Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.ipad > #34534 > unrolled thread

Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net?

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.ipad

Contents

  Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Pat Wilson <patwilson@example.com> - 2014-05-19 18:48 +0000
    Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? lew <citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> - 2014-05-19 20:46 +0000
      Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Neil Ellwood <niel.elllwood2@btinternet.com> - 2014-05-20 04:26 -0500
    Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Sally Thompson <sally.thompson000@gmail.com.invalid> - 2014-05-19 21:21 +0000
      Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? hummingbird <hummingbird@127.0.0.1> - 2014-05-21 09:09 +0100
        Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-21 15:52 +0000
          Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? hummingbird <hummingbird@127.0.0.1> - 2014-05-22 10:43 +0100
    Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-05-19 19:28 -0300
    Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2014-05-20 10:15 +0300
      Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2014-05-20 00:22 -0700
        Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Pat Wilson <patwilson@example.com> - 2014-05-20 07:36 +0000
          Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-20 03:55 -0400
          Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2014-05-20 05:22 -0700
            Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-05-20 13:54 -0300
              Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2014-05-20 18:22 +0100
                Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> - 2014-05-20 13:32 -0400
                  Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2014-05-20 18:58 +0100
                Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-05-20 15:20 -0300
                  Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2014-05-20 20:26 +0100
        Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-20 20:47 +0000
          Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? "Tommy" <tommyleprechaun@yohoo.com> - 2014-05-20 22:36 +0100
            Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2014-05-20 15:29 -0700
              Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? "Tommy" <tommyleprechaun@yohoo.com> - 2014-05-21 00:43 +0100
                Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-21 05:05 +0000
                  Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-21 04:43 -0400
                  Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-05-21 08:08 -0300
                  Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? "Tommy" <tommyleprechaun@yohoo.com> - 2014-05-21 22:12 +0100
                    Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-21 22:56 +0000
                      Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? "Tommy" <tommyleprechaun@yohoo.com> - 2014-05-22 00:04 +0100
                        Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-21 19:27 -0400
                        Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> - 2014-05-21 20:25 -0400
              Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-21 05:04 +0000
                Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-21 04:43 -0400
          Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-05-20 19:19 -0300
            Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2014-05-21 00:47 +0100
              Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Spit the Cat <supersecret@IPaddress.invalid> - 2014-05-21 01:51 +0100
                Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2014-05-21 01:52 +0100
                  Re: [OT]Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-05-21 08:02 -0300
                Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> - 2014-05-21 13:01 +0100
            Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-21 05:13 +0000
    Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2014-05-20 15:17 +0100
      Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-20 10:34 -0400
      Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? hummingbird <hummingbird@127.0.0.1> - 2014-05-22 09:29 +0100
    Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? "Yes" <noone@invalid.invalid.com> - 2014-05-21 13:40 +0000
    Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Travis Bickle <3S96@taxi.net> - 2014-05-21 16:20 -0400
    Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-22 11:41 -0400
    Re: Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net? Jax <remove.bear.bottoms1@gmail.com> - 2014-05-26 21:17 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#34749

"Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message > In message 
<llevs7$pfd$1@dont-email.me>
>  mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
>> On 5/20/2014 12:15 AM, Anssi Saari wrote:
>>> Pat Wilson <patwilson@example.com> writes:
>
>> Never eat anything that tastes good...that eliminates fat and sugar.
>> Do that and you will loose weight and not gain it back at the end of
>> your "diet".
>
> The human body has no mechanism to convert ingested fat into stored fat.
> Eating Fat does not make you fat.

Nope - its about sugar - its all about sugar :-)

Begin Quote:-
When you eat something sweet, your blood sugar levels increase too quickly, 
and your pancreas secretes the hormone insulin to take the excess sugar out 
of your blood.
Insulin is a fat storage hormone. It stores that extra sugar first as 
glycogen, and then as triglycerides (fat) once glycogen stores are full.

When insulin is activated, its partner hormone, glucagon, can’t operate. 
Glucagon’s job is to mobilize stored sugar back into the blood for energy 
use. These two hormones are constantly in a dance with each other and cannot 
be present in the blood at the same time.

