Re: Why calorie restricted diets are so dangerous

#3 01-21-2005, 10:33 AM

A Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:38:50 GMT, GMCarter <fiar[at]verizon.net>
escribi�:
- quote -

> Low carb seems to work for about 6 months and then the effect seems to
> wane, according to perhaps the largest, best controlled study I've
> seen to date. Low fat also will work (depending on if the proteins and
> carbs used are derived from good sources and not just a lot of simple
> sugars or burnt steaks).

The studies that show the best results are low-calorie
diets, not low-fat diets.

--
bicker�

#2 01-21-2005, 10:31 AM

A 20 Jan 2005 15:47:28 GMT, markd[at]toad-net.com escribi�:
- quote -

> > You just got lucky in that you happen to inadvertently restrict the
> > right things ie. carbs.
> Bunk, pure horse puckies, total unsupported crap

Indeed. How the **** does he know specifics about YOUR
experience?

--
bicker�

#1 01-21-2005, 08:38 AM

On 20 Jan 2005 09:09:44 -0800, "TC" <tunderbar[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

> It is not bunk, it is science. I've offered proof in many, many posts
> over the last couple of years. I've presented a large number of studies
> that have found low-carb to work better than low-fat and be healthier
> by its reduction of cholesterol and improvement of other health
> indicators.

I think the trick is calorie restriction but assuring a nutrient dense
diet. How that is achieved and SUSTAINED over the long term is up to
the individual in a lot of ways (and local food availability).

Low carb seems to work for about 6 months and then the effect seems to
wane, according to perhaps the largest, best controlled study I've
seen to date. Low fat also will work (depending on if the proteins and
carbs used are derived from good sources and not just a lot of simple
sugars or burnt steaks).

Mostly--it's calorie restriction. But probably not always.

The point being, everyone is different.

George M. Carter

01-20-2005, 04:09 PM

It is not bunk, it is science. I've offered proof in many, many posts
over the last couple of years. I've presented a large number of studies
that have found low-carb to work better than low-fat and be healthier
by its reduction of cholesterol and improvement of other health
indicators.

You can prove me wrong by doing as I suggested in the post that you
responded to. You can really prove me wrong by going further and eating
a high-fat/high-calorie/low-refined carb diet for two months. Keep
track of the calories and your weight and your general health
indicators such as cholesterol and blood sugars, etc. Then switch to a
high-carb/low-fat/low-calorie diet for two months, track your calories
and your weight and your health indocators.

Then come back and tell us what happened.

TC

m...[at]toad-net.com wrote:
- quote -

> Bunk, pure horse puckies, total unsupported crap; I'm feeling
charitable
> today. Provide support on the web outside your assertions. Did
those in
> the camps in europe only restrict carbs? You have failed completely
in
> supporting your nutritional theology before, but let's give you
another
> chance. Show us how calories are not involved in weight status, show
us
> how restricting them doesn't lead to weight loss.
>
>
> > You just got lucky in that you happen to inadvertently restrict the
> > right things ie. carbs.
> >
> > Try cutting fats and upping refined carbs and I guarantee you that
your
> > apparent ability to easily control your weight will go right out the
> > window. That is what has happened to millions when they specifically
> > try to lose weight by cutting fats.
> >
> > TC
> >
> > Chris Malcolm wrote:
> > > Doug Freese <dfreese[at]hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Trying to control weight strictly by food/caloric intake
> > > > reduction is doomed to fail.
> > >
> > > Except of course in my case. Whenever my trousers get too small, I
> > > start eating a bit less until they fit. It's worked for thirty
years.
> > >
> > > What do you think explains my strange response of losing weight to
> > > reducing portion size? Is there something wrong with me?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Chris Malcolm cam[at]infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD
#205
> > > IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ,
UK
> > > [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

#-1 01-20-2005, 02:47 PM

Bunk, pure horse puckies, total unsupported crap; I'm feeling charitable
today. Provide support on the web outside your assertions. Did those in
the camps in europe only restrict carbs? You have failed completely in
supporting your nutritional theology before, but let's give you another
chance. Show us how calories are not involved in weight status, show us
how restricting them doesn't lead to weight loss.

- quote -

> You just got lucky in that you happen to inadvertently restrict the
> right things ie. carbs.
>
> Try cutting fats and upping refined carbs and I guarantee you that your
> apparent ability to easily control your weight will go right out the
> window. That is what has happened to millions when they specifically
> try to lose weight by cutting fats.
>
> TC
>
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
> > Doug Freese <dfreese[at]hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Trying to control weight strictly by food/caloric intake
> > > reduction is doomed to fail.
> >
> > Except of course in my case. Whenever my trousers get too small, I
> > start eating a bit less until they fit. It's worked for thirty years.
> >
> > What do you think explains my strange response of losing weight to
> > reducing portion size? Is there something wrong with me?
> >
> > --
> > Chris Malcolm cam[at]infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
> > IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> > [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Re: Why calorie restricted diets are so dangerous markd@toad-net.com: All diets work in the long term because they restrict calories, all of them without exception. Note also that calories made the difference, cut your intake in half and x percent over time of weight will be lost. All experts regardless of diet...	markd@toad-net.com	Nutrition	16	01-21-2005 01:08 AM
A Calorie is a Calorie is a Calorie? - maybe not... tcomeau: http://www.redflagsweekly.com/conferences/Atkins_diet/2004_feb23.html Interesting article. TC	tcomeau	Nutrition	4	09-28-2004 01:59 PM
Re: calorie measure markd@toad-net.com: The exact url was posted at least 2 times, maybe more, so don't pretend now that you have finaly provoked me to come up with something at last. Nay, you could no longer stand the loss of face and couldn't stand the heat and finaly came on bended...	markd@toad-net.com	Nutrition	2	04-24-2004 01:35 AM
calorie theory tcomeau: Some individuals seem to get rankled whenever some other people refer to the so-called "calorie theory". I guess because no scientist has labeled the phenomenon as such and/or they object to it being reffered to as a theory, ie. they believe it...	tcomeau	Nutrition	8	10-24-2003 01:23 PM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode