I unhappily report that I am right about obesity and diet (Very long)

[TravisFromOR]

@Stoid

To find “more”, you’d need to start by finding one.

I’ve always found that no matter what happens later in a thread, it’s always a good practice to read the OP, just to get the lay of the land.

My OP was long, I grant you, but this is only the third sentence:

I think that can only be described as a clear, unambiguous declaration, the meaning of which it is impossible to misconstrue, (assuming you speak English, of course.).

You said:

I don’t believe I have ever denied that [reducing calories will result in weight loss].

Then I quoted you as denying that reducing calories will result in weight loss. What you said in the OP is irrelevant. You made a clear unambiguous declaration, the meaning of which is impossible to misconstrue that you do not believe that reducing calories will result in weight loss.

[Stoid]

@LilyoftheField

well…maybe just as low carb diets often automatically reduce calories (through reducing appetite), low calorie diets may also be having the effect of automatically reducing carbs? After all, when you go on a diet, the first thing that most people do is eliminate or at least minimize sugars - no cake, cookies, ice cream, donuts - along with going easy on the pasta, potatoes? - that’s kind of a given even on a low cal diet, isn’t it? Which, coincidentally is the first thing to go on a low carb diet also.

just speculating…

A speculation others have also made. Certainly logical.

[Meyer6]

@Stoid

Because sufficient restriction of all calories will result in weight loss. I don’t believe I have ever denied that, Meyer. Wait. I KNOW I’ve never denied that because I’ve never even thought it, so there’s no “belief” involved.

Really? You’ve never said that the total number of calories is totally immaterial and the only thing that matters is carbs? Not here:

@Stoid

Calories are not the issue,

Or here:

@Stoid

For those who think I’m misunderstanding the book, and calories are what it’s all about, and low-carb is just a sneaky way to make low-calorie eating easier, and because we are eating fewer calories we lose fat..NO

Or here:

@Stoid

[…] it’s nonsensical to say that “calories count”. They don’t. The composition of the calories is what counts.

Or here:

@Stoid

In other words: we do not get fat because we eat too much, we eat too much because we’re fat. In more other words, calories in and out are not the problem.

Or here:

@Stoid

600 calories or 6,000 makes absolutely no difference to anything.

Especially not here:

@Giraffe

Are truly claiming that, all other things being equal, the amount of calories one consumes has no bearing on whether or not they gain/lose weight? That a person can eat 10,000 calories a day and not gain weight, provided they eat certain foods/types of foods?

@Stoid

Essentially, yes. (although my god, 10,000 calories is a horrifying amount of food.)

Up until now you’ve been saying that people can eat absolutely as much as they want on a low-carb diet and still lose weight - and those same people will gain weight on a normal 1500 calorie a day diet. That’s what you’re trying to say about yourself - no amount of calorie restriction will make you lose weight, right*?

But now you’re saying that you’ve never said calorie restriction doesn’t work? I beg to disagree - you’ve said that a lot. And you’ve said its corollary - if you eat the right thing no restriction of any sort is required. You can’t believe that unless you believe that the number of calories truly doesn’t matter.

But now you want to admit that restricting calories does work. How do you square that with your theories (and especially with your OP)?
*And note that I’m talking about calorie counting to a normal daily limit - say 1200-2000 calories depending on height and sex. So if you’re planning on coming back and saying “I meant that if you eat 500 calories a day you’ll lose weight” don’t bother, because that’s starvation, and that’s not what people mean when they say ‘calorie counting’.

[DrDeth]

@LilyoftheField

well…maybe just as low carb diets often automatically reduce calories (through reducing appetite), low calorie diets may also be having the effect of automatically reducing carbs? After all, when you go on a diet, the first thing that most people do is eliminate or at least minimize sugars - no cake, cookies, ice cream, donuts - along with going easy on the pasta, potatoes? - that’s kind of a given even on a low cal diet, isn’t it? Which, coincidentally is the first thing to go on a low carb diet also.

just speculating…

Right. Yes, there’s no doubt that eating 500 calories a day will cause you to lose wieght (it’s called “starvation”) and eating 10000 will pack on the pounds.

