Discussion:
Eating less does not result in weight loss!
(too old to reply)
Ignoramus792
2003-10-09 02:27:49 UTC
Permalink
There is no way to help someone lose weight if they want to gorge on
cakes and junk food, more than they want to lose fat.
And yet millions of people spend billions of dollars every year,
seeking help with losing weight.
Correct. They spend billions of dollars, and possibly some of them get
actually helped. Think Curves etc. But many do not spend the necessary
_effort_ to lose weight. Something as simple as 1-2 hours walking per
day and giving up foods which are irresistible. Throwing money at this
problem does not necessarily solve it.
If your advice is any good,
(and indeed, even if it isn't), a portion of those billions is
available to you. If your advice is BETTER than most, then you
should be able to capture a respectable chunk of those billions,
not to mention put the other charlatans out of business. It is
a free market economy -- a product that works should sell better
than one that doesn't.
Unfortunately, in a free market economy, scam oftentimes sells better
than honest advice.

Honest advice is very simple: 1) start exercising a lot 2) stop eating
crap food 3) eat less.

How much money can I make selling this very sound advice? ZIP. It is
boring and trivial. Can I sell "nutrition bars" based on my 3 points
above? No.

How much money can someone make selling a fad diet even if it does not
work well? A lot.

In a free market economy, there are numerous inefficiencies.

People want to think that there is an easier way to lose weight than
what I outlined. They are desperate to pay anyone who promises them
that. They think that by spending money on such fad weight loss
programs, they save time or effort. Kind of like, you spend money on a
dishwasher and it saves you time. The problem is, dishonest weight
loss programs do not work but some people refuse to believe it.

i
223/176/180
Michael Snyder
2003-10-09 03:05:32 UTC
Permalink
Ignoramus792 wrote in message ...
Post by Ignoramus792
There is no way to help someone lose weight if they want to gorge on
cakes and junk food, more than they want to lose fat.
And yet millions of people spend billions of dollars every year,
seeking help with losing weight.
Correct. They spend billions of dollars, and possibly some of them get
actually helped. Think Curves etc. But many do not spend the necessary
_effort_ to lose weight. Something as simple as 1-2 hours walking per
day and giving up foods which are irresistible. Throwing money at this
problem does not necessarily solve it.
If it were as easy as you say, word would get out, and people
would do that instead of spending billions on diets and schemes
that don't work. Your premise that people do not actually expend
significant amounts of effort, or deny themselves the foods that they
crave, is ridiculous. They go on Atkins diets, they go on Tarnower
diets, they go on Scarsdale diets, they go on weight watchers diets,
jenny craig diets, pineapple/cottage cheese diets, avocado diets,
grapefruit diets. American women can hardly be induced to eat
the foods they actually like (let alone a regular soda). People spend
hours in gyms, jogging, bycicling, they expend absurd amounts of
effort to lose weight. If there was a simple formula that worked
for everyone, Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, Fat Busters and
Trim Spa would be out of business.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-09 09:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
If it were as easy as you say, word would get out, and people
would do that instead of spending billions on diets and schemes
that don't work.
It's not easy for many people to face the fact that they overeat. They
want to lose weight, but not enough to make them eat less and exercise
more. They also don't want to admit that their obesity might be a
result of their own actions, and not some mysterious genetic cause or
exotic disease condition or hormonal imbalance.

People are very willing to spend money on what they believe in, whether
their beliefs are congruent with reality or not. Fat people are willing
to spend large amounts of money on fad diets that don't work, because
then they can have the feeling that they are "doing something" about
their weight without actually having to eat less and exercise more. And
when the fad diets don't work, they can hold this up as "proof" that
they are "special," with some unusual disease or hormonal problem or
magic blend of genes that allows their bodies to violate all the rules
of physics.

People like this end life with less money, but just as much fat.
Post by Michael Snyder
American women can hardly be induced to eat
the foods they actually like (let alone a regular soda).
They eat too much of everything, and they _do_ eat what they like, they
just "forget" to take it into account in their eating plan ("it's just
one cookie, it won't matter"). They eat huge meals and think that
buying a diet soda will compensate for all the excess calories.
Post by Michael Snyder
If there was a simple formula that worked
for everyone, Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, Fat Busters and
Trim Spa would be out of business.
No, they would not. There are suckers born every minute. One of the
easiest ways to make money in this world is by telling people exactly
what they want to hear.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Full Mu_n
2003-10-09 16:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Exceptionally well spoken, Mx.

=====================================================
Post by Mxsmanic
It's not easy for many people to face the fact that they overeat. They
want to lose weight, but not enough to make them eat less and exercise
more. They also don't want to admit that their obesity might be a
result of their own actions, and not some mysterious genetic cause or
exotic disease condition or hormonal imbalance.
People are very willing to spend money on what they believe in, whether
their beliefs are congruent with reality or not. Fat people are willing
to spend large amounts of money on fad diets that don't work, because
then they can have the feeling that they are "doing something" about
their weight without actually having to eat less and exercise more. And
when the fad diets don't work, they can hold this up as "proof" that
they are "special," with some unusual disease or hormonal problem or
magic blend of genes that allows their bodies to violate all the rules
of physics.
People like this end life with less money, but just as much fat.
Post by Michael Snyder
American women can hardly be induced to eat
the foods they actually like (let alone a regular soda).
They eat too much of everything, and they _do_ eat what they like, they
just "forget" to take it into account in their eating plan ("it's just
one cookie, it won't matter"). They eat huge meals and think that
buying a diet soda will compensate for all the excess calories.
Post by Michael Snyder
If there was a simple formula that worked
for everyone, Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, Fat Busters and
Trim Spa would be out of business.
No, they would not. There are suckers born every minute. One of the
easiest ways to make money in this world is by telling people exactly
what they want to hear.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Ignoramus13806
2003-10-09 10:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
Ignoramus792 wrote in message ...
Post by Ignoramus792
There is no way to help someone lose weight if they want to gorge on
cakes and junk food, more than they want to lose fat.
And yet millions of people spend billions of dollars every year,
seeking help with losing weight.
Correct. They spend billions of dollars, and possibly some of them get
actually helped. Think Curves etc. But many do not spend the necessary
_effort_ to lose weight. Something as simple as 1-2 hours walking per
day and giving up foods which are irresistible. Throwing money at this
problem does not necessarily solve it.
If it were as easy as you say, word would get out, and people
would do that instead of spending billions on diets and schemes
that don't work.
The word is out. The 3 point plan that I had is well known. I did not
invent it. I just followed it and it worked.

But people are in denial. They refuse to listen. That's why they spend
so much money on fad fat loss programs.
Post by Michael Snyder
Your premise that people do not actually expend
significant amounts of effort, or deny themselves the foods that they
crave, is ridiculous. They go on Atkins diets, they go on Tarnower
diets, they go on Scarsdale diets, they go on weight watchers diets,
jenny craig diets, pineapple/cottage cheese diets, avocado diets,
grapefruit diets.
Well, the focus on "dieting" as in changing what you eat temporarily
to drop weight, is wrong. The focus should be on exercise and changing
what yuo eat permanently. Besides, those people do not stay on those
diets (many of which are impossible to stay on).
Post by Michael Snyder
American women can hardly be induced to eat
the foods they actually like (let alone a regular soda). People spend
hours in gyms, jogging, bycicling, they expend absurd amounts of
effort to lose weight.
and for those you see jogging and bicycling, their exercise apparently
is working as most of them are slim. I realize that itis hard to be an
obese jogger due to joint issues though.
Post by Michael Snyder
If there was a simple formula that worked
for everyone, Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, Fat Busters and
Trim Spa would be out of business.
There is a simple formula, but it actually involved work and eating
less and sometimes not eating when you would like to. Some people are
in denial and think they can avoid that by paying someone money.

It is all well known.

i
Mxsmanic
2003-10-09 10:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignoramus13806
and for those you see jogging and bicycling, their exercise apparently
is working as most of them are slim. I realize that itis hard to be an
obese jogger due to joint issues though.
Jogging isn't very good for the body. It helps the heart and the lungs
to some extent, but it puts a lot of damaging stress on just about
everything else. Walking is safer.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Ignoramus13806
2003-10-09 12:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Ignoramus13806
and for those you see jogging and bicycling, their exercise apparently
is working as most of them are slim. I realize that itis hard to be an
obese jogger due to joint issues though.
Jogging isn't very good for the body. It helps the heart and the lungs
to some extent, but it puts a lot of damaging stress on just about
everything else. Walking is safer.
I agree. I jog a couple of times a week these days, to avoid stress on
the joints.

i
Courageous
2003-10-09 15:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Walking is safer.
If one is lucky enough to have steep terrain near home, walking
through it is nearly as good as jogging, without the impact.

