The Simplicity of Weight Loss

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, JSixpack said:

 

No, the average Joe is the one getting obese throughout the world and has quite a lot to benefit as the same theories as to weight gain and weight loss of course apply to him as well.

 

There's no implication anywhere that (cough!) something is wrong with the first law! Gimme a break. Actually you agree with me but just like to argue.

 

I could say the same from you.. your agreeing with me too. 

 

The first law is still good.. only the out part has many variables. For instance proteins cost 20-30% to digest energy wise as carbs. So if you eat only protein and no carbs you can eat more and still lose weight. That does not invalidate the first law it just makes it harder to apply. 

 

If you got people who are insulin sensitive.. then carbs are a problem and get treated differently (that is why no carb works great for some).

 

There are many variable's but its still how much do you take in and how much do you burn. Problem is that is hard to quantify. 

[dontoearth]

37 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

Nothing wrong with first law of Thermodynamics at all.. just a problem quantifying what the out part is.

 

What your suggesting is that they are in a caloric deficit and storing fat.. that is just crazy.

 

I am suggesting and most people who have studied the matter is that the out part is just hard to estimate because the body will change how much is burned based on signals it gets. 

Also don't forget that Taubes Fong and so on only test the worst of the worst but not the average JOE there are always those who are on the other side of the spectrum just like that an olympic athlete is not a good representative of the entire populace. 

      There is no worst of the worst!  The subjects in these studies have agreed to participate.  They may or may NOT have failed at other weight loss programs.  That doesn't make them better or worse!  That makes them NORMAL.   Almost everyone has some success in weight loss and then some rebound and some weight gain.   These subjects are just seeking medical help.   Maybe they are beyond the help of all our experts here on this message board!  Is that what you mean? 

[dontoearth]

Hey this forum has become HOT!    And because of our possible weight conditions SWEATY!  I couldn't resist.  Sorry! 

[JSixpack]

1 hour ago, MissAndry said:

Anyway, I would prefer a Chemist (my area of expertise)  or Biologist to pronounce on weight loss rather than physicists.

 

I would think a brilliant scientific mind could perceive what point I was responding to, which is very much within the purview of physics. Somehow you've acquired the undisciplined mind of--a TVF poster, and misunderstood the point to be about yourself.

 

OK, re: yourself, as Taubes said, there's no conflict with biochemistry re: the insulin as you can verify yourself in your personal copies of Lehningers Principles of Biochemistry or Williams Textbook of Endocrinology. I'm shocked you didn't know that; basic, standard stuff, really.

 

Finally, to throw your most impressive qualifications a bone, you can feast with your colleague Professor Jennie Brand-Miller (AM, PhD, FAIFST, FNSA, MAICD), who holds a Personal Chair in Human Nutrition in the Boden Institute of Obesity, Nutrition, Exercise and Eating Disorders and the School of Molecular Bioscience, at the University of Sydney.

 

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/4/986.long

 

And some more of her works

 

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/search?author1=Jennie+C+Brand-Miller&sortspec=date&submit=Submit

 

and then go find counterarguments demonstrating the uselessness. Waitin'!

[robblok]

1 hour ago, dontoearth said:

      There is no worst of the worst!  The subjects in these studies have agreed to participate.  They may or may NOT have failed at other weight loss programs.  That doesn't make them better or worse!  That makes them NORMAL.   Almost everyone has some success in weight loss and then some rebound and some weight gain.   These subjects are just seeking medical help.   Maybe they are beyond the help of all our experts here on this message board!  Is that what you mean? 

 

What I mean is that people who have failed failed failed failed and failed go to studies like this not people who succeeded. So that makes them the worst, i doubt many Olympic athletes are in the group. The group is bias for people with problems. A lot of them might have real underlying health issues. You can't just compare them with everyone in the obese category. I am willing to say that most people in the obese category would lose weight and get a lot leaner if they adjusted what they ate. Only a small portion of the obese are the ones that really can't change. 

 

You were never obese but you still struggle with your weight-loss.. or so you think. In reality you did well you just expect it to go faster then it can go you accumulated your weight over the years but expect it to be gone in far less then a year.

 

I was the same when I lost my 25 kg.. i could not wait to get it off it took me a year and i thought it was really slow. Its just how our bodies work its easier to store fat then it is to burn it. 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, dontoearth said:

Hey this forum has become HOT!    And because of our possible weight conditions SWEATY!  I couldn't resist.  Sorry! 