However, that’s besides the point. The point is- counting calories just plain doesn’t work. And, all calories- as ingested- are not the same. Your body treats different foods in different ways.

Low carb does result in calorie reduction. But the point is, that despite that, you are not hungry. Getting all that protein and fat, your body generally signals “OK, that’s fine”. It’s really hard to eat more calories on a low-carb diet. Yes, one can binge on bacon- but try doing that 3 meals a day for a week. :eek:

Low-carb works & appears safe. It’s right there in the fucking NEJM:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681
Mediterranean and low-carbohydrate diets may be effective alternatives to low-fat diets. The more favorable effects on lipids (with the low-carbohydrate diet) and on glycemic control (with the Mediterranean diet) suggest that personal preferences and metabolic considerations might inform individualized tailoring of dietary interventions.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa055317
Our findings suggest that diets lower in carbohydrate and higher in protein and fat are not associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease in women. When vegetable sources of fat and protein are chosen, these diets may moderately reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.

and
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6980/full/428252a.html?free=2
*Samaha and Foster each randomly assigned obese volunteers to either an Atkins-style low-carbohydrate or a traditional low-fat diet. In Samaha’s six-month study, subjects on the low-carb diets lost the most weight — an average of about 6 kilograms, roughly three times the weight loss reported for the low-fat group. Foster’s smaller, year-long trial initially showed similar results, but the difference between the two groups had disappeared by the end of the year.

These two studies provide the best evidence so far that low-carbohydrate diets may be of some use for patients who need to shed weight — at least in the early stages of their treatment. “We have moved it from quackery to science,” says Foster. "Maybe there is something there, with the emphasis on the ‘maybe’.

The trials also failed to find signs that cutting carbohydrates rather than fats will increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. If anything, levels of artery-clogging triglycerides, and of ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ cholesterol, were slightly better among the volunteers on the low-carb diets."
…
Ideally, five years down the road, with lots of scientific data behind us, we would be in a position to recommend diets tailored to individuals such as, say, diabetics, meat lovers, or those with difficulty sticking to a low-fat diet," says Foster. “This whole idea of one diet wins, one diet loses, seems to say that every overweight person is the same behaviourally and metabolically, and that is just silly.”*

**Peer reviewed scientific journals. **

Do note that they agree with me in **that fiber, esp from leafy greens needs to be included. ** But that adds little calories.

And I’ll note that these articles validate Stoid’s points- *to an extent *= "personal preferences and metabolic considerations might inform individualized tailoring of dietary interventions…This whole idea of one diet wins, one diet loses, seems to say that every overweight person is the same behaviourally and metabolically, and that is just silly."

[Philster]

@Stoid

You guys are cracking me up. What is the dog you have in this hunt, anyway? Have you stopped to think about it? Are you personal trainers and diet coaches who need to crush any idea that threatens your livelihood?

I train people and yet I am firmly convinced that long-term, meaningful weight loss is, essentially, a myth. This considers many sound, but different, approaches.

People can lose weight… many in small to modest percentages. Few can ever dream of getting to an ideal BMI or close to it by dropping a large % of weight.

By the time you get down to the people who can keep it off long-term… it’s so rare as to be quite alarming. It’s so rare, it’s fair to say that human beings, as a collective group, are utter failures when it comes to diet/lifestyle change that result in long-term weight loss. The body is completely reprogrammed and is ‘reset’ to drive itself back to it’s heaviest weight. You can fend it off to some degree, and scrape and claw and do everything in your power… and the body… will… get… you… back to the weight you started at… or very damn close.

[Ferret_Herder]

@DrDeth

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa055317
Our findings suggest that diets lower in carbohydrate and higher in protein and fat are not associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease in women. When vegetable sources of fat and protein are chosen, these diets may moderately reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.

I’m trying to envision a low-carb vegan diet and failing.

