<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_09_0556210</id>
	<title>Why Doesn't Exercise Lead To Weight Loss?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257792000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>antdude writes <i>"<em>The New York Times'</em> Well blog reports that 'for some time, researchers have been finding that <a href="http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/phys-ed-why-doesnt-exercise-lead-to-weight-loss/">people who exercise don't necessarily lose weight</a>.' A study published online in September 2009 in <em>The British Journal of Sports Medicine</em>  was the latest to report <a href="http://bjsm.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/bjsm.2009.065557v1">apparently disappointing slimming results</a>. In the study, 58 obese people completed 12 weeks of supervised aerobic training without changing their diets. The group lost an average of a little more than seven pounds, and many lost barely half that. How can that be?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>antdude writes " The New York Times ' Well blog reports that 'for some time , researchers have been finding that people who exercise do n't necessarily lose weight .
' A study published online in September 2009 in The British Journal of Sports Medicine was the latest to report apparently disappointing slimming results .
In the study , 58 obese people completed 12 weeks of supervised aerobic training without changing their diets .
The group lost an average of a little more than seven pounds , and many lost barely half that .
How can that be ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>antdude writes "The New York Times' Well blog reports that 'for some time, researchers have been finding that people who exercise don't necessarily lose weight.
' A study published online in September 2009 in The British Journal of Sports Medicine  was the latest to report apparently disappointing slimming results.
In the study, 58 obese people completed 12 weeks of supervised aerobic training without changing their diets.
The group lost an average of a little more than seven pounds, and many lost barely half that.
How can that be?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30038454</id>
	<title>Re:It's the hormones that control fattening, not f</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257762180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Finally he shows how fat has been wrongfully vilified over the past 50 years, and so if you take fat (high-density energy storage) out of the diet, it is replaced with carbs, and that itself is what triggers the storage system.</p></div></blockquote><p>In theory, practice doesn't matter...</p><p>In practice, many studies have been done, and none have shown notably higher weight loss from low card diets than from low fat diets.</p><p>In practice, reducing the amount of calories you eat will cause you to lose weight.  Carbs, fat, doesn't matter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally he shows how fat has been wrongfully vilified over the past 50 years , and so if you take fat ( high-density energy storage ) out of the diet , it is replaced with carbs , and that itself is what triggers the storage system.In theory , practice does n't matter...In practice , many studies have been done , and none have shown notably higher weight loss from low card diets than from low fat diets.In practice , reducing the amount of calories you eat will cause you to lose weight .
Carbs , fat , does n't matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally he shows how fat has been wrongfully vilified over the past 50 years, and so if you take fat (high-density energy storage) out of the diet, it is replaced with carbs, and that itself is what triggers the storage system.In theory, practice doesn't matter...In practice, many studies have been done, and none have shown notably higher weight loss from low card diets than from low fat diets.In practice, reducing the amount of calories you eat will cause you to lose weight.
Carbs, fat, doesn't matter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029916</id>
	<title>Gulp your food</title>
	<author>zakeria</author>
	<datestamp>1257757260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've never been able to pass 11.5 stone in weight no mater what I eat, for two years I used mollasis as a wight gain this has been shown to be the most effective way to put weight on and is also the reason its added to cattle feed. But no mater what I can't pass 11.5 stone? I've come to the conclusion that it must be because I don't chew much of my food I "Gulp" everything down and I take about 2500 Kcals a day that a bit more than any man needs to maintain weight!

I believe because I chew little my digestive system has to burn more calories to break up the food I don't chew?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never been able to pass 11.5 stone in weight no mater what I eat , for two years I used mollasis as a wight gain this has been shown to be the most effective way to put weight on and is also the reason its added to cattle feed .
But no mater what I ca n't pass 11.5 stone ?
I 've come to the conclusion that it must be because I do n't chew much of my food I " Gulp " everything down and I take about 2500 Kcals a day that a bit more than any man needs to maintain weight !
I believe because I chew little my digestive system has to burn more calories to break up the food I do n't chew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never been able to pass 11.5 stone in weight no mater what I eat, for two years I used mollasis as a wight gain this has been shown to be the most effective way to put weight on and is also the reason its added to cattle feed.
But no mater what I can't pass 11.5 stone?
I've come to the conclusion that it must be because I don't chew much of my food I "Gulp" everything down and I take about 2500 Kcals a day that a bit more than any man needs to maintain weight!
I believe because I chew little my digestive system has to burn more calories to break up the food I don't chew?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30042234</id>
	<title>Bad Cholesterol</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1257787200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just ignore your weight and be healthy.<blockquote><div><p> <i>LDL cholesterol is the so-called bad cholesterol because it deposits on the inside of your vessels to make plaques. Elevated levels of LDL increase your risk of heart disease and stroke. Your doctor will determine your LDL goal based on your number of risk factors and medical history. An optimal level of LDL is less than 100.</i> </p><blockquote><div><p> <a href="http://www.nutritionvista.com/Health/cholesterol,8.aspx" title="nutritionvista.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nutritionvista.com/Health/cholesterol,8.aspx</a> [nutritionvista.com]</p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just ignore your weight and be healthy .
LDL cholesterol is the so-called bad cholesterol because it deposits on the inside of your vessels to make plaques .
Elevated levels of LDL increase your risk of heart disease and stroke .
Your doctor will determine your LDL goal based on your number of risk factors and medical history .
An optimal level of LDL is less than 100. http : //www.nutritionvista.com/Health/cholesterol,8.aspx [ nutritionvista.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just ignore your weight and be healthy.
LDL cholesterol is the so-called bad cholesterol because it deposits on the inside of your vessels to make plaques.
Elevated levels of LDL increase your risk of heart disease and stroke.
Your doctor will determine your LDL goal based on your number of risk factors and medical history.
An optimal level of LDL is less than 100.  http://www.nutritionvista.com/Health/cholesterol,8.aspx [nutritionvista.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30038238</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be? [no proof]</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257761340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The longer you do without junk food, the less you crave it.</p></div></blockquote><p>This makes a snazy urban legend, but frankly there's <b>no proof</b> of it. My mother claims the same thing, but she'll melt down when she sees her favorite donut just like anybody else. She just won't admit it. People like to think that they've "passed through" the Great Barrier of food preferences, but their actual behavior says otherwise.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The longer you do without junk food , the less you crave it.This makes a snazy urban legend , but frankly there 's no proof of it .
My mother claims the same thing , but she 'll melt down when she sees her favorite donut just like anybody else .
She just wo n't admit it .
People like to think that they 've " passed through " the Great Barrier of food preferences , but their actual behavior says otherwise .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The longer you do without junk food, the less you crave it.This makes a snazy urban legend, but frankly there's no proof of it.
My mother claims the same thing, but she'll melt down when she sees her favorite donut just like anybody else.
She just won't admit it.
People like to think that they've "passed through" the Great Barrier of food preferences, but their actual behavior says otherwise.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029608</id>
	<title>Re:Warm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257797220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, something that often seems to be forgotten is that fat is an excellent insulator. I believe this is why, once you put on even a small amount of chub, you find it \_drastically\_ harder to lose weight. Every hour of every day you're burning far less energy simply staying warm. When you have negligable body fat, the increase in lost heat keeps your metabolism high enough to continue to stay thin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , something that often seems to be forgotten is that fat is an excellent insulator .
I believe this is why , once you put on even a small amount of chub , you find it \ _drastically \ _ harder to lose weight .
Every hour of every day you 're burning far less energy simply staying warm .
When you have negligable body fat , the increase in lost heat keeps your metabolism high enough to continue to stay thin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, something that often seems to be forgotten is that fat is an excellent insulator.
I believe this is why, once you put on even a small amount of chub, you find it \_drastically\_ harder to lose weight.
Every hour of every day you're burning far less energy simply staying warm.
When you have negligable body fat, the increase in lost heat keeps your metabolism high enough to continue to stay thin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030140</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>eh2o</author>
	<datestamp>1257759780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Muscle is about 18\% greater density.  <a href="http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/576481.html" title="google.com">http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/576481.html</a> [google.com]</p><p>Moreover the body can easily store large amount of fat, but its quite hard to gain body weight in muscle except through extreme methods ("bulk" diets and steroid use).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Muscle is about 18 \ % greater density .
http : //answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/576481.html [ google.com ] Moreover the body can easily store large amount of fat , but its quite hard to gain body weight in muscle except through extreme methods ( " bulk " diets and steroid use ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Muscle is about 18\% greater density.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/576481.html [google.com]Moreover the body can easily store large amount of fat, but its quite hard to gain body weight in muscle except through extreme methods ("bulk" diets and steroid use).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033110</id>
	<title>Genetics is a factor</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1257783480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Despite what the entire diet &amp; exercise industry would have you believe, genetics is a major factor.  Your metabolic rate is set genetically.  Sure you can increase it temporarily but eventually it readjusts to whatever you're activity and food intake level is (starvation notwithstanding) and the weight loss rate flattens out.  Personally, every time some schmuck who has NEVER had to lose an ounce in their entire lives tells me to eat less or work out more, I tell them to go eff themselves because they have no goddamn clue what they're talking about.  Okay so you go on a diet and three months later you're still on it and not losing or even gaining.  That's NOT living.  IMHO, the entire diet &amp; exercise industry is predicated on you NOT losing weight and keeping it off because if it worked, you would stop buying what they're selling.  IMHO, this is an engineering problem and the solution is not to keep doing something (and paying money for it) for the rest of your life.  The proper solution is to change the metabolic rate once and permanently.  But of course that isn't the best foundation for making money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite what the entire diet &amp; exercise industry would have you believe , genetics is a major factor .
Your metabolic rate is set genetically .
Sure you can increase it temporarily but eventually it readjusts to whatever you 're activity and food intake level is ( starvation notwithstanding ) and the weight loss rate flattens out .
Personally , every time some schmuck who has NEVER had to lose an ounce in their entire lives tells me to eat less or work out more , I tell them to go eff themselves because they have no goddamn clue what they 're talking about .
Okay so you go on a diet and three months later you 're still on it and not losing or even gaining .
That 's NOT living .
IMHO , the entire diet &amp; exercise industry is predicated on you NOT losing weight and keeping it off because if it worked , you would stop buying what they 're selling .
IMHO , this is an engineering problem and the solution is not to keep doing something ( and paying money for it ) for the rest of your life .
The proper solution is to change the metabolic rate once and permanently .
But of course that is n't the best foundation for making money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite what the entire diet &amp; exercise industry would have you believe, genetics is a major factor.
Your metabolic rate is set genetically.
Sure you can increase it temporarily but eventually it readjusts to whatever you're activity and food intake level is (starvation notwithstanding) and the weight loss rate flattens out.
Personally, every time some schmuck who has NEVER had to lose an ounce in their entire lives tells me to eat less or work out more, I tell them to go eff themselves because they have no goddamn clue what they're talking about.
Okay so you go on a diet and three months later you're still on it and not losing or even gaining.
That's NOT living.
IMHO, the entire diet &amp; exercise industry is predicated on you NOT losing weight and keeping it off because if it worked, you would stop buying what they're selling.
IMHO, this is an engineering problem and the solution is not to keep doing something (and paying money for it) for the rest of your life.
The proper solution is to change the metabolic rate once and permanently.
But of course that isn't the best foundation for making money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031992</id>
	<title>Without changing their diets?</title>
	<author>oogoliegoogolie</author>
	<datestamp>1257778680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't RTFA, but it makes sense if they don't change their diets well then no shit Sherlock, they're not going to lose weight.  For instance, it takes minutes to consume 1000 calories, whether it's a burger, chips, poutine, ice cream, or whatever, but to burn that off you'd have to engage in moderate exercise for over an hour.  You have to change what you eat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't RTFA , but it makes sense if they do n't change their diets well then no shit Sherlock , they 're not going to lose weight .
For instance , it takes minutes to consume 1000 calories , whether it 's a burger , chips , poutine , ice cream , or whatever , but to burn that off you 'd have to engage in moderate exercise for over an hour .
You have to change what you eat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't RTFA, but it makes sense if they don't change their diets well then no shit Sherlock, they're not going to lose weight.
For instance, it takes minutes to consume 1000 calories, whether it's a burger, chips, poutine, ice cream, or whatever, but to burn that off you'd have to engage in moderate exercise for over an hour.
You have to change what you eat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031762</id>
	<title>good calories, bad calories</title>
	<author>Truekaiser</author>
	<datestamp>1257777300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the book by that title has pointed this out for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the book by that title has pointed this out for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the book by that title has pointed this out for years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30037846</id>
	<title>Not always as easy as that</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1257759660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm 50, and somewhat overweight - not obese.</p><p>Up until I was 40, I was always very skinny. It was just natural, I never had to think about it.</p><p>When I started gaining weight, I stopped eating as much, especially cut down on snack foods etc. It did not help. Now, I eat a diet that, I am certain, would be called very healthy by most real experts, but I can not lose a pound. I also work-out for, at least, a few hours a week.</p><p>Everybody thinks that if your gaining weight, you much be stuffing yourself with pastries all day. But, that was not true in my case.</p><p>I am not looking for advice. I am just saying: don't assume that every person who is over-weight, is over eating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm 50 , and somewhat overweight - not obese.Up until I was 40 , I was always very skinny .
It was just natural , I never had to think about it.When I started gaining weight , I stopped eating as much , especially cut down on snack foods etc .
It did not help .
Now , I eat a diet that , I am certain , would be called very healthy by most real experts , but I can not lose a pound .
I also work-out for , at least , a few hours a week.Everybody thinks that if your gaining weight , you much be stuffing yourself with pastries all day .
But , that was not true in my case.I am not looking for advice .
I am just saying : do n't assume that every person who is over-weight , is over eating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm 50, and somewhat overweight - not obese.Up until I was 40, I was always very skinny.
It was just natural, I never had to think about it.When I started gaining weight, I stopped eating as much, especially cut down on snack foods etc.
It did not help.
Now, I eat a diet that, I am certain, would be called very healthy by most real experts, but I can not lose a pound.
I also work-out for, at least, a few hours a week.Everybody thinks that if your gaining weight, you much be stuffing yourself with pastries all day.
But, that was not true in my case.I am not looking for advice.
I am just saying: don't assume that every person who is over-weight, is over eating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30042348</id>
	<title>I'm not reading 500 comments to check but..</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1257788700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm" title="lbl.gov">http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm</a> [lbl.gov]<br>This pretty much sums it up perfectly, the physics diet.</p><p>On that note, I can confirm with almost no excercise I reduced 45lbs in 5 months with a large eating change. Sadly I put it back on because I'm stupid but none the less it worked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm [ lbl.gov ] This pretty much sums it up perfectly , the physics diet.On that note , I can confirm with almost no excercise I reduced 45lbs in 5 months with a large eating change .
Sadly I put it back on because I 'm stupid but none the less it worked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm [lbl.gov]This pretty much sums it up perfectly, the physics diet.On that note, I can confirm with almost no excercise I reduced 45lbs in 5 months with a large eating change.
Sadly I put it back on because I'm stupid but none the less it worked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031854</id>
	<title>Calories in, Calories out</title>
	<author>Bullseye\_blam</author>
	<datestamp>1257777900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please people, thermodynamics and conservation of energy are all you really need to understand here.</p><p>-Eric</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please people , thermodynamics and conservation of energy are all you really need to understand here.-Eric</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please people, thermodynamics and conservation of energy are all you really need to understand here.-Eric</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029848</id>
	<title>Bad Science</title>
	<author>LKM</author>
	<datestamp>1257799800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The title is broken. Exercise actually does lead to weight loss, as the linked article explains. Ben Goldacre <a href="http://www.badscience.net/2009/08/health-warning-exercise-makes-you-fat/" title="badscience.net" rel="nofollow">has looked at claims that exercise does not lead to weight loss</a> [badscience.net] and has found that they are mostly bogus, using selective data to make a point that probably isn't there. He writes:</p><blockquote><div><p>"The Cochrane Library is a non-profit collaboration of academics who produce unbiased, systematic reviews of the medical literature, and they have a systematic review of all the 43 trials that have been done on exercise for weight loss. This produces clear evidence that exercise is beneficial, albeit more modestly than you&rsquo;d hope."</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The title is broken .
Exercise actually does lead to weight loss , as the linked article explains .
Ben Goldacre has looked at claims that exercise does not lead to weight loss [ badscience.net ] and has found that they are mostly bogus , using selective data to make a point that probably is n't there .
He writes : " The Cochrane Library is a non-profit collaboration of academics who produce unbiased , systematic reviews of the medical literature , and they have a systematic review of all the 43 trials that have been done on exercise for weight loss .
This produces clear evidence that exercise is beneficial , albeit more modestly than you    d hope .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The title is broken.
Exercise actually does lead to weight loss, as the linked article explains.
Ben Goldacre has looked at claims that exercise does not lead to weight loss [badscience.net] and has found that they are mostly bogus, using selective data to make a point that probably isn't there.
He writes:"The Cochrane Library is a non-profit collaboration of academics who produce unbiased, systematic reviews of the medical literature, and they have a systematic review of all the 43 trials that have been done on exercise for weight loss.
This produces clear evidence that exercise is beneficial, albeit more modestly than you’d hope.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033292</id>
	<title>Why Doesn't Exercise Lead To Weight Loss?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257784200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029764</id>
	<title>1/2 cal per mile per pound is lost walking/running</title>
	<author>spineboy</author>
	<datestamp>1257798840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well - actually about 0.6 or so, and since a pound of fat is about 3500 kcal of energy,  an average sized person (150 lbs) would need to run/walk 38 miles to burn a pound of fat - or I could just eat half portions for 3 days.</p><p>The study says they just lost a little weight, not none at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well - actually about 0.6 or so , and since a pound of fat is about 3500 kcal of energy , an average sized person ( 150 lbs ) would need to run/walk 38 miles to burn a pound of fat - or I could just eat half portions for 3 days.The study says they just lost a little weight , not none at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well - actually about 0.6 or so, and since a pound of fat is about 3500 kcal of energy,  an average sized person (150 lbs) would need to run/walk 38 miles to burn a pound of fat - or I could just eat half portions for 3 days.The study says they just lost a little weight, not none at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032154</id>
	<title>did their body fat percentage change?</title>
	<author>buddyglass</author>
	<datestamp>1257779640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If not, then presumably their bodies just became more efficient at processing the food they ate into usable calories.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If not , then presumably their bodies just became more efficient at processing the food they ate into usable calories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If not, then presumably their bodies just became more efficient at processing the food they ate into usable calories.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30040774</id>
	<title>Re:It's the hormones that control fattening, not f</title>
	<author>DoctorHow</author>
	<datestamp>1257773820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Ultimately its not that excercise is ineffective, it's that biochemistry trumps the accounting.</b></p><p>To start, yes reducing what you eat certainly covers a lot of weight loss.</p><p>But the action shown of what's going on is more than the simple accounting of calories in and calories out.</p><p>Specifically, the hormonal action on the fat storage/release is what Taubes talks about.</p><p>Yes, if you reduce calories IN, or increase calories OUT, there will be some change to the homeostasis of the organism (you, me them, everybody)... but the specific nature of some of the bio-chemistry we ingest, namely the insulin trigging of the sugars/starches CHANGES the equation.</p><p>The change might be better understood when generally looking at the concept of catalyst, and how a catalyst changes the speed of a chemical reaction by even a billion fold.  E.g. enzymes modify biological processes and without a certain enzyme, chemical reactions will still take place but the time it will take could be years instead of seconds.</p><p>The idea with excercise not "working" is that despite the change in the caloric accounting, if the chemistry is overriding that caloric deficit, then we're left wondering why someone can workout forever and not see a change (as reported in TFA).</p><p>The point is, if the biochemical system is stuck on "storage", aka unable to switch to "release", because of all the sugary/starchy "Energy Drink" (or pop tarts) the excerciser consumes, then no matter how much excercise there is, the biochemsitry just can't make that change.</p><p>On the other hand that same excercise without the presence of the one thing that triggers fat storage, you'd see that person drop excess weight.</p><p>There is hormonal control beyond just the quanity of energy.  That's the point.</p><p><b>Ultimately its not that excercise is ineffective, it's that biochemistry trumps the accounting.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ultimately its not that excercise is ineffective , it 's that biochemistry trumps the accounting.To start , yes reducing what you eat certainly covers a lot of weight loss.But the action shown of what 's going on is more than the simple accounting of calories in and calories out.Specifically , the hormonal action on the fat storage/release is what Taubes talks about.Yes , if you reduce calories IN , or increase calories OUT , there will be some change to the homeostasis of the organism ( you , me them , everybody ) ... but the specific nature of some of the bio-chemistry we ingest , namely the insulin trigging of the sugars/starches CHANGES the equation.The change might be better understood when generally looking at the concept of catalyst , and how a catalyst changes the speed of a chemical reaction by even a billion fold .
E.g. enzymes modify biological processes and without a certain enzyme , chemical reactions will still take place but the time it will take could be years instead of seconds.The idea with excercise not " working " is that despite the change in the caloric accounting , if the chemistry is overriding that caloric deficit , then we 're left wondering why someone can workout forever and not see a change ( as reported in TFA ) .The point is , if the biochemical system is stuck on " storage " , aka unable to switch to " release " , because of all the sugary/starchy " Energy Drink " ( or pop tarts ) the excerciser consumes , then no matter how much excercise there is , the biochemsitry just ca n't make that change.On the other hand that same excercise without the presence of the one thing that triggers fat storage , you 'd see that person drop excess weight.There is hormonal control beyond just the quanity of energy .
That 's the point.Ultimately its not that excercise is ineffective , it 's that biochemistry trumps the accounting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ultimately its not that excercise is ineffective, it's that biochemistry trumps the accounting.To start, yes reducing what you eat certainly covers a lot of weight loss.But the action shown of what's going on is more than the simple accounting of calories in and calories out.Specifically, the hormonal action on the fat storage/release is what Taubes talks about.Yes, if you reduce calories IN, or increase calories OUT, there will be some change to the homeostasis of the organism (you, me them, everybody)... but the specific nature of some of the bio-chemistry we ingest, namely the insulin trigging of the sugars/starches CHANGES the equation.The change might be better understood when generally looking at the concept of catalyst, and how a catalyst changes the speed of a chemical reaction by even a billion fold.
E.g. enzymes modify biological processes and without a certain enzyme, chemical reactions will still take place but the time it will take could be years instead of seconds.The idea with excercise not "working" is that despite the change in the caloric accounting, if the chemistry is overriding that caloric deficit, then we're left wondering why someone can workout forever and not see a change (as reported in TFA).The point is, if the biochemical system is stuck on "storage", aka unable to switch to "release", because of all the sugary/starchy "Energy Drink" (or pop tarts) the excerciser consumes, then no matter how much excercise there is, the biochemsitry just can't make that change.On the other hand that same excercise without the presence of the one thing that triggers fat storage, you'd see that person drop excess weight.There is hormonal control beyond just the quanity of energy.
That's the point.Ultimately its not that excercise is ineffective, it's that biochemistry trumps the accounting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30038454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029760</id>
	<title>Simplistic Bullshit</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1257798780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Weight is a function of dozens of factors, not the least of which are diet, exercise, and genetics.  Mental state is a huge factor, since fat storage (likely) evolved as a response to environmental stress.  Even little things such as gut bacteria and ambient temperature affect weight.  And diet and exercise are not anywhere near as simple as "running X number of minutes a day" or "eating Y number of calories per day".  What you eat and how you exercise are much more important than how much or how little.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Weight is a function of dozens of factors , not the least of which are diet , exercise , and genetics .
Mental state is a huge factor , since fat storage ( likely ) evolved as a response to environmental stress .
Even little things such as gut bacteria and ambient temperature affect weight .
And diet and exercise are not anywhere near as simple as " running X number of minutes a day " or " eating Y number of calories per day " .
What you eat and how you exercise are much more important than how much or how little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weight is a function of dozens of factors, not the least of which are diet, exercise, and genetics.
Mental state is a huge factor, since fat storage (likely) evolved as a response to environmental stress.
Even little things such as gut bacteria and ambient temperature affect weight.
And diet and exercise are not anywhere near as simple as "running X number of minutes a day" or "eating Y number of calories per day".
What you eat and how you exercise are much more important than how much or how little.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029718</id>
	<title>Perhaps because they aren't actually exercising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257798300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Burning 200 calories is not exercise. That's activity... exercise is what athletes do and for aerobic activity that means 2 hours at a time. It is disingenuous to make the blanket statement that exercise doesn't make you loose weight when you are doing amounts of work that any fit person would scoff at. I'm not saying a 250 pound + person is going to be able to do legitimate amounts of exercise, but over time as part of a healthy lifestyle they can work towards burning 500-700 calories in 1 hour. Most people have an extra hour a few times a week and those extra 1500 calories a week mean that you loose about a pound every other week. Anything more than a half a pound to a pound of weight loss in a week is generally considered overly aggressive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Burning 200 calories is not exercise .
That 's activity... exercise is what athletes do and for aerobic activity that means 2 hours at a time .
It is disingenuous to make the blanket statement that exercise does n't make you loose weight when you are doing amounts of work that any fit person would scoff at .
I 'm not saying a 250 pound + person is going to be able to do legitimate amounts of exercise , but over time as part of a healthy lifestyle they can work towards burning 500-700 calories in 1 hour .
Most people have an extra hour a few times a week and those extra 1500 calories a week mean that you loose about a pound every other week .
Anything more than a half a pound to a pound of weight loss in a week is generally considered overly aggressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Burning 200 calories is not exercise.
That's activity... exercise is what athletes do and for aerobic activity that means 2 hours at a time.
It is disingenuous to make the blanket statement that exercise doesn't make you loose weight when you are doing amounts of work that any fit person would scoff at.
I'm not saying a 250 pound + person is going to be able to do legitimate amounts of exercise, but over time as part of a healthy lifestyle they can work towards burning 500-700 calories in 1 hour.
Most people have an extra hour a few times a week and those extra 1500 calories a week mean that you loose about a pound every other week.
Anything more than a half a pound to a pound of weight loss in a week is generally considered overly aggressive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029536</id>
	<title>Perhaps because...</title>
	<author>vivian</author>
	<datestamp>1257710340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you are still munching your way through 6 soft drinks, 2 packets of doritoes, a couple of chocolate bars and fried chicken each day you are still sucking in a hell of a lot more calories than you can burn off with just exercise?<br>The main role of exercise in weight loss is to help you maintain your metabolic rate ( or increase it a bit) while eating a normal amount of calories.</p><p>For a regular guy this should be about 2500 to 3000 Calories depending on your body size.</p><p>If you just cut your calories, your body is going to tend to just drop it's metabolic rate, so it's harder to lose weight with diet alone.<br>Oils and fats have 4 times the energy packed in them as carbs and protein, so if you are eating a lot of fatty food it is going to give you a lot of calories without filling you up much.</p><p>a normal healthy diet (ie. balanced protein/carbs and healthy fats, like from nuts, fish &amp; avocados) plus exercise is the way to really succeed. Have a big heap of non-starchy veggies and it will really help fill you up without too much extra calories compared to having say, fries with your steak.</p><p>Oh. and diet drinks have been found to have a <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080210183902.htm" title="sciencedaily.com">tendancy</a> [sciencedaily.com] to fool your body it is starving, which gives you a bigger appetite, so avoid those &amp; just drink fewer sugary beverages instead.</p><p>Losing weight isn't rocket science. Increase<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/maintain your metabolism a bit with 30 min excercise a day and reduce your calorie intake to below what your body burns is all you need to do - and be patient. Don't expect to lose more than about 2 pounds a week - any more is too fast and unsustainable in the long term.</p><p>The muscle you put on with exercise also helps you maintain your weight loss because muscle burns more energy than fat.</p><p>Break out of the overweight geek stereotype and be a healthy fit geek - you will think better too when you improve your circulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you are still munching your way through 6 soft drinks , 2 packets of doritoes , a couple of chocolate bars and fried chicken each day you are still sucking in a hell of a lot more calories than you can burn off with just exercise ? The main role of exercise in weight loss is to help you maintain your metabolic rate ( or increase it a bit ) while eating a normal amount of calories.For a regular guy this should be about 2500 to 3000 Calories depending on your body size.If you just cut your calories , your body is going to tend to just drop it 's metabolic rate , so it 's harder to lose weight with diet alone.Oils and fats have 4 times the energy packed in them as carbs and protein , so if you are eating a lot of fatty food it is going to give you a lot of calories without filling you up much.a normal healthy diet ( ie .
balanced protein/carbs and healthy fats , like from nuts , fish &amp; avocados ) plus exercise is the way to really succeed .
Have a big heap of non-starchy veggies and it will really help fill you up without too much extra calories compared to having say , fries with your steak.Oh .
and diet drinks have been found to have a tendancy [ sciencedaily.com ] to fool your body it is starving , which gives you a bigger appetite , so avoid those &amp; just drink fewer sugary beverages instead.Losing weight is n't rocket science .
Increase /maintain your metabolism a bit with 30 min excercise a day and reduce your calorie intake to below what your body burns is all you need to do - and be patient .
Do n't expect to lose more than about 2 pounds a week - any more is too fast and unsustainable in the long term.The muscle you put on with exercise also helps you maintain your weight loss because muscle burns more energy than fat.Break out of the overweight geek stereotype and be a healthy fit geek - you will think better too when you improve your circulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you are still munching your way through 6 soft drinks, 2 packets of doritoes, a couple of chocolate bars and fried chicken each day you are still sucking in a hell of a lot more calories than you can burn off with just exercise?The main role of exercise in weight loss is to help you maintain your metabolic rate ( or increase it a bit) while eating a normal amount of calories.For a regular guy this should be about 2500 to 3000 Calories depending on your body size.If you just cut your calories, your body is going to tend to just drop it's metabolic rate, so it's harder to lose weight with diet alone.Oils and fats have 4 times the energy packed in them as carbs and protein, so if you are eating a lot of fatty food it is going to give you a lot of calories without filling you up much.a normal healthy diet (ie.
balanced protein/carbs and healthy fats, like from nuts, fish &amp; avocados) plus exercise is the way to really succeed.
Have a big heap of non-starchy veggies and it will really help fill you up without too much extra calories compared to having say, fries with your steak.Oh.
and diet drinks have been found to have a tendancy [sciencedaily.com] to fool your body it is starving, which gives you a bigger appetite, so avoid those &amp; just drink fewer sugary beverages instead.Losing weight isn't rocket science.
Increase /maintain your metabolism a bit with 30 min excercise a day and reduce your calorie intake to below what your body burns is all you need to do - and be patient.
Don't expect to lose more than about 2 pounds a week - any more is too fast and unsustainable in the long term.The muscle you put on with exercise also helps you maintain your weight loss because muscle burns more energy than fat.Break out of the overweight geek stereotype and be a healthy fit geek - you will think better too when you improve your circulation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030864</id>
	<title>Re:Your body doesn't have a 100\% conversion factor</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1257768840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Putting stuff in your mouth is just step one. How you chew your food, how well it is digested, how active your metabolism is, all these will affect how much energy you actually get out of your food.</i> <br> <br>Most obviously with a fruit. Bite a seed and it becomes digestable. Swallow a seed whole and it might well make it out the other end viable. Puree the same fruit and all the seeds in it are digestable. Cooking will also affect the digestability of a food.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting stuff in your mouth is just step one .
How you chew your food , how well it is digested , how active your metabolism is , all these will affect how much energy you actually get out of your food .
Most obviously with a fruit .
Bite a seed and it becomes digestable .
Swallow a seed whole and it might well make it out the other end viable .
Puree the same fruit and all the seeds in it are digestable .
Cooking will also affect the digestability of a food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting stuff in your mouth is just step one.
How you chew your food, how well it is digested, how active your metabolism is, all these will affect how much energy you actually get out of your food.
Most obviously with a fruit.
Bite a seed and it becomes digestable.
Swallow a seed whole and it might well make it out the other end viable.
Puree the same fruit and all the seeds in it are digestable.
Cooking will also affect the digestability of a food.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033422</id>
	<title>How I'm doing it</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1257784680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, exercise is boring as hell. We all know that. So, find a way to make it actually <em>fun</em> and you've overcome a huge hurdle. What worked <em>for me</em> was EA Active for Wii, with the female trainer. Yeah, I know it's silly, but hearing a fit woman saying things like "you're really working hard! You're body will thank you for this!" was a motivator. Maybe others would prefer the guy trainer for other silly-but-effective reasons, or maybe a different workout regimen altogether. That's OK! The whole point is finding something that <em>you, personally</em> can actually get excited about doing several times a week.</p><p>Next, and even more importantly, I've started keeping track of what I eat. I installed the (free) "Lose It!" app for my iTouch, entered my height and weight, how much I wanted to weigh, and how fast I wanted to get there. It creates a personalized calorie goal for each day which decreases over time as you lose weight. The single biggest thing it did for me, though, was making me aware of the nutrition of everything I eat. I was hungry one day and bought an Angry Whopper. I was halfway through it when I discovered that it had 880 calories and 55g of fat. WTF? I don't want that in my body! So I cut it in half and ate the rest for lunch the next day. Notice something important though: I still got to eat it. I'm not subsisting on rice cakes and lemon water. I had a nice meal at Red Lobster a couple of nights ago, then made up for it by eating lightly the next day. I'm <em>not</em> going to spend the rest of my life denying myself everything I'd actually enjoy eating, but I'm perfectly fine with keeping track of intake and adjusting appropriately until the day I die. Again, I found the tool that worked best for me. Maybe you'd prefer a paper notebook, or an Excel spreadsheet? Whatever. Just be aware of what you're <em>actually</em> taking in, not what you <em>think</em> you might be eating.</p><p>So, what's this got me? I've lost 29 pounds in three months without doing <em>anything</em> other than playing a fun (to me) video game and coming to understand the nutrition of the food I'm eating. No fads, no energy-burning drinks, no starvation, no feeling intimidated at the gym, nothing. I've taken in three holes in my belt and started wearing my jeans up around my waist, not under my gut. I admit that I got discouraged a week or so ago because my weight had plateaued, but one day I was hopping in the shower after a workout and saw my arms. What. The. Hell? For the first time, perhaps in my entire life, I could see all the major muscle groups in my arms and shoulders. I've always been decently strong, but instead of just having large, amorphous arms, I can actually see the (amazingly large, to me!) individual muscles in them. Screw my weight - I'm getting ripped! Slowly, sure, because Wii Active isn't the same as pumping iron at a gym, but it's still happening! That was just about the best feeling: looking into a mirror and grinning like an idiot because I actually <em>liked</em> what I saw.</p><p>I've been having fun and eating decently for the last three months, lost nearly thirty pounds, dropped about 6\% body fat, and have a totally different self image. If I can do it, barring any exceptional physical conditions, you can too. Don't torture yourself or regard diet and exercise as something awful and difficult, but as something that can be fun and educational. I listed the tools that worked for me, but find your own and go with them. Geek out on it. We're as able to do this as anyone else!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , exercise is boring as hell .
We all know that .
So , find a way to make it actually fun and you 've overcome a huge hurdle .
What worked for me was EA Active for Wii , with the female trainer .
Yeah , I know it 's silly , but hearing a fit woman saying things like " you 're really working hard !
You 're body will thank you for this !
" was a motivator .
Maybe others would prefer the guy trainer for other silly-but-effective reasons , or maybe a different workout regimen altogether .
That 's OK !
The whole point is finding something that you , personally can actually get excited about doing several times a week.Next , and even more importantly , I 've started keeping track of what I eat .
I installed the ( free ) " Lose It !
" app for my iTouch , entered my height and weight , how much I wanted to weigh , and how fast I wanted to get there .
It creates a personalized calorie goal for each day which decreases over time as you lose weight .
The single biggest thing it did for me , though , was making me aware of the nutrition of everything I eat .
I was hungry one day and bought an Angry Whopper .
I was halfway through it when I discovered that it had 880 calories and 55g of fat .
WTF ? I do n't want that in my body !
So I cut it in half and ate the rest for lunch the next day .
Notice something important though : I still got to eat it .
I 'm not subsisting on rice cakes and lemon water .
I had a nice meal at Red Lobster a couple of nights ago , then made up for it by eating lightly the next day .
I 'm not going to spend the rest of my life denying myself everything I 'd actually enjoy eating , but I 'm perfectly fine with keeping track of intake and adjusting appropriately until the day I die .
Again , I found the tool that worked best for me .
Maybe you 'd prefer a paper notebook , or an Excel spreadsheet ?
Whatever. Just be aware of what you 're actually taking in , not what you think you might be eating.So , what 's this got me ?
I 've lost 29 pounds in three months without doing anything other than playing a fun ( to me ) video game and coming to understand the nutrition of the food I 'm eating .
No fads , no energy-burning drinks , no starvation , no feeling intimidated at the gym , nothing .
I 've taken in three holes in my belt and started wearing my jeans up around my waist , not under my gut .
I admit that I got discouraged a week or so ago because my weight had plateaued , but one day I was hopping in the shower after a workout and saw my arms .
What. The .
Hell ? For the first time , perhaps in my entire life , I could see all the major muscle groups in my arms and shoulders .
I 've always been decently strong , but instead of just having large , amorphous arms , I can actually see the ( amazingly large , to me !
) individual muscles in them .
Screw my weight - I 'm getting ripped !
Slowly , sure , because Wii Active is n't the same as pumping iron at a gym , but it 's still happening !
That was just about the best feeling : looking into a mirror and grinning like an idiot because I actually liked what I saw.I 've been having fun and eating decently for the last three months , lost nearly thirty pounds , dropped about 6 \ % body fat , and have a totally different self image .
If I can do it , barring any exceptional physical conditions , you can too .
Do n't torture yourself or regard diet and exercise as something awful and difficult , but as something that can be fun and educational .
I listed the tools that worked for me , but find your own and go with them .
Geek out on it .
We 're as able to do this as anyone else !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, exercise is boring as hell.
We all know that.
So, find a way to make it actually fun and you've overcome a huge hurdle.
What worked for me was EA Active for Wii, with the female trainer.
Yeah, I know it's silly, but hearing a fit woman saying things like "you're really working hard!
You're body will thank you for this!
" was a motivator.
Maybe others would prefer the guy trainer for other silly-but-effective reasons, or maybe a different workout regimen altogether.
That's OK!
The whole point is finding something that you, personally can actually get excited about doing several times a week.Next, and even more importantly, I've started keeping track of what I eat.
I installed the (free) "Lose It!
" app for my iTouch, entered my height and weight, how much I wanted to weigh, and how fast I wanted to get there.
It creates a personalized calorie goal for each day which decreases over time as you lose weight.
The single biggest thing it did for me, though, was making me aware of the nutrition of everything I eat.
I was hungry one day and bought an Angry Whopper.
I was halfway through it when I discovered that it had 880 calories and 55g of fat.
WTF? I don't want that in my body!
So I cut it in half and ate the rest for lunch the next day.
Notice something important though: I still got to eat it.
I'm not subsisting on rice cakes and lemon water.
I had a nice meal at Red Lobster a couple of nights ago, then made up for it by eating lightly the next day.
I'm not going to spend the rest of my life denying myself everything I'd actually enjoy eating, but I'm perfectly fine with keeping track of intake and adjusting appropriately until the day I die.
Again, I found the tool that worked best for me.
Maybe you'd prefer a paper notebook, or an Excel spreadsheet?
Whatever. Just be aware of what you're actually taking in, not what you think you might be eating.So, what's this got me?
I've lost 29 pounds in three months without doing anything other than playing a fun (to me) video game and coming to understand the nutrition of the food I'm eating.
No fads, no energy-burning drinks, no starvation, no feeling intimidated at the gym, nothing.
I've taken in three holes in my belt and started wearing my jeans up around my waist, not under my gut.
I admit that I got discouraged a week or so ago because my weight had plateaued, but one day I was hopping in the shower after a workout and saw my arms.
What. The.
Hell? For the first time, perhaps in my entire life, I could see all the major muscle groups in my arms and shoulders.
I've always been decently strong, but instead of just having large, amorphous arms, I can actually see the (amazingly large, to me!
) individual muscles in them.
Screw my weight - I'm getting ripped!
Slowly, sure, because Wii Active isn't the same as pumping iron at a gym, but it's still happening!
That was just about the best feeling: looking into a mirror and grinning like an idiot because I actually liked what I saw.I've been having fun and eating decently for the last three months, lost nearly thirty pounds, dropped about 6\% body fat, and have a totally different self image.
If I can do it, barring any exceptional physical conditions, you can too.
Don't torture yourself or regard diet and exercise as something awful and difficult, but as something that can be fun and educational.
I listed the tools that worked for me, but find your own and go with them.
Geek out on it.
We're as able to do this as anyone else!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366</id>
	<title>Conservation of Energy</title>
	<author>otter42</author>
	<datestamp>1257762600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know a lot of people are going to talk about CoE. After all, that's the driving equation here. It is absolutely correct, but can we not glean more insight into the problem?</p><p>IWAHTE (I Was A Heat Transfer Engineer), so my guess is that what's going on is that people spend the vast majority of their calories maintaining body temperature. If you eat less, your body's first reaction might well be to reduce skin temperature, maintaining core temperature. This theory links the fact that women eat less then men by 20\% with the observation that women are complain about being cold earlier than men. Less calories burnt to keep skin temperature high.</p><p>In the case of someone who is overweight, they have an additional layer of blubber (yes, basement<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. denizens, you <i>are</i> coated in blubber) that insulates them and maintains their core temperature for free. Maybe there's a hysteresis? First the body weight comes down, then the body learns it can waste excess heat maintaining skin temperature, and then, and only then, the body is free to consume additional calories.</p><p>Now, I don't do human anatomy, so a doctor would have to chime in and confirm just how much of the body's caloric consumption is lost to heat, vs. other bodily functions.</p><p>A personal example: on an average day, I eat some 3500 calories. But I am athletic, and only weigh 70, so this is a "good" 3500 kCal. What I notice is that my skin temperature is always warm, especially compared to women. In fact, I am very comfortable when the temperature is around 15deg inside. I go outside on a 5deg day in nothing more than a sweater and a top hat. I routinely mock my friends who wear a sweater, coat, and scarf when I'm sitting around in short sleeves. Certainly, my body is horribly inefficient, and if society falls in some sort of catastrophe, I will certainly be one of the first to starve (if my 20/800 eyesight doesn't make me walk off a cliff first). However, in a society that has mass amounts of overconsumption, it seems to fit me just fine.</p><p>A second personal example: I dated a German doctor who as a 16-year-old doing a year-abroad in Minnesota, had been anorexic. After she came back, she put on a lot of weight: obviously her body reacting to the extreme abuse she had given it. Now as a 25-year-old, she was in the Bundeswehr (German army), and this girl could RUN. She ran marathons. She ran 2 hours with 25kg of weight attached to her. And yet she was always, always overweight by 8kg or so vs. her pre-American anorexia bout. Not a lot, but she was... pudgy. She'd been to doctors, etc, and could do nothing to get her weight down. I lived with her for a while, I can guarantee she ate nothing but healthy food, and only somewhere around 1600-1800kCal/day. However, she liked her rooms <b>warm</b>.</p><p>So I am less physically active, yet consume twice as much. The only thing that can explain this is that physical activity just doesn't use that many calories, not compared to maintaing body temperature. Since I go outside without a coat, I burn more calories than she does to maintain the same core temperature.</p><p>My two cents, but I certainly welcome other<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er ideas, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a lot of people are going to talk about CoE .
After all , that 's the driving equation here .
It is absolutely correct , but can we not glean more insight into the problem ? IWAHTE ( I Was A Heat Transfer Engineer ) , so my guess is that what 's going on is that people spend the vast majority of their calories maintaining body temperature .
If you eat less , your body 's first reaction might well be to reduce skin temperature , maintaining core temperature .
This theory links the fact that women eat less then men by 20 \ % with the observation that women are complain about being cold earlier than men .
Less calories burnt to keep skin temperature high.In the case of someone who is overweight , they have an additional layer of blubber ( yes , basement / .
denizens , you are coated in blubber ) that insulates them and maintains their core temperature for free .
Maybe there 's a hysteresis ?
First the body weight comes down , then the body learns it can waste excess heat maintaining skin temperature , and then , and only then , the body is free to consume additional calories.Now , I do n't do human anatomy , so a doctor would have to chime in and confirm just how much of the body 's caloric consumption is lost to heat , vs. other bodily functions.A personal example : on an average day , I eat some 3500 calories .
But I am athletic , and only weigh 70 , so this is a " good " 3500 kCal .
What I notice is that my skin temperature is always warm , especially compared to women .
In fact , I am very comfortable when the temperature is around 15deg inside .
I go outside on a 5deg day in nothing more than a sweater and a top hat .
I routinely mock my friends who wear a sweater , coat , and scarf when I 'm sitting around in short sleeves .
Certainly , my body is horribly inefficient , and if society falls in some sort of catastrophe , I will certainly be one of the first to starve ( if my 20/800 eyesight does n't make me walk off a cliff first ) .
However , in a society that has mass amounts of overconsumption , it seems to fit me just fine.A second personal example : I dated a German doctor who as a 16-year-old doing a year-abroad in Minnesota , had been anorexic .
After she came back , she put on a lot of weight : obviously her body reacting to the extreme abuse she had given it .
Now as a 25-year-old , she was in the Bundeswehr ( German army ) , and this girl could RUN .
She ran marathons .
She ran 2 hours with 25kg of weight attached to her .
And yet she was always , always overweight by 8kg or so vs. her pre-American anorexia bout .
Not a lot , but she was... pudgy. She 'd been to doctors , etc , and could do nothing to get her weight down .
I lived with her for a while , I can guarantee she ate nothing but healthy food , and only somewhere around 1600-1800kCal/day .
However , she liked her rooms warm.So I am less physically active , yet consume twice as much .
The only thing that can explain this is that physical activity just does n't use that many calories , not compared to maintaing body temperature .
Since I go outside without a coat , I burn more calories than she does to maintain the same core temperature.My two cents , but I certainly welcome other /.er ideas , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a lot of people are going to talk about CoE.
After all, that's the driving equation here.
It is absolutely correct, but can we not glean more insight into the problem?IWAHTE (I Was A Heat Transfer Engineer), so my guess is that what's going on is that people spend the vast majority of their calories maintaining body temperature.
If you eat less, your body's first reaction might well be to reduce skin temperature, maintaining core temperature.
This theory links the fact that women eat less then men by 20\% with the observation that women are complain about being cold earlier than men.
Less calories burnt to keep skin temperature high.In the case of someone who is overweight, they have an additional layer of blubber (yes, basement /.
denizens, you are coated in blubber) that insulates them and maintains their core temperature for free.
Maybe there's a hysteresis?
First the body weight comes down, then the body learns it can waste excess heat maintaining skin temperature, and then, and only then, the body is free to consume additional calories.Now, I don't do human anatomy, so a doctor would have to chime in and confirm just how much of the body's caloric consumption is lost to heat, vs. other bodily functions.A personal example: on an average day, I eat some 3500 calories.
But I am athletic, and only weigh 70, so this is a "good" 3500 kCal.
What I notice is that my skin temperature is always warm, especially compared to women.
In fact, I am very comfortable when the temperature is around 15deg inside.
I go outside on a 5deg day in nothing more than a sweater and a top hat.
I routinely mock my friends who wear a sweater, coat, and scarf when I'm sitting around in short sleeves.
Certainly, my body is horribly inefficient, and if society falls in some sort of catastrophe, I will certainly be one of the first to starve (if my 20/800 eyesight doesn't make me walk off a cliff first).
However, in a society that has mass amounts of overconsumption, it seems to fit me just fine.A second personal example: I dated a German doctor who as a 16-year-old doing a year-abroad in Minnesota, had been anorexic.
After she came back, she put on a lot of weight: obviously her body reacting to the extreme abuse she had given it.
Now as a 25-year-old, she was in the Bundeswehr (German army), and this girl could RUN.
She ran marathons.
She ran 2 hours with 25kg of weight attached to her.
And yet she was always, always overweight by 8kg or so vs. her pre-American anorexia bout.
Not a lot, but she was... pudgy. She'd been to doctors, etc, and could do nothing to get her weight down.
I lived with her for a while, I can guarantee she ate nothing but healthy food, and only somewhere around 1600-1800kCal/day.
However, she liked her rooms warm.So I am less physically active, yet consume twice as much.
The only thing that can explain this is that physical activity just doesn't use that many calories, not compared to maintaing body temperature.
Since I go outside without a coat, I burn more calories than she does to maintain the same core temperature.My two cents, but I certainly welcome other /.er ideas, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30134784</id>
	<title>The Reptile Brain is why!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258452180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Somehow this reply got posted to another story.)</p><p>Actually, the problem is probably better analyzed as a dynamic system. The limbic system is highly efficient at preserving energy in the face of stress. Just thinking about restricting your food intake will slow your metabolism by as much as 40\%. Exercise stresses the body, and trying to move the body from a homeostatic state of sedentary activity requires a lot of adaptation. Twelve weeks is probably not enough. A high-carbohydrate diet overloads the cellular sensitivity to insulin control which essentially "gives up" allowing high concentrations of insulin to exist in the bloodstream, and insulin causes fat accumulation in the presence of excess calories from carbohydrates. The use of high-fructose corn syrup in so many different foods stimulates the production of insulin in a manner that is not controlled by oxycalcitrin (a hormone produced in the bones), further aggravating fat accumulation. And, the onset of a life-changing activity without going through the seven steps outlined in James Prochaska's transtheoretical model of change creates mental and physical reactions that are inimical to the reduction of obesity. (And I'm just hitting the high points of the system here.)</p><p>Any more questions? (Go on, ask me a HARD one!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Somehow this reply got posted to another story .
) Actually , the problem is probably better analyzed as a dynamic system .
The limbic system is highly efficient at preserving energy in the face of stress .
Just thinking about restricting your food intake will slow your metabolism by as much as 40 \ % .
Exercise stresses the body , and trying to move the body from a homeostatic state of sedentary activity requires a lot of adaptation .
Twelve weeks is probably not enough .
A high-carbohydrate diet overloads the cellular sensitivity to insulin control which essentially " gives up " allowing high concentrations of insulin to exist in the bloodstream , and insulin causes fat accumulation in the presence of excess calories from carbohydrates .
The use of high-fructose corn syrup in so many different foods stimulates the production of insulin in a manner that is not controlled by oxycalcitrin ( a hormone produced in the bones ) , further aggravating fat accumulation .
And , the onset of a life-changing activity without going through the seven steps outlined in James Prochaska 's transtheoretical model of change creates mental and physical reactions that are inimical to the reduction of obesity .
( And I 'm just hitting the high points of the system here .
) Any more questions ?
( Go on , ask me a HARD one !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Somehow this reply got posted to another story.
)Actually, the problem is probably better analyzed as a dynamic system.
The limbic system is highly efficient at preserving energy in the face of stress.
Just thinking about restricting your food intake will slow your metabolism by as much as 40\%.
Exercise stresses the body, and trying to move the body from a homeostatic state of sedentary activity requires a lot of adaptation.
Twelve weeks is probably not enough.
A high-carbohydrate diet overloads the cellular sensitivity to insulin control which essentially "gives up" allowing high concentrations of insulin to exist in the bloodstream, and insulin causes fat accumulation in the presence of excess calories from carbohydrates.
The use of high-fructose corn syrup in so many different foods stimulates the production of insulin in a manner that is not controlled by oxycalcitrin (a hormone produced in the bones), further aggravating fat accumulation.
And, the onset of a life-changing activity without going through the seven steps outlined in James Prochaska's transtheoretical model of change creates mental and physical reactions that are inimical to the reduction of obesity.
(And I'm just hitting the high points of the system here.
)Any more questions?
(Go on, ask me a HARD one!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029770</id>
	<title>Body Fat is to prevent starvation</title>
	<author>moxsam</author>
	<datestamp>1257798900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The sole purpose of fat reservoirs is to extend the time of survival in times of malnutrition. On the contrary people who do "exercise" in pre-historic times (meaning to do what everyone had to do) and were not able to retain or even gain weight, are more likely going to die in times of need.

