Weight Loss

[Guest guest]

I have noticed going up to 4.5 mg.......I have lost 2 lbs..and decreased

appetite......which is good in my case.......thanks Sandy

----- Original Message -----

From: " msblonde716 " <msblonde716@...>

<low dose naltrexone >

Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 3:54 PM

Subject: [low dose naltrexone] Weight Loss

> Has anyone experienced any weight loss while on LDN? I have lost 7

> pounds, not that I'm complaining, but just wonding how long it will

> last...

>

> Thanks

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Has anyone experienced any weight loss while on LDN? I have lost 7

pounds, not that I'm complaining, but just wonding how long it will

last...

Thanks

[Guest guest]

I have lost 16 pounds in the past 2.5 weeks (same time I have been

on LDN.) Lost 46 lbs. before that, but not so quickly. I don't have

any problem eating meals, but have no desire to snacking. The loss

is a good thing for me (still way overweight) but I remember reading

posts from people who are underweight who said that the weight loss

was a problem for them.

[Guest guest]

I just came back from a trip to the supermarket. Often I am a " peeping tom "

in the supermarket and take a nosy look at what people are eating/buying.

What I see is: tons of baked goods (cakes, pies etc), lots of white breads,

cookies, chips, potato chips, pretzels, sodas. They wouldn't be selling 'em

if people weren't buying them. There are aisles and aisles of this stuff.

on 9/24/2004 2:52 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Hi JR:

>

> Well I sympathize with those who find it difficult to lose weight.

> But I do not understand why. And I do not understand your post

> either. You say it is not that simple. You say that severely

> overweight eaters are far from the margin. But the data I showed

> suggest that in order to become severely overweight all they had to

> do was be 50 calories over their caloric expenditure for long

> enough. That is at the margin, IMO. The same thing presumably is

> just as relevant for weight loss as it is for weight gain.

[Guest guest]

I agree. People who think they are eating next to nothing may, without realizing it, be eating mostly calorie-dense, high-fat, and high-glycemic foods. That will make all the difference.

Besides, what does "next to nothing" really mean? It's subjective. If it's next to nothing compared to a VERY high-calorie diet, it may actually be above average. People's reports of their intake are fairly unreliable. Also, if the person is relatively sedentary, then that person will have a harder time losing weight.

Finally, Rodney's numbers really represent averages, don't they? Correct me if I'm mistaken there, but metabolism plays a big role. I myself gain weight relatively easily, which makes it easier for me to maintain a fairly low calorie level without losing weight--a definite benefit from a CR point of view.

As an aside, while many men report fantastic hunger at calorie levels of 1800 to 2000, I can get ~ 1500 to 1600 calories daily without experiencing as much hunger as I had before meals previously on my old AL diet. I'm roughly 5'11". I go running a couple of miles every day and do resistance training as well. I am thin but have a BMI hovering above 19.

Lots of fiber and low-glycemic foods may be the real key. I typically get over 50 g of fiber a day and occasionally well over 60, though that is less typical.

Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...> wrote:

I just came back from a trip to the supermarket. Often I am a "peeping tom"in the supermarket and take a nosy look at what people are eating/buying.What I see is: tons of baked goods (cakes, pies etc), lots of white breads,cookies, chips, potato chips, pretzels, sodas. They wouldn't be selling 'emif people weren't buying them. There are aisles and aisles of this stuff.on 9/24/2004 2:52 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:> Hi JR:> > Well I sympathize with those who find it difficult to lose weight.> But I do not understand why. And I do not understand your post> either. You say it is not that simple. You say that severely> overweight eaters are far from the margin. But the data I showed> suggest that in order to become severely overweight all they had

to> do was be 50 calories over their caloric expenditure for long> enough. That is at the margin, IMO. The same thing presumably is> just as relevant for weight loss as it is for weight gain.__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

But Jeff,

There is a large psychological thing that drives people just as Francesca says. Surely Duke after 70yrs should be aware of psych principles as I'm sure you are also. It's akin to curing an alcoholic. People can overdo their enthusiasm for chocolate, french fries, hamburgers, pizza, and keep returning to that special meal.

