Curious--

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

Quoted message said:

This another pat answer that people give but don't think through. Salt
absorbs water, yes, but it can't hold more than it's own weight in water
so
to put on a couple of pounds of water weight, purely as retained by extra
salt, you would need to eat several extra POUNDS of salt. Not possible.

No, I think you misunderstand what is going on. Salt doesn't absorb water,
it affects its saltiness. Your body maintains a certain degree of salinity.
To make "physiological saline", that is saline that is the same as your
body's salinity, you need only 7 g of salt for each liter of water.

http://www.msu.edu/user/eisthen/lab/methods/physiology/APShica.html

One liter of water weighs 2.2 lbs. So if you eat an extra 7 g of salt you
body will need to retain 2.2 lbs. of water in order to maintain the same
salt concentration.

Rich

thanks, everybody--- it is a weird phenom--clearly, ONE chimichanga cant
create a 'real" gain of two pounds...but, there it is, according to the
scale. Interesting stuff, metabolism.

Most of the two lbs is gone, already,...which is pretty interesting,
too.

Onward and upward.....

Lass
202/178/160

rich said:

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

Quoted message said:

This another pat answer that people give but don't think through. Salt
absorbs water, yes, but it can't hold more than it's own weight in water
so
to put on a couple of pounds of water weight, purely as retained by extra
salt, you would need to eat several extra POUNDS of salt. Not possible.

No, I think you misunderstand what is going on.

*I* don't understand what is going on?

Do you think that the human body is just some sort of open container full of
liquid and if you add salt or any other mineral, chemical etc. that the
entire fluid content of the body is immediately raised or lowered
accordingly?

It is a little more complicated than that.

I was addressing the popular claim that "salt" causes water retention. It
doesn't. Salt consumed by a person who is not fully hydrated will cause them
to require/desire (not retain) more water *TEMPORARILY*. This is not a
weight gain. Salt consumed by a fully hydrated person has little or no
effect on water needs. What is happening is that the person is drinking more
water because thirst has been stimulated not that the salt is "holding or
retaining" water. If that person was looking after themselves properly then
they wouldn't need the stimulation of increased thirst to hydrate properly.
Drink more water is a mantra quoted in almost every text on healthy
nutrition, and one that is probably among the most often ignored.

Salt doesn't absorb water,

Quoted message said:

it affects its saltiness. Your body maintains a certain degree of salinity.
To make "physiological saline", that is saline that is the same as your
body's salinity, you need only 7 g of salt for each liter of water.

http://www.msu.edu/user/eisthen/lab/methods/physiology/APShica.html

What has a formula for High-Calcium Amphibian Physiological Saline got to do
with the issue? Do you know what the proposed purpose is of that formula
from the site you cited?

Quoted message said:

One liter of water weighs 2.2 lbs. So if you eat an extra 7 g of salt you
body will need to retain 2.2 lbs. of water in order to maintain the same
salt concentration.

That is NOT how it works. The body can excrete salt without first adding it
to the body's total "salinity balance".

What you are saying is that if I took four 2500mg salt tablets, such as
issued by the military in tropical areas, that I would immediately retain an
extra three pounds or so of water? Doesn't work that way. I often take salt
tablets when competing in an endurance event, and I *ALWAYS* add a heaped
teaspoon of salt to most things that I cook. That heaped teaspoon is
approximately your seven grams, and I cook several dishes per day. My weight
doesn't vary in response, it doesn't retain more water. Back in the dim dark
ages, before I became aware of proper hydration, my love of salt WOULD
result in increased thirst and corresponding weight fluctuations - now that
I drink sufficient fluids it never does.

The only thing that is indicated by a person claiming to "retain" water when
increasing salt consumption is that that they are under-hydrated, that they
do not drink sufficient fluids.

SS

On 27/9/05 4:31 AM, in article
[email hidden], "Doug Freyburger"

Quoted message said:

Secret Squirrel said:

This another pat answer that people give but don't think through. Salt
absorbs water, yes, but it can't hold more than it's own weight in water so
to put on a couple of pounds of water weight, purely as retained by extra
salt, you would need to eat several extra POUNDS of salt. Not possible.