So either your body is in an energy-burning/mobilizing state (glucagon) or 
your body is in an energy storage state (insulin).

Sugar mobilizes insulin; fat does not.
It’s that simple. In fact, the fat in a sweet treat will actually help to 
slow down that sugar spike, and thus reduce the insulin surge, mitigating 
some of the ill-effects of the sweet. This is why the whole fat-free dessert 
thing is such a bad idea. Not only are you mobilizing a ton of insulin, you’re 
also removing the one thing in there that could slow that process down.

Another piece to this puzzle is satiation. The digestion of fats triggers 
your satiation mechanism. This is why low-fat diets are doomed to fail and 
such an exercise in fierce willpower. Your body is never satisfied without 
fat, despite the number of calories (one more reason why calories aren’t the 
be all and end all).

It’s quite the opposite with sugar or foods converting to sugar quickly in 
the blood (starchy carbs like bread, pastas, cereal, potatoes, etc…). These 
foods inspire overeating and binging in part because they don’t satiate and 
in part because of the insulin reaction we explained above. After insulin 
has done its job of storing that extra sugar as fat, guess what happens? 
Your blood sugar takes a big hit and you now are in a low-blood sugar space. 
What do you crave now? You got it… more sugar.

This means: eating fat makes you fuller sooner and longer. Eating sugar 
leads to a sugar crash which makes you hungrier sooner and in a position to 
crave more sugar. A vicious cycle indeed.

End Quotes

Cheers
Tommy 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34760

On 5/20/2014 2:36 PM, Tommy wrote:
> "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message > In
> message <llevs7$pfd$1@dont-email.me>
>>  mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
>>> On 5/20/2014 12:15 AM, Anssi Saari wrote:
>>>> Pat Wilson <patwilson@example.com> writes:
>>
>>> Never eat anything that tastes good...that eliminates fat and sugar.
>>> Do that and you will loose weight and not gain it back at the end of
>>> your "diet".
>>
>> The human body has no mechanism to convert ingested fat into stored fat.
>> Eating Fat does not make you fat.
>
> Nope - its about sugar - its all about sugar :-)
>
> Begin Quote:-
> When you eat something sweet, your blood sugar levels increase too
> quickly, and your pancreas secretes the hormone insulin to take the
> excess sugar out of your blood.
> Insulin is a fat storage hormone. It stores that extra sugar first as
> glycogen, and then as triglycerides (fat) once glycogen stores are full.
>
> When insulin is activated, its partner hormone, glucagon, can’t operate.
> Glucagon’s job is to mobilize stored sugar back into the blood for
> energy use. These two hormones are constantly in a dance with each other
> and cannot be present in the blood at the same time.
>
> So either your body is in an energy-burning/mobilizing state (glucagon)
> or your body is in an energy storage state (insulin).
>
> Sugar mobilizes insulin; fat does not.
> It’s that simple. In fact, the fat in a sweet treat will actually help
> to slow down that sugar spike, and thus reduce the insulin surge,
> mitigating some of the ill-effects of the sweet. This is why the whole
> fat-free dessert thing is such a bad idea. Not only are you mobilizing a
> ton of insulin, you’re also removing the one thing in there that could
> slow that process down.
>
> Another piece to this puzzle is satiation. The digestion of fats
> triggers your satiation mechanism. This is why low-fat diets are doomed
> to fail and such an exercise in fierce willpower. Your body is never
> satisfied without fat, despite the number of calories (one more reason
> why calories aren’t the be all and end all).
>
> It’s quite the opposite with sugar or foods converting to sugar quickly
> in the blood (starchy carbs like bread, pastas, cereal, potatoes, etc…).
> These foods inspire overeating and binging in part because they don’t
> satiate and in part because of the insulin reaction we explained above.
> After insulin has done its job of storing that extra sugar as fat, guess
> what happens? Your blood sugar takes a big hit and you now are in a
> low-blood sugar space. What do you crave now? You got it… more sugar.
>
> This means: eating fat makes you fuller sooner and longer. Eating sugar
> leads to a sugar crash which makes you hungrier sooner and in a position
> to crave more sugar. A vicious cycle indeed.
>
> End Quotes
>
> Cheers
> Tommy
I have no basis to counter your statements, but it's counter to
what I believed.