C//
Mxsmanic
2003-10-09 19:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Courageous
If one is lucky enough to have steep terrain near home, walking
through it is nearly as good as jogging, without the impact.
In terms of calories consumed per unit time, yes. But walking in
general is an excellent form of exercise, precisely because it is so
gentle and easy to accomplish. You don't burn calories fast, but you
burn them painlessly, and with minimal risk to your health, even if you
aren't terribly fit. Things like jogging and running can result in
serious injury, or worse, in people who are not in the proper shape to
undertake them. Even in highly fit individuals, the stress of these
exercises can cause injury.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Full Mu_n
2003-10-09 19:24:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
But walking in
general is an excellent form of exercise, precisely because it is so
gentle and easy to accomplish. You don't burn calories fast, but you
burn them painlessly, and with minimal risk to your health, even if you
aren't terribly fit.
It also has the highest rate of use, over time, than any other known
exercise for the CV system.

Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-09 21:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Full Mu_n
It also has the highest rate of use, over time, than any other known
exercise for the CV system.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Full Mu_n
2003-10-09 23:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Full Mu_n
It also has the highest rate of use, over time, than any other known
exercise for the CV system.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Walking has more long term users and more long term adherence than any
other exercise regardless of an anaerobic and aerobic classification.

Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Michael Snyder
2003-10-09 17:16:10 UTC
Permalink
Ignoramus13806 wrote in message ...
Post by Ignoramus13806
Post by Michael Snyder
Ignoramus792 wrote in message ...
Post by Ignoramus792
There is no way to help someone lose weight if they want to gorge on
cakes and junk food, more than they want to lose fat.
And yet millions of people spend billions of dollars every year,
seeking help with losing weight.
Correct. They spend billions of dollars, and possibly some of them get
actually helped. Think Curves etc. But many do not spend the necessary
_effort_ to lose weight. Something as simple as 1-2 hours walking per
day and giving up foods which are irresistible. Throwing money at this
problem does not necessarily solve it.
If it were as easy as you say, word would get out, and people
would do that instead of spending billions on diets and schemes
that don't work.
The word is out. The 3 point plan that I had is well known. I did not
invent it. I just followed it and it worked.
I'm very glad for you. The Scarsdale diet also works -- for some.
The Atkins diet works -- for some. The Grapefruit diet works -- for some.
No diet, including yours, works for everyone.
Crafting Mom
2003-10-09 17:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
I'm very glad for you. The Scarsdale diet also works -- for some.
The Atkins diet works -- for some. The Grapefruit diet works -- for some.
No diet, including yours, works for everyone.
Again, it's not type of diet that is the issue.
It's the amount of time one is willing to put into keeping their
body healthy.

Crafting Mom
http://ca.photos.yahoo.com/craftingmom2001
Modified WOL since spring '02 || Weight at start: over 250 lb
Today's weight: 180.5 lb || Goal/Maintenance: 140 lb
Fancy Pants NYC
2003-10-10 17:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
I'm very glad for you. The Scarsdale diet also works -- for some.
The Atkins diet works -- for some. The Grapefruit diet works -- for some.
No diet, including yours, works for everyone.
All hypocaloric diets work for everyone.

If you just eat less calories than you burn, you HAVE to lose weight.
You can eat oreo cookies and ice cream all the time. As long as you
eat oreos and ice cream and continue to have a caloric defecit YOU
WILL LOSE WEIGHT. Call it it oreo's and cookies diet and go make a
million bucks. You can have the Budweiser diet. Just drink Bud. 5 buds
a day is 750 calories. 4 scoops (tablespoons) of peanut butter is
another 400 calories. Have 6 oreo cookies for 320 calories. A daily
total of 1470 calories. Hypocaloric for many folks, myself included.
The peanut butter, oreos and bud diet. You can get a good buzz, eat
crap and lose weight. Now neither of these are nutirent rich but they
are hypocaloric (at least 1500 calories for me is) and will cause
weight loss.

An excess amount of calories doesn't enter your body via a miracle. It
is intentional unless you are force fed. Similarly, anyone can choose
to eat less of some cake, a smaller portion of pasta, drink a beer
rather than a 6 pack, have a single serving of sugared soda etc.

The hard part is finding the motivation to eat less. How bad do you
want to make the fat go away is the real question.
Ignoramus19432
2003-10-10 17:12:04 UTC
Permalink
How long will you last on peanut butter only diet?

i
Post by Fancy Pants NYC
WILL LOSE WEIGHT. Call it it oreo's and cookies diet and go make a
million bucks. You can have the Budweiser diet. Just drink Bud. 5 buds
a day is 750 calories. 4 scoops (tablespoons) of peanut butter is
another 400 calories. Have 6 oreo cookies for 320 calories. A daily
total of 1470 calories. Hypocaloric for many folks, myself included.
The peanut butter, oreos and bud diet. You can get a good buzz, eat
crap and lose weight. Now neither of these are nutirent rich but they
are hypocaloric (at least 1500 calories for me is) and will cause
weight loss.
An excess amount of calories doesn't enter your body via a miracle. It
is intentional unless you are force fed. Similarly, anyone can choose
to eat less of some cake, a smaller portion of pasta, drink a beer
rather than a 6 pack, have a single serving of sugared soda etc.
The hard part is finding the motivation to eat less. How bad do you
want to make the fat go away is the real question.
SuperSpark ®
2003-10-10 18:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignoramus19432
How long will you last on peanut butter only diet?
How long are people willing to eat that pig-trough slop they call the
Atkins Diet?

I know a woman who lost 40 or 50 lbs doing low carb. She went off it and
has been gaining steadily ever since. She's definately where she
started, if not bigger.

It's just not a sustainable diet.
Post by Ignoramus19432
Post by Fancy Pants NYC
WILL LOSE WEIGHT. Call it it oreo's and cookies diet and go make a
million bucks. You can have the Budweiser diet. Just drink Bud. 5 buds
a day is 750 calories. 4 scoops (tablespoons) of peanut butter is
another 400 calories. Have 6 oreo cookies for 320 calories. A daily
total of 1470 calories. Hypocaloric for many folks, myself included.
The peanut butter, oreos and bud diet. You can get a good buzz, eat
crap and lose weight. Now neither of these are nutirent rich but they
are hypocaloric (at least 1500 calories for me is) and will cause
weight loss.
An excess amount of calories doesn't enter your body via a miracle. It
is intentional unless you are force fed. Similarly, anyone can choose
to eat less of some cake, a smaller portion of pasta, drink a beer
rather than a 6 pack, have a single serving of sugared soda etc.
The hard part is finding the motivation to eat less. How bad do you
want to make the fat go away is the real question.
Full Mu_n
2003-10-10 19:07:15 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:59:00 GMT, SuperSpark ®
Post by SuperSpark ®
How long are people willing to eat that pig-trough slop they call the
Atkins Diet?
I know a woman who lost 40 or 50 lbs doing low carb. She went off it and
has been gaining steadily ever since. She's definately where she
started, if not bigger.
It's just not a sustainable diet.
The proof is in the fact that, in six months, the research has clearly
shown the failure rate is astronomical. 95 out of 100. In two years, 1
in 100 is still in weight loss/maintenance on Atkins.

Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Marcio Watanabe
2003-10-10 19:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Full Mu_n
The proof is in the fact that, in six months, the research has clearly
shown the failure rate is astronomical. 95 out of 100. In two years, 1
in 100 is still in weight loss/maintenance on Atkins.
I'm not for or against Atkins, but I'm tired of people throwing
numbers out of nowhere and claming "research" to make it sound real.

I'm going to be blunt: you made up these numbers or you got it from
someone who made up these numbers. But please, prove me wrong by
showing proof of such research.

--
Marcio Watanabe
Full Mu_n
2003-10-10 19:56:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcio Watanabe
I'm going to be blunt: you made up these numbers or you got it from
someone who made up these numbers. But please, prove me wrong by
showing proof of such research.
I don't do research homework for others and I don't discuss research
citations with those that have no expertise in reading them.

Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Marcio Watanabe
2003-10-10 21:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Full Mu_n
Post by Marcio Watanabe
I'm going to be blunt: you made up these numbers or you got it from
someone who made up these numbers. But please, prove me wrong by
showing proof of such research.
I don't do research homework for others and I don't discuss research
citations with those that have no expertise in reading them.
I rest my case. Thank you for proving my point.

--
Marcio Watanabe
Courageous
2003-10-11 01:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Full Mu_n
I don't discuss research
citations with those that have no expertise in reading them.
There are certainly people observing this thread who have
plenty of experience reading research results, and know
their parametric from nonparametric inferential statistics
as well. Don't flatter yourself.

C//
Full Mu_n
2003-10-11 18:33:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 01:22:55 GMT, Courageous
Post by Courageous
There are certainly people observing this thread who have
plenty of experience reading research results, and know
their parametric from nonparametric inferential statistics
as well.
I don't care how experienced they are, it doesn't mean they have a
clue about what they are reading, whether the study is valid, what
parts are valid, etc.

I talk to and am taught by actual researchers who do this type of
thing for a living. I listen to them. anyone here a researcher in the
fields in question?

Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Marcio Watanabe
2003-10-12 16:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Courageous
Post by Full Mu_n
I don't discuss research
citations with those that have no expertise in reading them.
There are certainly people observing this thread who have
plenty of experience reading research results, and know
their parametric from nonparametric inferential statistics
as well. Don't flatter yourself.
His response is typical of someone who made up his facts. He doesn't
have any research results to show.