Sea water does NOT have 50% of its weight or volume in salt.
It is under 10% mineral content. So the above it false.

Are you for real?

What has seawater to do with anything? Seawater consists of water with salts
dissolved in it, no one has suggested that it consists of salt retaining
water as is under discussion here.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I eat, at all times, an enormous amount of salt. I do not have high blood
pressure and so have no need to minimize salt.

Humans are evolved to eject large amounts of salt.

This is meaningless nonsense.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I exercise a lot, and need to
replace salt lost to sweat. It never makes any difference to my normal day
to day weight, although if I am in a situation where I am forced to eat low
salt meals - as has happened at some resort seminars etc. - I do experience
a loss of energy and poor digestion until I can replace the salt. Low salt
products are like low cholesterol products, great if you have a genuine
problem with hypertension or high cholesterol but not great for a normal
healthy person.

The body has a fairly effective mechanism for keeping its
salt percentage steady, but that is not the same thing as
keeping its salt amount steady.

Since when is a percentage not an amount?

Hence water retention

Quoted message said:

from eating more salt than you excrete. For the short
time until it is excreted.

Quoted message said:

Avoiding excess salt is a good thing, trying to avoid all salt is a bad
thing, but you can't convince many people of that.

Salt is not fat.

Wow. You figure this out without any help from your parents? You do have
parents don't you? I mean, you didn't escape from a comic book or something
did you?

Water dissolving the salt is not fat.

Quoted message said:

But both register with gravity and thus effect the scale.

Not too sure now - I am beginning to lean toward that comic book idea.

Quoted message said:

Folks who haven't taken the time to think through the
above often want to fight every ounce of *scale reading*
without regard to whether it reflects *fat loss*.

Folks who HAVE taken the time to read through the above haven't stopped
shaking their heads yet. Well at least I haven't.

SS

On 27/9/05 4:38 AM, in article [email hidden], "Roger

Zoul said:

:>
:> Festering around? Delightful image that brings to mind. No, that is
:> not the cause.

And what makes you so sure? You did say "a few days of excess", right?
Yet, you dismiss this out of hand with no discussion?

Why would I wish to discuss an issue that where I already have full
knowledge? In order to have something remain within, festering or not, there
would have to be other very readily noticeable health factors involved. No
discussion required, certainly not with Usenet denizens.

Quoted message said:

:>
:>>
:>> It goes away as
:>> :> rapidly as it comes, but it isn't water weight as I am not in
:>> :> ketosis, it isn't muscle glycogen stores, not in the normal
:>> :> sense as
:>> :> I haven't exercised although I usually do, and it certainly isn't
:>> :> fat as my excess does not even approach seven thousand or more
:>> :> calories. It isn't related to menstrual cycles and although
:>> :> indicated on several scales, - and so not a scale error - doesn't
:>> :> seem to alter clothing sizes - nothing seems appreciably tighter.
:>> :>
:>> :> None of the "pat" answers seem to apply.
:>>
:>> None that you considered, that is...
:>
:> I would hardly be discussing something that I hadn't considered -
:> would I?

Of course you might....are we supposed to assume you are a fount of wisdom
or something? Knower or all things, perhaps? 🙂

It is IMPOSSIBLE to discuss something that one has not considered. If you
don't consider it, you can't have sufficient awareness of it to discuss it.

Quoted message said:

:>
:>>
:>> :>
:>> :> I have some theories, one is that on these occasions I am
:>> :> drinking
:>> :> less tea and coffee (diuretics) and so retain more water,
:>>
:>> Possible...extreme changes might have an effect...
:>>
:>> and that
:>> :> the rest from exercise allows the muscles to regenerate more than
:>> :> normal and so bulks them a little more than normal.
:>>
:>> I don't know what you mean by "regenerate more than normal". That
:>> sounds a bit like hooyie to me...
:>
:> What do I mean be "regenerate more than normal"?
:>
:> I guess that what I mean is "regenerate more than normal." Yes,
:> that's it.