[pulykamell]

The there is this study for instance, with a counterpoint:

Survey data such as these have the perspective of a person’s entire lifetime and thus may include many weight loss attempts, some which were successful and some unsuccessful. It is more typical to assess “success” during one specific weight loss bout. In standard behavioral weight loss programs, participants lose an average of 7–10% (7–10 kg) of their body weight at the end of the initial 6-mo treatment program and then maintain a weight loss of ≈5–6 kg (5–6%) at 1-y follow-up. Only a few studies have followed participants for longer intervals; in these studies, ≈13–20% maintain a weight loss of 5 kg or more at 5 y. In the Diabetes Prevention Program (9), ≈1000 overweight individuals with impaired glucose tolerance were randomly assigned to an intensive lifestyle intervention. The average weight loss of these participants was 7 kg (7%) at 6 mo; after 1 y, participants maintained a weight loss of ≈6 kg (6%), and, at 3 y, they maintained a weight loss of ≈4 kg (4%). At the end of the study (follow-up ranging from 1.8 to 4.6 y; mean, 2.8 y), 37% maintained a weight loss of 7% or more.

Thus, although the data are limited and the definitions varied across studies, it appears that ≈20% of overweight individuals are successful weight losers.

Of course, that is from 2005. I don’t know what the last 5 years of research have brought.

[Stoid]

Saying that my statement in the OP is irrelevant doesn’t make it so, but I can understand why you’d hope.

@TravisFromOR

Then I quoted you as denying that reducing calories will result in weight loss.

No, you did not quote me denying that reducing calories will result in weight loss.

This:

But Bob’s body, given only 750 calories, will burn 300 and store the other 450 as fat. then Bob will grow weaker, more lethargic, and insanely hungry. If Bob fails to eat more calories, Bob’s body is likely to start breaking down Bob’s muscles and non-fat tissue for fuel, because Bob’s regulatory system for all this is fucked up and his body wants him to have a certain amount of fat, and will make sure he does, no matter how much or how little Bob actually eats.

is not

You made a clear unambiguous declaration, the meaning of which is impossible to misconstrue that you do not believe that reducing calories will result in weight loss.

It isn’t that in isolation, and it definitely isn’t that in the context of the post you’re quoting, which was a reply to the following question:

@One_And_Only_Wanderers

I don’t understand the “the fat came first” point. If an individual is not eating excess calories, then where did that fat come from?

in the 3,000 calorie thread that I retitled and added to this thread to explain the counterintuitive idea that fat precedes overeating.

It explains and describes several related things, primarily the mechanism by which becoming fat first drives “overeating” later. But not a single one of them is the idea that no amount of reducing calories will ever result in anyone losing any weight at all. In fact, that particular quote doesn’t even say that Beefy Bob himself won’t lose weight, although it could certainly be inferred - but your inference is not my clear, unambiguous, impossible to misconstrue declaration, now is it?

What it actually says is that Bob’s body will probably start breaking down his muscle and other tissues, (the implication being that he will or may actually end up weighing less than he did before) and that’s exactly what I was explaining: how a person’s regulatory system can be messed up in such a way that a person’s body will misuse the calories it gets, creating fat cells while breaking down muscle. I was describing in “Beefy Bob” a phenomenon observed in rats that are genetically predisposed to obesity: they will in fact lose weight if you starve them enough. But when you open them up after they starve to death, you see that they have starved to death because their bodies destroyed their organs and muscles, rather than use up their fat. (The issue of what the rats and Bob actually weigh hasn’t actually been addressed at all, by the way - this is all about fat itself. But by the time Bob and the rats are on the autopsy table, does it really matter?)

What you have done here is what I see Meyer has done on preview: grabbed every instance of my talking about calories at all, without any regard to the context (the overall context being: “Yes, you can eat low carb and high calorie and lose weight”) and claimed it as an example of my saying “I deny that calorie restriction ever results in weight loss.” Well, that’s simply dishonest.