I've reached the point that I consider all food my enemy and make friends with none. That doesn't stop me from eating a steak occasionally, but I don't enjoy it that much anymore. Call me O/C, but BP drove me to take positive steps to control weight as well as sodium. I'm determined to see my gson grad medical school in 20yrs, so maybe it takes some "extreme" desire to curb/replace the desire for food intake.

That may not work as well for youngers. Never-the-less there should be some way for professionals to project the thought to patients to lose weight.

One 600#er said he would get a fried chicken meal on the way home to supper. So we're not talking just a few hundred calories too much in his case. You can't run off an extra fried chicken meal.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Jeff Novick

Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 3:07 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Weight Loss

not to keep harping on it, and not to be Off topic, but, if the topic is "weight loss" than the following statements have absolutely no evidence supporting them...>>>People who think they are eating next to nothing may, without realizing it, be eating mostly calorie-dense, high-fat, and high-glycemic foods. That will make all the difference. >>Lots of fiber and low-glycemic foods may be the real key. My concern is with the emphasis on "low glycemic". In regard to weight loss, its irrelavant, and, as recent analysis has shown, there is little if any evidence to support it in relation to any other issue also. However, fiber, now thats another thing!! If weight loss is the topic, not only is (low) energy density very important, as is (high) nutrient density (for CR-ON) but, we would also be much better off paying attention to the fiber/calorie ratio of food that the GI or GL. In fact, fiber/calorie will prove effective not only for weight loss, but also Diabetes, CVD, and certain cancers as more and more data is showing.Jeff

[Guest guest]

Right. I dont think we disagree.

My comments were only in relation to GI and GL. They are virtually impossible

to teach or explain as the reality of the GI GL is 1) there is an incredible

amount of variables that influence these numbers even in any one food, 2) if we

could figure out point 1, there isnt any evidence to show it works in relation

to weight or other dieseases.

As far as your other points. I agree. While not quite the same as you, I had to

change my whole outlook on food, nutrients, nutrition, eating and my life, to

make this work for me. I didnt have HTN, CVD, or DB but wanted a HQ life.

And, the good news is that not only did the resulting " diet " contrinute to a

higher QL, so did making the changes in my outlook. I love the foods I eat, I

love to eat, its just not an obsession for me, nor is it a form of

entertainment, nor does every meal have to be an orgasmic experience. I have

come to appreciate the quality, flavors and tectures of whole natural foods for

what they are.

I think part of the problem is that we live in a society that is obsessed with

food, does use it as entertainment too much , does expect every meal to bethe

equivalent of a full body orgasm and has no apppreciation for whole natural

foods. And we have a huge industry of companies that are making billions

promoting these very concepts.

I think the alcoholic has it easier as he doesnt ever have to put alcohol in his

body again. But a human must eat and usually has no knowledge of what to eat,

how to eat and or why to eat. Than, usually for some health issue, they are

forced into trying to learn this later in life in the midst of a society and

culture where the loss of huge profits is at stake if the person does figure it

out.

Unerstanding that, pushing the GI and GL makes sense. Give consumers an issue

that is completely confusing, hard to understand, and of course, doesnt work.

Food and the food industy has become the modern day opiate for the masses.

What I think would be most interesting is to do a psychological profile and

testing of those who have made the commitment to this kind of life (ie Cr-ON,

Ornish, Pritikin etc) and have been successful at it.

They have done that with the subjects in the National Weight Control Registry,

and while they have been extremely susccessful at losing weight, I am not sure

they would meet all the criteria of a healthy diet and thier average BMI of them

post weight loss is 26 " ish " . Much better than the starting 35 " ish " but not

quite Cr-ON or healthy. I will post what they found out.

Well, got to go, another hurricane is coming.

