On intuitive eating

Quoted message said:

One of the first questions you asked some years ago was how do calories
factor in weight loss, give us the studies you demanded. I then being the
kind to take folks as they appear as posing ernest questions provided a
study where in a lab setting calories were strictly measured and
controlled and the resulting weight loss range that occurred reported.
Here all that time later, with periodic outbreaks aside and curative
booster shots to help you understand, here we are all this time hence; it
is truely a chronic disorder. Or is it a fixed dellusion?

You provided nothing. Please give us a link to your response to this
question in this or any other ng that actually answered the question.
It, like the mystical study that you claim to have provided, does not
exist.

Quoted message said:

The answer has become after time, "do your own homework". But it was
offered knowing full well you would not because you fail even to read the
information provided you when it is only a mouse click away, as was the
report mentioned above.

I have done my homework. That is why I have no problem telling you that
the seminal and ground-breaking study that found that calories can be
directly applied in the real world to weight management in humans DOES
NOT EXIST and never has existed and will never exist. It is a mirage.

And the stuff you put forward as scientific evidence did not show THE
FINDING that calories are the only game in town. Not by a long shot.

Quoted message said:

Let's go back to the amount of weight change based on the calories
involved in raising the ambient temperature you asserted in one thread,
that was at least entertaining and very instructive in revealing the lack
of information about basic science that you show proudly in thread after
thread.

Hey, if a calorie is a calorie is a calorie and all revolves around a
calorie, why would heat calories be any different than food calories.
Theoretically speaking, if a calorie is applicable to weight
management, it would not matter where the calorie comes from. Whether
it is from a carb, fat, protein, water, air or sun.

Quoted message said:

As said before, ignorance allows a kind of freedom to think and say
anything. The second one knows some facts it becomes binding in a way.
Your way of dealing with this discomfort is to ignore the facts, as here
we are all this time since and you are still demanding information be
spoon fed you about the relationship between calorie intake and weight
status. Have a merry christmas and the best of new years.

Some people call it thinking outside the box. Not being tied to any
particular belief. That is what science is supposed to be about. You
can't believe everything you read just because someone wrote it down.
Sometimes you have to believe your own observations, even and
especially when they don't jibe with other peoples book learning.

In any science other than nutrition and medicine, scientists get
excited when an anomaly is found or an observation goes against the
current theories. It means that there is something new and exciting to
learn and a better understanding is at hand. Knowledge is about to be
expanded and built upon.

When Einstein put forward his Theory of Relativity, scientists were
excited because it essentially re-wrote the physics textbooks and
actually undermined and changed their views on the validity of Newton's
observations. Earth shattering stuff. Some old foggy establishment
scientists fought it with ridicule and refused to even consider it. The
younger, more open minded scientists jumped on it and used it to expand
their knowledge and understanding. Today no one would argue against
Einsteins Theory of Relativity. That is how real science works.

Any halfway intelligent person in the world should be able to see that
the calorie theory has failed. LCDs do not work. Restricting fats is
unhealthy and does not lead to weigh loss. Traditional methods of
weight control fails in 90 to 95% of cases.

Low carbing is not within that definition of traditional weight control
methods.

There is no calorie balance feedback mechanism. If that is not reason
to doubt the direct applicability of calories to weight management,
then nothing is.

We are now in the realm of religious fanaticism. Your only response is
"We must believe, because others tell us to believe" or "It is, because
it has always been". If that is the whole of your argument, then you
have no argument.

I ask for scientifc proof, and you say you gave me proof. Then give me
a link to what you consider proof. What you provided was not evidence.
It was rote repetition of what was supposed discovered sometime in the
fog of history. Give me a reference to the seminal and ground breaking
research that found that calories can be successfully applied directly
to weight management in humans. It would have happened sometime between
the 1880s and the 1920s. Who is the discoverer of record? What was the
study about?

If a concept fails in 90 to 95% of cases in the real world, you cannot
argue that the world is wrong, you have to accept that the concept is
wrong. And that concept is the traditional wieght loss method, low
calorie diets, restricting high calorie fats. PERIOD.

I can give you a description of the carb intake feedback loop that
triggers fat storage and/or fat loss. In fact, any first year bio-chem
textbook will describe it in detail.

Can you show me a bio-chemical feedback loop that has calories alone as
a start point and fat storage and/or fat loss as an end point, and can
you describe it in detail?

TC

Quoted message said:

"Absolutely not. When Garner and Wooley did their study and found that
traditional diets failed in 90 to 95% of cases, they were spealing of
traditional diets which are low calorie diets. LCDs."

But in more recent studies where lc was also involved the results were
similar. Selective glasses firmly in place make a wounderful sight.
Science moves on and lc has been found to both lose weight because of
eating fewer calories and that failure,ie dropouts, are similar. The
latter also seen in the severe drop in those doing lc and the market that
served the fad. The final take home message, lc causes some blunting of
appetite because of higher protein ratios for about six months, after
which all diets converge in effect and rate of people sticking to the
newer lower calorie intake..