Starve any living organism for long enough, and they will definitely lose weight. I said it loud and clear at the start of this thread.

In fact, I’ve said it many times. I always acknowledge it, for this reason: ***to keep everyone in the discussion honest. ***(huh? you say… this leads back to the threads that prompted me to post this very thread to begin with! I love it when everything flows and fits…)

In past threads when fat people were being accused of claiming that it was “impossible” to lose weight,*** I **have stepped in to clearly, unambiguously acknowledge that sufficient calorie restriction absolutely will result in weight loss and that this is irrefutably obvious (check out concentration camp footage-I have yet to see a fat prisoner). I don’t believe that any fat person on these boards has ever sincerely tried to sell anyone the idea that it was truly, biologically impossible for them to lose weight no matter what they did, and therefore, to accuse fat people of making such a claim was intellectually dishonest and muddied the debate. *

Hey, hang on a minute…I just realized that this is the same damn bullshit accusation in a new dress! “fat people claim it’s impossible to lose weight!” “stoid claims no amount of calorie restriction results in weight loss!” What’s the goal here, exactly? Lie about what the fat people say so you can discredit them as delusional and dismiss them entirely? Yeah, sounds about right. You guys…tsk tsk…pretty sneaky.

What fat people have said, do say, what*** I*** say, what I’ve said here, what Ancel Keys’ research proved 60 years ago at the same time it proved that reducing calories will make you lose weight, is that it’s a bad way to lose weight, that the more you do it the harder it gets, that it fucks with your metabolism and makes you fatter in the end, hungrier, weaker, more food-obsessed, and that what ***actually is ***pretty damn close to genuinely impossible is for a normal human being to sustain it over a lifetime.

So no, you will not find a single instance of me saying that I believe that no amount of calorie restriction will result in weight loss, because I do not, nor have I ever, believed that to be a true statement, and I do not say things that I do not believe are true, especially such ignorant things - why in the world would I?

[Zyada]

To convert pulykamell’s for us American’s

7-10% of body weight (16-22 pounds)
5-6 kg = 11-13 pounds

They measured in terms of percent of body weight, but if the average was both 16-22 pounds and 7-10% body weight, that means (if I’ve done my math right) the average starting weight was ~ 230. That means that except for the very tallest they all started out obese and ended up… at best overweight [per here]

[DrDeth]

@Ferret_Herder

I’m trying to envision a low-carb vegan diet and failing.

Soy. Nuts. Leafy greens. It’d be tough. :eek: But they don’t say to go vegan, just to add some vegetable sources of fat & protein.

[Ferret_Herder]

@DrDeth

Soy. Nuts. Leafy greens. It’d be tough. :eek: But they don’t say to go vegan, just to add some vegetable sources of fat & protein.

Good point with the soy; I was thinking of it as a legume, and that category seems to get dismissed from low-carb diets (that I’ve noticed) for being too carby. I checked the article in question and in my skim of it, the phrasing was vague as to whether it meant “your protein sources all have to be vegetable if you want the cardiac benefits” or “pick as many vegetable sources of protein as possible to increase cardiac benefits.”

A friend was trying to promote Atkins to my husband and I, but really, I’m not going to give up being a vegetarian in hopes of avoiding going barely out of normal BMI every few years. And the also-praised Mediterranean diet is much more up my husband’s alley than either being veg or eating on the Atkins plan.

[ladyfoxfyre]

@Stoid

Because sufficient restriction of all calories will result in weight loss. I don’t believe I have ever denied that, Meyer.

Oh for fuck’s sake.

[Meyer6]

@Stoid

What you have done here is what I see Meyer has done on preview: grabbed every instance of my talking about calories at all, without any regard to the context and claimed it as an example of my saying “I deny that calorie restriction ever results in weight loss.” Well, that’s simply dishonest.