🙂

:>
:> Muscles do not grow or strengthen during exercise, that happens
:> during the "rest" periods between bouts of exercise. If they have a
:> longer rest period than normal, perhaps they regenerate more than
:> normal. I don't exercise to build muscle, I exercise to stay fit,
:> and so don't normally have rest days. I exercise every day, except
:> for the times under discussion.

Well, I can assure you that growing muscles won't increase weight by a
couple of pounds over night....folks would be so happy for such results.

I didn't suggest that they did, merely that - as when adding creatine to the
diet - they retain more water as against "salt" being the cause of retaining
more water.

Quoted message said:

No, it's definitely not due to extra regeneration. And there is nothing
wrong with a regular rest day...they won't hurt your fitness...

You don't seem very adept at following a thread do you Roger? Where did I
suggest that there is anything wrong with a regular rest day? Where did I
suggest that one might hurt my fitness? I simply stated that as I had no
interest in muscle building, I didn't see the need to "rest". I enjoy
exercise and so I exercise every day.

Quoted message said:

:>
:>>
:>> :> Sort of like
:>> :> when you load with Creatine, the added muscle bulk is rapid and
:>> :> not
:>> :> real growth. Also in my case, I tend to drink more alcohol,
:>> :> dehydrating me and causing me to drink more liquids.
:>> :>
:>>
:>> With creatine, it is water weight if i recall correctly.
:>
:> Not water weight in the sense that being proposed here, (dropping
:> out of ketosis) although yes, it is added water molecules.

Water weight is water weight....the sense is always the same...the reasons
for it might differ.

Water weight is NOT water weight if it has different causes.

Quoted message said:

:>
:>>
:>> :> A lot more needs to learned about human metabolism, we aren't
:>> :> remotely close to knowing it all yet. It isn't as simple as 3500
:>> :> calories = one extra pound of fat.
:>>
:>> It's that simple under the appropriate conditions...but trying to
:>> apply that logic to every change on the scale is not appropriate.

Name appropriate conditions? There are always factors that vary to some
degree.

Quoted message said:

:>
:> Like BMI, it merely a yardstick, not a valid formula. There are many
:> exceptions. In my gym people often go to elaborate lengths to work
:> out just how efficient their metabolism is, many very fit people who
:> are as much a gym junkie as I am have widely differing responses to
:> the same amounts and types of food.

I can accept this....however, I do have issues about gym junkies really
understanding all the reasons for these widely differing responses...there
is a lot of mis-info being passed around in gyms....certainly in mine....

There is misinformation being passed around in every area of life, Usenet in
particular. Your issues aside, people who are defined as junkies do tend to
have a more intense interest in a subject and a likely a better appreciation
of its subtleties than those who remain disinterested.

Quoted message said:

:>
:> If 3500 calories always equalled a pound in weight, I would probably
:> weight about two hundred pounds more than I do. I eat more food than
:> many guys, even when they are athletes. I have a VERY efficient
:> metabolism.

What does "efficient metabolism" mean, exactly? Some use that term to imply
that whatever they eat turns to fat, as the food is quickly metabolized.

You are referring to constructive metabolism (anabolism,) where the cells
combine molecules to assemble new materials (fat), and destructive
metabolism (catabolism) where they burn the stored fat.

An efficient metabolism is one that does both quickly and effectively.
Creates and stores fat and then burns it off on demand. There are a lot of
things that can interfere with the efficiency of a person's metabolism aside
from physical fitness issues. Food preservatives that slow down the
oxidisation of fats being one. I eat nothing at all with preservatives
added.

Quoted message said:

:> If I use the 3500 in the conventional manner to
:> calculate my daily needs it comes out at far less than I actually
:> eat. More than a thousand calories per day less. I still don't vary
:> by more than a two or three pounds, year in, year out always between
:> 105 and 108. If however, I cut back on fat and eat more carbs from
:> bread pasta and potatoes, within just a few weeks I can go to 120
:> even if I don't increase the overall calorie intake. In order to
:> lose that weight again just cutting the carbs back to the previous
:> level isn't enough, I have to cut overall calories. My 'ideal' carb
:> level is about 125-160. If I go over 190-200 I start to gain weight
:> regardless of calories.

