Re: Eat Fat, Lose Fat...Fat Fat Fat!

[Guest guest]

On 8/8/06, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> -

>

> >...except now I'm in spiritual crisis

>

> I'm an Old Testament God, wrathful and jealous. You'd best tell your

> spirit to get its house in order before I unleash some biblical

> plagues and make the entire state of California pay for your apostasy.

You don't get it do you? I'm talking about a *big f-ing monkey

covered in sugar*. Probably got hindu arms all full of ice creams and

whatnots. Your old testament brimstone just makes him sweeter. Sugar

monkey mess you up.

(ps, " an " old testament god? oof, that's gonna start something, haha)

[Guest guest]

On 8/8/06, downwardog7 <illneverbecool@...> wrote:

> Mind-schmind. Are you saying you rely on discipline to keep your

> urges in check?

Not really. I don't have much in the way of urges now, certainly not

for junk food, but that is not an intensive property of my personality

by any means. A year or two ago, I remember a period where I had

intense cravings for orange juice, for example. Those things are in

my experience all modifiable, so I'm not sure if there is any core

" true " craving pattern that could define my approach to food, like you

could do to a strain of mice.

> Further, how do you define " the typical mindset towards food " ?

One that allows gluten, refined carbohydrates, and snacking.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 8/8/06, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> > This is a major reason that " a calorie is a calorie " is false. It's

> > easy to *say* someone needs to eat less and exercise more, but if you

> > eat in a way that doesn't satiate you, you can't eat less, and if you

> > eat in a way that doesn't give you enough energy to exercise, then you

> > can't exercise more.

> So, you imply that a calorie IS a calorie, just that it's hard to not to

consume to many of them.

If you take the phrase in its most literal sense, it is a meaningless

truism -- a calorie is by definition a calorie.

But I am referring to the proposition that it is not so much what you

eat, but simply how much of it, that determines whether or not you can

lose weight. On the other hand, there is another school of thought

that proposes " calories don't count, " as if how much you eat has

nothing to do with how much weight you can lose.

I think that both are false, or rather the truth is somewhere in between.

In the post you quote, I was pointing out in fewer words that

isocaloric amounts of two different foods are not necessarily equally

satiating, and that isocaloric amounts of two different foods do not

necessarily induce the same degree of aerobic capacity, mood/drive

stabilization, metabolic rate, or heat production.

On the first point, you could recast this as the isocaloric amounts

are equivalent but it is simply more difficult to not eat additional

portions for the less satiating food. This would be technically

correct, but wouldn't be very meaningful for the person who is

actually trying to eat less food.

On the second point, the isocaloric amounts of two foods are clearly

not equivalent. If one enables the drive to exercise and one inhibits

the drive to exercise, then one cannot simply " exercise more. " Even

if you want to assume that exercise is completely voluntary if only

one has the " will power " to overcome their physiology, the effect of

exercise-induced hormones vis-a-vis energy production and

thermogenesis is still going to depend on thyroid hormone secretion,

delivery, and effectiveness and other factors that are influenced more

by the qualitative than quantitative aspects of food.

So I think what I was trying to say is in contrast with " a calorie is

a calorie. "

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Gene-

>

> > > >I just don't think that this stuff is as complicated as some people

> > > >make it out to be. While there may be some subtle variations owing

> > > >to one type of food vs another, or the idiosyncracies of one

> > > >person's makeup, I think that 95% of it comes down to calories in vs

> > > >calories out. the hard part is cutting down the calories and ramping

> > > >up the exercise.

> > >

> > > And exactly wrong. ;-)

> >

> >Which part? That calories in vs calories out is very relevant to

> >weight loss, or that cutting down calories and ramping up exercise

> >is hard? And by " exactly " wrong, what do you mean - do you mean that

> >the exact opposite is true? How does the smilie fit in?

>

> The smiley fits in because earlier in your message you said you

> expected strenuous disagreement, and I was obliging you.

>

> It also means that I wasn't exactly employing scientific rigor in my

> statement that you were " exactly wrong " .

>

> That said, I believe you're profoundly wrong in saying that 95% of

> weight loss is determined by calories in versus calories out and that

> only 5% is due to some combination of " subtle variations " in food

> type and " idiosyncrasies " of people's biochemistry. Human metabolism

> is complex; different types of foods are metabolized in very

> different ways and have very different hormonal (and general

> physiological) effects. " A calorie is a calorie is a calorie " is a

> perfect example of common sense that's anything but sensible. It

> assumes that metabolism is a black box that treats all foods the same

> way, much like the combustion chamber in which foods are burned to

> determine their calorie content, when in fact it's anything but.

