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

August 8, 2006

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

From: " downwardog7 " <illneverbecool@...>

>

> 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.

>

I said that I need to exercise " enought to burn the calories that I consume " , in

order not to gain weight. Isn't this, quite obviously, true of everyone?

August 8, 2006

> I said that I need to exercise " enought to burn the calories that I

consume " , in order not to gain weight. Isn't this, quite obviously,

true of everyone?

Gene,

Unsure. Does it contradict anything you say when I say that many if

not most people--in the world, not the US--needn't do a form of overt

exercise to manage their weight?

tb

August 8, 2006

Gene-

>I'm sure that someone will post otherwise, but my belief is that

>large amounts of coconut oil will add a pretty good number of

>calories, which don't just magically disappear. It would seem

>logical to me that if you're adding those approximately 375 (?)

>calories per day, adding fat, but not reducing carbs, the tendency

>would certainly be to gain weight. Are you getting much more

>exercise now than you did previously?

Exactly so.

>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. ;-)

-

August 8, 2006

-

>I've been re-reading _Your Last Diet_, and in it Kathleen says a sugar

>sensitive person can't lose weight on a high-fat diet--have you found

>this to be true?

What exactly does she mean by a " sugar sensitive person " ?

-

August 8, 2006

Gene,

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.

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

I would say so.

> 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.

I agree with the first point. Critcs of the Atkins diet frequently

claim that it " only works " because they people are eating less

calories. (I have no idea why this would be considered a criticism

though.) 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.

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.

I don't think there are many if any people who, when asked if a food

that gives you more energy will be more effective at weight loss than

one that gives you less energy in isocaloric amounts, would answer no,

but there nevertheless seem to be people who exclude this aspect from

their analysis

> > 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.

I was trying to say that the fact that some foods are more or less

satiating than others would be more important to someone trying to

reduce their food intake than the simple fact that they need to reduce

their quantity of food. In other words, for practical purposes, two

isocaloric foods are not necessarily equivalent.

> 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.

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.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

August 8, 2006

>

> -

>

> >I've been re-reading _Your Last Diet_, and in it Kathleen says a sugar

> >sensitive person can't lose weight on a high-fat diet--have you found

> >this to be true?

>

> What exactly does she mean by a " sugar sensitive person " ?

,

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 " .

She's been working in the trenches with addiction/recovery for many years.

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.

tb

August 8, 2006

I have a few thoughts for you... I would eliminate dairy if I were in

your shoes. You can still do the smoothie, just use coconut milk

instead of kefir. Throw some flax or sunflower oil in the smoothie

for essential fatty acids. Add an extra egg for protein. Dairy can

definately be a factor in you inability to lose weight.

Also, minerals. Major minerals and trace minerals along with your

iodine. I bet you need a fair amount. Use something like kelp

tablets for the trace minerals. And make sure your other nutrients

are covered....

And here is a great excerpt from Adelle ' book, Lets Get Well:

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

" Egon Reich had been interested in nutrition for years but hated

exercise and had been chained to a desk for so long that he described

himself as the " flabbiest man alive " . When I recovered from

astonishment at seeing him hard-muscled, flat abdomened, 45 lbs.

lighter, seemingly 15 years younger, and literally sparkling, I

gasped, " How did you do it? "

" Well, I tried every reducing diet I'd ever heard of, and all they did

was make me feel lousy, " he answered. " Finally I said, 'To heck with

it. The only thing that matters is to build health.' I knew liver was

the best food there is, so I've been eating that. "

He described his diet in detail: liver, milk, and a salad for

breakfast,; a small orange at midmorning; a seafood salad and yeast

stirred into his milk for lunch; a Tbsp. of nuts in the afternoon;

liver, salad, and milk for dinner; and supplements of minerals, and

vitamins A, C, D, and E.

