uh oh, somebody's got issues...

http://www.theomnivore.com/November...Newsletter.html

ROFL That was the funniest thing I have read in a long time!

I am no doctor but I can think of several examples were a person could loose weight while still having their daily calories that they take in be greater than the calories they spend (at least through conventional means.) A person could be retaining massive amounts of water for what ever reason. Once the problem is reversed then the patient could start loosing massive amount of fluid, and therefore massive amounts of weight, while still taking in more calories than they are spending. People could also have tumors, fat, or other body parts removed. Once again this would involve weight loss without calorie restriction.

Your body can also get rid of excess calories without building fat or increasing your activity. For example you can expel ketones while in ketosis. In this case I guess you would be loosing as many calories as you are taking in but you wouldn't be loosing them through conventional means. There are other ways of loosing calories through no conventional means but I will not get into it (trying these techniques as a weight loss plan can be EXTREMELY dangerous.)

It is true that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore energy in has to equal energy out. Likewise it is true that matter cannot be created nor destroyed (you can convert matter to energy but unless you are standing in the middle of a nuclear reactor I don't think you can count on that happening for you.) But I don't think it follows that if I intake X calories and expel Y calories as work where X>Y then your weight must increase by Z.

How about just underdigesting food. Whenever your body wants to waste energy, it can digest food partially. Your body can adjust the production of enzimes and hormones as it sees necessary.

Well, I think Anthony is doing a wonderful job in changing people's perception of the fat and research issues.

We need to remember that we're on the same side - the side of analysing and understanding the truth.

I think with a few terminology clarifications, the matter would be clearer. He writes "to lose weight, one must consume less calories than what they burn each day". Tie Guy wrote that there are other ways, e.g. water loss or tumour removal, to 'lose weight', and that ketones can remove, without burning, fat. Also, it is possible to 'consume' without digesting and burning foods.

OK, let's change the terminology and we'll all be clear: "to lose FAT through dietary means, one must digest, utilize and store as fat fewer calories than one burns, or removes as spare ketones, each day". Does this sum it up?

I think we should be getting away from the 'lose weight' terminology anyway and start seriously emphasising losing fat.

I've probably still got it wrong, but I'm certain that a lot of the current disagreement in the field is simply due to not using the same terminology.

I wonder what would happen if we wrote in E-Prime, which can be defined as "English without the use of the verb 'to be.'"

It often helps people see each other's points, because instead of saying "this IS," we start talking about models and frameworks. Perhaps people feel less threatened because reality isn't being challenged, only the frameworks used to represent reality.

I feel quite sorry for the guy to be honest, why not just leave him to his own opinion. Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't heat and movement a form of energy?

I'm a big fan of the omnivore site, and I actually agree with anthony on this and many other points, although I think his histrionic style detracts from his arguments somewhat... anyway, from my experience, calories DO matter, however, they seem to matter less on low carb diet versus a low fat diet. I couldnt prove that, but I know it applies to me, from my own direct experience with both diets.

Ugh, do we have to resurrect that ugly argument again? Any more males measuring the length of their private parts over the issue and I swear, I'm hiring Lorraina Bobbit and going to donate a pair of pruning shears!

Yes but we don't get them by splitting the atom. We get them by digestion which is merely a chemical reaction.

In a chemical reaction the total weight of all materials entering the reaction must be equal to the total weight of all materials resulting from the reaction. The reason is that the energy generated is neglegible with respect to the energy stored into the materials involved.

The trick which is causing the dispute about "calorie is a calorie,..etc) is that the energy wasted must be considered. We waste energy through breath, sweat, urine and feces.

So, what is the best diet for increasing penis size, anyway?

Does anyone have the yellow-covered version of DANDR, sold at Walgreen's around the country, from the late 90's? I know that Bob talks specifically about the "Metabolic Advantage" of a fat-burning diet, and uses a real-life example rather than just discussing the conceptual framework. He gives a "before" menu where he was gaining weight, and an "after" which had more calories, but resulted in weight loss. I know that on the current version, the conceptual framework is discussed on page 18, because I looked it up on Amazon.com's search-this-book service. I also know from a study Bary Bonds quoted that weight loss stopped at a certain caloric point in one study, but that it stopped at different points for different macronutrient restrictions. High fat and low carbohydrate had the point, in this study, of 2600 calories.

I guess the point that Mr. Omnivore is trying to make is that fat metabolism takes more energy (calories) to complete, so one can eat more calories on a high-fat diet. One of the points Tony Robbins makes when he advocates caloric restriction is the amount of energy used in digestion that could be used in other places.

I fought with my girlfriend over this issue. It's taken me decades to learn not to have such absolutist thinking. I relented and am doing caloric restriction, but staying above 2000 calories most days and above 1950 calories on almost every day.... although I'm very tempted to spend Sunday fasting.

OK, granted, the awesome power which destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki dwarfs the mere chemical reaction which made me morbidly obese. Still, when you're worried about the coming winter because icy ground may cause a knee dislocation due to excessive body weight, that chemical reaction becomes less and less mere with every extra pound's potential to cause physical injury.

I guess my problem is that I know the methods for weight reduction involving a high calorie diet with little exercise, but understand very little of the fascinating biochemistry behind what is happening. Unfortunately, I haven't had a "what is happening to my body" class since freshman year of high-school.

Yes its sad ... but do you really need help dealing with them?

nah, dealt with them on the last thread. wish anthony could have done the same...