendencies that helped get them very fat to begin with.

You apparently had a problem with that. Yet now you post:

"I'm simply saying that they are lots of obese people who can exercise
and burn significant energy to
increase the rate of loss. You're making blanket statements that the
very
obese won't or can't move. It's untrue in general when they are
motivated
to lose weight. Sure, they likely weren't doing much as they crept up
the
scale, but that doesn't mean they can't exercise, if they are otherwise
healthy.

Sure they could excercise a lot more to burn more calories. They
could do lots
of things, but it's not realistic to expect, as a group, for very obese
people to suddenly
start excercising a lot more. And a lot of people go on LC and don't
change their excercise
level much, if at all and do perfectly fine.

"Sure they fall into a spectrum, but the spectrum
|| of excercise for the very obese is significantly lower than for fit
|| people or the population as a norm

Perhaps so for fit people. But your average joe isn't doing much
exericse,
he just isn't very fat, or fit, for that matter

Say what?

"You are math challenged? There are things going on the body that
simply
don't work by percentages. It is silly to even compare things this way.
If
you compare a pound to a pound of fat, the larger person will lose more
raw
pounds than the smaller person, all things being the same (exercise
duration
& intensity and eating at the same deficit wrt to maintenance).
However,
you seem to be basing your statements on the results of this one, silly
TV
show.

So, now you have to get nasty because you're losing the silly pissing
match that you started?
I saw in another recent thread where you blasted a newbie for asking a
simple question.
Why the sudden change? And why do you keep saying I'm basing
everything on a TV show?

The rest of this section doesn't even make sense. Just because there
are some "things"
going on in the body that don't work by percentages, doesn't change
anything. If what
you maintain is true, that daily calorie reqts are close to
proportional to weight and very obese
can excercise just as much/easily as others, then using percentage of
body weight lost
as a measure of who lost the most in a contest isn't unreasonable at
all. Unless you're now going to
tell us that "things" only happen in the very obese group's bodies and
not in the other's.

"
I said "close to". You do know what that means? It doesn't mean
"proportional to".

Let's look at that in context:

I posted:
I would think that for most people not doing huge
|| amounts of excercise, the daily calorie reqts don't scale anywhere
|| near proportional to an individuals weight

To which you replied:
I would think that calorie burn will
scale close to proportional for most people,

"I think 1.6 is certainly is "anywhere near double", espeically given
how
inaccurate this is. "

Ok, I'm the one that's math challenged and you're arguing that 1.6 is
"anywhere near double?"
And now the std is just anywhere, when you said "I would think that
calorie burn will
scale close to proportional" I think you meant to say "I think 1.6 is
certainly near double
now that I've been proven wrong.

"But you seem to not understand much about this. In terms of burning
calories via exercise, it depends greatly on the exercise. In general,
a
very heavy person will have more muscle mass (and LBM in general) in
the
lower body compared to a more normal weight person. So, just to follow
your
approach, I'll use a caloire counter for exercise (thought to be
inaccurate), say this one (the first I found, as you did):"

Oh really? Then why, in the first post you raised the objection to,
did I
specifically include the qualifier about excercise? And we're arguing
about
what?

"I would think that for most people not doing huge
|| amounts of excercise, the daily calorie reqts don't scale anywhere
|| near proportional to an individuals weight"

And all that excercising stuff at the end is nice, but perhaps you
forgot, or never knew
that wasn't what the discussion was even about. I specifically put in
the qualifier about
excercise. I don't disagree that excercise can help even things out.
Of course the big hole
in your argument above is that the calorie equivalency, which I agree
is very close to proportional
is while doing vigorous excercise for 30 mins. That leaves another
23.5 hours, so yeah the closer
a very obese person comes to cycling 10mph for 24 hrs, the closer
he'll be to proportional.

"I would think that for most people not doing huge
|| amounts of excercise, the daily calorie reqts don't scale anywhere
|| near proportional to an individuals weight"

I'm happy to leave that where it is. We have a situation where for
something to be
exactly proportional, it should be a factor of 2.0. Instead it turns
out to be 1.6

Everyone can decide for themselves if this is:

a - not anywhere near proportional, as I claimed

b - close to proportional as you claim

All, I can say, is if people think it's B, I want them to come work for
me so I can
pay them close to proportional for the amount of work they do.