" Haven't been hungry a minute! " , he exclaimed. " Never get tired

anymore. Got more energy now and I'm more alert mentally than I've

been in years. And when you feel wonderful, there's something that

makes you exercise. You can't help it. "

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

Becky

>

> Well, I have to say that I eat very little to no carbs most of the time

> except vegetables and I have increased my fat intake but I have also

gained

> weight but still feel the coconut oil and saturated fats are

important. I

> am different though as I have struggled with my weight all my life

and I am

> still very overweight. I am in my 50's and the only way I have been

able to

> lose weight in the past 6 years was when I went on a diet of 800

calories a

> day ( Ferman's 6 week weight loss). Obviously that is not a good

> solution and I have been searching for why I still cannot loose. I also

> spent four years at the gym spending 45 min. to one hour a day on the

> treadmill or step machine or some other machine like that 6 times a

week. I

> also did weights 3 times a week. I worked out with a guy who has

been body

> building for about 30 years and he couldn't believe I did not lose

weight

> either. I lifted some pretty heavy weights for a woman. On a

normal day

> I have a smoothie in the morning containing kefir, 2 tbls. of

coconut oil, 4

> or 5 strawberries and 1 or two raw eggs. For lunch I have a bowl of

> homemade soup loaded with vegetables but no grains. Dinner I have a

half a

> chicken breast with some veggies. No snacking and no eating at night. I

> drink 3-5 quarts of water a day as well as 16 oz. of kombucha. I

have been

> working on my adrenals and thyroid (taking iodine but no thyroid

meds) and

> still no weight loss. It is very frustrating as I have little tiny

friends

> who eat 4 times what I eat. I have considered gastric bypass but

know that

> is not a good solution either especially after a friend of mine just

went

> through it last year. So believe me I know how you feel. I will say

> though that since changing to the WAP way of eating I have seen

improvements

> in my health and I have to assume that is better than nothing, so I just

> keep plugging along hoping to find what it is that is causing this. I

> believe I have screwed my body up by yo-yo dieting all my life and I

am now

> paying the price but I have to believe my body should heal itself if

I keep

> eating right. Only time will tell.

>

> Allyn

>

August 8, 2006

> What exactly does she mean by a " sugar sensitive person " ?

>

> -

It's a coined term for her theory - that there's a subclass of people

with a certain genetic pattern that includes being on the far end of

the bell curve in at least 3 areas: insulin response to carbs, beta-

endorphin levels, and serotonin levels.

I will reproduce my favorite article about this from her web site.

>

"

The C57 Story: Learn why you are the way you are

Science has a lot to learn about sugar sensitivity. We can't just go

to PubMEd, put 'sugar sensitivity' in the search field and find

hundreds or thousands of citations telling us all about our unique

bodies and behaviors. But the story is there in the science writings,

encoded in unexpected places and in unexpected ways. If we listen and

watch our own stories, we can go back to the literature and better

understand the whys of what we are living.

The Power of the Beta Endorphin Story

I continue to be intrigued by beta-endorphin and its relationship to

the story of sugar sensitivity. I began my relationship with beta-

endorphin when I learned two intriguing themes. The first came from

the work of Dr. Gianoulakis at McGill University. She

noticed that two different strains of mice responded to the effects

of alcohol in very different ways. The C57GL/6 mice had a far more

potent reaction than their " dry " brothers and sisters, the DBA/2

mice. Because of this intensity of the response, they really go for

the booze. C57s are called alcohol-preferring mice and DBAs are

called alcohol-avoiding mice.

As an aside, many other studies have shown that not only do the C57s

have a high preference for alcohol, they also love sweet things. In

fact, some scientists are working with the concept that a preference

for sweet may be an indicator of a risk for alcoholism.

Dr. Gianoulakis and her colleagues have worked with these mice for a

long time. They discovered that the C57's and the DBA have very

different levels of beta-endorphin. The C57's are born with much

lower levels of beta endorphin in their brains, so their brains

increase the number of receptor sites to try to catch more of the

beta endorphin molecules. This is called upregulation. Because they

have more places to catch the beta-endorphin, they get a bigger

response to things that evoke beta-endorphin.

At Risk For Alcoholism

Dr. Gianoulakis extended her study to people and examined a whole

group of people who are known to be genetically predisposed to

alcohol addiction, the children and grandchildren of alcoholics.

