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

[Stoid]

@Sauron

Stoid,
Either calories count, or they don’t.

Either you consider everything that I’ve said and in what context I’ve said it, or you don’t. But I’m not going to continue to respond to anyone who tries to make it seem honest or legitimate in any way to pull out a sentence, or a phrase, in the thousands of words I’ve written in this thread, and make me answer for it as though it represents the entirely of my thoughts, ideas, or opinions. That’s ridiculous, and you know it.

I said it at the very start of the thread: starve enough and you’ll lose!

But while everyone is hunting down a sentence or phrase to try and expose my inconsistencies… anyone care to even acknowledge the totality of what I’ve said on any part of this at all? Do you recognize how many posts I’ve made containing quotes and links and pages of information, as well as my own arguments and responses to teh same questions and accusations repeated multiple ways, that have gone completely ignored, starting with this?

Can it really be possible that so many who choose to take this up and argue it really don’t bother to read any of it, or you read it and decide to ignore it, or you read and you really don’t get it? On this particular subject, which is, after all the main point of the thread, my position is laid out in the OP and I’ve restated it multiple ways. In this morning’s posts, I’ve even linked to information showing you all where YOUR beliefs about these things came from, which backs up MY beliefs. Has there been the slightest acknowledgement?

No. One sentence was picked out (I never denied that starving works) as though it was the only thing I said, then dishonestly dissected.

So let me try and boil it, the OP, my earlier post, and low carb:

Calories:

[ul]
[li]Starving Works in that if you starve enough, you will lose weight.[/li][li]It’s hellish and damaging and gets harder and harder, requiring you to starve more severely to get the same result. [/li][li]When you stop starving, you gain even more fat and weight than before.[/li][li]When you do this, your body changes. After decades, you wont’ have to eat very much at all to be very fat.[/li][li]This is almost impossible to implement consistently over a lifetime.[/li]
[/ul]

Low carb & Calories

[ul]
[li]If you restrict carbs sufficiently you can eat freely without consideration of the caloric content and lose weight, because your body’s fat regulation system will dispose of what it does not need.[/li][/ul]

That’s very simplified, doesn’t address any of the chemistry, etc. But everything I’ve said has been consistent with these basic ideas and beliefs and assertions.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@ladyfoxfyre

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.

ladyfoxfire, you are not in the Pit. Dial back the insults, please.

[twickster]

@ladyfoxfyre

Oh for fuck’s sake.

@ladyfoxfyre

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.

@ladyfoxfyre

You are a moron.

You’re in MPSIMS. If you wish to fling personal insults at the OP, take 'em to the Pit.

@Submerged

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

Similarly, accusations of trolling belong in the Pit.

No warnings issued.

twickster, MPSIMS moderator

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

nm

[TravisFromOR]

…

[Stoid]

@ladyfoxfyre

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. *

Yes. Exactly what I’ve said, too, before I ever read his book.

POST #1

@Me

in the purest possible sense, they are right: if you subtract enough calories over a long enough period of time, virtually every human being will lose weight.

I just said calorie restriction works. Did you catch that?

But the question, the argument, and of course, the sneering ensues when we start talking details: how much are the fat people eating? How much less should they eat to lose? What about to maintain that loss?

Because if they eat fewer calories, they will lose. There, I did it again!

…Assuming the ratio holds, it appears a 2 pound per week loss would only be possible if I reduced my calories to about 860 daily, almost a third below the number considered safe.

I even said it would work for me!

And of course, this is entirely possible to do

.

Not only does it work, it can be done.

But for how long, and how completely food-obsessed is one likely to become when restricted to this extent over long periods of time?

I’m saying it works, but yeah, I’m also saying it’s gonna mess you up.

And again… almost no one has ever claimed it was genuinely not physically possible to do.

Definitely not me. I’m saying it’s possible all over the damn place…

But just because something is technically possible doesn’t mean it’s simple, or easy, or even not-that-hard. Something which is technically possible can be insanely difficult, agonizingly so. And while almost anything is possible over short periods of time, sustaining it over long periods, over one’s entire life, really, is something else altogether.

prag·mat·ic 
 [prag-mat-ik]
–adjective Also, prag·mat·i·cal
1.of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical considerations.