So people who fall into that pre-historic ultimate winner group and who want to loose weight need to eat less, much less.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sole purpose of fat reservoirs is to extend the time of survival in times of malnutrition .
On the contrary people who do " exercise " in pre-historic times ( meaning to do what everyone had to do ) and were not able to retain or even gain weight , are more likely going to die in times of need .
So people who fall into that pre-historic ultimate winner group and who want to loose weight need to eat less , much less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sole purpose of fat reservoirs is to extend the time of survival in times of malnutrition.
On the contrary people who do "exercise" in pre-historic times (meaning to do what everyone had to do) and were not able to retain or even gain weight, are more likely going to die in times of need.
So people who fall into that pre-historic ultimate winner group and who want to loose weight need to eat less, much less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030942</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257770040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So take up some sports.  I play ultimate frisbee in the summer, which is a pretty geeky sport but requires a lot of running and jumping for a couple of hours.  I tried running laps of the local park a few years ago, but after a couple of months I got bored with it.  Playing a game with other people is much easier to stick with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So take up some sports .
I play ultimate frisbee in the summer , which is a pretty geeky sport but requires a lot of running and jumping for a couple of hours .
I tried running laps of the local park a few years ago , but after a couple of months I got bored with it .
Playing a game with other people is much easier to stick with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So take up some sports.
I play ultimate frisbee in the summer, which is a pretty geeky sport but requires a lot of running and jumping for a couple of hours.
I tried running laps of the local park a few years ago, but after a couple of months I got bored with it.
Playing a game with other people is much easier to stick with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034064</id>
	<title>exercise builds muscle mass and makes you hungry</title>
	<author>Wansu</author>
	<datestamp>1257787320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to lose weight, you must cut caloric intake. You can't just exercise it off. You will build muscle mass, which is more dense. Doing aerobic exercise can help if you also cut back caloric intake. But by itself, exercise alone may make you gain weight because it increases your appetite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to lose weight , you must cut caloric intake .
You ca n't just exercise it off .
You will build muscle mass , which is more dense .
Doing aerobic exercise can help if you also cut back caloric intake .
But by itself , exercise alone may make you gain weight because it increases your appetite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to lose weight, you must cut caloric intake.
You can't just exercise it off.
You will build muscle mass, which is more dense.
Doing aerobic exercise can help if you also cut back caloric intake.
But by itself, exercise alone may make you gain weight because it increases your appetite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029612</id>
	<title>You're missing part of the equation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257797280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is physics.</p><p>"Exercise and you must lose weight! 2nd law says so!" isn't true as you point out. What is true is:</p><p>"Eat fewer calories than you expend in a day and you will have an energy deficit." Followed strictly, the body will either use energy stored in the body  to make up for that deficit and you will lose weight, or you will waste away and die. That's the complicated part. Not the physics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is physics .
" Exercise and you must lose weight !
2nd law says so !
" is n't true as you point out .
What is true is : " Eat fewer calories than you expend in a day and you will have an energy deficit .
" Followed strictly , the body will either use energy stored in the body to make up for that deficit and you will lose weight , or you will waste away and die .
That 's the complicated part .
Not the physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is physics.
"Exercise and you must lose weight!
2nd law says so!
" isn't true as you point out.
What is true is:"Eat fewer calories than you expend in a day and you will have an energy deficit.
" Followed strictly, the body will either use energy stored in the body  to make up for that deficit and you will lose weight, or you will waste away and die.
That's the complicated part.
Not the physics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30041310</id>
	<title>Exercise your muscles, brain, and liver</title>
	<author>whovian</author>
	<datestamp>1257778080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Print Print Email Email<br>Dissecting the Energy Needs of the Body &ndash; Research Review</p><p>Title and Abstract</p><p>McClave SA, Snider HL. Dissecting the energy needs of the body. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. (2001) 4(2):143-7.</p><p>The majority of the resting energy expenditure can be explained by the energy needs of a few highly metabolic organs, making up a small percentage of the body by weight. The relationship of the specific size, individual metabolism, and proportional contribution to the actual body weight and total energy expenditure for each of these organs is a dynamic process throughout growth and development, the onset of disease, and changes in nutritional status. Defining the energy needs of the individual tissues and organ systems immeasurably enhances our understanding of the body&rsquo;s response to these clinical processes, which otherwise could not easily be evaluated by focusing solely on total energy expenditure, fat-free mass, nitrogen imbalance, or actual body weight. Recently reported studies have served mainly to reinforce concepts described previously, and clarify some areas of controversy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>The Normal Human</p><p>The next topic addressed in the paper is an examination of the different tissues and how they contribute to resting energy expenditure in a fairly &lsquo;average&rsquo; human being.  I&rsquo;ve reproduced Table 1 from the paper below, honestly this was the main reason I wanted to examine this paper, to get this chart up on the site.</p><p>.<br>Organ or Tissue</p><p><tt><br>Metabolic Rate (kcal/kg/day)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Metabolic Rate (kcal/lb/day)     \% Overall REE     Weight in Kg     Weight in Lb     \%Body Weight<br>Adipose   4.5   2.0   4   15  33  21.4\%<br>Muscle   13    5.9  22   28.2   61.6  40<br>Other     12   5.4   16   23.2   51   33.1<br>Liver      200   90.9   21   1.8  3.96  2.6<br>Brain    240    109   22   1.4   3.08   2.0<br>Heart    400     181  9   0.3  0.66   0.5<br>Kidneys  400   181  8   0.3   0.66    0.5<br></tt><br>Other refers to bone, skin, intestines and glands.<br>Note: the lungs have not been measured for methodological reasons but have been estimated at 200 kcal/kg similar to the liver.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Summing Up</p><p>The main point that I wanted to make with today&rsquo;s research review was to clear up some of the oft-held (and unfortunately incorrect) ideas regarding the impact of things like skeletal muscle mass and fat mass on resting energy expenditure.  Based on current data, the idea that skeletal muscle burns massive numbers of calories would appear to be 100\% incorrect.</p><p>Rather, skeletal muscle actually burns fairly few calories on a per pound basis; it primarily has a major impact on resting energy expenditure because there is a good bit of it.  But adding even moderate amounts of muscle are unlikely to massively impact on energy expenditure.  As noted above, I expect the major effect to be from the effort of stimulating muscle mass gains along with the energy needed to synthesize that muscle tissue.  But once it&rsquo;s there it doesn&rsquo;t burn many calories.</p><p>Rather, the majority of resting energy expenditure is generated by the organs which, despite their small size, burn a massive number of calories per unit weight.  Someone on the support forum jokingly asked &ldquo;So how do I hypertrophy my liver?&rdquo;</p><p>Finally, fat cells, while not having much of a calorie burn do burn calories.  In fact, they are only about 1/3rds of the burn of skeletal muscle (2 cal/lb vs. 6 cal/lb respectively).  While low, someone carrying a lot of fat will have this add up and it will contribute to overall resting energy expenditure.</p><p><a href="http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-the-energy-needs-of-the-body-research-review.html" title="bodyrecomposition.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-the-energy-needs-of-the-body-research-review.html</a> [bodyrecomposition.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Print Print Email EmailDissecting the Energy Needs of the Body    Research ReviewTitle and AbstractMcClave SA , Snider HL .
Dissecting the energy needs of the body .
Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care .
( 2001 ) 4 ( 2 ) : 143-7.The majority of the resting energy expenditure can be explained by the energy needs of a few highly metabolic organs , making up a small percentage of the body by weight .
The relationship of the specific size , individual metabolism , and proportional contribution to the actual body weight and total energy expenditure for each of these organs is a dynamic process throughout growth and development , the onset of disease , and changes in nutritional status .
Defining the energy needs of the individual tissues and organ systems immeasurably enhances our understanding of the body    s response to these clinical processes , which otherwise could not easily be evaluated by focusing solely on total energy expenditure , fat-free mass , nitrogen imbalance , or actual body weight .
Recently reported studies have served mainly to reinforce concepts described previously , and clarify some areas of controversy .
...The Normal HumanThe next topic addressed in the paper is an examination of the different tissues and how they contribute to resting energy expenditure in a fairly    average    human being .
I    ve reproduced Table 1 from the paper below , honestly this was the main reason I wanted to examine this paper , to get this chart up on the site..Organ or TissueMetabolic Rate ( kcal/kg/day )         Metabolic Rate ( kcal/lb/day ) \ % Overall REE Weight in Kg Weight in Lb \ % Body WeightAdipose 4.5 2.0 4 15 33 21.4 \ % Muscle 13 5.9 22 28.2 61.6 40Other 12 5.4 16 23.2 51 33.1Liver 200 90.9 21 1.8 3.96 2.6Brain 240 109 22 1.4 3.08 2.0Heart 400 181 9 0.3 0.66 0.5Kidneys 400 181 8 0.3 0.66 0.5Other refers to bone , skin , intestines and glands.Note : the lungs have not been measured for methodological reasons but have been estimated at 200 kcal/kg similar to the liver .
...Summing UpThe main point that I wanted to make with today    s research review was to clear up some of the oft-held ( and unfortunately incorrect ) ideas regarding the impact of things like skeletal muscle mass and fat mass on resting energy expenditure .
Based on current data , the idea that skeletal muscle burns massive numbers of calories would appear to be 100 \ % incorrect.Rather , skeletal muscle actually burns fairly few calories on a per pound basis ; it primarily has a major impact on resting energy expenditure because there is a good bit of it .
But adding even moderate amounts of muscle are unlikely to massively impact on energy expenditure .
As noted above , I expect the major effect to be from the effort of stimulating muscle mass gains along with the energy needed to synthesize that muscle tissue .
But once it    s there it doesn    t burn many calories.Rather , the majority of resting energy expenditure is generated by the organs which , despite their small size , burn a massive number of calories per unit weight .
Someone on the support forum jokingly asked    So how do I hypertrophy my liver ?    Finally , fat cells , while not having much of a calorie burn do burn calories .
In fact , they are only about 1/3rds of the burn of skeletal muscle ( 2 cal/lb vs. 6 cal/lb respectively ) .
While low , someone carrying a lot of fat will have this add up and it will contribute to overall resting energy expenditure.http : //www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-the-energy-needs-of-the-body-research-review.html [ bodyrecomposition.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Print Print Email EmailDissecting the Energy Needs of the Body – Research ReviewTitle and AbstractMcClave SA, Snider HL.
Dissecting the energy needs of the body.
Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care.
(2001) 4(2):143-7.The majority of the resting energy expenditure can be explained by the energy needs of a few highly metabolic organs, making up a small percentage of the body by weight.
The relationship of the specific size, individual metabolism, and proportional contribution to the actual body weight and total energy expenditure for each of these organs is a dynamic process throughout growth and development, the onset of disease, and changes in nutritional status.
Defining the energy needs of the individual tissues and organ systems immeasurably enhances our understanding of the body’s response to these clinical processes, which otherwise could not easily be evaluated by focusing solely on total energy expenditure, fat-free mass, nitrogen imbalance, or actual body weight.
Recently reported studies have served mainly to reinforce concepts described previously, and clarify some areas of controversy.
...The Normal HumanThe next topic addressed in the paper is an examination of the different tissues and how they contribute to resting energy expenditure in a fairly ‘average’ human being.
I’ve reproduced Table 1 from the paper below, honestly this was the main reason I wanted to examine this paper, to get this chart up on the site..Organ or TissueMetabolic Rate (kcal/kg/day)
        Metabolic Rate (kcal/lb/day)     \% Overall REE     Weight in Kg     Weight in Lb     \%Body WeightAdipose   4.5   2.0   4   15  33  21.4\%Muscle   13    5.9  22   28.2   61.6  40Other     12   5.4   16   23.2   51   33.1Liver      200   90.9   21   1.8  3.96  2.6Brain    240    109   22   1.4   3.08   2.0Heart    400     181  9   0.3  0.66   0.5Kidneys  400   181  8   0.3   0.66    0.5Other refers to bone, skin, intestines and glands.Note: the lungs have not been measured for methodological reasons but have been estimated at 200 kcal/kg similar to the liver.
...Summing UpThe main point that I wanted to make with today’s research review was to clear up some of the oft-held (and unfortunately incorrect) ideas regarding the impact of things like skeletal muscle mass and fat mass on resting energy expenditure.
Based on current data, the idea that skeletal muscle burns massive numbers of calories would appear to be 100\% incorrect.Rather, skeletal muscle actually burns fairly few calories on a per pound basis; it primarily has a major impact on resting energy expenditure because there is a good bit of it.
But adding even moderate amounts of muscle are unlikely to massively impact on energy expenditure.
As noted above, I expect the major effect to be from the effort of stimulating muscle mass gains along with the energy needed to synthesize that muscle tissue.
But once it’s there it doesn’t burn many calories.Rather, the majority of resting energy expenditure is generated by the organs which, despite their small size, burn a massive number of calories per unit weight.
Someone on the support forum jokingly asked “So how do I hypertrophy my liver?”Finally, fat cells, while not having much of a calorie burn do burn calories.
In fact, they are only about 1/3rds of the burn of skeletal muscle (2 cal/lb vs. 6 cal/lb respectively).
While low, someone carrying a lot of fat will have this add up and it will contribute to overall resting energy expenditure.http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-the-energy-needs-of-the-body-research-review.html [bodyrecomposition.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033140</id>
	<title>Re:because you need to eat less to lose weight?</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1257783600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes but if you're still sedentary you're not as healthy as you could be.</p><p>You need cardiovascular exercise to keep your heart healthy.</p><p>Yes, you're better off with a reasonable body fat \%, but you're heart/lungs aren't any stronger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but if you 're still sedentary you 're not as healthy as you could be.You need cardiovascular exercise to keep your heart healthy.Yes , you 're better off with a reasonable body fat \ % , but you 're heart/lungs are n't any stronger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but if you're still sedentary you're not as healthy as you could be.You need cardiovascular exercise to keep your heart healthy.Yes, you're better off with a reasonable body fat \%, but you're heart/lungs aren't any stronger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032264</id>
	<title>7 Pounds is 12 weeks</title>
	<author>Y Ddraig Goch</author>
	<datestamp>1257780060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>while not fantastic it is in the ball park.  I've been losing weight at a rate of about 1-2 pounds per week for the past 15-20 weeks.  I've lost about 28 pounds at a rate of about 1-2 pounds a week.  When you crash diet your body goes into "survival mode" so you loose the weight but as soon as you stop the diet, your body goes into "storage" mode to store up provisions for the next "famine".  Best to watch how much and what you eat AND get moderate exercise, and increase your metabolic rate.  As long as your intake is less than your output you will loose weight.  You didn't gain it overnight why should you try to loose it overnight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>while not fantastic it is in the ball park .
I 've been losing weight at a rate of about 1-2 pounds per week for the past 15-20 weeks .
I 've lost about 28 pounds at a rate of about 1-2 pounds a week .
When you crash diet your body goes into " survival mode " so you loose the weight but as soon as you stop the diet , your body goes into " storage " mode to store up provisions for the next " famine " .
Best to watch how much and what you eat AND get moderate exercise , and increase your metabolic rate .
As long as your intake is less than your output you will loose weight .
You did n't gain it overnight why should you try to loose it overnight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while not fantastic it is in the ball park.
I've been losing weight at a rate of about 1-2 pounds per week for the past 15-20 weeks.
I've lost about 28 pounds at a rate of about 1-2 pounds a week.
When you crash diet your body goes into "survival mode" so you loose the weight but as soon as you stop the diet, your body goes into "storage" mode to store up provisions for the next "famine".
Best to watch how much and what you eat AND get moderate exercise, and increase your metabolic rate.
As long as your intake is less than your output you will loose weight.
You didn't gain it overnight why should you try to loose it overnight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030750</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257767160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been losing weight slowly but steadily during the last 6 months or so. I take a 45 minute walk everyday, and I've been doing it for almost a year now.<br>The thing for me is I feel no resistance what so ever to taking these walks. They are relaxing. I can adapt the pace to how I happen to feel.</p><p>I think that's the trick. Do something that is easy for you, and make it a habit. Sure it will take me a while to get super slim, but it doesn't matter, because I like taking these walks.</p><p>As soon as you get into that goal oriented mindset, exercise becomes another source of stress, and that will eventually backfire.</p><p>Small, easy changes is the ticket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been losing weight slowly but steadily during the last 6 months or so .
I take a 45 minute walk everyday , and I 've been doing it for almost a year now.The thing for me is I feel no resistance what so ever to taking these walks .
They are relaxing .
I can adapt the pace to how I happen to feel.I think that 's the trick .
Do something that is easy for you , and make it a habit .
Sure it will take me a while to get super slim , but it does n't matter , because I like taking these walks.As soon as you get into that goal oriented mindset , exercise becomes another source of stress , and that will eventually backfire.Small , easy changes is the ticket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been losing weight slowly but steadily during the last 6 months or so.
I take a 45 minute walk everyday, and I've been doing it for almost a year now.The thing for me is I feel no resistance what so ever to taking these walks.
They are relaxing.
I can adapt the pace to how I happen to feel.I think that's the trick.
Do something that is easy for you, and make it a habit.
Sure it will take me a while to get super slim, but it doesn't matter, because I like taking these walks.As soon as you get into that goal oriented mindset, exercise becomes another source of stress, and that will eventually backfire.Small, easy changes is the ticket.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718</id>
	<title>All you slim theoreticians...</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1257766740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you forget the fundamental psychological effect.</p><p>7 pounds, in 12 weeks - some claim it's not bad, some claim it's weight loss so it's okay and so on.</p><p>First off, if you weight 238 pounds, going down to 232 pounds is just a pathetic joke. It took you 3 months to get there. It will take you 5 years to get there at current speed. It would be a reachable goal if it was fun, but...</p><p>But the second problem is that it's a dull, boring, miserable exercise. From a slim person's point of view, exercise makes you feel far less miserable than from an obese one's.</p><p>The thermal isolation makes you sweat like a pig and overheat in matter of minutes.</p><p>If lifting a weight uses 50 joules of energy, a fit person will easily lift it, expending the 50 joules distributed equally throughout the volume of thick muscles. A person with poor muscles will expend the same 50 joules but concentrated in thin, weak muscle that aches, hurts and throbs with exertion, it uses the same insignificant amount of energy but feels vastly worse.</p><p>The fat gives you extra weight for exercises like push-ups, sit-ups or pull-ups. Sure you use more energy but don't neglect the psychological effect, how miserable and ashamed you feel without breath after two push-ups.</p><p>Then you start feeling hungry, and the body which has a tendency to gain fat, usually gains it because your hunger feels more intense to you than to most slim people who just shrug it off. Take it from an obese person, getting really hungry feels somewhat like drug starvation, you feel ultra-miserable. And still you need to cut on the calories.</p><p>Oh, with even little strong will you will go like that for a month easily, suffering and feeling miserable, but telling yourself you're doing it to lose weight to be able to do all the things you can't do because you are obese.</p><p>After second month of being miserable like that you start having second thoughts.</p><p>After third month, when you went from 240 pounds to 220, you can see it will take you another 3 years of feeling miserable before you get out of this swamp. You say "fuck it", drop the exercise and start eating again.</p><p>If you can devise a diet that is low-calorie but filling and tasty, if you can devise exercises that are fun, it could work.</p><p>And even worse if eating is your method for stress. It becomes a habit. Something stresses you out and you won't calm down until you fill up your stomach. It's a habit like smoking or drinking. Unfortunately, the fundamental rule of dropping any habit is to drop it entirely. If you're a chain smoker, no one smoke a day, you just have to stop. If you're an alcoholic, you can't drink one and stop, you can't drink alcohol at all. But what about eating? You can't drop eating entirely. It's a horrible habit to drop, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you forget the fundamental psychological effect.7 pounds , in 12 weeks - some claim it 's not bad , some claim it 's weight loss so it 's okay and so on.First off , if you weight 238 pounds , going down to 232 pounds is just a pathetic joke .
It took you 3 months to get there .
It will take you 5 years to get there at current speed .
It would be a reachable goal if it was fun , but...But the second problem is that it 's a dull , boring , miserable exercise .
From a slim person 's point of view , exercise makes you feel far less miserable than from an obese one 's.The thermal isolation makes you sweat like a pig and overheat in matter of minutes.If lifting a weight uses 50 joules of energy , a fit person will easily lift it , expending the 50 joules distributed equally throughout the volume of thick muscles .
A person with poor muscles will expend the same 50 joules but concentrated in thin , weak muscle that aches , hurts and throbs with exertion , it uses the same insignificant amount of energy but feels vastly worse.The fat gives you extra weight for exercises like push-ups , sit-ups or pull-ups .
Sure you use more energy but do n't neglect the psychological effect , how miserable and ashamed you feel without breath after two push-ups.Then you start feeling hungry , and the body which has a tendency to gain fat , usually gains it because your hunger feels more intense to you than to most slim people who just shrug it off .
Take it from an obese person , getting really hungry feels somewhat like drug starvation , you feel ultra-miserable .
And still you need to cut on the calories.Oh , with even little strong will you will go like that for a month easily , suffering and feeling miserable , but telling yourself you 're doing it to lose weight to be able to do all the things you ca n't do because you are obese.After second month of being miserable like that you start having second thoughts.After third month , when you went from 240 pounds to 220 , you can see it will take you another 3 years of feeling miserable before you get out of this swamp .
You say " fuck it " , drop the exercise and start eating again.If you can devise a diet that is low-calorie but filling and tasty , if you can devise exercises that are fun , it could work.And even worse if eating is your method for stress .
It becomes a habit .
Something stresses you out and you wo n't calm down until you fill up your stomach .
It 's a habit like smoking or drinking .
Unfortunately , the fundamental rule of dropping any habit is to drop it entirely .
If you 're a chain smoker , no one smoke a day , you just have to stop .
If you 're an alcoholic , you ca n't drink one and stop , you ca n't drink alcohol at all .
But what about eating ?
You ca n't drop eating entirely .
It 's a horrible habit to drop , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you forget the fundamental psychological effect.7 pounds, in 12 weeks - some claim it's not bad, some claim it's weight loss so it's okay and so on.First off, if you weight 238 pounds, going down to 232 pounds is just a pathetic joke.
It took you 3 months to get there.
It will take you 5 years to get there at current speed.
It would be a reachable goal if it was fun, but...But the second problem is that it's a dull, boring, miserable exercise.
From a slim person's point of view, exercise makes you feel far less miserable than from an obese one's.The thermal isolation makes you sweat like a pig and overheat in matter of minutes.If lifting a weight uses 50 joules of energy, a fit person will easily lift it, expending the 50 joules distributed equally throughout the volume of thick muscles.
A person with poor muscles will expend the same 50 joules but concentrated in thin, weak muscle that aches, hurts and throbs with exertion, it uses the same insignificant amount of energy but feels vastly worse.The fat gives you extra weight for exercises like push-ups, sit-ups or pull-ups.
Sure you use more energy but don't neglect the psychological effect, how miserable and ashamed you feel without breath after two push-ups.Then you start feeling hungry, and the body which has a tendency to gain fat, usually gains it because your hunger feels more intense to you than to most slim people who just shrug it off.
Take it from an obese person, getting really hungry feels somewhat like drug starvation, you feel ultra-miserable.
And still you need to cut on the calories.Oh, with even little strong will you will go like that for a month easily, suffering and feeling miserable, but telling yourself you're doing it to lose weight to be able to do all the things you can't do because you are obese.After second month of being miserable like that you start having second thoughts.After third month, when you went from 240 pounds to 220, you can see it will take you another 3 years of feeling miserable before you get out of this swamp.
You say "fuck it", drop the exercise and start eating again.If you can devise a diet that is low-calorie but filling and tasty, if you can devise exercises that are fun, it could work.And even worse if eating is your method for stress.
It becomes a habit.
Something stresses you out and you won't calm down until you fill up your stomach.
It's a habit like smoking or drinking.
Unfortunately, the fundamental rule of dropping any habit is to drop it entirely.
If you're a chain smoker, no one smoke a day, you just have to stop.
If you're an alcoholic, you can't drink one and stop, you can't drink alcohol at all.
But what about eating?
You can't drop eating entirely.
It's a horrible habit to drop, really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30172884</id>
	<title>Re:The Reptile Brain is why!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258739760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, and hopefully you might know why "oxycalcitrin" produces zero Google hits?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , and hopefully you might know why " oxycalcitrin " produces zero Google hits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, and hopefully you might know why "oxycalcitrin" produces zero Google hits?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30134784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029852</id>
	<title>Slashdot news from infomercials</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257799800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this is going to sound elitist, but can we get submissions approved that are less...pedestrian?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this is going to sound elitist , but can we get submissions approved that are less...pedestrian ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this is going to sound elitist, but can we get submissions approved that are less...pedestrian?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032582</id>
	<title>Obvious?</title>
	<author>roggg</author>
	<datestamp>1257781440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's see...seven pounds of weight loss times 3500 cal/pound of fat = an average loss of 24500 calories.  Divide by 12 weeks, and 7 days, and we get an average weight loss of  about 290 calories per day.  Not bad for one light exercise session daily, and still eating all the crap you normally eat if you ask me.  I don't see the news in this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see...seven pounds of weight loss times 3500 cal/pound of fat = an average loss of 24500 calories .
Divide by 12 weeks , and 7 days , and we get an average weight loss of about 290 calories per day .
Not bad for one light exercise session daily , and still eating all the crap you normally eat if you ask me .
I do n't see the news in this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see...seven pounds of weight loss times 3500 cal/pound of fat = an average loss of 24500 calories.
Divide by 12 weeks, and 7 days, and we get an average weight loss of  about 290 calories per day.
Not bad for one light exercise session daily, and still eating all the crap you normally eat if you ask me.
I don't see the news in this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029450</id>
	<title>Hackers Diet FTW.</title>
	<author>RGreen</author>
	<datestamp>1257709380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Hackers Diet makes it clear: Exercise just doesn't burn that many calories. You can lose weight just by eating less calories than you burn, no exercise required.</p><p><a href="http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/hackdiet.html" title="fourmilab.ch" rel="nofollow">http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/hackdiet.html</a> [fourmilab.ch]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Hackers Diet makes it clear : Exercise just does n't burn that many calories .
You can lose weight just by eating less calories than you burn , no exercise required.http : //www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/hackdiet.html [ fourmilab.ch ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Hackers Diet makes it clear: Exercise just doesn't burn that many calories.
You can lose weight just by eating less calories than you burn, no exercise required.http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/hackdiet.html [fourmilab.ch]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029790</id>
	<title>Eat "food" and not that processed garbage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257799200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the "food" in grocery stores today, isn't (see documentaries "The World According to Monsanto, "Food Inc.," and Pollan's book "In Defense of Food" were he proclaims ""Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."). Plus a lot of people are really, really lazy when it comes to moving around. You need to make exercise a lifestyle which means walking (or biking) more. We are animals. Animals need to move to stay fit. Unless you have some genetic condition, you're just eating wrong and not moving around enough. Now... let the whining excuses begin!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the " food " in grocery stores today , is n't ( see documentaries " The World According to Monsanto , " Food Inc. , " and Pollan 's book " In Defense of Food " were he proclaims " " Eat food .
Not too much .
Mostly plants. " ) .
Plus a lot of people are really , really lazy when it comes to moving around .
You need to make exercise a lifestyle which means walking ( or biking ) more .
We are animals .
Animals need to move to stay fit .
Unless you have some genetic condition , you 're just eating wrong and not moving around enough .
Now... let the whining excuses begin !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the "food" in grocery stores today, isn't (see documentaries "The World According to Monsanto, "Food Inc.," and Pollan's book "In Defense of Food" were he proclaims ""Eat food.
Not too much.
Mostly plants.").
Plus a lot of people are really, really lazy when it comes to moving around.
You need to make exercise a lifestyle which means walking (or biking) more.
We are animals.
Animals need to move to stay fit.
Unless you have some genetic condition, you're just eating wrong and not moving around enough.
Now... let the whining excuses begin!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031180</id>
	<title>diet and exercise</title>
	<author>ebursley</author>
	<datestamp>1257773400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have known for sometime now that exercise and diet are the way to lose weight. You must adjust both, I know this from personal experience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have known for sometime now that exercise and diet are the way to lose weight .
You must adjust both , I know this from personal experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have known for sometime now that exercise and diet are the way to lose weight.
You must adjust both, I know this from personal experience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029488</id>
	<title>I'm currently losing 2-3 kg/month</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257709860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I've been doing so for the last 6 months. I've been keeping track of what I eat in a database, and I can tell you that if you're not, you're constantly changing your diet. Eating till you're full will have drastically different nutritional values, and you're just not equipped to gauge that.</p><p>I've also been exercising. I wasn't losing weight until I did both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I 've been doing so for the last 6 months .
I 've been keeping track of what I eat in a database , and I can tell you that if you 're not , you 're constantly changing your diet .
Eating till you 're full will have drastically different nutritional values , and you 're just not equipped to gauge that.I 've also been exercising .
I was n't losing weight until I did both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I've been doing so for the last 6 months.
I've been keeping track of what I eat in a database, and I can tell you that if you're not, you're constantly changing your diet.
Eating till you're full will have drastically different nutritional values, and you're just not equipped to gauge that.I've also been exercising.
I wasn't losing weight until I did both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029862</id>
	<title>Clever scientists....</title>
	<author>pookemon</author>
	<datestamp>1257799920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They didn't lose weight because while the "scientists" weren't looking, the fatso's were sneaking off to the fridge for an extra serve of deep fried Mars bar with icecream and a pop-tart for garnish.<br> <br>
Or, they simple eat so much that their body can't absorb all of the fat with their low metabolism.  Raise their metabolism and they simple absorb more to compensate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't lose weight because while the " scientists " were n't looking , the fatso 's were sneaking off to the fridge for an extra serve of deep fried Mars bar with icecream and a pop-tart for garnish .
Or , they simple eat so much that their body ca n't absorb all of the fat with their low metabolism .
Raise their metabolism and they simple absorb more to compensate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't lose weight because while the "scientists" weren't looking, the fatso's were sneaking off to the fridge for an extra serve of deep fried Mars bar with icecream and a pop-tart for garnish.
Or, they simple eat so much that their body can't absorb all of the fat with their low metabolism.
Raise their metabolism and they simple absorb more to compensate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035302</id>
	<title>Re:Conservation of Energy</title>
	<author>DoctorHow</author>
	<datestamp>1257792180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's all about the hormones...
<p>
Check out my reply to the original post here and tell me what you think.
</p><p>
<a href="http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&amp;cid=30035102" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&amp;cid=30035102</a> [slashdot.org]
</p><p>
I used to be all about the "calories in/calories out" bookeeping, but once you see the actual cellular mechanisms at work, its a real DOH! eye opener.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all about the hormones.. . Check out my reply to the original post here and tell me what you think .
http : //science.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1436166&amp;cid = 30035102 [ slashdot.org ] I used to be all about the " calories in/calories out " bookeeping , but once you see the actual cellular mechanisms at work , its a real DOH !
eye opener .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all about the hormones...

