I just finished a 48 hour intermittent fast (IF)

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

Oh and BTW...throw away your bathroom scale LOL!  You don't need one, or a tape measure or anything but a full-length mirror.  Everything you need to know about your body composition can be gleaned from seeing yourself naked in a full-length mirror.  It's brutally honest and accurate.  If you're out of shape, nothing else will be as motivating (or shocking) ... Believe me!  ????

 

No. I don't believe you. You're being unscientific. Appearances can be very deceptive. Don't you know that? ????

[Kohsamida]

5 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

With all due respect, you seem rather confused to me. 'Set point' is a general term used in common language. It is more relevant in engineering than biology. Scientific terms need to be precise.

 

Our scientific understanding of biological processes is very limited due to their enormous complexity. When we thought we'd cracked the human genome, it was only about 10% of it, consisting of protein encoding genes. The other 90% was considered to be 'junk' DNA.

 

It's now thought this 'junk DNA' does serve a purpose, but we're not sure. There is still scientific controversy. Here are two conflicting views.
https://www.rdmag.com/news/2019/02/genomics-researchers-say-junk-dna-key-advancing-medicine
https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_96101
 

Seriously, I'd be more impressed if you were intelligently debating the underlying concept (metabolic basis of obesity), but to make such a fuss about semantics (the term of set point) is just plain silly.

 

No offense intended, but your insistence on this banal discussion of semantics only indicates you are not very well read in the metabolic sciences because if you were then you'd realize that "Set point" is a relevant term used frequently to describe various metabolic processes and concepts.

 

It is hardly a misleading term as you keep asserting!  It means precisely what it sounds like it means.  Have you never heard of the Set Point Theory?  How about the Homeostatic Theory of Obesity?  

 

There are countless examples of the term "set point" being used in scientific journals, and in research reports and articles appearing on PubMed when describing metabolic processes.  What's more, there is over 20 years of compelling scholarly research that supports the underlying concepts I'm discussing with regard to metabolic set points.

 

Sorry to have to say this, but you are the one who seems "confused", not I.  Perhaps you should be a little more informed before you make uninformed and critical comments. 

 

You might want to check out these underlying science of metabolic set points on PubMed:

 

• Role of set-point theory in regulation of body weight 

  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2253845)

 

• Is there evidence for a set point that regulates human body weight?    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2990627/

 

BTW, you will see the term "set point" mentioned 25 times in the latter paper.

 

I make no claim to know everything that's currently known about the metabolic sciences but I'm very well read on topics that I discuss on this thread and I feel confident in my point of view because it is strongly supported by current and legitimate scientific knowledge.

 

EDIT:  Thanks for linking the referenced "junk DNA" articles; interesting reads and I happen to have a great interest in related topics (autophagic RNA degradation) but I have to ask why did you include them?  They are completely outside the scope of the topic of discussion so not sure what your point was in included them. ???

Edited June 21, 2019 by Kohsamida

[VincentRJ]

7 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

No offense intended, but your insistence on this banal discussion of semantics only indicates you are not very well read in the metabolic sciences because if you were then you'd realize that "Set point" is a relevant term used frequently to describe various metabolic processes and concepts.

 

Thank God I was not well read in the metabolic sciences when I began my weight reduction, otherwise I would probably have failed. Thank God I just used my commonsense and relied upon the laws of fundamental physics, ie. energy expenditure must exceed energy input, in order to lose weight..

 

Believe the 'set point' theory if you want, or if you find it helpful. If you are a student of metabolism you'll have to use it. However, if you want to lose weight, the concept could have a nocebo effect, as I've already mentioned.

 

Also bear in mind how seriously wrong the medical/metabolic sciences got the issue of saturated fats, for several decades. Whilst the food industry responded, creating a huge market for low-fat or no-fat products, the rates of obesity and heart problems sky-rocketed.

 

By the way, when you are trying to lose weight and are checking your weight on the bathroom scales every so often, after urinating and defecating, make sure you use the same scales each time, because different scales can have different 'set points'. ????

[wilcopops]

23 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

it's not possible for someone to put on weight without eating too much, because that would defy the laws of physics.

 

This is a false premise.

It includes the phrase "eating too much" - this is subjective and reveals that the poster is not thinking clearly but allowing prejudice to cloud their judgement.

 

To ut on weight you must EAT - as mass requires mass, it doesn't just materialise - that is the physics.

 

"eating too much" is subjective.

Many people seem to have varying rates and efficiencies of metabolism and others have eating disorders.

It is also datable on how much is actually "too much" or "overweight".