I did not grab every instance of you talking about calories - if I had there would be a lot more quotes there. I grabbed some instances of you saying that calorie count does not matter. Take this quote:

Giraffe: Are truly claiming that, all other things being equal, the amount of calories one consumes has no bearing on whether or not they gain/lose weight?
Stoid: Essentially, yes.*
You’ve just stated that the calories consumed have no bearing on weight gain or loss. Now you’re just trying to backpeddle out of this by talking about starvation. Did you read my post? I specifically said I’m not talking about starvation. I’m talking about limiting your daily intake to a reasonable number of calories for your height, age, and sex, without specifically limiting carbs. Why is it that that has worked for many people, if by your theory those people should either stay fat, or end up destroying their internal organs and dying of starvation?

So no, you will not find a single instance of me saying that I believe that no amount of calorie restriction will result in weight loss, because I do not, nor have I ever, believed that to be a true statement, and I do not say things that I do not believe are true, especially such ignorant things - why in the world would I?

I just quoted you saying that. It’s not my interpretation, it’s right there in black and white (TravisFromOR’s quote is good as well - you clearly said Bob wouldn’t lose weight no matter how little he eats). If what you really mean is that calorie counting is unpleasant, then say that. I think you’re the one being dishonest here.

[ladyfoxfyre]

@Stoid

Hey, hang on a minute…I just realized that this is the same damn bullshit accusation in a new dress! “fat people claim it’s impossible to lose weight!” “stoid claims no amount of calorie restriction results in weight loss!” What’s the goal here, exactly? Lie about what the fat people say so you can discredit them as delusional and dismiss them entirely? Yeah, sounds about right. You guys…tsk tsk…pretty sneaky.

You are so full of shit I’m starting to suspect that a few well-planned trips to the bathroom would alleviate you of a large part of your weight problems in a matter of minutes.
Nobody is lying about what you’ve said, you’ve just decided to redefine the whole game here and accused everyone else of disingenuous behavior after you got painted into a corner. You have said repeatedly, as has been pointed out to you before, that calories in and of themselves do nothing to contribute or detract from weight loss, only their carbohydrate content does. You trotted out the example of the “very honest” “self reporting” anorexic girl who was allegedly consuming 4,000 calories a day to demonstrate that very fact. How she was eating 4,000 calories and not gaining weight.
You read Taubes book, which says over and over again how calories don’t count. He says over and over again that studies that just restrict calories are not effective in the long-run. *Not that they don’t work, just that they’re not pragmatic at a 600-calorie a day level. *

You even DISMISSED THE IDEA of low-carb being calorie restrictive and that was the main mechanism of action of the weight loss. You told us how you ate a bunch of cornbread to “treat yourself” on your “low carb” diet but it wasn’t that much, only 600 calories worth or so, but it wouldn’t matter how many calories it was anyway because CALORIES DON’T COUNT.

And now you’re trying to say that you have never ever ever said that calorie restrictive diets don’t work.

You’re a piece of work. I’m fucking done here.

[Stoid]

I have some questions, Meyer.

1.Do you honestly, sincerely,with all your heart and without any reservation or hesitation whatsoever, believe that

“I deny that sufficient restriction of all calories will result in weight loss.”
&
“Calories are not the issue”

Are identical statements with identical meanings, and that the context for the statements is completely unimportant to determining the meaning of the statements?

2.Do you honestly, sincerely,with all your heart and without any reservation or hesitation whatsoever, believe that

*“I deny that sufficient restriction of all calories will result in weight loss.”
*&
“For those who think I’m misunderstanding the book, and calories are what it’s all about, and low-carb is just a sneaky way to make low-calorie eating easier, and because we are eating fewer calories we lose fat..NO”

Are identical statements with identical meanings, and that the context for the statements is completely unimportant to determining the meaning of the statements?

3.Do you honestly, sincerely,with all your heart and without any reservation or hesitation whatsoever, believe that

“I deny that sufficient restriction of all calories will result in weight loss.”
&
…“it’s nonsensical to say that “calories count”. They don’t. The composition of the calories is what counts.”

Are identical statements with identical meanings, and that the context for the statements is completely unimportant to determining the meaning of the statements?

