| Author | Post |
|---|
Diet Coach
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 27 Jan 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 135 |
|
Posted: 14 Jul 2012 12:30 am |
|
http://www.hikingupward.com/cal_calc.asp
This one is semi hypothetical.
Let's say that there was a safe pill (there isn't) that allowed you to never be hungry and kept you healthy regardless of how little you ate.
Am age 30 moderately active woman's?é?á BMR value is about:
?é?á?é?á?é?á1399 calories per/day
Her caloric requirement to remain at her current weight of 135 lbs is about:
?é?á?é?á?é?á2168 calories per/day
If you ate 2100 calories according to the laws of physics you not only would not be fat -- you could not be fat.
There is no magic pill to quell your appetite but there is safe substances and strategies that can quell your appetite and keep you safe.
Not hypothetical:
Would you like to learn more?
Would you like to be slender?
The truth is Puffs, there is no rational reason for why you can't be slender and I think that is a major sticking point for you.?é?á There may be psychological reasons for why you prefer being fat and this it probably not the place to discuss them.
There are people here who desperately need to lose weight to survive. I don't like it when people come here and tell them that weight loss is next to impossible and then list cockamamie reasons for why. People need encouragement so when you drift in here with nothing but negativity and quack science I call you on it. I am not ridiculing you as much as I am your BS.
Think about the people who need to lose weight. Think about their families. I can't tell if you are an FA troll or just very confused. Your propaganda is very FA but I suspect that there is a part of you that want to reform your eating.
You over eat and so do 75% of the US population. Get over it. We all have moral failings. Food is seductive and it has a hold on you. Admit it.
Fighting with me is not helping you and besides you can't win. If you would like help and you can be civil and positive you will find help here.
You can contact me privately or we can discuss it here. If you are not respectful and continue your agenda I will continue to publicly humiliate and ridicule you for the sake of the people who need to lose weight to save their lives.
|
Tankgirl
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 1 Jul 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 538 |
|
Posted: 14 Jul 2012 02:01 am |
|
She's been banned, so it's unlikely she'll respond.
If the same question were put to me - maybe. it would depend a lot on cost. Hoodia worked very well for curbing hunger, but real hoodia was prohibitively expensive. It would be great to do all day rides ( not to mention a whole day at work) and not have to pack, tote around, and clean up after food, while never having to worry about "hitting the wall" or getting lightheaded in traffic.
|
Diet Coach
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 27 Jan 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 135 |
|
Posted: 14 Jul 2012 02:35 am |
|
Tankgirl wrote: She's been banned, so it's unlikely she'll respond.
If the same question were put to me - maybe. it would depend a lot on cost. Hoodia worked very well for curbing hunger, but real hoodia was prohibitively expensive. It would be great to do all day rides ( not to mention a whole day at work) and not have to pack, tote around, and clean up after food, while never having to worry about "hitting the wall" or getting lightheaded in traffic.
Get off the Paleo BS and you won't "hit the wall" as soon.
Fat burns in the flame of carbohydrate.
This means that you need a sufficient supply of glucose (carbs) in your body as glucose to sustain exercise and once you are depleted of carbohydrates (blood glucose, stored glycogen), any intensity of exercise will become difficult. Even though typical 'fat burning exercise' is lower intensity (fats are metabolized greatly at lower (up to moderate) intensities of exercise), you still need blood glucose to keep exercise pace without fatigue. So in other words, without glucose, you have restricted chances of utilizing fats because glycogen and glucose depletion are what cause enhanced local and whole-body symptoms of fatigue during exercise.
A: Burning Fat in a "carbohydrate flame" is more than just maintaining the BLG and Glycogen stores to maintain exhersion over longer periods of time. This statement acknowledges that fact that there are common pathways that both fat and carbohydrate substrates are oxidised and that fat metabolism is dependent on a background level of carbohydrate catabolism.