Taken literally, your statements suggest that I can slather on the
butter, sour cream, cheese, mayo, etc. and not gain weight.

There must be more to the story.

I still maintain that people who stuff their face until they're full
are gonna weigh more than those who don't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34771

"mike" <ham789@netzero.net> wrote in message 
news:llgl0h$2s8$1@dont-email.me...
> On 5/20/2014 2:36 PM, Tommy wrote:
>> "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message > In
>> message <llevs7$pfd$1@dont-email.me>
>>>  mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
>>
>> This means: eating fat makes you fuller sooner and longer. Eating sugar
>> leads to a sugar crash which makes you hungrier sooner and in a position
>> to crave more sugar. A vicious cycle indeed.
>>
>> End Quotes
>>
>> Cheers
>> Tommy
> I have no basis to counter your statements, but it's counter to
> what I believed.
>
> Taken literally, your statements suggest that I can slather on the
> butter, sour cream, cheese, mayo, etc. and not gain weight.
>
> There must be more to the story.
>
> I still maintain that people who stuff their face until they're full
> are gonna weigh more than those who don't.

Yep, you are what you eat - stuff yourself all the time and thats what you 
get -

Exercise is good, but to exercise just to lose weight doesn't work.  I 
maintain it (proper exercise) just helps the body to carry the weight a 
little better.  Quite a few overweight folks have a glandular problem.  But 
even they can be helped with proper diet :)

Its the idea that you can 'slather' on any foodstuffs that is the cause of 
obesity.
Calorific intake is approx 2000 to 2500 for a normal person (male) - extreme 
exercising of course requires more - but those that take exercising to 
extremes will have a greater knowldge of what their intake and diet should 
be :-)

Moderation is not that hard to manage

Cheers
Tommy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34836

In message <bu27l5F1fncU1@mid.individual.net> 
  Tommy <tommyleprechaun@yohoo.com> wrote:
> "mike" <ham789@netzero.net> wrote in message 
> news:llgl0h$2s8$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 5/20/2014 2:36 PM, Tommy wrote:
>>> "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message > In
>>> message <llevs7$pfd$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>  mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> This means: eating fat makes you fuller sooner and longer. Eating sugar
>>> leads to a sugar crash which makes you hungrier sooner and in a position
>>> to crave more sugar. A vicious cycle indeed.
>>>
>>> End Quotes
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Tommy
>> I have no basis to counter your statements, but it's counter to
>> what I believed.
>>
>> Taken literally, your statements suggest that I can slather on the
>> butter, sour cream, cheese, mayo, etc. and not gain weight.
>>
>> There must be more to the story.
>>
>> I still maintain that people who stuff their face until they're full
>> are gonna weigh more than those who don't.

> Yep, you are what you eat - stuff yourself all the time and thats what you 
> get -

> Exercise is good, but to exercise just to lose weight doesn't work.  I 
> maintain it (proper exercise) just helps the body to carry the weight a 
> little better.  Quite a few overweight folks have a glandular problem.  But 
> even they can be helped with proper diet :)

> Its the idea that you can 'slather' on any foodstuffs that is the cause of 
> obesity.
> Calorific intake is approx 2000 to 2500 for a normal person (male) - extreme 
> exercising of course requires more - but those that take exercising to 
> extremes will have a greater knowldge of what their intake and diet should 
> be :-)

None of this is correct at all. Calories are meaningless. You can eat
10,000 calories a day and lose weight as long as none of those calories
come from carbohydrates.