 

I just finished my workout.. so I am real sweaty.. and its all good nice arguments here. No attacking.

[robblok]

Jsixpack...

 

If the energy solution is flawed why is the moment we change things in what and how much we eat we start to lose weight ? If it was invalid the amount of food we ate and the kind of food we ate should have no impact.

 

I think we agree that there is no simple solution no simple something to calculate it but restricting and changing is the way to go.

 

I think the only argument we have is how much people are to blame for their own situation and how much its their body. IMHO i think MOST people can lose a lot of weight by adjusting what and how much they eat and MOST people just eat crap and get fat because of that and a lot less people just have underlying problems.

[ClutchClark]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

 

I now use a pre workout (did not do that before) and bought some powders like beta alanine and taurine and have my own cafeine tablets . In the end I will just use a few of those powders and drop the pre workout drink. Personally for lifting I have had good results with creatine. 

 

My son had great success with Creatine as a very dedicated lifter like yourself.

 

First cycle not much help but second and thereafter positive for quick recovery.

 

But it did add water retention, which is part of why guys bulk a bit with it (I seem to recall).

 

This thread is talking alot about science. I just know what works for me.

 

Exercise of both cardio and weight resistance with a pre-workout caffeine. I eat alot of fish sashimi and some red meat (lean off my own farm). Here in Thailand I find pineapple helps me lose weight--something about a  protein.

 

I also eat a large lunch meal but then light evening meal usually including yogurt. 

 

I think exercise is the main ingredient because it burns cals and increases metabolism even at rest.

 

I don't drink beer but have a rare tequila maybe once a month. Beer destroys weight loss efforts for me quickly.

 

I stay away from processed foods. I keep meals simple.

 

just started on a HRT androgel 50-mg and it seems to give me more energy which translates into better workouts. I went through the various bloodwork and my T-levels were at low end of my age.

 

To lose weight--cut the calories and stay away from junk. Thais eat alot of junkfood with processed meats. I think the Thai diet is over-rated.

[dontoearth]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

What I mean is that people who have failed failed failed failed and failed go to studies like this not people who succeeded. So that makes them the worst, i doubt many Olympic athletes are in the group. The group is bias for people with problems. A lot of them might have real underlying health issues. You can't just compare them with everyone in the obese category. I am willing to say that most people in the obese category would lose weight and get a lot leaner if they adjusted what they ate. Only a small portion of the obese are the ones that really can't change. 

 

You were never obese but you still struggle with your weight-loss.. or so you think. In reality you did well you just expect it to go faster then it can go you accumulated your weight over the years but expect it to be gone in far less then a year.

 

I was the same when I lost my 25 kg.. i could not wait to get it off it took me a year and i thought it was really slow. Its just how our bodies work its easier to store fat then it is to burn it. 

    No!   You have no idea if they have failed and failed and failed and failed and failed at all!   All you know is that they have agreed to medical supervision.   If they have underlying medical problems I am quite sure that would be disclosed in the study or they would be disqualified from participation.    

     Almost no one is succeeding at weight loss.   That gives me great cause for alarm.  

     I was just re-reading Dr. Jason Fung and you might consider this Calories IN and Calories OUT are not independent of each other and a restriction in calories of 50% can be met by a reduction in calories out of 50% by the human body.  This has been measured in countless studies.  

     Your only conclusion is that some people (unfortunately most)  have to work harder.  Exact figures are not available but the complete and total failure of portion control diets logged by more than 50,000 nurses over an 8 year period shows that almost all bodies can adjust to a 30% reduction in calories.  No weight loss at all!  Exercise will have little effect.  This is part of the data you are missing by not looking at Dr. Jason Fong and his work.    

      This conclusion is replicated under completely controlled scientific lab conditions by the NIH. 

       I am not giving up on my workout I am just looking for more sophisticated diet approaches.  I would think any person would consider that very logical.

       BTW, I am american and we are often accused of trying the same thing that failed HARDER again and again.  I try not to do that.  I like to look for any missed and any new conclusions.

      

      

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

    No!   You have no idea if they have failed and failed and failed and failed and failed at all!   All you know is that they have agreed to medical supervision.   If they have underlying medical problems I am quite sure that would be disclosed in the study or they would be disqualified from participation.    

     Almost no one is succeeding at weight loss.   That gives me great cause for alarm.  

     I was just re-reading Dr. Jason Fung and you might consider this Calories IN and Calories OUT are not independent of each other and a restriction in calories of 50% can be met by a reduction in calories out of 50% by the human body.  This has been measured in countless studies.  