So, if I am profoundly wrong then, one can consume fewer calories than one burns

off, consistently, and still gain weight, or consume more calories than one

burns off and lose weight? Isn't metabolism a factor in how many calories that

you burn off? It seems to me that the issue isn't calories in vs calories out,

but to what degree different foods can affect how many calories you burn. In my

own experience (perhaps this explains my skepticism), I don't encounter these

vast differences that you speak of. If anything, they seem pretty small. If I

exercise enough to burn the calories that I consume, I seem to lose weight, but

if not, I gain weight. For the most part. I am amused when I read people saying

that they drink a gallon of coconut oil every day, and can't understand why

they're gaining weight.

[Guest guest]

> When I was little, I was only allowed to eat low-sugar cereals. As if

> there is a difference. So the milk at the bottom wasn't all that

> sweet. Also, I was allergic to milk so I ate a lot of my cereal dry.

> Later I ate it with milk, especially in my early teens. I think I

> liked the whole thing, although by that point I was eating Rice

> Krispie Treats cereal, along with Toaster Struedells, Coke and iced

> tea for breakfast. Then it was out the door for the three cigarettes

> I'd manage to fit in on the walk to school.

>

Maybe it's obsolete. When I was a kid, we had Rice Krispies--which

weren't sweetened--and put them in the bowl with milk and spooned

sugar on top to taste. When you finished the cereal, there was milk

with syrup-y granulated goodness at the bottom. When I read that

question it felt like a secret handshake.

B.

[Guest guest]

-

>You don't get it do you? I'm talking about a *big f-ing monkey

>covered in sugar*. Probably got hindu arms all full of ice creams and

>whatnots. Your old testament brimstone just makes him sweeter. Sugar

>monkey mess you up.

I created sugar monkeys on the sixth day. I won't have any trouble

destroying them on the eleventh.

>(ps, " an " old testament god? oof, that's gonna start something, haha)

Not at all. The new testament people just got me wrong.

-

[Guest guest]

On 8/8/06, downwardog7 wrote:

> >

>

> Maybe it's obsolete. When I was a kid, we had Rice Krispies--which

> weren't sweetened--and put them in the bowl with milk and spooned

> sugar on top to taste. When you finished the cereal, there was milk

> with syrup-y granulated goodness at the bottom. When I read that

> question it felt like a secret handshake.

> B.

>

Well, of course! That sugary goodness was the only reason to suffer

through a bowl of plain old rice krispies or corn flakes! :-)

[Guest guest]

On 8/8/06, downwardog7 <illneverbecool@...> wrote:

> 1) Imagine you come home and go into the kitchen. A plate of warm

> chocolate-chip cookies sits on the counter just out of the oven.

> Their smell hits you as you walk in. You do not feel hungry. No one

> else is around. What would you do?

I'm afraid my ideology pretty much demands that you eat the cookies.

I worship the sweetest and most wonderful of gods, a giant cloven

sugar monkey the color of frosting who sends great sugar ant plagues

to those who don't eat the cookies. One shake of his pastried fist

and you're pushing up pie plants.

Eat the cookies.

(he's watching)

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Masterjohn " <chrismasterjohn@...>

> On 8/8/06, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > > This is a major reason that " a calorie is a calorie " is false. It's

> > > easy to *say* someone needs to eat less and exercise more, but if you

> > > eat in a way that doesn't satiate you, you can't eat less, and if you

> > > eat in a way that doesn't give you enough energy to exercise, then you

> > > can't exercise more.

>

> > So, you imply that a calorie IS a calorie, just that it's hard to not to

> consume to many of them.

>

> If you take the phrase in its most literal sense, it is a meaningless

> truism -- a calorie is by definition a calorie.

And since neither of us are into meaningless truisms, that was gratuitous.

>

> But I am referring to the proposition that it is not so much what you

> eat, but simply how much of it, that determines whether or not you can

> lose weight. On the other hand, there is another school of thought

> that proposes " calories don't count, " as if how much you eat has

> nothing to do with how much weight you can lose.

>

> I think that both are false, or rather the truth is somewhere in between.