--
Marcio Watanabe
Ignoramus19432
2003-10-10 19:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by SuperSpark ®
Post by Ignoramus19432
How long will you last on peanut butter only diet?
How long are people willing to eat that pig-trough slop they call the
Atkins Diet?
why do you call it pig trough slop?
Post by SuperSpark ®
I know a woman who lost 40 or 50 lbs doing low carb. She went off it and
has been gaining steadily ever since. She's definately where she
started, if not bigger.
It's just not a sustainable diet.
Most dieters fail though. You would need to show that Atkins is not
one of the better diets. But any diets will have a lot of people
falling off the bandwagon.

I returned to normal weight a month ago and have not regained anything
yet. I was not on atkins. However, I know that as soon as I start
eating as much as I want, I will regain.

i
223/176/180
Mxsmanic
2003-10-10 21:19:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by SuperSpark ®
I know a woman who lost 40 or 50 lbs doing low carb. She went off it and
has been gaining steadily ever since. She's definately where she
started, if not bigger.
Her mistake was going off of it. One does not stop a diet after losing
weight. Diets must be adopted for life. If you return to your old way
of eating, you'll return to your old weight as well.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-10 21:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignoramus19432
How long will you last on peanut butter only diet?
Before dying of malnutrition? A very long time.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
SuperSpark ®
2003-10-10 19:02:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fancy Pants NYC
Post by Michael Snyder
I'm very glad for you. The Scarsdale diet also works -- for some.
The Atkins diet works -- for some. The Grapefruit diet works -- for some.
No diet, including yours, works for everyone.
All hypocaloric diets work for everyone.
The Atkins is simply low cal in disguise. No one wants to believe it of
course, because they all think they found the magic cure to weight
loss-- eat all the fat you want--which is patenly ridiculous and, I
suspect, dangerous to the blood chemistry in the long run.

Not one study exists on the long term ramifications of eating high
(saturated) fat and high protein. Not one.
Post by Fancy Pants NYC
If you just eat less calories than you burn, you HAVE to lose weight.
You can eat oreo cookies and ice cream all the time. As long as you
eat oreos and ice cream and continue to have a caloric defecit YOU
WILL LOSE WEIGHT. Call it it oreo's and cookies diet and go make a
million bucks. You can have the Budweiser diet. Just drink Bud. 5 buds
a day is 750 calories. 4 scoops (tablespoons) of peanut butter is
another 400 calories. Have 6 oreo cookies for 320 calories. A daily
total of 1470 calories. Hypocaloric for many folks, myself included.
The peanut butter, oreos and bud diet. You can get a good buzz, eat
crap and lose weight. Now neither of these are nutirent rich but they
are hypocaloric (at least 1500 calories for me is) and will cause
weight loss.
An excess amount of calories doesn't enter your body via a miracle. It
is intentional unless you are force fed. Similarly, anyone can choose
to eat less of some cake, a smaller portion of pasta, drink a beer
rather than a 6 pack, have a single serving of sugared soda etc.
The hard part is finding the motivation to eat less. How bad do you
want to make the fat go away is the real question.
miguel
2003-10-10 19:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by SuperSpark ®
Not one study exists on the long term ramifications of eating high
(saturated) fat and high protein. Not one.
What is the diet of the Inuit?

Does Inuit life expectancy differ from the life expectancy
of hi carb fatties?

miguel
Ignoramus19432
2003-10-10 19:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by SuperSpark ®
Not one study exists on the long term ramifications of eating high
(saturated) fat and high protein. Not one.
What is the diet of the Inuit?
Does Inuit life expectancy differ from the life expectancy
of hi carb fatties?
the answer to your question would be worthless because unuits live a
very different lifestyle.

Nevertheless, the answer is that " life expectancy among the Inuit are
comparatively low. Cancer rates in these sites are found to be among
the highest in the world and they are usually associated with tobacco
and alcohol consumption".

i
SuperSpark ®
2003-10-14 19:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by SuperSpark ®
Not one study exists on the long term ramifications of eating high
(saturated) fat and high protein. Not one.
What is the diet of the Inuit?
200 years ago? Probably nothing baby freshly clubbed baby seals and
whale blubber, with whatever tree bark, grubs, berries they could find
to supplement.

Today I'd suspect it's westerized as anyone's diet. Mac and cheese,
Pepsi, Doritos, frozen pizza and the like.
Post by miguel
Does Inuit life expectancy differ from the life expectancy
of hi carb fatties?
There isn't any research on life expectancy of low carb dieters, as the
phenomenonal popularity of LC is relatively new. These studies are being
set up now, but sadly no one sticks to the diet long enough to reach a
conclusion of any real data. Big shocker, I know.

Anyway, I suspect any long term data on a high fat diet will lead to the
obvious. Artelesclorosis and heart disease. Atkins dieters are not
eating raw seal blubber, as far as I know, and native people of extreme
northern climates escape such fate as their diets are high in Omega-3
and 6, which are heart friendly fatty acids. They do suffer other diet
related health problems beyond the scope of this thread.

The Danimal
2003-10-10 18:06:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
I'm very glad for you. The Scarsdale diet also works -- for some.
The Atkins diet works -- for some. The Grapefruit diet works -- for some.
No diet, including yours, works for everyone.
Is there any documented instance of a reduced-calorie diet
failing to "work" for anyone who actually followed the diet?

Saying a diet does not "work" when a subject does not follow the
diet is like saying an automobile does not "work" when people
refuse to start the engine and press the accelerator. If someone
performs a "let's go driving" dance around the car and the
car remains stationary, that's not sufficient to conclude the
car is broken. It means the customer lacks the necessary
understanding to use the car. If the manufacturer claimed the
car was smart enough to interpret dance, then the car would be
broken with respect to that claim.

When people say a diet does not "work," all available evidence
supports the hypothesis that those people euphemistically mean
the diet failed to motivate them to follow the diet.

In that sense diets usually do fail---few diet plans provide as
much pleasure and satisfaction as unrestrained gluttony. Gluttony
is popular because it feels good.

A quote from p. 116 of the book "Why We Feel" by Victor S. Johnston:

"Incredibly, the release of dopamine onto the nucleus accumbens
has now been established to underlie almost every form of pleasure
that animals can experience. Blocking the action of dopamine at the
nucleus accumbens will stop an animal from stimulating its pleasure
pathway (in the experiment discussed earlier), and even more
important, it will block the pleasurable effects of a host of
natural rewards, such as food and water and sex. In addition, it
has now been established that all addictive drugs---like
cocaine, amphetamine, alcohol, and heroin---either directly or
indirectly activate the pleasure pathway and eventually release
dopamine onto the nucleus accumbens. The release of dopamine onto
the nucleus accumbens, then, appears to underly all of our
rewarding feelings."

This is why Dr. Chaos states elsewhere in this thread that to cure
obesity in the United States on a large (heh) scale requires
changes to brain chemistry. This is the chemistry that counts: the
release of dopamine onto the nucleus accumbens---the "feel good"
part of the brain.

Research would probably show---if it hasn't shown this already---
that a person who chronically overeats gets an immediate reward by
doing so. Some sequence of chemical messengers begins at the
olfactory sensors and later at the stomach and leads to that
dopamine hitting the "feel good" spot.

A person who can "eat anything he wants without gaining weight"
is not necessarily able to eat more calories than an overweight
person of similar lean body mass and activity level. Rather, the
person who can "eat anything he wants" probably derives less of
a pleasure hit by eating more calories in the short term than
he needs to maintain weight. For whatever reason, his brain does
not reward him with as much pleasure for overeating as the
obese person's brain rewards him. He may experience much pleasure
in eating food he needs, but when he has had the proper amount,
the reward system temporarily shuts off. Further eating will not
be enjoyable until he expends some calories and his appetite
returns.

To some degree this may depend on the types of foods a person eats.
It's far more enjoyable to overeat doughnuts than to consume the
calorie equivalent in raw carrots (about one pound of carrots
equals a medium-sized doughnut---try eating a pound of raw carrots
at one sitting). However, attempting to eat carrots instead of
doughnuts does not erase a person's memory of how much
fun it is to eat doughnuts. In the Biosphere experiment, at one
point all the crops except carrots and yams failed, so the
subjects had to eat nothing but those foods. Despite attempting
to eat as much as they could, none were able to maintain weight
and the experiment came close to being cancelled until other crops
produced.

The obese person needs to have his reward system reprogrammed
to be like the "naturally" slender person: instead of rewarding him
with more pleasure when he eats more than he needs in a day, his brain
should deter him with disgust if he continues to eat after having enough
calories.

Obviously diet plans alone will have a hard time fundamentally
restructuring what a person enjoys doing. As experience shows, it
is incredibly difficult to persuade people not to do things they
enjoy. In some cases, people are willing to risk dying early, or
go to jail, or endure social sanction, rather than refrain from
doing the things that release dopamine quickly onto their
nuclei accumbens. Sometimes the less-immediate external
deterrents cause the addict to retreat further into his addiction.