Check out my reply to the original post here and tell me what you think.
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&amp;cid=30035102 [slashdot.org]

I used to be all about the "calories in/calories out" bookeeping, but once you see the actual cellular mechanisms at work, its a real DOH!
eye opener.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035114</id>
	<title>Re:Duh?</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1257791460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>To get healthier and/or build muscle, work out.</i></p><p>I concur - a major part of my 40 pound weight loss was due to weight training.  Aerobic exercise is important, but 15 minutes a day is enough.  Weight training every other day builds muscle that burns off calories 24x7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To get healthier and/or build muscle , work out.I concur - a major part of my 40 pound weight loss was due to weight training .
Aerobic exercise is important , but 15 minutes a day is enough .
Weight training every other day builds muscle that burns off calories 24x7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To get healthier and/or build muscle, work out.I concur - a major part of my 40 pound weight loss was due to weight training.
Aerobic exercise is important, but 15 minutes a day is enough.
Weight training every other day builds muscle that burns off calories 24x7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029746</id>
	<title>Stupid summary</title>
	<author>Pascal Sartoretti</author>
	<datestamp>1257798600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The group lost an average of a little more than seven pounds, and many lost barely half that</p></div><p>In other words, all of them lost weight. So why did slashdot put such a summary ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The group lost an average of a little more than seven pounds , and many lost barely half thatIn other words , all of them lost weight .
So why did slashdot put such a summary ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The group lost an average of a little more than seven pounds, and many lost barely half thatIn other words, all of them lost weight.
So why did slashdot put such a summary ?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029962</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1257757920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is possible to attain more dramatic results with intensified efforts over longer periods of time; military boot camps are one example (although heavier recruits do sometimes require extended stays in order to lose the necessary weight). If you had 6 - 12 months of nothing but exercise for 12 hours per day then you too would see dramatic results. Of course, most of us have neither the time nor the willpower to achieve such results and so we compromise. The other unfortunate reality about exercise is that continued effort is required to maintain gains or else the pounds will creep back on in proportion to the reduced maintenance efforts. A better approach, IMHO, would be to decide how much time one is willing to spend per week exercising and then work on spending that time as productively as possible. For most people even a few hours per week of exercise would be substantially better than what they are doing right now; which is to say practically nothing. Even if exercise doesn't reduce much weight it still has health benefits compared to a completely sedentary lifestyle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is possible to attain more dramatic results with intensified efforts over longer periods of time ; military boot camps are one example ( although heavier recruits do sometimes require extended stays in order to lose the necessary weight ) .
If you had 6 - 12 months of nothing but exercise for 12 hours per day then you too would see dramatic results .
Of course , most of us have neither the time nor the willpower to achieve such results and so we compromise .
The other unfortunate reality about exercise is that continued effort is required to maintain gains or else the pounds will creep back on in proportion to the reduced maintenance efforts .
A better approach , IMHO , would be to decide how much time one is willing to spend per week exercising and then work on spending that time as productively as possible .
For most people even a few hours per week of exercise would be substantially better than what they are doing right now ; which is to say practically nothing .
Even if exercise does n't reduce much weight it still has health benefits compared to a completely sedentary lifestyle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is possible to attain more dramatic results with intensified efforts over longer periods of time; military boot camps are one example (although heavier recruits do sometimes require extended stays in order to lose the necessary weight).
If you had 6 - 12 months of nothing but exercise for 12 hours per day then you too would see dramatic results.
Of course, most of us have neither the time nor the willpower to achieve such results and so we compromise.
The other unfortunate reality about exercise is that continued effort is required to maintain gains or else the pounds will creep back on in proportion to the reduced maintenance efforts.
A better approach, IMHO, would be to decide how much time one is willing to spend per week exercising and then work on spending that time as productively as possible.
For most people even a few hours per week of exercise would be substantially better than what they are doing right now; which is to say practically nothing.
Even if exercise doesn't reduce much weight it still has health benefits compared to a completely sedentary lifestyle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029896</id>
	<title>"without changing their diets"</title>
	<author>Lord Bitman</author>
	<datestamp>1257800340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd need to actively work to "not change my diet" when exercising. That's part of the deal: When you exercise, the food you want and the amount you eat changes, because your body requires different things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd need to actively work to " not change my diet " when exercising .
That 's part of the deal : When you exercise , the food you want and the amount you eat changes , because your body requires different things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd need to actively work to "not change my diet" when exercising.
That's part of the deal: When you exercise, the food you want and the amount you eat changes, because your body requires different things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033464</id>
	<title>metabolism</title>
	<author>AmericanGladiator</author>
	<datestamp>1257784800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exercise really does help boost your metabolism.</p><p>I picked up swimming 4 years ago.  I've been able to keep it doing it 2-3x a week for a little over an hour at a time.  It's a coached group workout so we get pushed to get our heart rates up and the resistance of the water builds muscle mass while being low-impact on the joints.  I highly recommend it.  At the rate I swim now I burn roughly 1000 calories a workout.  I managed to lose 15 pounds and I have the satisfaction of knowing I could swim 2 miles without stopping if I had to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exercise really does help boost your metabolism.I picked up swimming 4 years ago .
I 've been able to keep it doing it 2-3x a week for a little over an hour at a time .
It 's a coached group workout so we get pushed to get our heart rates up and the resistance of the water builds muscle mass while being low-impact on the joints .
I highly recommend it .
At the rate I swim now I burn roughly 1000 calories a workout .
I managed to lose 15 pounds and I have the satisfaction of knowing I could swim 2 miles without stopping if I had to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exercise really does help boost your metabolism.I picked up swimming 4 years ago.
I've been able to keep it doing it 2-3x a week for a little over an hour at a time.
It's a coached group workout so we get pushed to get our heart rates up and the resistance of the water builds muscle mass while being low-impact on the joints.
I highly recommend it.
At the rate I swim now I burn roughly 1000 calories a workout.
I managed to lose 15 pounds and I have the satisfaction of knowing I could swim 2 miles without stopping if I had to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029656</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>samirbenabid</author>
	<datestamp>1257797760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Belt size can be a better scale for fat loss than weight. Gained muscle also contributes to the weight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Belt size can be a better scale for fat loss than weight .
Gained muscle also contributes to the weight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Belt size can be a better scale for fat loss than weight.
Gained muscle also contributes to the weight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034660</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257789600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If whatever path of exercise you choose is not enjoyable, you will not keep it up.  Exercise should never feel like work.  It should be fun.  Take up rock climbing or biking or trail running.  Go shoot hoops if you're not feeling the weight room today . Bored with bench presses?  Go try some olympic style lifting, which actually takes skill and timing.  (there is nothing cooler than a clean and jerk, when you basically pick up 170 lbs off the floor and as you stand, thrust it over your head.  Its a full body workout too.<br>Treadmills suck.  If you have to watch TV while you're exercising due to boredom, then you're exercise plan sucks.  Period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If whatever path of exercise you choose is not enjoyable , you will not keep it up .
Exercise should never feel like work .
It should be fun .
Take up rock climbing or biking or trail running .
Go shoot hoops if you 're not feeling the weight room today .
Bored with bench presses ?
Go try some olympic style lifting , which actually takes skill and timing .
( there is nothing cooler than a clean and jerk , when you basically pick up 170 lbs off the floor and as you stand , thrust it over your head .
Its a full body workout too.Treadmills suck .
If you have to watch TV while you 're exercising due to boredom , then you 're exercise plan sucks .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If whatever path of exercise you choose is not enjoyable, you will not keep it up.
Exercise should never feel like work.
It should be fun.
Take up rock climbing or biking or trail running.
Go shoot hoops if you're not feeling the weight room today .
Bored with bench presses?
Go try some olympic style lifting, which actually takes skill and timing.
(there is nothing cooler than a clean and jerk, when you basically pick up 170 lbs off the floor and as you stand, thrust it over your head.
Its a full body workout too.Treadmills suck.
If you have to watch TV while you're exercising due to boredom, then you're exercise plan sucks.
Period.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029986</id>
	<title>Re:Your body doesn't have a 100\% conversion factor</title>
	<author>tbischel</author>
	<datestamp>1257758160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Typically, to lose one pound, you must consume 3400 less calories than you metabolize, which means these people did about 300 calories of extra exercise a day.  To put that in prospective, <a href="http://www.dietandfitnessresources.co.uk/fitness\_exercise/10\_ways.htm" title="dietandfit...rces.co.uk" rel="nofollow">here</a> [dietandfit...rces.co.uk] is a list of activities that would burn an additional 200 calories, so these people were probably doing about 45 minutes of jogging equivalent daily.  The fact is, your resting metabolism is already quite high, as your body must maintain its temperature at a toasty 98 degrees; exercise only marginally improves on that.<br> <br>


On the other hand, losing 200 calories by dieting can drastically move that number from the low hundreds to even thousands a day for obese people.  <a href="http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm" title="wisegeek.com" rel="nofollow">Here</a> [wisegeek.com] is what 200 calories of food would look like... it almost doesn't seem fair that you would have to run for a half hour just to burn off a can of soda.<br> <br>

You want to lose weight?  Try controlling portions to what the box recommends as a single serving.  You'll quickly learn to value foods that satisfy a high fullness/calorie ratio, things like vegetables, soups, salads that fill you up faster.  Also, track what you stuff in your mouth, it really helps keep you accountable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Typically , to lose one pound , you must consume 3400 less calories than you metabolize , which means these people did about 300 calories of extra exercise a day .
To put that in prospective , here [ dietandfit...rces.co.uk ] is a list of activities that would burn an additional 200 calories , so these people were probably doing about 45 minutes of jogging equivalent daily .
The fact is , your resting metabolism is already quite high , as your body must maintain its temperature at a toasty 98 degrees ; exercise only marginally improves on that .
On the other hand , losing 200 calories by dieting can drastically move that number from the low hundreds to even thousands a day for obese people .
Here [ wisegeek.com ] is what 200 calories of food would look like... it almost does n't seem fair that you would have to run for a half hour just to burn off a can of soda .
You want to lose weight ?
Try controlling portions to what the box recommends as a single serving .
You 'll quickly learn to value foods that satisfy a high fullness/calorie ratio , things like vegetables , soups , salads that fill you up faster .
Also , track what you stuff in your mouth , it really helps keep you accountable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typically, to lose one pound, you must consume 3400 less calories than you metabolize, which means these people did about 300 calories of extra exercise a day.
To put that in prospective, here [dietandfit...rces.co.uk] is a list of activities that would burn an additional 200 calories, so these people were probably doing about 45 minutes of jogging equivalent daily.
The fact is, your resting metabolism is already quite high, as your body must maintain its temperature at a toasty 98 degrees; exercise only marginally improves on that.
On the other hand, losing 200 calories by dieting can drastically move that number from the low hundreds to even thousands a day for obese people.
Here [wisegeek.com] is what 200 calories of food would look like... it almost doesn't seem fair that you would have to run for a half hour just to burn off a can of soda.
You want to lose weight?
Try controlling portions to what the box recommends as a single serving.
You'll quickly learn to value foods that satisfy a high fullness/calorie ratio, things like vegetables, soups, salads that fill you up faster.
Also, track what you stuff in your mouth, it really helps keep you accountable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30061404</id>
	<title>Re:"Old ladies of both sexes" approach</title>
	<author>drsquare</author>
	<datestamp>1257096000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Walk 3 km (2 miles for part the world) to the sport centre, do your little thing, walk 3 km to get back home afterwards. Walk to work, walk back from work."</p><p>the results would have been more impressive.</p></div></blockquote><p>Walking doesn't really burn any calories, you'll do more in a few minutes on the treadmill than in an hour's walk. And that's another hour out of your day that you could have been exercising or resting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Walk 3 km ( 2 miles for part the world ) to the sport centre , do your little thing , walk 3 km to get back home afterwards .
Walk to work , walk back from work .
" the results would have been more impressive.Walking does n't really burn any calories , you 'll do more in a few minutes on the treadmill than in an hour 's walk .
And that 's another hour out of your day that you could have been exercising or resting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Walk 3 km (2 miles for part the world) to the sport centre, do your little thing, walk 3 km to get back home afterwards.
Walk to work, walk back from work.
"the results would have been more impressive.Walking doesn't really burn any calories, you'll do more in a few minutes on the treadmill than in an hour's walk.
And that's another hour out of your day that you could have been exercising or resting.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029756</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1257798720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was losing about 2kg each month when I was dieting. Without any significant 'lifestyle changes', just started to eat less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was losing about 2kg each month when I was dieting .
Without any significant 'lifestyle changes ' , just started to eat less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was losing about 2kg each month when I was dieting.
Without any significant 'lifestyle changes', just started to eat less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029972</id>
	<title>Re:Your body doesn't have a 100\% conversion factor</title>
	<author>rachit</author>
	<datestamp>1257758040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its even more complicated than that. I'm not sure where the article came from when it says the low intensity workout is the best. Is it proven?</p><p>Reason being is I've heard differently, high intensity training is supposed to give the "afterburn" effect they talk about in the article, where you burn more calories resting after the high intensity exercise, supposedly to rebuild / strengthen the muscle / heart / lung tissue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its even more complicated than that .
I 'm not sure where the article came from when it says the low intensity workout is the best .
Is it proven ? Reason being is I 've heard differently , high intensity training is supposed to give the " afterburn " effect they talk about in the article , where you burn more calories resting after the high intensity exercise , supposedly to rebuild / strengthen the muscle / heart / lung tissue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its even more complicated than that.
I'm not sure where the article came from when it says the low intensity workout is the best.
Is it proven?Reason being is I've heard differently, high intensity training is supposed to give the "afterburn" effect they talk about in the article, where you burn more calories resting after the high intensity exercise, supposedly to rebuild / strengthen the muscle / heart / lung tissue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034036</id>
	<title>Re:Lifestyle Change</title>
	<author>thewils</author>
	<datestamp>1257787200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The biggest mistake the majority of people who go on a diet is...</p></div></blockquote><p>I think that expressing weight loss intent with the words "go on a diet" are completely the wrong approach. The subject says it all. You have to make the lifestyle change so that you are not "on" a diet, but that your diet (which is what you eat) is different. People who "go on a diet" are telling themselves that they'll soon be able to come "off the diet" and eat anything they want to, which is patently not the case.<br>It's all about making healthier choices for your body. Stand in line at any supermarket checkout and you can see what the difference in diet is between fat and fit people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest mistake the majority of people who go on a diet is...I think that expressing weight loss intent with the words " go on a diet " are completely the wrong approach .
The subject says it all .
You have to make the lifestyle change so that you are not " on " a diet , but that your diet ( which is what you eat ) is different .
People who " go on a diet " are telling themselves that they 'll soon be able to come " off the diet " and eat anything they want to , which is patently not the case.It 's all about making healthier choices for your body .
Stand in line at any supermarket checkout and you can see what the difference in diet is between fat and fit people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest mistake the majority of people who go on a diet is...I think that expressing weight loss intent with the words "go on a diet" are completely the wrong approach.
The subject says it all.
You have to make the lifestyle change so that you are not "on" a diet, but that your diet (which is what you eat) is different.
People who "go on a diet" are telling themselves that they'll soon be able to come "off the diet" and eat anything they want to, which is patently not the case.It's all about making healthier choices for your body.
Stand in line at any supermarket checkout and you can see what the difference in diet is between fat and fit people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031936</id>
	<title>On fitness.</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1257778380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that a lot of people here talking about fitness are making the common mistake of not defining what fitness is relative to them. Fitness is a pretty vaguely defined state of being, which is proven by the existence of several "benchmark" tests to gauge it. However, a professional cyclist who's fit enough for hours of hard cycling might not be fit enough for the NYC Marathon, and vice versa. From a general perspective, cardiovascularly fit athletes are horribly unfit at strength-biased activities because of the high cardiovascular activity keeping their weight (and, thus, muscle weight) at much lower levels.</p><p>As for the main article, enough people here already said it: weight control is a balancing act. You are what you eat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that a lot of people here talking about fitness are making the common mistake of not defining what fitness is relative to them .
Fitness is a pretty vaguely defined state of being , which is proven by the existence of several " benchmark " tests to gauge it .
However , a professional cyclist who 's fit enough for hours of hard cycling might not be fit enough for the NYC Marathon , and vice versa .
From a general perspective , cardiovascularly fit athletes are horribly unfit at strength-biased activities because of the high cardiovascular activity keeping their weight ( and , thus , muscle weight ) at much lower levels.As for the main article , enough people here already said it : weight control is a balancing act .
You are what you eat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that a lot of people here talking about fitness are making the common mistake of not defining what fitness is relative to them.
Fitness is a pretty vaguely defined state of being, which is proven by the existence of several "benchmark" tests to gauge it.
However, a professional cyclist who's fit enough for hours of hard cycling might not be fit enough for the NYC Marathon, and vice versa.
From a general perspective, cardiovascularly fit athletes are horribly unfit at strength-biased activities because of the high cardiovascular activity keeping their weight (and, thus, muscle weight) at much lower levels.As for the main article, enough people here already said it: weight control is a balancing act.
You are what you eat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035574</id>
	<title>Because eating 5 Super Size meals...</title>
	<author>AthleteMusicianNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1257793200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>a day negates any exercise you might do!</htmltext>
<tokenext>a day negates any exercise you might do !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a day negates any exercise you might do!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30037662</id>
	<title>That's a joke.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257758880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the first 30mn your body doesn't use fat. It uses the sugar reserves. So if you do 30mn to loose weight, you might as well find something else... Maybe like a better diet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the first 30mn your body does n't use fat .
It uses the sugar reserves .
So if you do 30mn to loose weight , you might as well find something else... Maybe like a better diet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the first 30mn your body doesn't use fat.
It uses the sugar reserves.
So if you do 30mn to loose weight, you might as well find something else... Maybe like a better diet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032854</id>
	<title>Diet food tastes like shit?</title>
	<author>Fished</author>
	<datestamp>1257782400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason diet food tastes like shit is because you're on the wrong diet.  I'm a T2 diabetic, and I found that for me (as well as probably 40\% of the population) low-carb is the only way to go.  My idea of "diet food" is steak!  Granted, I occasionally wish I could have bread, but... I have a lot of great-tasting, healthy foods available to me.  The biggest problem is the lack of "convenience foods."  It's really hard to eat out on my diet.</p><p>I've lost over 70 lbs. this way, and still losing, so I <b>know</b> it works.  Just got done moving, and went off my diet for 3 weeks--you could even say I went nuts.  Didn't put any weight back on.  It works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason diet food tastes like shit is because you 're on the wrong diet .
I 'm a T2 diabetic , and I found that for me ( as well as probably 40 \ % of the population ) low-carb is the only way to go .
My idea of " diet food " is steak !
Granted , I occasionally wish I could have bread , but... I have a lot of great-tasting , healthy foods available to me .
The biggest problem is the lack of " convenience foods .
" It 's really hard to eat out on my diet.I 've lost over 70 lbs .
this way , and still losing , so I know it works .
Just got done moving , and went off my diet for 3 weeks--you could even say I went nuts .
Did n't put any weight back on .
It works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason diet food tastes like shit is because you're on the wrong diet.
I'm a T2 diabetic, and I found that for me (as well as probably 40\% of the population) low-carb is the only way to go.
My idea of "diet food" is steak!
Granted, I occasionally wish I could have bread, but... I have a lot of great-tasting, healthy foods available to me.
The biggest problem is the lack of "convenience foods.
"  It's really hard to eat out on my diet.I've lost over 70 lbs.
this way, and still losing, so I know it works.
Just got done moving, and went off my diet for 3 weeks--you could even say I went nuts.
Didn't put any weight back on.
It works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031524</id>
	<title>Why? Because calorie restriction is stupid</title>
	<author>sega01</author>
	<datestamp>1257775860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, calorie restriction *works*, but everyone who promotes it is putting a million issues into the bubble of dietary restriction. Why are some competitive eaters so darn thin?</p><p>Sonya Thomas *lost* weight eating tons of food, she's tiny!: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonya\_Thomas" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonya\_Thomas</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>I'd reference more, but I won't spend too much time on this. Yes, overeating in many cases will cause you to gain weight. Ever noticed why some people can eat 1k Calories per day and never have their weight change, even with lots of exercise? It's because their metabolism slows down to that rate. Diabetics of a certain kind (I think type 1, but I don't recall exactly) can't gain weight no matter what, strictly because they've got little ability with insulin.</p><p>You can lose weight restricting calories, but all you do in the long run is put up hormonal and physiological red flags saying that the body is in starvation mode. There have been studies with prison subjects being force fed 10,000 Calories a day of I think mostly fructose. They gained weight, (no wonder, since it was mostly fructose) but many peaked around 4 pounds, even after weeks! This should be a weight gain of 2lbs a day, even if their basal rate burns 3k Calories. Something's up.</p><p>Some people can eat themselves over and lose weight without exercise, while feeling a huge desire to exercise but fighting it. Some people gain weight with a few green peas. Why? It's far more complex than I can answer here, or even know myself. I will say that the body, when eating good healthy food, will have it's metabolism "unlocked" at a certain point. For some people, it takes eating a lot. They gain weight initially, have a number of health problems taken away, plateau, and then lose weight super easily. Some need thyroid supplementation. Some people don't gain weight at all. In the end, you feel better, you have tons of energy, and can eat as much butter and mashed potatoes as you've ever seen, without gaining weight. Now, that doesn't work for everyone. Some people will have gluten intolerance, hiatal hernia, and so much in the way. Just, Calories in - Calories out = Weight change is a nice formula for you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'ers, but it's downright stupid. It may work 70\% of the time, but it's not meant to be that way, and it's missing 99.99\% of the picture.</p><p>The best answers I've seen to this are on <a href="http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com] , where I learned about most of this. I had suspected it for a while myself, but this guy really puts it into perspective.</p><p>Thoughts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , calorie restriction * works * , but everyone who promotes it is putting a million issues into the bubble of dietary restriction .
Why are some competitive eaters so darn thin ? Sonya Thomas * lost * weight eating tons of food , she 's tiny !
: http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonya \ _Thomas [ wikipedia.org ] I 'd reference more , but I wo n't spend too much time on this .
Yes , overeating in many cases will cause you to gain weight .
Ever noticed why some people can eat 1k Calories per day and never have their weight change , even with lots of exercise ?
It 's because their metabolism slows down to that rate .
Diabetics of a certain kind ( I think type 1 , but I do n't recall exactly ) ca n't gain weight no matter what , strictly because they 've got little ability with insulin.You can lose weight restricting calories , but all you do in the long run is put up hormonal and physiological red flags saying that the body is in starvation mode .
There have been studies with prison subjects being force fed 10,000 Calories a day of I think mostly fructose .
They gained weight , ( no wonder , since it was mostly fructose ) but many peaked around 4 pounds , even after weeks !
This should be a weight gain of 2lbs a day , even if their basal rate burns 3k Calories .
Something 's up.Some people can eat themselves over and lose weight without exercise , while feeling a huge desire to exercise but fighting it .
Some people gain weight with a few green peas .
Why ? It 's far more complex than I can answer here , or even know myself .
I will say that the body , when eating good healthy food , will have it 's metabolism " unlocked " at a certain point .
For some people , it takes eating a lot .
They gain weight initially , have a number of health problems taken away , plateau , and then lose weight super easily .
Some need thyroid supplementation .
Some people do n't gain weight at all .
In the end , you feel better , you have tons of energy , and can eat as much butter and mashed potatoes as you 've ever seen , without gaining weight .
Now , that does n't work for everyone .
Some people will have gluten intolerance , hiatal hernia , and so much in the way .
Just , Calories in - Calories out = Weight change is a nice formula for you / .
'ers , but it 's downright stupid .
It may work 70 \ % of the time , but it 's not meant to be that way , and it 's missing 99.99 \ % of the picture.The best answers I 've seen to this are on http : //180degreehealth.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ] , where I learned about most of this .
I had suspected it for a while myself , but this guy really puts it into perspective.Thoughts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, calorie restriction *works*, but everyone who promotes it is putting a million issues into the bubble of dietary restriction.
Why are some competitive eaters so darn thin?Sonya Thomas *lost* weight eating tons of food, she's tiny!
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonya\_Thomas [wikipedia.org]I'd reference more, but I won't spend too much time on this.
Yes, overeating in many cases will cause you to gain weight.
Ever noticed why some people can eat 1k Calories per day and never have their weight change, even with lots of exercise?
It's because their metabolism slows down to that rate.
Diabetics of a certain kind (I think type 1, but I don't recall exactly) can't gain weight no matter what, strictly because they've got little ability with insulin.You can lose weight restricting calories, but all you do in the long run is put up hormonal and physiological red flags saying that the body is in starvation mode.
There have been studies with prison subjects being force fed 10,000 Calories a day of I think mostly fructose.
They gained weight, (no wonder, since it was mostly fructose) but many peaked around 4 pounds, even after weeks!
This should be a weight gain of 2lbs a day, even if their basal rate burns 3k Calories.
Something's up.Some people can eat themselves over and lose weight without exercise, while feeling a huge desire to exercise but fighting it.
Some people gain weight with a few green peas.
Why? It's far more complex than I can answer here, or even know myself.
I will say that the body, when eating good healthy food, will have it's metabolism "unlocked" at a certain point.
For some people, it takes eating a lot.
They gain weight initially, have a number of health problems taken away, plateau, and then lose weight super easily.
Some need thyroid supplementation.
Some people don't gain weight at all.
In the end, you feel better, you have tons of energy, and can eat as much butter and mashed potatoes as you've ever seen, without gaining weight.
Now, that doesn't work for everyone.
Some people will have gluten intolerance, hiatal hernia, and so much in the way.
Just, Calories in - Calories out = Weight change is a nice formula for you /.
'ers, but it's downright stupid.
It may work 70\% of the time, but it's not meant to be that way, and it's missing 99.99\% of the picture.The best answers I've seen to this are on http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com] , where I learned about most of this.
I had suspected it for a while myself, but this guy really puts it into perspective.Thoughts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029996</id>
	<title>7+3=12</title>
	<author>findoutmoretoday</author>
	<datestamp>1257758280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Without exercising they would have gained on average 3 pounds in&nbsp; 12 weeks, average for obese people not in diet phase. So, with exercise they lost 1 pound a week,&nbsp; not as much as in a miracle-crash diet, but a decent amount.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without exercising they would have gained on average 3 pounds in   12 weeks , average for obese people not in diet phase .
So , with exercise they lost 1 pound a week ,   not as much as in a miracle-crash diet , but a decent amount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without exercising they would have gained on average 3 pounds in  12 weeks, average for obese people not in diet phase.
So, with exercise they lost 1 pound a week,  not as much as in a miracle-crash diet, but a decent amount.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029662</id>
	<title>Re:Your body doesn't have a 100\% conversion factor</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1257797820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I always find it funny that people will argue it.  They'll find any reason for dieting and exercise to not be a workable solution.  If you let them explain enough, they could eat absolutely nothing, and do 12+ hours of hard physical labor every day, and still not lose a pound.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Your answer is right though.  Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change form.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I know I don't get as much physical exercise in as I should.  I also eat one small meal per day.  I maintain 150 to 155 pounds, and my BMI is comfortably in the "Normal" range. If I do more work, and expend more energy, I eat more during that period, and that's it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    I always find it funny that people will argue it .
They 'll find any reason for dieting and exercise to not be a workable solution .
If you let them explain enough , they could eat absolutely nothing , and do 12 + hours of hard physical labor every day , and still not lose a pound .
    Your answer is right though .
Energy can not be created nor destroyed , it can only change form .
    I know I do n't get as much physical exercise in as I should .
I also eat one small meal per day .
I maintain 150 to 155 pounds , and my BMI is comfortably in the " Normal " range .
If I do more work , and expend more energy , I eat more during that period , and that 's it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    I always find it funny that people will argue it.
They'll find any reason for dieting and exercise to not be a workable solution.
If you let them explain enough, they could eat absolutely nothing, and do 12+ hours of hard physical labor every day, and still not lose a pound.
    Your answer is right though.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change form.
    I know I don't get as much physical exercise in as I should.
I also eat one small meal per day.
I maintain 150 to 155 pounds, and my BMI is comfortably in the "Normal" range.
If I do more work, and expend more energy, I eat more during that period, and that's it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031338</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>Daengbo</author>
	<datestamp>1257774660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know what really helps with that "Exercise takes so long and I get so little out of it" feeling? Commuting by biking. If it takes me fifteen minutes to get to work in traffic, it'll take me maybe thirty or less by bike. That's leveraging my time. I get 25-30 minutes of exercise with a time investment of 10-15 minutes. I get to zip past a lot of people waiting in their cars. You may also get better parking and kudos from your company for being green -- I don't.</p><p>Of course, it helps if you</p><ol><li>don't have to pick anyone up or drop anyone off,</li><li>live relatively close to work, and</li><li> are in an area with moderate temperature.</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what really helps with that " Exercise takes so long and I get so little out of it " feeling ?
Commuting by biking .
If it takes me fifteen minutes to get to work in traffic , it 'll take me maybe thirty or less by bike .
That 's leveraging my time .
I get 25-30 minutes of exercise with a time investment of 10-15 minutes .
I get to zip past a lot of people waiting in their cars .
You may also get better parking and kudos from your company for being green -- I do n't.Of course , it helps if youdo n't have to pick anyone up or drop anyone off,live relatively close to work , and are in an area with moderate temperature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what really helps with that "Exercise takes so long and I get so little out of it" feeling?
Commuting by biking.
If it takes me fifteen minutes to get to work in traffic, it'll take me maybe thirty or less by bike.
That's leveraging my time.
I get 25-30 minutes of exercise with a time investment of 10-15 minutes.
I get to zip past a lot of people waiting in their cars.
You may also get better parking and kudos from your company for being green -- I don't.Of course, it helps if youdon't have to pick anyone up or drop anyone off,live relatively close to work, and are in an area with moderate temperature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029992</id>
	<title>Re:Your body doesn't have a 100\% conversion factor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257758160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just read the second article and it appears to me they fell into the common trap of mostly reading the scale. When you are overweight and start working out you are generally doing two things: 1) losing fat and 2) gaining muscle. So while your weight may not go down that much, it doesn't mean you aren't quite a bit fitter. They sort of point this out, but rather indirectly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just read the second article and it appears to me they fell into the common trap of mostly reading the scale .
When you are overweight and start working out you are generally doing two things : 1 ) losing fat and 2 ) gaining muscle .
So while your weight may not go down that much , it does n't mean you are n't quite a bit fitter .
They sort of point this out , but rather indirectly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just read the second article and it appears to me they fell into the common trap of mostly reading the scale.
When you are overweight and start working out you are generally doing two things: 1) losing fat and 2) gaining muscle.
So while your weight may not go down that much, it doesn't mean you aren't quite a bit fitter.
They sort of point this out, but rather indirectly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030266</id>
	<title>Because they didn't change their diet...</title>
	<author>bschorr</author>
	<datestamp>1257761220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whereas before they were probably GAINING a pound or three a month, now they're losing as much as 7 pounds over this period.  It's not a great mystery, burn more calories than you consume.  Exercise is only one piece of the puzzle.<br><br>If you adjust your diet to reduce your caloric intake to a reasonable level (1800-2000 calories a day is reasonable for most people), and increase exercise to increase lean muscle mass (which increases your resting metabolism) as well as burn more calories during the day then you're going to lose weight.<br><br>What did they expect?  They were going to drop 10 pounds a week like on "Biggest Loser" just by modest exercise alone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whereas before they were probably GAINING a pound or three a month , now they 're losing as much as 7 pounds over this period .
It 's not a great mystery , burn more calories than you consume .
Exercise is only one piece of the puzzle.If you adjust your diet to reduce your caloric intake to a reasonable level ( 1800-2000 calories a day is reasonable for most people ) , and increase exercise to increase lean muscle mass ( which increases your resting metabolism ) as well as burn more calories during the day then you 're going to lose weight.What did they expect ?
They were going to drop 10 pounds a week like on " Biggest Loser " just by modest exercise alone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whereas before they were probably GAINING a pound or three a month, now they're losing as much as 7 pounds over this period.
It's not a great mystery, burn more calories than you consume.
Exercise is only one piece of the puzzle.If you adjust your diet to reduce your caloric intake to a reasonable level (1800-2000 calories a day is reasonable for most people), and increase exercise to increase lean muscle mass (which increases your resting metabolism) as well as burn more calories during the day then you're going to lose weight.What did they expect?
They were going to drop 10 pounds a week like on "Biggest Loser" just by modest exercise alone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032808</id>
	<title>Oh My God!</title>
	<author>fzimper</author>
	<datestamp>1257782220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what happened to Slashdot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what happened to Slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what happened to Slashdot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30045674</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257869040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The stuff that western civilisation pushed on us under the label food, is often highly processed, devoid of useful nutrients, and stuffed with harmful chemicals and empty calories. </p></div><p>The only correct parts of that are "highly processed" and "empty calories", although there isn't necessarily anything wrong with highly processed.  Many western foods have lots of extra nutrients mixed in to their foods because it is cheap, easy, and makes the food label look better.  On the down side, corn syrup is often added to foods to add sweetness as it is extremely cheap (thanks to government subsidizing).  As for "harmful chemicals", it's not like they dump arsenic in cookies for fun.  That just sounds like paranoid dribble.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The stuff that western civilisation pushed on us under the label food , is often highly processed , devoid of useful nutrients , and stuffed with harmful chemicals and empty calories .
The only correct parts of that are " highly processed " and " empty calories " , although there is n't necessarily anything wrong with highly processed .
Many western foods have lots of extra nutrients mixed in to their foods because it is cheap , easy , and makes the food label look better .
On the down side , corn syrup is often added to foods to add sweetness as it is extremely cheap ( thanks to government subsidizing ) .
As for " harmful chemicals " , it 's not like they dump arsenic in cookies for fun .
That just sounds like paranoid dribble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The stuff that western civilisation pushed on us under the label food, is often highly processed, devoid of useful nutrients, and stuffed with harmful chemicals and empty calories.
The only correct parts of that are "highly processed" and "empty calories", although there isn't necessarily anything wrong with highly processed.
Many western foods have lots of extra nutrients mixed in to their foods because it is cheap, easy, and makes the food label look better.
On the down side, corn syrup is often added to foods to add sweetness as it is extremely cheap (thanks to government subsidizing).
As for "harmful chemicals", it's not like they dump arsenic in cookies for fun.
That just sounds like paranoid dribble.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030070</id>
	<title>Exercise calorie calculator?</title>
	<author>jcdill</author>
	<datestamp>1257759120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking of exercise and weight loss, does anyone know of an online calorie calculators that figure calories burned based on:</p><p>Weight<br>Distance<br>Effort (type of exercise)</p><p>All of the online calculators I've been able to find use time instead of distance, which makes no sense.  If I move a given weight (my body) a given distance (e.g. 5 miles) using a standard type of effort (walking/running, or bicycling which takes less effort), then the calories burned are the same no matter the speed.  This is basic physics.  But all of the online calculators say that the faster you go the fewer calories you burn.  If it takes 25 minutes to run 5 miles or 100 minutes to walk 5 miles, it still takes the same amount of "work" to move a mass that distance, and the calories burned should be approximately the same.  If I ride my bike 20 miles and it takes 1 hour my effort per minute will be *about* twice the rate as if it takes 2 hours and both rides should require (burn) about the same amount of calories.  But the calorie calculators say that the slower ride burns twice as many calories because I rode for a "longer" period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of exercise and weight loss , does anyone know of an online calorie calculators that figure calories burned based on : WeightDistanceEffort ( type of exercise ) All of the online calculators I 've been able to find use time instead of distance , which makes no sense .
If I move a given weight ( my body ) a given distance ( e.g .
5 miles ) using a standard type of effort ( walking/running , or bicycling which takes less effort ) , then the calories burned are the same no matter the speed .
This is basic physics .
But all of the online calculators say that the faster you go the fewer calories you burn .
If it takes 25 minutes to run 5 miles or 100 minutes to walk 5 miles , it still takes the same amount of " work " to move a mass that distance , and the calories burned should be approximately the same .
If I ride my bike 20 miles and it takes 1 hour my effort per minute will be * about * twice the rate as if it takes 2 hours and both rides should require ( burn ) about the same amount of calories .
But the calorie calculators say that the slower ride burns twice as many calories because I rode for a " longer " period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of exercise and weight loss, does anyone know of an online calorie calculators that figure calories burned based on:WeightDistanceEffort (type of exercise)All of the online calculators I've been able to find use time instead of distance, which makes no sense.
If I move a given weight (my body) a given distance (e.g.
5 miles) using a standard type of effort (walking/running, or bicycling which takes less effort), then the calories burned are the same no matter the speed.
This is basic physics.
But all of the online calculators say that the faster you go the fewer calories you burn.
If it takes 25 minutes to run 5 miles or 100 minutes to walk 5 miles, it still takes the same amount of "work" to move a mass that distance, and the calories burned should be approximately the same.
If I ride my bike 20 miles and it takes 1 hour my effort per minute will be *about* twice the rate as if it takes 2 hours and both rides should require (burn) about the same amount of calories.
But the calorie calculators say that the slower ride burns twice as many calories because I rode for a "longer" period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031254</id>
	<title>Wow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257774060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What will the scale say when you gain 1 pound of muscle and lose 1 pound of fat? I hate reading "fitness" articles in mainstream media!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What will the scale say when you gain 1 pound of muscle and lose 1 pound of fat ?
I hate reading " fitness " articles in mainstream media !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will the scale say when you gain 1 pound of muscle and lose 1 pound of fat?
I hate reading "fitness" articles in mainstream media!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30036284</id>
	<title>Oh fricken gawd.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257796080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Silly bunch of slashdot nerds.</p><p>They may as well have been doing 10 toe-touches every morning. What a joke.</p><p>A) Aerobic exercise alone isn't the best approach to losing bodyfat.<br>B) A leisurely stroll on a loathsome treadmill is a waste of time investment.<br>C) The quality of food you eat and it's nutrient density will have a much more profound effect on your body composition</p><p>You can't continue to eat truck loads of garbage food and expect to offset it much with this kind of miserable attempt at 'exercise' .</p><p>You don't have to sacrifice the amount of food you're eating, replace it with healthy food choices. (increase fiber, colored vegetables, quality diverse protein sources, full spectrum of clean fatty acids) Then hit the gym and do 10 minutes warm-up and mobility or remedial work, 30 minutes properly programmed and monitored resistance training, with metabolic drills on rest periods and between exercises. Finish with 2-3 rounds of tabata style short interval training on a cycle or elliptical trainer (depends on the  clients ability), warm down with 10 or so minutes or steady state aerobic exercise. Sweep client into the showers. I guarantee you'll lose 30 lbs or more in your 12 weeks.</p><p>Diet and exercise are like anything else worth doing, you get out of it what you personally invest into it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Silly bunch of slashdot nerds.They may as well have been doing 10 toe-touches every morning .
What a joke.A ) Aerobic exercise alone is n't the best approach to losing bodyfat.B ) A leisurely stroll on a loathsome treadmill is a waste of time investment.C ) The quality of food you eat and it 's nutrient density will have a much more profound effect on your body compositionYou ca n't continue to eat truck loads of garbage food and expect to offset it much with this kind of miserable attempt at 'exercise ' .You do n't have to sacrifice the amount of food you 're eating , replace it with healthy food choices .
( increase fiber , colored vegetables , quality diverse protein sources , full spectrum of clean fatty acids ) Then hit the gym and do 10 minutes warm-up and mobility or remedial work , 30 minutes properly programmed and monitored resistance training , with metabolic drills on rest periods and between exercises .
Finish with 2-3 rounds of tabata style short interval training on a cycle or elliptical trainer ( depends on the clients ability ) , warm down with 10 or so minutes or steady state aerobic exercise .
Sweep client into the showers .
I guarantee you 'll lose 30 lbs or more in your 12 weeks.Diet and exercise are like anything else worth doing , you get out of it what you personally invest into it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Silly bunch of slashdot nerds.They may as well have been doing 10 toe-touches every morning.
What a joke.A) Aerobic exercise alone isn't the best approach to losing bodyfat.B) A leisurely stroll on a loathsome treadmill is a waste of time investment.C) The quality of food you eat and it's nutrient density will have a much more profound effect on your body compositionYou can't continue to eat truck loads of garbage food and expect to offset it much with this kind of miserable attempt at 'exercise' .You don't have to sacrifice the amount of food you're eating, replace it with healthy food choices.
(increase fiber, colored vegetables, quality diverse protein sources, full spectrum of clean fatty acids) Then hit the gym and do 10 minutes warm-up and mobility or remedial work, 30 minutes properly programmed and monitored resistance training, with metabolic drills on rest periods and between exercises.
Finish with 2-3 rounds of tabata style short interval training on a cycle or elliptical trainer (depends on the  clients ability), warm down with 10 or so minutes or steady state aerobic exercise.
Sweep client into the showers.
I guarantee you'll lose 30 lbs or more in your 12 weeks.Diet and exercise are like anything else worth doing, you get out of it what you personally invest into it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030016</id>
	<title>BS..</title>
	<author>tempest69</author>
	<datestamp>1257758400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Resting Metabolism is about 1000 kcal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/day
So about a pound of fat every 3 days.<br>
Another 1000 ish is enough for sedentary living.<br>

