Thermodynamics? Not really...

52 PAGES
first ... 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 next ... last
previous topic · next topic
Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 797

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 04:22
reddarin wrote:

Well. If nothing else, at least the thermodynamics thing has been refuted.

Smile


Where exactly? Wow.
Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.
Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 797

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 04:36
reddarin wrote:
This is conjecture on your part, right?

But leaving that aside, your formula has some assertions that don't seem reasonable.

The most obvious is that while getting fat the person eats an ever increasing calorie surplus. So they start off eating 500 calories extra a week or whatever. Reach parity with weight and calories in. Then they for some reason begin the cycle again, eating more calories than they need until they reach weight parity. Again and again.

Why did they continue ramping up their calories? What is the cause? You can't say because they were fat. They didn't start off fat. And in your scenario being fat is a consequence not a cause.

They have achieved CICO parity by adding mass to match CI. Per the study there is a parity of energy in and out so 'hunger' cannot explain it because there is no energy deficit. I mean, consistent hunger resulting in consistent overeating to start the next cycle of adding mass and then parity. In fact, why do they have an ongoing appetite at all if they are in surplus?

The less obvious is that they started off at a surplus calorie level to achieve x amount of obesity. So a skinny 130 pound person who's maintenance level is, whatever but we'll use 1800 calories, begins eating 3600 calories a day until they weigh 260 pounds at which point they are at parity with mass and CI. Why did this person gorge themselves on calories to double their weight?



Wait, are you suggesting that people get fat without a change in their eating or physical activity or a combo of both? Please tell me I'm wrong.

Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.
Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 797

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 04:43
mmoodd69 wrote:
Diablo360x wrote:
I show you science that debunks your myths and you'd rather stick your fingers in your ears.


Science?

You want science?

They just announced that salt is harmless. After years of preaching "the science is settled, salt is BAD FOR YOU so lay off the salt!!!"

My bloodwork results and my weight loss and my lower appetite and my clothes I no longer need are all the science I need. You may dismiss that as anecdotal but I couldn't care less and won't lose a second's sleep over it.

Ever hear of live and let live? Our diet choices are working for us and you cannot convince us they don't, scientific studies* be danged. Your diet choice are working for you. Does anything else really need to be said about this? Why do you persist?


And your health improved because you lost unhealthy fat which can be done with any diet given a calorie deficit. LC is your preferred method, that's it.
Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.
Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 797

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 05:19
Clueless101 wrote:

Disagree 1000%!
I was one of those fat people and I exercised and moved more than my skinny husband. I ate less than I do now on LC. I would workout at the gym at 4 am and walk 2 to 6 miles in the evening. I even did the biggest loser challenge at our gym, recorded every morsel that went into my mouth and ran my butt off doing all their exercise challenges. Did it the whole time and only lost 4 lbs, BUT!! Then started to gain it back while still on the challenge. AND my measurements didn't change more than 3 inches. I was dedicated and I worked HARD. I weighed 171 when I did the Biggest loser challenge, I weigh 147 now. I don't do any exercise now except light yoga and meditation. I eat LC/NK and my heart rate has come down from 96 to 70 resting. When I did BL it was in the 90's always and when I exercised they would make me sit down Because it would get so high. Now it is 70's and sometimes lower. With no exercise. I was NOT a fatty that sat around on my big fat LAZY butt and didn't try. I tried it all cause I hated being fat. I exercised and counted calories.
Even the people at the Biggest loser just scratched their heads at me cause they saw my food logs and the watched me kill myself working out. They would say we don't understand why you are not losing but you are doing everything right.
If you are like me and you have tried and tried to lose weight, do not listen to the people that say we are just lazy and eat too much. Too many people think fat people are lazy and undisciplined.
I just hadn't given LC a chance. I thought it was unhealthy and ya just lost water weight. Well that is what every one said anyway. Till I read Why We Get Fat. Then I educated myself.