Like, is it really practical to starve for the rest of your life?

If that kind of person pays attention and applies themselves. the degree of deprivation and control is going to be much less severe and much more attainable.

There’s a clear implication: deprivation = calorie restriction->will allow one to “attain” weightloss-Yep. Said it worked again. Even said it would work easier for some people.

a failure to consistently restrict consumption to a bare subsistence level

Because, obviously, if you succeeded at “restricting consumption to a bare subsistence level”, you would have lost weight and maintained the loss. So I’m saying it works in yet another way.

It’s getting harder and harder to understand how anyone could think I said it flat out does not work, I gotta tell ya.

As for me, I’m going to keep plugging away and recording and tweaking and adjusting,

Because it works, I just have to figure out how much I will personally will need to starve before the working begins.

And the ping-ponging is doing to others what it did to me: making people MUCH fatter than they would have been otherwise, because every diet that starves them lowers the metabolism, so when they go back to “normal” eating they are more efficient than ever at storing every calorie, making them fatter, more miserable, more likely to hate themselves and try to starve…which is too hard and collapses into binging, and on and on… until you have an insanely high number of people who are 200, 300, 400 pounds by the time they are 40 who, in order to lose weight, HAVE to nearly starve and continue to semi-starve NOT to be so fat.

So it works at losing weight.
But it also works at making you fatter!
Making the whole “working at weight loss” part more and more difficult to achieve.

Which Keys knew 60 years ago. Sure wish he’d told us that when he told us how effective starving would be for weight loss.

And since that’s insanely difficult for most normal human beings,

Or you might say it’s not really “pragmatic”.

So to say it works isn’t really saying much at all.

And that’s what Taubes and I both have agreed on from the day I started this thread and long before, and what we still agree on.

Now, if anyone can show where I said, think, or believe, for any reason at all, but particularly because I read Taubes’ book, that I now believe, contrary to all of the above, as well as contrary to Taubes himself, who, as you say, acknowledges that sufficient calorie restriction will work, that starving will not result in weight loss at all, no matter how severe, I insist that you show it to me. Because it will be the evidence that someone has stolen my account and made posts I’m not aware of.

If you make the effort to find this elusive post, you will wade through lots and lots of posts and words in which I refer to what Taubes says on the subject of calories in relationship to carb restriction, which can be summed up as :

Excess calorie consumption is not the reason we are fat, it is not the way we became fat, and restricting calories will not solve the real problem, although if you do it severely enough, you will lose weight. But that’s not the same thing as solving the problem, because the problem is that your body is making mistakes in what it does with your calories, so cutting your calories doesn’t change that problem…except perhaps to make it worse.

If you do what you need to in order to solve the real problem, which is to restrict your carbohydrates, you do not need to also concern yourself with calories, because you are not trying to use carb restriction to eat fewer calories overall, you using carb restriction to help your body do what it was designed to do: manage whatever calories you eat, no matter what the number, correctly, including getting rid of what you don’t need from both the food you eat as well as the fat you have already stored.

So, calories count* if you’re counting calories*, and counting calories is a truly terrible and destructive strategy for permanent weight loss in most people, particularly people with significant weight to lose, who are almost certainly obese because their fat regulation system is broken, and counting calories just smashes it all to hell.

Calories do not count if you’re counting carbohydrates, which is the only strategy that is likely to have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting most of us, especially the obese, to genuine permanent weight loss.

[Stoid]

@kimera

You are flat out wrong. Animal domestication is only estimated to be around 12,000 years old. We’ve found evidence for use of grains as early as 60,000 years ago and 100,000 years ago. I imagine more discoveries will push it back even further.

Oh. Okay. It was a casual guess backed by a quick Wiki trip.
Thanks for the information.

[Meyer6]

@Stoid

I have some questions, Meyer.

1.Do you honestly, sincerely,with all your heart and without any reservation or hesitation whatsoever, believe that […] Are identical statements with identical meanings, and that the context for the statements is completely unimportant to determining the meaning of the statements?