125 to 160 could be a typical maintenance carb level for a very active
person on Atkins.

Or not on Atkins. You are hardly likely to be in in ketosis at more than 150
grams of carb per day.

Quoted message said:

Increase beyond that could result in greater glycogen
stores in the liver and muscle, and could eventually lead to fat gain if one
consumes too many calories.

Too many calories leads to fat gain regardless of the breakdown, high fat,
high protein or high carb.

Quoted message said:

:>
:> Like I said, it isn't that simple. I have been keeping detailed
:> records for quite a few years, on myself and on a number of other
:> gym members.

That would be very interesting to see, those records. Why not scan them and
post them on the web somewhere?

More to the point - why do it? It is a project of mine with a potentially
rewarding outcome when published. I don't mind peer review, but Usenet
misinterpretation is something I don't need.

It would make for some interesting

Quoted message said:

discussions, if they are detailed enough. Also, it would allow us to see
just how good your personal observations are.

That is condescending and rather rude. In the same vein, how would I know
that you had sufficient intellect and an adequate background or experience
to evaluate my work?

Because, as you know, you

Quoted message said:

have to account for exercise and other daily activiy in the energy balance.

Once again your logic in following a thread seen to be somewhat off. The
whole issue is gym oriented. You know - exercise an all that stuff. Of
course it is taken into account,

Quoted message said:

Depending on where you got your data, your statements about calories in/out
could be way, way off.

They aren't.

Quoted message said:

We all vary in our responses to the same food values.
:> There are differences in what allows weight loss and weight gain and
:> in weight maintenance. Some people find that alcohol has a major
:> effect on weight maintenance, with others they are just calories
:> like any other. Some gym members eat very high carb and still keep a
:> good body fat ratio. It certainly isn't 'one size fits all' when it
:> comes to ideal diets.

Most who gain from high carbs do so because they have issues with carbs -
like wanting to eat too many of them. Others don't have those issues. So
yeah, we all vary in our responses to food.

Responses to food has nothing to do with LIKING or not liking the food. Carb
cravings etc., aren't what I was referring to when taking about responses to
food. I was referring to the differing physiological & nutritional
responses that different people have when eating exactly the same kind of
food under similar conditions.

SS

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

Quoted message said:

What you are saying is that if I took four 2500mg salt tablets, such as
issued by the military in tropical areas, that I would immediately retain
an
extra three pounds or so of water?

No, that isn't what I am saying at all, but it is clear that you really
aren't interested in doing anything but spouting off so I'm done.

Rich

Secret Squirrel <[email hidden]> wrote:
:> On 27/9/05 4:38 AM, in article [email hidden],
:> "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote:
:>
:>
:>> :>
:>> :> Festering around? Delightful image that brings to mind. No, that
:>> :> is
:>> :> not the cause.
:>>
:>> And what makes you so sure? You did say "a few days of excess",
:>> right? Yet, you dismiss this out of hand with no discussion?
:>
:> Why would I wish to discuss an issue that where I already have full
:> knowledge?

?? You don't make any sense. Why would you not wish to discuss something
where you have full knowledge, assuming you can have full knowledge of
anything?

In order to have something remain within, festering or
:> not, there would have to be other very readily noticeable health
:> factors involved. No discussion required, certainly not with Usenet
:> denizens.

Non so. There can be more-than-normal waste material inside you as a result
of "a few days of excess." That could case temporary weight gain.

