Cycling and vegetarianism - Page 75 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

09-02-2004, 09:09 AM

"Preston Crawford" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:slrncjegdg.a8u.me@serpentor.cobrala
> Great. Both of you guys can clip like a paragraph or page or two from
> various articles and there's your proof.

Bob didn't do that, he was quoting from studies or abstracts of studies.
You know, the science you're always on about.

> I don't have the time to
> spend trying to justify the way I eat. I just try to eat what's
> sensible. Quality grains, quality meat, fruits and vegetables. All in
> sensible quantities with lots of exercise. It's worked so far. No
> reason it won't work more in the future.
>
> And for the record, something I caught in a couple articles there was
> "glycemic load". This is where I think the science is. Too often
> people eating low fat eat poor quality carbs that DO screw with your
> blood sugar and DO turn straight into fat. I believe this and know
> this to be true, both based on the science and on personal
> experience.

Er, no. Whatever you your think your personal experience to be in this
matter what you wrote is certainly not supported by the science. Firstly,
it's not "poor quality carbs" that "screw with your blood sugar", it's all
simple sugars and it's not the hyperglycaemia per se that's the problem,
it's the insulin spikes. Secondly, it is not "turned into fat". The
creation of new fat cells is called de novo lipogenesis and it's actually
rare. What normally happens is that excess calories are stored in existing
fat cells.

> I don't, however, for a minute believe that carbs are
> bad. It's just what kind of carbs and how much are you eating in
> total, that's the question. I wish I could ask a question like this
> without nuts (and yes, I'll call you nuts on both sides when it
> becomes a pissing match over whose diet is better) coming out and
> using my question to argue the virtues of one extreme or the other. I
> happen to believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

What science do you have to support that supposition?

> But if it makes you feel good to think you're fooling the medical
> establishment (whether you be vegetarian or low-carb) then go right
> ahead.

What the medical establishment, on the whole, knows about nutrition can be
written on the back of a postcard. Doctors don't get taught nutrition and
once in practice they're hard pressed just to keep up with their own
speciality, let alone researching an entirely different field from scratch.
As a result most doctors spout the same old misinformed bull**** as Joe
Public does.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 09:29 AM

"Peter Cole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:ksHZc.89500$9d6.9454@attbi_s54
> "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ch7c7n$5ca$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].co.nz...
>> "Peter Cole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>>
>>> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the
>>> US. As far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know,
>>> a very low fat diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v
>>> disease.
>>
>> Tell it to Atkins.
>
> I might, but he's dead.
>
> "However, revelations in February 2004 from the city medical
> examiner's report let slip the information that Atkins had suffered a
> heart attack, congestive heart failure, and hypertension, before his
> death. The report was given to the Journal by the Physicians
> Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that advocates
> vegetarianism.

Oooooh, boy! And the rest!

The grossly misnamed "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine" are a
radical vegan and animal rights group. They lied shamelessly about the
nature of Atkins' death. Atkins was 72 when he died from injuries suffered
by his fall, and was in excellent health for a man of his age. It is no
secret he suffered from cardiomyopathy and was being monitored accordingly.

But the point you've chosen to ignore is that medical assessments of people
on low carb high protein diets consistently show significant improvements in
indicators of cardio-vascular health.

[...]

>> The idea that fats make you fat is a great lie.
>
> Told by whom? I think that is a straw man.

By the low fat crowd.

>> The idea that you can keep
>> on reducing your dietary fats intake without harming your health is
>> a great lie.
>
> There has been a lot of accumulating evidence that some fats are
> good, but also that others remain as bad, or worse, than thought.

Yes. And you still need enough of them. The problem isn't people cutting
out the bad fats, it's people trying to cut out all fats.

[...]

>> People stay on high protein diets longer because they're not
>> constantly battling hunger.
>
> High glycemic index foods cause insulin response and blood sugar
> fluctuations in some people. High carb doesn't mean high GI, almost
> all diets these days recommend to severe restriction of high GI foods.