If you consider the Citric acid cycle, many of the intermediates are products of glucose catabolism; eg oxaloacetate. Both carbohydrates and fats must be broken down to acetyle CoA before they enter this stage of aerobic metabolism. If you deplent your body of adequate carbohydrates many of the intermediates of the Citric acid cycle will be "borrowed" in synthesize glucose (gluconeogenesis) to maintain BGL's. It is intuative then to assume that if you remove the intermediates that are required for oxidation of fat there will be a reduced capacity to burn fat.
Moral of the story: low carbohydrate diets will ultimately fail in maintaining lasting weight loss because your ability to burn fats is blunted because fat oxidation is dependent on background carbohydrate catabolism.
It's too bad about Puffs. Maybe she will be unbanned. I know her agenda but I get the sense she is wavering. That does not mean I don't like her. If you are in touch with her let her know that. If she still want to spar with me have her go to MFS. Like you, she's a tough one to corral.
What I said to Puffs also applies to you in that there are no rational reasons for why you cannot be slender. You two are stubborn and it is not helping you. With all due respect, you two are fat and you both give too much advice and take to little. It's frustrating because it would be so easy for you two not to be fat. There is more going on with you two than meets the eye and I can only guess what it is.
|
Tankgirl
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 1 Jul 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 538 |
|
Posted: 14 Jul 2012 02:39 am |
|
Don't worry about it I'll be out of your hair soon anyway.
After giving it thought, I sort of get your point. Living responsibly means only consuming what is necessary for health. The end result is weighing no more than one needs to, which is objectively attractive. Anyone that weighs more than ideal weight is showing greed, since resources are running out and nobody on this earth can afford to be a glutton of anything....water, food, fuels.Excess weight is greed and bad behavior that we can see.
One of the problems with you is the minute you see certain words, you go off. When we did the experiment I listed everything I ate, which was pretty close to a Paleo diet, the only exception being a little dairy. If you had any problem with it then, you never mentioned it. It's more in agreement with everything you've posted about than out of agreement, no sugar, no processed garbage. but the minute it has a label, you condemn it. At least be consistent.
The other is, well people fail. Failing is not a personal betrayal of you , just a failure. Most of us get up, dust off and go on, not run off to find the nearest fat admirer party. Personally I took it as "well if that's what my breaking point is, I'm not going to see this point again for a long time", and went back to work. If you were a football coach ( since you've made that analogy) sometimes your team loses!
Why don't I eat like Nir? Well, I enjoy eating meat. there it is.
Why can't I stay under a certain calorie count? of course I can - it's not a big deal, it's like balancing a checkbook.
And about hitting the wall- I was thinking this imaginary pill could take me from where I am now at 6-8 hours to not eating for 2-3 days at a time, If that were possible.Last edited on 14 Jul 2012 03:10 am by Tankgirl
|
Diet Coach
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 27 Jan 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 135 |
|
Posted: 14 Jul 2012 04:26 am |
|
Tankgirl wrote: Don't worry about it I'll be out of your hair soon anyway.
After giving it thought, I sort of get your point. Living responsibly means only consuming what is necessary for health. The end result is weighing no more than one needs to, which is objectively attractive. Anyone that weighs more than ideal weight is showing greed, since resources are running out and nobody on this earth can afford to be a glutton of anything....water, food, fuels.Excess weight is greed and bad behavior that we can see.
One of the problems with you is the minute you see certain words, you go off. When we did the experiment I listed everything I ate, which was pretty close to a Paleo diet, the only exception being a little dairy. If you had any problem with it then, you never mentioned it. It's more in agreement with everything you've posted about than out of agreement, no sugar, no processed garbage. but the minute it has a label, you condemn it. At least be consistent.
The other is, well people fail. Failing is not a personal betrayal of you , just a failure. Most of us get up, dust off and go on, not run off to find the nearest fat admirer party. Personally I took it as "well if that's what my breaking point is, I'm not going to see this point again for a long time", and went back to work. If you were a football coach ( since you've made that analogy) sometimes your team loses!