Speaking of which, I made some interesting observations during the last 3

hurricanes that hit here this season. I went to the grocery stores just before

the hurricanes hit, and for all the people who are supposed to be on " low carb "

diets, the bread aisles were the first to be cleaned out after the water. As

was the cookies, cakes, crackers, etc etc. For me, it was a pleasure to shop

cause the only thing left on the shelves, was the healthy items. Now, maybe

not all the ideal Cr-ON foods, but under the circumstances of facing the loss of

water, and electricity for days, I was suprised (maybe not) that no one touched

the dried fruits, nuts, seeds, natural almond and peanut butter, the 100% whole

grain crackers, the pure fruit jam and jellies, the salt free cans of beans,

vegetables, the low sodium, water packed sardines, salmon, tuna and chicken

breast, low sodium/fat canned soups, etc etc.

I even wrote up a PR " Heart Healthy Hurricane Survival Guide " that I sent out to

all the media outlets but alas, no one was interested.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

There are also age-related changes in metabolism.

I never had any weight problems before age 53. At 55, I noticed that

the same amount of food (3000 cal) seemed to be converted to fat more

easily. Exercise helped somewhat, but what finally made the

difference was reducing my calories.

I now need to eat about 2000 calories per day and exercise 1/2 hour

(200 cal) to maintain my weight. It is still a strange feeling to eat

relatively so little and understand that it is enough. After a small

meal I still feel hungry and it is not until half an hour later that I

feel that I ate enough. I think that sometimes we get fat because we

are victims of the habits that we developed in our youth and we don't

adapt the way that we eat as we age. I have learned that I have to

measure my food before I eat it and not let my feeling of hunger or

fullness determine how much I eat.

Tony

[Guest guest]

I said......

>>>What I think would be most interesting is to do a psychological profile and

testing of those who have made the commitment to this kind of life (ie Cr-ON,

Ornish, Pritikin etc) and have been successful at it. They have done that with

the subjects in the National Weight Control Registry, I will post what they

found out.

The current studies and abstracts on this group of successful long term dieters

are all listed here....

http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/default.htm

Again, while not CR-ON, it is a group of typical Americans who have, on average,

lost 65 lbs and kept it off for 6 years (around 14% losing over 100 lbs and

around 13% keeping it off for over 10 years). The average caloric intake they

report is around 1400 calories (1750 for men and 1300 for women) which is much

lower than the US average.

Also of note, most all of them have found that a lower calorie, lower fat diet

to be the best way to either lose the weight and/or keep it off.. Less than

1% of them used a higher protein or high fat diet. The average fat intake was

23% with 1/3 of them consuming diets with < 20% fat. Less than 5% used

medication and less than 2% used surgery.

In the midst of this " bulging " Obesity Epidemic, this is an amazing group, and

proof of not only that it can be done, but how to do it also. So, maybe not

CR-ON, but still a worthy group to be studied and learned from

[Guest guest]

You may be overstating your objection slightly. It seems there is at least SOME evidence, although the jury is still out. That's why I hedged my initial statement with "may."

A search through PubMed turns up studies indicating a possible relationship between GI/GL and weight control. See for example a study from 2003, 15023593. Here's a relevant quote:

"A recent study from our group found significantly greater weight and fat mass decrease among obese adolescents consuming a reduced GL compared to a reduced fat diet for 12 months. Animal studies support a role for GI in body weight regulation. Moreover, GI and GL appear to affect risk for diabetes and heart disease after controlling for body weight. Conclusions - Reduction in GI/GL comprises a novel and exciting approach to the prevention and treatment of obesity and related complications. A low GI/GL diet may be an ideal compromise between low fat diets at one end of the spectrum, and very low carbohydrate diets at the other. Long-term, large-scale studies of such diets should assume a high public health priority." Jeff Novick <jnovick@...> wrote:

not to keep harping on it, and not to be Off topic, but, if the topic is "weight loss" than the following statements have absolutely no evidence supporting them...>>>People who think they are eating next to nothing may, without realizing it, be eating mostly calorie-dense, high-fat, and high-glycemic foods. That will make all the difference. >>Lots of fiber and low-glycemic foods may be the real key. My concern is with the emphasis on "low glycemic". In regard to weight loss, its irrelavant, and, as recent analysis has shown, there is little if any evidence to support it in relation to any other issue also.

> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/ms-tnef name=winmail.dat__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

>>You may be overstating your objection slightly. It seems there is at least

SOME evidence, although the jury is still out. That's why I hedged my initial

statement with " may. "

Unless you think we can violate the laws of thermodynamics,GI and GL are

unrelated to weight loss. No doubt there are some abstracts that may suggest

there is, but when you look at how the studies were done you will see that in

any well controlled study, it is useless.

The Okinawans eat one of the highest GI diets there is, and rural japan also had

one of the highest GI diets also but as the average GI of their diet has fallen,

average body weights have risen over time.

The WHO, IOM , NAS, USDA have all reviewed the data and come to the same

conclusion as me.

( the change in LDL is a transient one that would even out over time if all

other things are equal)

Recent reported in AJCN...

ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION

No difference in body weight decrease between a low-glycemic-index and a

high-glycemic-index diet but reduced LDL cholesterol after 10-wk ad libitum

intake of the low-glycemic-index diet1,2,3

Birgitte Sloth, Inger Krog-Mikkelsen, Anne Flint, Inge Tetens, Inger Björck,

Sophie Vinoy, Helena Elmståhl, Arne Astrup, Lang and Anne Raben

1 From the Department of Human Nutrition, Centre for Advanced Food Studies, The

Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg, Denmark (BS, IK-M,

AF, IT, AA and AR); Danone Vitapole, Paris (SV and VL); and the Department of

Applied Nutrition & Food Chemistry, Lund University, Sweden (IB and HE)

Background: The role of glycemic index (GI) in appetite and body-weight

regulation is still not clear.

Objective: The objective of the study was to investigate the long-term effects

of a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet with either low glycemic index (LGI) or

high glycemic index (HGI) on ad libitum energy intake, body weight, and

composition, as well as on risk factors for type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart

disease in overweight healthy subjects.

Design: The study was a 10-wk parallel, randomized, intervention trial with 2

matched groups. The LGI or HGI test foods, given as replacements for the

subjects' usual carbohydrate-rich foods, were equal in total energy, energy

density, dietary fiber, and macronutrient composition. Subjects were 45 (LGI

diet: n = 23; HGI diet: n = 22) healthy overweight [body mass index (in kg/m2):

27.6 ± 0.2] women aged 20-40 y.

Results: Energy intake, mean (± SEM) body weight (LGI diet: -1.9 ± 0.5 kg; HGI

diet: -1.3 ± 0.3 kg), and fat mass (LGI diet: -1.0 ± 0.4 kg; HGI diet: -0.4 ±

0.3 kg) decreased over time, but the differences between groups were not

significant. No significant differences were observed between groups in fasting

serum insulin, homeostasis model assessment for relative insulin resistance,

homeostasis model assessment for ß cell function, triacylglycerol, nonesterified

fatty acids, or HDL cholesterol. However, a 10% decrease in LDL cholesterol (P <

0.05) and a tendency to a larger decrease in total cholesterol (P = 0.06) were

observed with consumption of the LGI diet as compared with the HGI diet.

Conclusions: This study does not support the contention that low-fat LGI diets

are more beneficial than HGI diets with regard to appetite or body-weight

regulation as evaluated over 10 wk. However, it confirms previous findings of a

beneficial effect of LGI diets on risk factors for ischemic heart disease.

[Guest guest]

Sorry for the delay in responding but I just got in last night from a few

days out of town.

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

re: #1. Do you disagree that 50 kcal per day, times 365 days, times 20

years divided by 3500 equals ~100 pounds of weight? Presumably not.

-------------

I haven't done the math recently, I will take your word for it. I repeat my

qualification that for the incremental calories to impact weight they must

be absorbed and stored by the body. So I agree that X " fully absorbed "

incremental calories will result in Y lbs of weight increase.

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

re:# 2. Do you disagree that 100 pounds of excess weight is, 'excessive'?

Presumably not.

-------------

That's a trick question right? Excess = excessive. Any excess weight is

excessive by definition.