[email hidden] wrote:
|| "Go hang out in the biking ng...there is at least one person there
|| who weighs
|| 400 lbs and rides. I've also seen some rather large guys riding
|| bikes, though I don't know who much they weigh.
||
|| My statements were for groups on average, not individuals..

You didn't say so. Your comment was so matter of fact that you come off
pushing the notion that very obese people never do anything (but eat).

Sure you
|| can find a 400LB fat guy
|| riding a bike somewhere,

Didn't have to look far.

which wasn't my point and I think you know
|| it. This is
|| precisely what I said and stand by:
||
|| Then, very obese people are more likely to be doing less excercise

Less than what or who? Given that most people don't exercise at all, you're
not saying much.

|| and may also have metabolic
|| tendencies that helped get them very fat to begin with.

Don't have a problem with that.

||
||
||
|| You apparently had a problem with that. Yet now you post:
||
||
|| "I'm simply saying that they are lots of obese people who can
|| exercise and burn significant energy to
|| increase the rate of loss. You're making blanket statements that the
|| very
|| obese won't or can't move. It's untrue in general when they are
|| motivated
|| to lose weight. Sure, they likely weren't doing much as they crept up
|| the
|| scale, but that doesn't mean they can't exercise, if they are
|| otherwise healthy.
||
|| Sure they could excercise a lot more to burn more calories. They
|| could do lots
|| of things, but it's not realistic to expect, as a group, for very
|| obese people to suddenly
|| start excercising a lot more. And a lot of people go on LC and don't
|| change their excercise
|| level much, if at all and do perfectly fine.

I never said anything about 'as a group' nor did you. So don't try to change
your statement. I simply said that some very obese people can exercise and
lots do, once they decide to lose weight.

||
||
|| "Sure they fall into a spectrum, but the spectrum
|||| of excercise for the very obese is significantly lower than for fit
|||| people or the population as a norm
||
|| Perhaps so for fit people. But your average joe isn't doing much
|| exericse,
|| he just isn't very fat, or fit, for that matter
||
|| Say what?
||
||
|| "You are math challenged? There are things going on the body that
|| simply
|| don't work by percentages. It is silly to even compare things this
|| way. If
|| you compare a pound to a pound of fat, the larger person will lose
|| more raw
|| pounds than the smaller person, all things being the same (exercise
|| duration
|| & intensity and eating at the same deficit wrt to maintenance).
|| However,
|| you seem to be basing your statements on the results of this one,
|| silly TV
|| show.
||
||
|| So, now you have to get nasty because you're losing the silly pissing
|| match that you started?

You started it. I simply disagreed with what you said. Apparently, you
don't like to be disagree with. Too bad.

|| I saw in another recent thread where you blasted a newbie for asking
|| a simple question.
|| Why the sudden change?

Everything is a sudden change in your world, huh?

And why do you keep saying I'm basing
|| everything on a TV show?

Because you seem to be doing so.

||
||
|| The rest of this section doesn't even make sense. Just because there
|| are some "things"
|| going on in the body that don't work by percentages, doesn't change
|| anything. If what

|| you maintain is true, that daily calorie reqts are close to
|| proportional to weight

I never said this...geez...

and very obese
|| can excercise just as much/easily as others,

AS much? As easily? Who said that? Everything is a moving target with you,
huh? But I'll address your new, modified claim.
The very obese (who are healthy) can exercise and due to their greater
weight, then can burn significant calories doing so. Depending on the
exercise, it can be as much, especially if the build up over time. As for
as easily, I'd say no because the more overweight you are, the more energy
expended doing most activities that involve moving bodyweight around. This
is why walking and other nonimpact exercises are best for the very
overweight.

then using percentage of
|| body weight lost
|| as a measure of who lost the most in a contest isn't unreasonable at
|| all. Unless you're now going to
|| tell us that "things" only happen in the very obese group's bodies
|| and not in the other's.

Nonsense. The same would be true for smaller people too. The entire notion
doesn't make sense as no two people are exacly alike.

||
|| "
|| I said "close to". You do know what that means? It doesn't mean
|| "proportional to".
||
|| Let's look at that in context:
||
|| I posted:
|| I would think that for most people not doing huge
|||| amounts of excercise, the daily calorie reqts don't scale anywhere
|||| near proportional to an individuals weight
||
|| To which you replied:
|| I would think that calorie burn will
|| scale close to proportional for most people,
||
||
||
|| "I think 1.6 is certainly is "anywhere near double", espeically given
|| how
|| inaccurate this is. "
||
|| Ok, I'm the one that's math challenged and you're arguing that 1.6 is
|| "anywhere near double?"