I never said they were identical statements, and you know it. I said that you had made statements in the thread which strongly suggest that you believe calorie number doesn’t matter, only calorie content matters. Either you believe this or you don’t - you can’t have it both ways. Now you are conceding that calorie counting does work (although you persist in calling it starvation). I read your statements (as quoted above) and can see that they contradict one another.

@Sauron

Either calories count, or they don’t.

Exactly.

@Stoid

I said it at the very start of the thread: starve enough and you’ll lose!

For the last time - I am not talking about starvation! I don’t know how much clearer I can make that. Sticking to your daily recommended calorie intake is not starving yourself. You are trying to point to your OP, in which you said that you needed to go down to 800 calories a day to lose weight. That is starvation, and that’s not what I mean when I say calorie counting.

[DrDeth]

Dudes, drop it. Look, Stoid is a very entertaining poster, but she is not good at admitting she’s wrong.

And in the larger scheme of things, she may have some details wrong but in general, her idea of adjusting diets to fit individuals is much more correct than counting calories. Calorie counting does not work as a diet. Maybe as a scientific abstraction, but not as a diet.

I have posted peer reviewed scientific studies.

[Stoid]

First of all, I see that I did miss where the goal line changed about halfway through this - shame on me for not noticing that.

Now that I have noticed it…

@Meyer6

For the last time - I am not talking about starvation! I don’t know how much clearer I can make that. Sticking to your daily recommended calorie intake is not starving yourself. You are trying to point to your OP, in which you said that you needed to go down to 800 calories a day to lose weight. That is starvation, and that’s not what I mean when I say calorie counting.

Until this post, I had no clue we were talking about the definition of starvation,
which calorie counts will and won’t work for whom, or anything similar. And it’s really an impossible thing to debate. On these boards we’ve seen an incredibly wide spectrum of working calorie counts for different people.I have no earthly idea what degree of calorie restriction is necessary for anyone on earth except me. Neither can you possibly say that you know what degree of calorie restrictrion is necessary for anyone except yourself, so how in the world have you gone so far down this road?

It started very casually:

MEYER:Incidentally, Stoid, what do you make of people who have lost weight successfully by simply counting calories?

STOID: I think they can handle a lot of discomfort, and hat’s off.

(The following quotes are all in the order they were written)

MEYER: counting calories shouldn’t work at all according to your theory*** (and your OP)***.

You must realize by now, you were making a completely untrue statement about what I said in my OP.

Your Lean Larry/Beefy Bob example basically says that Bob can’t lose weight at all by keeping his calorie count at 1500, because his body will still turn it to fat.

a. I have also talked about this, which was not about what calorie counts worked or not. I pulled the number 1500 from thin air to discuss how Lean Larry’s body deals with the XY calories he needs vs. the XY calories Beefy bob needs. And since I did make a “setup statement” that they both needed 1500 calories, I hope that nowhere in here are you making any argument about the 1500 number itself, which was completely random.

b. As previously described, I was trying to make the whole “fat first, overeat later” phenomenon clear, not asserting anything about whether Bob can or will lose weight on 1500 calories a day.

c. And I for sure wasn’t saying, didn’t say, didn’t hint, that Bob was standing in for everyone and that 1500 was a magic number that applied to everyone.

@Meyer6

The only thing that matters is carbs, right? So why do people lose weight when counting calories but not carbs?

@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.

I never dreamed that you would seize on this, since it’s true, and since there was so much else in that post. But we now know that you were under the misapprehension that I had in fact denied the efficacy of calorie restriction in my OP, and we also know you were entirely mistaken about that.

@Meyer6

Really? You’ve never said that the total number of calories is totally immaterial and the only thing that matters is carbs?

Yes, I’ve said that in the context of carb restriction. (We both agree that that was the context in which I said that, don’t we?)

Okay, here’s where we started to disconnect and I didn’t see it. I noticed this, but didn’t realize how much weight you had put in the 1500 number:

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 (YES, I HAVE) - and those same people will gain weight on a normal 1500 calorie a day diet. (NO, I HAVE NOT - here was your Beefy Bob error.)