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

re: # 3. Do you think that fifty calories per day is an unreasonably large

amount of restraint to expect an individual to exert in the interests of

his/her health? I wouldn't think you would.

------------

No, 50 Kcal is literally peanuts. I believe significantly overweight

individuals probably need to adjust far more to lose weight or they would

have already.

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

re: #4. Do you believe that the people who are obese and unable to lose

weight really are 'eating next to nothing' as some of them claim? (If they

are then they are performing miracles of energy conservation.)

----------

No. Obese individuals eat quite a bit. I did.

I tried to explain the obvious cause and effect to a friend at the gym a few

months back who claimed he was one of those individuals who gained weight

while eating " almost " nothing. Of course that just isn't possible but about

the only thing that would convince him are a few weeks locked in a

controlled environment.

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

re: #5. Do you believe the simple '3500 kcal equals one pound of weight' is

invalid? Or that it is not true that an energy intake deficit below caloric

expenditure will result in weight loss? (Ignoring, obviously, day to day and

week to week fluctuations caused by degree of hydration, etc).

------------------------

As, I've addressed in #1 the linear relationship between calories of

potential energy content in food and weight gain or loss depends upon how

much of that gets absorbed by the body.

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

re:# 6. Or, do you think the rest of us manage to maintain a reasonable

weight because we have hopelessly inefficient intestines? Or body

temperatures a degree or two above normal because of a 'fast metabolism'?

(Certainly not true in my case. Nor among those established in CR who are

noted, as I understand it, for having body temperatures appreciably below

normal).

-----------

In all of your questions you have made assumptions about what I may believe.

I am not an apologist for or currently a member of the vast and increasing

overweight population. My concern is that your advice to just eat one less

banana/day is not only overly simplistic but not helpful.

===========

My basic premise is that all calories ingested do not get absorbed

identically. I base this solely on my personal life experience. After 40-45

years of being overweight with at least one period of being technically

obese (based on BMI). I know a little about what worked and didn't for me. I

also had some very contradictory experiences. I do not offer this a

scientific proof but it is the basis of my personal understanding.

First, I was over weight early in my teens but I did not actually become

obese until my first formal day job where the combination of sitting for 8

hrs a day with multiple coffee breaks each day involving plenty of ice cream

and pastry snacks caused me to rapidly gain weight. I believe I would have

kept gaining weight beyond that obese level had I not adjusted my exercise

up and my eating down. While I stopped gaining I remained significantly

overweight.

The contradictory data point occurs some 10+ years later when I was less

active but maintained a stable heavy but not obese weight for more than a

year while surely eating more calories than I did while obese. I concede up

front the potential inaccuracies of my personal recollection of a eating

pattern some 20+ years ago. However I have a pretty vivid recollection and

it was easy to quantify things like eating a full package of this or that.

Back in those days I did my food shopping every day because I ate everything

in the house, every night. My only restraint was at the market.

Out of curiosity a few months ago I loaded this particular daily pattern

into DWIDP for analysis. I was consuming over 6,000 kcal/daily, and did so

almost every day for one or more years! This was after I read and gave up on

the original Atkins' diet which may explain the macronutrient ratio.

25/59/16% P/F/C The numbers don't sound as embarrassing as detailing the

actual foods consumed but it doesn't take much imagination to gather it

involved a lot of meat. One example of the Atkins influence was I'd eat a

full package of hotdogs but without any bread or buns.

I don't have a defendable thesis for how I could consume so much without

blimping up further, or why my younger self was gaining weight rapidly

without apparent slowing on what to my recollection was less calories.

However I do have plenty of speculation.

I assume a body would need to manufacture more enzymes and digestive agents

than normal to fully absorb the massive amounts of food I was consuming,

typically in one large meal. Taking a paleo perspective on this, some

speculate we were consuming predominantly fats and proteins back then. There

may have been minimal evolutionary benefit from adapting to absorb huge

protein/fat intakes while simultaneously evolutionary/survival pressure to

reduce energy absorption when fat stores are adequate as easily sensed by

circulating leptin or some other marker. High caloric density carbohydrates

just weren't a factor during that period and so there was no evolutionary

pressure to limit absorption from that pathway. Most evolutionally pressure

was to increase energy intake not reduce it for obvious reasons.