Why don't I eat like Nir? Well, I enjoy eating meat. there it is.
Why can't I stay under a certain calorie count? of course I can - it's not a big deal, it's like balancing a checkbook.
And about hitting the wall- I was thinking this imaginary pill could take me from where I am now at 6-8 hours to not eating for 2-3 days at a time, If that were possible.
I never considered you in my hair.
Gluttony is greed and it is good for nobody.
As to paleo. There is no credible science behind it and lots of credible science against it and if there were science behind it does not take in what meat is compared to what it was for early humans. Wild meat is literally a whole different animal than the hormone filled domestic livestock of today.jj
As you know I recommend eating every 150 minutes. This makes it so you don't have time to be hungry and keeps blood sugar stable. There are people who can eat larger calorie meals less frequently but those people are usually already lean.
Give Puffs my best if you are in touch.
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 15 Jul 2012 04:20 pm |
|
Tankgirl wrote: One of the problems with you is the minute you see certain words, you go off. When we did the experiment I listed everything I ate, which was pretty close to a Paleo diet, the only exception being a little dairy. If you had any problem with it then, you never mentioned it. It's more in agreement with everything you've posted about than out of agreement, no sugar, no processed garbage. but the minute it has a label, you condemn it. At least be consistent.
I think it is a very valid point. In her topic you asked her to list what she would have. So she listed what she would have. (mostly vegetables and meat) and you had absolutely no problem with her plan. And then she used the 'P' word and you started saying things like the below
As to paleo. There is no credible science behind it and lots of credible science against it and if there were science behind it does not take in what meat is compared to what it was for early humans. Wild meat is literally a whole different animal than the hormone filled domestic livestock of today.
So why did you approve of her meal plan before she gave it a name? Does not make sense!
|
Diet Coach
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 27 Jan 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 135 |
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2012 10:52 pm |
|
Nir wrote: Tankgirl wrote: One of the problems with you is the minute you see certain words, you go off. When we did the experiment I listed everything I ate, which was pretty close to a Paleo diet, the only exception being a little dairy. If you had any problem with it then, you never mentioned it. It's more in agreement with everything you've posted about than out of agreement, no sugar, no processed garbage. but the minute it has a label, you condemn it. At least be consistent.
I think it is a very valid point. In her topic you asked her to list what she would have. So she listed what she would have. (mostly vegetables and meat) and you had absolutely no problem with her plan. And then she used the 'P' word and you started saying things like the below
As to paleo. There is no credible science behind it and lots of credible science against it and if there were science behind it does not take in what meat is compared to what it was for early humans. Wild meat is literally a whole different animal than the hormone filled domestic livestock of today.
So why did you approve of her meal plan before she gave it a name? Does not make sense!
There are two possible if I actually did that. The few meal plans that she posted may have been close enough or it was a start on here part that I would have corrected later. Also, she was claiming heavy workouts and the high protein would be OK during the cutting phase.
Overall the Paleo diet is a nutritional nightmare especially over the long haul.
|
PuffsPlus
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2012 08:30 am |
|
Hmm, it seems I can can post again, but I can only post in this forum. And I've gone from "Restricted Member" to "Distinguished Member".....but that really should be "Limited Member", lol.
|
Mrs_Slowski
New Member
| Joined: | 26 Mar 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2012 03:26 pm |
|
Wild meat is literally a whole different animal than the hormone filled domestic livestock of today.
Very true,so grass-fed meat is an easy solution. Lower calorie, better omega 3 balance, the only drawback is the cost of the more popular cuts, though a few others actually cost less than grocery store meat.
The other is game meats. You're from the South, right? I thought hunting was a big pastime down there.It certainly is here.Last edited on 17 Jul 2012 03:36 pm by Mrs_Slowski
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2012 05:01 am |
|
Mrs_Slowski wrote: Wild meat is literally a whole different animal than the hormone filled domestic livestock of today.