     Your only conclusion is that some people (unfortunately most)  have to work harder.  Exact figures are not available but the complete and total failure of portion control diets logged by more than 50,000 nurses over an 8 year period shows that almost all bodies can adjust to a 30% reduction in calories.  No weight loss at all!  Exercise will have little effect.  This is part of the data you are missing by not looking at Dr. Jason Fong and his work.    

      This conclusion is replicated under completely controlled scientific lab conditions by the NIH. 

       I am not giving up on my workout I am just looking for more sophisticated diet approaches.  I would think any person would consider that very logical.

       BTW, I am american and we are often accused of trying the same thing that failed HARDER again and again.  I try not to do that.  I like to look for any missed and any new conclusions.

      

      

That is what you say.. i got my info from a researcher who said that these studies attracted those who were unable to lose the weight at all and this made it a bias study. Do you really think that Fong would do anything that would point away from his research.. i doubt it.

 

I am not looking at fong because i just don't believe these guys. I go for guys like Lyle Mc Donald and others. You have found something that supports your theory that its impossible for you and its not you its just outside influences. I have 20 years of training and reading on this subject I seen the likes of Fong before. I go for the level headed people who go through countless studies not just those that support what they think.  You do know that people like Fong are outcasts from the medical community and not many agree with them. So everyone is wrong and they are right... 

 

How much did you lose by restricting your food and working out.. what part did not work for you ?

 

I guess you don't understand how your body works, because weight loss becomes progressively harder why do you think not everyone has a 6 pack.. because it gets harder and harder the lower you get in your fat %. That is why your first KG went off fast and now its harder. Not because your sick or anything like that. Your doing fine its a normal reaction from your body. I have read to what extreme pre contest bodybuilders go...... 

 

Its just normal for it to get harder once the fat % gets lower.  I bet your precious Dr Fong would agree. 

[ClutchClark]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

 

I now use a pre workout (did not do that before) and bought some powders like beta alanine and taurine and have my own cafeine tablets . In the end I will just use a few of those powders and drop the pre workout drink. Personally for lifting I have had good results with creatine. 

 

My son had great success with Creatine as a very dedicated lifter like yourself.

 

First cycle not much help but second and thereafter positive for quick recovery.

 

But it did add water retention, which is part of why guys bulk a bit with it (I seem to recall).

 

This thread is talking alot about science. I just know what works for me.

 

Exercise of both cardio and weight resistance with a pre-workout caffeine. I eat alot of fish sashimi and some red meat (lean off my own farm). Here in Thailand I find pineapple helps me lose weight--something about a  protein.

 

I also eat a large lunch meal but then light evening meal usually including yogurt. 

 

I think exercise is the main ingredient because it burns cals and increases metabolism even at rest.

 

I don't drink beer but have a rare tequila maybe once a month. Beer destroys weight loss efforts for me quickly.

 

I stay away from processed foods. I keep meals simple.

 

just started on a HRT androgel 50-mg and it seems to give me more energy which translates into better workouts. I went through the various bloodwork and my T-levels were at low end of my age.

 

To lose weight--cut the calories and stay away from junk. Thais eat alot of junkfood with processed meats. I think the Thai diet is over-rated.

[robblok]

28 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

My son had great success with Creatine as a very dedicated lifter like yourself.

 

First cycle not much help but second and thereafter positive for quick recovery.

 

But it did add water retention, which is part of why guys bulk a bit with it (I seem to recall).

 

This thread is talking alot about science. I just know what works for me.

 

Exercise of both cardio and weight resistance with a pre-workout caffeine. I eat alot of fish sashimi and some red meat (lean off my own farm). Here in Thailand I find pineapple helps me lose weight--something about a  protein.

 

I also eat a large lunch meal but then light evening meal usually including yogurt. 

 

I think exercise is the main ingredient because it burns cals and increases metabolism even at rest.

 

I don't drink beer but have a rare tequila maybe once a month. Beer destroys weight loss efforts for me quickly.

 

I stay away from processed foods. I keep meals simple.

 

just started on a HRT androgel 50-mg and it seems to give me more energy which translates into better workouts. I went through the various bloodwork and my T-levels were at low end of my age.

 

To lose weight--cut the calories and stay away from junk. Thais eat alot of junkfood with processed meats. I think the Thai diet is over-rated.

 

Yes creatine makes you hold water it needs it to store the extra ATP for the extra power you get.