While I can't prove any of this, my impression is that I attained my record

maximum weight and would have surely continued gaining on what appears to be

a lower calorie but vastly different macronutrient mix than during that

later period of my life. My interpretation is that my body was very

effective at capturing the energy from simple carbs, but limited in it's

ability to absorb large amounts of dietary fat. At the risk of providing too

much information and taking this conversation to the bowels of the

situation. I recall seeing undigested food in my stool. While I did not

routinely study my excrement, corn comes to mind as a typical example

because it was so visible and easily identified. FWIW, I still eat corn

today but I never see undigested food these days. So I do not have a

personal problem digesting corn, only when it's consumed in combination with

massive amounts of food.

I hope you will agree that food which appears to be passed intact will not

have any meaningful energy extracted from it. For those of us who are even

slightly restricted I don't expect to find same. I recall that Dean P ran

some lab tests on his and found only a modest % of cals were not absorbed.

I do not wish to arm wrestle with others about their understanding, but I

have a strong belief in what I feel I've observed in myself. Some of my

personal observations support the Atkins/sugar buster dietary approaches

that gained some popularity, perhaps because macronutrients do make some

difference. IMO arguing to fat folks that all they need to do is eat one

less banana per day is not helpful. Contrary to the old axiom that fat

people are jolly most have spent lots of time, money and effort on failed

attempts to lose weight. Giving them bad advice will only set them up for

yet another failure or anger them if they already know you're wrong.

I believe it's true that if an individual is already in a weight loss mode

that cutting out one banana daily while holding everything else constant

should result in your calculated incremental weight loss. But IMO that's far

different from a heavy yet stable individual making the same adjustment.

They'd probably be better off adding that same banana to what is typically a

garbage diet where it would probably displace some lower quality calories

later.

I don't wish to open a debate over set point defense and other efficiency

variations. I have mastered my weight for several years now, but it's

nothing to brag about as a percentage of my lifetime. I don't think it was a

simple matter of awareness as much as improved impulse control that comes

with maturity (and some better tools). As a teen I well understood the

correlation between wonder bread and my spare tire.

I find the entire CR community a great resource for nutrition science. I

don't think it should be considered a weight management program per se but

suspect many are attracted here for that reason. For them I offer that there

are a significant number in this community who were formerly obese and would

love for you all to be successful too. I don't wish to speak for others but

invite any of my formerly obese peers who were able to get trim by simply

eating 50Kcal less per day to chime in now with support of Rodney's claim.

I stand firm in my argument that it isn't that simple. I applaud all out

there who are currently working to lose weight. It is hard work but

worthwhile so keep up the good hard work.

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...]

Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 1:53 PM

Subject: [ ] Weight Loss

Hi JR:

Well I sympathize with those who find it difficult to lose weight.

But I do not understand why. And I do not understand your post

either. You say it is not that simple. You say that severely

overweight eaters are far from the margin. But the data I showed

suggest that in order to become severely overweight all they had to

do was be 50 calories over their caloric expenditure for long

enough. That is at the margin, IMO. The same thing presumably is

just as relevant for weight loss as it is for weight gain.

Sincerely no offence intended, but I suggest the following questions,

which are not meant to be rhetorical (i.e. they are seeking answers,

if you feel in a mood to answer them) may provide a means to getting

to the root of the issue:

0. I guess my first question ought to be: Do you believe people who

find it difficult to lose weight are eating too many calories? Or do

you think there is some other reason? Depending on the answer to

this some of the following questions may not be relevant.

1. Do you disagree that 50 kcal per day, times 365 days, times 20

years divided by 3500 equals ~100 pounds of weight? Presumably not.

2. Do you disagree that 100 pounds of excess weight

is, 'excessive'? Presumably not.