True. However, most "low fat" foods have had the fats replaced by the high
GI corn syrup.

>>> The long term health consequences of some of
>>> these diets are unknown, which I think should temper the
>>> evangelicalism.
>>
>> That's a backhanded swipe at low carb diets if ever I've seen one
>> and it's just bull**** scaremongering from people who are afraid to
>> confront the truth even when it's right in front of their faces.
>> Low carb's been around for decades and we know damn well what the
>> long term consequences are. You live healthier.
>
> I think the picture is a bit more complicated than that. The guy I'm
> most inclined to listen to is Willett at Harvard:
>
> "Citing both positive and negative research findings about most
> categories of food and nutrients, the Healthy Eating Pyramid
> reshuffles the ingredients into a new structure to guide daily
> eating. Several of the recommendations directly challenge those of
> the USDA pyramid.

So it should. The original USDA food pyramid was severely retarded, not
least because of the way it does not distinguish between good and bad fats.

> a.. The Healthy Eating Pyramid puts red meat, butter, potatoes,
> sweets, white bread, white rice, ordinary pasta and other refined
> grain products into a tiny compartment at the top, labeled "Use
> Sparingly." b.. The broad foundation of the new pyramid — the foods
> intended to provide the largest portion of daily calories — consists
> of whole-grain foods, such as brown rice and whole-wheat bread, and
> vegetable oils such as olive and canola. In the USDA pyramid, all
> grain products are in one category, and people are urged to eat six
> to 11 servings a day, the most of any food group. The USDA recommends
> only limited use of all oils, fats and sweets. c.. Both pyramids
> put fruits and vegetables in the middle. The new guide divides
> protein into categories, emphasizing nuts and legumes, followed by
> fish, poultry and eggs. It says that adults need only one to two
> servings of calcium-rich foods — not necessarily dairy products — or
> a calcium supplement each day."
> Kind of dull, but the diet that current science seems to support for
> best health.

As I noted in another post, whilst significantly improved, the revised food
pyramid is still stupidly anti-red meat. This isn't because of the science,
it's because of Willett's personal bias against it.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 09:29 AM

"Peter Cole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:ksHZc.89500$9d6.9454@attbi_s54
> "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ch7c7n$5ca$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].co.nz...
>> "Peter Cole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>>
>>> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the
>>> US. As far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know,
>>> a very low fat diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v
>>> disease.
>>
>> Tell it to Atkins.
>
> I might, but he's dead.
>
> "However, revelations in February 2004 from the city medical
> examiner's report let slip the information that Atkins had suffered a
> heart attack, congestive heart failure, and hypertension, before his
> death. The report was given to the Journal by the Physicians
> Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that advocates
> vegetarianism.

Oooooh, boy! And the rest!

The grossly misnamed "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine" are a
radical vegan and animal rights group. They lied shamelessly about the
nature of Atkins' death. Atkins was 72 when he died from injuries suffered
by his fall, and was in excellent health for a man of his age. It is no
secret he suffered from cardiomyopathy and was being monitored accordingly.

But the point you've chosen to ignore is that medical assessments of people
on low carb high protein diets consistently show significant improvements in
indicators of cardio-vascular health.

[...]

>> The idea that fats make you fat is a great lie.
>
> Told by whom? I think that is a straw man.

By the low fat crowd.

>> The idea that you can keep
>> on reducing your dietary fats intake without harming your health is
>> a great lie.
>
> There has been a lot of accumulating evidence that some fats are
> good, but also that others remain as bad, or worse, than thought.

Yes. And you still need enough of them. The problem isn't people cutting
out the bad fats, it's people trying to cut out all fats.

[...]

>> People stay on high protein diets longer because they're not
>> constantly battling hunger.
>
> High glycemic index foods cause insulin response and blood sugar
> fluctuations in some people. High carb doesn't mean high GI, almost
> all diets these days recommend to severe restriction of high GI foods.

True. However, most "low fat" foods have had the fats replaced by the high
GI corn syrup.