Resorting to outright lying? http://weightology.net/?p=265

Mentioning Larry Taubes would get you laughed out of any forum worth anything in the nutrition field.
Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 09:43
Diablo360x wrote:
reddarin wrote:
Diablo360x wrote:

There is an alternative to eat less move more. A great one. It is called LC.


You can do the same with any food you choose.


If it were the same it wouldn't be different and we wouldn't have you and the rest of the mainstream here saying it is no different.

Somehow CICO requires more movement while LC does not? A calorie deficit over an extended period of time is REQUIRED no matter what. LC just restricts your options and makes a calorie deficit possible without having to count.

Also, please quit saying LC is not restrictive. I can eat ANYTHING I want at anytime without having to worry about my carb total. You CANNOT.


Same old arguments. I refer you back to any of the previous half dozen times you've said the same thing and I've refuted what you say.

And...

There is an alternative to eat less move more. A great one. It is called LC.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 09:45
Diablo360x wrote:
reddarin wrote:

Well. If nothing else, at least the thermodynamics thing has been refuted.

Smile


Where exactly? Wow.


http://www.fatsecret.com/Community.aspx?pa=fp&m=391171
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 09:50
Diablo360x wrote:
Wait, are you suggesting that people get fat without a change in their eating or physical activity or a combo of both? Please tell me I'm wrong.



Hmmmm. I was suggesting that the theory put forth was untenable for the reasons I gave.

Can you explain the questions I asked of that theory?

What keeps the cycle going? Why isn't parity reached at 10 pounds instead of 100? Conversely, why would an 1800 calorie maintenance person suddently start eating 3600 calories and continue to do so until they hit double their weight and reached CICO parity? Why did that person stop there and not continue the cycle. In either case why does the person stop at any point? Why aren't all fat people 700 pounds and growing?
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 09:59
Diablo360x wrote:
And your health improved because you lost unhealthy fat which can be done with any diet given a calorie deficit. LC is your preferred method, that's it.


That is incorrect.

A calorie deficit does not automatically give health benefits. And there are plenty of unhealthy skinny people. There are fat people that are not particularly unhealthy other than the fact that they are overweight.

And 'any diet given a calorie deficit'? I thought your whole world was 'well balanced'? But you have to throw well balanced overboard because the true super power to your way of thinking is the calorie.

Your logic is faulty too. If 'fat' is the unhealthy thing then a diet of junk food that was a calorie deficit that reduced weight would be just as good as a well balanced deficit that reduced weight. ... because 'fat' is the problem.

But that is the mental pretzel you have to live with in the CICO world. A calorie is a calorie and the deficit is the *only* causative factor. Until you have to admit that there is a difference in calories. At that point a calorie is a calorie is jettisoned and the well balanced cape is donned to save the day.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 10:10
Diablo360x wrote:
Resorting to outright lying? http://weightology.net/?p=265


Well, of course, it is a given that anyone that is fat that says they can't lose weight is a liar. I mean, after all, they *are* fat and therefore they have a character flaw.

Quote:
Mentioning Larry Taubes would get you laughed out of any forum worth anything in the nutrition field.


No doubt. Who is Larry Taubes? Is he related to Gary Taubes?

Oh! I see! How witty of you!
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 10:16
Diablo360x wrote:
Also, please quit saying LC is not restrictive. I can eat ANYTHING I want at anytime without having to worry about my carb total. You CANNOT.


Leaving aside the lie about what I have said...

Your logic is impeccable. You do not eat low carb and therefore you do not worry about your total carbs.

Say, do you know what I saw here in the forums yesterday? A new person asked if she could eat a snickers bar with her calorie goal. The 250 calories would have been a substantial part of her calories for the day.

Do you know what??? No one said "sure! eat anything you want! you don't have to worry about the carbs!".

Considering what you are saying here I find that advice there to be very strange. Don't you? I can link to the thread and you can tell her to eat up!