With some cardio conditioning, a person can burn 1000kcal / hour a few times a day.
however, the body will scavenge muscle if glucose is unavailable. so the calories go up a bit.. but the weight can drop like a rock.. if someone can find a spare 4 hours a day. with an hour a day, it still drops reasonably.
A 2000-3000 kcal diet is fine if your cranking 2+ hours of cardio.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Resting Metabolism is about 1000 kcal /day So about a pound of fat every 3 days .
Another 1000 ish is enough for sedentary living .
With some cardio conditioning , a person can burn 1000kcal / hour a few times a day .
however , the body will scavenge muscle if glucose is unavailable .
so the calories go up a bit.. but the weight can drop like a rock.. if someone can find a spare 4 hours a day .
with an hour a day , it still drops reasonably .
A 2000-3000 kcal diet is fine if your cranking 2 + hours of cardio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Resting Metabolism is about 1000 kcal /day
So about a pound of fat every 3 days.
Another 1000 ish is enough for sedentary living.
With some cardio conditioning, a person can burn 1000kcal / hour a few times a day.
however, the body will scavenge muscle if glucose is unavailable.
so the calories go up a bit.. but the weight can drop like a rock.. if someone can find a spare 4 hours a day.
with an hour a day, it still drops reasonably.
A 2000-3000 kcal diet is fine if your cranking 2+ hours of cardio.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033438</id>
	<title>Personal Experience</title>
	<author>KiwiCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1257784740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I went from 185lbs (fat) down to 150lbs (string bean). At first I lost a few pounds, but it wasn't until I change my eating habits that I really began to lose weight. I cut out most of my fat intake for a month. That was EXTREMELY hard to do and for most people it isn't realistic. Losing is very hard work. Now that I've lost the excess weight it is easy to maintain my current figure (5'10", 175lbs, muscular, flat stomach but no ab muscles). How did I do this? I basically ran 3 times a week for 20-60 minutes (started at 20 minutes and added 2-5 minutes per week) and then worked free weights for 45 minutes. I did this for a year (it took this long because I was refining my workouts). Now I do free weights 2-3 times a week and run for 60 minutes (on a treadmill) once a week (at a 9-10 minute mile pace). Again, cutting down on eating is the hardest part (it is also the most important). DISCLAIMER: always consult a physician before starting any exercise program. Stop IMMEDIATELY if you feel light headed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I went from 185lbs ( fat ) down to 150lbs ( string bean ) .
At first I lost a few pounds , but it was n't until I change my eating habits that I really began to lose weight .
I cut out most of my fat intake for a month .
That was EXTREMELY hard to do and for most people it is n't realistic .
Losing is very hard work .
Now that I 've lost the excess weight it is easy to maintain my current figure ( 5'10 " , 175lbs , muscular , flat stomach but no ab muscles ) .
How did I do this ?
I basically ran 3 times a week for 20-60 minutes ( started at 20 minutes and added 2-5 minutes per week ) and then worked free weights for 45 minutes .
I did this for a year ( it took this long because I was refining my workouts ) .
Now I do free weights 2-3 times a week and run for 60 minutes ( on a treadmill ) once a week ( at a 9-10 minute mile pace ) .
Again , cutting down on eating is the hardest part ( it is also the most important ) .
DISCLAIMER : always consult a physician before starting any exercise program .
Stop IMMEDIATELY if you feel light headed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went from 185lbs (fat) down to 150lbs (string bean).
At first I lost a few pounds, but it wasn't until I change my eating habits that I really began to lose weight.
I cut out most of my fat intake for a month.
That was EXTREMELY hard to do and for most people it isn't realistic.
Losing is very hard work.
Now that I've lost the excess weight it is easy to maintain my current figure (5'10", 175lbs, muscular, flat stomach but no ab muscles).
How did I do this?
I basically ran 3 times a week for 20-60 minutes (started at 20 minutes and added 2-5 minutes per week) and then worked free weights for 45 minutes.
I did this for a year (it took this long because I was refining my workouts).
Now I do free weights 2-3 times a week and run for 60 minutes (on a treadmill) once a week (at a 9-10 minute mile pace).
Again, cutting down on eating is the hardest part (it is also the most important).
DISCLAIMER: always consult a physician before starting any exercise program.
Stop IMMEDIATELY if you feel light headed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031348</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>xaxa</author>
	<datestamp>1257774780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although my diet was probably better than yours to start with -- no caffeine, fast food at most once a month, and sugary drinks only when socialising -- I was worried that I'd end up gaining weight after graduating and getting an office-like job. A friend who started work at Google a few months before me treated it like a joke -- they have so much free food the new starters all gain "the Google 5kg" or something.</p><p>I knew nothing could make me go to the gym, and that to do exercise I'd need to feel like it had some purpose.</p><p>I've now been cycling to work for almost a year (I used to walk + train everywhere). It's faster and cheaper than any other way of getting to work (or most other places) so it clearly has purpose, and I feel better after the exercise. I usually enjoy the ride too: I have a fast route and a slightly slower traffic-free route that takes me along the riverbank -- at the weekends people ride this route <i>for fun</i>, I get to do it every day<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-).</p><p>I'm the same weight as before, but I feel healthier, and apparently I look healthier too.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Replaced cola with coffee (caffeine) or lemonade (sweet).</p></div><p>IIRC, different regions of the USA call different things lemonade, but if it's the fizzy drink then be sure to check the label. I've seen one brand here that had as much sugar as cola! (~30\%)</p><p>I drink water most of the time, or fruit squash if I feel I need something sweet. (And ~15cl of fruit juice for breakfast, when I remember.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although my diet was probably better than yours to start with -- no caffeine , fast food at most once a month , and sugary drinks only when socialising -- I was worried that I 'd end up gaining weight after graduating and getting an office-like job .
A friend who started work at Google a few months before me treated it like a joke -- they have so much free food the new starters all gain " the Google 5kg " or something.I knew nothing could make me go to the gym , and that to do exercise I 'd need to feel like it had some purpose.I 've now been cycling to work for almost a year ( I used to walk + train everywhere ) .
It 's faster and cheaper than any other way of getting to work ( or most other places ) so it clearly has purpose , and I feel better after the exercise .
I usually enjoy the ride too : I have a fast route and a slightly slower traffic-free route that takes me along the riverbank -- at the weekends people ride this route for fun , I get to do it every day : - ) .I 'm the same weight as before , but I feel healthier , and apparently I look healthier too.Replaced cola with coffee ( caffeine ) or lemonade ( sweet ) .IIRC , different regions of the USA call different things lemonade , but if it 's the fizzy drink then be sure to check the label .
I 've seen one brand here that had as much sugar as cola !
( ~ 30 \ % ) I drink water most of the time , or fruit squash if I feel I need something sweet .
( And ~ 15cl of fruit juice for breakfast , when I remember .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although my diet was probably better than yours to start with -- no caffeine, fast food at most once a month, and sugary drinks only when socialising -- I was worried that I'd end up gaining weight after graduating and getting an office-like job.
A friend who started work at Google a few months before me treated it like a joke -- they have so much free food the new starters all gain "the Google 5kg" or something.I knew nothing could make me go to the gym, and that to do exercise I'd need to feel like it had some purpose.I've now been cycling to work for almost a year (I used to walk + train everywhere).
It's faster and cheaper than any other way of getting to work (or most other places) so it clearly has purpose, and I feel better after the exercise.
I usually enjoy the ride too: I have a fast route and a slightly slower traffic-free route that takes me along the riverbank -- at the weekends people ride this route for fun, I get to do it every day :-).I'm the same weight as before, but I feel healthier, and apparently I look healthier too.Replaced cola with coffee (caffeine) or lemonade (sweet).IIRC, different regions of the USA call different things lemonade, but if it's the fizzy drink then be sure to check the label.
I've seen one brand here that had as much sugar as cola!
(~30\%)I drink water most of the time, or fruit squash if I feel I need something sweet.
(And ~15cl of fruit juice for breakfast, when I remember.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031648</id>
	<title>Sociopath</title>
	<author>torstenvl</author>
	<datestamp>1257776640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This post is extremely misleading and dangerous. Why anyone would want to propagate this lie is beyond me.</p><p>Exercise does lead to weight loss. The article cited clearly says it does. It's just that a small amount of exercise -- aerobic exercise for short periods over a mere three months, without strength training or diet changes -- is less effective than you'd want it to be. Well duh. But even in those circumstances, with all those factors stacked against weight loss, the participants still lost some weight.</p><p>A counterexample: A mildly overweight or average person, who has no heart problems and is otherwise healthy, can engage in much more vigorous exercise. An hour on the elliptical can burn approximately 700 calories. An hour in an intense gym routine can burn more (ever see those ads for LA Boxing touting the one-hour 1000 calorie workout?).  Lets say you do an hour of 700-calorie cardio every morning and dont change your diet. That's an additional 3500 calories you're burning per workweek. If you give yourself weekends off and don't change your diet and don't strength train, you're still losing a pound a week, mostly of fat. If you add in proper diet -- not calorie restriction per se but just switching from soda to water or cutting out one or two greasy meals a week -- you're doing better. Add in strength training and you're be doing amazingly.</p><p>But it's not enough to just diet. The health benefits of good cardiovascular health and muscle strength are important in their own right. Things like the Hacker's Diet work to lose weight, but they are very unhealthy, even possibly dangerous. It condones a quantitative instead qualitative approach; the Hacker's Diet seems to take the position that you can eat microwave pizzas for every meal as long as you keep it under about 2000 calories. What it doesn't tell you is that in the process you'll be failing to provide muscular support for an aging skeletal system, adding cholesterol to your body, hardening your arteries, and atrophying major muscles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This post is extremely misleading and dangerous .
Why anyone would want to propagate this lie is beyond me.Exercise does lead to weight loss .
The article cited clearly says it does .
It 's just that a small amount of exercise -- aerobic exercise for short periods over a mere three months , without strength training or diet changes -- is less effective than you 'd want it to be .
Well duh .
But even in those circumstances , with all those factors stacked against weight loss , the participants still lost some weight.A counterexample : A mildly overweight or average person , who has no heart problems and is otherwise healthy , can engage in much more vigorous exercise .
An hour on the elliptical can burn approximately 700 calories .
An hour in an intense gym routine can burn more ( ever see those ads for LA Boxing touting the one-hour 1000 calorie workout ? ) .
Lets say you do an hour of 700-calorie cardio every morning and dont change your diet .
That 's an additional 3500 calories you 're burning per workweek .
If you give yourself weekends off and do n't change your diet and do n't strength train , you 're still losing a pound a week , mostly of fat .
If you add in proper diet -- not calorie restriction per se but just switching from soda to water or cutting out one or two greasy meals a week -- you 're doing better .
Add in strength training and you 're be doing amazingly.But it 's not enough to just diet .
The health benefits of good cardiovascular health and muscle strength are important in their own right .
Things like the Hacker 's Diet work to lose weight , but they are very unhealthy , even possibly dangerous .
It condones a quantitative instead qualitative approach ; the Hacker 's Diet seems to take the position that you can eat microwave pizzas for every meal as long as you keep it under about 2000 calories .
What it does n't tell you is that in the process you 'll be failing to provide muscular support for an aging skeletal system , adding cholesterol to your body , hardening your arteries , and atrophying major muscles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post is extremely misleading and dangerous.
Why anyone would want to propagate this lie is beyond me.Exercise does lead to weight loss.
The article cited clearly says it does.
It's just that a small amount of exercise -- aerobic exercise for short periods over a mere three months, without strength training or diet changes -- is less effective than you'd want it to be.
Well duh.
But even in those circumstances, with all those factors stacked against weight loss, the participants still lost some weight.A counterexample: A mildly overweight or average person, who has no heart problems and is otherwise healthy, can engage in much more vigorous exercise.
An hour on the elliptical can burn approximately 700 calories.
An hour in an intense gym routine can burn more (ever see those ads for LA Boxing touting the one-hour 1000 calorie workout?).
Lets say you do an hour of 700-calorie cardio every morning and dont change your diet.
That's an additional 3500 calories you're burning per workweek.
If you give yourself weekends off and don't change your diet and don't strength train, you're still losing a pound a week, mostly of fat.
If you add in proper diet -- not calorie restriction per se but just switching from soda to water or cutting out one or two greasy meals a week -- you're doing better.
Add in strength training and you're be doing amazingly.But it's not enough to just diet.
The health benefits of good cardiovascular health and muscle strength are important in their own right.
Things like the Hacker's Diet work to lose weight, but they are very unhealthy, even possibly dangerous.
It condones a quantitative instead qualitative approach; the Hacker's Diet seems to take the position that you can eat microwave pizzas for every meal as long as you keep it under about 2000 calories.
What it doesn't tell you is that in the process you'll be failing to provide muscular support for an aging skeletal system, adding cholesterol to your body, hardening your arteries, and atrophying major muscles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30039738</id>
	<title>The only way to lose weight</title>
	<author>grikdog</author>
	<datestamp>1257768300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Starve.  People without food can't get fat.  Doh, America.  Doh!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Starve .
People without food ca n't get fat .
Doh , America .
Doh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Starve.
People without food can't get fat.
Doh, America.
Doh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031070</id>
	<title>Metabolism must be controlled</title>
	<author>alchemist68</author>
	<datestamp>1257771900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The key to losing weight is the control of metabolism.  Acetyl-Coenzyme A Carboxylase (ACC) converts acetyl-CoA to malonyl-CoA, where malonyl-CoA is the first committed step in fatty acid biosynthesis.  Malonyl-CoA inhibits mitochondrial fatty acid oxidation through feedback inhibition of mitochondrial carnitine palmitoyltransferase (CPT1), and therefore plays key roles both in controlling the switch between carbohydrate and fatty acid utilization in liver and skeletal muscle and also in regulating insulin sensitivity in the liver, skeletal muscle and fat.  Inhibition of acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase not only switches metabolism from lipogenesis to whole-body fatty acid oxidation, it also prevents the synthesis of triglycerides which contribute to atherosclerosis, a leading cause of cardiovascular disease.<br>
<br>
Useful links:<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetyl-CoA\_carboxylase#cite\_note-pmid9449982-1" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetyl-CoA\_carboxylase#cite\_note-pmid9449982-1</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malonyl-CoA" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malonyl-CoA</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The key to losing weight is the control of metabolism .
Acetyl-Coenzyme A Carboxylase ( ACC ) converts acetyl-CoA to malonyl-CoA , where malonyl-CoA is the first committed step in fatty acid biosynthesis .
Malonyl-CoA inhibits mitochondrial fatty acid oxidation through feedback inhibition of mitochondrial carnitine palmitoyltransferase ( CPT1 ) , and therefore plays key roles both in controlling the switch between carbohydrate and fatty acid utilization in liver and skeletal muscle and also in regulating insulin sensitivity in the liver , skeletal muscle and fat .
Inhibition of acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase not only switches metabolism from lipogenesis to whole-body fatty acid oxidation , it also prevents the synthesis of triglycerides which contribute to atherosclerosis , a leading cause of cardiovascular disease .
Useful links : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetyl-CoA \ _carboxylase # cite \ _note-pmid9449982-1 [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malonyl-CoA [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key to losing weight is the control of metabolism.
Acetyl-Coenzyme A Carboxylase (ACC) converts acetyl-CoA to malonyl-CoA, where malonyl-CoA is the first committed step in fatty acid biosynthesis.
Malonyl-CoA inhibits mitochondrial fatty acid oxidation through feedback inhibition of mitochondrial carnitine palmitoyltransferase (CPT1), and therefore plays key roles both in controlling the switch between carbohydrate and fatty acid utilization in liver and skeletal muscle and also in regulating insulin sensitivity in the liver, skeletal muscle and fat.
Inhibition of acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase not only switches metabolism from lipogenesis to whole-body fatty acid oxidation, it also prevents the synthesis of triglycerides which contribute to atherosclerosis, a leading cause of cardiovascular disease.
Useful links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetyl-CoA\_carboxylase#cite\_note-pmid9449982-1 [wikipedia.org] 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malonyl-CoA [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032404</id>
	<title>I hope they would solve this riddle...</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1257780780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>100 years ago and more, people were not fat, and were free from most of obesity related ailments.</p><p>What changed?</p><p>It wasn't food until very recently, if at all.</p><p>The most dramatic change is that most people in developed countries do sedentary jobs now.</p><p>Same food, less exercise = fatter people.</p><p>And now is even worse:  fatter food, less exercise = even fatter people.</p><p>I didn't RTFA naturally, but then they say that they didn't change the people's diet, do they mean they rigorously made sure they ate exactly the same or that they didn't check at all?</p><p>And in any case, if people actually lost weight while exercising more and eating the same, how it comes that exercise does not reduce weight?</p><p>The summary says they lost *in average* seven pounds in 3 months.</p><p>So in one year they may lose 28 pounds! (or around 14 kg for people living in civilized countries).</p><p>That is what a lifestyle change is all about: change your habits and the gains will come slowly.</p><p>Some studies need to try harder, because at least in this case the numbers say one thing, but the results seem to be interpreted in a completely different way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>100 years ago and more , people were not fat , and were free from most of obesity related ailments.What changed ? It was n't food until very recently , if at all.The most dramatic change is that most people in developed countries do sedentary jobs now.Same food , less exercise = fatter people.And now is even worse : fatter food , less exercise = even fatter people.I did n't RTFA naturally , but then they say that they did n't change the people 's diet , do they mean they rigorously made sure they ate exactly the same or that they did n't check at all ? And in any case , if people actually lost weight while exercising more and eating the same , how it comes that exercise does not reduce weight ? The summary says they lost * in average * seven pounds in 3 months.So in one year they may lose 28 pounds !
( or around 14 kg for people living in civilized countries ) .That is what a lifestyle change is all about : change your habits and the gains will come slowly.Some studies need to try harder , because at least in this case the numbers say one thing , but the results seem to be interpreted in a completely different way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100 years ago and more, people were not fat, and were free from most of obesity related ailments.What changed?It wasn't food until very recently, if at all.The most dramatic change is that most people in developed countries do sedentary jobs now.Same food, less exercise = fatter people.And now is even worse:  fatter food, less exercise = even fatter people.I didn't RTFA naturally, but then they say that they didn't change the people's diet, do they mean they rigorously made sure they ate exactly the same or that they didn't check at all?And in any case, if people actually lost weight while exercising more and eating the same, how it comes that exercise does not reduce weight?The summary says they lost *in average* seven pounds in 3 months.So in one year they may lose 28 pounds!
(or around 14 kg for people living in civilized countries).That is what a lifestyle change is all about: change your habits and the gains will come slowly.Some studies need to try harder, because at least in this case the numbers say one thing, but the results seem to be interpreted in a completely different way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030570</id>
	<title>Lifestyle Change</title>
	<author>secondhand\_Buddah</author>
	<datestamp>1257765000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The biggest mistake the majority of people who go on a diet is that they approach it as a way to lose weight. <br>
Actually the only way to do this effectively is to approach it as a change in lifestyle, and accept that this is how you are going to be eating for the rest of your life (if you want to stay in good health that is).  The next step is to find a diet that can match this requirement.  diets like weight watchers do work, but the most effective diet that I have found is a Low Glycemic Load diet.  Stabilizing ones blood sugar automatically creates an environment where the body begins to rid itself of excess weight. I  use the word diet in the context of a way to eat, and not as a means to an end. The next step is to learn to eat correctly and stick to<br>
It. It takes about 3 months to learn to eat correctly, and can take about 6 months to become acclimatised to the new lifestyle. On a low GL diet one can lose 1 to 2 pounds a week. This continues until you are within your normal body weight range, and then it stabilizes.<br>
I would really recommend a low GL diet  to anyone who is serious about wanting to switch to a healthy and vibrant lifestyle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest mistake the majority of people who go on a diet is that they approach it as a way to lose weight .
Actually the only way to do this effectively is to approach it as a change in lifestyle , and accept that this is how you are going to be eating for the rest of your life ( if you want to stay in good health that is ) .
The next step is to find a diet that can match this requirement .
diets like weight watchers do work , but the most effective diet that I have found is a Low Glycemic Load diet .
Stabilizing ones blood sugar automatically creates an environment where the body begins to rid itself of excess weight .
I use the word diet in the context of a way to eat , and not as a means to an end .
The next step is to learn to eat correctly and stick to It .
It takes about 3 months to learn to eat correctly , and can take about 6 months to become acclimatised to the new lifestyle .
On a low GL diet one can lose 1 to 2 pounds a week .
This continues until you are within your normal body weight range , and then it stabilizes .
I would really recommend a low GL diet to anyone who is serious about wanting to switch to a healthy and vibrant lifestyle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest mistake the majority of people who go on a diet is that they approach it as a way to lose weight.
Actually the only way to do this effectively is to approach it as a change in lifestyle, and accept that this is how you are going to be eating for the rest of your life (if you want to stay in good health that is).
The next step is to find a diet that can match this requirement.
diets like weight watchers do work, but the most effective diet that I have found is a Low Glycemic Load diet.
Stabilizing ones blood sugar automatically creates an environment where the body begins to rid itself of excess weight.
I  use the word diet in the context of a way to eat, and not as a means to an end.
The next step is to learn to eat correctly and stick to
It.
It takes about 3 months to learn to eat correctly, and can take about 6 months to become acclimatised to the new lifestyle.
On a low GL diet one can lose 1 to 2 pounds a week.
This continues until you are within your normal body weight range, and then it stabilizes.
I would really recommend a low GL diet  to anyone who is serious about wanting to switch to a healthy and vibrant lifestyle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032908</id>
	<title>Fashion from here,nike jordan shoes,coach,gucci,</title>
	<author>huangzhixian1204</author>
	<datestamp>1257782700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In order to meet the Thanksgiving holiday, this site hereby release Thanksgiving gift, that is, gift, our web site is <a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com] [coolforsale.com] [coolforsale.com] Nike Air Jordan(1-25)/Jordan Six Ring/Jordan Fusion/Nike Shox/Air Max/AF1/Dunk shoes, coach,gucci,lv,dg,ed hardy handbags, Polo/Ed Hardy/Lacoste/Ca/A&amp;F<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,T-shirt welcome new and old customers come to order.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to meet the Thanksgiving holiday , this site hereby release Thanksgiving gift , that is , gift , our web site is http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] [ coolforsale.com ] [ coolforsale.com ] Nike Air Jordan ( 1-25 ) /Jordan Six Ring/Jordan Fusion/Nike Shox/Air Max/AF1/Dunk shoes , coach,gucci,lv,dg,ed hardy handbags , Polo/Ed Hardy/Lacoste/Ca/A&amp;F ,T-shirt welcome new and old customers come to order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to meet the Thanksgiving holiday, this site hereby release Thanksgiving gift, that is, gift, our web site is http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com] [coolforsale.com] [coolforsale.com] Nike Air Jordan(1-25)/Jordan Six Ring/Jordan Fusion/Nike Shox/Air Max/AF1/Dunk shoes, coach,gucci,lv,dg,ed hardy handbags, Polo/Ed Hardy/Lacoste/Ca/A&amp;F ,T-shirt welcome new and old customers come to order.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456</id>
	<title>Your body doesn't have a 100\% conversion factor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257709500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Putting stuff in your mouth is just step one. How you chew your food, how well it is digested, how active your metabolism is, all these will affect how much energy you actually get out of your food.</p><p>Still, physics still stand: Use more energy than you get through food you \_will\_ lose weight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting stuff in your mouth is just step one .
How you chew your food , how well it is digested , how active your metabolism is , all these will affect how much energy you actually get out of your food.Still , physics still stand : Use more energy than you get through food you \ _will \ _ lose weight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting stuff in your mouth is just step one.
How you chew your food, how well it is digested, how active your metabolism is, all these will affect how much energy you actually get out of your food.Still, physics still stand: Use more energy than you get through food you \_will\_ lose weight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30037534</id>
	<title>it's not magic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257758400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A a cyclist, I say these stories are BS to make fat people feel good.</p><p>Why don't they try this experiment: Have the obese ride four 3hr non-stop bike rides each week for 20 weeks.</p><p>That will end this nonsense pretty fast. Really. The exercise industry is a bunch of tards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A a cyclist , I say these stories are BS to make fat people feel good.Why do n't they try this experiment : Have the obese ride four 3hr non-stop bike rides each week for 20 weeks.That will end this nonsense pretty fast .
Really. The exercise industry is a bunch of tards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A a cyclist, I say these stories are BS to make fat people feel good.Why don't they try this experiment: Have the obese ride four 3hr non-stop bike rides each week for 20 weeks.That will end this nonsense pretty fast.
Really. The exercise industry is a bunch of tards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029796</id>
	<title>Do athletes live longer?</title>
	<author>OrangeCatholic</author>
	<datestamp>1257799320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time Magazine covered this <a href="http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.html" title="time.com" rel="nofollow">three months ago</a> [time.com].  The article started off by pointing out that exercise stimulates hunger, which by itself is pretty obvious.  But then they went into more interesting topics like "brown fat", which burns extra calories (humans don't have as much brown fat as other species), as well as psychology - the "self-control muscle."
<br> <br>
They say that self-control is a zero-sum game and that by running for an hour, you are actually depleting your self-control to avoid eating a bag of chips.  Like any "muscle," I'm sure one's psychology can be improved, but I've certainly noticed this myself:  One reason I don't exercise more often is because I like having the energy to go to work.
<br> <br>
Anyway, exercise does make you lose weight (duh).  But in a 24 hour day, there are 23 great opportunities to ruin the 1 hour of real effort that you made.
<br> <br>
Of course, the real question is, do athletes live longer?  I think if they did, we would have heard about it by now.  Either that, or we've stopped funding studies in this country.  Because athletes living 10 years longer than the rest of us would be the blockbuster study for sure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time Magazine covered this three months ago [ time.com ] .
The article started off by pointing out that exercise stimulates hunger , which by itself is pretty obvious .
But then they went into more interesting topics like " brown fat " , which burns extra calories ( humans do n't have as much brown fat as other species ) , as well as psychology - the " self-control muscle .
" They say that self-control is a zero-sum game and that by running for an hour , you are actually depleting your self-control to avoid eating a bag of chips .
Like any " muscle , " I 'm sure one 's psychology can be improved , but I 've certainly noticed this myself : One reason I do n't exercise more often is because I like having the energy to go to work .
Anyway , exercise does make you lose weight ( duh ) .
But in a 24 hour day , there are 23 great opportunities to ruin the 1 hour of real effort that you made .
Of course , the real question is , do athletes live longer ?
I think if they did , we would have heard about it by now .
Either that , or we 've stopped funding studies in this country .
Because athletes living 10 years longer than the rest of us would be the blockbuster study for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time Magazine covered this three months ago [time.com].
The article started off by pointing out that exercise stimulates hunger, which by itself is pretty obvious.
But then they went into more interesting topics like "brown fat", which burns extra calories (humans don't have as much brown fat as other species), as well as psychology - the "self-control muscle.
"
 
They say that self-control is a zero-sum game and that by running for an hour, you are actually depleting your self-control to avoid eating a bag of chips.
Like any "muscle," I'm sure one's psychology can be improved, but I've certainly noticed this myself:  One reason I don't exercise more often is because I like having the energy to go to work.
Anyway, exercise does make you lose weight (duh).
But in a 24 hour day, there are 23 great opportunities to ruin the 1 hour of real effort that you made.
Of course, the real question is, do athletes live longer?
I think if they did, we would have heard about it by now.
Either that, or we've stopped funding studies in this country.
Because athletes living 10 years longer than the rest of us would be the blockbuster study for sure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034824</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257790320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Diet food doesn't come in a box.  It comes in a pile or a bin, often unlabeled.  Stay the hell away from the frozen foods section.  There's nothing good there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Diet food does n't come in a box .
It comes in a pile or a bin , often unlabeled .
Stay the hell away from the frozen foods section .
There 's nothing good there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Diet food doesn't come in a box.
It comes in a pile or a bin, often unlabeled.
Stay the hell away from the frozen foods section.
There's nothing good there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033618</id>
	<title>Lard eaters don't lose weight? UNPOSSIBLE</title>
	<author>rebelwarlock</author>
	<datestamp>1257785520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People who are obese didn't get that way by being lazy. Being lazy is only part of it. Cramming chocolate cake down your maw 24/7 plays a much bigger role.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who are obese did n't get that way by being lazy .
Being lazy is only part of it .
Cramming chocolate cake down your maw 24/7 plays a much bigger role .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who are obese didn't get that way by being lazy.
Being lazy is only part of it.
Cramming chocolate cake down your maw 24/7 plays a much bigger role.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30036144</id>
	<title>Re:All you slim theoreticians...</title>
	<author>DoctorHow</author>
	<datestamp>1257795360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>It's all about the hormones... </b>
<p>
Check out my reply to the original post here and tell me what you think.
</p><p>
<a href="http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&amp;cid=30035102" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&amp;cid=30035102</a> [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]
</p><p>
I used to be all about the "calories in/calories out" bookeeping, but once you see the actual cellular mechanisms at work, its a real DOH! eye opener.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all about the hormones.. . Check out my reply to the original post here and tell me what you think .
http : //science.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1436166&amp;cid = 30035102 [ slashdot.org ] [ slashdot.org ] I used to be all about the " calories in/calories out " bookeeping , but once you see the actual cellular mechanisms at work , its a real DOH !
eye opener .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all about the hormones... 

Check out my reply to the original post here and tell me what you think.
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&amp;cid=30035102 [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]

I used to be all about the "calories in/calories out" bookeeping, but once you see the actual cellular mechanisms at work, its a real DOH!
eye opener.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029714</id>
	<title>Re:Your body doesn't have a 100\% conversion factor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257798300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is hunger. Hunger is your body's way of saying "Hey, you know all that energy you're using doing that exercise? Replace it".</p><p>Exercise makes you expend more energy, but also makes your body want more energy to compensate. The net result is that people don't lose weight by exercising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is hunger .
Hunger is your body 's way of saying " Hey , you know all that energy you 're using doing that exercise ?
Replace it " .Exercise makes you expend more energy , but also makes your body want more energy to compensate .
The net result is that people do n't lose weight by exercising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is hunger.
Hunger is your body's way of saying "Hey, you know all that energy you're using doing that exercise?
Replace it".Exercise makes you expend more energy, but also makes your body want more energy to compensate.
The net result is that people don't lose weight by exercising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031484</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1257775620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I changed the amount of food I ate from large dishes to normal dishes</i></p><p>How do you do that with US restaurant portions?</p><p>"I'd like a small meal, please."<br>"OK, one supersized-mega kids' meal coming right up!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I changed the amount of food I ate from large dishes to normal dishesHow do you do that with US restaurant portions ?
" I 'd like a small meal , please .
" " OK , one supersized-mega kids ' meal coming right up !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I changed the amount of food I ate from large dishes to normal dishesHow do you do that with US restaurant portions?
"I'd like a small meal, please.
""OK, one supersized-mega kids' meal coming right up!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031496</id>
	<title>Re:But it's all physics? *snark*</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1257775740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you lost several pounds a day from spending 30 minutes on a treadmill, how many pounds would a Middle Ages farm worker carrying buckets of water and plowing a field from dawn to dusk spend? His entire weight x 3? The amount of exercise people usually do in a gym is hardly enough to lose weight. Neither intensive enough, nor for enough time to do a damn. You should also note that those Middle Ages farm workers did all that exercise having less to eat than you do.
<p>
You should do exercise to improve your fitness (muscle mass, heart condition). If you want to lose weight the fastest way to do it is to eat less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you lost several pounds a day from spending 30 minutes on a treadmill , how many pounds would a Middle Ages farm worker carrying buckets of water and plowing a field from dawn to dusk spend ?
His entire weight x 3 ?
The amount of exercise people usually do in a gym is hardly enough to lose weight .
Neither intensive enough , nor for enough time to do a damn .
You should also note that those Middle Ages farm workers did all that exercise having less to eat than you do .
You should do exercise to improve your fitness ( muscle mass , heart condition ) .
If you want to lose weight the fastest way to do it is to eat less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you lost several pounds a day from spending 30 minutes on a treadmill, how many pounds would a Middle Ages farm worker carrying buckets of water and plowing a field from dawn to dusk spend?
His entire weight x 3?
The amount of exercise people usually do in a gym is hardly enough to lose weight.
Neither intensive enough, nor for enough time to do a damn.
You should also note that those Middle Ages farm workers did all that exercise having less to eat than you do.
You should do exercise to improve your fitness (muscle mass, heart condition).
If you want to lose weight the fastest way to do it is to eat less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033510</id>
	<title>Umm...DUH?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257784980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"training without changing their diets."<br>"How can that be?"</p><p>Seriously? You are seriously asking this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" training without changing their diets .
" " How can that be ? " Seriously ?
You are seriously asking this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"training without changing their diets.
""How can that be?"Seriously?
You are seriously asking this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030362</id>
	<title>Re:Take it from the horses mouth</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1257762600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Losing weight requires a fundamental rethinking of your lifestyle.</i> </p><p>Lifestyle? That's if your 'lifestyle' is entirely defined by your eating habits.

</p><p>Now if you're a skinny fuck like me and you're trying to get weight, that's more like a lifestyle change. Cause, you have to find the best way to stuff your mouth that your stomach can take, that means finding an optimal way of eating, which can mean eating 6 meals a day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Losing weight requires a fundamental rethinking of your lifestyle .
Lifestyle ? That 's if your 'lifestyle ' is entirely defined by your eating habits .
Now if you 're a skinny fuck like me and you 're trying to get weight , that 's more like a lifestyle change .
Cause , you have to find the best way to stuff your mouth that your stomach can take , that means finding an optimal way of eating , which can mean eating 6 meals a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Losing weight requires a fundamental rethinking of your lifestyle.
Lifestyle? That's if your 'lifestyle' is entirely defined by your eating habits.
Now if you're a skinny fuck like me and you're trying to get weight, that's more like a lifestyle change.
Cause, you have to find the best way to stuff your mouth that your stomach can take, that means finding an optimal way of eating, which can mean eating 6 meals a day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030228</id>
	<title>Exercise is Hard - but it works</title>
	<author>sl149q</author>
	<datestamp>1257760740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The exercise test described in the NY times article is what we cyclists call a recovery ride and I would expect that it would only burn through a couple hundred calories at best<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>I am a computer nerd, but I also race on my bike and train between 6-10 hours a week. Typical workout is 2 hours and my calorie burn is about 600 calories per hour. This is the equivalent of about 1-2 pounds a week of weight. And I have to make sure I eat enough to maintain my weight. When I took 4 weeks off in September my weight shot up 8 pounds<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>It really does end up as calories in versus calories used. But the amount of hard work it takes to burn through 3500 calories (a pound of fat) is far far more than most people think it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The exercise test described in the NY times article is what we cyclists call a recovery ride and I would expect that it would only burn through a couple hundred calories at best ..I am a computer nerd , but I also race on my bike and train between 6-10 hours a week .
Typical workout is 2 hours and my calorie burn is about 600 calories per hour .
This is the equivalent of about 1-2 pounds a week of weight .
And I have to make sure I eat enough to maintain my weight .
When I took 4 weeks off in September my weight shot up 8 pounds ....It really does end up as calories in versus calories used .
But the amount of hard work it takes to burn through 3500 calories ( a pound of fat ) is far far more than most people think it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The exercise test described in the NY times article is what we cyclists call a recovery ride and I would expect that it would only burn through a couple hundred calories at best ..I am a computer nerd, but I also race on my bike and train between 6-10 hours a week.
Typical workout is 2 hours and my calorie burn is about 600 calories per hour.
This is the equivalent of about 1-2 pounds a week of weight.
And I have to make sure I eat enough to maintain my weight.
When I took 4 weeks off in September my weight shot up 8 pounds ....It really does end up as calories in versus calories used.
But the amount of hard work it takes to burn through 3500 calories (a pound of fat) is far far more than most people think it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031562</id>
	<title>Mass</title>
	<author>RoccamOccam</author>
	<datestamp>1257776100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems interesting to me that I never see discussion of food mass in this type of discussion.  It's almost like everyone treats it as E=mc^2, with direct conversion of (caloric) energy to (body) mass.  Is it really that simple?  If I drink a 1000-calorie milkshake, does that generally mean that's all that I need to look at?  How much does it matter that most of that mass is water, which is easily excreted?  For that matter, since we have to balance mass in and mass out to maintain our weight, how much is lost in the obvious way (excretion) and how much is lost in the others?  Do we lose any significant mass (carbon) via respiration?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems interesting to me that I never see discussion of food mass in this type of discussion .
It 's almost like everyone treats it as E = mc ^ 2 , with direct conversion of ( caloric ) energy to ( body ) mass .
Is it really that simple ?
If I drink a 1000-calorie milkshake , does that generally mean that 's all that I need to look at ?
How much does it matter that most of that mass is water , which is easily excreted ?
For that matter , since we have to balance mass in and mass out to maintain our weight , how much is lost in the obvious way ( excretion ) and how much is lost in the others ?
Do we lose any significant mass ( carbon ) via respiration ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems interesting to me that I never see discussion of food mass in this type of discussion.
It's almost like everyone treats it as E=mc^2, with direct conversion of (caloric) energy to (body) mass.
Is it really that simple?
If I drink a 1000-calorie milkshake, does that generally mean that's all that I need to look at?
How much does it matter that most of that mass is water, which is easily excreted?
For that matter, since we have to balance mass in and mass out to maintain our weight, how much is lost in the obvious way (excretion) and how much is lost in the others?
Do we lose any significant mass (carbon) via respiration?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029690</id>
	<title>news for nerds ..</title>
	<author>kaka.mala.vachva</author>
	<datestamp>1257798000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How does this matter? Bleah - myspace, twitter we are.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does this matter ?
Bleah - myspace , twitter we are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does this matter?
Bleah - myspace, twitter we are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034666</id>
	<title>Re:All you slim theoreticians...</title>
	<author>benhattman</author>
	<datestamp>1257789660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then you start feeling hungry, and the body which has a tendency to gain fat, usually gains it because your hunger feels more intense to you than to most slim people who just shrug it off. Take it from an obese person, getting really hungry feels somewhat like drug starvation, you feel ultra-miserable. And still you need to cut on the calories.</p></div><p>That's how it feels for everyone.  Hunger is there to let you know you are starving, or at least on the path towards starving.  It's meant as a reminder to eat something.</p><p>I know for me, I just have to consciously recognize that some hunger is a good thing.  For example, if you are hungry all day long, you're probably eating too little, but if you eat proper portions you should always wake up hungry.  That's how I know if I ate too much the night before; did I wake up kind of hungry?</p><p>Also, your complaint about weight loss taking time is just excuse making.  I have lost 30 lbs over the last 4 years, and I feel/look great by comparison.  Do the math on that, and I'm losing less than a pound a month.  I wasn't obese, but I was overweight, and it has made a major difference in my energy levels, how I feel, and how I feel about my self image.  Small improvements over time do add up, you just need a diet that is sustainable over that time.  If you can lose half a pound a month, without suffering you might be able to keep it up unlike the dieting you described above.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you start feeling hungry , and the body which has a tendency to gain fat , usually gains it because your hunger feels more intense to you than to most slim people who just shrug it off .
Take it from an obese person , getting really hungry feels somewhat like drug starvation , you feel ultra-miserable .
And still you need to cut on the calories.That 's how it feels for everyone .
Hunger is there to let you know you are starving , or at least on the path towards starving .
It 's meant as a reminder to eat something.I know for me , I just have to consciously recognize that some hunger is a good thing .
For example , if you are hungry all day long , you 're probably eating too little , but if you eat proper portions you should always wake up hungry .
That 's how I know if I ate too much the night before ; did I wake up kind of hungry ? Also , your complaint about weight loss taking time is just excuse making .
I have lost 30 lbs over the last 4 years , and I feel/look great by comparison .
Do the math on that , and I 'm losing less than a pound a month .
I was n't obese , but I was overweight , and it has made a major difference in my energy levels , how I feel , and how I feel about my self image .
Small improvements over time do add up , you just need a diet that is sustainable over that time .
If you can lose half a pound a month , without suffering you might be able to keep it up unlike the dieting you described above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you start feeling hungry, and the body which has a tendency to gain fat, usually gains it because your hunger feels more intense to you than to most slim people who just shrug it off.
Take it from an obese person, getting really hungry feels somewhat like drug starvation, you feel ultra-miserable.
And still you need to cut on the calories.That's how it feels for everyone.
Hunger is there to let you know you are starving, or at least on the path towards starving.
It's meant as a reminder to eat something.I know for me, I just have to consciously recognize that some hunger is a good thing.
For example, if you are hungry all day long, you're probably eating too little, but if you eat proper portions you should always wake up hungry.
That's how I know if I ate too much the night before; did I wake up kind of hungry?Also, your complaint about weight loss taking time is just excuse making.
I have lost 30 lbs over the last 4 years, and I feel/look great by comparison.
Do the math on that, and I'm losing less than a pound a month.
I wasn't obese, but I was overweight, and it has made a major difference in my energy levels, how I feel, and how I feel about my self image.
Small improvements over time do add up, you just need a diet that is sustainable over that time.
If you can lose half a pound a month, without suffering you might be able to keep it up unlike the dieting you described above.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030612</id>
	<title>because...!</title>
	<author>Odinlake</author>
	<datestamp>1257765360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...when you stuff your face with twice as much fat and fast carbs than what your body can process anyway, wriggling your fat around a bit and calling it exercise is like trying to empty a dam of water by scooping a bit of it manually over the edge (with a siphon).</htmltext>
<tokenext>...when you stuff your face with twice as much fat and fast carbs than what your body can process anyway , wriggling your fat around a bit and calling it exercise is like trying to empty a dam of water by scooping a bit of it manually over the edge ( with a siphon ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...when you stuff your face with twice as much fat and fast carbs than what your body can process anyway, wriggling your fat around a bit and calling it exercise is like trying to empty a dam of water by scooping a bit of it manually over the edge (with a siphon).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034498</id>
	<title>Exercise in only half the answer</title>
	<author>crmarvin42</author>
	<datestamp>1257789000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is stupid.  <br> <br>The reason why exercise does not guarantee weight loss is nutrition.  It's a numbers game.  Going from being a couch potatoe to trying to run marathons will not work if you continue to eat more calories than you burn.<br> <br>
EI = Total amount of energy taken in<br>
EO = Total amount of energy used for work<br>
If you increase both EO and EI, there will be no weight loss.  There will be other health benefits, but as long as you are taking in more calories than you are using in a given day you will gain weight.<br> <br>Starving yourself can result in weight loss, but it will be unhealthy.  The best way to loose weight is to exercise and modulate your caloric intake.  People seem to fixate either on calories or exercise when BOTH are required to loose weight in a healthy way.  That's why the Fad Diet of the week never seems to work for long.  You get board with it, your body's metabolism adapts to the new cycle/source of energy intake and optimizes the efficiency of energy digestion and utilization.  However, if you count calories AND exercise you will eventually burn off calories and loose the weight you want, and even if you fall off of the wagon occationally, you'll still have the high metabolic rate or controlled calorie intake to keep the minor slip up from leading to major weight gain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is stupid .
The reason why exercise does not guarantee weight loss is nutrition .
It 's a numbers game .
Going from being a couch potatoe to trying to run marathons will not work if you continue to eat more calories than you burn .
EI = Total amount of energy taken in EO = Total amount of energy used for work If you increase both EO and EI , there will be no weight loss .
There will be other health benefits , but as long as you are taking in more calories than you are using in a given day you will gain weight .
Starving yourself can result in weight loss , but it will be unhealthy .
The best way to loose weight is to exercise and modulate your caloric intake .
People seem to fixate either on calories or exercise when BOTH are required to loose weight in a healthy way .
That 's why the Fad Diet of the week never seems to work for long .
You get board with it , your body 's metabolism adapts to the new cycle/source of energy intake and optimizes the efficiency of energy digestion and utilization .
However , if you count calories AND exercise you will eventually burn off calories and loose the weight you want , and even if you fall off of the wagon occationally , you 'll still have the high metabolic rate or controlled calorie intake to keep the minor slip up from leading to major weight gain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is stupid.
The reason why exercise does not guarantee weight loss is nutrition.
It's a numbers game.
Going from being a couch potatoe to trying to run marathons will not work if you continue to eat more calories than you burn.
EI = Total amount of energy taken in
EO = Total amount of energy used for work
If you increase both EO and EI, there will be no weight loss.
There will be other health benefits, but as long as you are taking in more calories than you are using in a given day you will gain weight.
Starving yourself can result in weight loss, but it will be unhealthy.
The best way to loose weight is to exercise and modulate your caloric intake.
People seem to fixate either on calories or exercise when BOTH are required to loose weight in a healthy way.
That's why the Fad Diet of the week never seems to work for long.
You get board with it, your body's metabolism adapts to the new cycle/source of energy intake and optimizes the efficiency of energy digestion and utilization.
However, if you count calories AND exercise you will eventually burn off calories and loose the weight you want, and even if you fall off of the wagon occationally, you'll still have the high metabolic rate or controlled calorie intake to keep the minor slip up from leading to major weight gain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035450</id>
	<title>Make all the excuses you want...</title>
	<author>singingjim1</author>
	<datestamp>1257792780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...to not exercise, but besides exercise burning calories it's just generally better for you in so many other ways than just changing your diet, or dieting in general. Exercise strengthens your body and heart, brings levels of cholesterol and triglycerides to healthy levels, decreases blood pressure, gives you more energy. Lean muscle burns more calories while at rest as well as when you're exercising. The more muscle you have the more calories you burn even when you're sitting at your desk playing 2-D Duke Nukem. I started mountain biking last year and have lost 40 lbs. (255 down to 215)  riding 5 days a week/15 miles (trails, not roads) a day. Sure you have to find time for that, but I bet most people could replace one sedentary past time with an active one without missing a beat and the lbs. will start dropping off immediately. I haven't changed my diet one bit which is why I've only lost 40 lbs. If I reduced my carb (read-beer and pasta) intake I could probably drop another 20 lbs. in a matter of a couple months. I am still losing weight a pound at a time and am healthier than I've been in years. I went from my doctor threatening me with Lipitor to cholesterol and triglyceride levels below normal in 6 months. From exercise, not diet change. Exercise is better for you in so many other ways (increases libido and sexual performance) that dieting could never claim.  Nike has it right - Just Do It!  I feel and look fantastic!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...to not exercise , but besides exercise burning calories it 's just generally better for you in so many other ways than just changing your diet , or dieting in general .
Exercise strengthens your body and heart , brings levels of cholesterol and triglycerides to healthy levels , decreases blood pressure , gives you more energy .
Lean muscle burns more calories while at rest as well as when you 're exercising .
The more muscle you have the more calories you burn even when you 're sitting at your desk playing 2-D Duke Nukem .
I started mountain biking last year and have lost 40 lbs .
( 255 down to 215 ) riding 5 days a week/15 miles ( trails , not roads ) a day .
Sure you have to find time for that , but I bet most people could replace one sedentary past time with an active one without missing a beat and the lbs .
will start dropping off immediately .
I have n't changed my diet one bit which is why I 've only lost 40 lbs .
If I reduced my carb ( read-beer and pasta ) intake I could probably drop another 20 lbs .
in a matter of a couple months .
I am still losing weight a pound at a time and am healthier than I 've been in years .
I went from my doctor threatening me with Lipitor to cholesterol and triglyceride levels below normal in 6 months .
From exercise , not diet change .
Exercise is better for you in so many other ways ( increases libido and sexual performance ) that dieting could never claim .
Nike has it right - Just Do It !
I feel and look fantastic !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to not exercise, but besides exercise burning calories it's just generally better for you in so many other ways than just changing your diet, or dieting in general.
Exercise strengthens your body and heart, brings levels of cholesterol and triglycerides to healthy levels, decreases blood pressure, gives you more energy.
Lean muscle burns more calories while at rest as well as when you're exercising.
The more muscle you have the more calories you burn even when you're sitting at your desk playing 2-D Duke Nukem.
I started mountain biking last year and have lost 40 lbs.
(255 down to 215)  riding 5 days a week/15 miles (trails, not roads) a day.
Sure you have to find time for that, but I bet most people could replace one sedentary past time with an active one without missing a beat and the lbs.
will start dropping off immediately.
I haven't changed my diet one bit which is why I've only lost 40 lbs.
If I reduced my carb (read-beer and pasta) intake I could probably drop another 20 lbs.
in a matter of a couple months.
I am still losing weight a pound at a time and am healthier than I've been in years.
I went from my doctor threatening me with Lipitor to cholesterol and triglyceride levels below normal in 6 months.
From exercise, not diet change.
Exercise is better for you in so many other ways (increases libido and sexual performance) that dieting could never claim.
Nike has it right - Just Do It!
I feel and look fantastic!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30040548</id>
	<title>What is this?</title>
	<author>tengeta</author>
	<datestamp>1257772440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, you have to change what you do in your diet. How many times does that have to be said? Exercise alone is useless, we have known that for a damn long time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , you have to change what you do in your diet .
How many times does that have to be said ?
Exercise alone is useless , we have known that for a damn long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, you have to change what you do in your diet.
How many times does that have to be said?
Exercise alone is useless, we have known that for a damn long time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30043124</id>
	<title>Re:Conservation of Energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257886020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The human body is not a nuclear reactor. It does not convert energy into mass.</p><p>Conservation of Mass is correct concept. Weight (mass) gain/loss is the difference between what you consume and what you excrete. So simple a 3 year old could understand it.</p><p>Next time someone talks about "burning off" fat punch him/her in the face. Seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The human body is not a nuclear reactor .
It does not convert energy into mass.Conservation of Mass is correct concept .
Weight ( mass ) gain/loss is the difference between what you consume and what you excrete .
So simple a 3 year old could understand it.Next time someone talks about " burning off " fat punch him/her in the face .
Seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The human body is not a nuclear reactor.
It does not convert energy into mass.Conservation of Mass is correct concept.
Weight (mass) gain/loss is the difference between what you consume and what you excrete.
So simple a 3 year old could understand it.Next time someone talks about "burning off" fat punch him/her in the face.
Seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032984</id>
	<title>STUPID SUMMARY</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1257783000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary asks "Why Doesn't Exercise Lead To Weight Loss?"<br>But "The group lost an average of a little more than seven pounds"</p><p>What?? Are you retarded?  An average of 7 pounds in 3 months is pretty decent!  Keep that up for a year, and you've lost 28 pounds.  Two years and you've lost 56 pounds.  10 years = 280 pounds.</p><p>Think about how long you spent putting ON that weight before you decided to do anything.<br>These subjects probably spent DECADES over-eating and totally sedentary.<br>Imagine if you spent all those years exercising like you should have been!</p><p>And the study didn't even *try* to control their diet.<br>So results obviously could have been even better!!!</p><p>Sounds like somebody just wants an excuse not to exercise.<br>Because this research shows that exercise *works*.</p><p>FTFA: People "are only burning 200 or 300 calories" in a typical 30-minute exercise session, Melanson points out. "You replace that with one bottle of Gatorade."<br>--</p><p>Gatorade???<br>If you're trying to lose weight, why the fuck are you drinking high-fructose corn syrup??</p><p>The only people who have *any* business drinking Brawndo are (1) HUMMINGBIRDS, and (2) skinny people running marathons who actually *need* an instant energy source to fuel their muscles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary asks " Why Does n't Exercise Lead To Weight Loss ?
" But " The group lost an average of a little more than seven pounds " What ? ?
Are you retarded ?
An average of 7 pounds in 3 months is pretty decent !
Keep that up for a year , and you 've lost 28 pounds .
Two years and you 've lost 56 pounds .
10 years = 280 pounds.Think about how long you spent putting ON that weight before you decided to do anything.These subjects probably spent DECADES over-eating and totally sedentary.Imagine if you spent all those years exercising like you should have been ! And the study did n't even * try * to control their diet.So results obviously could have been even better ! !
! Sounds like somebody just wants an excuse not to exercise.Because this research shows that exercise * works * .FTFA : People " are only burning 200 or 300 calories " in a typical 30-minute exercise session , Melanson points out .
" You replace that with one bottle of Gatorade. " --Gatorade ? ?
? If you 're trying to lose weight , why the fuck are you drinking high-fructose corn syrup ?
? The only people who have * any * business drinking Brawndo are ( 1 ) HUMMINGBIRDS , and ( 2 ) skinny people running marathons who actually * need * an instant energy source to fuel their muscles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary asks "Why Doesn't Exercise Lead To Weight Loss?
"But "The group lost an average of a little more than seven pounds"What??
Are you retarded?
An average of 7 pounds in 3 months is pretty decent!
Keep that up for a year, and you've lost 28 pounds.
Two years and you've lost 56 pounds.
10 years = 280 pounds.Think about how long you spent putting ON that weight before you decided to do anything.These subjects probably spent DECADES over-eating and totally sedentary.Imagine if you spent all those years exercising like you should have been!And the study didn't even *try* to control their diet.So results obviously could have been even better!!
!Sounds like somebody just wants an excuse not to exercise.Because this research shows that exercise *works*.FTFA: People "are only burning 200 or 300 calories" in a typical 30-minute exercise session, Melanson points out.
"You replace that with one bottle of Gatorade."--Gatorade??
?If you're trying to lose weight, why the fuck are you drinking high-fructose corn syrup?
?The only people who have *any* business drinking Brawndo are (1) HUMMINGBIRDS, and (2) skinny people running marathons who actually *need* an instant energy source to fuel their muscles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030714</id>
	<title>My diet/exercise experiences</title>
	<author>chrisG23</author>
	<datestamp>1257766680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was once obese, 300 lbs. I lost 100 pounds over an 18 month period by going on a low carb diet, with no significant extra exercise. My thoughts on that are that if your body is capable of going into ketosis (the mode where it gears up for using fat as energy, both from food in the stomach and fat stores throughout the body) then it is effective for weight reduction. Also, eating a low carb diet got very boring for me, and I found myself eating less because of this (was never hungry or starving myself though). This of course is different for everyone.<br> <br>
Next major body change was when I joined the Navy. I went into boot camp weighing 199, I got down 8 weeks later weighing 199 but with vastly less body fat. My physical structure changed significantly. I started off not eating to much, but ending up consuming pretty large amounts of calories (and drinking tons of water, that is very much forced on new recruits to avoid dehydration problems which are very common when you are exercising in one form or another for most of the day.) Most of the people in my division did not lose weight, some gained a few pounds, all were in vastly improved physical condition. Not big body builder type musles, but lean endurance muscles.<br> <br>
The best method of weight control/weight loss I know is to not eat until I feel full. If I am hungry I will eat until the hunger stops, and then wait 15 to 30 minutes. Sometimes I find there is more room, usually I find that I am full. It seems to take food some time to settle in and for my stomach to give the feedback to the brain that it is doing alright. The stomach is actually a pretty small organ and the digestive system seems to operate best when working on small loads. Full loads both have the effect of stretching and enlarging the stomach (thus making it more difficult to feel full) and diverting energy to digestion (alot of energy is consumed for digestion, thats why people go on health fasts, to give the rest of the body a period of time where the body's energy can be continuously applied to other systems for repair and maintenance. Thats the idea anyway) that could be used for other things, like keeping one alert and full of energy and providing for the immune system to do its job.<br> <br>