>>> The long term health consequences of some of
>>> these diets are unknown, which I think should temper the
>>> evangelicalism.
>>
>> That's a backhanded swipe at low carb diets if ever I've seen one
>> and it's just bull**** scaremongering from people who are afraid to
>> confront the truth even when it's right in front of their faces.
>> Low carb's been around for decades and we know damn well what the
>> long term consequences are. You live healthier.
>
> I think the picture is a bit more complicated than that. The guy I'm
> most inclined to listen to is Willett at Harvard:
>
> "Citing both positive and negative research findings about most
> categories of food and nutrients, the Healthy Eating Pyramid
> reshuffles the ingredients into a new structure to guide daily
> eating. Several of the recommendations directly challenge those of
> the USDA pyramid.

So it should. The original USDA food pyramid was severely retarded, not
least because of the way it does not distinguish between good and bad fats.

> a.. The Healthy Eating Pyramid puts red meat, butter, potatoes,
> sweets, white bread, white rice, ordinary pasta and other refined
> grain products into a tiny compartment at the top, labeled "Use
> Sparingly." b.. The broad foundation of the new pyramid — the foods
> intended to provide the largest portion of daily calories — consists
> of whole-grain foods, such as brown rice and whole-wheat bread, and
> vegetable oils such as olive and canola. In the USDA pyramid, all
> grain products are in one category, and people are urged to eat six
> to 11 servings a day, the most of any food group. The USDA recommends
> only limited use of all oils, fats and sweets. c.. Both pyramids
> put fruits and vegetables in the middle. The new guide divides
> protein into categories, emphasizing nuts and legumes, followed by
> fish, poultry and eggs. It says that adults need only one to two
> servings of calcium-rich foods — not necessarily dairy products — or
> a calcium supplement each day."
> Kind of dull, but the diet that current science seems to support for
> best health.

As I noted in another post, whilst significantly improved, the revised food
pyramid is still stupidly anti-red meat. This isn't because of the science,
it's because of Willett's personal bias against it.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 09:29 AM

"Peter Cole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:ksHZc.89500$9d6.9454@attbi_s54
> "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ch7c7n$5ca$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].co.nz...
>> "Peter Cole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>>
>>> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the
>>> US. As far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know,
>>> a very low fat diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v
>>> disease.
>>
>> Tell it to Atkins.
>
> I might, but he's dead.
>
> "However, revelations in February 2004 from the city medical
> examiner's report let slip the information that Atkins had suffered a
> heart attack, congestive heart failure, and hypertension, before his
> death. The report was given to the Journal by the Physicians
> Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that advocates
> vegetarianism.

Oooooh, boy! And the rest!

The grossly misnamed "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine" are a
radical vegan and animal rights group. They lied shamelessly about the
nature of Atkins' death. Atkins was 72 when he died from injuries suffered
by his fall, and was in excellent health for a man of his age. It is no
secret he suffered from cardiomyopathy and was being monitored accordingly.

But the point you've chosen to ignore is that medical assessments of people
on low carb high protein diets consistently show significant improvements in
indicators of cardio-vascular health.

[...]

>> The idea that fats make you fat is a great lie.
>
> Told by whom? I think that is a straw man.

By the low fat crowd.

>> The idea that you can keep
>> on reducing your dietary fats intake without harming your health is
>> a great lie.
>
> There has been a lot of accumulating evidence that some fats are
> good, but also that others remain as bad, or worse, than thought.

Yes. And you still need enough of them. The problem isn't people cutting
out the bad fats, it's people trying to cut out all fats.

[...]

>> People stay on high protein diets longer because they're not
>> constantly battling hunger.
>
> High glycemic index foods cause insulin response and blood sugar
> fluctuations in some people. High carb doesn't mean high GI, almost
> all diets these days recommend to severe restriction of high GI foods.

True. However, most "low fat" foods have had the fats replaced by the high
GI corn syrup.