-- 
G is for GEORGE smothered under a rug
H is for HECTOR done in by a thug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34856

In article <slrnlnod16.qo4.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > Exercise is good, but to exercise just to lose weight doesn't work.  I 
> > maintain it (proper exercise) just helps the body to carry the weight a 
> > little better.  Quite a few overweight folks have a glandular problem.  But 
> > even they can be helped with proper diet :)
> 
> > Its the idea that you can 'slather' on any foodstuffs that is the cause of 
> > obesity.
> > Calorific intake is approx 2000 to 2500 for a normal person (male) -
> > extreme 
> > exercising of course requires more - but those that take exercising to 
> > extremes will have a greater knowldge of what their intake and diet should 
> > be :-)
> 
> None of this is correct at all. Calories are meaningless. You can eat
> 10,000 calories a day and lose weight as long as none of those calories
> come from carbohydrates.

complete nonsense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34867

On Wed, 21 May 2014 05:05:42 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>None of this is correct at all. Calories are meaningless. You can eat
>10,000 calories a day and lose weight as long as none of those calories
>come from carbohydrates.

	Sounds great, Doctor. How much do you charge for a week at
your spa ? Or maybe you have an app with a "moderate" daily fee ?
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34912

"Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message 
news:slrnlnod16.qo4.g.kreme@amelia.local...
> In message <bu27l5F1fncU1@mid.individual.net>
>  Tommy <tommyleprechaun@yohoo.com> wrote:

>
>> Its the idea that you can 'slather' on any foodstuffs that is the cause 
>> of
>> obesity.
>> Calorific intake is approx 2000 to 2500 for a normal person (male) - 
>> extreme
>> exercising of course requires more - but those that take exercising to
>> extremes will have a greater knowldge of what their intake and diet 
>> should
>> be :-)
>
> None of this is correct at all. Calories are meaningless. You can eat
> 10,000 calories a day and lose weight as long as none of those calories
> come from carbohydrates.

Thats great to know - I won't never again need to take in calories - you my 
man are a fscking genius {-))

Cheers
Tommy 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34916

In message <bu4j6rFgqa7U1@mid.individual.net> 
  Tommy <tommyleprechaun@yohoo.com> wrote:
> "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message 
> news:slrnlnod16.qo4.g.kreme@amelia.local...
>> In message <bu27l5F1fncU1@mid.individual.net>
>>  Tommy <tommyleprechaun@yohoo.com> wrote:

>>
>>> Its the idea that you can 'slather' on any foodstuffs that is the cause 
>>> of
>>> obesity.
>>> Calorific intake is approx 2000 to 2500 for a normal person (male) - 
>>> extreme
>>> exercising of course requires more - but those that take exercising to
>>> extremes will have a greater knowldge of what their intake and diet 
>>> should
>>> be :-)
>>
>> None of this is correct at all. Calories are meaningless. You can eat
>> 10,000 calories a day and lose weight as long as none of those calories
>> come from carbohydrates.

> Thats great to know - I won't never again need to take in calories - you my 
> man are a fscking genius {-))

Please learn to read for comprehension. This is something they should
have covered for you in 3rd grade.


-- 
All Hell hadn't been let loose. It was merely Detritus. But from a few
feet away you couldn't tell the difference.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34917

"Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message 
news:slrnlnqbom.2d5f.g.kreme@amelia.local...
> In message <bu4j6rFgqa7U1@mid.individual.net>
>  Tommy <tommyleprechaun@yohoo.com> wrote:
>> "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
>> news:slrnlnod16.qo4.g.kreme@amelia.local...
>>> In message <bu27l5F1fncU1@mid.individual.net>
>>>  Tommy <tommyleprechaun@yohoo.com> wrote:

>>>> be :-)

>>> None of this is correct at all. Calories are meaningless. You can eat
>>> 10,000 calories a day and lose weight as long as none of those calories
>>> come from carbohydrates.

>> Thats great to know - I won't never again need to take in calories - you 
>> my
>> man are a fscking genius {-))

> Please learn to read for comprehension. This is something they should
> have covered for you in 3rd grade.

Hey genius, stop digging.