My $0.02</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was once obese , 300 lbs .
I lost 100 pounds over an 18 month period by going on a low carb diet , with no significant extra exercise .
My thoughts on that are that if your body is capable of going into ketosis ( the mode where it gears up for using fat as energy , both from food in the stomach and fat stores throughout the body ) then it is effective for weight reduction .
Also , eating a low carb diet got very boring for me , and I found myself eating less because of this ( was never hungry or starving myself though ) .
This of course is different for everyone .
Next major body change was when I joined the Navy .
I went into boot camp weighing 199 , I got down 8 weeks later weighing 199 but with vastly less body fat .
My physical structure changed significantly .
I started off not eating to much , but ending up consuming pretty large amounts of calories ( and drinking tons of water , that is very much forced on new recruits to avoid dehydration problems which are very common when you are exercising in one form or another for most of the day .
) Most of the people in my division did not lose weight , some gained a few pounds , all were in vastly improved physical condition .
Not big body builder type musles , but lean endurance muscles .
The best method of weight control/weight loss I know is to not eat until I feel full .
If I am hungry I will eat until the hunger stops , and then wait 15 to 30 minutes .
Sometimes I find there is more room , usually I find that I am full .
It seems to take food some time to settle in and for my stomach to give the feedback to the brain that it is doing alright .
The stomach is actually a pretty small organ and the digestive system seems to operate best when working on small loads .
Full loads both have the effect of stretching and enlarging the stomach ( thus making it more difficult to feel full ) and diverting energy to digestion ( alot of energy is consumed for digestion , thats why people go on health fasts , to give the rest of the body a period of time where the body 's energy can be continuously applied to other systems for repair and maintenance .
Thats the idea anyway ) that could be used for other things , like keeping one alert and full of energy and providing for the immune system to do its job .
My $ 0.02</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was once obese, 300 lbs.
I lost 100 pounds over an 18 month period by going on a low carb diet, with no significant extra exercise.
My thoughts on that are that if your body is capable of going into ketosis (the mode where it gears up for using fat as energy, both from food in the stomach and fat stores throughout the body) then it is effective for weight reduction.
Also, eating a low carb diet got very boring for me, and I found myself eating less because of this (was never hungry or starving myself though).
This of course is different for everyone.
Next major body change was when I joined the Navy.
I went into boot camp weighing 199, I got down 8 weeks later weighing 199 but with vastly less body fat.
My physical structure changed significantly.
I started off not eating to much, but ending up consuming pretty large amounts of calories (and drinking tons of water, that is very much forced on new recruits to avoid dehydration problems which are very common when you are exercising in one form or another for most of the day.
) Most of the people in my division did not lose weight, some gained a few pounds, all were in vastly improved physical condition.
Not big body builder type musles, but lean endurance muscles.
The best method of weight control/weight loss I know is to not eat until I feel full.
If I am hungry I will eat until the hunger stops, and then wait 15 to 30 minutes.
Sometimes I find there is more room, usually I find that I am full.
It seems to take food some time to settle in and for my stomach to give the feedback to the brain that it is doing alright.
The stomach is actually a pretty small organ and the digestive system seems to operate best when working on small loads.
Full loads both have the effect of stretching and enlarging the stomach (thus making it more difficult to feel full) and diverting energy to digestion (alot of energy is consumed for digestion, thats why people go on health fasts, to give the rest of the body a period of time where the body's energy can be continuously applied to other systems for repair and maintenance.
Thats the idea anyway) that could be used for other things, like keeping one alert and full of energy and providing for the immune system to do its job.
My $0.02</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030454</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>ralphbecket</author>
	<datestamp>1257763680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need something interactive.  I took up aikido: it's so complicated you haven't time to notice you're doing exercise.  But I'm pretty sure anything that captures your attention and is fun will do.  I can't stand the gym: teeedious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need something interactive .
I took up aikido : it 's so complicated you have n't time to notice you 're doing exercise .
But I 'm pretty sure anything that captures your attention and is fun will do .
I ca n't stand the gym : teeedious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need something interactive.
I took up aikido: it's so complicated you haven't time to notice you're doing exercise.
But I'm pretty sure anything that captures your attention and is fun will do.
I can't stand the gym: teeedious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029950</id>
	<title>Re:Be lazy and lose weight. Work hard and get fat!</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1257757740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are quite right but I feel the need to point out you don't need a gym or expensive equipment to get fit. There are some good books on fitness like <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Solitary-Fitness-Charles-Bronson/dp/1844543099/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1257753677&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.co.uk">http://www.amazon.co.uk/Solitary-Fitness-Charles-Bronson/dp/1844543099/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1257753677&amp;sr=8-1</a> [amazon.co.uk] and <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Official-British-Army-Fitness-Guide/dp/085265118X/ref=sr\_1\_3?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1257753739&amp;sr=8-3" title="amazon.co.uk">http://www.amazon.co.uk/Official-British-Army-Fitness-Guide/dp/085265118X/ref=sr\_1\_3?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1257753739&amp;sr=8-3</a> [amazon.co.uk] as well as countless good dvd's. The real costs are the time and effort.</p><p>All the equipment you really need is some dumbbells, a mat, and a pair of trainers. If you already have a soft carpet you can skip the mat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are quite right but I feel the need to point out you do n't need a gym or expensive equipment to get fit .
There are some good books on fitness like http : //www.amazon.co.uk/Solitary-Fitness-Charles-Bronson/dp/1844543099/ref = sr \ _1 \ _1 ? ie = UTF8&amp;s = books&amp;qid = 1257753677&amp;sr = 8-1 [ amazon.co.uk ] and http : //www.amazon.co.uk/Official-British-Army-Fitness-Guide/dp/085265118X/ref = sr \ _1 \ _3 ? ie = UTF8&amp;s = books&amp;qid = 1257753739&amp;sr = 8-3 [ amazon.co.uk ] as well as countless good dvd 's .
The real costs are the time and effort.All the equipment you really need is some dumbbells , a mat , and a pair of trainers .
If you already have a soft carpet you can skip the mat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are quite right but I feel the need to point out you don't need a gym or expensive equipment to get fit.
There are some good books on fitness like http://www.amazon.co.uk/Solitary-Fitness-Charles-Bronson/dp/1844543099/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1257753677&amp;sr=8-1 [amazon.co.uk] and http://www.amazon.co.uk/Official-British-Army-Fitness-Guide/dp/085265118X/ref=sr\_1\_3?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1257753739&amp;sr=8-3 [amazon.co.uk] as well as countless good dvd's.
The real costs are the time and effort.All the equipment you really need is some dumbbells, a mat, and a pair of trainers.
If you already have a soft carpet you can skip the mat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30042294</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>shermo</author>
	<datestamp>1257787860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's say you need to do 3 hours of exercise every week to 'stay in shape'. That's on the low side, but maybe not too far off if you consider it as 3 extra hours rather than the total amount. So that's 156 hours of exercise a year.</p><p>How would you value a healthy body?</p><p>Even at a meagre $1500/year that's a $10/hour ROI. Sounds ok to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say you need to do 3 hours of exercise every week to 'stay in shape' .
That 's on the low side , but maybe not too far off if you consider it as 3 extra hours rather than the total amount .
So that 's 156 hours of exercise a year.How would you value a healthy body ? Even at a meagre $ 1500/year that 's a $ 10/hour ROI .
Sounds ok to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say you need to do 3 hours of exercise every week to 'stay in shape'.
That's on the low side, but maybe not too far off if you consider it as 3 extra hours rather than the total amount.
So that's 156 hours of exercise a year.How would you value a healthy body?Even at a meagre $1500/year that's a $10/hour ROI.
Sounds ok to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030316</id>
	<title>Wrong type of exercise and wrong diet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257761820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It CAN work if you follow some simple rules:</p><p>1. Eat 5-6 small meals a day containing protein and always eat breakfast. 75\% of the meals should be 'healthy' (i.e. low in junk carbs like pasta and bread). You can use protein shakes as a couple of these meals per day.<br>2. Do weight training around 3 times per week for about 30-45 mins (varying the routine every 2 weeks or so).<br>3. Do light cardio 2-3 times per week on non-weight training days.<br>4. Drink plenty of water.</p><p>That's basically it and it works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It CAN work if you follow some simple rules : 1 .
Eat 5-6 small meals a day containing protein and always eat breakfast .
75 \ % of the meals should be 'healthy ' ( i.e .
low in junk carbs like pasta and bread ) .
You can use protein shakes as a couple of these meals per day.2 .
Do weight training around 3 times per week for about 30-45 mins ( varying the routine every 2 weeks or so ) .3 .
Do light cardio 2-3 times per week on non-weight training days.4 .
Drink plenty of water.That 's basically it and it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It CAN work if you follow some simple rules:1.
Eat 5-6 small meals a day containing protein and always eat breakfast.
75\% of the meals should be 'healthy' (i.e.
low in junk carbs like pasta and bread).
You can use protein shakes as a couple of these meals per day.2.
Do weight training around 3 times per week for about 30-45 mins (varying the routine every 2 weeks or so).3.
Do light cardio 2-3 times per week on non-weight training days.4.
Drink plenty of water.That's basically it and it works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030052</id>
	<title>Homeostatasis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257758880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is homeostasis - your body is self-regulating, and if you do more exercise you'll eat more. What's surprising is not how much people eat varies, but how much it stays the same. A recent documentary pointed out that a bodyweight of 40 stone comes to those who eat one third of an apple too much every day.</p><p>Also, obese people don't eat more than thin people - they often eat far less. One route to this seeming contradiction is diet and exercise. Sustained hunger and overexercise both trigger the autonomic stress response. That increases the amount of calories you burn - but it also makes your body burn muscle rather than fat for energy. As your muscle mass reduces, your resting metabolic rate drops. Because you need protein to replace lost muscle, you get hungry - and because high-protein foods are relatively expensive and inconvenient, the high fat high carb no protein snack foods tend to be preferred. That means you accumulate bodyfat, stay hungy and stressed, and continue to lose muscle and reduce your resting metabolic rate.</p><p>Why don't doctors explain this? As far as I can tell, as soon as you mention the word protein they think you're going to become a steroid abusing protein obsessed freak. They don't understand that overeating is unpleasant (just ask a bodybuilder - they have to force-feed themselves), so if you're eating enough of the nutrients you need you will naturally stop eating. They *KNOW* that increasing your protein intake tends to reduce your appetite and lead to reduced bodyweight - studies have proven it repeatedly. Rather than accept that this is simply because you're now getting the protein you need for homeostasis, some doctors prefer to imply that protein is an unhealthy appetite-suppressing narcotic! It's very much like all the studies that have consistently shown that obese people often eat less than thin people - rather than try to understand it (if you didn't notice, one mechanism is described in this reply) the normal reaction is to declare it impossible, call everyone involved liars and a frauds etc etc. Proof by closed-minded denial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is homeostasis - your body is self-regulating , and if you do more exercise you 'll eat more .
What 's surprising is not how much people eat varies , but how much it stays the same .
A recent documentary pointed out that a bodyweight of 40 stone comes to those who eat one third of an apple too much every day.Also , obese people do n't eat more than thin people - they often eat far less .
One route to this seeming contradiction is diet and exercise .
Sustained hunger and overexercise both trigger the autonomic stress response .
That increases the amount of calories you burn - but it also makes your body burn muscle rather than fat for energy .
As your muscle mass reduces , your resting metabolic rate drops .
Because you need protein to replace lost muscle , you get hungry - and because high-protein foods are relatively expensive and inconvenient , the high fat high carb no protein snack foods tend to be preferred .
That means you accumulate bodyfat , stay hungy and stressed , and continue to lose muscle and reduce your resting metabolic rate.Why do n't doctors explain this ?
As far as I can tell , as soon as you mention the word protein they think you 're going to become a steroid abusing protein obsessed freak .
They do n't understand that overeating is unpleasant ( just ask a bodybuilder - they have to force-feed themselves ) , so if you 're eating enough of the nutrients you need you will naturally stop eating .
They * KNOW * that increasing your protein intake tends to reduce your appetite and lead to reduced bodyweight - studies have proven it repeatedly .
Rather than accept that this is simply because you 're now getting the protein you need for homeostasis , some doctors prefer to imply that protein is an unhealthy appetite-suppressing narcotic !
It 's very much like all the studies that have consistently shown that obese people often eat less than thin people - rather than try to understand it ( if you did n't notice , one mechanism is described in this reply ) the normal reaction is to declare it impossible , call everyone involved liars and a frauds etc etc .
Proof by closed-minded denial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is homeostasis - your body is self-regulating, and if you do more exercise you'll eat more.
What's surprising is not how much people eat varies, but how much it stays the same.
A recent documentary pointed out that a bodyweight of 40 stone comes to those who eat one third of an apple too much every day.Also, obese people don't eat more than thin people - they often eat far less.
One route to this seeming contradiction is diet and exercise.
Sustained hunger and overexercise both trigger the autonomic stress response.
That increases the amount of calories you burn - but it also makes your body burn muscle rather than fat for energy.
As your muscle mass reduces, your resting metabolic rate drops.
Because you need protein to replace lost muscle, you get hungry - and because high-protein foods are relatively expensive and inconvenient, the high fat high carb no protein snack foods tend to be preferred.
That means you accumulate bodyfat, stay hungy and stressed, and continue to lose muscle and reduce your resting metabolic rate.Why don't doctors explain this?
As far as I can tell, as soon as you mention the word protein they think you're going to become a steroid abusing protein obsessed freak.
They don't understand that overeating is unpleasant (just ask a bodybuilder - they have to force-feed themselves), so if you're eating enough of the nutrients you need you will naturally stop eating.
They *KNOW* that increasing your protein intake tends to reduce your appetite and lead to reduced bodyweight - studies have proven it repeatedly.
Rather than accept that this is simply because you're now getting the protein you need for homeostasis, some doctors prefer to imply that protein is an unhealthy appetite-suppressing narcotic!
It's very much like all the studies that have consistently shown that obese people often eat less than thin people - rather than try to understand it (if you didn't notice, one mechanism is described in this reply) the normal reaction is to declare it impossible, call everyone involved liars and a frauds etc etc.
Proof by closed-minded denial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030916</id>
	<title>Re:Your body doesn't have a 100\% conversion factor</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257769740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google for Amylase.  It's an enzyme produced in your mouth that breaks down starch into sugar.  Things like rice and potatoes, which are high in starch, will be converted into sugars in your mouth.  If you swallow without much chewing then more starch will be passed to the next stages in your digestive process, which aren't equipped to handle it and so it will pass right through your system without being absorbed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google for Amylase .
It 's an enzyme produced in your mouth that breaks down starch into sugar .
Things like rice and potatoes , which are high in starch , will be converted into sugars in your mouth .
If you swallow without much chewing then more starch will be passed to the next stages in your digestive process , which are n't equipped to handle it and so it will pass right through your system without being absorbed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google for Amylase.
It's an enzyme produced in your mouth that breaks down starch into sugar.
Things like rice and potatoes, which are high in starch, will be converted into sugars in your mouth.
If you swallow without much chewing then more starch will be passed to the next stages in your digestive process, which aren't equipped to handle it and so it will pass right through your system without being absorbed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034528</id>
	<title>Re:Conservation of Energy</title>
	<author>Noose For A Neck</author>
	<datestamp>1257789120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another issue to consider would be the differences in digestion efficiency between the digestive tracts of different people. People who have trouble losing weight might just be much more effective at extracting usable calories from food consumed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another issue to consider would be the differences in digestion efficiency between the digestive tracts of different people .
People who have trouble losing weight might just be much more effective at extracting usable calories from food consumed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another issue to consider would be the differences in digestion efficiency between the digestive tracts of different people.
People who have trouble losing weight might just be much more effective at extracting usable calories from food consumed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029498</id>
	<title>Sit and be fit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257709920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple. Just by changing your diet is all you need to do. You don't have to move a single muscle to lose weight, that's a fact (look up people in a  comatose state). Your metabolism takes care of that naturally...even while sleeping.</p><p>I suspect the idea of exercising and bulking up to lose weight was supported by the media and all its vanity pushing ideals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple .
Just by changing your diet is all you need to do .
You do n't have to move a single muscle to lose weight , that 's a fact ( look up people in a comatose state ) .
Your metabolism takes care of that naturally...even while sleeping.I suspect the idea of exercising and bulking up to lose weight was supported by the media and all its vanity pushing ideals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple.
Just by changing your diet is all you need to do.
You don't have to move a single muscle to lose weight, that's a fact (look up people in a  comatose state).
Your metabolism takes care of that naturally...even while sleeping.I suspect the idea of exercising and bulking up to lose weight was supported by the media and all its vanity pushing ideals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029484</id>
	<title>Simple formula</title>
	<author>dogmatixpsych</author>
	<datestamp>1257709860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Losing weight is an easy formula: intake fewer calories than you expend. Doing that can be hard for various reasons but weight loss boils down to that one principle. That's what we teach people who come to our clinic for help with their weight. The key is that you have to eat the right kind of calories so you stay healthy - you just restrict how much you eat. Exercise will help up to a point - after that, people start gaining weight because they gain muscle mass (that's a good thing though).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Losing weight is an easy formula : intake fewer calories than you expend .
Doing that can be hard for various reasons but weight loss boils down to that one principle .
That 's what we teach people who come to our clinic for help with their weight .
The key is that you have to eat the right kind of calories so you stay healthy - you just restrict how much you eat .
Exercise will help up to a point - after that , people start gaining weight because they gain muscle mass ( that 's a good thing though ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Losing weight is an easy formula: intake fewer calories than you expend.
Doing that can be hard for various reasons but weight loss boils down to that one principle.
That's what we teach people who come to our clinic for help with their weight.
The key is that you have to eat the right kind of calories so you stay healthy - you just restrict how much you eat.
Exercise will help up to a point - after that, people start gaining weight because they gain muscle mass (that's a good thing though).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30052164</id>
	<title>Re:All you slim theoreticians...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257850620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Start smoking, then. Seriously, I was fat until the summer of my freshman year of college. Too poor to eat because I started spending what little money I had on cigarettes. Been of a regular weight ever since (even though I quit smoking) and it's the best thing I ever did for myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Start smoking , then .
Seriously , I was fat until the summer of my freshman year of college .
Too poor to eat because I started spending what little money I had on cigarettes .
Been of a regular weight ever since ( even though I quit smoking ) and it 's the best thing I ever did for myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Start smoking, then.
Seriously, I was fat until the summer of my freshman year of college.
Too poor to eat because I started spending what little money I had on cigarettes.
Been of a regular weight ever since (even though I quit smoking) and it's the best thing I ever did for myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032534</id>
	<title>Problem is common sense</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1257781260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, if the person is usually with a slow metabolism, it takes a long period before bringing the metabolism up especially in obese, people, however, the diet did not change, so if this person was consuming 3000 EXTRA calories that they could not burn before the exercise, and only did 1200 calories of exercise, then there is still an overabundance of calories that is being stored.</p><p>You have to combine exercise AND diet to make the person lose weight, you can not have just one.<br>They wasted their money doing this study, and we let them waste taxpayer dollars for this...jesus!<br>Any trainer worth their salt, tells you its a 2 part process diet and exercise.</p><p>You need to balance the food incoming equal to maintaining and or losing weight, some people even want to GAIN weight...<br>so each person needs a customized program, and can not just use a generic program without knowing what they are doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , if the person is usually with a slow metabolism , it takes a long period before bringing the metabolism up especially in obese , people , however , the diet did not change , so if this person was consuming 3000 EXTRA calories that they could not burn before the exercise , and only did 1200 calories of exercise , then there is still an overabundance of calories that is being stored.You have to combine exercise AND diet to make the person lose weight , you can not have just one.They wasted their money doing this study , and we let them waste taxpayer dollars for this...jesus ! Any trainer worth their salt , tells you its a 2 part process diet and exercise.You need to balance the food incoming equal to maintaining and or losing weight , some people even want to GAIN weight...so each person needs a customized program , and can not just use a generic program without knowing what they are doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, if the person is usually with a slow metabolism, it takes a long period before bringing the metabolism up especially in obese, people, however, the diet did not change, so if this person was consuming 3000 EXTRA calories that they could not burn before the exercise, and only did 1200 calories of exercise, then there is still an overabundance of calories that is being stored.You have to combine exercise AND diet to make the person lose weight, you can not have just one.They wasted their money doing this study, and we let them waste taxpayer dollars for this...jesus!Any trainer worth their salt, tells you its a 2 part process diet and exercise.You need to balance the food incoming equal to maintaining and or losing weight, some people even want to GAIN weight...so each person needs a customized program, and can not just use a generic program without knowing what they are doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033724</id>
	<title>How I did it:</title>
	<author>The Dancing Panda</author>
	<datestamp>1257786000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, I lost some weight a while back, around 40 pounds. It was pretty painless, honestly. I called it the put down the fork diet. It wasn't starving myself. Here's the mindset:<br> <br>
Basically, to start losing weight, you first have to stop gaining weight. We gain weight by eating, nothing more. Since matter cannot be created or destroyed, there is absolutely no way to gain more weight than the weight of the food we eat. Also,  we lose weight, primarily, by pissing and taking shits. The sky is blue.<br> <br>
So, from there, I just tried to eat "lighter" things. Not necessarily less volume, just lighter. Also, we piss more than shit, on average. So when I got hungry, I drank something low calorie (I like very lightly sweetened iced tea. Water also works). If after that, I was still hungry, I ate. Pita Pit was wonderful here, as their food is good, and not really heavy!<br> <br>
At first, it's difficult to get out of the habit of eating, but after a few days you get used to it. The pounds flew off, I lost about 15 lbs a month. I know that measuring the weight of stuff isn't as accurate as counting calories, but weight is easier to do on the fly, at a restaurant, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I lost some weight a while back , around 40 pounds .
It was pretty painless , honestly .
I called it the put down the fork diet .
It was n't starving myself .
Here 's the mindset : Basically , to start losing weight , you first have to stop gaining weight .
We gain weight by eating , nothing more .
Since matter can not be created or destroyed , there is absolutely no way to gain more weight than the weight of the food we eat .
Also , we lose weight , primarily , by pissing and taking shits .
The sky is blue .
So , from there , I just tried to eat " lighter " things .
Not necessarily less volume , just lighter .
Also , we piss more than shit , on average .
So when I got hungry , I drank something low calorie ( I like very lightly sweetened iced tea .
Water also works ) .
If after that , I was still hungry , I ate .
Pita Pit was wonderful here , as their food is good , and not really heavy !
At first , it 's difficult to get out of the habit of eating , but after a few days you get used to it .
The pounds flew off , I lost about 15 lbs a month .
I know that measuring the weight of stuff is n't as accurate as counting calories , but weight is easier to do on the fly , at a restaurant , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I lost some weight a while back, around 40 pounds.
It was pretty painless, honestly.
I called it the put down the fork diet.
It wasn't starving myself.
Here's the mindset: 
Basically, to start losing weight, you first have to stop gaining weight.
We gain weight by eating, nothing more.
Since matter cannot be created or destroyed, there is absolutely no way to gain more weight than the weight of the food we eat.
Also,  we lose weight, primarily, by pissing and taking shits.
The sky is blue.
So, from there, I just tried to eat "lighter" things.
Not necessarily less volume, just lighter.
Also, we piss more than shit, on average.
So when I got hungry, I drank something low calorie (I like very lightly sweetened iced tea.
Water also works).
If after that, I was still hungry, I ate.
Pita Pit was wonderful here, as their food is good, and not really heavy!
At first, it's difficult to get out of the habit of eating, but after a few days you get used to it.
The pounds flew off, I lost about 15 lbs a month.
I know that measuring the weight of stuff isn't as accurate as counting calories, but weight is easier to do on the fly, at a restaurant, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30041374</id>
	<title>Or be fat and focus on LIVING</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1257778620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously. Far too many fat people basically think that their life is on hold until they lose weight. "Once I get skinny, everything's gonna change." This is, of course, fucked. <br> <br>

I've been fat pretty much my whole life (currently 260 on a 5'11'' frame). I (quite truthfully) eat a pretty sane diet, rarely drink (maybe a beer or two a week), don't smoke and get moderate exercise (biking, walking, etc.) (And I don't own a game console, or a car for that matter.) I probably could be thinner if I hit the gym for an hour or two and stuck to a 1800 calorie diet <i>every day for the next 50-100 years.</i> But I'd rather just live my life, thanks.<br> <br>

This isn't to say I <i>haven't</i> tried in the past. Not too long ago for about a year and a half I used to bike commute (10 miles each way) and hit the nearby gym for some additional workout (I needed the gym to shower anyway.) I did lose some weight during that time but nothing dramatic - I was still a fat guy. But I bike-commuted mainly because it was <i>fun</i>, not just to lose weight. When my company changed offices bike commuting was no longer practical, so I also stopped hitting the gym. I still get my biking in on the weekends, because biking's still fun.<br> <br>

My advice if you're fat - and it took me far to long to accept this myself - is to go live your life. Get out of the house. Have fun. Meet people. Be adventurous. Hang out. volunteer. Buy good-looking clothes that fit well. Go dancing. Go to the beach. If anyone snickers at you doing something that's considered strictly at thin-person activity, just say "Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke." and keep going. If you're fat and doing all this already, more power to you.<br> <br>

And since this is one of the main objectives with weight loss: If you're single, go out on dates. Again, seriously. Fat people date, have sex, fall in love, etc. etc. all the time. Heterosexually speaking, there are plenty of women who don't mind if a guy's big. There are even plenty who <i>like</i> big guys. And there are certainly plenty of guys who like or don't mind big women (Raises hand!) You can look online, natch, but don't be afraid to give someone you like the eye. Ask them out. If you get the brush off or get shot down, well it happens to skinny people too. And remember that nothing is sadder than a fat person who hates others for being fat. Karma can be a bitch.<br> <br>

If you're looking to get exercise and eat better, go for it. But don't let an image of a skinny you dominate your life. Be one of those many people out there living long, happy, loving, fulfilled lives. Who also happen to be fat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
Far too many fat people basically think that their life is on hold until they lose weight .
" Once I get skinny , everything 's gon na change .
" This is , of course , fucked .
I 've been fat pretty much my whole life ( currently 260 on a 5'11' ' frame ) .
I ( quite truthfully ) eat a pretty sane diet , rarely drink ( maybe a beer or two a week ) , do n't smoke and get moderate exercise ( biking , walking , etc .
) ( And I do n't own a game console , or a car for that matter .
) I probably could be thinner if I hit the gym for an hour or two and stuck to a 1800 calorie diet every day for the next 50-100 years .
But I 'd rather just live my life , thanks .
This is n't to say I have n't tried in the past .
Not too long ago for about a year and a half I used to bike commute ( 10 miles each way ) and hit the nearby gym for some additional workout ( I needed the gym to shower anyway .
) I did lose some weight during that time but nothing dramatic - I was still a fat guy .
But I bike-commuted mainly because it was fun , not just to lose weight .
When my company changed offices bike commuting was no longer practical , so I also stopped hitting the gym .
I still get my biking in on the weekends , because biking 's still fun .
My advice if you 're fat - and it took me far to long to accept this myself - is to go live your life .
Get out of the house .
Have fun .
Meet people .
Be adventurous .
Hang out .
volunteer. Buy good-looking clothes that fit well .
Go dancing .
Go to the beach .
If anyone snickers at you doing something that 's considered strictly at thin-person activity , just say " Fuck 'em if they ca n't take a joke .
" and keep going .
If you 're fat and doing all this already , more power to you .
And since this is one of the main objectives with weight loss : If you 're single , go out on dates .
Again , seriously .
Fat people date , have sex , fall in love , etc .
etc. all the time .
Heterosexually speaking , there are plenty of women who do n't mind if a guy 's big .
There are even plenty who like big guys .
And there are certainly plenty of guys who like or do n't mind big women ( Raises hand !
) You can look online , natch , but do n't be afraid to give someone you like the eye .
Ask them out .
If you get the brush off or get shot down , well it happens to skinny people too .
And remember that nothing is sadder than a fat person who hates others for being fat .
Karma can be a bitch .
If you 're looking to get exercise and eat better , go for it .
But do n't let an image of a skinny you dominate your life .
Be one of those many people out there living long , happy , loving , fulfilled lives .
Who also happen to be fat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
Far too many fat people basically think that their life is on hold until they lose weight.
"Once I get skinny, everything's gonna change.
" This is, of course, fucked.
I've been fat pretty much my whole life (currently 260 on a 5'11'' frame).
I (quite truthfully) eat a pretty sane diet, rarely drink (maybe a beer or two a week), don't smoke and get moderate exercise (biking, walking, etc.
) (And I don't own a game console, or a car for that matter.
) I probably could be thinner if I hit the gym for an hour or two and stuck to a 1800 calorie diet every day for the next 50-100 years.
But I'd rather just live my life, thanks.
This isn't to say I haven't tried in the past.
Not too long ago for about a year and a half I used to bike commute (10 miles each way) and hit the nearby gym for some additional workout (I needed the gym to shower anyway.
) I did lose some weight during that time but nothing dramatic - I was still a fat guy.
But I bike-commuted mainly because it was fun, not just to lose weight.
When my company changed offices bike commuting was no longer practical, so I also stopped hitting the gym.
I still get my biking in on the weekends, because biking's still fun.
My advice if you're fat - and it took me far to long to accept this myself - is to go live your life.
Get out of the house.
Have fun.
Meet people.
Be adventurous.
Hang out.
volunteer. Buy good-looking clothes that fit well.
Go dancing.
Go to the beach.
If anyone snickers at you doing something that's considered strictly at thin-person activity, just say "Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
" and keep going.
If you're fat and doing all this already, more power to you.
And since this is one of the main objectives with weight loss: If you're single, go out on dates.
Again, seriously.
Fat people date, have sex, fall in love, etc.
etc. all the time.
Heterosexually speaking, there are plenty of women who don't mind if a guy's big.
There are even plenty who like big guys.
And there are certainly plenty of guys who like or don't mind big women (Raises hand!
) You can look online, natch, but don't be afraid to give someone you like the eye.
Ask them out.
If you get the brush off or get shot down, well it happens to skinny people too.
And remember that nothing is sadder than a fat person who hates others for being fat.
Karma can be a bitch.
If you're looking to get exercise and eat better, go for it.
But don't let an image of a skinny you dominate your life.
Be one of those many people out there living long, happy, loving, fulfilled lives.
Who also happen to be fat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030178</id>
	<title>Re:Your body doesn't have a 100\% conversion factor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257760320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well if you are - like me - a, er, large person (120kg) that is fairly active (I cycle to work about 12km each way most days and walk etc a lot) it is not that simple. It seems to me that the body has ways and means of hanging on to fat and the "settings" for these are different in different people. Hence the same diet and exercise regime in different people will get different results. I agree that eating less than a certain amount will, eventually, lead to weight loss but the amount can be quite small and your body can put you through hell because it doesn't want to lose the damn weight in case you need it for a "real" emergency.</p><p>You should exercise because it has health benefits apart from losing weight. Many (most) health professionals don't understand this and nag you about weight loss and exercise instead of using it to manage your overall fitness. As a result a lot of us fatties give up the exercise as "pointless" because we can't achieve the goals others say are achievable by that means. Just because you or I can do it doesn't many anyone can. Me, I reckon you can be fit and fat and for some of us we just have to live with it because we ain't designed to be thin! I mean all one body shape and mode of operation is evolutionarily dumb!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well if you are - like me - a , er , large person ( 120kg ) that is fairly active ( I cycle to work about 12km each way most days and walk etc a lot ) it is not that simple .
It seems to me that the body has ways and means of hanging on to fat and the " settings " for these are different in different people .
Hence the same diet and exercise regime in different people will get different results .
I agree that eating less than a certain amount will , eventually , lead to weight loss but the amount can be quite small and your body can put you through hell because it does n't want to lose the damn weight in case you need it for a " real " emergency.You should exercise because it has health benefits apart from losing weight .
Many ( most ) health professionals do n't understand this and nag you about weight loss and exercise instead of using it to manage your overall fitness .
As a result a lot of us fatties give up the exercise as " pointless " because we ca n't achieve the goals others say are achievable by that means .
Just because you or I can do it does n't many anyone can .
Me , I reckon you can be fit and fat and for some of us we just have to live with it because we ai n't designed to be thin !
I mean all one body shape and mode of operation is evolutionarily dumb !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well if you are - like me - a, er, large person (120kg) that is fairly active (I cycle to work about 12km each way most days and walk etc a lot) it is not that simple.
It seems to me that the body has ways and means of hanging on to fat and the "settings" for these are different in different people.
Hence the same diet and exercise regime in different people will get different results.
I agree that eating less than a certain amount will, eventually, lead to weight loss but the amount can be quite small and your body can put you through hell because it doesn't want to lose the damn weight in case you need it for a "real" emergency.You should exercise because it has health benefits apart from losing weight.
Many (most) health professionals don't understand this and nag you about weight loss and exercise instead of using it to manage your overall fitness.
As a result a lot of us fatties give up the exercise as "pointless" because we can't achieve the goals others say are achievable by that means.
Just because you or I can do it doesn't many anyone can.
Me, I reckon you can be fit and fat and for some of us we just have to live with it because we ain't designed to be thin!
I mean all one body shape and mode of operation is evolutionarily dumb!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030152</id>
	<title>Re:You're half right</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257759900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's no reason it has to stop at 15 lbs, though. I don't know where you're getting that.</p></div></blockquote><p>I heard it on an NPR program a year or two ago. It was the results of a careful study. I'll see if I can dig up a link. But, this article generally confirms it.</p><p>And yes, one can go beyond the 15 lbs "limit", but not in the long run. Sure, there's exceptions, and those are probably the ones selling snake-oil on TV.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no reason it has to stop at 15 lbs , though .
I do n't know where you 're getting that.I heard it on an NPR program a year or two ago .
It was the results of a careful study .
I 'll see if I can dig up a link .
But , this article generally confirms it.And yes , one can go beyond the 15 lbs " limit " , but not in the long run .
Sure , there 's exceptions , and those are probably the ones selling snake-oil on TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no reason it has to stop at 15 lbs, though.
I don't know where you're getting that.I heard it on an NPR program a year or two ago.
It was the results of a careful study.
I'll see if I can dig up a link.
But, this article generally confirms it.And yes, one can go beyond the 15 lbs "limit", but not in the long run.
Sure, there's exceptions, and those are probably the ones selling snake-oil on TV.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031788</id>
	<title>Re:12 weeks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257777480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excuse me, but your own quote seems to rebuff your exclusion...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; So they ALL lost weight. Only some (probably cheated on their diets/lied about their original diet) lost LESS weight than others.</p> </div><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Mean reduction in body weight was -3.3 &#177;3.63kg (P less than 0.01). </i> </p></div><p>This does look like there is a data point with -3.3 + 3.63 = +0.33 kg "weight reduction" (BTW. that sign is obviously wrong if we are talking about "reduction", but anyway...).<br>This seems quite contrary to your claim that ALL lost weight...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse me , but your own quote seems to rebuff your exclusion.. .       So they ALL lost weight .
Only some ( probably cheated on their diets/lied about their original diet ) lost LESS weight than others .
Mean reduction in body weight was -3.3   3.63kg ( P less than 0.01 ) .
This does look like there is a data point with -3.3 + 3.63 = + 0.33 kg " weight reduction " ( BTW .
that sign is obviously wrong if we are talking about " reduction " , but anyway... ) .This seems quite contrary to your claim that ALL lost weight.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse me, but your own quote seems to rebuff your exclusion...
      So they ALL lost weight.
Only some (probably cheated on their diets/lied about their original diet) lost LESS weight than others.
Mean reduction in body weight was -3.3 ±3.63kg (P less than 0.01).
This does look like there is a data point with -3.3 + 3.63 = +0.33 kg "weight reduction" (BTW.
that sign is obviously wrong if we are talking about "reduction", but anyway...).This seems quite contrary to your claim that ALL lost weight...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029766</id>
	<title>Re:Simple formula</title>
	<author>1in10</author>
	<datestamp>1257798840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with the "simple formula" is that it's a truism. Yeah of course if you expend more energy than you use you lose weight. That humans don't violate the laws of thermodynamics is hardly shocking.<br>The real challenge is actually causing the human body to use more energy than it expends over a sustained period.</p><p>Neither exercise nor calorie restriction has a proven track record of being able to do this. Even the most favourable studies done on the effectiveness of such regimes show that we're talking at most a 5\% success rate (and some studies put it much lower than that, in the sub 1\% range).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the " simple formula " is that it 's a truism .
Yeah of course if you expend more energy than you use you lose weight .
That humans do n't violate the laws of thermodynamics is hardly shocking.The real challenge is actually causing the human body to use more energy than it expends over a sustained period.Neither exercise nor calorie restriction has a proven track record of being able to do this .
Even the most favourable studies done on the effectiveness of such regimes show that we 're talking at most a 5 \ % success rate ( and some studies put it much lower than that , in the sub 1 \ % range ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with the "simple formula" is that it's a truism.
Yeah of course if you expend more energy than you use you lose weight.
That humans don't violate the laws of thermodynamics is hardly shocking.The real challenge is actually causing the human body to use more energy than it expends over a sustained period.Neither exercise nor calorie restriction has a proven track record of being able to do this.
Even the most favourable studies done on the effectiveness of such regimes show that we're talking at most a 5\% success rate (and some studies put it much lower than that, in the sub 1\% range).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031140</id>
	<title>Hacker's Diet FTW</title>
	<author>ATLHivemind</author>
	<datestamp>1257773040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In High school, I was 250+ that took up weight training. 2 years later i was ~ 225 and in the best shape of my life.
Two years after that I had balooned up to nearly 270. I wasn't working at the time.
At 270 I started on the Hacker's Diet. In 2 months I was down to 255. I started a job that kept me on my feet.
In another year I'd dropped back to 230.
Two years after that and I'm fighting the scales to stay at 250.

A little over 2 years ago I moved. my diet changed, my environment changed. I went from a strictish diet to eating whatever and whenever, the change exacerbated by the shift in environment.