 

Yes like you I taper down.. i start with largish breakfast and taper my meals down.

 

I am not sure how much exercise helps me... but I do know it helps me relax and keep stress at bay. I am sure now that adding the long and hard rowing sessions will help burn some fat. I think its real hard to get real lean (not normal weight) without extra cardio. That is why I added it again. I am lean.. just want to see where I can get and I accept its real hard to go down certain % levels.

 

I don't drink either (maybe once every half year or so) just don't likke it.

 

I keep my meals simple too and tweak them a bit at times always checking if I did not add to much. Actually maintaining weight is not really a problem only going down further is. (but that is normal). For me its just a game wanting to get somewhere new. I know I cant get stronger (at my limits) so i needed a new challenge.. lowest fat i can get is it now. 

 

Good to see the HRT is working. 

[ClutchClark]

23 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

    No!   You have no idea if they have failed and failed and failed and failed and failed at all!   All you know is that they have agreed to medical supervision.   If they have underlying medical problems I am quite sure that would be disclosed in the study or they would be disqualified from participation.    

     Almost no one is succeeding at weight loss.   That gives me great cause for alarm.  

     I was just re-reading Dr. Jason Fung and you might consider this Calories IN and Calories OUT are not independent of each other and a restriction in calories of 50% can be met by a reduction in calories out of 50% by the human body.  This has been measured in countless studies.  

     Your only conclusion is that some people (unfortunately most)  have to work harder.  Exact figures are not available but the complete and total failure of portion control diets logged by more than 50,000 nurses over an 8 year period shows that almost all bodies can adjust to a 30% reduction in calories.  No weight loss at all!  Exercise will have little effect.  This is part of the data you are missing by not looking at Dr. Jason Fong and his work.    

      This conclusion is replicated under completely controlled scientific lab conditions by the NIH. 

       I am not giving up on my workout I am just looking for more sophisticated diet approaches.  I would think any person would consider that very logical.

       BTW, I am american and we are often accused of trying the same thing that failed HARDER again and again.  I try not to do that.  I like to look for any missed and any new conclusions.

      

      

 

Exercise will have little effect?

 

I call BS. 

 

Unless you are talking about that group who get on a treadmill and watch a movie or read a book and think they are exercising.

[MissAndry]

1 minute ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Exercise will have little effect? I call BS. 

Unless you are talking about that group who get on a treadmill and watch a movie or read a book and think they are exercising.

 

My idea of exercise is two hours of sweating buckets and ending up so tired you can't stand up.

Some people's idea of exercise is a stroll around town.

 

I know my idea will lose me weight.

[ClutchClark]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

Yes creatine makes you hold water it needs it to store the extra ATP for the extra power you get.

 

Yes like you I taper down.. i start with largish breakfast and taper my meals down.

 

I am not sure how much exercise helps me... but I do know it helps me relax and keep stress at bay. I am sure now that adding the long and hard rowing sessions will help burn some fat. I think its real hard to get real lean (not normal weight) without extra cardio. That is why I added it again. I am lean.. just want to see where I can get and I accept its real hard to go down certain % levels.

 

I don't drink either (maybe once every half year or so) just don't likke it.

 

I keep my meals simple too and tweak them a bit at times always checking if I did not add to much. Actually maintaining weight is not really a problem only going down further is. (but that is normal). For me its just a game wanting to get somewhere new. I know I cant get stronger (at my limits) so i needed a new challenge.. lowest fat i can get is it now. 

 

Good to see the HRT is working. 

 

Concept 2 Ergonometer is my single most important machine.

 

Rowing is a great exercise. 

[ClutchClark]

I have never met anyone in my life who did not see an improved level of fitness and re-proportioning their physique by starting an exercise regimen.

 

Even if the kilos do not drop off the change to muscle is still success.

[dontoearth]

18 minutes ago, robblok said:

That is what you say.. i got my info from a researcher who said that these studies attracted those who were unable to lose the weight at all and this made it a bias study. Do you really think that Fong would do anything that would point away from his research.. i doubt it.

 

I am not looking at fong because i just don't believe these guys. I go for guys like Lyle Mc Donald and others. You have found something that supports your theory that its impossible for you and its not you its just outside influences. I have 20 years of training and reading on this subject I seen the likes of Fong before. I go for the level headed people who go through countless studies not just those that support what they think.  You do know that people like Fong are outcasts from the medical community and not many agree with them. So everyone is wrong and they are right... 