Children and grandchildren of alcoholics seem to be the human

equivalent of the C57 mice. They, like the mice, have lowered levels

of beta-endorphin and a heightened response to things that evoke beta-

endorphin like alcohol and sugars.

As Dr. Gianoulakis was publishing her work, a number of other

scientists were noticing that sucrose quieted pain. They discovered

that not only does sucrose quiet physical pain, but also it quiets

the pain of loss or social isolation. When a group of baby chicks

were taken from their mama, they peeped and peeped. When they were

given sugar water, they stopped crying for mama chicken.

Sugar as a Drug

Dr. Elliott Blass, then at Cornell, wanted to understand how this

happens. How could sugar act like a drug? He did some experiments and

showed that sucrose cut physical and emotional pain by evoking the

brain's own beta-endorphin. Beta-endorphin is the body's natural

painkiller. It is called an endogenous opioid or internal painkiller.

Morphine and heroine are opiate drugs, which mean they go and sit in

the brain's beta-endorphin receptor sites and get the brain to block

pain signals. Sucrose acts like an opioid drug such as morphine or

heroin. Not as intensely, but on the same beta-endorphin system.

And, if we return to our friends the C57 and the DBA mice, we

discover that the C57s have a 35 times more powerful reaction to

morphine than do the DBAs. Think of that. Insert sugar in the place

of morphine, and we begin to see why some body and brain types seek

it, love it and get addicted to it. Now the sugar story and the

connection to C57's is well researched through out the scientific

literature. But no one in the science lab is yet making this leap

from the C57 profile to the sugar sensitivity profile in people. But

the " match " is extraordinary.

How We Are Like Those C57 Mice

If we start thinking of ourselves as little C57 mice, we can have

LOTS of clues about why we act the way we do. And we can start

understanding why our DBA friends cannot in any way understand why we

keeping going back when they are able to just say no.

As we continue this discussion, let's stop for a moment and take one

cautionary note about our attitudes towards the different types of

mice (or people). Scientists do not look down upon the little C57s.

Nor do they laud the DBA. They simply know that they are two very

distinct strains with different body chemistries. If they wish to

look at the effect of a given intervention and want to see the

differences in different body types, they order both kinds of mice.

Getting Rid of the Negative Spin

So, we can work on taking the negative judgment and shame off of the

C57 way of life. Our first step is understanding. As we get how this

works, we can start making choices for healing. And then TURN US

LOOSE!

Let me list some of the C57 " facts " I have found with my own

research. I can then reflect with you on what it might mean for our

healing.

All C57's regardless of their gender like sweet stuff more than DBAs.

A C57 male will prefer sweets more than a DBA female will.

In a situation called defeat-induced learned submission, the DBAs

looked for an escape, while the C57's crouched, became immobile and

defensive. Defeat-induced learned submission comes from a release of

beta-endorphin.

The defeated mice developed tolerance to the beta-endorphin released

in response to defeat.

C57's get hyperactive with morphine. DBAs do not.

Caffeine antagonized the hyperactivity in C57's caused by morphine,

i.e. when the C57's were given caffeine and then morphine they did

not become hyperactive.

When withdrawing from morphine, C57's become lethargic and passive.

Let's translate what I wrote above and play a little. Replace the

word C57 with a sugar sensitive person and replace the word morphine

with sugars.

Let's go through the list again.

1. We all know some people who act like DBAs. They are the ones who

say to us, " Why don't you just......say no.. " They are the ones who

decide to diet and do and then lose ten pounds in a month. They are

the ones who give up chocolate for Lent and never look back, the ones

who carried a little orange pumpkin at Halloween. They are the ones

who would eat the chocolate chip cookie only if they were hungry. We

know immediately who they are. Since society tends to recognize and

value DBA behavior, we will judge ourselves against their standard.

We carry the message that " DBA behavior is good, C57 behavior is bad. "

2. And we also know that WE are the C57's. Intriguing to think why we

can feel connected to the C57 mice so well. We are often children of

alcoholics. We feel deeply, struggle with self-esteem issues, are

sensitive, creative and impulsive. We may do rage or depression. And

we all share the deep feeling language whether we are male or female.

