Calories and dieting

Hindian said:

Is it true that when i eat something, i need only look at the number
of calories it contains (if i am trying to determine if it will make
me fat)?

i.e. forget about the fat, carbohydrates, proteins..etc etc and just
look at the calories.

Are calories the measure of how much energy a given food item has?

Of course. That is why 100% of people who try to lose weight by
restricting fats and calories easily succeed in losing all the weight
they want to and keep it off forever. That is why every one is thin and
in perfect health today.

TC

Hindian said:

Is it true that when i eat something, i need only look at the number
of calories it contains (if i am trying to determine if it will make
me fat)?

i.e. forget about the fat, carbohydrates, proteins..etc etc and just
look at the calories.

Are calories the measure of how much energy a given food item has?

Of course. That is why 100% of people who try to lose weight by
restricting fats and calories easily succeed in losing all the weight
they want to and keep it off forever. That is why every one is thin and
in perfect health today.

TC

I have about 45 pounds to lose. I am a man and think its finally time
to rein in the pounds on the scale. I've looked at the Atkins diet and
the Dr. Bernstein diet on
http://www.bariatricsweightloss.com/def_bar.html but am confused as to
which medical doctor I should follow! Has anyone had any success on
either of these programs?

Atkins can be successful, more so for men (according to most recent
studies) than for women, but..........once one leaves the program,
there is a very high rate of regain - original poundage plus more.
Bariatric surgery is usually only recommended for the mordidly obese,
those individuals who are more than 200% of their 'ideal' body weight.
The very dull truth is.......a diet never works.........a lifestyle
change does. If you look at weight loss as going on a diet and losing
the weight...then there is better than a 90% chance you will regain.
If you look at weight loss as a lifestyle change, involving eating
habits, routines, activity habits and significant others........the
chance for longterm success is much greater. I speak from experience
and education - I am a practicing registered dietitian who has lost
over 75 lbs and maintained the loss for greater than five years. Was
it/Is is easy? No.....not even for someone with all the 'book'
knowledge.......eating is so very tied to our emotional being that this
lifestyle chane involves altering an integral part of ourselves. I
have found the self hypnosis/relaxation tapes to be very
beneficial..........but everyone is different, you have to hit on the
combination that works for you. Good Luck!!

Hindian said:

Is it true that when i eat something, i need only look at the number
of calories it contains (if i am trying to determine if it will make
me fat)?

IMO, number of calories from a particular food does not indicate whether
you will get fat. The basic equation calories in > calories out will
make you fat over a period of time.

Quoted message said:

i.e. forget about the fat, carbohydrates, proteins..etc etc and just
look at the calories.

Fat, carbs and protein are macronutrients. Almost all "diets" are
endless manipulations of one or more macronutrients. Your body needs all
three. There is some notion of "quality." Like in carbs there is
Glycemic Index and Load, with protein there is usually associated very
high saturated fat, and with fat there are saturated, poly, mono and
transfats. But the basic equation calories in > calories out still holds
no matter what the "quality" of macronutrients.

So lets say you determine that your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate; or what
you burn up just sitting there) is 2000 and you eat 6000 calories a day.
You will get fat (been there, done that). If your BMR is 2000 and you
eat 1800 calories a day you will ever so slowly get thinner. The issue
now is how will you "feed" your body nutrients, vitamins, minerals, and
the right building blocks so you lose the right kind of weight (not
water and not muscle mass) and so you get fit rather than thin (think
gym rat vs. starvation victim). And the answer to that issue is to eat
only high "quality" macronutrients.

Everyone knows this but hardly anyone is willing to admit it when faced
with a Krispy Kreme in the office. Its amazing how we fill our precious
bodies with the cheapest [censored] we can find. Actually its not amazing.
Sugar and fats are probably addictive and the corporations, knowing
this, load us up and sell it to us cheap so we think were getting a good
deal. Then they can sell us drugs and medical treatment to extend our
lives so they can milk us dry for as long as possible. Anyway I digress.