Ok - but logically, the fact that certain foods will satiate you more than

others, and lead to lower consumption does not in itself contradict in any way

that the number of calories that you consume versus the amount that you burn off

determines whether you will gain or lose weight. In fact, it also implies

nothing about metabolism either - so I read it as strictly implying that a

calorie is a calorie is a calorie.

>

> In the post you quote, I was pointing out in fewer words that

> isocaloric amounts of two different foods are not necessarily equally

> satiating, and that isocaloric amounts of two different foods do not

> necessarily induce the same degree of aerobic capacity, mood/drive

> stabilization, metabolic rate, or heat production.

Does having more energy mean that your metabolism has changed? It seems that

most proponents of the strict calorie thesis would agree with the obvious - if

you eat food that satiates you, you'll tend to eat less of it, and if the food

you eat doesn't give you any energy, you'll be less active. Perhaps more words

would have been beneficial in this case.

>

> On the first point, you could recast this as the isocaloric amounts

> are equivalent but it is simply more difficult to not eat additional

> portions for the less satiating food. This would be technically

> correct, but wouldn't be very meaningful for the person who is

> actually trying to eat less food.

What in the world are you saying? A person who is trying to eat less food might

be very interested in the fact that some foods that are higher in calories by

themselves, are more satiating, and therefore would tend to lead them to eat

less.

>

> On the second point, the isocaloric amounts of two foods are clearly

> not equivalent. If one enables the drive to exercise and one inhibits

> the drive to exercise, then one cannot simply " exercise more. " Even

> if you want to assume that exercise is completely voluntary if only

> one has the " will power " to overcome their physiology, the effect of

> exercise-induced hormones vis-a-vis energy production and

> thermogenesis is still going to depend on thyroid hormone secretion,

> delivery, and effectiveness and other factors that are influenced more

> by the qualitative than quantitative aspects of food.

>

> So I think what I was trying to say is in contrast with " a calorie is

> a calorie. "

Well, I think that it's a truism that if someone ate only white bread, or only

trans fats, it would affect their energy levels, among other things, and that

their consumption of total calories and activity levels would be affected. I'm

not sure that many sane people would argue with that. But I think that this is

something that the 'calorie is a calorie' people would agree with also.

Putting another way - it would still seem like, based on what you're saying,

that a person could measure their calorie input, and their activity level, and

have a pretty good idea how just these needed to be adjusted to gain/lose

weight. Obviously any adjustments in this that would increase energy level also

would be beneficial, but the equation still seems to be the same.

>

> Chris

> --

> The Truth About Cholesterol

> Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

-

>*fap* *fap* *fap*

Was not!

-

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Furbish " <efurbish@...>

wrote:

> Eat the cookies.

>

,

YOU! This is the best day ever!!!

....except now I'm in spiritual crisis :-(

tb

[Guest guest]

-

>Her hypothesis that there are certain people wired with more receptors

>for beta-endorphin, and that--combined with a tendency for low

>serotonin and volatile blood sugar--sets up a physiological dependancy

>on sugars, which can be stabilized with diligent nutrition and

>meal-timing.

>

>Her name for this particular biochemistry is " sugar-sensitive " .

That's about what I assumed she meant, but the fact that the Atkins

diet (a) works, and ( is most effective for people who have tended

to consume the most sugar, suffer the most from hypoglycemia, etc.,

manifestly disproves her conclusion that " sugar sensitives " can't

lose weight on a high-fat diet.

>Here are two informal questions to determine if you, too, may be

>sugar-sensitive (from _Potatoes Not Prozac_):

>

>1) Imagine you come home and go into the kitchen. A plate of warm

>chocolate-chip cookies sits on the counter just out of the oven.

>Their smell hits you as you walk in. You do not feel hungry. No one

>else is around. What would you do?

>

>2) When you were little and had Rice Krispies for breakfast, did you

>eat the cereal or did you eat the cereal so you could get to the milk

>and sugar at the bottom of the bowl?

>

>Some people will get it and some won't.

I never had Rice Krispies for breakfast, but more generally, these

are the sorts of questions found in metabolic typing and low-carb

questionnaires.

-

[Guest guest]

In my own experience (perhaps this explains my skepticism), I don't

encounter these vast differences that you speak of. If anything, they

seem pretty small. If I exercise enough to burn the calories that I

consume, I seem to lose weight, but if not, I gain weight. For the

most part...