3. When we feel defeated and overwhelmed, we assume the fetal

position, lie still and don't move, and tell everyone is not our

fault. Now, we may not do this on the outside. On the outside we may

be doing big theater and having everyone believe that we are

absolutely in control. But inside we are holding on by a thread and

feeling horrible.

We may be " lying still " way inside our hearts but we absolutely know

this pattern. And we see our DBA friends who when faced with the same

crises, get mobilized and energized. We take Prozac; they change jobs

and get a promotion. We hate this " injustice " and have not a clue how

biochemically mediated it is.

4. Sweet foods give us " energy " . That means they get us out of the

lethargy of beta-endorphin withdrawal. Sweet foods can give us " motor

mouth. " We become engaging, funny and self confident. Sometimes our

friends wonder if we have been drinking.

More often, we chose other C57s as friends, so we go out

for " coffee " , have cake and REALLY enjoy our social times. And having

coffee with the sweet roll feels like heaven. We get clear, focused

and relaxed for about 30 minutes. We LOVE that feeling. And those

cold frosty coffee, sugar drinks (you know which ones I mean) are the

BEST because they make us feel so energized. Our DBA friends enjoy

their coffee (they have the plain bagel), but they do not live for it.

5. We see these same behaviors clearly in our children and

grandchildren. Give a three-year-old C57 a piece of birthday cake and

he will be the life of the party. Give a two-year-old a twelve-ounce

can of Sprite on the plane and she will be bouncing over the top of

the seat for two hours. The more work we do with our program, the

more clearly we see this profound shift in behavior pre and post

sugar.

6. When we detox from sugar, we kinda sits around and waits till its

over. We hunker down with our discomfort. Immobile. We literally feel

as if our cells are made of lead and/or are all screaming. We feel

the effect of withdrawal in our gut, our skin, our brain - wherever

there are beta-endorphin receptor sites.

The Patterns Are Powerful

Pretty interesting isn't it. For many years we have struggled with

learned helplessness, with self-esteem that fades in a moment. We

vacillate between hyperactive clarity and lying on the couch in a

stupor. The Dr. Jeykll/Ms.Hyde syndrome is very close to home.

Beyond Mood Swings

But now, I am pushing us beyond the idea of mood swings. I am

inviting you to think of yourself as a big C57 and to connect with

the enormity of what these mouse studies mean for us. Those things

which we have considered " character flaws " for all this time are a

function of your sugar sensitive biochemistry.

Our alcohol, sugar, fat, white things literally get us mobilized,

make us brave, funny, self confident for a little. But we only

remember the feeling okay, feeling brave. It's why so many people who

come to the forum lament that they cannot imagine giving up the

sugar. It's the " only " thing that makes life worth living. This is

addiction. This is being caught in a place that kills us. But we

don't see it.

The Power and the Disappointment of Beta Endorphin

The beta-endorphin hit wears off and we crash. Then it's horrible.

And we become more immobile, hopeless, demoralized, overwhelmed and

tearful. But we do not make the connection to withdrawal. What we

remember is that when we " use " we feel okay. And so we are willing to

trade 30 minutes, then ten minutes of feeling okay for the rest being

horrible because we are so desperate to feel okay. We will do

ANYTHING not to experience the horror of the withdrawal.

Ironically, many sugar sensitive people are very intolerant of

alcoholics and drug addicts. But alcoholism and drug addiction are

only the more intense forms of what we ourselves experience - a life

driven to feeling better, terror of the withdrawal, and a life

centered around getting our " fix. "

Putting the Story Together

And along comes the Potatoes Not Prozac food plan. Suddenly things

start to make sense. The vague " knowing " we have had for a while (and

we are intuitive people!) gets a name. It makes sense. We don't have

to think of ourselves as hopeless, depressed and out of control. We

are sugar sensitive. But Potatoes Not Prozac is only the beginning of

the story.

We create stability. We heal the brain. We take out the foods like

sugar and white things that prime us. Sometimes this spooks us

because when we take out the stuff that has made us feel " good " in

the past, we enter an uneasy space. We feel better overall, but

hardly confident. After all, our core brain is a C57, not a DBA.