Very large people who exercise a lot can be much healthier than someone who is "thin" "slim" or underweight or even "normal" if they persistently follow fad diets and do little or no exercise....or even the wrong exercise - So much of health and weight is masked by "cosmetic" considerations or pseudo-science

[Kohsamida]

40 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

On 6/21/2019 at 10:47 AM, Kohsamida said:

it's not possible for someone to put on weight without eating too much, because that would defy the laws of physics.

==========================================

Wilcopops reply:

This is a false premise.

It includes the phrase "eating too much" - this is subjective and reveals that the poster is not thinking clearly but allowing prejudice to cloud their judgement.

 

Why would you attribute such an idiotic comment to me?  I have NEVER said anything even remotely like that?? Get your facts straight!

 

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Kohsamida

[Kohsamida]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Thank God I was not well read in the metabolic sciences when I began my weight reduction, otherwise I would probably have failed. Thank God I just used my commonsense and relied upon the laws of fundamental physics, ie. energy expenditure must exceed energy input, in order to lose weight..

 

Believe the 'set point' theory if you want, or if you find it helpful. If you are a student of metabolism you'll have to use it. However, if you want to lose weight, the concept could have a nocebo effect, as I've already mentioned.

 

Also bear in mind how seriously wrong the medical/metabolic sciences got the issue of saturated fats, for several decades. Whilst the food industry responded, creating a huge market for low-fat or no-fat products, the rates of obesity and heart problems sky-rocketed.

 

By the way, when you are trying to lose weight and are checking your weight on the bathroom scales every so often, after urinating and defecating, make sure you use the same scales each time, because different scales can have different 'set points'. ????

So, basically what you are saying is that the best course of action in life is to be ignorant of scientific fact?  No offense, but your logic really alludes me.  Science is truth; nothing more, nothing less!  Set points are scientific fact.  If you can't deal with scientific fact, then that makes you the perfect target for every con-man and health guru out there selling their magic potions and phony fad diets.

 

You say you rely on commonsense and "the laws of fundamental physics" but at the same time you choose to ignore the "laws" of hormonal biochemistry.  That's a real contradiction you've got going there buddy!  How can you justify making arbitrary choices like that?  You can't just choose which scientific fact you like, and then ignoring all the rest.  Don't you see how silly your remark sounds?

 

You make the comment, "...how seriously wrong the medical/metabolic sciences got the issue of saturated fats..."  My response is that scientific community did NOT get it wrong; it was the giant processed food industry that perpetrated this fraud for financial gain since natural fats were more costly than processed low-fat foods that relied on highly processed sugar, and processed sugar was not only highly profitable but was also highly addictive which therefore led to over-consumption (i.e.: even more profit)!

 

The only scientists who went along with this were the ones that were bought and paid for by the industry.  There were plenty who knew far better and made their opposition known.  They produced scientific studies to prove how lop-sided and unhealthy this new "food pyramid" that advocated carbohydrates as a foundation for a healthy diet was.   

 

Of course, if you were the type of person who just stuck their head in the sand and ignored real science, as you seem to advocate, you wouldn't have know that, would you?  That's exactly the kind of person that the food industry wants; the ones who blindly believe their false marketing and manipulated, misleading nutritional food labels.  

 

You should stop beating this dead horse and just admit you are wrong in your reasoning here, or if you are not strong enough to do that, at least stop making foolish comments.

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Kohsamida

[VincentRJ]

19 minutes ago, Kohsamida said:

So, basically what you are saying is that the best course of action in life is to be ignorant of scientific fact?  No offense, but your logic really alludes me.  Science is truth; nothing more, nothing less!  Set points are scientific fact.  If you can't deal with scientific fact, then that makes you the perfect target for every con-man and health guru out there selling their magic potions and phony fad diets.

Thanks for revealing your misunderstanding of the nature of science. I bet you are also a 'climate-change alarmist'. Right? ????

 

If science became truth, all further research into the particular discipline involved, would cease, because there would be nothing further to learn.

 

Science is about the process of 'discovering the truth'. See the difference, or would you like to claim that is mere semantics? The history of science is full of theories which were accepted as being true at the time, but which were later proved to be either completely wrong or at least partially wrong and in need of amendment.

 

The initial description of 90% of the human genome being 'junk' DNA, is one recent example. Another recent example is the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, instead of slowing down, with enormous consequences for our theories of Astrophysics.
 

[Kohsamida]

14 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Thanks for revealing your misunderstanding of the nature of science. I bet you are also a 'climate-change alarmist'. Right? ????

 

If science became truth, all further research into the particular discipline involved, would cease, because there would be nothing further to learn.

 

Science is about the process of 'discovering the truth'. See the difference, or would you like to claim that is mere semantics? The history of science is full of theories which were accepted as being true at the time, but which were later proved to be either completely wrong or at least partially wrong and in need of amendment.