:>
:>>
:>> :>
:>> :>>
:>> :>> It goes away as
:>> :>> :> rapidly as it comes, but it isn't water weight as I am not in
:>> :>> :> ketosis, it isn't muscle glycogen stores, not in the normal
:>> :>> :> sense as
:>> :>> :> I haven't exercised although I usually do, and it certainly
:>> :>> :> isn't fat as my excess does not even approach seven thousand
:>> :>> :> or more calories. It isn't related to menstrual cycles and
:>> :>> :> although indicated on several scales, - and so not a scale
:>> :>> :> error - doesn't seem to alter clothing sizes - nothing seems
:>> :>> :> appreciably tighter.
:>> :>> :>
:>> :>> :> None of the "pat" answers seem to apply.
:>> :>>
:>> :>> None that you considered, that is...
:>> :>
:>> :> I would hardly be discussing something that I hadn't considered -
:>> :> would I?
:>>
:>> Of course you might....are we supposed to assume you are a fount of
:>> wisdom or something? Knower or all things, perhaps? 🙂
:>
:> It is IMPOSSIBLE to discuss something that one has not considered.
:> If you don't consider it, you can't have sufficient awareness of it
:> to discuss it.

This is [censored]. You even sound like Mu. If you indeed "considered"
something, then you have thought of it carefully. You haven't considered
this one bit, as you apparently assume you know everything.

:>
:>>
:>> :>
:>> :>>
:>> :>> :>
:>> :>> :> I have some theories, one is that on these occasions I am
:>> :>> :> drinking
:>> :>> :> less tea and coffee (diuretics) and so retain more water,
:>> :>>
:>> :>> Possible...extreme changes might have an effect...
:>> :>>
:>> :>> and that
:>> :>> :> the rest from exercise allows the muscles to regenerate more
:>> :>> :> than normal and so bulks them a little more than normal.
:>> :>>
:>> :>> I don't know what you mean by "regenerate more than normal".
:>> :>> That sounds a bit like hooyie to me...
:>> :>
:>> :> What do I mean be "regenerate more than normal"?
:>> :>
:>> :> I guess that what I mean is "regenerate more than normal." Yes,
:>> :> that's it.
:>>
:>> 🙂
:>>
:>> :>
:>> :> Muscles do not grow or strengthen during exercise, that happens
:>> :> during the "rest" periods between bouts of exercise. If they
:>> :> have a longer rest period than normal, perhaps they regenerate
:>> :> more than normal. I don't exercise to build muscle, I exercise
:>> :> to stay fit,
:>> :> and so don't normally have rest days. I exercise every day,
:>> :> except
:>> :> for the times under discussion.
:>>
:>> Well, I can assure you that growing muscles won't increase weight
:>> by a couple of pounds over night....folks would be so happy for
:>> such results.
:>
:> I didn't suggest that they did, merely that - as when adding
:> creatine to the diet - they retain more water as against "salt"
:> being the cause of retaining more water.

You said this:

--
"What do I mean be "regenerate more than normal"?

I guess that what I mean is "regenerate more than normal." Yes, that's it.

Muscles do not grow or strengthen during exercise, that happens during the
"rest" periods between bouts of exercise. If they have a longer rest period
than normal, perhaps they regenerate more than normal. I don't exercise to
build muscle, I exercise to stay fit, and so don't normally have rest days.
I exercise every day, except for the times under discussion."
--

There was no mention of creatine or salt at this point, dear. Also, I'm not
on the salt wagon, that you with others. Also, if your muscles need
"regeneration" as the result of your exercise and you're not allowing it,
then you might be losing muscle mass. If they don't need regeneration, then
I find it hard to believe they would "regenerate more than normal" after a
few days way eating in excess. No, if you gain a couple of pounds after a
weekend away and on excess, and it drops quickly after you resume, then
either it is glycogen take up or "extra" [censored]. And just because you
drinking plenty of fluid doesn't necessary mean that your body can't still
hold extra water sometimes - under appropriate conditions (ie, those
conditions which cause it to hold more water).

:>
:>> No, it's definitely not due to extra regeneration. And there is
:>> nothing wrong with a regular rest day...they won't hurt your
:>> fitness...
:>
:> You don't seem very adept at following a thread do you Roger? Where
:> did I suggest that there is anything wrong with a regular rest day?
:> Where did I suggest that one might hurt my fitness?

I never said you said those things. I, like you, simply added that part.
You done that during this entire thread, so don't get all holy now.

I simply stated
:> that as I had no interest in muscle building, I didn't see the need
:> to "rest". I enjoy exercise and so I exercise every day.

There may be a need regardless of whether you see one or not.