 A genius with your hahahaha comprehension skills, should have no problem 
explaining to the uneducated masses how "I can eat 10,000 calories a day and 
lose weight"  bawahahahahaha  - my sides are hurting.

Cheers
Tommy 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34918

In article <bu4pnlFi4f5U1@mid.individual.net>, Tommy
<tommyleprechaun@yohoo.com> wrote:

> >>> None of this is correct at all. Calories are meaningless. You can eat
> >>> 10,000 calories a day and lose weight as long as none of those calories
> >>> come from carbohydrates.
> 
> >> Thats great to know - I won't never again need to take in calories - you 
> >> my man are a fscking genius {-))
> 
> > Please learn to read for comprehension. This is something they should
> > have covered for you in 3rd grade.
> 
> Hey genius, stop digging.
> 
>  A genius with your hahahaha comprehension skills, should have no problem 
> explaining to the uneducated masses how "I can eat 10,000 calories a day and 
> lose weight"  bawahahahahaha  - my sides are hurting.

nevermind the uneducated masses.

the educated masses, including doctors and dieticians woldwide. want to
know. so do chefs and bakers so they can cook carb-free desserts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34922

Tommy wrote on 5/21/2014 :
> "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message 
> news:slrnlnqbom.2d5f.g.kreme@amelia.local...
>> In message <bu4j6rFgqa7U1@mid.individual.net>
>>  Tommy <tommyleprechaun@yohoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnlnod16.qo4.g.kreme@amelia.local...
>>>> In message <bu27l5F1fncU1@mid.individual.net>
>>>>  Tommy <tommyleprechaun@yohoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> be :-)
>
>>>> None of this is correct at all. Calories are meaningless. You can eat
>>>> 10,000 calories a day and lose weight as long as none of those calories
>>>> come from carbohydrates.
>
>>> Thats great to know - I won't never again need to take in calories - you 
>>> my
>>> man are a fscking genius {-))
>
>> Please learn to read for comprehension. This is something they should
>> have covered for you in 3rd grade.
>
> Hey genius, stop digging.
>
>  A genius with your hahahaha comprehension skills, should have no problem 
> explaining to the uneducated masses how "I can eat 10,000 calories a day and 
> lose weight"  bawahahahahaha  - my sides are hurting.
>
> Cheers
> Tommy

http://www.kirkmahoney.com/blog/2009/01/calorie-vs-calorie/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34835

In message <llgl0h$2s8$1@dont-email.me> 
  mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
> On 5/20/2014 2:36 PM, Tommy wrote:
>> "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message > In
>> message <llevs7$pfd$1@dont-email.me>
>>>  mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
>>>> On 5/20/2014 12:15 AM, Anssi Saari wrote:
>>>>> Pat Wilson <patwilson@example.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Never eat anything that tastes good...that eliminates fat and sugar.
>>>> Do that and you will loose weight and not gain it back at the end of
>>>> your "diet".
>>>
>>> The human body has no mechanism to convert ingested fat into stored fat.
>>> Eating Fat does not make you fat.
>>
>> Nope - its about sugar - its all about sugar :-)
>>
>> Begin Quote:-
>> When you eat something sweet, your blood sugar levels increase too
>> quickly, and your pancreas secretes the hormone insulin to take the
>> excess sugar out of your blood.
>> Insulin is a fat storage hormone. It stores that extra sugar first as
>> glycogen, and then as triglycerides (fat) once glycogen stores are full.
>>
>> When insulin is activated, its partner hormone, glucagon, can’t operate.
>> Glucagon’s job is to mobilize stored sugar back into the blood for
>> energy use. These two hormones are constantly in a dance with each other
>> and cannot be present in the blood at the same time.
>>
>> So either your body is in an energy-burning/mobilizing state (glucagon)
>> or your body is in an energy storage state (insulin).
>>
>> Sugar mobilizes insulin; fat does not.
>> It’s that simple. In fact, the fat in a sweet treat will actually help
>> to slow down that sugar spike, and thus reduce the insulin surge,
>> mitigating some of the ill-effects of the sweet. This is why the whole
>> fat-free dessert thing is such a bad idea. Not only are you mobilizing a
>> ton of insulin, you’re also removing the one thing in there that could
>> slow that process down.
>>
>> Another piece to this puzzle is satiation. The digestion of fats
>> triggers your satiation mechanism. This is why low-fat diets are doomed
>> to fail and such an exercise in fierce willpower. Your body is never
>> satisfied without fat, despite the number of calories (one more reason
>> why calories aren’t the be all and end all).
>>
>> It’s quite the opposite with sugar or foods converting to sugar quickly
>> in the blood (starchy carbs like bread, pastas, cereal, potatoes, etc…).
>> These foods inspire overeating and binging in part because they don’t
>> satiate and in part because of the insulin reaction we explained above.
>> After insulin has done its job of storing that extra sugar as fat, guess
>> what happens? Your blood sugar takes a big hit and you now are in a
>> low-blood sugar space. What do you crave now? You got it… more sugar.
>>
>> This means: eating fat makes you fuller sooner and longer. Eating sugar
>> leads to a sugar crash which makes you hungrier sooner and in a position
>> to crave more sugar. A vicious cycle indeed.
>>
>> End Quotes
>>
>> Cheers
>> Tommy
> I have no basis to counter your statements, but it's counter to
> what I believed.