However, we can infer restructuring brain chemistry on a massive
scale is possible through environmental change alone. A century ago,
the ancestors of modern Americans were, on average, far leaner, and
most of them had ample food. Most could have eaten a few hundred
excess kcal/day with no problem, but fewer of them did. (Food supply
is not the limiting factor as long as a person spends only a small
faction of net income on food. A century ago in the U.S.A., people
had plenty of money to spend on things like railroads, major wars,
city-building, and so on. Getting enough to eat was obviously not
a huge problem for most.)

That strongly suggests something has changed in the environment which
has changed the brain chemistry of many people. Before, people's
brains told them when to stop eating, and now a lot of people's
brains are saying "when" a bit later.

The obvious suspects are (a) the presence of tasty, high-calorie
convenience foods; (b) cultural changes toward larger portion
sizes; (c) labor-saving technologies (e.g., the automobile); and
(d) the proliferation of compelling sedentary entertainments
(TV, video games, computers). It's obvious those factors
could make it easier to get fat, but it's not obvious how those
factors would actually increase the pleasure reward from maintaining
a calorie surplus. Evidently (many) human brains reprogram their
pleasure pathway in response to sustained signals from the
environment.

It will be difficult for any diet plan to generate signals
of comparable intensity to nullify the vast cultural changes
in the United States over the past century. However, support
groups might help, if they trigger dopamine release onto
a person's nucleus accumbens through the mechanism of social
approval, and if the subject correctly associates that reward
with the action of eating less.

It's interesting to note the conflict between competing reward
systems. The chronic overeater who wants to lose weight derives
an immediate reward from continuing to overeat, but also experiences
a longer-term deterrent from the consequences of past overeating
(social rejection, health problems, loss of mobility, etc.).
These deterrents are sufficiently unpleasant to have caused most
obese people to want to lose weight at some times in their lives.

Unfortunately for the overweight person, the reward is much
easier to associate subconsciously with the food, and overeating
is easy to conceal and deny. There is no direct deterrent to the
eating itself, because eating is a perfectly normal activity; there
is only a deterrent to the longer-term consequences of overeating.
In the battle between feel-good-now vs. feel-good-later,
feel-good-now usually wins.

Humans have some ability to learn to associate events that occur at
different times. Some animals, like cats, are unable to comprehend
a scolding which takes place more than a few seconds after the
corresponding offense. A clever human might eventually learn to
associate extra daily doughnuts with rude comments on the bus or
a lack of dating success six months later.

However, it's hard for a human to communicate cerebral learning
back to the reward center. Knowing that something enjoyable is
a bad idea does not make it much less enjoyable.

-- the Danimal
miguel
2003-10-10 18:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Danimal
Post by Michael Snyder
I'm very glad for you. The Scarsdale diet also works -- for some.
The Atkins diet works -- for some. The Grapefruit diet works -- for some.
No diet, including yours, works for everyone.
Is there any documented instance of a reduced-calorie diet
failing to "work" for anyone who actually followed the diet?
Saying a diet does not "work" when a subject does not follow the
diet is like saying an automobile does not "work" when people
refuse to start the engine and press the accelerator. If someone
performs a "let's go driving" dance around the car and the
car remains stationary, that's not sufficient to conclude the
car is broken. It means the customer lacks the necessary
understanding to use the car. If the manufacturer claimed the
car was smart enough to interpret dance, then the car would be
broken with respect to that claim.
LOL

Dan, I want to buy a bicycle. Any advice?

miguel
The Danimal
2003-10-13 15:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by The Danimal
Post by Michael Snyder
I'm very glad for you. The Scarsdale diet also works -- for some.
The Atkins diet works -- for some. The Grapefruit diet works -- for some.
No diet, including yours, works for everyone.
Is there any documented instance of a reduced-calorie diet
failing to "work" for anyone who actually followed the diet?
Saying a diet does not "work" when a subject does not follow the
diet is like saying an automobile does not "work" when people
refuse to start the engine and press the accelerator. If someone
performs a "let's go driving" dance around the car and the
car remains stationary, that's not sufficient to conclude the
car is broken. It means the customer lacks the necessary
understanding to use the car. If the manufacturer claimed the
car was smart enough to interpret dance, then the car would be
broken with respect to that claim.
LOL
Dan, I want to buy a bicycle. Any advice?
Yes: buy it. And the other stuff you will need.

I could write a book on other things you might benefit from knowing,
depending on what you already know, and what sort of bicycling you
want to do.

Probably most of what I would write is already in books, however.
If you don't know much about bicycling, you'll benefit from reading
about it.
Post by miguel
miguel
-- the Danimal
Jim Ledford
2003-10-13 15:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by The Danimal
Post by Michael Snyder
I'm very glad for you. The Scarsdale diet also works -- for some.
The Atkins diet works -- for some. The Grapefruit diet works -- for some.
No diet, including yours, works for everyone.
Is there any documented instance of a reduced-calorie diet
failing to "work" for anyone who actually followed the diet?
Saying a diet does not "work" when a subject does not follow the
diet is like saying an automobile does not "work" when people
refuse to start the engine and press the accelerator. If someone
performs a "let's go driving" dance around the car and the
car remains stationary, that's not sufficient to conclude the
car is broken. It means the customer lacks the necessary
understanding to use the car. If the manufacturer claimed the
car was smart enough to interpret dance, then the car would be
broken with respect to that claim.
LOL
I want to see your "let's go driving" dance, I bet it's a good one.
Post by miguel
Dan, I want to buy a bicycle.
good luck.
Post by miguel
miguel
Jim Ledford
2003-10-11 10:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Danimal
Post by Michael Snyder
I'm very glad for you. The Scarsdale diet also works -- for some.
The Atkins diet works -- for some. The Grapefruit diet works -- for some.
No diet, including yours, works for everyone.
Is there any documented instance of a reduced-calorie diet
failing to "work" for anyone who actually followed the diet?
Saying a diet does not "work" when a subject does not follow the
diet is like saying an automobile does not "work" when people
refuse to start the engine and press the accelerator. If someone
performs a "let's go driving" dance around the car and the
car remains stationary,
ROTFLMAO

I've seen that dance, starts with blank
look on face while scratching head.