In the world where everything is a rough guess anyway, absolutely.

|| And now the std is just anywhere, when you said "I would think that
|| calorie burn will
|| scale close to proportional" I think you meant to say "I think 1.6
|| is certainly near double
|| now that I've been proven wrong.

Nonsense. I hope you don't think you've proven anything.

||
|| "But you seem to not understand much about this. In terms of burning
|| calories via exercise, it depends greatly on the exercise. In
|| general, a
|| very heavy person will have more muscle mass (and LBM in general) in
|| the
|| lower body compared to a more normal weight person. So, just to
|| follow your
|| approach, I'll use a caloire counter for exercise (thought to be
|| inaccurate), say this one (the first I found, as you did):"
||
|| Oh really? Then why, in the first post you raised the objection to,
|| did I
|| specifically include the qualifier about excercise? And we're
|| arguing about
|| what?

Because, losing 30 lbs in 30 days will require most anyone to exercise
assuming they're not trying to strave. If a very obese person burns
calories at a higher rate than someone of much lighter weight (see your
example), they can create a calorie deficit with less time spent exercising.
Further, your assumption that they will exercise less is just wrong, if they
choose to exercise to lose weight. I claim that happens more often than you
think it does, since you seem to think that very obese people never
exercise. Sure, as a group they don't, but neither do normal weight people,
as a group. As a group, very obese people aren't trying to lose weight,
either. So what does that prove? It would be better to compare very obese
people interested in losing weight via exercise to others doing the same
thing.

||
|| "I would think that for most people not doing huge
|||| amounts of excercise, the daily calorie reqts don't scale anywhere
|||| near proportional to an individuals weight"
||
||
||
||
|| And all that excercising stuff at the end is nice, but perhaps you
|| forgot, or never knew
|| that wasn't what the discussion was even about. I specifically put
|| in the qualifier about
|| excercise.

so? I made another, slightly different comment. I'll exapand. It doesn't
take hugh amounts of exercise to swing the balance once eating is under
control. A very large person gets extra bang for the exercise buck. So the
daily calorie requirements aren't even important. In fact, a very obese
person carrying lots of metabocially inactive fat can eat way below the
so-called "daily calorie requirements" needed to maintain weight. That's
another reason very large people can lose so fast compared to much smaller
people. Just because the guy on the TV didn't (apparently) doesn't prove
anything. You have no idea what that person was really doing when not in
front of a camera.

I don't disagree that excercise can help even things
|| out. Of course the big hole
|| in your argument above is that the calorie equivalency, which I agree
|| is very close to proportional
|| is while doing vigorous excercise for 30 mins. That leaves another
|| 23.5 hours, so yeah the closer
|| a very obese person comes to cycling 10mph for 24 hrs, the closer
|| he'll be to proportional.

That's not important when viewed from the standpoint of creating and
maintaining a calorie deficit. It only comes down to what it takes to lose a
pound of fat. This discussion isn't about this "proportional" thing you're
harping on now.

||
||
||
|| "I would think that for most people not doing huge
|||| amounts of excercise, the daily calorie reqts don't scale anywhere
|||| near proportional to an individuals weight"
||
|| I'm happy to leave that where it is. We have a situation where for
|| something to be
|| exactly proportional, it should be a factor of 2.0. Instead it turns
|| out to be 1.6
||
|| Everyone can decide for themselves if this is:
||
|| a - not anywhere near proportional, as I claimed
||
|| b - close to proportional as you claim
||
|| All, I can say, is if people think it's B, I want them to come work
|| for me so I can
|| pay them close to proportional for the amount of work they do.

First, surely you know that a factor of 1.6 is proportional. The burn
factor doesn't have to scale exactly with weight in order to be
proportional. Ever heard of the term "proportionality factor"? But you
seem to think that very obese people can't and don't exercise. Some, a
goodly number of them do, can, and will (if they want to). Lots don't.
Absolutely. I freely admit that. But then, lots of overweight and normal
weight people don't exercise either. I see them everyday.

Roger Zoul said:

. It doesn't
take hugh amounts of exercise to swing the balance once eating is under
control. A very large person gets extra bang for the exercise buck. So the
daily calorie requirements aren't even important. In fact, a very obese
person carrying lots of metabocially inactive fat can eat way below the
so-called "daily calorie requirements" needed to maintain weight. That's
another reason very large people can lose so fast compared to much smaller
people.

