Re: Weight loss through calorie restriction less than expected; mathematical modeling

On 9/8/2011 4:29 PM, Ozlover wrote:
Wes Groleau<Groleau+news@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Someone somewhere in this thread wrote:
This 'tidbit' is never even*mentioned*! Why? Because it's somewhat
gross? 'gross' doesn't stop any*other* type of 'discussion', so why
this one!?

Sorry, I've mentioned it several times and I'm not the only one.

[I'm "Someone somewhere in this thread".]

Fair enough: "never" is probably too absolute, but it's mentioned,
very, very, rarely!

I pay special attention, because I find it very strange - not to say
stupid - that so many ignore this bloody obvious aspect of the issue.
So I'm probably the one you have seen mentioning it.

When these people who have been here for a very long time say, "I
mentioned it several times" the repetition rate can be as long as
several years. The fact is that those who have come out against
calories in = calories out fail to take into account *all* the
balancing modes that contribute. They seem to limit themselves to
"what causes weight gain." While that may be the ultimate focus in
a group like this, calories in plays the most important role, followed
closely by the type of calories as they relate to the individual.

But the balance in - out is important, even if we only control
subsets of the whole.
.

Relevant Pages