That’s what you’re trying to say about yourself - no amount of calorie restriction will make you lose weight, right*?

No, that’s not what I’ve ever said, never, as you now know from the OP.

But now you’re saying that you’ve never said calorie restriction doesn’t work?

Correct, because I never have.

But now you want to admit that restricting calories does work. How do you square that with your theories (and especially with your OP)

?

Obviously I square it because it was never not square.

Then your footnote, which is something entirely new:

*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’.

I would never bandy actual numbers, because, as I’ve said, I have absolutely no idea what the number would be for any individual. For Joe it’s 1000, Jane it’s 1300, Mario it’s 800, etc.

It’s completely immaterial to what I am saying when I say starvation: calorie restriction severe enough to cause your body to break down your body tissues for its needs. “Tissue” includes fat and muscle and organs. Because, and this is critically important to acknowledge, that’s how the bouncy term “calorie counting!” works: starve the body of so it will consume itself. That’s why it’s the word Ancel Keys used for his study. And Keys’ “starvation” study alloted nearly 1600 calories per day. And make no mistake - calorie counting absolutely does lead to breaking down body tissue other than fat, of that there is no question.

So I’m being completely accurate and fair in calling it starvation; that’s exactly what it is. Whether you starve a little or a lot, you must starve yourself in order to lose weight if you are doing it via restriction of calories; it is via starvation that weight loss occurs.
So, it seems most of this has been missing each other. You missed my OP, I missed your concentration on the issue of starvation and calorie numbers.

[Stoid]

@DrDeth

Dudes, drop it. Look, Stoid is a very entertaining poster,

Why thank you, DrDeth. I certainly hope so, or at least that I add value one way or another. I live to give; as long as those who enter my orbit leave with something, it’s all good.

And you’re right. I’m bad at admitting I’m wrong. I do it, but I’m bad at it.

[psychobunny]

I think that there is some evidence showing that eating a low glycemic index diet can help to avoid insulin swings and can curb hunger. However my concern is the statement that calories do not matter at all, that 600 or 6000 calories are the same as long as they are the right kind of calories. Certainly, there is evidence that long-term, both low carb diets and low calorie diets have pretty much identical success rates and there are no significant differences in cardiac health risks to either. However, it has been pointed out several times that when low carb diets are analyzed, they tend to be low in calories also. This may partially be because of increased satiety and partially because of boredom (because a stright low-carb diet gets old very fast). What I don’t see is the data that shows that if you eat an unlimited number of fat calories your body will rev up its metabolism and just burn them away. This is the part that is not supported by science. Where is the data that you can eat 6000 calories of anything daily on a regular basis and not gain weight? Also, it’s somewhat misleading to point to professional athletes as an example. The truth is that metabolism is related to muscle mass. Professional athletes maintain higher muscle masses which raises their metabolism. In addition, there is evidence that the effects of exercise on metabolism last beyond the actual exercise itself. Those who exercise regularly burn more calories throughout the day. Finally, why is it that vegans are rarely obese? They tend to eat less protein and fat and more carbohydrates and yet they tend to have lower body masses and lower levels of heart disease than most.

Again, I’m not saying that low-carb is not the wave of the future. However, despite our obesity and increase in diabetes, life expectancy is still increasing. Long-term the effects of high fat are not well-documented. The initial results seem to indicate no harmful effect on blood lipid levels but the jury is still out on cancer which has been definitively linked to fat intake.

[digs]

I do hope we see a thread in six months titled “I lost a ton!”

… and not a Pit thread: “Dammit! Why did I believe that book?”

We’re pullin’ for ya!

And anyone else here that’s trying to lose. Hang in there!

