Re: Three questions on utility and life length

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:37:54 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

><royls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:43a2de56.13437455@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:19:43 -0600, "jim blair"
>> <jeblair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >Jim Blair:
>> >
>> >> >> >Even the rich walked more then than most people do today, and
>anyone
>> >then
>> >> >> >or now who eats 4000 calories a day will gain weight unless they
>> >exercise
>> >> >> >a lot.
>> >
>> ><royls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote > >> >
>> >
>> >> >> That is false, as proved by the facts of objective reality which you
>> >> >> refuse to know. Those people often ate 4000, 5000, 6000 calories a
>> >> >> day, and did _not_ gain weight even though they did _not_ get enough
>> >> >> exercise to expend that many calories.
>
>But you are correct: I don't know the "reality" that people in the 1800's
>ate 4000-6000 calories a day, did not exercise enough to burn the calories,
>and did not gain weight.
>
> Do you have any reference to that "reality"?

Every read the diary of Samuel Pepys?

>> >jeb:
>> >> >
>> >> >I say people who ate 4000+ calories in the past (or today) will gain
>> >weight
>> >> >unless they exercise.
>> >>
>> >> And you're just flat wrong. As I have already explained for you, and
>> >> you refused to know, there is a difference between eating calories and
>> >> digesting, absorbing, and laying down those calories as excess body
>> >> fat.
>
>Are you claiming that people were much less efficient at digesting food
>during the 1800's?

The food they ate was harder to digest. Specifically, they had little
or no access to the refined carbohydrates that make up the bulk of
caloric intake today.

>And that we have become much more efficient today?

Our food processing machinery is much more efficient. Duh.

>I say that food was much more expensive relative to incomes then, and that
>people approximately as many calories then but that they exercised a lot
>more.

The people who could afford to eat a lot more calories usually did not
get much exercise, as they did not have to do manual work to obtain
their food.

>Hence they stayed thin on approximately the same calorie intake that people
>gain weight on today.

Of course most of them did, because they couldn't afford to overeat.
But those who could afford to -- and did -- overeat often did not get
fat.

>>>>...The average human body simply can't absorb the calories in a
>> >> large meal heavy in protein and fat, but it _can_ absorb much larger
>> >> amounts of calories in the form of refined carbohydrates.
>
>Sound like the basis of the Atkins diet. Aviod carbs, and eat all the fat
>meat you want. And it can work to reduce weight, but mostly because, even
>though fats have almost twice the calories per gram as carbs, they also fill
>you up: you don't eat as many calories because you are not as hungry.

Bingo. As I have been trying to explain to you, and you have been
refusing to know.

>> >> Just go to a supermarket and watch the people, Jim. The fat ones
>> >> aren't buying the fruit, veggies and meat. They're buying the
>> >> cookies, Twinkies and soda.
>> >
>> >And I agree. Because of the calorie content mostly.
>>
>> Nope. Calorie density is part of the problem, but it's more the ease
>> of absorption. Meat has more calories than soda. But you just can't
>> eat enough of it to get fat on, because your digestive system will
>> rebel. Try it, Jim. Try eating nothing but 3000 calories of meat and
>> other high-protein, high-fat (and thus high-calorie) but
>> _low-carbohydrate_ foods by the time you finish supper, and see if you
>> feel like eating any more by 10.
>>....Now try eating 3000 calories of
>> nothing but sugar-sweetened soda, fries, slushies, donuts, cake and
>> cookies, etc. and see if you feel like eating more at 10.
>
>Er, that is my point: "eat all you want" of protein and fats and you won't
>eat as many calories as if you "eat you fill" of carbohydrates.

But you also probably won't get fat on the 3000 calories of meat,
whereas you probably will on the 3000 calories of refined carbs.

-- Roy L
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Biochemistry of the obesity epidemic; interview with pediatric endocrinologist
    ... epidemic is more than just the calories we eat and the lack of exercise. ... It's a substance that food manufacturers are widely using. ... carbohydrate may be behaving like a dietary fat. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: [JOSHIDIOCY] Joshs Idiocy
    ... Self-control is the middle name of the upper middle class. ... They are not fat. ... >> Yeah, let them eat cake. ... A modern apple contains about 100-125 calories, ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: high dietary cholesterol = high blood cholesterol?
    ... >> overweight does not occur if the overweight is avoided. ... >Is it so hard to accept that you can eat high-fat diet not counting calories ... >> The kind with calories in it. ... Too many calories will make you fat. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Biochemistry of the obesity epidemic; interview with pediatric endocrinologist
    ... A researcher in the United States claims that the reason for the obesity epidemic is more than just the calories we eat and the lack of exercise. ... The food industry, especially in the United States, hates the message you're about to hear and while certain manufacturing practices mentioned don't happen in Australia, as you'll hear, some in fact do. ... The question I've been interested in now for the last ten years is what is actually blocking that signal to the brain to tell our bodies to eat less and exercise more? ... Norman Swan: Transports sugar from the blood into cells. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: experts make me sick
    ... the junk food the family was consuming. ... A little fat is fine, but when one is consuming too many calories, one ... it is not to do with food energy equations. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)