You can believe in magic fairy rainbow unicorns, but they dont exist.

> Taken literally, your statements suggest that I can slather on the
> butter, sour cream, cheese, mayo, etc. and not gain weight.

Yep. That is exactly true. If you eat 0 carbs, you lose weight.

FTR, eating 0 carbs is very very difficult.

> I still maintain that people who stuff their face until they're full
> are gonna weigh more than those who don't.

If they stuff their faces with carbohydrates, absolutely.

-- 
Law of Probability Dispersal: Whatever hits the fan will not be evenly
distributed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34855

In article <slrnlnocuh.qo4.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > Taken literally, your statements suggest that I can slather on the
> > butter, sour cream, cheese, mayo, etc. and not gain weight.
> 
> Yep. That is exactly true. If you eat 0 carbs, you lose weight.

incorrect.

to lose weight, you need to eat fewer calories than you burn. a low
carb diet can help but is not required. zero carbs is not healthy. 

> FTR, eating 0 carbs is very very difficult.

and very unhealthy.

> > I still maintain that people who stuff their face until they're full
> > are gonna weigh more than those who don't.
> 
> If they stuff their faces with carbohydrates, absolutely.

or protein, fat or alcohol.

if someone stuffs their faces with more calories than they use then
they gain weight.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34757

On Tue, 20 May 2014 20:47:54 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>The human body has no mechanism to convert ingested fat into stored fat.
>Eating Fat does not make you fat.

	Actually, it does. It breaks them down into triglicerydes and
fatty acids then builds them back into fat. It's a dynamic process. If
you did not metabolize the fat it would come out in your stools, as a
yellow, greasy mess we call steatorrhea. Stinky too.
	A diet only works if you can get your body used to making
glucose out of the your fat (by increasing the enzymes used to do it).
So while a fatty diet will fail to make you slim, it's as bad as a
sugar-rich one.
	No sugar - plenty of fiber - adequate protein - fat in
moderate quantities - essential minerals and vitamins( do not follow
medicine labels here, they advise ridiculously high quantities, best
if the food itself contains enough vitamins) - drink water, even if
it's not scorchio. Enough to piss a couple of liters a day is about
right, or you will get kidney stones.
	Replying to the cat, yes, I use normal milk in my diet, though
by law in Brazil that means 3% fat. Not that lovely Devon stuff.
	It's just maths: calories ingested vs calories burnt. But
ingesting sugar will give you rebound hunger a couple of hours later.
Not many people have the willpower to handle that.
	[]'s

	PS ... If you are very tall/short, use the latest BMI
calculator. The original formula does not work for people who are
outside the "norm".

	http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34772

On Tue, 20 May 2014 19:19:37 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:

>	Replying to the cat, yes, I use normal milk in my diet, though
>by law in Brazil that means 3% fat. Not that lovely Devon stuff.

