"Martin Bakalorz" <[email hidden]> wrote > "David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> However, >>I would not consider a reduction in maintenance calories to reflect the >>lower weight (200-300 calories) to constitute a "lifestyle change". > > The 99.99 percent of dieters who regain all the weight they lost > would tend to disagree with you. > > I think a longterm 10% change in calories qualifies as a lifestyle > change.
But, that isn't the case. First, a 10% reduction in bodyfat as a result of liposuction would cause less than a 10% reduction in maintenance calories. From, say, about 3000 calories, to about 2800 calories. Second, no one said you have to account for this with calorie reduction only. A couple hundred extra calories burned would do, or 100 less calories and 100 extra calories burned, or etc etc etc. Any such combination does not fit my definition of "lifestyle change". Your definition, is, of course, your business.
What does and does not constitute a "lifestyle change"? And how long must it last to constitute that? How much difference is there, really, between someone who changes things for a month, gets results, and gradually gravitates back to the way things were, and someone who does it for two years before regressing?
Exactly. As I've been pointing out, the definition of "lifestyle change" is extremely individual. There is no one answer.
Yes. Some answers are better than others, but even then, it's all a matter of context. --
"elzinator" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Dr_Dickie wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
(try teaching college students chemistry!).
Biochemistry maybe, but not general chem. (taught a few labs in virology; does that count?) Make it interesting and they will come 🙂
Same with diets. They don't have to be boring.
By the time you get them to biochem they are already chem or biology students (studying what they are interested in)--you got a built in hook. G-chem they just need for general purposes--much harder group to get involved. Actually, intro chem (chem for nurses and poets--sorry Cohen that's what some folks call it) was easier. They were just there for general purpose but the simplicity of the material made it easier to make fun. Although that had a lot to do with class size as well. G-chem or into at 250 students is a bear. Intro or quant at 25 or 50 students is easier.
I was fortunate to have several very entertaining chem professors during my three and 1/2 stinking years of chemistry. One was a Brit who was truly a mad scientist (blew [censored] up in lectures with the disclaimer " Don't try this at home or in your dorm room"😉. The prof who taught my graduate O-chem was fantastic and didn't [censored] (too much) when I interrupted her with questions (I was always relating it to biochem). She was adept at relating O-chem to everyday life (including LSD and marijuana).
All my chem classes had 100+ students minimum, except for one semester of O-chem (undergrad) where the prof was so damned boring, a month into the semester, only 25 people showed up for his class.
------------------------------ Reality is an illusion created by an intelligence deficiency.
"David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > However, >I would not consider a reduction in maintenance calories to reflect the >lower weight (200-300 calories) to constitute a "lifestyle change".
The 99.99 percent of dieters who regain all the weight they lost would tend to disagree with you.
I think a longterm 10% change in calories qualifies as a lifestyle change.
But, that isn't the case. First, a 10% reduction in bodyfat as a result of liposuction would cause less than a 10% reduction in maintenance calories. From, say, about 3000 calories, to about 2800 calories. Second, no one said you have to account for this with calorie reduction only. A couple hundred extra calories burned would do, or 100 less calories and 100 extra calories burned, or etc etc etc. Any such combination does not fit my definition of "lifestyle change". Your definition, is, of course, your business.
What does and does not constitute a "lifestyle change"? And how long must it last to constitute that? How much difference is there, really, between someone who changes things for a month, gets results, and gradually gravitates back to the way things were, and someone who does it for two years before regressing?
The difference appears, in the scenario you present John, the length of time between the two respective "regressions"!!
"Martin Bakalorz" <[email hidden]> wrote > "David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> However, >>I would not consider a reduction in maintenance calories to reflect the >>lower weight (200-300 calories) to constitute a "lifestyle change". > > The 99.99 percent of dieters who regain all the weight they lost > would tend to disagree with you. > > I think a longterm 10% change in calories qualifies as a lifestyle > change.