>>> The long term health consequences of some of
>>> these diets are unknown, which I think should temper the
>>> evangelicalism.
>>
>> That's a backhanded swipe at low carb diets if ever I've seen one
>> and it's just bull**** scaremongering from people who are afraid to
>> confront the truth even when it's right in front of their faces.
>> Low carb's been around for decades and we know damn well what the
>> long term consequences are. You live healthier.
>
> I think the picture is a bit more complicated than that. The guy I'm
> most inclined to listen to is Willett at Harvard:
>
> "Citing both positive and negative research findings about most
> categories of food and nutrients, the Healthy Eating Pyramid
> reshuffles the ingredients into a new structure to guide daily
> eating. Several of the recommendations directly challenge those of
> the USDA pyramid.

So it should. The original USDA food pyramid was severely retarded, not
least because of the way it does not distinguish between good and bad fats.

> a.. The Healthy Eating Pyramid puts red meat, butter, potatoes,
> sweets, white bread, white rice, ordinary pasta and other refined
> grain products into a tiny compartment at the top, labeled "Use
> Sparingly." b.. The broad foundation of the new pyramid — the foods
> intended to provide the largest portion of daily calories — consists
> of whole-grain foods, such as brown rice and whole-wheat bread, and
> vegetable oils such as olive and canola. In the USDA pyramid, all
> grain products are in one category, and people are urged to eat six
> to 11 servings a day, the most of any food group. The USDA recommends
> only limited use of all oils, fats and sweets. c.. Both pyramids
> put fruits and vegetables in the middle. The new guide divides
> protein into categories, emphasizing nuts and legumes, followed by
> fish, poultry and eggs. It says that adults need only one to two
> servings of calcium-rich foods — not necessarily dairy products — or
> a calcium supplement each day."
> Kind of dull, but the diet that current science seems to support for
> best health.

As I noted in another post, whilst significantly improved, the revised food
pyramid is still stupidly anti-red meat. This isn't because of the science,
it's because of Willett's personal bias against it.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 09:29 AM

"Peter Cole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:ksHZc.89500$9d6.9454@attbi_s54
> "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ch7c7n$5ca$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].co.nz...
>> "Peter Cole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>>
>>> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the
>>> US. As far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know,
>>> a very low fat diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v
>>> disease.
>>
>> Tell it to Atkins.
>
> I might, but he's dead.
>
> "However, revelations in February 2004 from the city medical
> examiner's report let slip the information that Atkins had suffered a
> heart attack, congestive heart failure, and hypertension, before his
> death. The report was given to the Journal by the Physicians
> Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that advocates
> vegetarianism.

Oooooh, boy! And the rest!

The grossly misnamed "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine" are a
radical vegan and animal rights group. They lied shamelessly about the
nature of Atkins' death. Atkins was 72 when he died from injuries suffered
by his fall, and was in excellent health for a man of his age. It is no
secret he suffered from cardiomyopathy and was being monitored accordingly.

But the point you've chosen to ignore is that medical assessments of people
on low carb high protein diets consistently show significant improvements in
indicators of cardio-vascular health.

[...]

>> The idea that fats make you fat is a great lie.
>
> Told by whom? I think that is a straw man.

By the low fat crowd.

>> The idea that you can keep
>> on reducing your dietary fats intake without harming your health is
>> a great lie.
>
> There has been a lot of accumulating evidence that some fats are
> good, but also that others remain as bad, or worse, than thought.

Yes. And you still need enough of them. The problem isn't people cutting
out the bad fats, it's people trying to cut out all fats.

[...]

>> People stay on high protein diets longer because they're not
>> constantly battling hunger.
>
> High glycemic index foods cause insulin response and blood sugar
> fluctuations in some people. High carb doesn't mean high GI, almost
> all diets these days recommend to severe restriction of high GI foods.

True. However, most "low fat" foods have had the fats replaced by the high
GI corn syrup.