Eat a balanced diet of healthy foods; fruits, veggies, whole grains,
legumes, nuts, lean meats, moderate amounts of fat. Eat small portions
and make sure calories in < calories out. Read your labels, avoid
Partially Hydrogenated Oil and High Fructose Corn Syrup. Better yet is
eat food with no labels. Avoid added sugar and added fat. Stop eating
donuts (it doesnt matter if its low fat or low carb, a donut is a donut;
stop eating junk food). Get some exercise to increase your calories out.
Its all very simple but the hardest thing. Maybe without thinking about
it youre macronutrient profile might meet the diet "du jour" (Atkins
Phase 4, Zone, Target, etc.)

Quoted message said:

Are calories the measure of how much energy a given food item has?

Yes, but food, as far as I have seen, seems very lethargic to me. It
just sits there on the plate no matter how much energy it has 😉

k

Hindian said:

Is it true that when i eat something, i need only look at the number
of calories it contains (if i am trying to determine if it will make
me fat)?

i.e. forget about the fat, carbohydrates, proteins..etc etc and just
look at the calories.

Are calories the measure of how much energy a given food item has?

Yes, calories are a measure of how much energy a given food has.

In theory, watching your calories alone should be all you need to do to lose
weight. In practice, the failure rate for people who go on such diets is so
high that it's not worth considering. With most things besides diets, a 10%
failure rate would be considered high. With some diets, you are lucky if
that percent succeed in the long run.

If you cut down your calories by the equivalent of a pat or two of butter a
day, you should lose ten pounds or more per year. That's how simple it is
to lose weight by cutting calories.

The reality is that your metabolism changes over time, and so does your
activity level. These are also dependent on caloric intake. Different foods
with the same number of calories are treated differently by the body. Some
foods, such as pure starches or sugars or refined flour, will break down
almost instantly without much need for digestion. There will be a rapid
increase in blood sugar followed by a huge spike in insulin, followed by a
rapid depletion of blood sugar, followed by hunger pangs. Other foods, such
as a balanced diet with whole grains, vegetables, a moderate amount of
protein and some unsaturated fats (avoid saturated fats and trans fats) will
leave you feeling full much longer, even if the calorie count is the same.
Also, your body expends a portion of your caloric intake on digesting food.
So even if two foods have an identical calorie count, it's still possible
for the body to gain more calories from one than from the other. It's not
how many calories you eat, but how many calories you take in compared to how
many you use up.

You don't have to count calories at all to lose weight. You do have to eat
right, and stick to reasonable portions. You have to stay away from junk
food and food with no nutritional value. You need to prepare your food in a
more healthful way. Instead of having fried chicken with mashed potatoes
and watermelon, have grilled chicken breast with some brown rice and steamed
vegetables, and have a small fruit for dessert. You could even go for a half
a grapefruit. The more fiber, and the less sugar the better. Also, and
acidic fruit will slow down the sugar intake too. If grapefruit is at one
end, and watermelon at the other, you can figure out which fruits in the
middle would be better than others. An occasional orange is better than
drinking a cup of OJ made from three of them.

On 6 Dec 2004 20:03:07 -0800, [email hidden] posted:

Quoted message said:

Hindian said:

Is it true that when i eat something, i need only look at the number
of calories it contains (if i am trying to determine if it will make
me fat)?

i.e. forget about the fat, carbohydrates, proteins..etc etc and just
look at the calories.

Are calories the measure of how much energy a given food item has?

Of course. That is why 100% of people who try to lose weight by
restricting fats and calories easily succeed in losing all the weight
they want to and keep it off forever. That is why every one is thin and
in perfect health today.

Where does it say that restricting calories is easy for everyone?
For many people it is extremely difficult. For a few it is relatively
easy. You almost wonder why some folks were fat in the first place, as
it is so easy for them to be of a healthy weight. One wonders about
such things as self-harming behaviours.