Raising Beta Endorphin Naturally

This is the magic of all those things we affectionately refer to on

the www.radiantrecovery.com forum as BE raising activities. Mozart,

laughter, exercise, yoga, meditation, prayer, pups, babies,

grandbabies, good sex, rollerblading, and great movies. What is not

to like in the list? Do these things and create beta-endorphin. Slow

and steady beta-endorphin. They wash us with feeling self-confident.

And it grows on us. The more we feel it, the more we want to do these

things.

Many of us have been listening to the voices on the forum. We can see

these patterns as our friends in the sugar sensitive community make

changes with the food. The voices of our " newbies " are very different

from the voices of the " old-timers. " When our food wobbles, we

wobble. We whine, we munch, we get cranky. We go into beta-endorphin

crash. We retreat, we isolate, and we crouch, get defensive and

withdraw. Beta-endorphin crash.

Claiming Our Birthright

And miracle of miracles, when the food is steady, we are steady. We

are funny, compassionate, tolerate, patient, resourceful and willing

to hang in there and find solutions. Same bodies, same brains, same

biochemistry. But under the influence of a different way of eating.

Balance brings our birthright home.

August 8, 2006

>

> >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?

August 8, 2006

Fly Genetics Reveal Key Workings Of Atkins Diet

" It has been unclear how TOR (Target of Rapamycin) signaling affects

the insulin pathway, " said Oldham.

" Our study adds another dimension to TOR's activity by revealing

unexpected and novel levels of beneficial regulation of insulin

metabolism, by reducing insulin resistance.

This study provides the first details of how TOR may regulate energy

homeostasis and responses to aging, in particular the coordination

of weight reduction effects caused by caloric restriction and, in

humans, it may explain the effects of the Atkins diet. It suggests

that reducing TOR function could lead to a possible treatment for

any or all symptoms of metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance. "

Reference:-

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060807122147.htm

August 8, 2006

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

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

> Gene,

>

> 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.

> > 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.

>

> > 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.

>

> I agree with the first point. Critcs of the Atkins diet frequently

> claim that it " only works " because they people are eating less

> calories. (I have no idea why this would be considered a criticism

> though.)

No. I don't either.

>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.

>

> 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?

>

> I don't think there are many if any people who, when asked if a food

> that gives you more energy will be more effective at weight loss than

> one that gives you less energy in isocaloric amounts, would answer no,

> but there nevertheless seem to be people who exclude this aspect from

> their analysis

Really? Seems quite absurd to exclude that factor entirely.

>

> > > 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.

>

> I was trying to say that the fact that some foods are more or less

> satiating than others would be more important to someone trying to

> reduce their food intake than the simple fact that they need to reduce

> their quantity of food. In other words, for practical purposes, two

> isocaloric foods are not necessarily equivalent.

Well, ok. That's obvious, I think.

>

> > 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.

>

> 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....

> 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.

>

But - what I wonder is - if you add up all of these non physical activities, how

many calories are you talking about? Has anyone ever studied this, and resultant

weight loss?

> Chris

> --

> The Truth About Cholesterol

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

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

August 8, 2006

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 think virtually any person at all would eat the cookies, unless they

were for some reason committed to not eating cookies. I wouldn't eat

them, because I've committed myself ideologically to 1) not eating

wheat, 2) not eating refined sugar and 3) not snacking. I would think

most people haven't made that type of committment and most people

would eat some cookies, not necessarily because they are " dependent "

on them but because they smell good and they know they'll taste good.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

August 8, 2006

On 8/8/06, beckymauldin2001 <beckymauldin@...> wrote:

> " Haven't been hungry a minute! " , he exclaimed. " Never get tired

> anymore. Got more energy now and I'm more alert mentally than I've

> been in years. And when you feel wonderful, there's something that

> makes you exercise. You can't help it. "

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.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

August 8, 2006

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

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

> On 8/8/06, beckymauldin2001 <beckymauldin@...> wrote:

>

> > " Haven't been hungry a minute! " , he exclaimed. " Never get tired

> > anymore. Got more energy now and I'm more alert mentally than I've

> > been in years. And when you feel wonderful, there's something that

> > makes you exercise. You can't help it. "

>

> 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.