3. Do you think that fifty calories per day is an unreasonably large

amount of restraint to expect an individual to exert in the interests

of his/her health? I wouldn't think you would.

4. Do you believe that the people who are obese and unable to lose

weight really are 'eating next to nothing' as some of them claim?

(If they are then they are performing miracles of energy

conservation.)

5. Do you believe the simple '3500 kcal equals one pound of weight'

is invalid? Or that it is not true that an energy intake deficit

below caloric expenditure will result in weight loss? (Ignoring,

obviously, day to day and week to week fluctuations caused by degree

of hydration, etc).

6. Or, do you think the rest of us manage to maintain a reasonable

weight because we have hopelessly inefficient intestines? Or body

temperatures a degree or two above normal because of a 'fast

metabolism'? (Certainly not true in my case. Nor among those

established in CR who are noted, as I understand it, for having body

temperatures appreciably below normal).

There must be an explanation. And I think most possible explanations

can be understood in the context of one or more of the above. Can

you can see why I do not understand?

I have some views as to why many people are unable to lose weight,

but they may be OT for this forum, I think. And they may not be

correct. Addiction is one possibility.

Do you have any ideas as to what the reason might be? The

explanation and the solution will probably be worth two Nobel prizes.

Rodney.

--- In , " " <crjohnr@b...>

wrote:

> Having been overweight most of my life with periods of obesity,

weight

> gain/loss is not that simple.

>

> I recall periods as a young adult when I consumed easily 3x my

current

> energy intake while being reasonably stable, albeit heavier.

>

> When you consume large amounts of food your body doesn't capture

every

> calorie. While I believe it is possible to master the beast, it's

not as

> trivial as eating one less banana. Perhaps in the margin but

severely

> overweight eaters are far from the margin.

>

> JR

[Guest guest]

Let me comment on the Dean item. He redid that a year later and reduced his caloric intake.

"My question for you: is the average 311 kcal/day in your stools a typical value?{Dean} How the heck am I supposed to know? It is not that I do bomb calorimetrymeasurements of my stool on a regular basis! I've had the test done once, andthat is what it showed."

Also, if I could get a "fat" person to eat one less banana per day, it would be the coup of the century (ha).

I agree we don't absorb everything we eat. I'm don't recall we CRers, in total, figuring out if the excess counts in life extension.

To reveal it a different way. read the book; "the wreck of the dumaru" by Lowell thomas. The crew was forced to abandon ship and sail for several thousands of miles without food and very little water. The survivors were interviewed during recovery and one noted he did not defecate for several weeks during refeeding. When it did start it was small black balls, completely consumed.

So I THINK I don't want to reach that point and to have enough mass to maintain motility, I THINK we have to eat some excess for the bacteria. Why the body does not use those calories to increase weight, I don't know, but maybe it's the combination of foods.

regards.

----- Original Message -----

From:

Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 5:29 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Weight Loss

I hope you will agree that food which appears to be passed intact will nothave any meaningful energy extracted from it. For those of us who are evenslightly restricted I don't expect to find same. I recall that Dean P ransome lab tests on his and found only a modest % of cals were not absorbed.JR

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

I would have thought the reason it was not absorbed was simply that

that is the food that never happened to get into direct contact with

the wall of the small intestine in its travels through the system.

No?

Rodney.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

Why the body does not use those calories to increase weight, I don't

know .........

[Guest guest]

A possibility of course. I guess it might be true if one eats a lot of fiber.

But enzymes reduce the stuff to soluble and at the lower end, the water is extracted so I'd think most of the solubilized nutrients would get absorbed. I see from time to time, pieces of whole corn and peanuts and raw spinach.

I think there might be a lot of factors working in the absorption equation.

How well the food is ground.

How well the acid "tempers" the fiber.

How much of each enzyme is available.

How much the receptor will allow passage of and the timing of the digestion with the position of the receptor.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 10:27 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Weight Loss

Hi JW:I would have thought the reason it was not absorbed was simply that that is the food that never happened to get into direct contact with the wall of the small intestine in its travels through the system. No?Rodney.