:>
:>>
:>> :>
:>> :>>
:>> :>> :> Sort of like
:>> :>> :> when you load with Creatine, the added muscle bulk is rapid
:>> :>> :> and
:>> :>> :> not
:>> :>> :> real growth. Also in my case, I tend to drink more alcohol,
:>> :>> :> dehydrating me and causing me to drink more liquids.
:>> :>> :>
:>> :>>
:>> :>> With creatine, it is water weight if i recall correctly.
:>> :>
:>> :> Not water weight in the sense that being proposed here, (dropping
:>> :> out of ketosis) although yes, it is added water molecules.
:>>
:>> Water weight is water weight....the sense is always the same...the
:>> reasons for it might differ.
:>>
:>
:> Water weight is NOT water weight if it has different causes.

If it's weight gain brought on my holding more water, then it's water
weight. The reasons don't matter. Good grief.

:>
:>
:>> :>
:>> :>>
:>> :>> :> A lot more needs to learned about human metabolism, we aren't
:>> :>> :> remotely close to knowing it all yet. It isn't as simple as
:>> :>> :> 3500 calories = one extra pound of fat.
:>> :>>
:>> :>> It's that simple under the appropriate conditions...but trying
:>> :>> to
:>> :>> apply that logic to every change on the scale is not
:>> :>> appropriate.
:>
:>
:> Name appropriate conditions? There are always factors that vary to
:> some degree.
:>
:>> :>
:>> :> Like BMI, it merely a yardstick, not a valid formula. There are
:>> :> many exceptions. In my gym people often go to elaborate lengths
:>> :> to work
:>> :> out just how efficient their metabolism is, many very fit people
:>> :> who
:>> :> are as much a gym junkie as I am have widely differing responses
:>> :> to
:>> :> the same amounts and types of food.
:>>
:>> I can accept this....however, I do have issues about gym junkies
:>> really understanding all the reasons for these widely differing
:>> responses...there is a lot of mis-info being passed around in
:>> gyms....certainly in mine....
:>
:> There is misinformation being passed around in every area of life,
:> Usenet in particular. Your issues aside, people who are defined as
:> junkies do tend to have a more intense interest in a subject and a
:> likely a better appreciation of its subtleties than those who remain
:> disinterested.

But that doesn't mean they have accurate information as to the reasons why
things happen. I agree that they have appreciation of subtleties compared
to those who have no interest, but that ain't saying much.

:>
:>>
:>> :>
:>> :> If 3500 calories always equalled a pound in weight, I would
:>> :> probably weight about two hundred pounds more than I do. I eat
:>> :> more food than many guys, even when they are athletes. I have a
:>> :> VERY efficient metabolism.
:>>
:>> What does "efficient metabolism" mean, exactly? Some use that term
:>> to imply that whatever they eat turns to fat, as the food is
:>> quickly metabolized.
:>
:> You are referring to constructive metabolism (anabolism,) where the
:> cells combine molecules to assemble new materials (fat), and
:> destructive metabolism (catabolism) where they burn the stored fat.
:>
:> An efficient metabolism is one that does both quickly and
:> effectively. Creates and stores fat and then burns it off on demand.

So if you overeat then you should be gaining fat, right? Quickly, too,
right?

:> There are a lot of things that can interfere with the efficiency of
:> a person's metabolism aside from physical fitness issues. Food
:> preservatives that slow down the oxidisation of fats being one. I
:> eat nothing at all with preservatives added.

You should like the you have attained the holy grail of fitness, honey.

:>
:>>
:>> :> If I use the 3500 in the conventional manner to
:>> :> calculate my daily needs it comes out at far less than I actually
:>> :> eat. More than a thousand calories per day less. I still don't
:>> :> vary
:>> :> by more than a two or three pounds, year in, year out always
:>> :> between 105 and 108. If however, I cut back on fat and eat more
:>> :> carbs from
:>> :> bread pasta and potatoes, within just a few weeks I can go to 120
:>> :> even if I don't increase the overall calorie intake. In order to
:>> :> lose that weight again just cutting the carbs back to the
:>> :> previous
:>> :> level isn't enough, I have to cut overall calories. My 'ideal'
:>> :> carb level is about 125-160. If I go over 190-200 I start to
:>> :> gain weight regardless of calories.
:>>
:>> 125 to 160 could be a typical maintenance carb level for a very
:>> active person on Atkins.
:>
:> Or not on Atkins. You are hardly likely to be in in ketosis at more
:> than 150 grams of carb per day.