Very true,so grass-fed meat is an easy solution. Lower calorie, better omega 3 balance, the only drawback is the cost of the more popular cuts, though a few others actually cost less than grocery store meat.
The other is game meats. You're from the South, right? I thought hunting was a big pastime down there.It certainly is here.
Most of the food on these low carb diets is laded with hormones, antibiotics, and nitrites. It's a recipe for cancer and other health problems.
Grass feed beef tastes better.
Actually hunting here sucks. The deer a puny and so are the turkeys. Most of the land is posted. It is far from a sportsman's paradise. I hunted a lot in Maine and Vermont. Deer, elk, moose, pheasant, turkey were abundant.
The hunter here are not sportsman. Most of them are poachers and they hunt drunk.
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2012 05:19 am |
|
PuffsPlus wrote: Hmm, it seems I can can post again, but I can only post in this forum. And I've gone from "Restricted Member" to "Distinguished Member".....but that really should be "Limited Member", lol.
High Puffs.
This is a controversial forum. It seems that telling people that obesity is their fault is politically incorrect. If you look at the numbers here this is a very popular forum as far as views go. I have used the right key words to get a lot of traffic here and I have linked this forum on many other sites.
This is your opportunity to explain to a large audience how wrong dieting is and mine to prove to everyone how full of #%@&! you are and to prove to Nir that you really are an FA troll albeit a reluctant one.
Here we discuss real science and make mincemeat of theory. Feel free to post your BS.
This is a tough love forum but if you are respectful you will be treated with respect but if you get personal you will have me to deal with and I will cut you to the quick. If you want to put an end to your BS and get health or get to the issues that make you hang onto your BS I will help you.
Are you ready for some love?
|
Mrs_Slowski
New Member
| Joined: | 26 Mar 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2012 12:18 pm |
|
That's a shame. We're pretty spoiled here. I don't know if I could ever shoot one but it makes for an interesting "how was your day at work?" story when you commute includes a face-to face encounter with a buck and his harem, or a doe with a fawn or two....now if I could just be quick enough with the camera phone at those moments.
As to the ones that are loaded with nitrates and nitrates: the stuff gives me a splitting headache, and they're too high calorie. I occasionally use a very small amount of costco bacon bits to cook my eggs in but that's also because it's a way to add flavor while saving calories vs using oil/ butter.
Definitely agree with you in the taste difference, once you learn to cook it right. Fortunately, the ranchers that sell it at the farmer's market have some great recipes to share. Here we go into the "Imemine" again but I want to give our local farmers all the support they can get. They're nice people and their grazing land makes for great scenery to show the tourists. Most people have never seen a buffalo outside of the westerns before.
Since we're in agreement when it comes to CAFO meat I might as well say it - grocery store ground beef gives me the creeps. No idea how many cows from 3 different countries? How did this ever look like a good idea to anyone?Last edited on 18 Jul 2012 12:54 pm by Mrs_Slowski
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2012 03:31 pm |
|
Mrs_Slowski wrote: That's a shame. We're pretty spoiled here. I don't know if I could ever shoot one but it makes for an interesting "how was your day at work?" story when you commute includes a face-to face encounter with a buck and his harem, or a doe with a fawn or two....now if I could just be quick enough with the camera phone at those moments.
As to the ones that are loaded with nitrates and nitrates: the stuff gives me a splitting headache, and they're too high calorie. I occasionally use a very small amount of costco bacon bits to cook my eggs in but that's also because it's a way to add flavor while saving calories vs using oil/ butter.
Definitely agree with you in the taste difference, once you learn to cook it right. Fortunately, the ranchers that sell it at the farmer's market have some great recipes to share. Here we go into the "Imemine" again but I want to give our local farmers all the support they can get. They're nice people and their grazing land makes for great scenery to show the tourists. Most people have never seen a buffalo outside of the westerns before.
Since we're in agreement when it comes to CAFO meat I might as well say it - grocery store ground beef gives me the creeps. No idea how many cows from 3 different countries? How did this ever look like a good idea to anyone?