Gene,

Do you need to excercise simply to avoid gaining weight? That would

indicate a metabolic problem.

B.

[Guest guest]

-

>...except now I'm in spiritual crisis

I'm an Old Testament God, wrathful and jealous. You'd best tell your

spirit to get its house in order before I unleash some biblical

plagues and make the entire state of California pay for your apostasy.

-

[Guest guest]

> That's about what I assumed she meant, but the fact that the Atkins

> diet (a) works, and ( is most effective for people who have tended

> to consume the most sugar, suffer the most from hypoglycemia, etc.,

> manifestly disproves her conclusion that " sugar sensitives " can't

> lose weight on a high-fat diet.

Connie cleared that up when she (Connie)posted:

" At the time she wrote that, she [Kathleen] was thinking high fat with

moderate

carb. Doesn't work.

Her current advice inside the YLD program still follows the guideline

from the book, 'the right protein/brown/green/fats at the right times,

for you'. The program support helps you figure that out for yourself -

there's no macronutrient ratio etc etc. "

> I never had Rice Krispies for breakfast, but more generally, these

> are the sorts of questions found in metabolic typing and low-carb

> questionnaires.

Unsure what kind of judgement you're implying with the above, but I

posted those two informal questions for fun. There are people who will

read those questions and have a visceral--not brainy--response to

them. They know who they are! There is an alternate, more specific

line of diagnostic questions, but they may not be up to your standards

either. I wonder how else to gather diagnostic information in a book

for lay folks?

Sugar sensitivity is a theory--I assume she's working hard to prove

it--but it's helping an awful lot of people, and how it differs from

Atkins or other diets is it's not about weight loss, but stabilizing

the brain biochemistry--without drugs and with only negligible

supplements--so they can experience joy in their lives again,

sometimes for the first time in a long, long time. Feeling that one's

problems would be solved if only weight were reduced is another

symptom of faulty biochemistry.

Connie is a veteran and knows much more on the topic--as well as what

is most current--hopefully I haven't made a bollocks.

tb

[Guest guest]

and , you both crack me up and you're answers are a welcome bit of

smarty-pants (and smart) marshmallow fluff in an otherwise serious world.

Keep it coming.

Danae

(who's trying to be monkey-free)

" Mother's milk and mother's arms have always been available, patiently

waiting for the passing of man's foolhardy arrogance, which tried to convince us

that his inventions were superior to nature. "

Tine Thevenin

Baby boys are the only group in society having medically unnecessary

surgery without their consent.

[Guest guest]

At 08:40 PM 8/8/06 -0000, wrote:

>There are people who will

>read those questions and have a visceral--not brainy--response to

>them. They know who they are!

Yes. I want to send me cookies.

MFJ

If I have to be a grownup, can I at least be telekinetic too?

[Guest guest]

At 10:24 PM 8/8/06 -0400, you wrote:

>-

>

>>You don't get it do you? I'm talking about a *big f-ing monkey

>>covered in sugar*. Probably got hindu arms all full of ice creams and

>>whatnots. Your old testament brimstone just makes him sweeter. Sugar

>>monkey mess you up.

>

>I created sugar monkeys on the sixth day. I won't have any trouble

>destroying them on the eleventh.

>

>>(ps, " an " old testament god? oof, that's gonna start something, haha)

>

>Not at all. The new testament people just got me wrong.

>

>

>

>-

One of you owes me a new keyboard, and the other one owes me an econo-pack

of monitor wipes.

MFJ

If I have to be a grownup, can I at least be telekinetic too?

[Guest guest]

On 8/8/06, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> > First let me say that I have no qualms with your original statement

> > that ultimately it comes down to calories in versus calories out, as

> > long as you include molecules with caloric value being put into

> > structural rather than metabolic use and excretion of molecules with

> > caloric value in addition to caloric value that is converted to heat,

> > kinetic energy and cell maintenance in the " calories out " part of the

> > equation. That's why I didn't write what I wrote in direct response

> > to you.

> I don't follow this. You've read much more of the science than I have.

Not everything that we eat that *could* be burned for energy actually

*is* burned for energy. Much of it is put to structural use -- such

as the cell membrane, muscle proteins, or innumerable other structural

components. Some of this just stays in the body over time, and much

of it is broken down and leaves the body in some way that does not

include being burned for physical activity, such as hair growth, nail

growth, skin that flakes off, and so on. Some molecules that could be

broken down for energy are also excreted. A lot of energy is

transferred into heat production, and a greater proportion is

transferred to heat production when the metabolic rate rises.