>>> The long term health consequences of some of
>>> these diets are unknown, which I think should temper the
>>> evangelicalism.
>>
>> That's a backhanded swipe at low carb diets if ever I've seen one
>> and it's just bull**** scaremongering from people who are afraid to
>> confront the truth even when it's right in front of their faces.
>> Low carb's been around for decades and we know damn well what the
>> long term consequences are. You live healthier.
>
> I think the picture is a bit more complicated than that. The guy I'm
> most inclined to listen to is Willett at Harvard:
>
> "Citing both positive and negative research findings about most
> categories of food and nutrients, the Healthy Eating Pyramid
> reshuffles the ingredients into a new structure to guide daily
> eating. Several of the recommendations directly challenge those of
> the USDA pyramid.

So it should. The original USDA food pyramid was severely retarded, not
least because of the way it does not distinguish between good and bad fats.

> a.. The Healthy Eating Pyramid puts red meat, butter, potatoes,
> sweets, white bread, white rice, ordinary pasta and other refined
> grain products into a tiny compartment at the top, labeled "Use
> Sparingly." b.. The broad foundation of the new pyramid — the foods
> intended to provide the largest portion of daily calories — consists
> of whole-grain foods, such as brown rice and whole-wheat bread, and
> vegetable oils such as olive and canola. In the USDA pyramid, all
> grain products are in one category, and people are urged to eat six
> to 11 servings a day, the most of any food group. The USDA recommends
> only limited use of all oils, fats and sweets. c.. Both pyramids
> put fruits and vegetables in the middle. The new guide divides
> protein into categories, emphasizing nuts and legumes, followed by
> fish, poultry and eggs. It says that adults need only one to two
> servings of calcium-rich foods — not necessarily dairy products — or
> a calcium supplement each day."
> Kind of dull, but the diet that current science seems to support for
> best health.

As I noted in another post, whilst significantly improved, the revised food
pyramid is still stupidly anti-red meat. This isn't because of the science,
it's because of Willett's personal bias against it.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 09:33 AM

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:55:53 -0400, Badger_South <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 00:48:44 +1000, "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>> The root of the problem is, in my only partially informed opinion,
>>> that diets don't work if you don't exercise.
>>
>> Not true. If you consistently eat below maintenance you will lose
>> weight.
>> Exercise helps but you can do it on diet alone.
>
> I'm proof of this as I lost over 70lbs my first time on LC, and couldn't
> exercise at all, in fact couldn't even walk without a cane due to a hip
> injury. Since I had been a gym rat all my life I had a fair amt of muscle
> mass under the fat, so that helped, I'm sure. (I had gained it initially
> due to a 2 year lay-off doing a big programming project).
>
> -B
>
>
OK, now you have lost weight, but in order to get your heart back in shape
you have to exercise or your heart may get worse. Less pounds = less stuff
to pump blood to and less work for the heart. Your heart may have less of
the bad cholesterol clogging its supply lines but if it doesn't get used
it will just sit there and get old. Dieting without exercise is just plain
STUPID.
Bill Baka

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

09-02-2004, 09:33 AM

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:55:53 -0400, Badger_South <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 00:48:44 +1000, "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>> The root of the problem is, in my only partially informed opinion,
>>> that diets don't work if you don't exercise.
>>
>> Not true. If you consistently eat below maintenance you will lose
>> weight.
>> Exercise helps but you can do it on diet alone.
>
> I'm proof of this as I lost over 70lbs my first time on LC, and couldn't
> exercise at all, in fact couldn't even walk without a cane due to a hip
> injury. Since I had been a gym rat all my life I had a fair amt of muscle
> mass under the fat, so that helped, I'm sure. (I had gained it initially
> due to a 2 year lay-off doing a big programming project).
>
> -B
>
>
OK, now you have lost weight, but in order to get your heart back in shape
you have to exercise or your heart may get worse. Less pounds = less stuff
to pump blood to and less work for the heart. Your heart may have less of
the bad cholesterol clogging its supply lines but if it doesn't get used
it will just sit there and get old. Dieting without exercise is just plain
STUPID.
Bill Baka