Anyway, restricting calories by whatever means is essential to losing
weight. (Of course, restricting calories means restricting them to
below output.)

Are calories the measure of how much energy a given food item has?

Calories are a measurement of the energy generated by a substance that
is burned in a can. The can is called a bomb calorimeter. It is a
contraption that was used at the end of the age of alchemy and the
beginning of the age of science.

How calories relate to weight management in humans is highly suspect
because it has been shown that more than 95% of dieters who try to lose
weight by counting calories fail to keep any weight off. It simply
doesn't work in the real world.

TC

"How calories relate to weight management in humans is highly suspect
because it has been shown that more than 95% of dieters who try to lose
weight by counting calories fail to keep any weight off. It simply
doesn't work in the real world."

All people who regain weight do so by resumption of consuming excess
calories, regardless of how they restrained calorie intake during a weight
loss period. Thus people who lost by consulting taro cards, or paying
attention to the phases of the moon, or reading diet books, or weighing
food, or eating an all pizza plan, or any other approach resumed weight
gain when their energy intake exceeded their energy needs. In turn by
employing any method that by any means constrained energy below energy
needs for long enough a period lost weight. The only quibble is what
program might achieve this goal in a way that meets health and other
goals because all energy restriction diets work and any diet that works
does so by energy restriction.

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

Quoted message said:

How calories relate to weight management in humans is highly suspect
because it has been shown that more than 95% of dieters who try to
lose
weight by counting calories fail to keep any weight off. It simply
doesn't work in the real world.

Yawn, here we go again. And I claim they can't count and/or have no idea
how many less calories they need before they get into the reduction
side. And every time anyone shows you a study to prove your absurdity
you pull the conspiracy theory out of your butt that all the people
involved in the study are one aliens on the take. You take a great
position, you are right and everyone else is a liar. Paranoia come to
mind.

-DF

On 12 Dec 2004 16:58:09 -0800, "TC" <[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Are calories the measure of how much energy a given food item has?

A calorie is a unit of energy measurement.
There is energy associated with chemical bonds. This can be measured
and expressed in calories.

Quoted message said:

Calories are a measurement of the energy generated by a substance that
is burned in a can.

You can cause a chemical change (oxidation) in a bomb calorimeter and
measure the resultant change in energy status.

Changing glucose to carbon dioxide, water and energy in the human body
involves EXACTLY the same amount of energy as seen in a bomb
calorimeter when you burn glucose to carbon dioxide, water and energy.
Go figure!

Quoted message said:

The can is called a bomb calorimeter.

No, you are calling the bomb calorimeter a can. I'm sure someone has
described this to you before. Do you genuinely not remember, or are
you trying to fulfil your hidden agenda?

Quoted message said:

It is a
contraption that was used at the end of the age of alchemy and the
beginning of the age of science.

And ever since.
So has the beam balance, so what?

Quoted message said:

How calories relate to weight management in humans is highly suspect

Only to you, apparently.

Quoted message said:

because it has been shown that more than 95% of dieters who try to lose
weight by counting calories fail to keep any weight off. It simply
doesn't work in the real world.

Because they don't reduce their calorie intake below output. This is
the ONLY way that anyone can lose body fat. And this has been pointed
out to you many times. Why do you keep repeating this stupidity?

"Dunne E. Dawe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

because it has been shown that more than 95% of dieters who try to
lose
weight by counting calories fail to keep any weight off. It simply
doesn't work in the real world.

Because they don't reduce their calorie intake below output. This is
the ONLY way that anyone can lose body fat. And this has been pointed
out to you many times. Why do you keep repeating this stupidity?

For the same reason that some people think the earth is still flat and
Bush never lied to us. I'm highly suspicious of some form of selective
paranoia.

-DougF

"Feel free to provide us with the *definitive* study or report that
specifically lays out exactly how calories can be used to accurately
predict weight gain or loss in humans. Or the *seminal* study or report
that makes this specific finding. Or *any* study or report that
specifically makes this finding.
It does not exist."