 

How much did you lose by restricting your food and working out.. what part did not work for you ?

 

I guess you don't understand how your body works, because weight loss becomes progressively harder why do you think not everyone has a 6 pack.. because it gets harder and harder the lower you get in your fat %. That is why your first KG went off fast and now its harder. Not because your sick or anything like that. Your doing fine its a normal reaction from your body. I have read to what extreme pre contest bodybuilders go...... 

 

Its just normal for it to get harder once the fat % gets lower.  I bet your precious Dr Fong would agree. 

     We have very different taste in research.  I go for original science.  I prefer the researcher to have conducted some of his/her/ own!  

      I did look at Lyle McDonald but didn't find that he had conducted any of his own work.  He also hadn't completed the advanced degrees necessary to do so.   

       That is not to say he doesn't have some good stuff in that website somewhere.   However, it is not the type of source I would use.   He does say he studied physiology at UCLA and was an athlete so he would have a unique perspective on muscle growth and fat loss for the athlete.   GREAT!  but not what I am looking for at all.  I have said again and again I am not an athlete or body builder.  I looking to get sleek not ripped with a 6-pack!  Even if I were it just ain't possible!

        Fong is working in reversing obesity and would have a more generalist approach.   Along with his own research work.  Fong would know nothing about muscle growth and advanced exercise.

        A lot of what people look for in resources has to do not with the bias of the resource but with the bias of the person.  My bias:  I am a retired Professor of Computer Science.   This leads me to look for people that will prove out their theories by conducting some original work.

        I think you are an athlete?  and you are looking for help in muscle growth?  and some fat loss?  and this would lead you to not care much about Fong but be very attracted to McDonald. 

         I really understand this.

        Frankly, neither approach is bad.

        

         

       

[VincentRJ]

20 hours ago, JSixpack said:

 

Actually that's not what Fung was saying, who for some reason you're carefully ignoring. What he said specifically was this:

 

Why The First Law of Thermodynamics is Utterly Irrelevant

 

 

When I made that comment, I had much more basic laws of physics in mind than the First Law of Thermodynamics. I've already stated that I haven't read Fung's book, so I'm not aware of what he actually wrote. I was responding to a comment on Fung made by another poster.

 

To use an analogy, the point I'm trying to get across is, you can't run a car with no petrol, and, if you keep filling the petrol tank with more fuel than you use, the tank will overflow.

 

An obese person is like a car to which additional fuel tanks are continually being added to take the overflow when more petrol than is used is continually being filled into the main tank.

The presence of so many reserve tanks, in and on top of the car, could be useful if one intended to drive across the Sahara Desert where there are no fuel stations. Likewise, the reserves of fat on an obese person could be useful if the person were placed in a prison of war camp and deprived of food for significant periods.

 

From the perspective of the human body, with its natural processes that occur unconsciously, the obese person is preparing for an event, such as a famine or a drought resulting in severe food shortages, which will most likely never occur in our modern societies with world-wide trade.

 

A simple, very natural and even money-saving remedy is therefore to emulate the sort of conditions that your body has been preparing for. Fast!

 

No need for all the complexities of counting calories and worrying about insulin levels and your metabolic rate. Just make sure you eat wholesome food when you are not fasting.

[robblok]

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-regulation-leptin-part-1.html/

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-regulation-leptin-part-2.html/

 

Read this and understand why it gets harder and harder to go down in weight.

 

Leptin is also the reason why your metabolic rate slows down and why cyclic diets are better. 

 

When you got only a little bit of fat leptin signals your metabolic rate to slow down. 

 

In essence, leptin is telling your body two different things:

1. How much fat you’re carrying.

2. How much you’re eating.

[JSixpack]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

Jsixpack...

 

If the energy solution is flawed why is the moment we change things in what and how much we eat we start to lose weight ? If it was invalid the amount of food we ate and the kind of food we ate should have no impact.

 

The problem w/ the energy solution is that it doesn't tell you anything useful and non-obvious. Why is that room crowded? Because a lot of people are in it. Why is that room not crowded? 'Cause few people are in it. That sums up CICO. What's useful to know is how they got there. And how to get them out and keep them out--in some reasonable, maintainable fashion. Trouble is, one can eat the same amount of calories and do the same amount of exercise yet one gain weight or fail to lose weight unlike another. That makes not so simple, you see. What does "overeating" actually mean in a particular situation?

 

We've been over all this before, sigh. Let Peter Attia explain it again. He's got the First Law right there in the article.