This is borne out in fact especially in Chung's cardiology practice where
he deal with obese ppl much more frequently than I do. Caloric content is
a secondary issue to food volumes = eating under control. Exercise with
body weight becomes a much simpler protocol. No gyms required. Short
engagements of walking around the house, walking up and down the driveway
and as weight is reduced, repetitions increase. This can go along for
quite some time and as Roger points out, to what would appear, at first, to
be a skewed weight loss curve. The psychological benefits are obvious.
Exercise tolerances increase rapidly and proportional to weight loss.

"You didn't say so. Your comment was so matter of fact that you come
off
pushing the notion that very obese people never do anything (but eat)."

I think most everyone reading this except you would agree that the very
obese, as a group, exercise less than the average person. Perhaps you
were one of the exceptions, but that doesn't change the facts. The two
principal ways to get very obese are through eating too much and/or
excercising too little.

"Sure you
|| can find a 400LB fat guy
|| riding a bike somewhere,

Didn't have to look far."

This is so plain silly as to be laughable. I don't know where you
live, but the rest of us pass cyclists on roads everyday. Very rarely
is anyone of them anywhere near this weight. I've never seen anyone
that was anywhere near that weight riding a bicycle.

"The very obese (who are healthy) can exercise "

This is a new and interesting qualifier. Up until now, we were talking
about the very obese as a group, not
restricting it to a sub-group. And isn't "very obese who are healthy"
somewhat of an oxymoron?

"I never said this...geez..."

Oh yes you did and here it is:

"You are math challenged? There are things going on the body that
simply
don't work by percentages. It is silly to even compare things this way.
"

So according to you, using percentages of weight lost is no good,
because "things" go on in the body.
BTW, still waiting for your answer on a better and fairer way to judge
a weight loss contest than using
percentages of weight lost.

"This is why walking and other nonimpact exercises are best for the
very
overweight."

No argument there. And that's what I had in mind too, when I made my
original statement
that it was unlikely that the very obese were going to be doing a lot
of exercise.
..

"since you seem to think that very obese people never
exercise. Sure, as a group they don't, but neither do normal weight
people,
as a group. "

We all know that normal weight people don't get as much exercise as
recommended. And most
of us know that the obese group get even less exercise. There have
been studies done that showed a direct correlation
between hours of TV watched and obesity, which directly supports that
the couch potato syndrome is at work.

"Because, losing 30 lbs in 30 days will require most anyone to exercise
assuming they're not trying to strave. If a very obese person burns
calories at a higher rate than someone of much lighter weight (see your
example), they can create a calorie deficit with less time spent
exercising."

Losing 30 lbs in 30 days would be easy for a very obese person, if
calorie reqts did in fact scale close to proportional with body weight,
as
you claimed. It takes about a 3500 calorie deficit to burn away one
pound of body weight. So, to lose 30lbs, we need to burn
105,000 more calories over 30 days. That works out to 3500 calories a
day. I think we agree the average man just doing normal
activity, needs about 2200 calories a day to maintain. Then, if
calories required scaled by weight, a 453LB guy would need 5700
calories
to maintain. So, just by cutting back to the avg diet of 2200
calories, he'd have a deficit of 3500 calories a day and in a month
he'd lose 30LBs.
That was the core of your argument wasn't it? That calories were
closely proportional to weight? But now somehow it's not possible
without
a lot of excercise?

"That's not important when viewed from the standpoint of creating and
maintaining a calorie deficit."

No, it's only important to the very obese guy trying to cycle for 24
hours a day to try to make your 1.6 turn into a 2.0 so it will be
proportional.

"First, surely you know that a factor of 1.6 is proportional. The burn
factor doesn't have to scale exactly with weight in order to be
proportional. Ever heard of the term "proportionality factor"? "

And now it's come to this. After calling me the one that's math
challenged this is a real gem.
For a relationship between two variables to be proportional, the
constant must be fixed. It can't
be 1.0 for the relationship between the first 175lbs and 2200 calories
and 1.6 for the next 175lbs
and 1320 calories. For the first 175lbs, it's 12.6 calories/lb, from
175 to 350, it's 7.5 calories/lb.
If you like, plot it on a graph. If it's proportional, you get a
straight line. The above relationship
is not a straight line. It is, in fact, exactly what I said it was,
which is not anywhere near proportional
to weight for those not doing extensive exercise.