I'm watching my weight again and trying my damdest to track calories. My new (relatively) job has my sitting at a desk 8 hours a day (Burger flipper is more active than helpdesk monkey).
I need to get back on the weightlifting bandwagon, and that means joining the local gym, a feat not financially feasable at present.
So I'm left with moderating calories trying to make my way down to 240.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In High school , I was 250 + that took up weight training .
2 years later i was ~ 225 and in the best shape of my life .
Two years after that I had balooned up to nearly 270 .
I was n't working at the time .
At 270 I started on the Hacker 's Diet .
In 2 months I was down to 255 .
I started a job that kept me on my feet .
In another year I 'd dropped back to 230 .
Two years after that and I 'm fighting the scales to stay at 250 .
A little over 2 years ago I moved .
my diet changed , my environment changed .
I went from a strictish diet to eating whatever and whenever , the change exacerbated by the shift in environment .
I 'm watching my weight again and trying my damdest to track calories .
My new ( relatively ) job has my sitting at a desk 8 hours a day ( Burger flipper is more active than helpdesk monkey ) .
I need to get back on the weightlifting bandwagon , and that means joining the local gym , a feat not financially feasable at present .
So I 'm left with moderating calories trying to make my way down to 240 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In High school, I was 250+ that took up weight training.
2 years later i was ~ 225 and in the best shape of my life.
Two years after that I had balooned up to nearly 270.
I wasn't working at the time.
At 270 I started on the Hacker's Diet.
In 2 months I was down to 255.
I started a job that kept me on my feet.
In another year I'd dropped back to 230.
Two years after that and I'm fighting the scales to stay at 250.
A little over 2 years ago I moved.
my diet changed, my environment changed.
I went from a strictish diet to eating whatever and whenever, the change exacerbated by the shift in environment.
I'm watching my weight again and trying my damdest to track calories.
My new (relatively) job has my sitting at a desk 8 hours a day (Burger flipper is more active than helpdesk monkey).
I need to get back on the weightlifting bandwagon, and that means joining the local gym, a feat not financially feasable at present.
So I'm left with moderating calories trying to make my way down to 240.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031466</id>
	<title>Re:All you slim theoreticians...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257775500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But what about eating? You can't drop eating entirely. It's a horrible habit to drop, really.</p></div><p>You can drop unhealthy foods like sodas and cakes entirely.  It's probably going to be a large improvement over not dropping anything.  If you can avoid drinking at a party, you can probably avoid eating certain things, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But what about eating ?
You ca n't drop eating entirely .
It 's a horrible habit to drop , really.You can drop unhealthy foods like sodas and cakes entirely .
It 's probably going to be a large improvement over not dropping anything .
If you can avoid drinking at a party , you can probably avoid eating certain things , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what about eating?
You can't drop eating entirely.
It's a horrible habit to drop, really.You can drop unhealthy foods like sodas and cakes entirely.
It's probably going to be a large improvement over not dropping anything.
If you can avoid drinking at a party, you can probably avoid eating certain things, too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029762</id>
	<title>Well yeah, exercise ALONE doesn't do enough.</title>
	<author>Eraevous</author>
	<datestamp>1257798840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do any of you British slashdotters in University have access to the full text of the second article? The brief description in the "methods" section doesn't say if the researchers were monitoring or controlling the diet of the subjects. It seems absurd that they would not, but it's possible that the lack of weight loss was partially caused by an increase in caloric intake. After all, the stated intent of the research was to study how the health benefits from exercise are affected by changes in body weight, not whether exercise is necessary or sufficient to achieve weight loss. The major result from the British study points out that exercise can make one a healthier and happier individual even if one doesn't lose much weight. The Colorado study refutes the popular notion that exercise causes an "afterburn" of fat. Both exercise and a diet change are necessary for weight loss, but neither one is sufficient by itself. Why is this surprising to anyone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do any of you British slashdotters in University have access to the full text of the second article ?
The brief description in the " methods " section does n't say if the researchers were monitoring or controlling the diet of the subjects .
It seems absurd that they would not , but it 's possible that the lack of weight loss was partially caused by an increase in caloric intake .
After all , the stated intent of the research was to study how the health benefits from exercise are affected by changes in body weight , not whether exercise is necessary or sufficient to achieve weight loss .
The major result from the British study points out that exercise can make one a healthier and happier individual even if one does n't lose much weight .
The Colorado study refutes the popular notion that exercise causes an " afterburn " of fat .
Both exercise and a diet change are necessary for weight loss , but neither one is sufficient by itself .
Why is this surprising to anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do any of you British slashdotters in University have access to the full text of the second article?
The brief description in the "methods" section doesn't say if the researchers were monitoring or controlling the diet of the subjects.
It seems absurd that they would not, but it's possible that the lack of weight loss was partially caused by an increase in caloric intake.
After all, the stated intent of the research was to study how the health benefits from exercise are affected by changes in body weight, not whether exercise is necessary or sufficient to achieve weight loss.
The major result from the British study points out that exercise can make one a healthier and happier individual even if one doesn't lose much weight.
The Colorado study refutes the popular notion that exercise causes an "afterburn" of fat.
Both exercise and a diet change are necessary for weight loss, but neither one is sufficient by itself.
Why is this surprising to anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029538</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>Goalie\_Ca</author>
	<datestamp>1257710340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honest to god, they are probably eating enough for two people and when not exercising are probably just pissing and shitting out half of the calories anyways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honest to god , they are probably eating enough for two people and when not exercising are probably just pissing and shitting out half of the calories anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honest to god, they are probably eating enough for two people and when not exercising are probably just pissing and shitting out half of the calories anyways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30038338</id>
	<title>I found this to be absolutely TRUE</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1257761760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The ONLY way to lose weight is to REDUCED YOUR CALORIE INTAKE. I lost 10 pounds in 2-3 weeks by cutting out Pizza and Burritos and replacing them with Salads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ONLY way to lose weight is to REDUCED YOUR CALORIE INTAKE .
I lost 10 pounds in 2-3 weeks by cutting out Pizza and Burritos and replacing them with Salads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ONLY way to lose weight is to REDUCED YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
I lost 10 pounds in 2-3 weeks by cutting out Pizza and Burritos and replacing them with Salads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033246</id>
	<title>YMMV - I call bunk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257784020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dropped 60 lbs in 6 months a few years ago. 15 lbs each of the first 2 months (total 30 lbs).</p><p>a) I watched calories. 1500-1700 per day with 1 day a week "cheat" day with 2500 or so.<br>b) I moved just a little more. Hiking 3x a week for about 2 hours. Walking around cities and shopping 4-6 hours is the same effort.<br>c) I sat on the couch or behind a computer the rest of the time.<br>d) I stopped eating "processed foods" and switched to food that didn't come in a box or package. When you are eating so few calories, it is important to have nutrient dense foods.<br>e) No artificial sweetened stuff - diet sodas - gone. For me, this flavoring caused junk food desires. Once stopped, the junk food desires became less and less. They don't go away completely.</p><p>I plateaued around 235 lbs, but not really at any point before that.<br>I've maintained 235 lbs for 18 months and only get hiking 1-2 times a week. Some months, I haven't gotten out at all.</p><p>I suspect that to lose more weight and get to 190 lbs (my fit weight), I'd need to spend time in gyms, WHICH I HATE. It isn't worth it to me. I'll try strength training at home a few days a week and report back in a month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dropped 60 lbs in 6 months a few years ago .
15 lbs each of the first 2 months ( total 30 lbs ) .a ) I watched calories .
1500-1700 per day with 1 day a week " cheat " day with 2500 or so.b ) I moved just a little more .
Hiking 3x a week for about 2 hours .
Walking around cities and shopping 4-6 hours is the same effort.c ) I sat on the couch or behind a computer the rest of the time.d ) I stopped eating " processed foods " and switched to food that did n't come in a box or package .
When you are eating so few calories , it is important to have nutrient dense foods.e ) No artificial sweetened stuff - diet sodas - gone .
For me , this flavoring caused junk food desires .
Once stopped , the junk food desires became less and less .
They do n't go away completely.I plateaued around 235 lbs , but not really at any point before that.I 've maintained 235 lbs for 18 months and only get hiking 1-2 times a week .
Some months , I have n't gotten out at all.I suspect that to lose more weight and get to 190 lbs ( my fit weight ) , I 'd need to spend time in gyms , WHICH I HATE .
It is n't worth it to me .
I 'll try strength training at home a few days a week and report back in a month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dropped 60 lbs in 6 months a few years ago.
15 lbs each of the first 2 months (total 30 lbs).a) I watched calories.
1500-1700 per day with 1 day a week "cheat" day with 2500 or so.b) I moved just a little more.
Hiking 3x a week for about 2 hours.
Walking around cities and shopping 4-6 hours is the same effort.c) I sat on the couch or behind a computer the rest of the time.d) I stopped eating "processed foods" and switched to food that didn't come in a box or package.
When you are eating so few calories, it is important to have nutrient dense foods.e) No artificial sweetened stuff - diet sodas - gone.
For me, this flavoring caused junk food desires.
Once stopped, the junk food desires became less and less.
They don't go away completely.I plateaued around 235 lbs, but not really at any point before that.I've maintained 235 lbs for 18 months and only get hiking 1-2 times a week.
Some months, I haven't gotten out at all.I suspect that to lose more weight and get to 190 lbs (my fit weight), I'd need to spend time in gyms, WHICH I HATE.
It isn't worth it to me.
I'll try strength training at home a few days a week and report back in a month.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030276</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1257761400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Diet food tastes like shit.</p></div><p>Strictly speaking, it doesn't. But the real point is: Does diet food taste bland, or is it <i>all the other food</i> that's ruined your taste because it's been smashed with flavour enhancers, artificial this and artificial that? Except where it's about harmful or poisoneous substances, taste is almost entirely acquired.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Diet food tastes like shit.Strictly speaking , it does n't .
But the real point is : Does diet food taste bland , or is it all the other food that 's ruined your taste because it 's been smashed with flavour enhancers , artificial this and artificial that ?
Except where it 's about harmful or poisoneous substances , taste is almost entirely acquired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Diet food tastes like shit.Strictly speaking, it doesn't.
But the real point is: Does diet food taste bland, or is it all the other food that's ruined your taste because it's been smashed with flavour enhancers, artificial this and artificial that?
Except where it's about harmful or poisoneous substances, taste is almost entirely acquired.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030958</id>
	<title>Blundell's study already mis-reported</title>
	<author>prof alan</author>
	<datestamp>1257770400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although the NYT article seems, at first reading, to be a quite sober account of weight loss in exercise, it de-emphasises the point of the Blundell study, which placed more emphasis on the other benefits of exercise (weight loss being only one potential benefit.) The study by Blundell et al has already been grossly mis-reported in the popular press, and the nature of the reports and reactions to them show clearly the need for more responsible reporting of science stories in newspapers. The link above, BTW, takes us only to the abstract: viewing the article itself requires a subscription.<p>

The Sunday Telegraph here in the UK ( <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6083234/Health-warning-exercise-makes-you-fat.html" title="telegraph.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6083234/Health-warning-exercise-makes-you-fat.html</a> [telegraph.co.uk] ) used pre-publication data from this study that Blundell has stated totally mis-represented its findings (that, amongst other things, only 15\% of the study group gained weight, and that they were all ones who ate more than usual during the study period.)</p><p>

That article also quoted the one of 43 trials reviewed by the Cochrane Library that did not show a significant weight-loss in the participants (it says "some surprising studies in America " when it means "one surprising and possibly unrepresentative study in America". The lead author of that study, Dr Timothy Church of Louisiana University, seems to undermine the validity of his own study, in which the participants were asked not to alter their diet by saying (according to the Telegraph article) "after spending time in the gym, they eat a chocolate muffin, which undoes all of the work they did.&rdquo; </p><p>

The Telegraph unaccountably ignored the 42 studies which did not conform to what appears to be their preconception.</p><p>

For more information see ( <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/29/telegraph-exercise-fat-bad-science" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/29/telegraph-exercise-fat-bad-science</a> [guardian.co.uk] ), or go to Ben Goldacre's own site ( <a href="http://www.badscience.net/" title="badscience.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.badscience.net/</a> [badscience.net] ) for a fuller version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although the NYT article seems , at first reading , to be a quite sober account of weight loss in exercise , it de-emphasises the point of the Blundell study , which placed more emphasis on the other benefits of exercise ( weight loss being only one potential benefit .
) The study by Blundell et al has already been grossly mis-reported in the popular press , and the nature of the reports and reactions to them show clearly the need for more responsible reporting of science stories in newspapers .
The link above , BTW , takes us only to the abstract : viewing the article itself requires a subscription .
The Sunday Telegraph here in the UK ( http : //www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6083234/Health-warning-exercise-makes-you-fat.html [ telegraph.co.uk ] ) used pre-publication data from this study that Blundell has stated totally mis-represented its findings ( that , amongst other things , only 15 \ % of the study group gained weight , and that they were all ones who ate more than usual during the study period .
) That article also quoted the one of 43 trials reviewed by the Cochrane Library that did not show a significant weight-loss in the participants ( it says " some surprising studies in America " when it means " one surprising and possibly unrepresentative study in America " .
The lead author of that study , Dr Timothy Church of Louisiana University , seems to undermine the validity of his own study , in which the participants were asked not to alter their diet by saying ( according to the Telegraph article ) " after spending time in the gym , they eat a chocolate muffin , which undoes all of the work they did.    The Telegraph unaccountably ignored the 42 studies which did not conform to what appears to be their preconception .
For more information see ( http : //www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/29/telegraph-exercise-fat-bad-science [ guardian.co.uk ] ) , or go to Ben Goldacre 's own site ( http : //www.badscience.net/ [ badscience.net ] ) for a fuller version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although the NYT article seems, at first reading, to be a quite sober account of weight loss in exercise, it de-emphasises the point of the Blundell study, which placed more emphasis on the other benefits of exercise (weight loss being only one potential benefit.
) The study by Blundell et al has already been grossly mis-reported in the popular press, and the nature of the reports and reactions to them show clearly the need for more responsible reporting of science stories in newspapers.
The link above, BTW, takes us only to the abstract: viewing the article itself requires a subscription.
The Sunday Telegraph here in the UK ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6083234/Health-warning-exercise-makes-you-fat.html [telegraph.co.uk] ) used pre-publication data from this study that Blundell has stated totally mis-represented its findings (that, amongst other things, only 15\% of the study group gained weight, and that they were all ones who ate more than usual during the study period.
)

That article also quoted the one of 43 trials reviewed by the Cochrane Library that did not show a significant weight-loss in the participants (it says "some surprising studies in America " when it means "one surprising and possibly unrepresentative study in America".
The lead author of that study, Dr Timothy Church of Louisiana University, seems to undermine the validity of his own study, in which the participants were asked not to alter their diet by saying (according to the Telegraph article) "after spending time in the gym, they eat a chocolate muffin, which undoes all of the work they did.” 

The Telegraph unaccountably ignored the 42 studies which did not conform to what appears to be their preconception.
For more information see ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/29/telegraph-exercise-fat-bad-science [guardian.co.uk] ), or go to Ben Goldacre's own site ( http://www.badscience.net/ [badscience.net] ) for a fuller version.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030262</id>
	<title>Re:Perpetual motion 'fat'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257761160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Agreed, I call bullshit on any conclusion that make the claim that exercise doesn't lead to weight loss .<br></i></p><p>Yeah but you are mistaken here. Why should exercise lead to weight loss if the diet is not changed? Your body does the simple things first (not to mention that adapting to exercise or starving even takes quite a while<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a week at least). You exercise, you need more energy? Where does it come from? First from the sugar level in your blood. Then from the stored sugar in your liver. Then you don't have enough energy anymore? Wow what happens now? Body going for fat? <b>NOPE!!!</b> Now your body works anaerobic and burns ATP as long as it can.</p><p>During a simple exercise your body fat is normally not even touched at all. Fat burning happens when you are over weeks in a stress situation where you can not get "normal food", it does not happen during "power work" but in your sleep or relaxing time (after your metabolism has <b>switched</b> to fat burning as mentioned before).</p><p>Normal exercising has he effect that you are exhausted during your practicing (and not burning any fats during that) and get replenishment after the exercising. To get your fat reserves burned you would need to exercise hard over weeks (to give your body a reason to change its storing/burning behavior) and to stop replenishing immediately (don't get new energy via food the next 4 hours). And in the end you HAVE TO reduce energy intake, or all the exercising is for nothing.</p><p>The difference between your bodies energy consumption in sleep and during hard work is so astonishing low<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... exercising can't work. For instance to burn one kg fat you would need to spend 35 hours swimming (which is one of the most energy consuming sports).</p><p>What me really wonders about this stupid fail article: being fat is now researched by sport medicals? First of all they should know most about how the body works, after all this is one of the basic courses in the beginning of studying. Second the issue is researched by nutritionists. And how diet, fat, sugar etc. works in a human body is well known since decades. With a few surprises coming up here and then like the fact that obese people often have "upgraded" gut bacterials that are able to help digesting cellulose (like cows can).</p><p>Summary: you burn fat basically only during sleep, not during exercising. If your body got after exercising and before sleeping enough energy it wnt burn fat. Even more important: your body only burns fat if it got forced to switch from "storing mode" into "burning mode" which takes one week or up to 3 weeks of "starving/exhaustion" minimum.</p><p>angel'o'sphere</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , I call bullshit on any conclusion that make the claim that exercise does n't lead to weight loss .Yeah but you are mistaken here .
Why should exercise lead to weight loss if the diet is not changed ?
Your body does the simple things first ( not to mention that adapting to exercise or starving even takes quite a while ... a week at least ) .
You exercise , you need more energy ?
Where does it come from ?
First from the sugar level in your blood .
Then from the stored sugar in your liver .
Then you do n't have enough energy anymore ?
Wow what happens now ?
Body going for fat ?
NOPE ! ! ! Now your body works anaerobic and burns ATP as long as it can.During a simple exercise your body fat is normally not even touched at all .
Fat burning happens when you are over weeks in a stress situation where you can not get " normal food " , it does not happen during " power work " but in your sleep or relaxing time ( after your metabolism has switched to fat burning as mentioned before ) .Normal exercising has he effect that you are exhausted during your practicing ( and not burning any fats during that ) and get replenishment after the exercising .
To get your fat reserves burned you would need to exercise hard over weeks ( to give your body a reason to change its storing/burning behavior ) and to stop replenishing immediately ( do n't get new energy via food the next 4 hours ) .
And in the end you HAVE TO reduce energy intake , or all the exercising is for nothing.The difference between your bodies energy consumption in sleep and during hard work is so astonishing low ... exercising ca n't work .
For instance to burn one kg fat you would need to spend 35 hours swimming ( which is one of the most energy consuming sports ) .What me really wonders about this stupid fail article : being fat is now researched by sport medicals ?
First of all they should know most about how the body works , after all this is one of the basic courses in the beginning of studying .
Second the issue is researched by nutritionists .
And how diet , fat , sugar etc .
works in a human body is well known since decades .
With a few surprises coming up here and then like the fact that obese people often have " upgraded " gut bacterials that are able to help digesting cellulose ( like cows can ) .Summary : you burn fat basically only during sleep , not during exercising .
If your body got after exercising and before sleeping enough energy it wnt burn fat .
Even more important : your body only burns fat if it got forced to switch from " storing mode " into " burning mode " which takes one week or up to 3 weeks of " starving/exhaustion " minimum.angel'o'sphere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, I call bullshit on any conclusion that make the claim that exercise doesn't lead to weight loss .Yeah but you are mistaken here.
Why should exercise lead to weight loss if the diet is not changed?
Your body does the simple things first (not to mention that adapting to exercise or starving even takes quite a while ... a week at least).
You exercise, you need more energy?
Where does it come from?
First from the sugar level in your blood.
Then from the stored sugar in your liver.
Then you don't have enough energy anymore?
Wow what happens now?
Body going for fat?
NOPE!!! Now your body works anaerobic and burns ATP as long as it can.During a simple exercise your body fat is normally not even touched at all.
Fat burning happens when you are over weeks in a stress situation where you can not get "normal food", it does not happen during "power work" but in your sleep or relaxing time (after your metabolism has switched to fat burning as mentioned before).Normal exercising has he effect that you are exhausted during your practicing (and not burning any fats during that) and get replenishment after the exercising.
To get your fat reserves burned you would need to exercise hard over weeks (to give your body a reason to change its storing/burning behavior) and to stop replenishing immediately (don't get new energy via food the next 4 hours).
And in the end you HAVE TO reduce energy intake, or all the exercising is for nothing.The difference between your bodies energy consumption in sleep and during hard work is so astonishing low ... exercising can't work.
For instance to burn one kg fat you would need to spend 35 hours swimming (which is one of the most energy consuming sports).What me really wonders about this stupid fail article: being fat is now researched by sport medicals?
First of all they should know most about how the body works, after all this is one of the basic courses in the beginning of studying.
Second the issue is researched by nutritionists.
And how diet, fat, sugar etc.
works in a human body is well known since decades.
With a few surprises coming up here and then like the fact that obese people often have "upgraded" gut bacterials that are able to help digesting cellulose (like cows can).Summary: you burn fat basically only during sleep, not during exercising.
If your body got after exercising and before sleeping enough energy it wnt burn fat.
Even more important: your body only burns fat if it got forced to switch from "storing mode" into "burning mode" which takes one week or up to 3 weeks of "starving/exhaustion" minimum.angel'o'sphere</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029946</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps because...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257757740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Oils and fats have 4 times the energy packed in them as carbs and protein, so if you are eating a lot of fatty food it is going to give you a lot of calories without filling you up much.</i> </p><p>False.  Fats have approx 9 kilocals/gram and carbs and protein have 4 kilocals/gram.  "4 times"?  What are you smoking?  Also, as to "filling you up", satiation is not as simple as stuffing your food pouch.  Results <i>will</i> vary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oils and fats have 4 times the energy packed in them as carbs and protein , so if you are eating a lot of fatty food it is going to give you a lot of calories without filling you up much .
False. Fats have approx 9 kilocals/gram and carbs and protein have 4 kilocals/gram .
" 4 times " ?
What are you smoking ?
Also , as to " filling you up " , satiation is not as simple as stuffing your food pouch .
Results will vary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oils and fats have 4 times the energy packed in them as carbs and protein, so if you are eating a lot of fatty food it is going to give you a lot of calories without filling you up much.
False.  Fats have approx 9 kilocals/gram and carbs and protein have 4 kilocals/gram.
"4 times"?
What are you smoking?
Also, as to "filling you up", satiation is not as simple as stuffing your food pouch.
Results will vary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031372</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>bhsbulldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1257775020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or you could just stop being a pussy and lift heavy and hard for 3 1-hour sessions, and stop doing low-intensity cardio. If you can play fucking Nintendo DS while working out - you aren't working out, you're 'exercising'. Also drop some unneccessary carbs from your diet, and you'd loose at probably 40 pounds over the same period - while also gaining 6 hours a week.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you could just stop being a pussy and lift heavy and hard for 3 1-hour sessions , and stop doing low-intensity cardio .
If you can play fucking Nintendo DS while working out - you are n't working out , you 're 'exercising' .
Also drop some unneccessary carbs from your diet , and you 'd loose at probably 40 pounds over the same period - while also gaining 6 hours a week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you could just stop being a pussy and lift heavy and hard for 3 1-hour sessions, and stop doing low-intensity cardio.
If you can play fucking Nintendo DS while working out - you aren't working out, you're 'exercising'.
Also drop some unneccessary carbs from your diet, and you'd loose at probably 40 pounds over the same period - while also gaining 6 hours a week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029614</id>
	<title>12 weaks is too short</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257797280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The observation period in this study is way too short to see an effect on body weight.<br>
<br>
Muscles are heavier (more dense) than fat and exercise has some anabolic effect too. So in the first period a study person is loosing fat and gaining muscle mass. When the muscle amount stabilizes on the higher lever, you will see the weight drop. This effect was nicely seen in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390521/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">SuperSize me</a> [imdb.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>The observation period in this study is way too short to see an effect on body weight .
Muscles are heavier ( more dense ) than fat and exercise has some anabolic effect too .
So in the first period a study person is loosing fat and gaining muscle mass .
When the muscle amount stabilizes on the higher lever , you will see the weight drop .
This effect was nicely seen in SuperSize me [ imdb.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The observation period in this study is way too short to see an effect on body weight.
Muscles are heavier (more dense) than fat and exercise has some anabolic effect too.
So in the first period a study person is loosing fat and gaining muscle mass.
When the muscle amount stabilizes on the higher lever, you will see the weight drop.
This effect was nicely seen in SuperSize me [imdb.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30037296</id>
	<title>Re:Your body doesn't have a 100\% conversion factor</title>
	<author>phly1x</author>
	<datestamp>1257757500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>hunger can be ignored. the same feeling of hunger is experienced when one is sleep deprived.
do not trust your feelings nor perceptions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>hunger can be ignored .
the same feeling of hunger is experienced when one is sleep deprived .
do not trust your feelings nor perceptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hunger can be ignored.
the same feeling of hunger is experienced when one is sleep deprived.
do not trust your feelings nor perceptions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030514</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>charlener</author>
	<datestamp>1257764340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find that cycling keeps me much more occupied than jogging etc. while still being useful and exercise-y. First, I'm moving pretty fast and seeing new scenery (and cars that I need to watch out for) which helps keep my mind occupied, and second, I can justify it as something with purpose (visiting a friend, getting groceries, etc.). I used to jog up to the bank/drug store about a mile away, but it was too annoying to carry anything but the most lightweight stuff home jogging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find that cycling keeps me much more occupied than jogging etc .
while still being useful and exercise-y .
First , I 'm moving pretty fast and seeing new scenery ( and cars that I need to watch out for ) which helps keep my mind occupied , and second , I can justify it as something with purpose ( visiting a friend , getting groceries , etc. ) .
I used to jog up to the bank/drug store about a mile away , but it was too annoying to carry anything but the most lightweight stuff home jogging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find that cycling keeps me much more occupied than jogging etc.
while still being useful and exercise-y.
First, I'm moving pretty fast and seeing new scenery (and cars that I need to watch out for) which helps keep my mind occupied, and second, I can justify it as something with purpose (visiting a friend, getting groceries, etc.).
I used to jog up to the bank/drug store about a mile away, but it was too annoying to carry anything but the most lightweight stuff home jogging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030286</id>
	<title>Re:Your body doesn't have a 100\% conversion factor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257761520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Food is food no matter how you chew it.<br></i></p><p>That is wrong. Digesting starts in your mouth. E.g. starch is transformed into sugar already in your mouth by your salvia. That process happens only limited in your guts. So if you have not much to eat it is important to chew it good. If you have trouble with your pancreas or other digesting organs it is <b>very</b> important to chew your meals good.</p><p>No idea where you got your stupid ideas from. Probably you hate your mother?</p><p>angel'o'sphere</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Food is food no matter how you chew it.That is wrong .
Digesting starts in your mouth .
E.g. starch is transformed into sugar already in your mouth by your salvia .
That process happens only limited in your guts .
So if you have not much to eat it is important to chew it good .
If you have trouble with your pancreas or other digesting organs it is very important to chew your meals good.No idea where you got your stupid ideas from .
Probably you hate your mother ? angel'o'sphere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Food is food no matter how you chew it.That is wrong.
Digesting starts in your mouth.
E.g. starch is transformed into sugar already in your mouth by your salvia.
That process happens only limited in your guts.
So if you have not much to eat it is important to chew it good.
If you have trouble with your pancreas or other digesting organs it is very important to chew your meals good.No idea where you got your stupid ideas from.
Probably you hate your mother?angel'o'sphere</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030100</id>
	<title>Re:But it's all physics? *snark*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257759420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know you're kidding, but believe or not the physics is by far the simplest part.</p><p><tt>( kcal[in] - kcal[out] ) / 3500 = change in weight, in pounds</tt><br>And that's it. If you can create a 500 calorie deficit daily (won't matter if it's from eating less or exercising more, although the former is much more efficient in this regard) you can lose a pound a week.</p><p>Ok so it gets a little more complicated, but as you will see it's nothing that even requires a calculator.</p><p>(1) Tracking calories 'in' is mostly possible, but 'out' is always unknown. So you figure that out after the fact: if you lost weight, you know how many calories you burned. If you didn't, you know that you need to work harder to change the balance and measure again in a week. Like a feedback loop.</p><p>(2) Your body would prefer to keep your weight steady. If you over- or undereat, it compensates by making slight changes to the BMR. According to wikipedia, this is 70\% of your energy burning, while exercise is 20\%. So you can see why exercise alone is a bad way of losing weight. But you still have to do it, because it lets you add more to the 'out' column at a time when your body isn't burning what you need it to while at rest.</p><p>(3) The results aren't linear. That is, a little dieting or a little exercise won't cause you to lose a little weight. The reason why is the body's compensation mentioned above. Picture it like a stable equilibrium...a marble in between two ramps, and in order to see results you have to get up one of the ramps first.</p><p>So yeah, the physics isn't complicated...again, you don't have to figure out what's going on inside your body. Instead you measure the results and tweak the regimen if they are not good enough. The hard part is the will power. But I've found out a couple of things after trying. First, it's hard, but it's not *that* hard. If you can stick with it for a couple of weeks the results will get you motivated. Second, being more "endothermic"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) is better because it means you can add muscle with almost no effort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know you 're kidding , but believe or not the physics is by far the simplest part .
( kcal [ in ] - kcal [ out ] ) / 3500 = change in weight , in poundsAnd that 's it .
If you can create a 500 calorie deficit daily ( wo n't matter if it 's from eating less or exercising more , although the former is much more efficient in this regard ) you can lose a pound a week.Ok so it gets a little more complicated , but as you will see it 's nothing that even requires a calculator .
( 1 ) Tracking calories 'in ' is mostly possible , but 'out ' is always unknown .
So you figure that out after the fact : if you lost weight , you know how many calories you burned .
If you did n't , you know that you need to work harder to change the balance and measure again in a week .
Like a feedback loop .
( 2 ) Your body would prefer to keep your weight steady .
If you over- or undereat , it compensates by making slight changes to the BMR .
According to wikipedia , this is 70 \ % of your energy burning , while exercise is 20 \ % .
So you can see why exercise alone is a bad way of losing weight .
But you still have to do it , because it lets you add more to the 'out ' column at a time when your body is n't burning what you need it to while at rest .
( 3 ) The results are n't linear .
That is , a little dieting or a little exercise wo n't cause you to lose a little weight .
The reason why is the body 's compensation mentioned above .
Picture it like a stable equilibrium...a marble in between two ramps , and in order to see results you have to get up one of the ramps first.So yeah , the physics is n't complicated...again , you do n't have to figure out what 's going on inside your body .
Instead you measure the results and tweak the regimen if they are not good enough .
The hard part is the will power .
But I 've found out a couple of things after trying .
First , it 's hard , but it 's not * that * hard .
If you can stick with it for a couple of weeks the results will get you motivated .
Second , being more " endothermic " : ) is better because it means you can add muscle with almost no effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know you're kidding, but believe or not the physics is by far the simplest part.
( kcal[in] - kcal[out] ) / 3500 = change in weight, in poundsAnd that's it.
If you can create a 500 calorie deficit daily (won't matter if it's from eating less or exercising more, although the former is much more efficient in this regard) you can lose a pound a week.Ok so it gets a little more complicated, but as you will see it's nothing that even requires a calculator.
(1) Tracking calories 'in' is mostly possible, but 'out' is always unknown.
So you figure that out after the fact: if you lost weight, you know how many calories you burned.
If you didn't, you know that you need to work harder to change the balance and measure again in a week.
Like a feedback loop.
(2) Your body would prefer to keep your weight steady.
If you over- or undereat, it compensates by making slight changes to the BMR.
According to wikipedia, this is 70\% of your energy burning, while exercise is 20\%.
So you can see why exercise alone is a bad way of losing weight.
But you still have to do it, because it lets you add more to the 'out' column at a time when your body isn't burning what you need it to while at rest.
(3) The results aren't linear.
That is, a little dieting or a little exercise won't cause you to lose a little weight.
The reason why is the body's compensation mentioned above.
Picture it like a stable equilibrium...a marble in between two ramps, and in order to see results you have to get up one of the ramps first.So yeah, the physics isn't complicated...again, you don't have to figure out what's going on inside your body.
Instead you measure the results and tweak the regimen if they are not good enough.
The hard part is the will power.
But I've found out a couple of things after trying.
First, it's hard, but it's not *that* hard.
If you can stick with it for a couple of weeks the results will get you motivated.
Second, being more "endothermic" :) is better because it means you can add muscle with almost no effort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30057754</id>
	<title>Re:All you slim theoreticians...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257070500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right about all of it. It absolutely sucks trying to exercise, and it sucks even harder trying to diet. But only at first. If you stick with it, it gets better.</p><p>If you don't, well, you can't feel sorry for yourself. Everybody deals with it, some just give up too soon. Sounds rough, but "fairness" is a human invention. When we were tadpoles we had no use for it. Your body, likewise, does not give a crap if you are not happy having to maintain it.</p><p>It *does* pay off in the end, believe me. After a month of eating healthy you will lose your taste for the crap food and it gets way easier to maintain. And the exercise improves your outlook to the point that you will want to do even more of it. It just takes a while to get over the initial hump. I used video games (not Wii Fit but an XBox hooked up over a treadmill)...every little bit helps. Oh, and lots of caffeine while working out. It's not ideal, but neither is sitting on the couch.</p><p>I don't know if you were talking about yourself or not, but either way I think the main point still applies...things worth having are worth sacrificing for. "Poor me" doesn't enter into it. And self-control is a worthy goal in and of itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right about all of it .
It absolutely sucks trying to exercise , and it sucks even harder trying to diet .
But only at first .
If you stick with it , it gets better.If you do n't , well , you ca n't feel sorry for yourself .
Everybody deals with it , some just give up too soon .
Sounds rough , but " fairness " is a human invention .
When we were tadpoles we had no use for it .
Your body , likewise , does not give a crap if you are not happy having to maintain it.It * does * pay off in the end , believe me .
After a month of eating healthy you will lose your taste for the crap food and it gets way easier to maintain .
And the exercise improves your outlook to the point that you will want to do even more of it .
It just takes a while to get over the initial hump .
I used video games ( not Wii Fit but an XBox hooked up over a treadmill ) ...every little bit helps .
Oh , and lots of caffeine while working out .
It 's not ideal , but neither is sitting on the couch.I do n't know if you were talking about yourself or not , but either way I think the main point still applies...things worth having are worth sacrificing for .
" Poor me " does n't enter into it .
And self-control is a worthy goal in and of itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right about all of it.
It absolutely sucks trying to exercise, and it sucks even harder trying to diet.
But only at first.
If you stick with it, it gets better.If you don't, well, you can't feel sorry for yourself.
Everybody deals with it, some just give up too soon.
Sounds rough, but "fairness" is a human invention.
When we were tadpoles we had no use for it.
Your body, likewise, does not give a crap if you are not happy having to maintain it.It *does* pay off in the end, believe me.
After a month of eating healthy you will lose your taste for the crap food and it gets way easier to maintain.
And the exercise improves your outlook to the point that you will want to do even more of it.
It just takes a while to get over the initial hump.
I used video games (not Wii Fit but an XBox hooked up over a treadmill)...every little bit helps.
Oh, and lots of caffeine while working out.
It's not ideal, but neither is sitting on the couch.I don't know if you were talking about yourself or not, but either way I think the main point still applies...things worth having are worth sacrificing for.
"Poor me" doesn't enter into it.
And self-control is a worthy goal in and of itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030090</id>
	<title>Hmmm I guess I didn't really....</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1257759360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lose over 100lbs by running then eh? These ass-clowns that suggest exercise doesn't help you lose weight are so full of it! After many years of working out, I have come to find excess fat to be wasted energy. Meaning that you eat something, and if you do not perform some activity strenuous to burn those calories, they end up on your stomach, thighs, neck, arms, thighs, and ass.
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lose over 100lbs by running then eh ?
These ass-clowns that suggest exercise does n't help you lose weight are so full of it !
After many years of working out , I have come to find excess fat to be wasted energy .
Meaning that you eat something , and if you do not perform some activity strenuous to burn those calories , they end up on your stomach , thighs , neck , arms , thighs , and ass .
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lose over 100lbs by running then eh?
These ass-clowns that suggest exercise doesn't help you lose weight are so full of it!
After many years of working out, I have come to find excess fat to be wasted energy.
Meaning that you eat something, and if you do not perform some activity strenuous to burn those calories, they end up on your stomach, thighs, neck, arms, thighs, and ass.
-Oz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029638</id>
	<title>Calipers</title>
	<author>tacarat</author>
	<datestamp>1257797460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The best way to consider a weight loss program is this.<br> <br>

<i>(Starting Weight) + (Muscle Gained) - (Fat Lost) = Current Weight</i> <br> <br>

Most folks skip the muscle gained consideration and solely focus on the fat loss, thus throwing off the results interpretation.  Calipers are cheap and easy ways to measure the change in fat loss, thus allowing for minimal weight changes to still be considered successful.  In a pinch, you can also just check the changes in belt notches, jeans fit and whether or not you can see your toes when you look down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best way to consider a weight loss program is this .
( Starting Weight ) + ( Muscle Gained ) - ( Fat Lost ) = Current Weight Most folks skip the muscle gained consideration and solely focus on the fat loss , thus throwing off the results interpretation .
Calipers are cheap and easy ways to measure the change in fat loss , thus allowing for minimal weight changes to still be considered successful .
In a pinch , you can also just check the changes in belt notches , jeans fit and whether or not you can see your toes when you look down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best way to consider a weight loss program is this.
(Starting Weight) + (Muscle Gained) - (Fat Lost) = Current Weight  

Most folks skip the muscle gained consideration and solely focus on the fat loss, thus throwing off the results interpretation.
Calipers are cheap and easy ways to measure the change in fat loss, thus allowing for minimal weight changes to still be considered successful.
In a pinch, you can also just check the changes in belt notches, jeans fit and whether or not you can see your toes when you look down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029854</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1257799860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The hardest part of exercise for me is the mental part. Physically I can go for a long time, even though I'm not in very good shape. If it is an actual job to do, like lawn work, moving boxes, etc etc then I can keep it up until it is done. Start jogging or lifting weights and my brain gets exhausted way before the body. it is just so.... boring. I dont see how people can do that just for the fun of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The hardest part of exercise for me is the mental part .
Physically I can go for a long time , even though I 'm not in very good shape .
If it is an actual job to do , like lawn work , moving boxes , etc etc then I can keep it up until it is done .
Start jogging or lifting weights and my brain gets exhausted way before the body .
it is just so.... boring. I dont see how people can do that just for the fun of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hardest part of exercise for me is the mental part.
Physically I can go for a long time, even though I'm not in very good shape.
If it is an actual job to do, like lawn work, moving boxes, etc etc then I can keep it up until it is done.
Start jogging or lifting weights and my brain gets exhausted way before the body.
it is just so.... boring. I dont see how people can do that just for the fun of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030580</id>
	<title>Sounds like anohter pathetic excuse to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257765060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fat people are always full of excuses.</p><p>I have been thin and I have been fat. The difference between the two was I ate a lot, drank a lot of beer, and exercised very little when I was fat. The opposite was true when I was thin. Imagine that. I wonder if there's a causal relationship.</p><p>(For the stupidly insane, the answer is yes--there was.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fat people are always full of excuses.I have been thin and I have been fat .
The difference between the two was I ate a lot , drank a lot of beer , and exercised very little when I was fat .
The opposite was true when I was thin .
Imagine that .
I wonder if there 's a causal relationship .
( For the stupidly insane , the answer is yes--there was .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fat people are always full of excuses.I have been thin and I have been fat.
The difference between the two was I ate a lot, drank a lot of beer, and exercised very little when I was fat.
The opposite was true when I was thin.
Imagine that.
I wonder if there's a causal relationship.
(For the stupidly insane, the answer is yes--there was.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031340</id>
	<title>Anybody in fitness knows why:</title>
	<author>just fiddling around</author>
	<datestamp>1257774720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's because muscle is more dense than fat.  Those people probably lost 15 pounds of fat and gained 8 pounds of muscle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because muscle is more dense than fat .
Those people probably lost 15 pounds of fat and gained 8 pounds of muscle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because muscle is more dense than fat.
Those people probably lost 15 pounds of fat and gained 8 pounds of muscle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029840</id>
	<title>Think logically</title>
	<author>Cougem</author>
	<datestamp>1257799740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>7 pounds of fat in 12 weeks? One pound of fat is 3500 calories, so they were burning an extra 1500 calories per week. This equates to 200+ calories a day net loss. That's not bad for a diet by any means, but we also have to remember these are fat people! They were already eating excess calories (this is why they are fat).<br> <br>I don't think these results are surprisingly in the least.</htmltext>
<tokenext>7 pounds of fat in 12 weeks ?
One pound of fat is 3500 calories , so they were burning an extra 1500 calories per week .
This equates to 200 + calories a day net loss .
That 's not bad for a diet by any means , but we also have to remember these are fat people !
They were already eating excess calories ( this is why they are fat ) .
I do n't think these results are surprisingly in the least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>7 pounds of fat in 12 weeks?
One pound of fat is 3500 calories, so they were burning an extra 1500 calories per week.
This equates to 200+ calories a day net loss.
That's not bad for a diet by any means, but we also have to remember these are fat people!
They were already eating excess calories (this is why they are fat).
I don't think these results are surprisingly in the least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030058</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>Burning1</author>
	<datestamp>1257758940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps the problem is that they are expecting immediate gratification?</p><p>Although I've never been obese, I have been overweight and I have slimmed myself down to an athletic build. In my experience, very few people get into shape using an extreme diet and exercise regimen. At the end of a week of starvation and treadmills, people seem to forget that anything over 2lbs in a week is fairly extreme weight loss. Even worse, it's easy to lose track of progress in the daily fluctuations caused by the contents of the digestive system, and the amount of water currently trapped in our body.</p><p>In my experience, getting into shape is really about developing good habits. That means finding ways to deal with stress and unhappiness that don't involve a bottle or a fork - limiting food splurges to times of celebration, and making the mainstay diet a healthy one. Accomplishing that means really listening to the body, and understanding how the body reacts to different food and sleep patterns - eating the right foods goes a long way towards eliminating the feeling of hunger.</p><p>Personally, I find exercise helps. It's easy to pick up a salad rather than a candy bar when you read the label, and realize that a peanut butter cup will subvert half an hour on a treadmill.</p><p>For me, loosing weight was a long term effort, that I never seemed to make progress on - the week to week changes aren't noticeable... But the difference start to end was huge.</p><p>I've never seen instant gratification outside of surgery...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the problem is that they are expecting immediate gratification ? Although I 've never been obese , I have been overweight and I have slimmed myself down to an athletic build .
In my experience , very few people get into shape using an extreme diet and exercise regimen .
At the end of a week of starvation and treadmills , people seem to forget that anything over 2lbs in a week is fairly extreme weight loss .
Even worse , it 's easy to lose track of progress in the daily fluctuations caused by the contents of the digestive system , and the amount of water currently trapped in our body.In my experience , getting into shape is really about developing good habits .
That means finding ways to deal with stress and unhappiness that do n't involve a bottle or a fork - limiting food splurges to times of celebration , and making the mainstay diet a healthy one .
Accomplishing that means really listening to the body , and understanding how the body reacts to different food and sleep patterns - eating the right foods goes a long way towards eliminating the feeling of hunger.Personally , I find exercise helps .
It 's easy to pick up a salad rather than a candy bar when you read the label , and realize that a peanut butter cup will subvert half an hour on a treadmill.For me , loosing weight was a long term effort , that I never seemed to make progress on - the week to week changes are n't noticeable... But the difference start to end was huge.I 've never seen instant gratification outside of surgery.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the problem is that they are expecting immediate gratification?Although I've never been obese, I have been overweight and I have slimmed myself down to an athletic build.
In my experience, very few people get into shape using an extreme diet and exercise regimen.
At the end of a week of starvation and treadmills, people seem to forget that anything over 2lbs in a week is fairly extreme weight loss.
Even worse, it's easy to lose track of progress in the daily fluctuations caused by the contents of the digestive system, and the amount of water currently trapped in our body.In my experience, getting into shape is really about developing good habits.
That means finding ways to deal with stress and unhappiness that don't involve a bottle or a fork - limiting food splurges to times of celebration, and making the mainstay diet a healthy one.
Accomplishing that means really listening to the body, and understanding how the body reacts to different food and sleep patterns - eating the right foods goes a long way towards eliminating the feeling of hunger.Personally, I find exercise helps.
It's easy to pick up a salad rather than a candy bar when you read the label, and realize that a peanut butter cup will subvert half an hour on a treadmill.For me, loosing weight was a long term effort, that I never seemed to make progress on - the week to week changes aren't noticeable... But the difference start to end was huge.I've never seen instant gratification outside of surgery...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029700</id>
	<title>M uscle, anyone?</title>
	<author>Rene S. Hollan</author>
	<datestamp>1257798120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps some of these people actually performed physically strenuous work for a living and achieved the holy grail of trading fat for muscle.</p><p>BMI is part of the picture. You really have to look at body fat percentage. (Hint: body builders have horrible BMIs: their muscle is presumed as fat!)</p><p>Newbies to exercise can actually "lose weight" and "gain muscle" at the same time (because they have so little to begin with).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps some of these people actually performed physically strenuous work for a living and achieved the holy grail of trading fat for muscle.BMI is part of the picture .
You really have to look at body fat percentage .
( Hint : body builders have horrible BMIs : their muscle is presumed as fat !
) Newbies to exercise can actually " lose weight " and " gain muscle " at the same time ( because they have so little to begin with ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps some of these people actually performed physically strenuous work for a living and achieved the holy grail of trading fat for muscle.BMI is part of the picture.
You really have to look at body fat percentage.
(Hint: body builders have horrible BMIs: their muscle is presumed as fat!
)Newbies to exercise can actually "lose weight" and "gain muscle" at the same time (because they have so little to begin with).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032492</id>
	<title>Well, duh!</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1257781140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you abuse your body for years to no end, you will need the will to put things right for a very similar amount of time.</p><p>As long as people want magic formulas there will be people out there willing to sell the necessary snake oil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you abuse your body for years to no end , you will need the will to put things right for a very similar amount of time.As long as people want magic formulas there will be people out there willing to sell the necessary snake oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you abuse your body for years to no end, you will need the will to put things right for a very similar amount of time.As long as people want magic formulas there will be people out there willing to sell the necessary snake oil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030044</id>
	<title>eating primal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257758820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modern humans are consuming huge amounts of carbohydrates as compared to our ancestors. If you want to get in better shape then you might want to mimic (to an extent) what we ate before carbohydrates took over the majority of our diets, for example: meat, nuts/seeds, vegetables, and fruit.  Throw in some moderate exercise and that will be end of obesity (unless your a genetic freak).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modern humans are consuming huge amounts of carbohydrates as compared to our ancestors .
If you want to get in better shape then you might want to mimic ( to an extent ) what we ate before carbohydrates took over the majority of our diets , for example : meat , nuts/seeds , vegetables , and fruit .
Throw in some moderate exercise and that will be end of obesity ( unless your a genetic freak ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modern humans are consuming huge amounts of carbohydrates as compared to our ancestors.
If you want to get in better shape then you might want to mimic (to an extent) what we ate before carbohydrates took over the majority of our diets, for example: meat, nuts/seeds, vegetables, and fruit.
Throw in some moderate exercise and that will be end of obesity (unless your a genetic freak).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031196</id>
	<title>Losing weight should not be the goal</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1257773580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reducing body fat \% and increasing muscle mass \% to improve one's rest metabolic rate and bone density should be the goals. And these do not necessarily imply a continuous loss of weight. But the modern way of things (and our American way in particular) is for swallowing <i>a teh magical</i> slim-fast pill, munch some broccoli every now and then and hop on the threadmil to do some feel-good make-believe "cardio" while reading a magazine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reducing body fat \ % and increasing muscle mass \ % to improve one 's rest metabolic rate and bone density should be the goals .
And these do not necessarily imply a continuous loss of weight .
But the modern way of things ( and our American way in particular ) is for swallowing a teh magical slim-fast pill , munch some broccoli every now and then and hop on the threadmil to do some feel-good make-believe " cardio " while reading a magazine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reducing body fat \% and increasing muscle mass \% to improve one's rest metabolic rate and bone density should be the goals.
And these do not necessarily imply a continuous loss of weight.
But the modern way of things (and our American way in particular) is for swallowing a teh magical slim-fast pill, munch some broccoli every now and then and hop on the threadmil to do some feel-good make-believe "cardio" while reading a magazine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029878</id>
	<title>Re:Your body doesn't have a 100\% conversion factor</title>
	<author>tirefire</author>
	<datestamp>1257800100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How you chew your food matters?  Seriously?</p><p>In case no one ever told you, the reason your mom told you to chew your food 20 times before you swallow is that chewing more means you can't eat as fast (and therefore can't overeat as easily).</p><p>Food is food no matter how you chew it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How you chew your food matters ?
Seriously ? In case no one ever told you , the reason your mom told you to chew your food 20 times before you swallow is that chewing more means you ca n't eat as fast ( and therefore ca n't overeat as easily ) .Food is food no matter how you chew it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How you chew your food matters?
Seriously?In case no one ever told you, the reason your mom told you to chew your food 20 times before you swallow is that chewing more means you can't eat as fast (and therefore can't overeat as easily).Food is food no matter how you chew it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030192</id>
	<title>An endocrinology student's perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257760380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your body knows better than you how to manage itself. You have to exercise \_and\_ change your diet. It's not just a problem of caloric intake, it's really about how efficiently your body can process what you take in. The caloric chambers used to come up with the numbers on boxes are absolute for the chemical composition, but the human body is more complex than that. America is getting fatter because portions are increasing along with the level of processing. Processing increases the bio-availability, so volume-wise it's even worse in terms of what your body keeps around. Dieting sends the body into an evolutionarily conserved "oh crap, food is scarce" storage binge. Just exercise while cutting your volumetric intake and increasing the fruits and vegetables in your diet. Three colors on your plate per meal is the rule of thumb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your body knows better than you how to manage itself .
You have to exercise \ _and \ _ change your diet .
It 's not just a problem of caloric intake , it 's really about how efficiently your body can process what you take in .
The caloric chambers used to come up with the numbers on boxes are absolute for the chemical composition , but the human body is more complex than that .
America is getting fatter because portions are increasing along with the level of processing .
Processing increases the bio-availability , so volume-wise it 's even worse in terms of what your body keeps around .
Dieting sends the body into an evolutionarily conserved " oh crap , food is scarce " storage binge .
Just exercise while cutting your volumetric intake and increasing the fruits and vegetables in your diet .
Three colors on your plate per meal is the rule of thumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your body knows better than you how to manage itself.
You have to exercise \_and\_ change your diet.
It's not just a problem of caloric intake, it's really about how efficiently your body can process what you take in.
The caloric chambers used to come up with the numbers on boxes are absolute for the chemical composition, but the human body is more complex than that.
America is getting fatter because portions are increasing along with the level of processing.
Processing increases the bio-availability, so volume-wise it's even worse in terms of what your body keeps around.
Dieting sends the body into an evolutionarily conserved "oh crap, food is scarce" storage binge.
Just exercise while cutting your volumetric intake and increasing the fruits and vegetables in your diet.
Three colors on your plate per meal is the rule of thumb.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30038356</id>
	<title>Re:Warm</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1257761820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not true at all. Look at any of the myriad exercise calorie calculators. Sitting around takes less than 80 Cal/hour. Vigorous exercise is easily &gt; 400 Cal/hour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not true at all .
Look at any of the myriad exercise calorie calculators .
Sitting around takes less than 80 Cal/hour .
Vigorous exercise is easily &gt; 400 Cal/hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not true at all.
Look at any of the myriad exercise calorie calculators.
Sitting around takes less than 80 Cal/hour.
Vigorous exercise is easily &gt; 400 Cal/hour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30037474</id>
	<title>Re:It's the hormones that control fattening, not f</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257758160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazing weight loss story you have there.  I personally lost 24\% of my body weight in 6 months following the Atkins diet (high-fat, low-carb).  I did NO exercise either -- just diet change (real butter, olive oil, steaks, fish, salads, asparagus, etc).</p><p>I even challenged my doctor before starting the diet (you should consult a doctor for any dietary changes), and all my blood panel numbers improved being on the diet.  HDL increased, LDL decreased (or flat, can't really remember), triglycerides WAY down, and blood pressure improved out of borderline hypertensive.</p><p>Unfortunately, I've gone back to my pizza and dorrito eating ways and have gained a lot of the weight back -- this slashdot discussion is probably the kick in the butt I need to start eating healthy (atkins diet) again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazing weight loss story you have there .
I personally lost 24 \ % of my body weight in 6 months following the Atkins diet ( high-fat , low-carb ) .
I did NO exercise either -- just diet change ( real butter , olive oil , steaks , fish , salads , asparagus , etc ) .I even challenged my doctor before starting the diet ( you should consult a doctor for any dietary changes ) , and all my blood panel numbers improved being on the diet .
HDL increased , LDL decreased ( or flat , ca n't really remember ) , triglycerides WAY down , and blood pressure improved out of borderline hypertensive.Unfortunately , I 've gone back to my pizza and dorrito eating ways and have gained a lot of the weight back -- this slashdot discussion is probably the kick in the butt I need to start eating healthy ( atkins diet ) again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazing weight loss story you have there.
I personally lost 24\% of my body weight in 6 months following the Atkins diet (high-fat, low-carb).
I did NO exercise either -- just diet change (real butter, olive oil, steaks, fish, salads, asparagus, etc).I even challenged my doctor before starting the diet (you should consult a doctor for any dietary changes), and all my blood panel numbers improved being on the diet.
HDL increased, LDL decreased (or flat, can't really remember), triglycerides WAY down, and blood pressure improved out of borderline hypertensive.Unfortunately, I've gone back to my pizza and dorrito eating ways and have gained a lot of the weight back -- this slashdot discussion is probably the kick in the butt I need to start eating healthy (atkins diet) again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029860</id>
	<title>Seen Americans eat, surprised they lost anything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257799920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm seen the american diet. I am surprised that group lost any weight at all. When I was in the states I ordered small or normal portions of everything and most often couldn't finish them. And yet by european standards I can eat a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm seen the american diet .
I am surprised that group lost any weight at all .
When I was in the states I ordered small or normal portions of everything and most often could n't finish them .
And yet by european standards I can eat a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm seen the american diet.
I am surprised that group lost any weight at all.
When I was in the states I ordered small or normal portions of everything and most often couldn't finish them.
And yet by european standards I can eat a lot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30038940</id>
	<title>because most people eat cholesterol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257764160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is because of eating cholesterol, which is in all animal products but no plants.  How else do you think they got fat?  Duh!  Read some Natural Hygiene articles instead of the ignorant mainstream agenda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is because of eating cholesterol , which is in all animal products but no plants .
How else do you think they got fat ?
Duh ! Read some Natural Hygiene articles instead of the ignorant mainstream agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is because of eating cholesterol, which is in all animal products but no plants.
How else do you think they got fat?
Duh!  Read some Natural Hygiene articles instead of the ignorant mainstream agenda.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30041992</id>
	<title>Its the carbs Jim</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257784440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>www.marksdailyapple.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>www.marksdailyapple.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>www.marksdailyapple.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031480</id>
	<title>my weight loss</title>
	<author>Nidi62</author>
	<datestamp>1257775620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After my final season of college football, I dropped 30 pounds in about 4 months.  I did this very simply:  I cut my meals roughly in half(ate just enough to where I wouldnt feel massively hungry for the next 6 hours) and worked out for about 1.5 hours 5 days a week(mostly strength training, some light running).  I also changed what I ate: grilled chicken 3-4 nights a week with rice, lots of salads, little to no fried foods, and cut out soda almost completely.  This was about 7-8 months ago.  Now, with grad school, I'm lucky to get in 2-3 1 hour workouts a week.  While my muscle mass has certainly gone down, I have managed to stay constant with my weight.  It's not about how you do it, it's about WANTING to do it.  You have to have the motivation to really want to do it.  Most Americans just want a magic pill they can pop that'll make them lose weight, but that's not how you do it.  You have to want it, and work at it.  A large part of it is mental.