 

Conventional wisdom, perhaps better referred to as Current Dogma, says that you gain weight because you eat more than you expend.  This is almost true!  To be 100% true, it would read: when you gain weight, it is the case that you have necessarily eaten more than you expended.   Do you see the difference? It’s subtle but very important — arguably more important than any other sentence I will write.  The first statement says over-eating caused you to get fat. The second one says if you got fat, you overate, but the possibility remains that another factor led to you to overeat.

If you believe Current Dogma, of course you’ll believe that “calories count” and that counting them (and minimizing them) is the only way to lose weight.

     --http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter

 

Go read it there and understand. It's quite consistent w/ Lyle McDonald. Not going over it again!

 

 

 

 

 

[JSixpack]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

When I made that comment, I had much more basic laws of physics in mind than the First Law of Thermodynamics. I've already stated that I haven't read Fung's book, so I'm not aware of what he actually wrote. I was responding to a comment on Fung made by another poster.

 

 

You were asserting that a physicist can't have something intelligent to say about dieting. Since you're advocating fasting yourself then that was a particularly fatuous statement to make about Fung. Nobody is or has questioned any "basic laws." What a red herring. What we are questioning is the applicability in particular situations.

 

Quote

A simple, very natural and even money-saving remedy is therefore to emulate the sort of conditions that your body has been preparing for. Fast!

 

No need for all the complexities of counting calories and worrying about insulin levels and your metabolic rate. Just make sure you eat wholesome food when you are not fasting.

 

Well, you've finally discovered fasting. I've mentioned it previously and we had a thread about it recently where I gave some useful info:

 

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/935814-has-anyone-ever-tried-the-5-2-intermittent-fast-diet/#comment-11024728

 

Everybody, I mean everybody, knows that none of the survivors of Auschwitz were overweight. Knowing that fact has never helped anyone and so is useless. The breezy meataxe approach ain't gon' work. Nobody's going to fast continuously for long periods. 30 days! LOL.

 

It's quite possible to lose weight w/o fasting. In fact most of the major, proven diets will work if you can stick to one. Low carb has been shown to be effective and one of the easiest to maintain. Nor do you need to count calories on it either. To anticipate robblok's knee-jerk--he can't get over this wrong idea, dunno where he got it--no low-carb advocate has ever suggested or even made the slightest implication that one can eat an infinite quantity on low-carb.

 

But of course fasting will work, nothing new there--if you can stick to that. It's esp. good for getting off that last stubborn couple of kilos. And fasting may have other benefits besides weight loss. Probably does, even. The point is to arrive at a fasting program that's known, safe, and actually doable--which means intermittent fasting. There are several variations of the idea, some of which have been mentioned. Among them, 5:2 is well-documented and followed, w/ a helpful forum. You could make yourself useful by directing members towards similar primary sources of information and support.

 

 

[tominbkk]

5 hours ago, JSixpack said:

 

I would think a brilliant scientific mind could perceive what point I was responding to, which is very much within the purview of physics. Somehow you've acquired the undisciplined mind of--a TVF poster, and misunderstood the point to be about yourself.

 

OK, re: yourself, as Taubes said, there's no conflict with biochemistry re: the insulin as you can verify yourself in your personal copies of Lehningers Principles of Biochemistry or Williams Textbook of Endocrinology. I'm shocked you didn't know that; basic, standard stuff, really.

 

Finally, to throw your most impressive qualifications a bone, you can feast with your colleague Professor Jennie Brand-Miller (AM, PhD, FAIFST, FNSA, MAICD), who holds a Personal Chair in Human Nutrition in the Boden Institute of Obesity, Nutrition, Exercise and Eating Disorders and the School of Molecular Bioscience, at the University of Sydney.

 

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/4/986.long

 

And some more of her works

 

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/search?author1=Jennie+C+Brand-Miller&sortspec=date&submit=Submit

 

and then go find counterarguments demonstrating the uselessness. Waitin'!

Oooooh!  Snap!!!!

[ClutchClark]

The fastest and most effective weight loss I have experienced was when I had Dengue Fever.

 

 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, JSixpack said:

 

The problem w/ the energy solution is that it doesn't tell you anything useful and non-obvious. Why is that room crowded? Because a lot of people are in it. Why is that room not crowded? 'Cause few people are in it. That sums up CICO. What's useful to know is how they got there. And how to get them out and keep them out--in some reasonable, maintainable fashion. Trouble is, one can eat the same amount of calories and do the same amount of exercise yet one gain weight or fail to lose weight unlike another. That makes not so simple, you see. What does "overeating" actually mean in a particular situation?

