NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6669

Text File | 1992-12-31 | 6.6 KB | 136 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!payner
From: [e-mail] (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <michael.724957959@glia>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:00:25 GMT
Lines: 125

In article <michael.724957959@glia> [e-mail] (Michael) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> Diane writes:
>>>                                                                 Gee, all
>>>this time I thought that fat was burned when your caloric output exceeded
>>>your caloric intake!
>>Such a simplistic model for the nineties.
>
>I wonder what that is supposed to mean?  One one hand maybe he's implying
>that simple is obviously wrong.  If so, I disagree that simple is
>necessarily wrong.  From all I've read, this is a pretty good general
>rule for most people.  Of course measuring caloric output has to take
>into account one's basic metabolism as well as energy spent in physical
>activity, digestion, etc...  Many realistic concepts aren't always
>complicated.  Applying them sometimes can be.

It's interesting that the above is mostly contradicted by the stuff below,
which is not the simplistic -everything can be determined by counting
calories- model. Many of the points you made are the same points that
I would have made, so I will not agrue them. I will argue that your own
text defines the calorie model as insufficient.

It matters just as much where the calories come from as how many one
consumes, and further, muscle building is not possible by calories alone.
You can eat all the lard you want (chock full of calories) and never
build muscle.

>However in this case, research has given us fairly good approximate
>measures.  Its not too difficult to calculate body fat percentage and
>from this determine how many pounds of *FAT* we need to lose (many
>crash diets cause us to lose muscle rather than fat leaving us with a
>higher body fat percentage after losing pounds weight).  Then we can
>determine the number of calories to maintain our present weight.  Then
>by subtracting 500 calories per pound per week we wish to lose (500*7
>is 3500 calories or one pound of weight), we can determine the number
>of calories per day we need to eat (its not considered healthy to lose
>more than one or two pounds per week.  I can't remember why but I
>*think* its the rate at which our body can burn fat instead of muscle.
>someone can feel free to correct me on this).

The muscles burn fat, for energy. In order to lose the fat (forget the
weight) one must use the muscles. Exercise is a can't-do-without requirement.

>In addition, proper exercise can help one to burn calories allowing that
>person to increase their daily caloric intake.  In addition, exercise
>is simply good for you, makes you feel better, and often reduces your
>appetite making a good diet easier to maintain.  As we go along, we can
>measure our body fat percentage and again calculate how many excess
>pounds of FAT we have.  If you are involved in a lot of exercise, you
>may be moving that weight from fat into muscle.  Going simply on weight
>is a poor measure of one's health.  Its better to measure your body fat
>percentage.
>
>Its also good to keep in mind how the body stores energy.  Fat taken in
>is stored as fat.  Carbohydrates are stored some other way (I forget how)
>to be later converted to energy when needed.  I don't remember all of this
>well, but just reducing the fat in your diet can go a long way to helping
>one's body.

Some of the carbohydrates are converted in the liver to fatty acids,
most are converted directly to glucose, most of which is consumed by the
brain.

And there you go, forget calorie counting, watch the foods you eat, and
cut down on the fats.

>Of course in this new diet, its important to make sure we get the proper
>proportion of fat, carbohydrates and protein as well as the vitamins
>and other nutrients we need.  Does all this sound complicated?  Well
>yes, it is.  But it CAN be simplified.  Once you determine what your
>calorie intake should be, its not TOO difficult to plan meals to meet
>that goal.

But you just pointed out that a specific calorie consumption is not
the goal. The goal is to eat nutritional, balanced meals. The simplifying
factor is that nutritional, balanced meals are also low-fat meals.

>Then as you go along, measure your percentages of fat,

There are simple caliper tests for body fat...  But usually a mirror will
tell the story just as well.

>protein, and carboghydrates.  If they vary from what you should be eating
>then make adjustments on your diet.  In time, new habits will develop
>and it won't be such a chore.
>
>Depending on how badly your current diet is, you may have to make small or
>large changes.  For many people, dieting involves changing their lifestyle.

The distinction is between changing ones diet, and going on a diet.

>The worst thing to do is many of the so called CRASH diets.  They can
>involve many things including losing water weight (which you WILL get
>back).  They can cause you to reduce your metabolism because your body is
>tricked into thinking its starving which can lead to gaining weight MORE
>easily when you go off your diet.  They can cause you to burn muscle
>instead of fat.  Some people on binge diets actually lose weight but
>increase their body fat percentage.  This translates to having more
>pounds of relative fat on their body after the diet even though thaey
>have fewer pounds of weight.
>
>All of this information is as far as I know mostly not provable.  But I do
>think most of it has born out in tests and in statistics.  Also most of
>it has come from my memory of what I've read.  I could be mistaken in
>parts and wouldn't mind being corrected if I'm wrong.
>
>>Do you feel superior writing condesending crap like this? If so, that will
>>be the only positive thing, the reinforcement of your attitude problem.
>
>Well, I'm sure she learned a valuable lesson reading your condescending
>crap in return (which I don't believe I included in this post).

You can return flames any way you wish, as will I. And I take exception
to your characterization of my entire post as condesending crap, especially
since you have just supported many of my points. If they are crap, look
to your post as well.

>    Michael Stanley ([e-mail])


Rich

[e-mail]