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

09-02-2004, 09:33 AM

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:55:53 -0400, Badger_South <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 00:48:44 +1000, "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>> The root of the problem is, in my only partially informed opinion,
>>> that diets don't work if you don't exercise.
>>
>> Not true. If you consistently eat below maintenance you will lose
>> weight.
>> Exercise helps but you can do it on diet alone.
>
> I'm proof of this as I lost over 70lbs my first time on LC, and couldn't
> exercise at all, in fact couldn't even walk without a cane due to a hip
> injury. Since I had been a gym rat all my life I had a fair amt of muscle
> mass under the fat, so that helped, I'm sure. (I had gained it initially
> due to a 2 year lay-off doing a big programming project).
>
> -B
>
>
OK, now you have lost weight, but in order to get your heart back in shape
you have to exercise or your heart may get worse. Less pounds = less stuff
to pump blood to and less work for the heart. Your heart may have less of
the bad cholesterol clogging its supply lines but if it doesn't get used
it will just sit there and get old. Dieting without exercise is just plain
STUPID.
Bill Baka

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

09-02-2004, 09:33 AM

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:55:53 -0400, Badger_South <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 00:48:44 +1000, "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>> The root of the problem is, in my only partially informed opinion,
>>> that diets don't work if you don't exercise.
>>
>> Not true. If you consistently eat below maintenance you will lose
>> weight.
>> Exercise helps but you can do it on diet alone.
>
> I'm proof of this as I lost over 70lbs my first time on LC, and couldn't
> exercise at all, in fact couldn't even walk without a cane due to a hip
> injury. Since I had been a gym rat all my life I had a fair amt of muscle
> mass under the fat, so that helped, I'm sure. (I had gained it initially
> due to a 2 year lay-off doing a big programming project).
>
> -B
>
>
OK, now you have lost weight, but in order to get your heart back in shape
you have to exercise or your heart may get worse. Less pounds = less stuff
to pump blood to and less work for the heart. Your heart may have less of
the bad cholesterol clogging its supply lines but if it doesn't get used
it will just sit there and get old. Dieting without exercise is just plain
STUPID.
Bill Baka

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

09-02-2004, 09:40 AM

Badger_South wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 00:48:44 +1000, "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>The root of the problem is, in my only partially informed opinion,
>>>that diets don't work if you don't exercise.
>>
>>Not true. If you consistently eat below maintenance you will lose weight.
>>Exercise helps but you can do it on diet alone.
>
>
> I'm proof of this as I lost over 70lbs my first time on LC, and couldn't
> exercise at all, in fact couldn't even walk without a cane due to a hip
> injury. Since I had been a gym rat all my life I had a fair amt of muscle
> mass under the fat, so that helped, I'm sure. (I had gained it initially
> due to a 2 year lay-off doing a big programming project).

I left off a crucial qualifying phrase -- I should have written, "Diets
don't work *in the long run* if you don't exercise."

I'm not saying you can't lose weight without exercise. Obviously,
people can and do. My point wasn't so much about whether or not people
can lose weight without exercise as it is that weight usually doesn't
*stay off* without it. I know there are success stories out there about
people who lose huge amounts of weight just by dieting, and I've met
quite a few -- ALL of whom gained the weight back and then some within a
few years. In a couple cases, the weight was back and then some within
a year, which was really sad because both guys had looked so great.
That's the sense in which I meant that diets don't work.

All I'm really saying is, generally speaking the only reliable way to
lose weight and keep it off is with a combination of diet and exercise
-- IOW, lifestyle change. Of *course* there are exceptions. But truth
to tell, I haven't personally known anybody who lost weight and kept it
off that DIDN'T change their lifestyle and get more active, and every
single person I've known that lost a lot of weight through diet alone,
retaining their sedentary lifestyle, gained it all back and more. There
are probably exceptions to that too, though I haven't met any.

(Remember that I'm the mom of a herd of teenagers, and if I mention
exceptions, they get used as an excuse. ;-) So I tend to forget to
mention them.)

-km

--
the black rose
proud to be owned by a yorkie
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]