Atkins has 4 phases....you don't need to be in ketosis always to be on
Atkins.

:>
:>> Increase beyond that could result in greater glycogen
:>> stores in the liver and muscle, and could eventually lead to fat
:>> gain if one consumes too many calories.
:>
:> Too many calories leads to fat gain regardless of the breakdown,
:> high fat, high protein or high carb.

And did I say otherwise? I'm referring to a carb controled situation.

But at another point you said it had to do with carb levels, not calories.
Which is it?

"If 3500 calories always equalled a pound in weight, I would probably weight
about two hundred pounds more than I do. I eat more food than many guys,
even when they are athletes. I have a VERY efficient metabolism. If I use
the 3500 in the conventional manner to calculate my daily needs it comes out
at far less than I actually eat. More than a thousand calories per day
less. I still don't vary by more than a two or three pounds, year in, year
out always between 105 and 108. If however, I cut back on fat and eat more
carbs from bread pasta and potatoes, within just a few weeks I can go to 120
even if I don't increase the overall calorie intake. In order to lose that
weight again just cutting the carbs back to the previous level isn't enough,
I have to cut overall calories. My 'ideal' carb level is about 125-160. If I
go over 190-200 I start to gain weight regardless of calories."

:>
:>>
:>> :>
:>> :> Like I said, it isn't that simple. I have been keeping detailed
:>> :> records for quite a few years, on myself and on a number of other
:>> :> gym members.
:>>
:>> That would be very interesting to see, those records. Why not scan
:>> them and post them on the web somewhere?
:>
:> More to the point - why do it? It is a project of mine with a
:> potentially rewarding outcome when published. I don't mind peer
:> review, but Usenet misinterpretation is something I don't need.

Well, you can get misinterpretation in places other than Usenet. I'm
certain none beyond those on usenet would have much interest in your
records, BTW.

:>
:> It would make for some interesting
:>> discussions, if they are detailed enough. Also, it would allow us
:>> to see just how good your personal observations are.
:>
:> That is condescending and rather rude. In the same vein, how would I
:> know that you had sufficient intellect and an adequate background or
:> experience to evaluate my work?

You sound like Mu again....

:>
:> Because, as you know, you
:>> have to account for exercise and other daily activiy in the energy
:>> balance.
:>
:> Once again your logic in following a thread seen to be somewhat off.
:> The whole issue is gym oriented. You know - exercise an all that
:> stuff. Of course it is taken into account,

You didn't mention it. Perhaps you logic in responding and making relevent
points is somewhat off.

:>
:>> Depending on where you got your data, your statements about
:>> calories in/out could be way, way off.
:>
:> They aren't.

How can you be so sure? And why should anyone believe you?

:>
:>>
:>> We all vary in our responses to the same food values.
:>> :> There are differences in what allows weight loss and weight gain
:>> :> and
:>> :> in weight maintenance. Some people find that alcohol has a major
:>> :> effect on weight maintenance, with others they are just calories
:>> :> like any other. Some gym members eat very high carb and still
:>> :> keep a good body fat ratio. It certainly isn't 'one size fits
:>> :> all' when it comes to ideal diets.
:>>
:>> Most who gain from high carbs do so because they have issues with
:>> carbs - like wanting to eat too many of them. Others don't have
:>> those issues. So yeah, we all vary in our responses to food.
:>
:> Responses to food has nothing to do with LIKING or not liking the
:> food.

:> Carb cravings etc., aren't what I was referring to when taking
:> about responses to food. I was referring to the differing
:> physiological & nutritional
:> responses that different people have when eating exactly the same
:> kind of food under similar conditions.

What do you think carb craving are?