>

> Chris

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

to many of them.

August 8, 2006

Chris-

>I wouldn't eat

>them, because I've committed myself ideologically to 1) not eating

>wheat, 2) not eating refined sugar and 3) not snacking.

This may seem like tedious nit-picking in the extreme (and let it

never be said that I'm not a tedious picker of nits) but while your

use of the term " ideologically " is definitely defensible on technical

grounds, I think it's misleading and therefore unwise. Ideology

typically refers to political, religious or moral beliefs, not to

documentary facts and scientific theories, so by characterizing your

eating commitments as ideological in nature, you're suggesting that

they're rooted in politics, religion or morality rather than

science. As many people do decide what to eat and how to eat it on

genuinely ideological grounds (Muslims and vegetarians being two

obvious examples) I think it's an important distinction.

-

August 8, 2006

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.

-

August 8, 2006

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

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

>

,

Ha! To some of us, it's so obvious.

A big welcome, sister Steph!

B.

August 8, 2006

> I think virtually any person at all would eat the cookies, unless they

> were for some reason committed to not eating cookies. I wouldn't eat

> them, because I've committed myself ideologically to 1) not eating

> wheat, 2) not eating refined sugar and 3) not snacking. I would think

> most people haven't made that type of committment and most people

> would eat some cookies, not necessarily because they are " dependent "

> on them but because they smell good and they know they'll taste good.

>

Nope, I disagree. You may be surrounded with sugar sensitives, but if

you take a *random* poll, I think you'll find something different.

Do you not know many people who eat normally--even if they eat crappy

SAD food--who eat when they are hungry and don't obsess about dessert

or drink too much? It's a whole different relationship with food.

Anyway, what about the second question? Talk to me about the frosted

milk.

B.

August 8, 2006

> 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)

Oh that's funny. I'm with , I've watched lots of people answer

that question and the ones who don't give a rip just look at you

funny, they don't get why it's even a question. They're all, " well

what did I already have that day? am I hungry? am I going to be

busy? " as if those answers could compare with the smell and taste!

Connie

>

August 8, 2006

> This may seem like tedious nit-picking in the extreme (and let it

> never be said that I'm not a tedious picker of nits) but while your

> use of the term " ideologically " is definitely defensible on technical

> grounds, I think it's misleading and therefore unwise. Ideology

> typically refers to political, religious or moral beliefs, not to

> documentary facts and scientific theories, so by characterizing your

> eating commitments as ideological in nature, you're suggesting that

> they're rooted in politics, religion or morality rather than

> science. As many people do decide what to eat and how to eat it on

> genuinely ideological grounds (Muslims and vegetarians being two

> obvious examples) I think it's an important distinction.

,

*fap* *fap* *fap*

B.

August 8, 2006

tb you have it exactly right. Very nice explanation.

As to " working hard to prove it, " Dr. DesMaisons made a decision

early on NOT to be the one to do the double-blind studies, but

instead to have a community of real people working on experiential

data. Hence the working groups over there.

However she does talk to the " rat doctors " as she affectionately

talks about people like Bart Hoebel at Princeton. There's a story

that Hoebel was thinking how to set up the withdrawal experiment, and

Dr D told him how to get the rats to eat in a binge pattern - just

make them eat like overweight middle-aged women, and from that, we

have Hoebel's ongoing rat studies that have so far shown 2 of the 3

signs of physical addiction for sugar (and yes, everyone agrees it's

milder than other addictive drugs)

Conie

>

> --- In , Idol <Idol@>

wrote:

>

> > 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

>

August 8, 2006

--- In , " cbrown2008 " <cbrown2008@...>

wrote:

> > Eat the cookies.

> >

> > (he's watching)

>

> Oh that's funny. I'm with , I've watched lots of people answer

> that question and the ones who don't give a rip just look at you

> funny, they don't get why it's even a question. They're all, " well

> what did I already have that day? am I hungry? am I going to be

> busy? " as if those answers could compare with the smell and taste!

>

Connie,

He's just taunting me 'cause he thinks it's hilarious when I'm on the

pipe.

tb

August 8, 2006

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