I am alive and still kicking

moonglow minnow wrote:

Christina Websell wrote:

...It really is that simple if you like it or not.

It's not that simple when "less than what you need" deprives your body
of vital nutrients no matter how well the diet is planned, and sends
your body into starvation mode which further reduces caloric "need"...

The issue is really calories, not so much nutrients. If you deprive
yourself of sufficient calories so that your body needs to burn its own
fat for energy, that's when it goes into starvation mode. Your body's
hormones don't know the difference between hunger due to a famine or
poverty, etc, and voluntary starvation due to dieting.

Attitudes like yours breed deadly eating disorders.

As well as legitimizing discrimination and social stigma. If you're
not on the receiving end of that, then you might think it's trivial,
but trust me, it ain't.

Joyce

--
"Sentimentality" -- that's what we call the sentiment we don't share.

-- Graham Greene

when i decided to really figure out how to be healthy rather than just
thinner, one of the things i discovered for me is that all calories are NOT
equal. i am by no means a vegetarian, its just that i would never think to
eat meat, never thing oh i would like a steak. one of the rude facts for me
is that if i don't eat animal protien on a regular basis my body freaks out
and i gain, i could eat exactly the same for a period of two weeks, and if i
actually ad the calories of a three ounce portion of meat three or four
times a week i lose more, so in effect more calories with meat means better
health and therefore weight loss, Lee

--
Have a wonderful day

"John F. Eldredge" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:54:00 -0800, Joy wrote:

"Christina Websell" wrote in message
...

"Adrian" wrote in message
news Christina Websell wrote:
wrote in message
...
Christina Websell wrote:

Depression is an illness. Obesity is not. If you eat more that you
expend in calories daily you will gain weight, if
you eat less you will lose weight. It really is that simple. I
know my view is not popular but it's a fact.

This is what I was talking about a couple of months ago when I said
that you are closed-minded about ideas other than your own. At the
time you seemed very surprised to hear that, and stated that you are
very open to other points of view, and that you had no idea why I
would have that impression of you. This is why.

I realize that no argument, no matter how well-reasoned or
well-supported, is going to sway you, because the more people oppose
you, the more you dig your heels in. So I would just like to call
your attention to the fact that you are once again responding to
ideas that are new to you with the same rigid, refuse-to-budge
response that I have seen several times before. It's very
frustrating, as is your extremely judgemental attitude about this
issue.
I find a scientific fact that says if you eat more calories than you
need you wil gain weight and if you eat less than you need you will
lose. Why do you get annoyed when I say that?

Tweed

Once again you're posting about a subject you know nothing about. If,
as you, it's a scientific fact then quote the research. If not, get
down off your high horse and stop being so judgemental.


Don't be so ridiculous. If you eat more than you need you will put on
weight, if you eat less than you need you will lose weight. It really
is that simple if you like it or not.

T

Considering the fact that some people eat very little, yet still gain
weight, while others eat huge amounts and never gain, it isn't simple at
all.

Joy

Well, the issue is that "more than you need" varies from individual to
individual, even if they are the same weight. My father had a high
metabolic rate; he could eat large meals and yet remain skinny. My
mother had a low metabolic rate, and was overweight for most of her life
as a result. Unfortunately, my sister and I both inherited my mother's
metabolism.

--
John F. Eldredge --
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

On Nov 7, 6:09*pm, "John F. Eldredge" wrote:
*My father had a high
metabolic rate; he could eat large meals and yet remain skinny. *

My friend Belinda has an apetite that would not shame a large horse
and a twenty inch waist. I've seen her sit down for mid morning
breaking and accompany 2 cups of coffee with 2 sandwiches and 3 slices
of cake and she had a large breakfast so it's not that she's making up
for missing a meal. In the Tudor peroid there were 13+ course
banquets and she could easily work her way through one of those and
probably look round for the next course or ask for seconds. Guess
what? She really hates being so skinny- she finds it hard to find
clothes she would really like to have a bust

Lesley

Slave of the Fabulous Furballs

"moonglow minnow" wrote in message
...
Christina Websell wrote:

Don't be so ridiculous. If you eat more than you need you will
put on weight, if you eat less than you need you will lose
weight. It really is that simple if you like it or not.

It's not that simple when "less than what you need" deprives your
body of vital nutrients no matter how well the diet is planned,
and sends your body into starvation mode which further reduces
caloric "need"...

Attitudes like yours breed deadly eating disorders.

Maeve ^..^

The whole attitude makes me feel a little sick. I know only too
well how many anorexics there are out there exercising like mad and
starving themselves because they believe what Christina does.

People are not machines with strict input and output guides that the
engineers can control. They are living breathing organisms that
have evolved over generations of hardship most of us no longer face.
Sometimes the design doesn't adapt well to current conditions and
sometimes it malfunctions. It is that simple.

Jo

"Jofirey" wrote in message
...