 

The initial description of 90% of the human genome being 'junk' DNA, is one recent example. Another recent example is the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, instead of slowing down, with enormous consequences for our theories of Astrophysics.
 

Look, no offense intended but your rambling discourse is getting absolutely ludicrous.  I'm done here.  Believe what ever you wish.

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Kohsamida

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, wilcopops said:

This is a false premise.

It includes the phrase "eating too much" - this is subjective and reveals that the poster is not thinking clearly but allowing prejudice to cloud their judgement.

 

To put on weight you must EAT - as mass requires mass, it doesn't just materialise - that is the physics.

 

"eating too much" is subjective.

Of course it's subjective. All people are subjects. All people are individuals. All individuals are different, to some degree, in respect of their genetics, their metabolism, their tendencies, their strengths and weaknesses, their lifestyles, and so on.

 

When people decide to lose weight, they should use their nous and their commonsense to determine 'what for them' means eating too much. This is why 'counting calories' or buying some other person's prescribed and marketed diet often doesn't work.

 

If you decide to lose weight merely for reasons of appearance, then you are more likely to fail. However, if your main motivation for losing weight is because you have realized that your overweightedness is an indication of a bad diet and/or a bad lifestyle which will have inevitable health consequences sooner or later, then you are more likely to succeed by using the basic principle that 'energy expended must exceed energy (or food) input' in order to lose weight.

 

Theoretically, if one had the money to pay for a complete analysis of one's genome and metabolic system, a specific diet could be formulated that might be more effective than the general weight-losing diets that are marketed, but not necessarily because the science is not settled.

 

A far more sensible approach is to first begin with inquiries about the types of food that constitute a healthy and wholesome diet. Then choose the specific foods, from that list, that you enjoy or can at least tolerate. For example, some people might dislike the taste of raw celery or broccoli, even though they are very healthy. You don't have to make things unnecessarily difficult for yourself. There are lots of choices of healthy and wholesome foods.

 

The next step is to determine objectively whether you are eating too much, by weighing yourself regularly on the same scale. Since we are not robots with a fixed amount of energy expenditure, there's no need to weigh yourself every day. Although it might be interesting to do so if you were fasting for several days.

 

My recommendation is, weigh yourself at least once a week. If you don't see any weight reduction after a week or so, on your reduced diet, then simply eat less, and/or exercise more, and/or change the mix in your diet. It's not rocket science.
 

[wilcopops]

10 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

Why would you attribute such an idiotic comment to me?  I have NEVER said anything even remotely like that?? Get your facts straight!

 

 

Blame the quote facility on TV, I couldn't care less who the messenger was, the message itself is still nonsense.

[wilcopops]

On 6/22/2019 at 12:32 PM, VincentRJ said:

Of course it's subjective. All people are subjects. All people are individuals. All individuals are different, to some degree, in respect of their genetics, their metabolism, their tendencies, their strengths and weaknesses, their lifestyles, and so on.

 

When people decide to lose weight, they should use their nous and their commonsense to determine 'what for them' means eating too much. This is why 'counting calories' or buying some other person's prescribed and marketed diet often doesn't work.

 

If you decide to lose weight merely for reasons of appearance, then you are more likely to fail. However, if your main motivation for losing weight is because you have realized that your overweightedness is an indication of a bad diet and/or a bad lifestyle which will have inevitable health consequences sooner or later, then you are more likely to succeed by using the basic principle that 'energy expended must exceed energy (or food) input' in order to lose weight.

 

Theoretically, if one had the money to pay for a complete analysis of one's genome and metabolic system, a specific diet could be formulated that might be more effective than the general weight-losing diets that are marketed, but not necessarily because the science is not settled.

 

A far more sensible approach is to first begin with inquiries about the types of food that constitute a healthy and wholesome diet. Then choose the specific foods, from that list, that you enjoy or can at least tolerate. For example, some people might dislike the taste of raw celery or broccoli, even though they are very healthy. You don't have to make things unnecessarily difficult for yourself. There are lots of choices of healthy and wholesome foods.

 

The next step is to determine objectively whether you are eating too much, by weighing yourself regularly on the same scale. Since we are not robots with a fixed amount of energy expenditure, there's no need to weigh yourself every day. Although it might be interesting to do so if you were fasting for several days.

 

My recommendation is, weigh yourself at least once a week. If you don't see any weight reduction after a week or so, on your reduced diet, then simply eat less, and/or exercise more, and/or change the mix in your diet. It's not rocket science.
 

It would appear you don't know what subjective means... (sound of Vincent rushing to Google)