Actually, our Gold Top milk traditionally comes from the Channel
Islands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Island_milk

From very pretty cows as cows go.

http://www.jersey.com/PublishingImages/eatingout/slideshow/jersey_cow.jpg

It's too rich IMO for daily use. I probably buy a pint a year. You have
to use a screwdriver to break through the cream on the top, and make a
will before use.

I prefer organic [I dread to think what they do with the other stuff]
full fat which has a similar fat content to yours at 3.5% and I incline
towards homogenised which I'm sure marks me down as 'unlikely to ever
make it as a food critic'. Publish and be damned I say.

-- 
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath, 
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme, 
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook, 
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag, 
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, and scouringerer.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34788

On Wed, 21 May 2014 00:47:51 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)"
<super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> wrote:

>
>From very pretty cows as cows go.
>
>http://www.jersey.com/PublishingImages/eatingout/slideshow/jersey_cow.jpg

I'd snog it Pooh!

-- 
Spit the cat
Duddit's only lives if you feed him through a straw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34789

On Wed, 21 May 2014 01:51:23 +0100, Spit the Cat
<supersecret@IPaddress.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 21 May 2014 00:47:51 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)"
><super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>From very pretty cows as cows go.
>>
>>http://www.jersey.com/PublishingImages/eatingout/slideshow/jersey_cow.jpg
>
>I'd snog it Pooh!

Marks out of ten.

I'd give it one.

-- 
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath, 
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme, 
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook, 
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag, 
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, and scouringerer.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34866 — Re: [OT]Is there a weight-loss app that doesn't require the net?

On Wed, 21 May 2014 01:52:14 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)"
<super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 21 May 2014 01:51:23 +0100, Spit the Cat
><supersecret@IPaddress.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 May 2014 00:47:51 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)"
>><super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>From very pretty cows as cows go.
>>>
>>>http://www.jersey.com/PublishingImages/eatingout/slideshow/jersey_cow.jpg
>>
>>I'd snog it Pooh!
>
>Marks out of ten.
>
>I'd give it one.
	
	Cosmetics would come in handy, and if that didn't work, maybe
a mask. She'd score a 5 then. Nice body.
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34873

Spit the Cat wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2014 00:47:51 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)"
> <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>From very pretty cows as cows go.
>>
>> http://www.jersey.com/PublishingImages/eatingout/slideshow/jersey_cow.jpg
>
> I'd snog it Pooh!

Looks like you have done already!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Walworth_Gate_010.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34838

In message <djjnn9l88k74c2loac78i59iupco6f63rn@4ax.com> 
  Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2014 20:47:54 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>>The human body has no mechanism to convert ingested fat into stored fat.
>>Eating Fat does not make you fat.

> 	Actually, it does. It breaks them down into triglicerydes and
> fatty acids then builds them back into fat. It's a dynamic process. If
> you did not metabolize the fat it would come out in your stools, as a
> yellow, greasy mess we call steatorrhea. Stinky too.

If you eat nothing but fat, two things happen. 1) you lose weight at an
astonishing pace and 2) you die.

If you add protein, you just lose weight and don't die, but you will
have some vitamin deficiencies.

Add some small amount of dark green vegtables (Spinach, broccoli, kale)
and you still lose weight, you still don't die, and you don't have any
vitamin deficiencies.

My brother has maintained his High School jock weight the last 18 years
on a zero carb diet. When he goes on vacation he's less militant about
the "zero" and will gain 2-3 pounds. A week after returning to his
no-carb diet he's lost those few pounds.

> 	A diet only works if you can get your body used to making
> glucose out of the your fat (by increasing the enzymes used to do it).
> So while a fatty diet will fail to make you slim, it's as bad as a
> sugar-rich one.

Not at all true.

-- 
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.ipad

csiph-web