Thus, for weight change to equal calories in minus calories out, one

must include all of the above factors and whatever others I'm missing

in addition to physical activity in the " calories out " term.

> > > Does having more energy mean that your metabolism has changed?

> > I would say so.

> hmmmm. But, certainly one has more energy than at other times and it isn't the

metabolism that has changed...for instance, I may have more energy for

psychological reasons. Perhaps I just got out of work, or I have just sold my

spleen on Ebay.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by a change in metabolism.

If you feel more energetic some times than others, it is because some

hormones are higher, some are lower, some nervous activity is higher,

some is lower, and the rate at which you are oxidizing food molecules

is higher, and so on. I would consider all of those to be metabolic

changes.

> >However, I have never seen anyone in the " a calorie is a

> > calorie " school claim that the Atkins diet " only works " because it

> > gives people more energy, even though there are studies showing that

> > greater weight loss results with low-carb diets even when calories are

> > increased.

> I'm not sure if I follow the point exactly. But it seems like there is a

strong and a weak version of the 'a calorie is a calorie' viewpoint. The strong

version would be that it's all calories in vs calories out, but the calories in

don't influence the calories out. The weak (and sensible) version allows for

this influence. Both recognize that the weight you gain or lose will be

determined by this calorie differential.

That would essentially place anyone who believes that the calorie

differential is operative in the " a calorie is a calorie " school it

seems. I would think basically everyone would have to agree with the

basic point.

> > Of course I'm the one defining the " a calorie is a calorie " school so

> > maybe my definition is biased but for the sake of clarity I would

> > exclude the people who accept that some foods will affect your

> > metabolism and energy levels and thus food quality is as important as

> > quantity in weight loss.

> hmmmm. I might be wrong on this, but I guess I haven't encountered the strong

version of this - what person would claim that the food you eat has nothing at

all to do with how you behave?

Perhaps no one is actually aruing what I'm construing as the " a

calorie is a calorie " school of thought, in which case I'm wasting my

time arguing against it, but it is my impression that there is a

school of thought that basically says that there is a solid rule that

if your physical activity remains equal, any diet with more calories

will necessarily lead to less weight loss or more weight gain than any

diet with less calories. Now, if one were to stipulate " all things

being equal, " this would in fact be true, but this school of thought

seems to demote basically everything except physical activity to an

unimportant position in the " all things being equal " part of the

equation.

In other words, I have encountered arguments that say, if low-carb

dieters lose weight, it is simply because they are eating less

calories tahn those who are on different diets. This is contradicted,

however, by studies showing low-carb to produce greater weight loss

even with higher caloric intake. I would define the people in the " a

calorie is a calorie " school as being the ones who do not take this

research into account, and continue to maintain that if low-carbing

(for example) produces weight loss, it *must* be because they are

consuming fewer calories.

> > I disagree that someone's " activity level " is anything close to a

> > comprehensive indicator of " calories out " in the " calories in calories

> > out " equation. It is certainly a very powerful part of " calories

> > out, " but so is basal metabolic rate, heat production, mental energy

> > use (which is very substantial), cellular housekeeping maintenance,

> > and so on.

> hmmm. have any studies been done on this? My inclination is to believe that

activity level, which could be anything from nervous activity, to sitting

upright vs lying down, etc - would have far more effect. I think that, for

instance, mental energy might have some affect, but when compared to a

kettlebell workout? If I want to lose weight, I don't think that concentrating

harder is going to do it....

I don't know. I know that blood flow is diverted to the head during

engagement in certain mental tasks, but I don't know if anyone has

actually quantified how much more energy your brain uses during active

studying, say, than at rest. I have read that your brain uses about

30% of the glucose you use each day, which is very substantial, and I

would think that using your brain for intense mental tasks would

substantially increase this.

Of course, I didn't just have in mind whether you are studying or not.

The efficiency with which that studying leads to learning and memory

is going to depend, I think, in part on the resources that you can

devote to forming certain neural connections and ion gradients and so

on, which requires energy and in the case of synapse formation also

requires the input of structural molecules that could have been burned

for energy.

I know that ketones greatly increase the rate of sterol synthesis in

brain cells. So, eating a ketogenic diet might increase sterol

synthesis in the brain, and neural sterols are structural units

synthesized from molecules that could have been burned for energy.