usually they end their dance with their
check book or credit card in hand.
Post by The Danimal
that's not sufficient to conclude the
car is broken. It means the customer lacks the necessary
understanding to use the car. If the manufacturer claimed the
car was smart enough to interpret dance, then the car would be
broken with respect to that claim.
When people say a diet does not "work," all available evidence
supports the hypothesis that those people euphemistically mean
the diet failed to motivate them to follow the diet.
In that sense diets usually do fail---few diet plans provide as
much pleasure and satisfaction as unrestrained gluttony. Gluttony
is popular because it feels good.
"Incredibly, the release of dopamine onto the nucleus accumbens
has now been established to underlie almost every form of pleasure
that animals can experience. Blocking the action of dopamine at the
nucleus accumbens will stop an animal from stimulating its pleasure
pathway (in the experiment discussed earlier), and even more
important, it will block the pleasurable effects of a host of
natural rewards, such as food and water and sex. In addition, it
has now been established that all addictive drugs---like
cocaine, amphetamine, alcohol, and heroin---either directly or
indirectly activate the pleasure pathway and eventually release
dopamine onto the nucleus accumbens. The release of dopamine onto
the nucleus accumbens, then, appears to underly all of our
rewarding feelings."
This is why Dr. Chaos states elsewhere in this thread that to cure
obesity in the United States on a large (heh) scale requires
changes to brain chemistry. This is the chemistry that counts: the
release of dopamine onto the nucleus accumbens---the "feel good"
part of the brain.
Research would probably show---if it hasn't shown this already---
that a person who chronically overeats gets an immediate reward by
doing so. Some sequence of chemical messengers begins at the
olfactory sensors and later at the stomach and leads to that
dopamine hitting the "feel good" spot.
A person who can "eat anything he wants without gaining weight"
is not necessarily able to eat more calories than an overweight
person of similar lean body mass and activity level. Rather, the
person who can "eat anything he wants" probably derives less of
a pleasure hit by eating more calories in the short term than
he needs to maintain weight. For whatever reason, his brain does
not reward him with as much pleasure for overeating as the
obese person's brain rewards him. He may experience much pleasure
in eating food he needs, but when he has had the proper amount,
the reward system temporarily shuts off. Further eating will not
be enjoyable until he expends some calories and his appetite
returns.
To some degree this may depend on the types of foods a person eats.
It's far more enjoyable to overeat doughnuts than to consume the
calorie equivalent in raw carrots (about one pound of carrots
equals a medium-sized doughnut---try eating a pound of raw carrots
at one sitting). However, attempting to eat carrots instead of
doughnuts does not erase a person's memory of how much
fun it is to eat doughnuts. In the Biosphere experiment, at one
point all the crops except carrots and yams failed, so the
subjects had to eat nothing but those foods. Despite attempting
to eat as much as they could, none were able to maintain weight
and the experiment came close to being cancelled until other crops
produced.
The obese person needs to have his reward system reprogrammed
to be like the "naturally" slender person: instead of rewarding him
with more pleasure when he eats more than he needs in a day, his brain
should deter him with disgust if he continues to eat after having enough
calories.
Obviously diet plans alone will have a hard time fundamentally
restructuring what a person enjoys doing. As experience shows, it
is incredibly difficult to persuade people not to do things they
enjoy. In some cases, people are willing to risk dying early, or
go to jail, or endure social sanction, rather than refrain from
doing the things that release dopamine quickly onto their
nuclei accumbens. Sometimes the less-immediate external
deterrents cause the addict to retreat further into his addiction.
However, we can infer restructuring brain chemistry on a massive
scale is possible through environmental change alone. A century ago,
the ancestors of modern Americans were, on average, far leaner, and
most of them had ample food. Most could have eaten a few hundred
excess kcal/day with no problem, but fewer of them did. (Food supply
is not the limiting factor as long as a person spends only a small
faction of net income on food. A century ago in the U.S.A., people
had plenty of money to spend on things like railroads, major wars,
city-building, and so on. Getting enough to eat was obviously not
a huge problem for most.)
That strongly suggests something has changed in the environment which
has changed the brain chemistry of many people. Before, people's
brains told them when to stop eating, and now a lot of people's
brains are saying "when" a bit later.
The obvious suspects are (a) the presence of tasty, high-calorie
convenience foods; (b) cultural changes toward larger portion
sizes; (c) labor-saving technologies (e.g., the automobile); and
(d) the proliferation of compelling sedentary entertainments
(TV, video games, computers). It's obvious those factors
could make it easier to get fat, but it's not obvious how those
factors would actually increase the pleasure reward from maintaining
a calorie surplus. Evidently (many) human brains reprogram their
pleasure pathway in response to sustained signals from the
environment.
It will be difficult for any diet plan to generate signals
of comparable intensity to nullify the vast cultural changes
in the United States over the past century. However, support
groups might help, if they trigger dopamine release onto
a person's nucleus accumbens through the mechanism of social
approval, and if the subject correctly associates that reward
with the action of eating less.
It's interesting to note the conflict between competing reward
systems. The chronic overeater who wants to lose weight derives
an immediate reward from continuing to overeat, but also experiences
a longer-term deterrent from the consequences of past overeating
(social rejection, health problems, loss of mobility, etc.).
These deterrents are sufficiently unpleasant to have caused most
obese people to want to lose weight at some times in their lives.
Unfortunately for the overweight person, the reward is much
easier to associate subconsciously with the food, and overeating
is easy to conceal and deny. There is no direct deterrent to the
eating itself, because eating is a perfectly normal activity; there
is only a deterrent to the longer-term consequences of overeating.
In the battle between feel-good-now vs. feel-good-later,
feel-good-now usually wins.
Humans have some ability to learn to associate events that occur at
different times. Some animals, like cats, are unable to comprehend
a scolding which takes place more than a few seconds after the
corresponding offense. A clever human might eventually learn to
associate extra daily doughnuts with rude comments on the bus or
a lack of dating success six months later.
However, it's hard for a human to communicate cerebral learning
back to the reward center. Knowing that something enjoyable is
a bad idea does not make it much less enjoyable.
that's kind of like knowing fatty fatty fatso porkerbeast creatures stink.
Post by The Danimal
-- the Danimal
Crafting Mom
2003-10-09 11:09:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
If it were as easy as you say, word would get out, and people
would do that instead of spending billions on diets and schemes
that don't work.
It's simple, but not necessarily "easy" at first.

People don't want to work that hard, so they willingly spend
their money on a service. I've changed my lifestyle and over
the past 1.5 years have lost 70 pounds. People constantly
ask me "How did you do it?", like it's a one-shot deal. They
don't want to hear that I am STILL doing it. They think, heck
you've lost your weight, now you don't have to worry about
food.

People don't want to hear LIFESTYLE change. They just want to
know how I lost 70 pounds, so they can go immediately back to
the ways of eating which triggered their cravings and got them
fat in the first place.

Truth is never popular.
Fancy Pants NYC
2003-10-09 14:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
Ignoramus792 wrote in message ...
Post by Ignoramus792
There is no way to help someone lose weight if they want to gorge on
cakes and junk food, more than they want to lose fat.
And yet millions of people spend billions of dollars every year,
seeking help with losing weight.
Correct. They spend billions of dollars, and possibly some of them get
actually helped. Think Curves etc. But many do not spend the necessary
_effort_ to lose weight. Something as simple as 1-2 hours walking per
day and giving up foods which are irresistible. Throwing money at this
problem does not necessarily solve it.
If it were as easy as you say, word would get out, and people
would do that instead of spending billions on diets and schemes
that don't work. Your premise that people do not actually expend
significant amounts of effort, or deny themselves the foods that they
crave, is ridiculous. They go on Atkins diets, they go on Tarnower
diets, they go on Scarsdale diets, they go on weight watchers diets,
jenny craig diets, pineapple/cottage cheese diets, avocado diets,
grapefruit diets. American women can hardly be induced to eat
the foods they actually like (let alone a regular soda). People spend
hours in gyms, jogging, bycicling, they expend absurd amounts of
effort to lose weight. If there was a simple formula that worked
for everyone, Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, Fat Busters and
Trim Spa would be out of business.
But it is as easy as i says....throwing money at the problem isn't the
cure. Spending wads of cash does not equate to a caloric deficit which
is the ONLY way to lose weight. There is no other way to lose weight
unless you amputate parts of the body. Eating less and excercizing
works. It's cheap too. You don't have to join WW, Jenny Craig, etc.
Tarnower, Atkins, Dr. Phil whatever fad diet there is ONLY work
because a caloric deficit is created. All of these fad diets and
programs WANT you to think that their program works because it's a
business. They're certainly not going to say that you should not buy
their program/diet or join their gym because that's bad business. They
need your money. They could care less whether you lose weight.

Not ice many fat burning programs on infomercials NEVER blame the
person for eating too much? Why is that? CAUSE THEY WANT YOUR MONEY
AND WANT TO MAKE YOU THINK YOU'RE A VICTIM. SO SEND THEM YOUR CASH
**THEN** THEY CAN HELP.

If you eat more calories that your body burns, you will gain weight.
If you eat less calories than your body burns, you will lose weight.
You cannot spend your way out of being overweight.
Ignoramus13806
2003-10-09 14:40:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fancy Pants NYC
Post by Michael Snyder
Ignoramus792 wrote in message ...
Post by Ignoramus792
There is no way to help someone lose weight if they want to gorge on
cakes and junk food, more than they want to lose fat.
And yet millions of people spend billions of dollars every year,
seeking help with losing weight.
Correct. They spend billions of dollars, and possibly some of them get
actually helped. Think Curves etc. But many do not spend the necessary
_effort_ to lose weight. Something as simple as 1-2 hours walking per
day and giving up foods which are irresistible. Throwing money at this
problem does not necessarily solve it.
If it were as easy as you say, word would get out, and people
would do that instead of spending billions on diets and schemes
that don't work. Your premise that people do not actually expend
significant amounts of effort, or deny themselves the foods that they
crave, is ridiculous. They go on Atkins diets, they go on Tarnower
diets, they go on Scarsdale diets, they go on weight watchers diets,
jenny craig diets, pineapple/cottage cheese diets, avocado diets,
grapefruit diets. American women can hardly be induced to eat
the foods they actually like (let alone a regular soda). People spend
hours in gyms, jogging, bycicling, they expend absurd amounts of
effort to lose weight. If there was a simple formula that worked
for everyone, Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, Fat Busters and
Trim Spa would be out of business.
But it is as easy as i says....throwing money at the problem isn't the
cure. Spending wads of cash does not equate to a caloric deficit which
is the ONLY way to lose weight. There is no other way to lose weight
unless you amputate parts of the body. Eating less and excercizing
works. It's cheap too. You don't have to join WW, Jenny Craig, etc.
Tarnower, Atkins, Dr. Phil whatever fad diet there is ONLY work
because a caloric deficit is created. All of these fad diets and
programs WANT you to think that their program works because it's a
business. They're certainly not going to say that you should not buy
their program/diet or join their gym because that's bad business. They
need your money. They could care less whether you lose weight.
Absolutely!

Snyder's naive thought that if it is good it is profitable, is wrong
in certain cases.