Companies like Cargill and Monsanto own the food division of the FDA and that is why our food is so toxic and obesogenic. Making people fat and sick is good for business.
Fat people get sick more and they eat more. Some of their illnesses are because they are fat but some are also from the low quality food they choose to eat. Eating less poison is better than eating a lot of poison.
Shooting a deer is more humane that what happens to most livestock. Venison is lean and healthy meat.
|
Mrs_Slowski
New Member
| Joined: | 26 Mar 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2012 06:54 pm |
|
"Companies like Cargill and Monsanto own the food division of the FDA and that is why our food is so toxic and obesogenic. Making people fat and sick is good for business."
Have you seen this story? Hopefully Mercola's a good enough source since it hasn't been reported much in the MSM
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/05/05/Could-Monsanto-Be-Responsible-for-One-Indian-Farmers-Death-Every-Thirty-Minutes.aspx
Agree with you about the humane aspect.It just involves a lot of skill that I don't have yet. I still haven't mastered fishing.
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2012 12:48 am |
|
Mrs_Slowski wrote:
"Companies like Cargill and Monsanto own the food division of the FDA and that is why our food is so toxic and obesogenic. Making people fat and sick is good for business."
Have you seen this story? Hopefully Mercola's a good enough source since it hasn't been reported much in the MSM
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/05/05/Could-Monsanto-Be-Responsible-for-One-Indian-Farmers-Death-Every-Thirty-Minutes.aspx
Agree with you about the humane aspect.It just involves a lot of skill that I don't have yet. I still haven't mastered fishing.
Monsanto wants to control the world's food supply. They are disgraceful.
|
PuffsPlus
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 27 Jul 2012 05:58 pm |
|
JSABD wrote:
It seems that telling people that obesity is their fault is politically incorrect.
No, it's just flat out incorrect. Obesity is not solely the fault of the individual. This is what current obesity researchers --- the people with MDs and PhDs in the subject who actually know what they are talking about -- have found.
See http://www.drsharma.ca/obesity-lifestyle-choice-or-lifestyle-chance.html
This is your opportunity to explain to a large audience how wrong dieting is and mine to prove to everyone how full of #%@&! you are and to prove to Nir that you really are an FA troll albeit a reluctant one.
Nir is a tosser who has given out some irresponsible dietary advice on here (suggesting 1200 calories per day for a man?!), so I don't really care what he thinks. I don't care if he flat-out bans me anymore, so I suspect this will be my last post here (and Nir is enough of a git that he might erase this post too).
I'm not a fat acceptor nor am I a "dietarian", a term I have to credit to the brilliant "Screaming Fat Girl" blogger. See http://screamingfatgirl.blogspot.com/. She has lost over 240 lbs, by the way. But you'd dismiss her as a "fat acceptor", no doubt, as you do to anyone who disagrees with your rants.
Much like her, I think both sides say some things which are helpful and correct, and some which aren't. If I thought attempts at weight loss were truly futile and even harmful as the "fat acceptance"/HAES crowd believes, I wouldn't be trying to (and succeeding at) weight loss now.
On the other hand, the evidence is also pretty clear that not all of us can be "thin" or "lean" or even "normal BMI" in the current obesogenic Western environment. That goes double for those of us who have been fat since childhood.
For some of us, the most realistic goal we can achieve and SUSTAIN might be, "A smaller size of large."
And, unlike you, I have actually marshalled evidence from obesity researchers and doctors to support all of my claims.
Here we discuss real science and make mincemeat of theory.
You don't discuss real science at all. You just rehash your own biases and prejudices against fat people over and over again. You believe that people's bodies act like the heating and cooling systems you help design, even though the science says otherwise.
When confronted with any scientific or medical evidence you don't like, you simply dismiss it. You are as much as an anti-scientific denialist as the hard core "Fat acceptors" who claim that there is no relationship between size and health and that dieting always fails.