Rita41

Joined: Apr 13
Posts: 186

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 10:29
I think more people on that thread were concerned that the person in question was only 105lbs and trying to be 88 lbs.

That aside....if I want a snickers, I have it and count it in my caloric intake. No dreaded weight gain the next day as long as I stayed within my limit. When I tried LC I'd have put on 2lbs for having a treat the day before. The fluctuations were awful.
mummydee

Joined: Feb 10
Posts: 2,042

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 10:44
Yes Rita, i am very concerned about that young ladies body image and eating history, she doesn't care at all about health and has claimed so, she just wants to get thinner. Almost anorexic i would say. been there myself, hope she doesn't go there.

and to the snickers, and this LC vs CICO war,? why is it a war? why can we just not say what works for you is best. Rita has tried LC and it didn't work for her, I have tried cal counting and it doesn't work for me.
I've said before, when i add in grains and such to my diet even staying in the 1,200 cal range, I gained 15 lbs in 3 months.... So for me it's not the cal count, it's what I eat that counts.
Clueless101

Joined: May 13
Posts: 254

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 11:18
Diablo360x wrote:
Clueless101 wrote:

Disagree 1000%!
I was one of those fat people and I exercised and moved more than my skinny husband. I ate less than I do now on LC. I would workout at the gym at 4 am and walk 2 to 6 miles in the evening. I even did the biggest loser challenge at our gym, recorded every morsel that went into my mouth and ran my butt off doing all their exercise challenges. Did it the whole time and only lost 4 lbs, BUT!! Then started to gain it back while still on the challenge. AND my measurements didn't change more than 3 inches. I was dedicated and I worked HARD. I weighed 171 when I did the Biggest loser challenge, I weigh 147 now. I don't do any exercise now except light yoga and meditation. I eat LC/NK and my heart rate has come down from 96 to 70 resting. When I did BL it was in the 90's always and when I exercised they would make me sit down Because it would get so high. Now it is 70's and sometimes lower. With no exercise. I was NOT a fatty that sat around on my big fat LAZY butt and didn't try. I tried it all cause I hated being fat. I exercised and counted calories.
Even the people at the Biggest loser just scratched their heads at me cause they saw my food logs and the watched me kill myself working out. They would say we don't understand why you are not losing but you are doing everything right.
If you are like me and you have tried and tried to lose weight, do not listen to the people that say we are just lazy and eat too much. Too many people think fat people are lazy and undisciplined.
I just hadn't given LC a chance. I thought it was unhealthy and ya just lost water weight. Well that is what every one said anyway. Till I read Why We Get Fat. Then I educated myself.


Resorting to outright lying? http://weightology.net/?p=265

Mentioning Larry Taubes would get you laughed out of any forum worth anything in the nutrition field.


His name is Gary Taubes.
I do not appreciate you calling me a liar.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 12:09
Rita41 wrote:
I think more people on that thread were concerned that the person in question was only 105lbs and trying to be 88 lbs.


Yes? That has nothing to do with the point I was making. I mean, I agree about that aspect of it and I think I was one of the first to caution her about such a low calorie goal.

Diablo states as fact that with ELMM and CICO a person "can eat ANYTHING I want at anytime without having to worry about my carb total.".

So what? You are not counting carbs. You are counting calories. So unless you are eating unlimited calories, you *cannot* eat anything you want at any time you want.

As I said, it is CICO until that becomes inconvenient and then it transforms into well balanced because .... because ... *what* you eat impacts your health.

However, when an LC person says the exact same thing - what you eat impacts your health - we come full circle to the CICO argument which cannot stand up to scrutiny.

Rita41 wrote:
That aside....if I want a snickers, I have it and count it in my caloric intake. No dreaded weight gain the next day as long as I stayed within my limit. When I tried LC I'd have put on 2lbs for having a treat the day before. The fluctuations were awful.


Wups. Back to the 'I can eat it if I want it' thing? heh

I can eat whatever carby treat I want to at any time I want and I count it in my carb intake.