4.Do you honestly, sincerely,with all your heart and without any reservation or hesitation whatsoever, believe that

“I deny that sufficient restriction of all calories will result in weight loss.”
&
…“In other words: we do not get fat because we eat too much, we eat too much because we’re fat. In more other words, calories in and out are not the problem.”

Are identical statements with identical meanings, and that the context for the statements is completely unimportant to determining the meaning of the statements?

5.Do you honestly, sincerely,with all your heart and without any reservation or hesitation whatsoever, believe that

“I deny that sufficient restriction of all calories will result in weight loss.”
&
…“600 calories or 6,000 makes absolutely no difference to anything.”

Are identical statements with identical meanings, and that the context for the statements is completely unimportant to determining the meaning of the statements?

6.Do you honestly, sincerely,with all your heart and without any reservation or hesitation whatsoever, believe that

*“I deny that sufficient restriction of all calories will result in weight loss.”
&
…"*Originally Posted by Giraffe **
Are truly claiming that, all other things being equal, the amount of calories one consumes has no bearing on whether or not they gain/lose weight? That a person can eat 10,000 calories a day and not gain weight, provided they eat certain foods/types of foods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoid
Essentially, yes. (although my god, 10,000 calories is a horrifying amount of food.)
"

Are identical statements with identical meanings, and that the
context for the statements is completely unimportant to determining the meaning of the statements?
If your answer is no, you don’t really believe it, then we can just move on.

If your answer is yes, you sincerely, with all your heart and without any reservation whatsoever genuinely believe that all these things mean exactly the same thing, that the context in which they were said makes no difference whatsoever to determining the meaning, and that you are sure that the meaning is “I deny that sufficient calorie restriction will lead to weight loss.”, then that’s certainly very important for me to know.

Because it means that further discussion about this with you is, in a very concrete and insurmountable way, completely pointless, and I will have to politely, but firmly excuse myself from continuing.

[Sauron]

Stoid, I’m pulling for you in your weight loss. I’m not obese, but I need to drop about 20 pounds.

I do think you need to back away a little bit. From a relatively objective viewpoint, you seem to be shucking and jiving with what you’re claiming you said. Look:

@Stoid

Let’s say I eat 2000 calories of fat and protein. My insulin doesn’t spike and my body burns and excretes all 2000 calories. Then it reaches into my fat cells and burns another 1500 and I lose 8 ounces of fat.

Or I eat 2000 calories of cornbread. My insulin goes crazy and stuffs my fat cells with an extra 8 ounces of fat.

2000 calories.

One scenario, I lose weight.
The other, I gain.
Since the number of calories is the same, it’s nonsensical to say that “calories count”. They don’t. The composition of the calories is what counts. Are they composed of fat and protein, or carbs?

Either calories count, or they don’t.

[Stoid]

@Meyer6

I grabbed some instances of you saying that calorie count does not matter…

In the context of carb restriction for weight loss.
Which is not, in any respect whatsoever, the same thing as denying that sufficient calorie restriction will result in weight loss.

And if that distinction is genuinely beyond you, then as I say, continuing is pointless.

[ladyfoxfyre]

@Stoid

In the context of carb restriction for weight loss.
Which is not, in any respect whatsoever, the same thing as denying that sufficient calorie restriction will result in weight loss.

And if that distinction is genuinely beyond you, then as I say, continuing is pointless.

You are a moron.

[Submerged]

Wow, Stoid must be laughing her ass off right now, she really got you folks going for awhile there!

This is one of the biggest and largest trolling projects I’ve ever seen, here or anywhere. Look at all of you that fell for it, spent hours posting in this thread and even tried to reason with her. Then after 12 pages and almost 600 posts, she simply flip-flops, denies saying everything she’s said and has big fat giggle watching y’all bang your heads on your desks.

[MsWhatsit]

@Submerged

This is one of the biggest and largest trolling projects I’ve ever seen, here or anywhere.

You’re new here, aren’t you, kid?