 

We've been over all this before, sigh. Let Peter Attia explain it again. He's got the First Law right there in the article.

 

Conventional wisdom, perhaps better referred to as Current Dogma, says that you gain weight because you eat more than you expend.  This is almost true!  To be 100% true, it would read: when you gain weight, it is the case that you have necessarily eaten more than you expended.   Do you see the difference? It’s subtle but very important — arguably more important than any other sentence I will write.  The first statement says over-eating caused you to get fat. The second one says if you got fat, you overate, but the possibility remains that another factor led to you to overeat.

If you believe Current Dogma, of course you’ll believe that “calories count” and that counting them (and minimizing them) is the only way to lose weight.

     --http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter

 

Go read it there and understand. It's quite consistent w/ Lyle McDonald. Not going over it again!

 

 

 

 

 

Jsixpack,

 

We are basically saying the same thing that there are many factors influencing it and that you cant accurately predict weight loss based on the first law. There are many variables. 

 

I think we are on the same page here the only debatable thing is just how much is own responsibility by not changing what you eat and / or exercising  and how much is out of our control because of genes and body make-up.

 

I like to believe that most obese people can improve a lot if they take the right action (be it going low carb / fasting / just eating less ect) I don't like to believe there is no way to change our lot (within limits). I will never be a marathon runner (nor do I want too) but I could become a much better runner than I am now if I wanted too. Same goes for weight problems.. we can change and improve a lot within set limitations.

 

I certainly do not believe in minimizing calories alone.. i believe in the kind of calories.. and cycling them adding exercise, certain supplements 

 

they say bromocriptine can influence leptin. If I ever get my hands on some I might give it a try. 

 

[robblok]

43 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

The fastest and most effective weight loss I have experienced was when I had Dengue Fever.

 

 

 

Not a solution I would like to take  Lot of it would be lost fluids and an empty stumach. 

[dontoearth]

2 hours ago, JSixpack said:

 

The problem w/ the energy solution is that it doesn't tell you anything useful and non-obvious. Why is that room crowded? Because a lot of people are in it. Why is that room not crowded? 'Cause few people are in it. That sums up CICO. What's useful to know is how they got there. And how to get them out and keep them out--in some reasonable, maintainable fashion. Trouble is, one can eat the same amount of calories and do the same amount of exercise yet one gain weight or fail to lose weight unlike another. That makes not so simple, you see. What does "overeating" actually mean in a particular situation?

 

We've been over all this before, sigh. Let Peter Attia explain it again. He's got the First Law right there in the article.

 

Conventional wisdom, perhaps better referred to as Current Dogma, says that you gain weight because you eat more than you expend.  This is almost true!  To be 100% true, it would read: when you gain weight, it is the case that you have necessarily eaten more than you expended.   Do you see the difference? It’s subtle but very important — arguably more important than any other sentence I will write.  The first statement says over-eating caused you to get fat. The second one says if you got fat, you overate, but the possibility remains that another factor led to you to overeat.

If you believe Current Dogma, of course you’ll believe that “calories count” and that counting them (and minimizing them) is the only way to lose weight.

     --http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter

 

Go read it there and understand. It's quite consistent w/ Lyle McDonald. Not going over it again!

 

 

 

 

 

      Fantastic reference.  I wish he had spent more time on the dependent variable basal expenditure.   Lots of science there on the body slowing its energy usage down in ways we can not control.   Some dieters have trouble generating heat in the hands and feet, have an abnormally slowed heart beat, low blood volume pumps, low blood pressure, shallow breathing, and cell repair in the hair and finger nails can stop.   So that resting amount of expenditure can get so much lower than most consider.  These are things no one has control over.

[tominbkk]

13 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

I have never met anyone in my life who did not see an improved level of fitness and re-proportioning their physique by starting an exercise regimen.

 

Even if the kilos do not drop off the change to muscle is still success.

Absolutely.  I love my exercise (speed walking, swimming, biking, weights) and think everyone should put an hour in a day or so of something physical they love to do.  But the original question was whether it promotes weight loss, which I am dubious about.  In fact, I believe it promotes appetite and makes you even hungrier so you actually eat more.