This is a tough love forum but if you are respectful you will be treated with respect but if you get personal you will have me to deal with and I will cut you to the quick.
You won't do anything except behave like the abusive, highly prejudiced, misogynistic person you are, Chris Brady. For gods sakes, you've advised fat pregnant women to have abortions right on these boards. You are a failed diet coach who can't even get his manifesto published by a real publisher. Some of your advice on here is great, some is garbage.
Luckily, most posters here get right away that you're full of #%@&!, and so most ignore you.Last edited on 28 Jul 2012 10:42 am by PuffsPlus
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 29 Jul 2012 04:41 am |
|
PuffsPlus wrote: JSABD wrote:
It seems that telling people that obesity is their fault is politically incorrect.
No, it's just flat out incorrect. Obesity is not solely the fault of the individual. This is what current obesity researchers --- the people with MDs and PhDs in the subject who actually know what they are talking about -- have found.
See http://www.drsharma.ca/obesity-lifestyle-choice-or-lifestyle-chance.html
Sharma like many MDs is a hack. I can read his books but he can't read mine. As much as idiots like him want to give a biological explanation the laws of physics trump theory every time. I don't know why you deny and than argue the point.
This is your opportunity to explain to a large audience how wrong dieting is and mine to prove to everyone how full of #%@&! you are and to prove to Nir that you really are an FA troll albeit a reluctant one.
Nir is a tosser who has given out some irresponsible dietary advice on here (suggesting 1200 calories per day for a man?!), so I don't really care what he thinks. I don't care if he flat-out bans me anymore, so I suspect this will be my last post here (and Nir is enough of a git that he might erase this post too).
I don't recall Nir recommending 1200 for a man. Nir uses a different calculator that incorporates height. 1200 would be OK for a woman shedding that final few pounds.
Nir and I have gone at it strongly but I see him as a stand up guy albeit a bit anal but he balances my strident approach with his gentle nature.
I'm not a fat acceptor nor am I a "dietarian", a term I have to credit to the brilliant "Screaming Fat Girl" blogger. See http://screamingfatgirl.blogspot.com/. She has lost over 240 lbs, by the way. But you'd dismiss her as a "fat acceptor", no doubt, as you do to anyone who disagrees with your rants.
When people lie and deny science I come down on them with both feet.
What you are is a fat girl in denial. A man even a fat one unless he were a Nancy boy would not dismiss rationality and logic the way you do. The 2nd law is not debatable. It is as certain as the other immutable laws of physics.
If you ate 2000 cals a day the most weight you or any adult female human could maintain is less than 140 pounds. That is not my opinion, it's a scientific certainty. Dr Sharma is a quack and you believe him.
If you would open your brain I could show you the math and the scientific calculations but I suspect that you already know them.
Much like her, I think both sides say some things which are helpful and correct, and some which aren't. If I thought attempts at weight loss were truly futile and even harmful as the "fat acceptance"/HAES crowd believes, I wouldn't be trying to (and succeeding at) weight loss now.
You fail when you attempt weight loss. I think you want to fail. Maybe you need to be fat for emotional reasons. Something is driving you and usually I can ferret this stuff out. I have some ideas but I would not want to discuss them publicly out of respect for you.
You have made some outlandish statements and I have ridiculed them but what I should have done was ask you to prove them; not by you posting a link but in your own words.
Puffs, I think it would be in your best interest to defer to someone like me when it comes to weight loss. I would not suggest anything that would be harmful or discouraging. What I could help you with is a plan that would improve your health and weight loss would be a side effect and a clinical indicator of better health.
Puffs, you shoot yourself in the foot. You come up with reason after reason for why your can't which in some respects is a good thing if those reasons were valid or truly insurmountable. They are neither.
Here are the reasons for why you CAN weight somewhere in the healthy BMI and body fat percentage range.
1. Heat and energy are mutually convertible.
2. The conservation of mass is true.
3. The laws of physics trump biology. They are in your favor.
The science is on your side and so am I.