Dieting is one such case. Many people profit from people's denial and
lack of motivation to sacrifice in order to achieve the goal.
Post by Fancy Pants NYC
Not ice many fat burning programs on infomercials NEVER blame the
person for eating too much? Why is that? CAUSE THEY WANT YOUR MONEY
AND WANT TO MAKE YOU THINK YOU'RE A VICTIM. SO SEND THEM YOUR CASH
**THEN** THEY CAN HELP.
If you eat more calories that your body burns, you will gain weight.
If you eat less calories than your body burns, you will lose weight.
You cannot spend your way out of being overweight.
in fact weight loss normally makes you save money as you buy less food
and spend less gasoline.

i
Michael Snyder
2003-10-09 17:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Ignoramus13806 wrote in message ...
Post by Ignoramus13806
Post by Fancy Pants NYC
Post by Michael Snyder
Ignoramus792 wrote in message ...
Post by Ignoramus792
There is no way to help someone lose weight if they want to gorge on
cakes and junk food, more than they want to lose fat.
And yet millions of people spend billions of dollars every year,
seeking help with losing weight.
Correct. They spend billions of dollars, and possibly some of them get
actually helped. Think Curves etc. But many do not spend the necessary
_effort_ to lose weight. Something as simple as 1-2 hours walking per
day and giving up foods which are irresistible. Throwing money at this
problem does not necessarily solve it.
If it were as easy as you say, word would get out, and people
would do that instead of spending billions on diets and schemes
that don't work. Your premise that people do not actually expend
significant amounts of effort, or deny themselves the foods that they
crave, is ridiculous. They go on Atkins diets, they go on Tarnower
diets, they go on Scarsdale diets, they go on weight watchers diets,
jenny craig diets, pineapple/cottage cheese diets, avocado diets,
grapefruit diets. American women can hardly be induced to eat
the foods they actually like (let alone a regular soda). People spend
hours in gyms, jogging, bycicling, they expend absurd amounts of
effort to lose weight. If there was a simple formula that worked
for everyone, Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, Fat Busters and
Trim Spa would be out of business.
But it is as easy as i says....throwing money at the problem isn't the
cure. Spending wads of cash does not equate to a caloric deficit which
is the ONLY way to lose weight. There is no other way to lose weight
unless you amputate parts of the body. Eating less and excercizing
works. It's cheap too. You don't have to join WW, Jenny Craig, etc.
Tarnower, Atkins, Dr. Phil whatever fad diet there is ONLY work
because a caloric deficit is created. All of these fad diets and
programs WANT you to think that their program works because it's a
business. They're certainly not going to say that you should not buy
their program/diet or join their gym because that's bad business. They
need your money. They could care less whether you lose weight.
Absolutely!
Snyder's naive thought that if it is good it is profitable, is wrong
in certain cases.
Please explain why diet should follow the laws of thermodynamics
(as drastically oversimplified by you), but not those of economics.
What is it about weight loss that makes it immune to empirical
evidence and economic survival-of-the-fittest? And please explain
without recourse to the spurious argument that people are too lazy
to follow a plan that works, but not too lazy to follow numerous efforts
that require the same or greater effort.
Ignoramus13806
2003-10-09 17:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
Ignoramus13806 wrote in message ...
Post by Ignoramus13806
Post by Fancy Pants NYC
Post by Michael Snyder
Ignoramus792 wrote in message ...
Post by Ignoramus792
There is no way to help someone lose weight if they want to gorge on
cakes and junk food, more than they want to lose fat.
And yet millions of people spend billions of dollars every year,
seeking help with losing weight.
Correct. They spend billions of dollars, and possibly some of them get
actually helped. Think Curves etc. But many do not spend the necessary
_effort_ to lose weight. Something as simple as 1-2 hours walking per
day and giving up foods which are irresistible. Throwing money at this
problem does not necessarily solve it.
If it were as easy as you say, word would get out, and people
would do that instead of spending billions on diets and schemes
that don't work. Your premise that people do not actually expend
significant amounts of effort, or deny themselves the foods that they
crave, is ridiculous. They go on Atkins diets, they go on Tarnower
diets, they go on Scarsdale diets, they go on weight watchers diets,
jenny craig diets, pineapple/cottage cheese diets, avocado diets,
grapefruit diets. American women can hardly be induced to eat
the foods they actually like (let alone a regular soda). People spend
hours in gyms, jogging, bycicling, they expend absurd amounts of
effort to lose weight. If there was a simple formula that worked
for everyone, Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, Fat Busters and
Trim Spa would be out of business.
But it is as easy as i says....throwing money at the problem isn't the
cure. Spending wads of cash does not equate to a caloric deficit which
is the ONLY way to lose weight. There is no other way to lose weight
unless you amputate parts of the body. Eating less and excercizing
works. It's cheap too. You don't have to join WW, Jenny Craig, etc.
Tarnower, Atkins, Dr. Phil whatever fad diet there is ONLY work
because a caloric deficit is created. All of these fad diets and
programs WANT you to think that their program works because it's a
business. They're certainly not going to say that you should not buy
their program/diet or join their gym because that's bad business. They
need your money. They could care less whether you lose weight.
Absolutely!
Snyder's naive thought that if it is good it is profitable, is wrong
in certain cases.
Please explain why diet should follow the laws of thermodynamics (as
drastically oversimplified by you), but not those of economics.
you misunderstand laws of economics. I have a master of business
administration degree from the university of chicago, so I know
something about economics. We were taught how to scam consumers. I
took a whole class about it (and other things included in that class).
Post by Michael Snyder
What is it about weight loss that makes it immune to empirical
evidence and economic survival-of-the-fittest?
the fittest is not necessarily the most honest. There are some areas
in business where it is consistently profitable to be honest. Think
Walmart. There are other areas where scams abound. Think MLM, diet
nutrition bars, car repair, psychics, etc. It is next to impossible to
find an honest car mechanic! And the honest ones are not pushing the
scum out of business. Quite to the contrary, the honest ones get
pushed out because they cannot compete on price.

Also, many diets are quite profitable for a while, and then once a
word gets out that it does not work, it is replaced by another fad
diet. But at any time there is plenty of diet scams out there, such
as, for example, "carb blockers", at any given time. They do not
survive for long perhaps, but there is plenty of them.

Whenever the consumers are ignorant of value (car repair) or are in
denial (psychics), dishonesty is proliferating.
Post by Michael Snyder
And please explain
without recourse to the spurious argument that people are too lazy
to follow a plan that works, but not too lazy to follow numerous
efforts that require the same or greater effort.
You can be determined in one aspect of your life but not in another.

People are subject to denial.

i
Dr Chaos
2003-10-09 18:46:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
Post by Ignoramus13806
Snyder's naive thought that if it is good it is profitable, is wrong
in certain cases.
Please explain why diet should follow the laws of thermodynamics
(as drastically oversimplified by you), but not those of economics.
What is it about weight loss that makes it immune to empirical
evidence and economic survival-of-the-fittest?
Products are made and designed for people to want to buy them
which may have little relation with scientific fact.

Average people have many ascientific delusions, especially about
health. This is why there is government regulation on
pharmaceuticals, so that the educated elite can shove their correct
ideas about biochemistry and medicine down the throats of the stupid
for their own good.
Post by Michael Snyder
And please explain
without recourse to the spurious argument that people are too lazy
to follow a plan that works, but not too lazy to follow numerous efforts
that require the same or greater effort.
How many people sign up for "make money now" versus working for
a Harvard MBA?

When somebody else does the effort for you, and you are unable to
violate it (i.e. expensive, controlled metabolic ward studies) then
once again science takes over.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-09 19:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
Please explain why diet should follow the laws of thermodynamics
(as drastically oversimplified by you), but not those of economics.
Diet does follow the laws of economics.

Your line of reasoning is akin to saying that SUVs must be the most
energy-efficient vehicles around because otherwise they would not sell
so well. In fact, SUVs sell well because people buy cars for other
reasons than energy efficiency. And similarly, people try diets for
reasons other than their proven ability to produce weight loss. The
only diet that guarantees weight loss is a hypocaloric diet, but like a
tiny, energy-efficient car, there's nothing sexy about calorie counting,
and so noboby buys into it.
Post by Michael Snyder
What is it about weight loss that makes it immune to empirical
evidence and economic survival-of-the-fittest?
Most fat people don't want to lose weight. Or, more precisely, they
don't want to lose weight as much as they want to overeat and/or avoid
responsibility.
Post by Michael Snyder
And please explain without recourse to the spurious argument
that people are too lazy to follow a plan that works, but not
too lazy to follow numerous efforts that require the same
or greater effort.
Cutting calories requires tremendous effort for people who like to eat,
far more effort than any other type of fad dieting plan. That's why fat
people don't cut calories. It's not the easiest diet, it's the hardest,
for people who love to eat. Unfortunately, it's also the only diet that
works.

Some fat people can trick themselves into eating a bit less by following
certain fad diets. For some people, it's low-carb; for others, it's
low-fat. It doesn't really matter, as long as it gets them to eat less.
And if that happens, they lose weight. The ironic thing is that they'll
deny that they ate less. The thought of being compelled to eat less
food is so upsetting to them that they'll deny having done so even in
retrospect--just the thought that they might have eaten less than they
ordinarily would have somehow makes them very uneasy, even when it's in
the past already.

