Crocodile
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 692
- Location
- Sydney Australia
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Treatment type
- Tablets (oral)
- Dislikes
- I can't have it often
Then 1200 cals is your bodily requirement.
Then 1200 cals is your bodily requirement.You are really not listening are you?! Are you an HCP? A dietician?
If I eat a mixed diet of 1200 cals I do not lose weight, I put it on. If I eat 2300 cals, mostly fat I lose weight. Therefore if 2300 cals is below my body's requirements (because I lose weight) then 1200 cals must also be below my body's requirements.
so how do you explain the weight loss on 2300cals then?????Then 1200 cals is your bodily requirement.
It has nothing to do with empathy or how bodys work. Simple fact, nowhere can energy be simply manufactured from nothing. Otherwise we would have no requirement to eat at all or burn coal for our electricity.Nope - you need empathy and understanding for others whose bodies don't work like yours.
I didn't make any mention of what happens when one's consumption is above metabolic requirements. That can go either way. Conversely, the opposite is not true. Consumption under the metabolic rate will always result in weight loss.so how do you explain the weight loss on 2300cals then?????
how do you explain the fact that I lose weight on 2300cals if as you say my cal requirement is 1200?It has nothing to do with empathy or how bodys work. Simple fact, nowhere can energy be simply manufactured from nothing. Otherwise we would have no requirement to eat at all or burn coal for our electricity.
See above. Over doesn't guarantee weight gain. Below always results in weight loss.how do you explain the fact that I lose weight on 2300cals if as you say my cal requirement is 1200?
Unfortunately our bodies aren't that simple and straight forward and using the laws of physics just doesn't work. We aren't machines. Things go wrong. If it was as easy as you say no one would be fat.
so you always lose weight if you consume less than the metabolic requirements, but you can also lose even more weight if you consume above it? huh?see above
I didn't say bodies were simple. They do however, like everything else, follow the laws of physics.how do you explain the fact that I lose weight on 2300cals if as you say my cal requirement is 1200?
Unfortunately our bodies aren't that simple and straight forward and using the laws of physics just doesn't work. We aren't machines. Things go wrong. If it was as easy as you say no one would be fat.
so since you know about physics....how can I get my body to maintain a temperature of 37 degs? My body temp is always lower than that.I didn't say bodies were simple. They do however, like everything else, follow the laws of physics.
That is overtly possible. Does not mean for everybody all the time though.so you always lose weight if you consume less than the metabolic requirements, but you can also lose even more weight if you consume above it? huh?
37 deg is the average of the human race. Naturally there will be deviations aligned to the Guassian distribution. Temperature is maintained at a steady level by consuming energy according to the specific heat equation.so since you know about physics....how can I get my body to maintain a temperature of 37 degs? My body temp is always lower than that.
Except that if it were true then absolutely everyone who went on a calorie restricted diet would lose weight. Now even you must agree that is not the case otherwise we wouldn;t have any overweight people.That is overtly possible. Does not mean for everybody all the time though.
Not particularly. We're looking at weight loss, not obesity. The line from the article: "Intentionally increasing calorie consumption will result in weight gain, as dictated by the First Law of Thermodynamics." is rather pertinent. Naturally, by the same law of physics, reduction in energy input must result in weight loss. Metabolic factors may alter the rate of loss by substantial margins but holds true. The energy required to keep ones heart beating, think and maintain 37 deg body temperature must come from somewhere.
same here.You are missing the point too. kj intake can be way below the body's requirements but can still cause weight gain and that's because my body doesn't process carbs well.
Except that if it were true then absolutely everyone who went on a calorie restricted diet would lose weight. Now even you must agree that is not the case otherwise we wouldn;t have any overweight people.
" From this perspective, calorie restriction can be viewed as symptomatic treatment, destined to fail for most people in the modern food environment." Is where we are coming from...
that what I am trying to do, as are some others. Give you lessons in the exceptions to the 'rule' and educate you in the way others can be affected by foods that defies the 'accepted rules'Maybe I need lessons.
nope. nope it doesnt. sorry, but it doesnt. Thats the problem, the rules are wrong for some of us.See above. Over doesn't guarantee weight gain. Below always results in weight loss.
Like this you meanNot everybody is on a calorie restricted diet.
Read a little further for reasons why it is destined to fail. Nothing to do with energy inputs but more to do with human reactions and hunger.
Yes. That's why you see bony people running around central Africa. Who suggested that we should go down this path where our self preservation of vital organs kicks in. I don't know why you insist on bringing up this low calorie low fat stuff. Go back to page one. I made no such assertion.Like this you mean
"Low-calorie, low-fat diets may actually exacerbate the underlying metabolic problem by further restricting energy available in the blood—triggering the starvation response comprised of rising hunger, falling metabolic rate, and elevated stress hormone levels."
I respectfully suggest that those people do not have enough of anything to eat to trigger the insulin response and are, as such, irrelevant for the purposes of this issue.That's why you see bony people running around central Africa.
Sorry Lucky, but nowhere in this thread have I remotely suggested that people should up their carb consumption. Anyway it's after midnight over here and I'll turn into a pumpkin if I don't go to bed. I'll argue the toss tomorrow.I respectfully suggest that those people do not have enough of anything to eat to trigger the insulin response and are, as such, irrelevant for the purposes of this issue.
I am talking about those of us for whom consumption of carbs has a disproportionate affect on our insulin response, and thus our fat storage.
And that is why you also see people in Africa, eating a high carb diet, with very little else, who are over weight and malnourished at the same time. Their bodies cant use the high carb diet they are given and automatically stores the food. Its a well know phenomenon in feeding stations. This is different from the swollen stomachs of starvation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?