You did not read those LC studies very closely. You just read the
headlines. Next time read the details. The numbers for LC were
significantly better than the numbers for LCDs. You accuse me of
selectivity in the studies I read, and you wallow in selectivity in the
headlines you quote. Next time, read the actual studies and not the
headlines and the food and pharmaceutical industry reviews of those
studies. Hypocrite.

TC

Quoted message said:

"I have done my homework. That is why I have no problem telling you that
the seminal and ground-breaking study that found that calories can be
directly applied in the real world to weight management in humans DOES NOT
EXIST and never has existed and will never exist. It is a mirage."

The recently posted study using lc alone was in a controlled setting where
every calorie eaten could and was measured. The weight loss outcomes
related directly to the amount of calories consumed. End of story and
confirmation of what was demonstrated decades ago.

Regardless of the calorie counts, LC worked because of satiation
factors and hormonal normalization. Low-calorie low-fat diets fail even
when the calorie counts are similar or lower in comparison to low
carbing.

Calories are a game, a mirage, a distraction, an excuse to rag on fats,
and in the end mean nothing.

You do all the calorie math you want. I'll stick to what works,
counting carbs.

TC

"Regardless of the calorie counts, LC worked because of satiation
factors and hormonal normalization. Low-calorie low-fat diets fail even
when the calorie counts are similar or lower in comparison to low
carbing.

Calories are a game, a mirage, a distraction, an excuse to rag on fats,
and in the end mean nothing.

You do all the calorie math you want. I'll stick to what works,
counting carbs."

As mentioned before, the reason the lc alone study worked was the blunting
effect of high levels of protein on appetite. That is however a side
issue to the question you posed in this thread as to the relationship
between weight status and calorie intake. This study just happens to
illustrate the answer also, there was a direct measured relationship
between the final amount of calories eaten and final weight status and the
people ate less to reach that goal. There is the demonstrated answer to
your question. One could have done it with any device or approach or
whatever that reduced calorie intake, the appetite blunting of high
protein intake was the example here.

For reasons of health, consideration should be given to the type of fats
consumed. The metabolic syndrome and other disorders are related to high
intake of saturated fats but not lesser sat fats. There is theflip side
that the lesser sat fats have health benefits in addition to this reduced
risk level. Sat fats can be substituted with these lesser sat fats on a
calorie for calorie basis and the health benefits realized. I count
neither carbs nor calories and my weight is within the normal range.
When I wanted to lose weight some years ago I reduced what was eaten until
weight loss started at about 1.25 pounds per week until I reached my goal
weight and have these years since maintained it, all without counting
carbs or calories.

Merry Christmas. Have a good one, everyone.

TC

Quoted message said:

"Regardless of the calorie counts, LC worked because of satiation
factors and hormonal normalization. Low-calorie low-fat diets fail even
when the calorie counts are similar or lower in comparison to low
carbing.

Calories are a game, a mirage, a distraction, an excuse to rag on fats,
and in the end mean nothing.

You do all the calorie math you want. I'll stick to what works,
counting carbs."

As mentioned before, the reason the lc alone study worked was the blunting
effect of high levels of protein on appetite. That is however a side
issue to the question you posed in this thread as to the relationship
between weight status and calorie intake. This study just happens to
illustrate the answer also, there was a direct measured relationship
between the final amount of calories eaten and final weight status and the
people ate less to reach that goal. There is the demonstrated answer to
your question. One could have done it with any device or approach or
whatever that reduced calorie intake, the appetite blunting of high
protein intake was the example here.

For reasons of health, consideration should be given to the type of fats
consumed. The metabolic syndrome and other disorders are related to high
intake of saturated fats but not lesser sat fats. There is theflip side
that the lesser sat fats have health benefits in addition to this reduced
risk level. Sat fats can be substituted with these lesser sat fats on a
calorie for calorie basis and the health benefits realized. I count
neither carbs nor calories and my weight is within the normal range.
When I wanted to lose weight some years ago I reduced what was eaten until
weight loss started at about 1.25 pounds per week until I reached my goal
weight and have these years since maintained it, all without counting
carbs or calories.

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

Quoted message said:

Merry Christmas. Have a good one, everyone.

I hope someone in your family buys you a basic book on nutrition. Even
one in BIG print so your myopic glasses can't filter out the basic
calories and weight relationship. One can only hope.

-DF

On 22 Dec 2005 17:49:03 -0600, jt wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition

Quoted message said:

People who are at a healthy BMI

[...]

That is?

"Ideal: greater than or equal to 20 but less than 25 (>=20 but <25)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index

???

P.s.:

"These recommended distinctions along the linear scale may vary from
time to time and country to country,"
[...] "An Asian adult with a BMI of 23 or greater is now considered
overweight and the ideal normal range is 18.5-22.9."