May I also point out that the usual canard is some sort of very unhealthy treat? Exactly why is it a boon to encourage everyone to have a candy bar because it is within calorie limits and therefore not off plan?

I mean, I get it that you guys think that it is a bonus to eat junk food and be sanguine about calling it 'allowable' or on plan or whatever. But does having an allowable cheat and calling it a 'treat' or on plan really foster success? How many ELMM people go face down in a bag of cheetos when they were only going to have 1 oz because that was within their calorie goals?

Heck. *I* could have a snickers bar if I wanted to. Most LC'rs could. But like you ELMM advocates, we generally choose not to spend our widgets on something like that. You call your widget 'calories' and we call ours 'carbs'.

And, was the treat you had while LC on plan? Or are you comparing an off plan excursion with LC to an on plan excursion with ELMM?

Do all ELMM people have no scale fluctuations?
ClassicRocke...

Joined: Jan 13
Posts: 928

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 12:10
Diablo... you are resorting to attacks. Accusing people of lying. No need for it. I don't care what the issue is. You're a strong advocate of CICO. We can respect that. Respect others right to choose their method to lose weight.



Goal: 160 by 5/1/2014--Okay... I didn't make it. Such is life.
155 or less by 9/1/2014

May I be free to be the me that I came into this world to be.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 12:14
mummydee wrote:
even staying in the 1,200 cal range, I gained 15 lbs in 3 months.... So for me it's not the cal count, it's what I eat that counts.


*That* is why there is a disagreement. The other side says that is flatly impossible.
mummydee

Joined: Feb 10
Posts: 2,042

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 13:10
Well I guess the problem with myself and Clueless is that we are.... Human beings!!! and nobody hardwired my body to obey the rules! dammit, gonna have to go by the manual and figure it out? oh no!
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 13:43
therealdave wrote:
I can't do anything with intellectual dishonesty, and I have a very low tolerance for it.


I missed this post.

What exactly is substituting lettuce for grass then? You already said you had no idea what the nutritional value of grass was. Why didn't you just substitute sugar free lollipops?
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 13:58
therealdave wrote:
reddarin wrote:
Ooooooh. Check out my post on sodium! I think it is on page 10.

And therealdave weighed in with some truly baffling logic and an interesting take on cattle history.

Smile


I guarantee you that we don't think the same! Must be my college education!Very Happy


lol truer words never spoken Smile
ClassicRocke...

Joined: Jan 13
Posts: 928

      quote  
Posted: 15 Jul 2013, 14:03
We'll have to contact the OEM and report the malfunction of our bodies. Wonder if they'll repair it. Maybe just give us a new one. The biggest question is...... are we still under warranty??? Doubt it. Too many miles on the old body for me.



Goal: 160 by 5/1/2014--Okay... I didn't make it. Such is life.
155 or less by 9/1/2014

May I be free to be the me that I came into this world to be.



Forum Search
Advanced forum search



Latest Posts

Hi All
HI welcome to the site.. I think both gentlemen have it pretty correct. I have stuff public and I have a long way to go. I figured I would make it public since we all are here for pretty much the reasons. ...
by Rains120 on 25 Jul 14 12:02 AM
Happy
Good on ya, Roo Girl!
by Draglist on 24 Jul 14 11:39 PM
Hello all
Hamburgers are good with a bit of mustard or horseradish. You don't want to be eating the bun.
by wholefoodnut on 24 Jul 14 08:56 PM
KCal ... Total Cal ... and workout Cal
Can someone explain what KCal means? ... and if I workout ... where do the Net Cal come from and what is minused. Not sure I am figuring things correctly. Any insight to this would be great!
by BigRed6 on 24 Jul 14 07:02 PM
Atkins
I agree with berley1, think outside the box. I will eat tonights leftovers, ribs and broccoli for breaky next day... Agree with having a look at induction food list and eat whatever you want from that ...
by mummydee on 24 Jul 14 05:30 PM