The psychology of fatness is much more complex than the biology.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Full Mu_n
2003-10-09 19:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Most fat people don't want to lose weight. Or, more precisely, they
don't want to lose weight as much as they want to overeat and/or avoid
responsibility.
Damn straight

Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Full Mu_n
2003-10-09 19:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Cutting calories requires tremendous effort for people who like to eat,
far more effort than any other type of fad dieting plan. That's why fat
people don't cut calories.
Or if they do, it is "hidden" under some other scheme like low carb
where, in fact, they eat less If they are losing weight over time.
Post by Mxsmanic
It's not the easiest diet, it's the hardest,
for people who love to eat. Unfortunately, it's also the only diet that
works.
Life's tough, then you die.
Post by Mxsmanic
Some fat people can trick themselves into eating a bit less by following
certain fad diets. For some people, it's low-carb; for others, it's
low-fat.
Correct. See above.
Post by Mxsmanic
It doesn't really matter, as long as it gets them to eat less.
And if that happens, they lose weight. The ironic thing is that they'll
Nearly every time. Vehemently deny it.>deny that they ate less.
Post by Mxsmanic
The thought of being compelled to eat less
food is so upsetting to them that they'll deny having done so even in
retrospect--just the thought that they might have eaten less than they
ordinarily would have somehow makes them very uneasy, even when it's in
the past already.
The psychology of fatness is much more complex than the biology.
I think it is simple.

Americans who are overfat are so because they choose to be. In truth,
they live for the day not for the coming day.

I believe this is a fundamental reflection on their Faith (lack of
it), their refusal to look at their mortality and their "I, me, now"
mentality.

They get, in most cases, exactly what they deserve.

Shortened lives lived in obesity.

Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Mxsmanic
2003-10-09 21:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Full Mu_n
Or if they do, it is "hidden" under some other scheme like low carb
where, in fact, they eat less If they are losing weight over time.
Mainly because they can maintain the illusion that they are still eating
just as much. To the extent that it really is an illusion, they'll lose
weight.
Post by Full Mu_n
Americans who are overfat are so because they choose to be. In truth,
they live for the day not for the coming day.
It's simple in that they overeat. Once they realize and accept this,
they can lose weight. If they do not realize it, or refuse to accept
it, they remain forever fat.

I do what I can to convince them. Some of them snap out of it and lose
weight. The rest die young, and fat.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Full Mu_n
2003-10-10 00:55:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Full Mu_n
Or if they do, it is "hidden" under some other scheme like low carb
where, in fact, they eat less If they are losing weight over time.
Mainly because they can maintain the illusion that they are still eating
just as much. To the extent that it really is an illusion, they'll lose
weight.
Post by Full Mu_n
Americans who are overfat are so because they choose to be. In truth,
they live for the day not for the coming day.
It's simple in that they overeat. Once they realize and accept this,
they can lose weight. If they do not realize it, or refuse to accept
it, they remain forever fat.
I do what I can to convince them. Some of them snap out of it and lose
weight. The rest die young, and fat.
Yes sir, they do and I fully understand both your implied frustration
and your bluntness about the truth of it all.

I have to deal with obese folks from time to time. Concerned
cardiologists like Andrew Chung have to deal with these folks, dying
right in front of his eyes, daily.

I am looking for any and all clues to solve this puzzle and it is the
one thing that brings me back to Usenet time and time again.

Maybe someone, somewhere, will say one thing that flips a switch.

I sure hope so.

In the meantime, I am only left with the same "in your face" attitude
that has served me, and my clients and patients, well in the past.



Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Jim Horne
2003-10-10 13:59:19 UTC
Permalink
"Full Mu_n" <***@mail.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 21:17:55 +0200, Mxsmanic <***@hotmail.com>
: wrote:
:
: >Cutting calories requires tremendous effort for people who like to eat,
: >far more effort than any other type of fad dieting plan. That's why fat
: >people don't cut calories.
:
: Or if they do, it is "hidden" under some other scheme like low carb
: where, in fact, they eat less If they are losing weight over time.
:
eating less what? volume or calories?
Mxsmanic
2003-10-10 21:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Horne
eating less what? volume or calories?
Calories. Volume is irrelevant. Try eating only low volumes of pure
olive oil each day, and you'll see.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
M. Schwartz
2003-10-10 23:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Jim Horne
eating less what? volume or calories?
Calories. Volume is irrelevant. Try eating only low volumes of pure
olive oil each day, and you'll see.
What it comes down to is portion size. Walk away from the table _before_
you feel full. Snacks should be on fresh fruit or low-fat/non-fat yogurt
unsweetened and filled with some fresh fruit like strawberries or
blueberries. Nuts are okay as a snack but no more than an ounce per
serving.

All refined carbohydrates should be eliminated.

Mel, looking lean and ready for the scene...
Ron Ritzman
2003-10-11 02:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Jim Horne
eating less what? volume or calories?
Calories. Volume is irrelevant. Try eating only low volumes of pure
olive oil each day, and you'll see.
For many people it's very hard to eat too much of a pure fat source
which is one reason that ketogenic diets work for some people. It's
those super tasty fat/carb combos that do us in.

In cold climates, a trick that some people use to keep warm is to eat
a pound of butter. (hypothermia being a more immediate threat then sat
fat or cholesterol) People who have had to do that report that it is
extremely hard to get the butter down and keep it down.
--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address
M. Schwartz
2003-10-11 14:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Ritzman
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Jim Horne
eating less what? volume or calories?
Calories. Volume is irrelevant. Try eating only low volumes of pure
olive oil each day, and you'll see.
For many people it's very hard to eat too much of a pure fat source
which is one reason that ketogenic diets work for some people. It's
those super tasty fat/carb combos that do us in.
In cold climates, a trick that some people use to keep warm is to eat
a pound of butter. (hypothermia being a more immediate threat then sat
fat or cholesterol) People who have had to do that report that it is
extremely hard to get the butter down and keep it down.
Ever hear of turning up the heat or adding more wood to the fire? ;-)

Mel
Ron Ritzman
2003-10-11 14:24:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 10:04:08 -0400, "M. Schwartz"
Post by M. Schwartz
Post by Ron Ritzman
In cold climates, a trick that some people use to keep warm is to eat
a pound of butter. (hypothermia being a more immediate threat then sat
fat or cholesterol) People who have had to do that report that it is
extremely hard to get the butter down and keep it down.
Ever hear of turning up the heat or adding more wood to the fire? ;-)
Oh I know that that effect is there and it explains why some people
can "over eat" to some degree without a net weight gain over time but
it's usually an excess of carbs that triggers adaptive thermogenesis.

Most fats are delivered to the tissues too slowly to produce this
effect, the exception being medium chain triglycerides which are
immediately oxidized by the liver and can produce a noticeable thermic
effect which is why I suspect is happening with the pound of butter.
There may be enough MCTs in a pound of butter to heat you up. If this
is true then it would be more efficient (and more healthy) to carry
MCT oil in cold climates instead of butter.

Diglycerol oil is metabolized the same way as MCTs which is why the
makers of Enova are claiming that it's so great for dieters but over
time it's still calories in vs calories out.
--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address
Courageous
2003-10-11 15:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Ritzman
is true then it would be more efficient (and more healthy) to carry
MCT oil in cold climates instead of butter.
Have you ever consumed much MCT oil?

It upsets your stomach.

C//
Mxsmanic
2003-10-11 15:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Ritzman
Most fats are delivered to the tissues too slowly to produce this
effect, the exception being medium chain triglycerides which are
immediately oxidized by the liver and can produce a noticeable thermic
effect which is why I suspect is happening with the pound of butter.
But don't you lose a lot of electrolytes when you vomit up 3/4 of a
pound of butter?
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Ron Ritzman
2003-10-12 16:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Ron Ritzman
Most fats are delivered to the tissues too slowly to produce this
effect, the exception being medium chain triglycerides which are
immediately oxidized by the liver and can produce a noticeable thermic
effect which is why I suspect is happening with the pound of butter.
But don't you lose a lot of electrolytes when you vomit up 3/4 of a
pound of butter?
Probably, which is why keeping it down must be quite a feet.

In the wintertime, I often exercise in shorts (with warm layers in my
backpack just in case) so this winter I might just try this trick once
just to see if it does produce a thermic effect and how much.
--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address
M_un Over New York City
2003-10-13 15:22:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:09:42 -0400, Ron Ritzman
Post by Ron Ritzman
Probably, which is why keeping it down must be quite a feet.
lol

Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Dr Chaos
2003-10-09 19:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Some fat people can trick themselves into eating a bit less by following
certain fad diets. For some people, it's low-carb; for others, it's
low-fat. It doesn't really matter, as long as it gets them to eat less.
And if that happens, they lose weight. The ironic thing is that they'll
deny that they ate less. The thought of being compelled to eat less
food is so upsetting to them that they'll deny having done so even in
retrospect--just the thought that they might have eaten less than they
ordinarily would have somehow makes them very uneasy, even when it's in
the past already.
The psychology of fatness is much more complex than the biology.
The most effective anti-obesity drugs (fenfluaramine & redux, now
off the market) did not act on metabolism but the brain.