And as for some of the earlier comments, when you compare someone with more fat with someone who is skinny, and neither have worked out, the fatter person is going to be able to lift more weight.  I first noticed this in high school, and it's been a continuing trend up through college.  So, you pretty much have no choice but to lose strength when you first start losing weight, but once your weight stabilizes, you should be able to get it back up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After my final season of college football , I dropped 30 pounds in about 4 months .
I did this very simply : I cut my meals roughly in half ( ate just enough to where I wouldnt feel massively hungry for the next 6 hours ) and worked out for about 1.5 hours 5 days a week ( mostly strength training , some light running ) .
I also changed what I ate : grilled chicken 3-4 nights a week with rice , lots of salads , little to no fried foods , and cut out soda almost completely .
This was about 7-8 months ago .
Now , with grad school , I 'm lucky to get in 2-3 1 hour workouts a week .
While my muscle mass has certainly gone down , I have managed to stay constant with my weight .
It 's not about how you do it , it 's about WANTING to do it .
You have to have the motivation to really want to do it .
Most Americans just want a magic pill they can pop that 'll make them lose weight , but that 's not how you do it .
You have to want it , and work at it .
A large part of it is mental .
And as for some of the earlier comments , when you compare someone with more fat with someone who is skinny , and neither have worked out , the fatter person is going to be able to lift more weight .
I first noticed this in high school , and it 's been a continuing trend up through college .
So , you pretty much have no choice but to lose strength when you first start losing weight , but once your weight stabilizes , you should be able to get it back up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After my final season of college football, I dropped 30 pounds in about 4 months.
I did this very simply:  I cut my meals roughly in half(ate just enough to where I wouldnt feel massively hungry for the next 6 hours) and worked out for about 1.5 hours 5 days a week(mostly strength training, some light running).
I also changed what I ate: grilled chicken 3-4 nights a week with rice, lots of salads, little to no fried foods, and cut out soda almost completely.
This was about 7-8 months ago.
Now, with grad school, I'm lucky to get in 2-3 1 hour workouts a week.
While my muscle mass has certainly gone down, I have managed to stay constant with my weight.
It's not about how you do it, it's about WANTING to do it.
You have to have the motivation to really want to do it.
Most Americans just want a magic pill they can pop that'll make them lose weight, but that's not how you do it.
You have to want it, and work at it.
A large part of it is mental.
And as for some of the earlier comments, when you compare someone with more fat with someone who is skinny, and neither have worked out, the fatter person is going to be able to lift more weight.
I first noticed this in high school, and it's been a continuing trend up through college.
So, you pretty much have no choice but to lose strength when you first start losing weight, but once your weight stabilizes, you should be able to get it back up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30039768</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1257768540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The stuff that western civilisation pushed on us under the label food, is often highly processed, devoid of useful nutrients, and stuffed with harmful chemicals and empty calories.</p></div><p>Right.  And vaccines cause autism.  Would you like some more purple coolaid?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The stuff that western civilisation pushed on us under the label food , is often highly processed , devoid of useful nutrients , and stuffed with harmful chemicals and empty calories.Right .
And vaccines cause autism .
Would you like some more purple coolaid ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The stuff that western civilisation pushed on us under the label food, is often highly processed, devoid of useful nutrients, and stuffed with harmful chemicals and empty calories.Right.
And vaccines cause autism.
Would you like some more purple coolaid?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035102</id>
	<title>It's the hormones that control fattening, not fat.</title>
	<author>DoctorHow</author>
	<datestamp>1257791460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Gary Taubes -- "Good Calories Bad Calories"</b>
  <br>
 <br>
His rather prolific research into the history of the science of obesity, diet, nutrition, and "diseases of civilization" are mind-blowing.  (see link to video below)<p>  Especially to geeks who know that sometimes EVERYONE gets it wrong.

</p><p> In this case, the common (mis)understandings have tainted the understanding of an entire generation of scientists and thus the people they inform.
</p><p>
In a nutshell, it's all about the only hormone in the body that turns ON the fat storage system.  All others, including dopamine, adrenaline, etc. tell the body, HEY WE NEED ENERGY NOW, and so energy flows OUT of the fat system.  The one hormone that flips the switch to STORAGE is INSULIN.
</p><p>
So when the body has plenty of insulin, its IMPOSSIBLE for it to go back to RELEASE fat mode.
</p><p>
What causes insulin to be released?  All carbohydrates do.  The #1 of those is GLUCOSE.  The others all do to a greater or lesser degree (read about GLYCEMIC LOAD/INDEX).
</p><p>
So without glucose (and the other oses) there is no insulin released.  No insulin released means the body stays in the natural energy release when needed mode, not stuck in storage mode.
</p><p>
To add to the trouble, one effect of insulin release is actually HUNGER itself.  Thus creating a feedback loop.
</p><p>
Bottom line is, and unbelievable as it sounds in the face of modern "nutrition science", humans don't need to worry about their blood sugar levels being too low.  Too high, and chronically elevated, mean the body can't release the fat, no matter how much exercise is done.
</p><p>
Finally he shows how fat has been wrongfully vilified over the past 50 years, and so if you take fat (high-density energy storage) out of the diet, it is replaced with carbs, and that itself is what triggers the storage system.
</p><p>
Taubes has a great one hour video lecture that is very geek friendly.
</p><p>
<b> <a href="http://dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm" title="dhslides.org" rel="nofollow">http://dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm</a> [dhslides.org] </b>
</p><p>
<b> <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=taubes+adiposity+101" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?q=taubes+adiposity+101</a> [google.com] </b>
</p><p>
Geeks, you're the only ones who can grok this easily as you RTFM -- well Taubes has wrote the book on it, and if you're curious about why science could be so wrong, start your search engines and know there's a huge revelation that you'll not only say WOW to, but you'll realize that you can help spread the word of how to stop the spread of obesity...
</p><p>

Good luck geeks!
</p><p>
p.s. the key to it all may be the GLYCEROL-3-PHOSPHATE (aka ALPHA GYLYCEROL PHOSPHATE)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... which is the backbone of the stored form of fat in the fat cell.  The triple glyceride molecule is too big for the "loading dock" and so transportation in or out of storage necesitates the disassembly of free 3x glycerides down to 2x, and then reassembly inside the fat cell back to 3x.  And the best ironic bit, the G3P/AGP is an EXHAUST PRODUCT of the "burning" of the sugars!  So it's actually like some component of the car exhaust actually causing the "environmental change", so its not even the energy of the sugars (and starches; which are actually sugars our taste buds can get a 'grip' on to taste as sweet), but rather a by product of their use.
</p><p>
Without excerise I went from 300 lbs down to 165, so it must work...  YMMV<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
</p><p>
Finally this comment is probably too late to get modded to visibility right now, but if you find this down the road and want to know more, don't hesitate to ask and send an email!  The more geeks aware of this, the more ability we have to help others understand too.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gary Taubes -- " Good Calories Bad Calories " His rather prolific research into the history of the science of obesity , diet , nutrition , and " diseases of civilization " are mind-blowing .
( see link to video below ) Especially to geeks who know that sometimes EVERYONE gets it wrong .
In this case , the common ( mis ) understandings have tainted the understanding of an entire generation of scientists and thus the people they inform .
In a nutshell , it 's all about the only hormone in the body that turns ON the fat storage system .
All others , including dopamine , adrenaline , etc .
tell the body , HEY WE NEED ENERGY NOW , and so energy flows OUT of the fat system .
The one hormone that flips the switch to STORAGE is INSULIN .
So when the body has plenty of insulin , its IMPOSSIBLE for it to go back to RELEASE fat mode .
What causes insulin to be released ?
All carbohydrates do .
The # 1 of those is GLUCOSE .
The others all do to a greater or lesser degree ( read about GLYCEMIC LOAD/INDEX ) .
So without glucose ( and the other oses ) there is no insulin released .
No insulin released means the body stays in the natural energy release when needed mode , not stuck in storage mode .
To add to the trouble , one effect of insulin release is actually HUNGER itself .
Thus creating a feedback loop .
Bottom line is , and unbelievable as it sounds in the face of modern " nutrition science " , humans do n't need to worry about their blood sugar levels being too low .
Too high , and chronically elevated , mean the body ca n't release the fat , no matter how much exercise is done .
Finally he shows how fat has been wrongfully vilified over the past 50 years , and so if you take fat ( high-density energy storage ) out of the diet , it is replaced with carbs , and that itself is what triggers the storage system .
Taubes has a great one hour video lecture that is very geek friendly .
http : //dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm [ dhslides.org ] http : //www.google.com/search ? q = taubes + adiposity + 101 [ google.com ] Geeks , you 're the only ones who can grok this easily as you RTFM -- well Taubes has wrote the book on it , and if you 're curious about why science could be so wrong , start your search engines and know there 's a huge revelation that you 'll not only say WOW to , but you 'll realize that you can help spread the word of how to stop the spread of obesity.. . Good luck geeks !
p.s. the key to it all may be the GLYCEROL-3-PHOSPHATE ( aka ALPHA GYLYCEROL PHOSPHATE ) ... which is the backbone of the stored form of fat in the fat cell .
The triple glyceride molecule is too big for the " loading dock " and so transportation in or out of storage necesitates the disassembly of free 3x glycerides down to 2x , and then reassembly inside the fat cell back to 3x .
And the best ironic bit , the G3P/AGP is an EXHAUST PRODUCT of the " burning " of the sugars !
So it 's actually like some component of the car exhaust actually causing the " environmental change " , so its not even the energy of the sugars ( and starches ; which are actually sugars our taste buds can get a 'grip ' on to taste as sweet ) , but rather a by product of their use .
Without excerise I went from 300 lbs down to 165 , so it must work... YMMV ; - ) Finally this comment is probably too late to get modded to visibility right now , but if you find this down the road and want to know more , do n't hesitate to ask and send an email !
The more geeks aware of this , the more ability we have to help others understand too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gary Taubes -- "Good Calories Bad Calories"
  
 
His rather prolific research into the history of the science of obesity, diet, nutrition, and "diseases of civilization" are mind-blowing.
(see link to video below)  Especially to geeks who know that sometimes EVERYONE gets it wrong.
In this case, the common (mis)understandings have tainted the understanding of an entire generation of scientists and thus the people they inform.
In a nutshell, it's all about the only hormone in the body that turns ON the fat storage system.
All others, including dopamine, adrenaline, etc.
tell the body, HEY WE NEED ENERGY NOW, and so energy flows OUT of the fat system.
The one hormone that flips the switch to STORAGE is INSULIN.
So when the body has plenty of insulin, its IMPOSSIBLE for it to go back to RELEASE fat mode.
What causes insulin to be released?
All carbohydrates do.
The #1 of those is GLUCOSE.
The others all do to a greater or lesser degree (read about GLYCEMIC LOAD/INDEX).
So without glucose (and the other oses) there is no insulin released.
No insulin released means the body stays in the natural energy release when needed mode, not stuck in storage mode.
To add to the trouble, one effect of insulin release is actually HUNGER itself.
Thus creating a feedback loop.
Bottom line is, and unbelievable as it sounds in the face of modern "nutrition science", humans don't need to worry about their blood sugar levels being too low.
Too high, and chronically elevated, mean the body can't release the fat, no matter how much exercise is done.
Finally he shows how fat has been wrongfully vilified over the past 50 years, and so if you take fat (high-density energy storage) out of the diet, it is replaced with carbs, and that itself is what triggers the storage system.
Taubes has a great one hour video lecture that is very geek friendly.
http://dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm [dhslides.org] 

 http://www.google.com/search?q=taubes+adiposity+101 [google.com] 

Geeks, you're the only ones who can grok this easily as you RTFM -- well Taubes has wrote the book on it, and if you're curious about why science could be so wrong, start your search engines and know there's a huge revelation that you'll not only say WOW to, but you'll realize that you can help spread the word of how to stop the spread of obesity...


Good luck geeks!
p.s. the key to it all may be the GLYCEROL-3-PHOSPHATE (aka ALPHA GYLYCEROL PHOSPHATE) ... which is the backbone of the stored form of fat in the fat cell.
The triple glyceride molecule is too big for the "loading dock" and so transportation in or out of storage necesitates the disassembly of free 3x glycerides down to 2x, and then reassembly inside the fat cell back to 3x.
And the best ironic bit, the G3P/AGP is an EXHAUST PRODUCT of the "burning" of the sugars!
So it's actually like some component of the car exhaust actually causing the "environmental change", so its not even the energy of the sugars (and starches; which are actually sugars our taste buds can get a 'grip' on to taste as sweet), but rather a by product of their use.
Without excerise I went from 300 lbs down to 165, so it must work...  YMMV ;-)

Finally this comment is probably too late to get modded to visibility right now, but if you find this down the road and want to know more, don't hesitate to ask and send an email!
The more geeks aware of this, the more ability we have to help others understand too.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029748</id>
	<title>Re:But it's all physics? *snark*</title>
	<author>ifwm</author>
	<datestamp>1257798660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But..but...it's just thermodynamics! There's no way that the human body could be a complex organism that adapts to it's environment or anything like that! If you're fat it's because you're lazy! Exercise and you must lose weight! 2nd law says so!</p><p>Yeah, pretty much, it's been proven time and time again, and this study does nothing to disprove it,all your smug childish attempts at sarcasm aside.</p><blockquote><div><p>Oh, wait...</p></div></blockquote><p>You mean like YOU did before it was shown that this is almost certainly a result of confounding variables?</p><p>Oh, you DIDN'T, you just smugly, sarcastically assumed that something you want to believe, in spite of mounds of evidence against it, was now DEFINITIVELY PROVEN.</p><p>No, I won't wait, I'll dismiss your post in it's entirety right now, thanks.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But..but...it 's just thermodynamics !
There 's no way that the human body could be a complex organism that adapts to it 's environment or anything like that !
If you 're fat it 's because you 're lazy !
Exercise and you must lose weight !
2nd law says so ! Yeah , pretty much , it 's been proven time and time again , and this study does nothing to disprove it,all your smug childish attempts at sarcasm aside.Oh , wait...You mean like YOU did before it was shown that this is almost certainly a result of confounding variables ? Oh , you DID N'T , you just smugly , sarcastically assumed that something you want to believe , in spite of mounds of evidence against it , was now DEFINITIVELY PROVEN.No , I wo n't wait , I 'll dismiss your post in it 's entirety right now , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But..but...it's just thermodynamics!
There's no way that the human body could be a complex organism that adapts to it's environment or anything like that!
If you're fat it's because you're lazy!
Exercise and you must lose weight!
2nd law says so!Yeah, pretty much, it's been proven time and time again, and this study does nothing to disprove it,all your smug childish attempts at sarcasm aside.Oh, wait...You mean like YOU did before it was shown that this is almost certainly a result of confounding variables?Oh, you DIDN'T, you just smugly, sarcastically assumed that something you want to believe, in spite of mounds of evidence against it, was now DEFINITIVELY PROVEN.No, I won't wait, I'll dismiss your post in it's entirety right now, thanks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30044966</id>
	<title>Are you serious?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257865500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you eat right and exercise, you will maintain a healthy weight. Period.</p><p>2 + 2 = 5, eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you eat right and exercise , you will maintain a healthy weight .
Period.2 + 2 = 5 , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you eat right and exercise, you will maintain a healthy weight.
Period.2 + 2 = 5, eh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030962</id>
	<title>Re:Your body doesn't have a 100\% conversion factor</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1257770400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>How you chew your food matters? Seriously?</i> <br> <br>Food which has been chewed well allows digestive enzymes easier access. Note that plenty of processed food has been effectivly "pre chewed"<br> <br> <i>Food is food no matter how you chew it.</i> <br> <br>How much nutrient can your body extract from an undamaged tomato seed?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How you chew your food matters ?
Seriously ? Food which has been chewed well allows digestive enzymes easier access .
Note that plenty of processed food has been effectivly " pre chewed " Food is food no matter how you chew it .
How much nutrient can your body extract from an undamaged tomato seed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How you chew your food matters?
Seriously?  Food which has been chewed well allows digestive enzymes easier access.
Note that plenty of processed food has been effectivly "pre chewed"  Food is food no matter how you chew it.
How much nutrient can your body extract from an undamaged tomato seed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031572</id>
	<title>The only time I ever lost weight, it was exercise.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257776160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it took a while to get into "loss mode".  I exercised about 3 months on cardio machines and never lost anything, but then got into a "zone" where I lost 2lbs a week.  15 lbs later, I had met my goal and stopped worrying about weight.  (Yeah, 15lbs isn't a lot, I nipped the weight problem in the bud.)  After the 15 lbs, I switched exercise routines and stopped losing weight, but I never really gained it back until I took an injury and became more sedentary.</p><p>My only diet change was elimination of sugary drinks--and as I said, for the first 3 months I never lost anything, even without the extra sugar.</p><p>The "weight loss zone" was, for me, when I had worked up to 5-6 1 hour workouts per week in which I'd burn 1000+ Cal according to the elliptical I was using.</p><p>I think different things work for different people.  For me, exercising like crazy works.  Nothing else has.</p><p>--PM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it took a while to get into " loss mode " .
I exercised about 3 months on cardio machines and never lost anything , but then got into a " zone " where I lost 2lbs a week .
15 lbs later , I had met my goal and stopped worrying about weight .
( Yeah , 15lbs is n't a lot , I nipped the weight problem in the bud .
) After the 15 lbs , I switched exercise routines and stopped losing weight , but I never really gained it back until I took an injury and became more sedentary.My only diet change was elimination of sugary drinks--and as I said , for the first 3 months I never lost anything , even without the extra sugar.The " weight loss zone " was , for me , when I had worked up to 5-6 1 hour workouts per week in which I 'd burn 1000 + Cal according to the elliptical I was using.I think different things work for different people .
For me , exercising like crazy works .
Nothing else has.--PM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it took a while to get into "loss mode".
I exercised about 3 months on cardio machines and never lost anything, but then got into a "zone" where I lost 2lbs a week.
15 lbs later, I had met my goal and stopped worrying about weight.
(Yeah, 15lbs isn't a lot, I nipped the weight problem in the bud.
)  After the 15 lbs, I switched exercise routines and stopped losing weight, but I never really gained it back until I took an injury and became more sedentary.My only diet change was elimination of sugary drinks--and as I said, for the first 3 months I never lost anything, even without the extra sugar.The "weight loss zone" was, for me, when I had worked up to 5-6 1 hour workouts per week in which I'd burn 1000+ Cal according to the elliptical I was using.I think different things work for different people.
For me, exercising like crazy works.
Nothing else has.--PM</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029734</id>
	<title>Re:Perpetual motion 'fat'?</title>
	<author>Lemmy Caution</author>
	<datestamp>1257798480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Show me a overweight Olympic level marathon runner, and I might believe it.</p></div><p>Um, your post is a poster child for the correlation/causation truism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Show me a overweight Olympic level marathon runner , and I might believe it.Um , your post is a poster child for the correlation/causation truism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Show me a overweight Olympic level marathon runner, and I might believe it.Um, your post is a poster child for the correlation/causation truism.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30043670</id>
	<title>Re:Cut the f*cking Carbs</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1257851100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/1/43/" title="ama-assn.org" rel="nofollow">Adherence to a diet is more important than the type of diet</a> [ama-assn.org] as far as weight loss is concerned.  It's not like calories from sugar (or protein or whatever) count any more than calories from anything else.  "Glycemic index" also hasn't been found to have any effect if that's what you're getting at.<br> <br>

Blood sugar, unless you're diabetic, is rather unexciting.  The insulin/glucagon system will keep blood sugar from dropping too low or getting too high.  It's actually rather surprising, your body can maintain your blood glucose levels for something like 40 days without eating.  Since it's quite adept at making glucose, not eating much sugar isn't going to lead to lower blood sugars levels.  (Diabetics have to worry since this system doesn't work as well in them... leading to peaks and dips that are rather dangerous.)<br> <br>

Eating 875 g of sugar above what you need will generally cause you to gain a pound of body fat.  The same is true of eating 875 g of protein or 389 g of fat.  The only concern is that while there aren't really any essential sugars, cutting out an entire macronutrient class is unhealthy.  Balanced diets are best, but anything you'll stick to will work.  If low carbohydrates works for you, great.  Just try to transition to something a little healthier eventually.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Adherence to a diet is more important than the type of diet [ ama-assn.org ] as far as weight loss is concerned .
It 's not like calories from sugar ( or protein or whatever ) count any more than calories from anything else .
" Glycemic index " also has n't been found to have any effect if that 's what you 're getting at .
Blood sugar , unless you 're diabetic , is rather unexciting .
The insulin/glucagon system will keep blood sugar from dropping too low or getting too high .
It 's actually rather surprising , your body can maintain your blood glucose levels for something like 40 days without eating .
Since it 's quite adept at making glucose , not eating much sugar is n't going to lead to lower blood sugars levels .
( Diabetics have to worry since this system does n't work as well in them... leading to peaks and dips that are rather dangerous .
) Eating 875 g of sugar above what you need will generally cause you to gain a pound of body fat .
The same is true of eating 875 g of protein or 389 g of fat .
The only concern is that while there are n't really any essential sugars , cutting out an entire macronutrient class is unhealthy .
Balanced diets are best , but anything you 'll stick to will work .
If low carbohydrates works for you , great .
Just try to transition to something a little healthier eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adherence to a diet is more important than the type of diet [ama-assn.org] as far as weight loss is concerned.
It's not like calories from sugar (or protein or whatever) count any more than calories from anything else.
"Glycemic index" also hasn't been found to have any effect if that's what you're getting at.
Blood sugar, unless you're diabetic, is rather unexciting.
The insulin/glucagon system will keep blood sugar from dropping too low or getting too high.
It's actually rather surprising, your body can maintain your blood glucose levels for something like 40 days without eating.
Since it's quite adept at making glucose, not eating much sugar isn't going to lead to lower blood sugars levels.
(Diabetics have to worry since this system doesn't work as well in them... leading to peaks and dips that are rather dangerous.
) 

Eating 875 g of sugar above what you need will generally cause you to gain a pound of body fat.
The same is true of eating 875 g of protein or 389 g of fat.
The only concern is that while there aren't really any essential sugars, cutting out an entire macronutrient class is unhealthy.
Balanced diets are best, but anything you'll stick to will work.
If low carbohydrates works for you, great.
Just try to transition to something a little healthier eventually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033128</id>
	<title>It's the carbs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257783540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The answer is actually pretty simple -&gt; weight gain and loss are regulated by the hormone insulin, and the only macronutrient that spikes your insulin levels is carbohydrate.</p><p>Gary Taubes wrote a book on this called "Good Calories, Bad Calories".  Read it.  He's also got a lecture online here:</p><p>http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event\_details.php?webcastid=21216</p><p>Now, people have differing levels of insulin sensitivity/resistance, so you will get cases of people who can eat all the carbs they want and never gain a pound, and others who plump up with the slightest addition of carbohydrate to their diet, but the basic biomechanics are pretty clear -&gt; insulin causes fat cells to hold onto fat, starving the rest of your body for energy, making you both fat, and hungry.  Satisfying your hunger using carbs only makes it worse.</p><p>For all the people still stuck on the thermodynamics of it all (I understand, I'm a physicist, and I thought the body was just a calories in/calories out machine before reading about the science), seriously, grab the book "Good Calories, Bad Calories".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer is actually pretty simple - &gt; weight gain and loss are regulated by the hormone insulin , and the only macronutrient that spikes your insulin levels is carbohydrate.Gary Taubes wrote a book on this called " Good Calories , Bad Calories " .
Read it .
He 's also got a lecture online here : http : //webcast.berkeley.edu/event \ _details.php ? webcastid = 21216Now , people have differing levels of insulin sensitivity/resistance , so you will get cases of people who can eat all the carbs they want and never gain a pound , and others who plump up with the slightest addition of carbohydrate to their diet , but the basic biomechanics are pretty clear - &gt; insulin causes fat cells to hold onto fat , starving the rest of your body for energy , making you both fat , and hungry .
Satisfying your hunger using carbs only makes it worse.For all the people still stuck on the thermodynamics of it all ( I understand , I 'm a physicist , and I thought the body was just a calories in/calories out machine before reading about the science ) , seriously , grab the book " Good Calories , Bad Calories " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer is actually pretty simple -&gt; weight gain and loss are regulated by the hormone insulin, and the only macronutrient that spikes your insulin levels is carbohydrate.Gary Taubes wrote a book on this called "Good Calories, Bad Calories".
Read it.
He's also got a lecture online here:http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event\_details.php?webcastid=21216Now, people have differing levels of insulin sensitivity/resistance, so you will get cases of people who can eat all the carbs they want and never gain a pound, and others who plump up with the slightest addition of carbohydrate to their diet, but the basic biomechanics are pretty clear -&gt; insulin causes fat cells to hold onto fat, starving the rest of your body for energy, making you both fat, and hungry.
Satisfying your hunger using carbs only makes it worse.For all the people still stuck on the thermodynamics of it all (I understand, I'm a physicist, and I thought the body was just a calories in/calories out machine before reading about the science), seriously, grab the book "Good Calories, Bad Calories".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30039142</id>
	<title>That's bull</title>
	<author>the grace of R'hllor</author>
	<datestamp>1257765180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We only define three macro nutrients. Why do you think you can cut one out? I lost about 2lbs a week for 3 months easily, and I ate cereal for breakfast, lots of fruit (almost entirely sugar), bread for lunch, and vegetables, potato and meat for dinner. And I drank about half a liter of cola (none of that diet crap) in the evenings as well.<br><br>So why did I lose weight? My meals were small, only just filling enough, and I exercised (with some vigor) four times a week: two times cardio, two times weights. Of course, I also consumed plenty of fat, and the meaty products I ate (dinner, bread toppings) gave me enough protein. I also drank quite a bit of water.<br><br>The trick is to have a more or less good balance of the macro-nutrients, made of real food (vegetables, milk, meat, eggs, bread, basically anything that can rot. Cereal is actually not that good), and have small portions. If you're hungry an hour after breakfast, have some more breakfast next morning. If you're not hungry at lunch, have a little less breakfast next morning. Easy peasy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We only define three macro nutrients .
Why do you think you can cut one out ?
I lost about 2lbs a week for 3 months easily , and I ate cereal for breakfast , lots of fruit ( almost entirely sugar ) , bread for lunch , and vegetables , potato and meat for dinner .
And I drank about half a liter of cola ( none of that diet crap ) in the evenings as well.So why did I lose weight ?
My meals were small , only just filling enough , and I exercised ( with some vigor ) four times a week : two times cardio , two times weights .
Of course , I also consumed plenty of fat , and the meaty products I ate ( dinner , bread toppings ) gave me enough protein .
I also drank quite a bit of water.The trick is to have a more or less good balance of the macro-nutrients , made of real food ( vegetables , milk , meat , eggs , bread , basically anything that can rot .
Cereal is actually not that good ) , and have small portions .
If you 're hungry an hour after breakfast , have some more breakfast next morning .
If you 're not hungry at lunch , have a little less breakfast next morning .
Easy peasy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We only define three macro nutrients.
Why do you think you can cut one out?
I lost about 2lbs a week for 3 months easily, and I ate cereal for breakfast, lots of fruit (almost entirely sugar), bread for lunch, and vegetables, potato and meat for dinner.
And I drank about half a liter of cola (none of that diet crap) in the evenings as well.So why did I lose weight?
My meals were small, only just filling enough, and I exercised (with some vigor) four times a week: two times cardio, two times weights.
Of course, I also consumed plenty of fat, and the meaty products I ate (dinner, bread toppings) gave me enough protein.
I also drank quite a bit of water.The trick is to have a more or less good balance of the macro-nutrients, made of real food (vegetables, milk, meat, eggs, bread, basically anything that can rot.
Cereal is actually not that good), and have small portions.
If you're hungry an hour after breakfast, have some more breakfast next morning.
If you're not hungry at lunch, have a little less breakfast next morning.
Easy peasy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30036424</id>
	<title>Is this also proven on "The Biggest Loser" ?</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1257796740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those people are all, at least, 100 pounds overweight. And they workout, all day long, everyday, with world-class trainers, yet they don't lose all that much weight - maybe one pound a day on average.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those people are all , at least , 100 pounds overweight .
And they workout , all day long , everyday , with world-class trainers , yet they do n't lose all that much weight - maybe one pound a day on average .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those people are all, at least, 100 pounds overweight.
And they workout, all day long, everyday, with world-class trainers, yet they don't lose all that much weight - maybe one pound a day on average.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034878</id>
	<title>Re:Conservation of Energy</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1257790560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I notice is that my skin temperature is always warm, especially compared to women. In fact, I am very comfortable when the temperature is around 15deg inside. I go outside on a 5deg day in nothing more than a sweater and a top hat.</p></div><p>When my metabolism was at its peak, after sophomore year wrestling. I went back to my old diet. I had been craving the curly fries in the cafeteria for over 4 months. I ate 2. It had to have been near 4000 calories. However since my metabolism was still at its peak, I was literally dripping sweat the rest of the day. I went outside in Jan 0F (-17C) and finally felt comfortable. I spent almost a half hour outside in nothing but a T-shirt and jeans before my fingers started to feel cold.</p><p>It's the same now. When it starts getting cold in Dec I feel cold. When I start a good workout regime in Jan it's suddenly fine to walk back to my car in a T-shirt. (I work out Jan -&gt; March. Rugby March - October. Eat like I used to in Nov/Dec + the Holidays. Gain back the 20 lbs and start it all over.</p><p>An analogy I once heard was the metabolism is like a fire. You can toss a huge log on and it'll take forever to burn or keep tossing on twigs and kindling and have it burn hot, but you have to keep feeding it kindling.</p><p>So another way to help weight loss is to not change what you eat, but when. When I go on diets I move from 2-3 meals a day to 8-9. Almost snacks. (DO NOT snack all day). If you ate 200 calories for 10 hours vs eating 2000 calories RIGHT before bed, you'll probably notice a change.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I notice is that my skin temperature is always warm , especially compared to women .
In fact , I am very comfortable when the temperature is around 15deg inside .
I go outside on a 5deg day in nothing more than a sweater and a top hat.When my metabolism was at its peak , after sophomore year wrestling .
I went back to my old diet .
I had been craving the curly fries in the cafeteria for over 4 months .
I ate 2 .
It had to have been near 4000 calories .
However since my metabolism was still at its peak , I was literally dripping sweat the rest of the day .
I went outside in Jan 0F ( -17C ) and finally felt comfortable .
I spent almost a half hour outside in nothing but a T-shirt and jeans before my fingers started to feel cold.It 's the same now .
When it starts getting cold in Dec I feel cold .
When I start a good workout regime in Jan it 's suddenly fine to walk back to my car in a T-shirt .
( I work out Jan - &gt; March .
Rugby March - October .
Eat like I used to in Nov/Dec + the Holidays .
Gain back the 20 lbs and start it all over.An analogy I once heard was the metabolism is like a fire .
You can toss a huge log on and it 'll take forever to burn or keep tossing on twigs and kindling and have it burn hot , but you have to keep feeding it kindling.So another way to help weight loss is to not change what you eat , but when .
When I go on diets I move from 2-3 meals a day to 8-9 .
Almost snacks .
( DO NOT snack all day ) .
If you ate 200 calories for 10 hours vs eating 2000 calories RIGHT before bed , you 'll probably notice a change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I notice is that my skin temperature is always warm, especially compared to women.
In fact, I am very comfortable when the temperature is around 15deg inside.
I go outside on a 5deg day in nothing more than a sweater and a top hat.When my metabolism was at its peak, after sophomore year wrestling.
I went back to my old diet.
I had been craving the curly fries in the cafeteria for over 4 months.
I ate 2.
It had to have been near 4000 calories.
However since my metabolism was still at its peak, I was literally dripping sweat the rest of the day.
I went outside in Jan 0F (-17C) and finally felt comfortable.
I spent almost a half hour outside in nothing but a T-shirt and jeans before my fingers started to feel cold.It's the same now.
When it starts getting cold in Dec I feel cold.
When I start a good workout regime in Jan it's suddenly fine to walk back to my car in a T-shirt.
(I work out Jan -&gt; March.
Rugby March - October.
Eat like I used to in Nov/Dec + the Holidays.
Gain back the 20 lbs and start it all over.An analogy I once heard was the metabolism is like a fire.
You can toss a huge log on and it'll take forever to burn or keep tossing on twigs and kindling and have it burn hot, but you have to keep feeding it kindling.So another way to help weight loss is to not change what you eat, but when.
When I go on diets I move from 2-3 meals a day to 8-9.
Almost snacks.
(DO NOT snack all day).
If you ate 200 calories for 10 hours vs eating 2000 calories RIGHT before bed, you'll probably notice a change.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034864</id>
	<title>See Gary Taubes book</title>
	<author>Demosthenex</author>
	<datestamp>1257790500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. a while ago,</p><p><a href="http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/20/1748243" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/20/1748243</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Gary Taubes book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" looks at the science behind it. Having read it, I'm not surprised the researchers came to their conclusion.</p><p>Worth a read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was on / .
a while ago,http : //science.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 07/11/20/1748243 [ slashdot.org ] Gary Taubes book " Good Calories , Bad Calories " looks at the science behind it .
Having read it , I 'm not surprised the researchers came to their conclusion.Worth a read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was on /.
a while ago,http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/20/1748243 [slashdot.org]Gary Taubes book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" looks at the science behind it.
Having read it, I'm not surprised the researchers came to their conclusion.Worth a read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257797820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the problem with exercise and diet: it's <b>like a job that pays $1 per hour</b>: a lot of work and sacrifice for tiny results. Diet food tastes like shit. The box it comes in is tastier than the contents in my opinion. Repeated studies show that even fairly intense diet and exercise result in only about a 15 pound reduction over the longer run. People then think, "Why should I bust my ass chasing that 15 lbs? I'm still overweight. Fuck it, I want a donut!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the problem with exercise and diet : it 's like a job that pays $ 1 per hour : a lot of work and sacrifice for tiny results .
Diet food tastes like shit .
The box it comes in is tastier than the contents in my opinion .
Repeated studies show that even fairly intense diet and exercise result in only about a 15 pound reduction over the longer run .
People then think , " Why should I bust my ass chasing that 15 lbs ?
I 'm still overweight .
Fuck it , I want a donut !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the problem with exercise and diet: it's like a job that pays $1 per hour: a lot of work and sacrifice for tiny results.
Diet food tastes like shit.
The box it comes in is tastier than the contents in my opinion.
Repeated studies show that even fairly intense diet and exercise result in only about a 15 pound reduction over the longer run.
People then think, "Why should I bust my ass chasing that 15 lbs?
I'm still overweight.
Fuck it, I want a donut!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030244</id>
	<title>If you want to get technical about it...</title>
	<author>danerthomas</author>
	<datestamp>1257760920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the problems with these types of studies is that they pay attention to variables that are easily measured rather than those that are more meaningful. Measuring weight is easy, but less meaningful than Body Mass Index. Measuring Body Mass Index is also a fairly easy calculation, but is less meaningful than Body Composition (which shows the relative proportions of fatty and non fatty tissues).

This is of course just a symptom of the larger problem, which is a lack of clarity and purpose when it comes to the stated goals of the study. If the goal is to improve appearance one should measure size rather than weight, or to be more scientific, to compare both segmental body composition and circumferential measurements over the course of the study, with separate goals based on gender. Both genders typically want to reduce waist circumference, but men typically want bigger upper arms and don't worry about saddlebags, while women often want to reduce both of those areas. Significant changes in these areas are possible with apparently minimal changes in weight, primarily due to the fact that fat is less dense than muscle, and that weight-bearing strength activities that are intense enough to add meaningful amounts of muscle can also lead to increased bone density, which also adds weight without a net increase in volume.