On the other hand, the evidence is also pretty clear that not all of us can be "thin" or "lean" or even "normal BMI" in the current obesogenic Western environment. That goes double for those of us who have been fat since childhood.
The science is not clear. The science is junk science by people who have a vested interest in keeping people fat and sick and hungrier than normal. In that regard your enemies are my enemies. You can defeat those enemies and not be a victim of them. Stop being a victim.
There is a saying in special forces. Train hard. Fight easy. I have a saying, diet smart not hard.
I have helped people who were fat since childhood. I am really not a diet guy. I have a pretty good grasp on nutrition and hunger but like I said before the goal is not weight loss. Weight loss is a byproduct and an indicator.
I really think you are stuck in a loop and if you would like to drop your guard and drop me a line we can discuss that.
The only thing truly obesogenic about Western society is the food. There may be minor contributors but if you do a calculation it's mostly portion size. I know this is true because portions are 30 to 40% larger and so are people.
Chances are if it were 1960 you would be chubby. It is really easy to get very fat these days. We are a food centric society. Foods are designed to be addicting. In 1960 one did not need to eat mindfully. Today we do. I can help you with that.
I can help you get the emotions and guilt out of it and help you break it down to objective non judgmental terms. That is not to say that gluttony is not part of the equation. IMO it is part of it.
It is really easy to get 1000 extra calories these days.
For some of us, the most realistic goal we can achieve and SUSTAIN might be, "A smaller size of large."
And, unlike you, I have actually marshalled evidence from obesity researchers and doctors to support all of my claims.
Puff's I have read all that stuff and it's BS. I will not debate it with you or turn it into an argument here. I will say that most research is funded by people with a financial interest.
Obesity researchers work for universities which are funded by the diet or drug industry.
All these doctors you refer to have not come up with a cure for any disease in 40 years. What makes you think that they know what they are talking about of have and incentive to find one?
It still boils down to the physics which trump their BS.
If I were to lock you in a cell and feed your 2000 cals a day they most weight you could maintain is less than 140 pounds. If any researcher would even attempt to dispute that he'd be stupid or lying. The laws of physics beat their lab rats and fat gene hooey. A fat gene, if it exists cannot change your metabolic rate.
Here we discuss real science and make mincemeat of theory.
You don't discuss real science at all. You just rehash your own biases and prejudices against fat people over and over again. You believe that people's bodies act like the heating and cooling systems you help design, even though the science says otherwise.
Now you are being irrational. I do not design heating and cooling systems. Actually when it come to human bodies they process energy like engines. Living things are heat engines. All human bodies have the same thermal efficiency and there is no getting around that. We maintain about 98.6F 24/7 and the energy required to do that is nearly identical in humans of the same age weight and gender. That mean that like individuals have them same BMR and that is a scientific fact. Denying that fact or citing some quack will not change that fact. BMR is approximately your body weight X 10. Slightly less for females.
I have several friends who are combustion engineers who consult for many companies.
When confronted with any scientific or medical evidence you don't like, you simply dismiss it. You are as much as an anti-scientific denialist as the hard core "Fat acceptors" who claim that there is no relationship between size and health and that dieting always fails.
You don't seem to know the difference between scientific theory and scientific fact. There is some truth to what the FA crowd says. Some obese people are not as unhealthy as others. Sumos are fat as #%@&! but they are the exception because they have very little visceral fat. Most obese people are horribly unhealthy.
The people you quote are not spouting facts. They have a commercial interest in selling their #%@&! and promoting their BS. I do not have a financial interest. I make a few bucks counseling and unlike other weight loss gurus I only accept payment if what I do works.
Again let's cut through the BS and get you on the road to a clinically healthy weight and an end to the diet roller coaster.
You are a tough on to corral Puffs and I would really like to get some straight answers from you on a few things.
This is a tough love forum but if you are respectful you will be treated with respect but if you get personal you will have me to deal with and I will cut you to the quick.