Since people have psychological drives and delusions about obesity,
psychoactive medication is the most successful scientific course
to proceed, but there are nearly impossible litigation hurdles.
Chrys
2003-10-09 16:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fancy Pants NYC
But it is as easy as i says....throwing money at the problem isn't the
cure. Spending wads of cash does not equate to a caloric deficit which
is the ONLY way to lose weight. There is no other way to lose weight
unless you amputate parts of the body. Eating less and excercizing
works. It's cheap too. You don't have to join WW, Jenny Craig, etc.
Tarnower, Atkins, Dr. Phil whatever fad diet there is ONLY work
because a caloric deficit is created. All of these fad diets and
programs WANT you to think that their program works because it's a
business. They're certainly not going to say that you should not buy
their program/diet or join their gym because that's bad business. They
need your money. They could care less whether you lose weight.
Not ice many fat burning programs on infomercials NEVER blame the
person for eating too much? Why is that? CAUSE THEY WANT YOUR MONEY
AND WANT TO MAKE YOU THINK YOU'RE A VICTIM. SO SEND THEM YOUR CASH
**THEN** THEY CAN HELP.
If you eat more calories that your body burns, you will gain weight.
If you eat less calories than your body burns, you will lose weight.
You cannot spend your way out of being overweight.
I agree with you that eating less calories and exercising is the only way
to lose weight, but I still see a value for some people to joining
programs. I am lucky enough to have a supportive spouse who is losing
weight with me. Not everyone has that. The social component of going to
programs can be valuable as a means of adding accountability and support
for those who need it. A lot of people need some added motivation to be
able to stick to doing what they need to do to lose weight.
Full Mu_n
2003-10-09 16:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chrys
I agree with you that eating less calories and exercising is the only way
to lose weight,
You would not only be incorrect, you would be flying in the face of
reality.
Post by Chrys
but I still see a value for some people to joining
programs. I am lucky enough to have a supportive spouse who is losing
weight with me. Not everyone has that. The social component of going to
programs can be valuable as a means of adding accountability and support
for those who need it. A lot of people need some added motivation to be
able to stick to doing what they need to do to lose weight.
Sure do.

But at some point, it will be an individual responsibility regardless
of their being a support system or not. That day will come.

Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Courageous
2003-10-10 01:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chrys
I agree with you that eating less calories and exercising is the only way
to lose weight,
Ahem.

L-i-p-o-s-u-c-t-i-on.

*wink*

C//
Michael Snyder
2003-10-09 17:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Fancy Pants NYC wrote in message ...
Post by Fancy Pants NYC
Post by Michael Snyder
Ignoramus792 wrote in message ...
Post by Ignoramus792
There is no way to help someone lose weight if they want to gorge on
cakes and junk food, more than they want to lose fat.
And yet millions of people spend billions of dollars every year,
seeking help with losing weight.
Correct. They spend billions of dollars, and possibly some of them get
actually helped. Think Curves etc. But many do not spend the necessary
_effort_ to lose weight. Something as simple as 1-2 hours walking per
day and giving up foods which are irresistible. Throwing money at this
problem does not necessarily solve it.
If it were as easy as you say, word would get out, and people
would do that instead of spending billions on diets and schemes
that don't work. Your premise that people do not actually expend
significant amounts of effort, or deny themselves the foods that they
crave, is ridiculous. They go on Atkins diets, they go on Tarnower
diets, they go on Scarsdale diets, they go on weight watchers diets,
jenny craig diets, pineapple/cottage cheese diets, avocado diets,
grapefruit diets. American women can hardly be induced to eat
the foods they actually like (let alone a regular soda). People spend
hours in gyms, jogging, bycicling, they expend absurd amounts of
effort to lose weight. If there was a simple formula that worked
for everyone, Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, Fat Busters and
Trim Spa would be out of business.
But it is as easy as i says....throwing money at the problem isn't the
cure.
Nope -- but neither is doing as you say. If it did work, reliably,
for everyone, there would be no controversy and everyone
would use it. People do not merely "throw money" at other
diet plans. They also invest considerable effort. The premise
that people don't flock to your plan because they are lazy is
not supported by the facts.
Ignoramus13806
2003-10-09 17:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
Fancy Pants NYC wrote in message ...
Post by Fancy Pants NYC
Post by Michael Snyder
Ignoramus792 wrote in message ...
Post by Ignoramus792
There is no way to help someone lose weight if they want to gorge on
cakes and junk food, more than they want to lose fat.
And yet millions of people spend billions of dollars every year,
seeking help with losing weight.
Correct. They spend billions of dollars, and possibly some of them get
actually helped. Think Curves etc. But many do not spend the necessary
_effort_ to lose weight. Something as simple as 1-2 hours walking per
day and giving up foods which are irresistible. Throwing money at this
problem does not necessarily solve it.
If it were as easy as you say, word would get out, and people
would do that instead of spending billions on diets and schemes
that don't work. Your premise that people do not actually expend
significant amounts of effort, or deny themselves the foods that they
crave, is ridiculous. They go on Atkins diets, they go on Tarnower
diets, they go on Scarsdale diets, they go on weight watchers diets,
jenny craig diets, pineapple/cottage cheese diets, avocado diets,
grapefruit diets. American women can hardly be induced to eat
the foods they actually like (let alone a regular soda). People spend
hours in gyms, jogging, bycicling, they expend absurd amounts of
effort to lose weight. If there was a simple formula that worked
for everyone, Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, Fat Busters and
Trim Spa would be out of business.
But it is as easy as i says....throwing money at the problem isn't the
cure.
Nope -- but neither is doing as you say. If it did work, reliably,
for everyone, there would be no controversy and everyone
would use it. People do not merely "throw money" at other
diet plans. They also invest considerable effort. The premise
that people don't flock to your plan because they are lazy is
not supported by the facts.
Actually, I would surmise that if a dieter does spend a considerable
effort -- say 2 hours of exercise per day -- they are very likely to
succeed in losing fat.

It is just that people call walking 20 minutes 3 times a week
"considerable effort" and then are surprised that "it does not work".

i
Mxsmanic
2003-10-09 19:20:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignoramus13806
It is just that people call walking 20 minutes 3 times a week
"considerable effort" and then are surprised that "it does not work".
Note that twenty minutes three times a week burns about the equivalent
of a small Snickers bar. That doesn't make much of a dent in the diet
of someone who is plowing through 4500 kcal per day at the dining-room
table.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Alfred Einstead
2003-10-09 18:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fancy Pants NYC
But it is as easy as i says....throwing money at the problem isn't the
cure. Spending wads of cash does not equate to a caloric deficit which
is the ONLY way to lose weight. There is no other way to lose weight
unless you amputate parts of the body. Eating less and excercizing
works. It's cheap too.
Actually, the real problem (amongst others) is that food is too
cheap, too easy to get for those who do nothing more than drive
to the store to get it, and too many people have too much money
to spend on getting it.

The least you can all do is walk to the store when you need food
and take only what you need and can carry back -- like people
have been doing for thousands of years before, even when the
"store" was the supply of fauna running around in the forest
or periodic harvest on the farmland.

Relieving people, who have too much to spend on food, of their
excess money supply will help too.
Ignoramus13806
2003-10-09 18:15:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Einstead
Post by Fancy Pants NYC
But it is as easy as i says....throwing money at the problem isn't the
cure. Spending wads of cash does not equate to a caloric deficit which
is the ONLY way to lose weight. There is no other way to lose weight
unless you amputate parts of the body. Eating less and excercizing
works. It's cheap too.
Actually, the real problem (amongst others) is that food is too
cheap, too easy to get for those who do nothing more than drive
to the store to get it, and too many people have too much money
to spend on getting it.
actually poor people are fatter.
Post by Alfred Einstead
The least you can all do is walk to the store when you need food
and take only what you need and can carry back -- like people
have been doing for thousands of years before, even when the
"store" was the supply of fauna running around in the forest
or periodic harvest on the farmland.
can't do it in many places...

By the way, I plan on stopping by the store on my walking from train
(I walk to train every day) and buying some food at our grocery.
Post by Alfred Einstead
Relieving people, who have too much to spend on food, of their
excess money supply will help too.
actually poor people are fatter.
unknown
2003-10-09 23:45:47 UTC
Permalink
On 9 Oct 2003 18:15:57 GMT, Ignoramus13806
Post by Ignoramus13806
Post by Alfred Einstead
Actually, the real problem (amongst others) is that food is too
cheap, too easy to get for those who do nothing more than drive
to the store to get it, and too many people have too much money
to spend on getting it.
actually poor people are fatter.
By the way, I plan on stopping by the store on my walking from train
(I walk to train every day) and buying some food at our grocery.
Post by Alfred Einstead
Relieving people, who have too much to spend on food, of their
excess money supply will help too.
actually poor people are fatter.
Free food at the Food Banks and Free food with food stamps are
insuring that they are well supplied with calories. Many of them are
very frugal though when it comes to expending calories.

Casual Observer
Rufus X. Sarsaparilla
2003-10-13 01:37:51 UTC
Permalink
On 9 Oct 2003 02:27:49 GMT, Ignoramus792
Post by Ignoramus792
Something as simple as 1-2 hours walking per
day and giving up foods which are irresistible. Throwing money at this
problem does not necessarily solve it.
Ahh... but if the food is irresistible, then it is by definition
impossible to resist it!

Rufus
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...