[Stoid]

@psychobunny

I think that there is some evidence showing that eating a low glycemic index diet can help to avoid insulin swings and can curb hunger. However my concern is the statement that calories do not matter at all, that 600 or 6000 calories are the same as long as they are the right kind of calories. Certainly, there is evidence that long-term, both low carb diets and low calorie diets have pretty much identical success rates and there are no significant differences in cardiac health risks to either. However, it has been pointed out several times that when low carb diets are analyzed, they tend to be low in calories also. This may partially be because of increased satiety and partially because of boredom (because a stright low-carb diet gets old very fast). What I don’t see is the data that shows that if you eat an unlimited number of fat calories your body will rev up its metabolism and just burn them away. This is the part that is not supported by science. Where is the data that you can eat 6000 calories of anything daily on a regular basis and not gain weight? Also, it’s somewhat misleading to point to professional athletes as an example. The truth is that metabolism is related to muscle mass. Professional athletes maintain higher muscle masses which raises their metabolism. In addition, there is evidence that the effects of exercise on metabolism last beyond the actual exercise itself. Those who exercise regularly burn more calories throughout the day. Finally, why is it that vegans are rarely obese? They tend to eat less protein and fat and more carbohydrates and yet they tend to have lower body masses and lower levels of heart disease than most.

Again, I’m not saying that low-carb is not the wave of the future. However, despite our obesity and increase in diabetes, life expectancy is still increasing. Long-term the effects of high fat are not well-documented. The initial results seem to indicate no harmful effect on blood lipid levels but the jury is still out on cancer which has been definitively linked to fat intake.

As you might guess, I’m a bit exhausted at parsing the book to answer these questions, so I do urge you and everyone else to read it.

I said myself that Phelps was an unfair example at the moment I said it - but the fact remains we all know skinny big eaters.

And the actual 6000 calorie thing is mostly theoretical, because once your system is in balance, you don’t really want to eat huge amounts-overeating is driven by fat and insulin. But I’ve read enough posts and blogs from low-carbers over the years to know that some (particularly men, unsurprisingly) maintain prodigious appetites eating very low-carb, and do in fact consume 4,000, 5000 calories daily, that’s not terribly unusual - especially since a low carb diet is very calorie-dense! Platter of bacon for breakfast with a couple of eggs and cheese, cheeseburger for lunch, macadamias for snack, cream in your coffee, big T-bone with plenty of fat for dinner, some veges with butter… no sweat. And I hear of eating like that all the time on low-carb.

I certainly couldn’t do it..yikes… but it’s easy to imagine some people doing it.

[Khaki_Campbell]

@Stoid

When you do this, your body changes. After decades, you wont’ have to eat very much at all to be very fat.

Not very much food making you very fat ? Whoa, let’s isolate the Stoid hormones or whatever, we just found a solution to the Third World’s starvation problems !

[Stoid]

hyell, not to gross you out or anything, but for those of us with a real taste for animal fat, it’s very easy to take in some serious calories: make me a nice prime rib and I like nothing better than that big toupee of fat on top nice and crisp, I can eat it all. Not alone, it needs some meat with it, but still.

And Mexican pork rinds? AKA chicharrones, pork cracklings… the kind with the thick layer of solid fat, not the piggy bubble wrap. My mother could eat slabs of that stuff.

[Stoid]

@Khaki_Campbell

Not very much food making you very fat ? Whoa, let’s isolate the Stoid hormones or whatever, we just found a solution to the Third World’s starvation problems !

Gotta fatten 'em up first. But then, if they are Stoidlike, they can easily maintain 300 pounds on 1400 calories a day.

But of course, it’s easy to be obese and malnourished, too. Fat is not a reliable indicator that one is adequately nourished at all.

[Hbns]

@Stoid

Platter of bacon for breakfast with a couple of eggs and cheese, cheeseburger for lunch, macadamias for snack, cream in your coffee, big T-bone with plenty of fat for dinner, some veges with butter… no sweat. And I hear of eating like that all the time on low-carb.

Reading that makes my heart hurt.

[wonky]

@Hbns

Reading that makes my heart hurt.

In my experience, it isn’t the norm for low-carb eating. Hell, for one thing it would be extremely expensive!

[Drain_Bead]

Low-carb done right is not at all boring. The key is diversity in veggie sides and creative cooking. If you can’t cook, you’ll fail at low carb.