Ah, full circle, specific examples were offered you where in a controlled
setting consuming fewer calories resulted in weight loss period. It was
soon after this that he who invents standards took off on an anti science
rant and linking science to fraud because the companies selling carb foods
had bought the results of studies which contridict the theology of he who
invents standards, and for whom we wish could invent some new notions as
an excuse; we having long ago given up hope he could provide some science
in support of his theology.

Doug Freese said:

"Dunne E. Dawe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

because it has been shown that more than 95% of dieters who try to
lose
weight by counting calories fail to keep any weight off. It simply
doesn't work in the real world.

Because they don't reduce their calorie intake below output. This

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the ONLY way that anyone can lose body fat. And this has been

pointed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

out to you many times. Why do you keep repeating this stupidity?

For the same reason that some people think the earth is still flat

and

Quoted message said:

Bush never lied to us. I'm highly suspicious of some form of

selective

Quoted message said:

paranoia.

-DougF

Feel free to provide us with the *definitive* study or report that
specifically lays out exactly how calories can be used to accurately
predict weight gain or loss in humans. Or the *seminal* study or report
that makes this specific finding. Or *any* study or report that
specifically makes this finding.

It does not exist.

TC

Quoted message said:

"Feel free to provide us with the *definitive* study or report that
specifically lays out exactly how calories can be used to accurately
predict weight gain or loss in humans. Or the *seminal* study or

report

Quoted message said:

that makes this specific finding. Or *any* study or report that
specifically makes this finding.
It does not exist."

Ah, full circle, specific examples were offered you where in a

controlled

Quoted message said:

setting consuming fewer calories resulted in weight loss period. It

was

Quoted message said:

soon after this that he who invents standards took off on an anti

science

Quoted message said:

rant and linking science to fraud because the companies selling carb

foods

Quoted message said:

had bought the results of studies which contridict the theology of he

who

Quoted message said:

invents standards, and for whom we wish could invent some new notions

as

Quoted message said:

an excuse; we having long ago given up hope he could provide some

science

Quoted message said:

in support of his theology.

I am still waiting to see these "specific examples" that you claim were
"offered". Nothing was offered except for opinions.

TC

"I am still waiting to see these "specific examples" that you claim were
"offered". Nothing was offered except for opinions."

Not only were they offered but multiple times as variations on the above
excuse was the best that could be provided in response. The info provided
as concrete examples were studies done in a hospital setting where foods
of a specific calorie measure were given in a very controlled manner, and
surprise surprise, they lost weight. The specific url was provided
several times, then the anti science because "it was bought off by
commercial intrests" rant started. The brain must have glucose to work,
could memory loss be associated with low carb diets, enquiring minds want
to know?

[censored]. No evidence was provided. Just opinion.

TC

He who invents standards has a memory deficit, glucose to brain
deficit?. It was not opinion, it was numbers of calories consumed and
period of time and amount of weight loss, all provided as part of a
research project with the web address given the several times he who
invents standards opined no such relationship could be demonstrated for
calories and weight status. To what can we attribute the mental confusion
of what is opinion and what is evidence?

Quoted message said:

[censored]. No evidence was provided. Just opinion.

TC

Quoted message said:

He who invents standards has a memory deficit, glucose to brain
deficit?. It was not opinion, it was numbers of calories consumed

and

Quoted message said:

period of time and amount of weight loss, all provided as part of a
research project with the web address given the several times he who
invents standards opined no such relationship could be demonstrated

for

Quoted message said:

calories and weight status. To what can we attribute the mental

confusion

Quoted message said:

of what is opinion and what is evidence?

Quoted message said:

[censored]. No evidence was provided. Just opinion.

TC

See, this is the kind of nonsense you keep pulling. You insist that it
was posted but you never reference the posting where you claim it was
posted. Or you never re-post the alleged evidence. Just show us the
proof and be done with it. Or foad.

TC