When people are young and most mentally efficient, neural plasticity

is high and there is a very high cholesterol turnover. I'm not sure

exactly what happens to the cholesterol that is degraded, but I think

some of it might be excreted rather than reconverted into energy

molecules, though I'm not positive. In that case, it would seem that

high neural plasticity, mental efficiency, and rate of learning would

use energy not only through direct energy use but also in the

direction of molecules that could be used for energy into structural

units that are not burned for energy.

I think heat-production is studied quantiatively much better, and heat

production is incredibly substantial. I haven't seen anything

quantitative on cellular housekeeping, but I imagine it would be very

substantial. And in this case, it would be a longer life or less

degenerative disease that would result rather than greater kinetic

energy, but it doesn't require any conscious effort so you wouldn't

notice that you were doing more of it.

That said, if all these remain constant, and you add a kettlebell

work, you will certainly lose more weight faster. Anything that

creates even a small calorie deficit will lead to long-term weight

loss if it is maintained.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Thank you for saying that! I was just thinking about it, and of

course you are the logical one to bring it up as you are one of the

prime folks suspicious of the cholesterol in = bad cholesterol way

of thinking, so doubting the calories in/calories out is a logical

step.

One thing you didn't mention is the caloric needs of the various

flora/fauna living in us. Yeast can really go through the sugars,

but does that make the calories less bioavailable to us? Also

certain " calories " the olgiosaccharides, are " eaten " by the

beneficial bacteria in the gut, who in turn give us nice things like

GABA and butyric acid, and some vitamins.

Thinking about the time I ate about double the calories as I do now

and the fact that I didn't get hugely fat also makes me wonder, what

was going on then? Was it the adrenals, the liver, the candida

overgrowth? Without having undergone extensive testing, I guess

I'll never know, but the fact remains that some people stuff

themselves with huge amounts of junk and stay thin, without working

out, while others do everything " right " and yet stay large. For

every diet that works for a few, there are many out there for whom

it does not work. You are so right that other factors come into play

like psychology and how the body uses the raw materials.

-Renate

[Guest guest]

Renate said: " For every diet that works for a few, there are many out there

for whom it does not work. "

That's exactly one of the arguments that the " Metabolic Typing " advocates

use.

I have recently read the book " The Metabolic Typing Diet " by Wolcott &

Fahey;

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767905644/sr=1-1/qid=1155219568/ref=pd_bbs_1/0\

02-7707649-1843247?ie=UTF8 & s=books

Dr. Mercola is also among the advocates;

http://www.mercola.com/2002/dec/18/metabolic_typing.htm

I would be very pleased if I can hear about the thougths and personal

experiences of our group members on " metabolic typing " .

Best regards,

Suat ªakarcan

On 8/10/06, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote:

>

>

>

> Thank you for saying that! I was just thinking about it, and of

> course you are the logical one to bring it up as you are one of the

> prime folks suspicious of the cholesterol in = bad cholesterol way

> of thinking, so doubting the calories in/calories out is a logical

> step.

>

> One thing you didn't mention is the caloric needs of the various

> flora/fauna living in us. Yeast can really go through the sugars,

> but does that make the calories less bioavailable to us? Also

> certain " calories " the olgiosaccharides, are " eaten " by the

> beneficial bacteria in the gut, who in turn give us nice things like

> GABA and butyric acid, and some vitamins.

>

> Thinking about the time I ate about double the calories as I do now

> and the fact that I didn't get hugely fat also makes me wonder, what

> was going on then? Was it the adrenals, the liver, the candida

> overgrowth? Without having undergone extensive testing, I guess

> I'll never know, but the fact remains that some people stuff

> themselves with huge amounts of junk and stay thin, without working

> out, while others do everything " right " and yet stay large. For

> every diet that works for a few, there are many out there for whom

> it does not work. You are so right that other factors come into play

> like psychology and how the body uses the raw materials.

>

> -Renate

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 8/10/06, Suat Sakarcan <suat.sakarcan@...> wrote:

> I would be very pleased if I can hear about the thougths and personal

> experiences of our group members on " metabolic typing " .

I agree with the concept of biochemical individuality, but _The

Metabolic Typing Diet_ is one of the worse diet books I have ever

read. Additionally, I read a review of various different and

conflicting metabolic typing diets in _Metabolic Man: 10,000 Years

From Eden_ and while I liked the book itself, I was not very impressed

with the diets it presented.