You won't do anything except behave like the abusive, highly prejudiced, misogynistic person you are, Chris Brady. For gods sakes, you've advised fat pregnant women to have abortions right on these boards. You are a failed diet coach who can't even get his manifesto published by a real publisher. Some of your advice on here is great, some is garbage.
I love kids and I have seen many who were victims of birth defects. I believe that anyone who would handicap a child in anyway is garbage. Fat women should not get pregnant. It that hurts their feelings. I don't care. Child abuse is child abuse and fat mothers are abusers. I'd like to slap the snot out of them. I see how they behave with their kids. I see a fat girl shove a bottle in their mouths to shut them up instead of holding them. I have observed this for years.
I can present the data on birth defects and C section birth and if the truth offends fat girls then they need to be offended.
My Manifesto as you put is being used in some doctors offices. I am working on a training video with a health care practitioner based on my protocols and her clinical experience. I have a literary agent/agents and we can't get the right deal so I am not going to put this in print. Some want rewrite that would compromise the integrity on the work.
You don't like the fact that I am not some Nancy Boy. I am the kind of man that makes women like you swoon because you know that men like me avoid fat dysfunctional drama queens like the plague. I work in a profession where I meet a lot of women and I have had a lot of women throw themselves at me in the most pathetic and undignified ways and often they are fat girls. My male friends report the same thing.
Generally women reject men in the dating world. When I was dating I did the rejecting and a rejected womyn can get real nasty. I think you mentioned that you were married. Your husband did not reject you but a man like me would. You wonder what he sees in you and your wonder if he settled or if he cheats. You fat girls are insecure and what is pathetic (I don't mean that in a pejorative sense) but that insecurity come out of an inflated ego and shallowness. The envy is laughable at times. What make men like me reject girls like you is not just the fat but the fattitude. Men like me like women with grace. This is not to say that you will always be a vain angry and insecure fat girl but if you don't grow up and face reality hubby, even if he is the wimp I suspect he is will replace you. Right or wrong men do it all the time. Maybe he's a FA. Then you have nothing to worry about.
I think many womyn today are full of it and full of themselves. I see these fat girls attack MeMe Roth who is actually nice to them and swoon over Karolchyk who pulls no punches with them. Like Karolchyk I pull no punches. Both MeMe and Mike tell it like it is. MeMe soft pedals it and the jealous fat girls attack her. A handsome man can say the same thing and they would swoon. I'd like to see MeMe take off the gloves when these vulgar womyn attack her but MeMe with her style and wit allows them to beat themselves up.
I love women but I don't like womyn. I am a big fan of Tara Palmentier. She's a real woman and womyn hate her. MeMe Roth is a real woman and womyn hate her too.
My online buddy Fat B posted a bunch of nanny cam videos of babies and toddlers being abused. The abusers were almost always fat girls and the victims were the children of slender women married to successful men.
I'm old school when it comes to women. I believe in protecting them. I think women should be ladies. I am protective of boy children and more so of girl children. If that make me a misogynist then so be it.
Luckily, most posters here get right away that you're full of #%@&!, and so most ignore you.
I have a lot of fans here. People appreciate the honesty. Maybe someday when you are less insecure and less full of yourself we can have a productive interaction. The door remains open. If you are interested in dropping your guard and contacting me the door remains open.
I was tougher on you on the other boards here because your negativity was not good for the others so I had to counter it by discrediting it. I know you took it personally. If I rebuked you too harshly I apologize.
You can argue with me until the cows come home but that is not going to help you. I have spent time on this response and it is not to break your chops. You have tried it your way for years and it has not worked.
It's time that you stop the debating and the posturing and get down to the serious business of reform. I think that if you meet me 1/2 way I can help you. If this is about your need to try to conquer men like me you are wasting both our time. If on the other hand you want to try some reason and humility I will do my best to help sort things out.
|
Current time is 06:50 pm | |
|
|
|