[ClutchClark]

34 minutes ago, tominbkk said:

Absolutely.  I love my exercise (speed walking, swimming, biking, weights) and think everyone should put an hour in a day or so of something physical they love to do.  But the original question was whether it promotes weight loss, which I am dubious about.  In fact, I believe it promotes appetite and makes you even hungrier so you actually eat more.

 

If exercise promoted weight gain then athletes would all be obese.

 

 

[robblok]

9 hours ago, dontoearth said:

      Fantastic reference.  I wish he had spent more time on the dependent variable basal expenditure.   Lots of science there on the body slowing its energy usage down in ways we can not control.   Some dieters have trouble generating heat in the hands and feet, have an abnormally slowed heart beat, low blood volume pumps, low blood pressure, shallow breathing, and cell repair in the hair and finger nails can stop.   So that resting amount of expenditure can get so much lower than most consider.  These are things no one has control over.

 

Unless you control leptine with a cyclic diet. That helps a lot but is hard to do. 

[VincentRJ]

On ‎4‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 5:54 AM, JSixpack said:

 

The problem w/ the energy solution is that it doesn't tell you anything useful and non-obvious. Why is that room crowded? Because a lot of people are in it. Why is that room not crowded? 'Cause few people are in it. That sums up CICO. What's useful to know is how they got there. And how to get them out and keep them out--in some reasonable, maintainable fashion. Trouble is, one can eat the same amount of calories and do the same amount of exercise yet one gain weight or fail to lose weight unlike another. That makes not so simple, you see. What does "overeating" actually mean in a particular situation?

 

We've been over all this before, sigh. Let Peter Attia explain it again. He's got the First Law right there in the article.

 

Conventional wisdom, perhaps better referred to as Current Dogma, says that you gain weight because you eat more than you expend.  This is almost true!  To be 100% true, it would read: when you gain weight, it is the case that you have necessarily eaten more than you expended.   Do you see the difference? It’s subtle but very important — arguably more important than any other sentence I will write.  The first statement says over-eating caused you to get fat. The second one says if you got fat, you overate, but the possibility remains that another factor led to you to overeat.

If you believe Current Dogma, of course you’ll believe that “calories count” and that counting them (and minimizing them) is the only way to lose weight.

     --http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter

 

Go read it there and understand. It's quite consistent w/ Lyle McDonald. Not going over it again!

 

 

Wonderful obfuscation!

 

Let's examine these two statements. (1) "You gain weight because you eat more than you expend."

Peter Attia agrees this is almost true, but not 100% true. He describes it as the Current Dogma. What he claims is more true, is statement (2) "If you got fat, you overate, but the possibility remains that another factor led to you to overeat."

 

Well, I've got news for Peter Attia. There's not just a possibility that another factor is involved, there's absolute certainty that many other factors are involved.

 

There's nothing that happens in this universe in complete isolation. Everything is connected in at least some way, to some degree. If you describe one cause and effect, you can always find a previous cause relating to the later cause, and another earlier cause relating to the previous cause, and so on ad infinitum.

 

If we start diluting the truth of specific statements because other factors are involved, then confusion results. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider the other factors. The other factors are additional problems that require additional questions.

 

For example, if I'm driving down the highway and my car suddenly stops and I discover that the reason my car has stopped is because I've run out of fuel, then that fact is 100% true. If my wife then says, "No, the reason the car has stopped is because you didn't fill up at that petrol station we passed about half an hour ago", that is also true, but is another related issue.

 

My son might then chime in, and say, "No, the reason the car has stopped is because you didn't buy that efficient model I recommended, which travels 15km on a litre of petrol instead of the inefficient 8km per litre of this car that you chose against my advice."

 

My daughter might then add, "No, the reason the car has stopped is because we didn't take the train as I recommended."

 

Do you get my point? If one is going to subtract the truth of any one particular statement according to the other factors that are always related, you could mathematically end up with something like 0.1% true, or even less.

 

Let's consider some of the other factors that are involved in the overweight situation.

(1) An abundance of readily available, affordable and tasty food.

(You can't eat too much if the food sources are not available, so this factor could be considered the most significant of all.)

(2) Eating more than your body needs to sustain your daily activities.

(3) Eating unwholesome, highly processed foods which contain all sorts of additives to enhance the taste and encourage you to eat more and more.

(4) A disturbance of the body's chemistry or hormones which interfere with the normal signals of satiety.

(5) A lack of willpower and self-control which makes the easiest, cheapest and healthiest method of losing weight (which is fasting) too difficult.

 

The diet industry exists largely because of factor #5.