"moonglow minnow" wrote in message
...
Christina Websell wrote:

Don't be so ridiculous. If you eat more than you need you will put on
weight, if you eat less than you need you will lose weight. It really
is that simple if you like it or not.

It's not that simple when "less than what you need" deprives your body of
vital nutrients no matter how well the diet is planned, and sends your
body into starvation mode which further reduces caloric "need"...

Attitudes like yours breed deadly eating disorders.

Maeve ^..^

The whole attitude makes me feel a little sick. I know only too well how
many anorexics there are out there exercising like mad and starving
themselves because they believe what Christina does.

People are not machines with strict input and output guides that the
engineers can control. They are living breathing organisms that have
evolved over generations of hardship most of us no longer face. Sometimes
the design doesn't adapt well to current conditions and sometimes it
malfunctions. It is that simple.


No, if you eat more than you need you put on weight and if you eat less than
you need you will lose it.
It's that simple.
Why do you say it is not? What is the problem with this? It's true.
I need to eat 1800 calories a day for my lifestyle and activity. If i eat
2500 for several weeks I will put on weight and won't get rid of it unless I
undereat for a while. If I got back to 1800 I still wouldn't get rid of
that extra weight I gained, 1800 would be enough to maintain it.

Tweed
I hate this fat woman stuff. I'm not fat but does it matter if I was? would
you like me better at my present weight (130lbs) or if I weighed 300?

Is it important at all? If so, why?

Christina Websell wrote:

No, if you eat more than you need you put on weight and if you eat less than
you need you will lose it.
It's that simple.
Why do you say it is not? What is the problem with this? It's true.
I need to eat 1800 calories a day for my lifestyle and activity. If i eat
2500 for several weeks I will put on weight and won't get rid of it unless I
undereat for a while. If I got back to 1800 I still wouldn't get rid of
that extra weight I gained, 1800 would be enough to maintain it.

Actually, research suggests that if you ate 2000 calories a day you
probably wouldn't gain weight, and if you ate 1600 calories a day you
probably wouldn't lose weight, long term. Your metabolism would
compensate to keep you as close to your set weight as possible. So
getting back to 1800 calories/day probably would get rid of that extra
weight over time. There's also strong evidence that what you're getting
your calories from affects how many of those calories are actually taken
into your body from your gut. So you may be eating 2000 calories and
only absorbing 1800 of them. Added to that is that the calorie system is
an imperfect approximation based on the change of water temperature by
burning the food...

So in reality, someone *can* eat the exact same number of calories per
day and gain or lose weight depending on what those calories are coming
from, and someone *can* eat more or less than they need (within reason)
and not gain or lose weight. It's very individual, very real, and very
proven by science.

It's just not as simple as you think it is.

Maeve ^..^
--
http://moonglowminnow.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/minnow/

"moonglow minnow" wrote in message
...
Christina Websell wrote:

No, if you eat more than you need you put on weight and if you
eat less than you need you will lose it.
It's that simple.
Why do you say it is not? What is the problem with this? It's
true.
I need to eat 1800 calories a day for my lifestyle and activity.
If i eat 2500 for several weeks I will put on weight and won't
get rid of it unless I undereat for a while. If I got back to
1800 I still wouldn't get rid of that extra weight I gained, 1800
would be enough to maintain it.

Actually, research suggests that if you ate 2000 calories a day
you probably wouldn't gain weight, and if you ate 1600 calories a
day you probably wouldn't lose weight, long term. Your metabolism
would compensate to keep you as close to your set weight as
possible. So getting back to 1800 calories/day probably would get
rid of that extra weight over time. There's also strong evidence
that what you're getting your calories from affects how many of
those calories are actually taken into your body from your gut. So
you may be eating 2000 calories and only absorbing 1800 of them.
Added to that is that the calorie system is an imperfect
approximation based on the change of water temperature by burning
the food...

So in reality, someone *can* eat the exact same number of calories
per day and gain or lose weight depending on what those calories
are coming from, and someone *can* eat more or less than they need
(within reason) and not gain or lose weight. It's very individual,
very real, and very proven by science.

It's just not as simple as you think it is.

Maeve ^..^

Thank you Maeve for putting that so calmly, rationally and
accurately.

Jo

Christina Websell wrote:

I hate this fat woman stuff. I'm not fat but does it matter if I was? would
you like me better at my present weight (130lbs) or if I weighed 300?

Is it important at all? If so, why?

Tweed, did you write this? It was at the bottom of your post and
it's not clear whether you were writing it or quoting it from someone
else. It sounds like the opposite of everything else you've said on
this topic so I'd be surprised if you did write it. Yet there wasn't
any attribution or "'s" in front of it.

Joyce

--
The sun rose slowly, like a fiery furball coughed up uneasily onto a
sky-blue carpet by a giant unseen cat.
-- Michael McGarel