But, that isn't the case. First, a 10% reduction in bodyfat as a result of liposuction would cause less than a 10% reduction in maintenance calories. From, say, about 3000 calories, to about 2800 calories. Second, no one said you have to account for this with calorie reduction only. A couple hundred extra calories burned would do, or 100 less calories and 100 extra calories burned, or etc etc etc. Any such combination does not fit my definition of "lifestyle change". Your definition, is, of course, your business.
What does and does not constitute a "lifestyle change"? And how long must it last to constitute that? How much difference is there, really, between someone who changes things for a month, gets results, and gradually gravitates back to the way things were, and someone who does it for two years before regressing?
Exactly. As I've been pointing out, the definition of "lifestyle change" is extremely individual. There is no one answer.
It occurs to me that a lifestyle change is just that. The term does not infer any degree of limits of time, and certainly not a lifetime change.
Surely most people are adapting their lifestyles, to some degree, almost throughout the entirety of their three score and ten. Those unfortunates with un-co-operative metabolisms, are doomed to obesity or a lifetime of yo-yo dieting!!
I was fortunate to have several very entertaining chem professors during my three and 1/2 stinking years of chemistry. One was a Brit who was truly a mad scientist (blew [censored] up in lectures with the disclaimer " Don't try this at home or in your dorm room"😉. The
prof
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
who taught my graduate O-chem was fantastic and didn't [censored] (too much) when I interrupted her with questions (I was always relating
it
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
to biochem). She was adept at relating O-chem to everyday life (including LSD and marijuana).
All my chem classes had 100+ students minimum, except for one
semester
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
of O-chem (undergrad) where the prof was so damned boring, a month into the semester, only 25 people showed up for his class.
Of the chemistries I took (inorganic, organic, physical, colloid, biochemistry) I liked colloid the most, because it was basically a science about modeling wacky bubbles.
"Colloid" chemistry? "Bubbles"? Care to explain what this comprises of? Or is it some secret Russky chemistry that us Easterners aren't privy to? 🙂
Quoted message said:
Biochemistry was thorough (2 semesters) and entertaining too, but we had to memorize all the formulas and pathways for the exams, even most ridiculous stuff like beeswax synthesis.
Oh come on. Where's your sense of adventure? That's interesting! It's a polymer, just like Velvetta! Not memorizing it though. I loved biochem. Mostly due to good profs that entertained my insatiable curiosity. Especially when I introduced them to the "Biochemist's Songbook" by Harold Baum.
"elzinator" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Dr_Dickie said:
Yeah, I was a double major undergrad (biol and chem). Had to memorize
the
Quoted message said:
TCA cycle (or Krebs if you like) for two biol classes and then bio
chem (for
Quoted message said:
this each substrate and enzyme--with co-factors), and couldn't tell
you a
Quoted message said:
damn one today.
That's what reference books are for. Damned memorization and regurgitation. Better to understand why and how.
Agree; however, my entire biochem experience was a series of flashcards. What a waste. I never make students memorize anything (with the exception of say something like the speed of light and stuff they should know! Practical definitions.. like molarity and such). I also had to memorize the periodic table for a few classes as well. Past the first three periods, who cares! And you will memorize them just by constant exposure.
Biochemistry was thorough (2 semesters) and entertaining too, but we had to memorize all the formulas and pathways for the exams, even most ridiculous stuff like beeswax synthesis.
Oh come on. Where's your sense of adventure? That's interesting! It's a polymer, just like Velvetta!
I didn't know cheese is a polymer!
then I assume you have never eaten Velvetta cheese.
------------------------------ Reality is an illusion created by an intelligence deficiency.
"elzinator" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
DZ said:
elzinator said:
DZ wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> Biochemistry was thorough (2 semesters) and entertaining too, but > we had to memorize all the formulas and pathways for the exams, > even most ridiculous stuff like beeswax synthesis.
Oh come on. Where's your sense of adventure? That's interesting! It's a polymer, just like Velvetta!
I didn't know cheese is a polymer!
then I assume you have never eaten Velvetta cheese.
That is an oxymoron. Cheese-like, a cheese-like substance. ;-) -- Dr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick Proud member of the, "Vast right-wing conspiracy."