We've talked about _MTD_ on the list quite a bit in the past. If you

search groups or go to onibasu.com and search the archives of

this list you should find plenty.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 8/10/06, Suat Sakarcan <suat.sakarcan@...> wrote:

> I would be very pleased if I can hear about the thougths and personal

> experiences of our group members on " metabolic typing " .

I agree with the concept of biochemical individuality, but _The

Metabolic Typing Diet_ is one of the worse diet books I have ever

read. Additionally, I read a review of various different and

conflicting metabolic typing diets in _Metabolic Man: 10,000 Years

From Eden_ and while I liked the book itself, I was not very impressed

with the diets it presented.

We've talked about _MTD_ on the list quite a bit in the past. If you

search groups or go to onibasu.com and search the archives of

this list you should find plenty.

Chris

Read many of the books by the many researchers and followed the protein type,

fast metabolizer higher fat diet for more than a year. Gained weight, that I

could use and then got irritating body heat ups that weren't hot flashes. Only

thing that probably kept the heat ups from being sooner or worse was following

one researcher's advice for animal protein 3X day.

Recently found the slow oxidizer and diet for at Dr.'s site below fit me

better and that is more carniverous than the most carniverous metabolic typing

protein type. Almost what I found I needed to do.

Oxidation Types

http://drlwilson.com/Articles/Oxidation%20Types%201104.htm

Fast & Slow Oxidizer Diets

http://www.drlwilson.com/Articles/fast%20diet.htm

http://www.drlwilson.com/Articles/slow%20diet.htm

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Of course I'm the one defining the " a calorie is a calorie " school so

>maybe my definition is biased but for the sake of clarity I would

>exclude the people who accept that some foods will affect your

>metabolism and energy levels and thus food quality is as important as

>quantity in weight loss.

In my experience this is a pretty fair assessment of that school of

thought. It holds that one's basal metabolic rate is essentially a

constant that can only be changed over time by exercise and muscle

building; that the only way to burn more calories than one's BMR is

to undertake more physical activity, principally through exercise;

and that the only way to lose excess fat is to consume fewer calories

than one " burns " through a combination of one's BMR and exercise. No

account is made of structural use of nutrients or of variances in

metabolic efficiency and absorption and excretion, let alone of the

different energy levels people have on different diets.

>I disagree that someone's " activity level " is anything close to a

>comprehensive indicator of " calories out " in the " calories in calories

>out " equation. It is certainly a very powerful part of " calories

>out, " but so is basal metabolic rate, heat production, mental energy

>use (which is very substantial), cellular housekeeping maintenance,

>and so on.

>

>On that last point, I have read that ketones increase the cleanup of

>cellular debris, which I suspect would take up a considerable amount

>of energy that would have virtually nothing to do with your " activity

>level, " as most would use the phrase.

Heartily seconded. Mental activity and heat production are

particularly significant consumers of energy that don't in any way

qualify as " activity " by most people's lights.

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>So, if I am profoundly wrong then, one can consume fewer calories

>than one burns off, consistently, and still gain weight, or consume

>more calories than one burns off and lose weight?

You're profoundly wrong in assuming that one burns a basically fixed

number of calories per day modified in the short term only by

physical activity level (basically, exercise) and in the long term

only by gross changes in body composition (basically, production or

loss of muscle mass). You're profoundly wrong in assuming that if a

person " has " a " metabolism " of, say, 2000 calories per day, all he or

she needs to do to lose weight is consume fewer calories, regardless

of composition, and/or exercise more in order to burn more calories.

>It seems to me that the issue isn't calories in vs calories out, but

>to what degree different foods can affect how many calories you burn.

Are you conceding the point, then?

> In my own experience (perhaps this explains my skepticism), I

> don't encounter these vast differences that you speak of. If

> anything, they seem pretty small. If I exercise enough to burn the

> calories that I consume, I seem to lose weight, but if not, I gain

> weight. For the most part. I am amused when I read people saying

> that they drink a gallon of coconut oil every day, and can't

> understand why they're gaining weight.

I second 's point, but more generally, are you kidding or

what? You embody a single data point! And from this you're drawing

sweeping conclusions which allow you to sneer at other people who

have more difficulty than you do in regulating their weight?

-