If on the other hand the study claims to be aimed at improving health, fitness or wellness they would do well to primarily focus on activity and performance-based measurements and downplay bodyweight. It has been well-established that moderately heavy people who are active can be considerably healthier than their slender but sedentary colleagues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the problems with these types of studies is that they pay attention to variables that are easily measured rather than those that are more meaningful .
Measuring weight is easy , but less meaningful than Body Mass Index .
Measuring Body Mass Index is also a fairly easy calculation , but is less meaningful than Body Composition ( which shows the relative proportions of fatty and non fatty tissues ) .
This is of course just a symptom of the larger problem , which is a lack of clarity and purpose when it comes to the stated goals of the study .
If the goal is to improve appearance one should measure size rather than weight , or to be more scientific , to compare both segmental body composition and circumferential measurements over the course of the study , with separate goals based on gender .
Both genders typically want to reduce waist circumference , but men typically want bigger upper arms and do n't worry about saddlebags , while women often want to reduce both of those areas .
Significant changes in these areas are possible with apparently minimal changes in weight , primarily due to the fact that fat is less dense than muscle , and that weight-bearing strength activities that are intense enough to add meaningful amounts of muscle can also lead to increased bone density , which also adds weight without a net increase in volume .
If on the other hand the study claims to be aimed at improving health , fitness or wellness they would do well to primarily focus on activity and performance-based measurements and downplay bodyweight .
It has been well-established that moderately heavy people who are active can be considerably healthier than their slender but sedentary colleagues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the problems with these types of studies is that they pay attention to variables that are easily measured rather than those that are more meaningful.
Measuring weight is easy, but less meaningful than Body Mass Index.
Measuring Body Mass Index is also a fairly easy calculation, but is less meaningful than Body Composition (which shows the relative proportions of fatty and non fatty tissues).
This is of course just a symptom of the larger problem, which is a lack of clarity and purpose when it comes to the stated goals of the study.
If the goal is to improve appearance one should measure size rather than weight, or to be more scientific, to compare both segmental body composition and circumferential measurements over the course of the study, with separate goals based on gender.
Both genders typically want to reduce waist circumference, but men typically want bigger upper arms and don't worry about saddlebags, while women often want to reduce both of those areas.
Significant changes in these areas are possible with apparently minimal changes in weight, primarily due to the fact that fat is less dense than muscle, and that weight-bearing strength activities that are intense enough to add meaningful amounts of muscle can also lead to increased bone density, which also adds weight without a net increase in volume.
If on the other hand the study claims to be aimed at improving health, fitness or wellness they would do well to primarily focus on activity and performance-based measurements and downplay bodyweight.
It has been well-established that moderately heavy people who are active can be considerably healthier than their slender but sedentary colleagues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029586</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>DeadDecoy</author>
	<datestamp>1257797100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think we as a culture are too used to being sold quick weight loss 'solutions'. True fitness, as you say, comes from a change in lifestyle, where one should be exercising not for 12 weeks but for several years to be in a healthy state. Unless you go through some painful and hellish training regimen, getting fit doesn't happen quick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we as a culture are too used to being sold quick weight loss 'solutions' .
True fitness , as you say , comes from a change in lifestyle , where one should be exercising not for 12 weeks but for several years to be in a healthy state .
Unless you go through some painful and hellish training regimen , getting fit does n't happen quick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we as a culture are too used to being sold quick weight loss 'solutions'.
True fitness, as you say, comes from a change in lifestyle, where one should be exercising not for 12 weeks but for several years to be in a healthy state.
Unless you go through some painful and hellish training regimen, getting fit doesn't happen quick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030326</id>
	<title>Re:You're half right</title>
	<author>beowulfcluster</author>
	<datestamp>1257761940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same here, 15kg in the last 6 months. All from going out for a quick powerwalk 6 days a week and gradually cutting down on the worst of the food/drink I used to do a lot of. I weigh myself once a week and seeing that 0.5kg loss most weeks is a great motivation for me. Noticing that pants I used to wear 6 months ago are now too big for me is a great motivator too. 0.5kg a week might not seem that much but it adds up and slow, steady and (importantly) sustainable weight loss is better than crash course diets, at least for me. I don't even see the walking as a chore anymore either, it feels good to get out and do it now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here , 15kg in the last 6 months .
All from going out for a quick powerwalk 6 days a week and gradually cutting down on the worst of the food/drink I used to do a lot of .
I weigh myself once a week and seeing that 0.5kg loss most weeks is a great motivation for me .
Noticing that pants I used to wear 6 months ago are now too big for me is a great motivator too .
0.5kg a week might not seem that much but it adds up and slow , steady and ( importantly ) sustainable weight loss is better than crash course diets , at least for me .
I do n't even see the walking as a chore anymore either , it feels good to get out and do it now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here, 15kg in the last 6 months.
All from going out for a quick powerwalk 6 days a week and gradually cutting down on the worst of the food/drink I used to do a lot of.
I weigh myself once a week and seeing that 0.5kg loss most weeks is a great motivation for me.
Noticing that pants I used to wear 6 months ago are now too big for me is a great motivator too.
0.5kg a week might not seem that much but it adds up and slow, steady and (importantly) sustainable weight loss is better than crash course diets, at least for me.
I don't even see the walking as a chore anymore either, it feels good to get out and do it now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029664</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>klenwell</author>
	<datestamp>1257797820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or go with the flow.  As TFA points out, whether you lose weight or not, work out a few hours a week and you're healthier.</p><p>My own experience confirms this.  All my life, I was too thin.  Then I left school and got an office job about 5 years ago.  All the sudden I'm not having a problem keeping on the pounds.  I never got noticeably overweight but I was getting a little soft around the center.  Signed up for a 24-hour fitness membership a couple years ago and was surprised that my weight continued to inch up.</p><p>Finally, earlier this year, I changed up my workout.  More cardio, less weightlifting.  Also went from around 4 1.5-hour workouts a week to 6.  I just treat it like my job.  As soon as I get off work, it's off to the gym for two hours (which has the advantage of waiting out traffic.)  I also made some adjustments to my diet.  Less fast food.  Replaced cola with coffee (caffeine) or lemonade (sweet).  And though my sweet tooth is as sweet as ever, I am more conscious about eating that extra snack or the dessert that was left in the break room, and consequently, I probably eat a few less calories on average.</p><p>But my real secret weapon: the Nintendo DS.  I needed something to distract me from the drudgery of the stairmaster and lifecycle and I can only gawk at the girls for so long.  I don't play video games otherwise, so I look forward to an hour or so playing with the DS while I sweat.  Turned-based games like Advanced Wars (or chess) are perfect for the stairmaster.</p><p>The result: for the last 6 months, I've been shedding a pound or so every 2 weeks, about the same as the study.  A few months of that will add up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or go with the flow .
As TFA points out , whether you lose weight or not , work out a few hours a week and you 're healthier.My own experience confirms this .
All my life , I was too thin .
Then I left school and got an office job about 5 years ago .
All the sudden I 'm not having a problem keeping on the pounds .
I never got noticeably overweight but I was getting a little soft around the center .
Signed up for a 24-hour fitness membership a couple years ago and was surprised that my weight continued to inch up.Finally , earlier this year , I changed up my workout .
More cardio , less weightlifting .
Also went from around 4 1.5-hour workouts a week to 6 .
I just treat it like my job .
As soon as I get off work , it 's off to the gym for two hours ( which has the advantage of waiting out traffic .
) I also made some adjustments to my diet .
Less fast food .
Replaced cola with coffee ( caffeine ) or lemonade ( sweet ) .
And though my sweet tooth is as sweet as ever , I am more conscious about eating that extra snack or the dessert that was left in the break room , and consequently , I probably eat a few less calories on average.But my real secret weapon : the Nintendo DS .
I needed something to distract me from the drudgery of the stairmaster and lifecycle and I can only gawk at the girls for so long .
I do n't play video games otherwise , so I look forward to an hour or so playing with the DS while I sweat .
Turned-based games like Advanced Wars ( or chess ) are perfect for the stairmaster.The result : for the last 6 months , I 've been shedding a pound or so every 2 weeks , about the same as the study .
A few months of that will add up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or go with the flow.
As TFA points out, whether you lose weight or not, work out a few hours a week and you're healthier.My own experience confirms this.
All my life, I was too thin.
Then I left school and got an office job about 5 years ago.
All the sudden I'm not having a problem keeping on the pounds.
I never got noticeably overweight but I was getting a little soft around the center.
Signed up for a 24-hour fitness membership a couple years ago and was surprised that my weight continued to inch up.Finally, earlier this year, I changed up my workout.
More cardio, less weightlifting.
Also went from around 4 1.5-hour workouts a week to 6.
I just treat it like my job.
As soon as I get off work, it's off to the gym for two hours (which has the advantage of waiting out traffic.
)  I also made some adjustments to my diet.
Less fast food.
Replaced cola with coffee (caffeine) or lemonade (sweet).
And though my sweet tooth is as sweet as ever, I am more conscious about eating that extra snack or the dessert that was left in the break room, and consequently, I probably eat a few less calories on average.But my real secret weapon: the Nintendo DS.
I needed something to distract me from the drudgery of the stairmaster and lifecycle and I can only gawk at the girls for so long.
I don't play video games otherwise, so I look forward to an hour or so playing with the DS while I sweat.
Turned-based games like Advanced Wars (or chess) are perfect for the stairmaster.The result: for the last 6 months, I've been shedding a pound or so every 2 weeks, about the same as the study.
A few months of that will add up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029998</id>
	<title>Easy</title>
	<author>edelholz</author>
	<datestamp>1257758280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Silly them. If an untrained person starts to exercise, (s)he is likely to build up muscles. And muscles are heavy, heavier than fat. So if they lost a few pounds, they should've SEEN a significant difference. Losing weight is very simple: use more calories than you take in. Exercising burns trough calories quickly, and even just having more muscles burns more calories when idling than before. If you, like in the study, don't change your diet and are obese, you are probably already taking in way too much calories - or increased the amount of food you eat because your body tells you to, to compensate for the exercise. Hence, no or no significant weight loss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Silly them .
If an untrained person starts to exercise , ( s ) he is likely to build up muscles .
And muscles are heavy , heavier than fat .
So if they lost a few pounds , they should 've SEEN a significant difference .
Losing weight is very simple : use more calories than you take in .
Exercising burns trough calories quickly , and even just having more muscles burns more calories when idling than before .
If you , like in the study , do n't change your diet and are obese , you are probably already taking in way too much calories - or increased the amount of food you eat because your body tells you to , to compensate for the exercise .
Hence , no or no significant weight loss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Silly them.
If an untrained person starts to exercise, (s)he is likely to build up muscles.
And muscles are heavy, heavier than fat.
So if they lost a few pounds, they should've SEEN a significant difference.
Losing weight is very simple: use more calories than you take in.
Exercising burns trough calories quickly, and even just having more muscles burns more calories when idling than before.
If you, like in the study, don't change your diet and are obese, you are probably already taking in way too much calories - or increased the amount of food you eat because your body tells you to, to compensate for the exercise.
Hence, no or no significant weight loss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029572</id>
	<title>Re:Your body doesn't have a 100\% conversion factor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257797040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Still, physics still stand: Use more energy than you get through food you \_will\_ lose weight."</p><p>What you eat is also a very important variable in that equation (unless you plan on literally starving yourself). For example, some foods will cause your body to produce more fat cells than others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Still , physics still stand : Use more energy than you get through food you \ _will \ _ lose weight .
" What you eat is also a very important variable in that equation ( unless you plan on literally starving yourself ) .
For example , some foods will cause your body to produce more fat cells than others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Still, physics still stand: Use more energy than you get through food you \_will\_ lose weight.
"What you eat is also a very important variable in that equation (unless you plan on literally starving yourself).
For example, some foods will cause your body to produce more fat cells than others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034102</id>
	<title>Spend time at exercise to really benefit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257787440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody on this forum has a clue what it means to live a life style with "exercise".  Lolly gagging around for 30 minutes at the gym every other day is just toying with the concept.  You need to get involved in real exercise sports and spend time at it.  But it's really a lot of fun doing stuff that take exercise.  Once you get in shape, if you miss a few days or a week, you really miss the workouts.</p><p>I take several 7 day long backpacking trips a year, and carry a 70 lb pack (on my 200 lb 6' 2" frame) 10 miles a day.  I eat till I'm full each day, and come back with more muscle and in better shape that I started with, and lose 1 lb of weight a day!</p><p>When I take a weekend climbing trip on Mount Ranier (10,000' elevation gain, 15 miles, 40 pound pack) I'll loose several pounds.</p><p>Several times a month in the summer I'll just take a day hike into the mountains outside of town, swim and have lunch at an alpine lake, then return home.  5,000' elevation gain over a 5 mile trail outbound is about 3 hours of continuous max heart rate and my cardio watch says about 3000 calories round trip in 5 hours (for my 62 YO body - I could do 3,000' elevation gain an hour when I was younger).</p><p>Now my wife is more into bikes so I do some road and mountain bike trips with her. But my butt gets sore.  Still, going out and riding a rural road on a sunny day in the spring is really nice.  We do a 2.5 hours 35 mile loop with 1000' elevation gain.  That burns a good 1/2 pound.  Some mountain bike trails we ride take a good half day and probably burn off almost a pound of fat.</p><p>Then there is the cross country and downhill skiing in the winter.  25,000' of vertical descent at the ski area takes an incredible amount of energy and strength.  It usually takes me 5-6 trips to get strong enough to do that much in a day.  And we skate ski in the evenings during the week after work, 10-15K two - three times a week, 90 minutes.</p><p>We also go to the gym a few times a month to work on certain muscle group strengths.  And we still both work full time.  Just a few more years till we can retire and play all the time!  Which we may need to, as I find that as we age, the muscle mass disappears from disuse much faster than it did when we were young, and it takes longer to get it back, meaning you need to work at it longer each week.  And yes, we can pretty much eat anything we want and don't carry very much excess fat on our bodies. So if you want to lose weight through exercise, get interested in an exercise sport and spend time at it.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody on this forum has a clue what it means to live a life style with " exercise " .
Lolly gagging around for 30 minutes at the gym every other day is just toying with the concept .
You need to get involved in real exercise sports and spend time at it .
But it 's really a lot of fun doing stuff that take exercise .
Once you get in shape , if you miss a few days or a week , you really miss the workouts.I take several 7 day long backpacking trips a year , and carry a 70 lb pack ( on my 200 lb 6 ' 2 " frame ) 10 miles a day .
I eat till I 'm full each day , and come back with more muscle and in better shape that I started with , and lose 1 lb of weight a day ! When I take a weekend climbing trip on Mount Ranier ( 10,000 ' elevation gain , 15 miles , 40 pound pack ) I 'll loose several pounds.Several times a month in the summer I 'll just take a day hike into the mountains outside of town , swim and have lunch at an alpine lake , then return home .
5,000 ' elevation gain over a 5 mile trail outbound is about 3 hours of continuous max heart rate and my cardio watch says about 3000 calories round trip in 5 hours ( for my 62 YO body - I could do 3,000 ' elevation gain an hour when I was younger ) .Now my wife is more into bikes so I do some road and mountain bike trips with her .
But my butt gets sore .
Still , going out and riding a rural road on a sunny day in the spring is really nice .
We do a 2.5 hours 35 mile loop with 1000 ' elevation gain .
That burns a good 1/2 pound .
Some mountain bike trails we ride take a good half day and probably burn off almost a pound of fat.Then there is the cross country and downhill skiing in the winter .
25,000 ' of vertical descent at the ski area takes an incredible amount of energy and strength .
It usually takes me 5-6 trips to get strong enough to do that much in a day .
And we skate ski in the evenings during the week after work , 10-15K two - three times a week , 90 minutes.We also go to the gym a few times a month to work on certain muscle group strengths .
And we still both work full time .
Just a few more years till we can retire and play all the time !
Which we may need to , as I find that as we age , the muscle mass disappears from disuse much faster than it did when we were young , and it takes longer to get it back , meaning you need to work at it longer each week .
And yes , we can pretty much eat anything we want and do n't carry very much excess fat on our bodies .
So if you want to lose weight through exercise , get interested in an exercise sport and spend time at it .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody on this forum has a clue what it means to live a life style with "exercise".
Lolly gagging around for 30 minutes at the gym every other day is just toying with the concept.
You need to get involved in real exercise sports and spend time at it.
But it's really a lot of fun doing stuff that take exercise.
Once you get in shape, if you miss a few days or a week, you really miss the workouts.I take several 7 day long backpacking trips a year, and carry a 70 lb pack (on my 200 lb 6' 2" frame) 10 miles a day.
I eat till I'm full each day, and come back with more muscle and in better shape that I started with, and lose 1 lb of weight a day!When I take a weekend climbing trip on Mount Ranier (10,000' elevation gain, 15 miles, 40 pound pack) I'll loose several pounds.Several times a month in the summer I'll just take a day hike into the mountains outside of town, swim and have lunch at an alpine lake, then return home.
5,000' elevation gain over a 5 mile trail outbound is about 3 hours of continuous max heart rate and my cardio watch says about 3000 calories round trip in 5 hours (for my 62 YO body - I could do 3,000' elevation gain an hour when I was younger).Now my wife is more into bikes so I do some road and mountain bike trips with her.
But my butt gets sore.
Still, going out and riding a rural road on a sunny day in the spring is really nice.
We do a 2.5 hours 35 mile loop with 1000' elevation gain.
That burns a good 1/2 pound.
Some mountain bike trails we ride take a good half day and probably burn off almost a pound of fat.Then there is the cross country and downhill skiing in the winter.
25,000' of vertical descent at the ski area takes an incredible amount of energy and strength.
It usually takes me 5-6 trips to get strong enough to do that much in a day.
And we skate ski in the evenings during the week after work, 10-15K two - three times a week, 90 minutes.We also go to the gym a few times a month to work on certain muscle group strengths.
And we still both work full time.
Just a few more years till we can retire and play all the time!
Which we may need to, as I find that as we age, the muscle mass disappears from disuse much faster than it did when we were young, and it takes longer to get it back, meaning you need to work at it longer each week.
And yes, we can pretty much eat anything we want and don't carry very much excess fat on our bodies.
So if you want to lose weight through exercise, get interested in an exercise sport and spend time at it.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030418</id>
	<title>Re:Be lazy and lose weight. Work hard and get fat!</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1257763320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? You mean that an industry based around a market worth over $50 billion a year in the USA alone (<a href="http://www.prwebdirect.com/releases/2007/4/preweb520127.php" title="prwebdirect.com">source</a> [prwebdirect.com]) would try hard to make us buy all types of overly expensive craps?

</p><p>When you think about it though it's kind of funny, fat people desperate to lose weight who spend thousands a year on all types of crap and who go through pains like running until they're soaking wet and nearly fainting when they don't bother to address the only reason why they're this fat in the first place : the guargantuan amounts of crap the shove in their face all day.

</p><p>I almost can't understand, I'm so lazy that most of the time I can't even be bothered to eat dinner, meaning I don't often get to eat more than 2,100 calories a day. I sit on my arse all day, but you won't be surprised to hear that I'm indeed quite thin. It takes extraordinary efforts and a visit to McDonald's for me to reach the national average of 3,400 kcal a day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
You mean that an industry based around a market worth over $ 50 billion a year in the USA alone ( source [ prwebdirect.com ] ) would try hard to make us buy all types of overly expensive craps ?
When you think about it though it 's kind of funny , fat people desperate to lose weight who spend thousands a year on all types of crap and who go through pains like running until they 're soaking wet and nearly fainting when they do n't bother to address the only reason why they 're this fat in the first place : the guargantuan amounts of crap the shove in their face all day .
I almost ca n't understand , I 'm so lazy that most of the time I ca n't even be bothered to eat dinner , meaning I do n't often get to eat more than 2,100 calories a day .
I sit on my arse all day , but you wo n't be surprised to hear that I 'm indeed quite thin .
It takes extraordinary efforts and a visit to McDonald 's for me to reach the national average of 3,400 kcal a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
You mean that an industry based around a market worth over $50 billion a year in the USA alone (source [prwebdirect.com]) would try hard to make us buy all types of overly expensive craps?
When you think about it though it's kind of funny, fat people desperate to lose weight who spend thousands a year on all types of crap and who go through pains like running until they're soaking wet and nearly fainting when they don't bother to address the only reason why they're this fat in the first place : the guargantuan amounts of crap the shove in their face all day.
I almost can't understand, I'm so lazy that most of the time I can't even be bothered to eat dinner, meaning I don't often get to eat more than 2,100 calories a day.
I sit on my arse all day, but you won't be surprised to hear that I'm indeed quite thin.
It takes extraordinary efforts and a visit to McDonald's for me to reach the national average of 3,400 kcal a day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30038212</id>
	<title>Calorie counting with restaurant foods -- how?</title>
	<author>Bootsy Collins</author>
	<datestamp>1257761220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because of demands on my time, I eat carryout/delivery way more than I'd like, or should (for both health and money reasons).  With regard to calorie-counting approaches like The Hacker's Diet, how do you figure stuff like this?  Obviously there's a way to do it for fast-food, but I'm not talking about fast-food.  I'm talking about a dinner portion of chicken tikka masala from the Punjabi place up the street, or garlic dill potatoes from the soul food restaurant.  How do those of you who have successfully applied The Hacker's Diet deal with stuff where the calorie content isn't easily discoverable?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because of demands on my time , I eat carryout/delivery way more than I 'd like , or should ( for both health and money reasons ) .
With regard to calorie-counting approaches like The Hacker 's Diet , how do you figure stuff like this ?
Obviously there 's a way to do it for fast-food , but I 'm not talking about fast-food .
I 'm talking about a dinner portion of chicken tikka masala from the Punjabi place up the street , or garlic dill potatoes from the soul food restaurant .
How do those of you who have successfully applied The Hacker 's Diet deal with stuff where the calorie content is n't easily discoverable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because of demands on my time, I eat carryout/delivery way more than I'd like, or should (for both health and money reasons).
With regard to calorie-counting approaches like The Hacker's Diet, how do you figure stuff like this?
Obviously there's a way to do it for fast-food, but I'm not talking about fast-food.
I'm talking about a dinner portion of chicken tikka masala from the Punjabi place up the street, or garlic dill potatoes from the soul food restaurant.
How do those of you who have successfully applied The Hacker's Diet deal with stuff where the calorie content isn't easily discoverable?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034432</id>
	<title>Re:But it's all physics? *snark*</title>
	<author>Noose For A Neck</author>
	<datestamp>1257788760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you suggesting that the human body somehow violates the laws of thermodynamics? Because that would be much stupider than what you seem to be mocking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you suggesting that the human body somehow violates the laws of thermodynamics ?
Because that would be much stupider than what you seem to be mocking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you suggesting that the human body somehow violates the laws of thermodynamics?
Because that would be much stupider than what you seem to be mocking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030566</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1257765000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The longer you do without junk food, the less you crave it.  Real food tastes much better after you've given up donuts, burgers, and MSG.  Rather than a $1/hr job, think of a diet as starting college as a broke student.  It takes a while to graduate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The longer you do without junk food , the less you crave it .
Real food tastes much better after you 've given up donuts , burgers , and MSG .
Rather than a $ 1/hr job , think of a diet as starting college as a broke student .
It takes a while to graduate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The longer you do without junk food, the less you crave it.
Real food tastes much better after you've given up donuts, burgers, and MSG.
Rather than a $1/hr job, think of a diet as starting college as a broke student.
It takes a while to graduate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029494</id>
	<title>far more diet than anything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257709920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>calories in versus calories out, and you would have to exercise a ridiculous amount to change the 'calories out' to anything useful.  not that exercise doesn't have great benefits in other areas, but for pure weight control diet is 10 times more important than exersize.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>calories in versus calories out , and you would have to exercise a ridiculous amount to change the 'calories out ' to anything useful .
not that exercise does n't have great benefits in other areas , but for pure weight control diet is 10 times more important than exersize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>calories in versus calories out, and you would have to exercise a ridiculous amount to change the 'calories out' to anything useful.
not that exercise doesn't have great benefits in other areas, but for pure weight control diet is 10 times more important than exersize.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029688</id>
	<title>Anti-oxidents (like tea) versus exercise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257798000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read an article a while ago, and forgive me for not linking, you'll just have to take my word for it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P It might have been on Ars Technica, but it could just as easily have been linked here.</p><p>Anyhow, the gyst of the article was that when you exercise, your body reacts to the higher concentrations of oxygen in your blood, besides other things. The problem is that if you drink lots of tea and coffee or are otherwise endowed with higher than normal levels of anti-oxidents, then your body actually has an easier time of coping with the results of your exercise. So tea and coffee actually "protect" you from benefiting from exercise on some level.</p><p>I think it's funny that a study published in a country famous for drinking tea is displaying these results.</p><p>Again, take it with a grain of salt since I haven't linked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read an article a while ago , and forgive me for not linking , you 'll just have to take my word for it .
: P It might have been on Ars Technica , but it could just as easily have been linked here.Anyhow , the gyst of the article was that when you exercise , your body reacts to the higher concentrations of oxygen in your blood , besides other things .
The problem is that if you drink lots of tea and coffee or are otherwise endowed with higher than normal levels of anti-oxidents , then your body actually has an easier time of coping with the results of your exercise .
So tea and coffee actually " protect " you from benefiting from exercise on some level.I think it 's funny that a study published in a country famous for drinking tea is displaying these results.Again , take it with a grain of salt since I have n't linked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read an article a while ago, and forgive me for not linking, you'll just have to take my word for it.
:P It might have been on Ars Technica, but it could just as easily have been linked here.Anyhow, the gyst of the article was that when you exercise, your body reacts to the higher concentrations of oxygen in your blood, besides other things.
The problem is that if you drink lots of tea and coffee or are otherwise endowed with higher than normal levels of anti-oxidents, then your body actually has an easier time of coping with the results of your exercise.
So tea and coffee actually "protect" you from benefiting from exercise on some level.I think it's funny that a study published in a country famous for drinking tea is displaying these results.Again, take it with a grain of salt since I haven't linked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032234</id>
	<title>7 pounds in 12 weeks is great</title>
	<author>terminal.dk</author>
	<datestamp>1257779880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everything I hear about weight loss is, that you can get a maximum of around 1 pound per week sustainable weight loss. The average is more than half of that. And does not take muscle gain into account.</p><p>Whenever in my life I have started training for some goal, my initial weight go up as muscles gain mass. Then weight drops later.</p><p>When I trained for marathon, I was running 2 time 8km + 1 times long run, when my long run started to go beyond 75 minutes, I kept losing around half a pound per week. And I was on normal food, but bigger portions. I was on half a liter of icecream and 200 grams of potato chips as supplement so as not to lose too much weight too quickly, and not be too tired.</p><p>Exercise works. Especially 60-65\%+ of Heart Rate Reserve in more than 75 minutes at a time. Most people burns mostly sugar the first 45 minutes. The body need to be starved off carbohydrates during exercise, so that the body will learn to use fat as the primary energy source, and keep carbs as a fuel for the brain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything I hear about weight loss is , that you can get a maximum of around 1 pound per week sustainable weight loss .
The average is more than half of that .
And does not take muscle gain into account.Whenever in my life I have started training for some goal , my initial weight go up as muscles gain mass .
Then weight drops later.When I trained for marathon , I was running 2 time 8km + 1 times long run , when my long run started to go beyond 75 minutes , I kept losing around half a pound per week .
And I was on normal food , but bigger portions .
I was on half a liter of icecream and 200 grams of potato chips as supplement so as not to lose too much weight too quickly , and not be too tired.Exercise works .
Especially 60-65 \ % + of Heart Rate Reserve in more than 75 minutes at a time .
Most people burns mostly sugar the first 45 minutes .
The body need to be starved off carbohydrates during exercise , so that the body will learn to use fat as the primary energy source , and keep carbs as a fuel for the brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything I hear about weight loss is, that you can get a maximum of around 1 pound per week sustainable weight loss.
The average is more than half of that.
And does not take muscle gain into account.Whenever in my life I have started training for some goal, my initial weight go up as muscles gain mass.
Then weight drops later.When I trained for marathon, I was running 2 time 8km + 1 times long run, when my long run started to go beyond 75 minutes, I kept losing around half a pound per week.
And I was on normal food, but bigger portions.
I was on half a liter of icecream and 200 grams of potato chips as supplement so as not to lose too much weight too quickly, and not be too tired.Exercise works.
Especially 60-65\%+ of Heart Rate Reserve in more than 75 minutes at a time.
Most people burns mostly sugar the first 45 minutes.
The body need to be starved off carbohydrates during exercise, so that the body will learn to use fat as the primary energy source, and keep carbs as a fuel for the brain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30036216</id>
	<title>Re:But it's all physics? *snark*</title>
	<author>AlejoHausner</author>
	<datestamp>1257795660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good troll!
<p>

The physics is correct, but the causality is backward!  Weight loss and gain DRIVE exercise, not the other way around.
</p><p>

The energy balance equation is simple: energy in - energy out = energy stored as fat.  In more detail, we could write:
F - (B + E) = S, where F is energy from food, B is energy spent by your basal metabolism (keeping warm, digesting, etc), E is calories burned from exercise, and S is energy stored as body fat.  As the article argues, E is much smaller than B, but there's more to it:
</p><p>

We typically turn this equation into an inference: if you eat more, you have to exercise more to keep your weight stable (ie, to keep S=0).  But that inference contains several assumptions.  It assumes that B is a fixed, and it assumes that E is controlled by the will.
</p><p>

As some posters have argued here, the basal metabolism B adjusts depending on what you eat, or on how much muscle mass you have.  I'm not going to argue against that assumption.  The more important assumption to consider is that E is driven by the will.
</p><p>

Before his recent book, Gary Taubes wrote an article on exercise and weight loss for "New York" magazine: <a href="http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/index3.html" title="nymag.com" rel="nofollow">http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/index3.html</a> [nymag.com].  In it, he documents some of the research behind the exercise-weight loss problem, and he strongly argues that exercise IS NOT controlled by the will.
</p><p>

He argues that we have the causality backwards: weight loss/gain drive exercise, not the other way around!  People who do a lot of exercise (eg long-distance runners and cyclists) have a metabolism that is continually burning down their fat stores.  They absolutely have to something with all that available fuel, and hence they are compelled to be in motion all the time.  They're jumpy and wiry.  They just can't help it.  Of course, they get hungry and eat, but their bodies don't store the fuel, and eating just leads to a greater need for exercise.
</p><p>

Conversely, people who are prone to gain weight have bodies that refuse to burn calories, and suck every bit of food out of the bloodstream and store it as fat.  There is no ready fuel available, so such people have no energy, and no natural propensity for vigorous motion.  They're happy to be standing still.
</p><p>

In other words, people's tendencies to lose weight or gain it are CAUSING exercise or inactivity, no the other way around!
</p><p>

I find the argument compelling, especially since there are so many weight-loss studies that show you can't fight your body's natural tendencies: simple calorie-deficit diets always lead to weight gained back (with a bonus!).   Matter is much stronger than mind, especially when that mind is encased in (and maybe a function of) the body's matter.
</p><p>

Alejo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good troll !
The physics is correct , but the causality is backward !
Weight loss and gain DRIVE exercise , not the other way around .
The energy balance equation is simple : energy in - energy out = energy stored as fat .
In more detail , we could write : F - ( B + E ) = S , where F is energy from food , B is energy spent by your basal metabolism ( keeping warm , digesting , etc ) , E is calories burned from exercise , and S is energy stored as body fat .
As the article argues , E is much smaller than B , but there 's more to it : We typically turn this equation into an inference : if you eat more , you have to exercise more to keep your weight stable ( ie , to keep S = 0 ) .
But that inference contains several assumptions .
It assumes that B is a fixed , and it assumes that E is controlled by the will .
As some posters have argued here , the basal metabolism B adjusts depending on what you eat , or on how much muscle mass you have .
I 'm not going to argue against that assumption .
The more important assumption to consider is that E is driven by the will .
Before his recent book , Gary Taubes wrote an article on exercise and weight loss for " New York " magazine : http : //nymag.com/news/sports/38001/index3.html [ nymag.com ] .
In it , he documents some of the research behind the exercise-weight loss problem , and he strongly argues that exercise IS NOT controlled by the will .
He argues that we have the causality backwards : weight loss/gain drive exercise , not the other way around !
People who do a lot of exercise ( eg long-distance runners and cyclists ) have a metabolism that is continually burning down their fat stores .
They absolutely have to something with all that available fuel , and hence they are compelled to be in motion all the time .
They 're jumpy and wiry .
They just ca n't help it .
Of course , they get hungry and eat , but their bodies do n't store the fuel , and eating just leads to a greater need for exercise .
Conversely , people who are prone to gain weight have bodies that refuse to burn calories , and suck every bit of food out of the bloodstream and store it as fat .
There is no ready fuel available , so such people have no energy , and no natural propensity for vigorous motion .
They 're happy to be standing still .
In other words , people 's tendencies to lose weight or gain it are CAUSING exercise or inactivity , no the other way around !
I find the argument compelling , especially since there are so many weight-loss studies that show you ca n't fight your body 's natural tendencies : simple calorie-deficit diets always lead to weight gained back ( with a bonus ! ) .
Matter is much stronger than mind , especially when that mind is encased in ( and maybe a function of ) the body 's matter .
Alejo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good troll!
The physics is correct, but the causality is backward!
Weight loss and gain DRIVE exercise, not the other way around.
The energy balance equation is simple: energy in - energy out = energy stored as fat.
In more detail, we could write:
F - (B + E) = S, where F is energy from food, B is energy spent by your basal metabolism (keeping warm, digesting, etc), E is calories burned from exercise, and S is energy stored as body fat.
As the article argues, E is much smaller than B, but there's more to it:


We typically turn this equation into an inference: if you eat more, you have to exercise more to keep your weight stable (ie, to keep S=0).
But that inference contains several assumptions.
It assumes that B is a fixed, and it assumes that E is controlled by the will.
As some posters have argued here, the basal metabolism B adjusts depending on what you eat, or on how much muscle mass you have.
I'm not going to argue against that assumption.
The more important assumption to consider is that E is driven by the will.
Before his recent book, Gary Taubes wrote an article on exercise and weight loss for "New York" magazine: http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/index3.html [nymag.com].
In it, he documents some of the research behind the exercise-weight loss problem, and he strongly argues that exercise IS NOT controlled by the will.
He argues that we have the causality backwards: weight loss/gain drive exercise, not the other way around!
People who do a lot of exercise (eg long-distance runners and cyclists) have a metabolism that is continually burning down their fat stores.
They absolutely have to something with all that available fuel, and hence they are compelled to be in motion all the time.
They're jumpy and wiry.
They just can't help it.
Of course, they get hungry and eat, but their bodies don't store the fuel, and eating just leads to a greater need for exercise.
Conversely, people who are prone to gain weight have bodies that refuse to burn calories, and suck every bit of food out of the bloodstream and store it as fat.
There is no ready fuel available, so such people have no energy, and no natural propensity for vigorous motion.
They're happy to be standing still.
In other words, people's tendencies to lose weight or gain it are CAUSING exercise or inactivity, no the other way around!
I find the argument compelling, especially since there are so many weight-loss studies that show you can't fight your body's natural tendencies: simple calorie-deficit diets always lead to weight gained back (with a bonus!).
Matter is much stronger than mind, especially when that mind is encased in (and maybe a function of) the body's matter.
Alejo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030018</id>
	<title>Well of course....</title>
	<author>hengdi</author>
	<datestamp>1257758400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exercise always makes me hungry!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exercise always makes me hungry !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exercise always makes me hungry!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029606</id>
	<title>Take it from the horses mouth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257797220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a computer nerd who lived with a body builder in college let me put this into perspective.

1.) If you eat a lot of food, or if you eat food with a lot of fat in it, then you gain weight.
2.) Losing weight requires a fundamental rethinking of your lifestyle.
3.) If you start doing push-ups, sit-ups and running daily but don't change your lifestyle then you will probably put on additional weight (muscle weighs more than fat).

To lose weight you just need a healthy simple plan.  Change the types of food you eat and cut calories, then take three days a week to begin working out.  I personally lost 55 pounds in 12 months because I was dedicated to the process of getting into shape.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a computer nerd who lived with a body builder in college let me put this into perspective .
1. ) If you eat a lot of food , or if you eat food with a lot of fat in it , then you gain weight .
2. ) Losing weight requires a fundamental rethinking of your lifestyle .
3. ) If you start doing push-ups , sit-ups and running daily but do n't change your lifestyle then you will probably put on additional weight ( muscle weighs more than fat ) .
To lose weight you just need a healthy simple plan .
Change the types of food you eat and cut calories , then take three days a week to begin working out .
I personally lost 55 pounds in 12 months because I was dedicated to the process of getting into shape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a computer nerd who lived with a body builder in college let me put this into perspective.
1.) If you eat a lot of food, or if you eat food with a lot of fat in it, then you gain weight.
2.) Losing weight requires a fundamental rethinking of your lifestyle.
3.) If you start doing push-ups, sit-ups and running daily but don't change your lifestyle then you will probably put on additional weight (muscle weighs more than fat).
To lose weight you just need a healthy simple plan.
Change the types of food you eat and cut calories, then take three days a week to begin working out.
I personally lost 55 pounds in 12 months because I was dedicated to the process of getting into shape.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030004</id>
	<title>"Old ladies of both sexes" approach</title>
	<author>Purpendicular</author>
	<datestamp>1257758340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Aerobic exercise" it says in the TA.  Why not to the thing properly? 500 kCal per day, maximum 70\% heart rate... Was this the "old ladies of both sexes" method of exercise?<br> <br>

For starters, they should have walked to the sports centre. It is unfortunately a sad world we live in. My father in-law once ran a major sports centre in the UK. He tells me that the most important aspect of success is to have the parking lot just in front of the entrance.
<br> <br>
These people went from doing no exercise it would appear, to performing a tiny amount of exercise. I am certain that had they added:
<br> <br>
"Walk 3 km (2 miles for part the world) to the sport centre, do your little thing, walk 3 km to get back home afterwards. Walk to work, walk back from work."<br> <br>

the results would have been more impressive.<br> <br>
<br> <br>
Obligatory schooling was introduced in my native Sweden in 1842. It was then decided that school should start at 7. Not because of the maturity of the children, but because it was decided that a 7-year old can walk, alone, 3 km to school, and 3 km back. This would be too much for a 6-year old. Therefore, by starting school at 7, much fewer school buildings would need to be constructed.
<br> <br>
Note to UK readers:<br>
The frequency of paedophilia was most likely just as large as it is now. People, for some reason, decided not to introduce a police state at the same time though. Maybe their risk assessments  were a bit more realistic in those times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Aerobic exercise " it says in the TA .
Why not to the thing properly ?
500 kCal per day , maximum 70 \ % heart rate... Was this the " old ladies of both sexes " method of exercise ?
For starters , they should have walked to the sports centre .
It is unfortunately a sad world we live in .
My father in-law once ran a major sports centre in the UK .
He tells me that the most important aspect of success is to have the parking lot just in front of the entrance .
These people went from doing no exercise it would appear , to performing a tiny amount of exercise .
I am certain that had they added : " Walk 3 km ( 2 miles for part the world ) to the sport centre , do your little thing , walk 3 km to get back home afterwards .
Walk to work , walk back from work .
" the results would have been more impressive .
Obligatory schooling was introduced in my native Sweden in 1842 .
It was then decided that school should start at 7 .
Not because of the maturity of the children , but because it was decided that a 7-year old can walk , alone , 3 km to school , and 3 km back .
This would be too much for a 6-year old .
Therefore , by starting school at 7 , much fewer school buildings would need to be constructed .
Note to UK readers : The frequency of paedophilia was most likely just as large as it is now .
People , for some reason , decided not to introduce a police state at the same time though .
Maybe their risk assessments were a bit more realistic in those times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Aerobic exercise" it says in the TA.
Why not to the thing properly?
500 kCal per day, maximum 70\% heart rate... Was this the "old ladies of both sexes" method of exercise?
For starters, they should have walked to the sports centre.
It is unfortunately a sad world we live in.
My father in-law once ran a major sports centre in the UK.
He tells me that the most important aspect of success is to have the parking lot just in front of the entrance.
These people went from doing no exercise it would appear, to performing a tiny amount of exercise.
I am certain that had they added:
 
"Walk 3 km (2 miles for part the world) to the sport centre, do your little thing, walk 3 km to get back home afterwards.
Walk to work, walk back from work.
" 

the results would have been more impressive.
Obligatory schooling was introduced in my native Sweden in 1842.
It was then decided that school should start at 7.
Not because of the maturity of the children, but because it was decided that a 7-year old can walk, alone, 3 km to school, and 3 km back.
This would be too much for a 6-year old.
Therefore, by starting school at 7, much fewer school buildings would need to be constructed.
Note to UK readers:
The frequency of paedophilia was most likely just as large as it is now.
People, for some reason, decided not to introduce a police state at the same time though.
Maybe their risk assessments  were a bit more realistic in those times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033324</id>
	<title>I find this hard to swallow</title>
	<author>npsimons</author>
	<datestamp>1257784320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> . . . much like most other diet "news".  How closely were they monitoring the subjects food intake?  If they weren't keeping track of every calorie, then I'm willing to bet a fiver the subjects were cheating.  Now, granted, exercise doesn't really burn that many calories, but all it takes is a net deficit of 500 calories a day to lose a pound a week.  Of course, to burn 500 calories with exercise, you usually have to do some heavy exercise for about 60 minutes, and a candy bar and a soda for a snack afterwards will (almost) completely negate that.  I say "almost" because the exercise will up your metabolism for a short while afterwards (I've found the effects last about a whole day for me after doing a hard 60min workout).  I'll also be the first to admit that the ~30lb I've lost were almost entirely due to diet.  OTOH, exercise actually suppresses my appetite for a while, it ups my metabolism all day, and even if it didn't do both those things I would still keep doing it because it makes me feel damn good, both physically and mentally.  I also credit the exercise to helping me keep the weight off.  In any case, you can't just diet to lose the weight, then start pigging out again.  If you want to keep the weight off, you have to make some lifestyle changes.  Thankfully, there are ways to eat healthy while still nourishing your soul.  It just takes more effort than some people are willing to put out.  Also, exercise might not help you lose weight fast, but it sure wouldn't hurt.  If you are fat, increasing your amount (not intensity!) of exercise will not hurt you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
much like most other diet " news " .
How closely were they monitoring the subjects food intake ?
If they were n't keeping track of every calorie , then I 'm willing to bet a fiver the subjects were cheating .
Now , granted , exercise does n't really burn that many calories , but all it takes is a net deficit of 500 calories a day to lose a pound a week .
Of course , to burn 500 calories with exercise , you usually have to do some heavy exercise for about 60 minutes , and a candy bar and a soda for a snack afterwards will ( almost ) completely negate that .
I say " almost " because the exercise will up your metabolism for a short while afterwards ( I 've found the effects last about a whole day for me after doing a hard 60min workout ) .
I 'll also be the first to admit that the ~ 30lb I 've lost were almost entirely due to diet .
OTOH , exercise actually suppresses my appetite for a while , it ups my metabolism all day , and even if it did n't do both those things I would still keep doing it because it makes me feel damn good , both physically and mentally .
I also credit the exercise to helping me keep the weight off .
In any case , you ca n't just diet to lose the weight , then start pigging out again .
If you want to keep the weight off , you have to make some lifestyle changes .
Thankfully , there are ways to eat healthy while still nourishing your soul .
It just takes more effort than some people are willing to put out .
Also , exercise might not help you lose weight fast , but it sure would n't hurt .
If you are fat , increasing your amount ( not intensity !
) of exercise will not hurt you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> .
. .
much like most other diet "news".
How closely were they monitoring the subjects food intake?
If they weren't keeping track of every calorie, then I'm willing to bet a fiver the subjects were cheating.
Now, granted, exercise doesn't really burn that many calories, but all it takes is a net deficit of 500 calories a day to lose a pound a week.
Of course, to burn 500 calories with exercise, you usually have to do some heavy exercise for about 60 minutes, and a candy bar and a soda for a snack afterwards will (almost) completely negate that.
I say "almost" because the exercise will up your metabolism for a short while afterwards (I've found the effects last about a whole day for me after doing a hard 60min workout).
I'll also be the first to admit that the ~30lb I've lost were almost entirely due to diet.
OTOH, exercise actually suppresses my appetite for a while, it ups my metabolism all day, and even if it didn't do both those things I would still keep doing it because it makes me feel damn good, both physically and mentally.
I also credit the exercise to helping me keep the weight off.
In any case, you can't just diet to lose the weight, then start pigging out again.
If you want to keep the weight off, you have to make some lifestyle changes.
Thankfully, there are ways to eat healthy while still nourishing your soul.
It just takes more effort than some people are willing to put out.
Also, exercise might not help you lose weight fast, but it sure wouldn't hurt.
If you are fat, increasing your amount (not intensity!
) of exercise will not hurt you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031072</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>phision</author>
	<datestamp>1257771900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The quantity of food is important, but the quality and balance are more important, as it turns out. <br>
Let's take the only scientifically and statistically proven diet I have heard of - the Zone Diet. What Dr. Sears recommends is - eat the right protein/carb ratio in each meal and your body will go into fat burning mode (with all the benefits of this). As for the quantity - there is a formula to calculate how much proteins you must intake for the day. It turned out that it is hard for me to eat that MUCH food. And, I still eat the same tasty stuff I eat before, just shifting a little the ratio to the proteins.<br> <br>

P.S. Man, the donuts taste like rancid shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The quantity of food is important , but the quality and balance are more important , as it turns out .
Let 's take the only scientifically and statistically proven diet I have heard of - the Zone Diet .
What Dr. Sears recommends is - eat the right protein/carb ratio in each meal and your body will go into fat burning mode ( with all the benefits of this ) .
As for the quantity - there is a formula to calculate how much proteins you must intake for the day .
It turned out that it is hard for me to eat that MUCH food .
And , I still eat the same tasty stuff I eat before , just shifting a little the ratio to the proteins .
P.S. Man , the donuts taste like rancid shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The quantity of food is important, but the quality and balance are more important, as it turns out.
Let's take the only scientifically and statistically proven diet I have heard of - the Zone Diet.
What Dr. Sears recommends is - eat the right protein/carb ratio in each meal and your body will go into fat burning mode (with all the benefits of this).
As for the quantity - there is a formula to calculate how much proteins you must intake for the day.
It turned out that it is hard for me to eat that MUCH food.
And, I still eat the same tasty stuff I eat before, just shifting a little the ratio to the proteins.
P.S. Man, the donuts taste like rancid shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031086</id>
	<title>Cue the low-carbers in 3... 2... 1...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257772140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thing is, though:  They're right.</p><p>If you haven't read "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Gary-Taubes/dp/1400040787" title="amazon.com">Good Calories, Bad Calories</a> [amazon.com]" by Gary Taubes, you should.  This book outlines how 40 years of bad science and personality cults in nutrition research has lead to a serious misunderstanding of the causes of heart disease and obesity.</p><p>At the very least you should read his <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=all" title="nytimes.com">eye-opening NY Times article</a> [nytimes.com], which pre-dated the book by a couple of years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is , though : They 're right.If you have n't read " Good Calories , Bad Calories [ amazon.com ] " by Gary Taubes , you should .
This book outlines how 40 years of bad science and personality cults in nutrition research has lead to a serious misunderstanding of the causes of heart disease and obesity.At the very least you should read his eye-opening NY Times article [ nytimes.com ] , which pre-dated the book by a couple of years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thing is, though:  They're right.If you haven't read "Good Calories, Bad Calories [amazon.com]" by Gary Taubes, you should.
This book outlines how 40 years of bad science and personality cults in nutrition research has lead to a serious misunderstanding of the causes of heart disease and obesity.At the very least you should read his eye-opening NY Times article [nytimes.com], which pre-dated the book by a couple of years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030188</id>
	<title>Excercise is important, but only one factor</title>
	<author>coopersnick</author>
	<datestamp>1257760380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As someone who has done a bit of bulking up and trimming down, I can tell you that the general opinion in professional fitness is that in order of importance losing weight is:
- 50\% what you eat
- 30\% how much muscle you have
- 20\% exercise

7 pounds on just ramping up your exercise and changing nothing else - including continuing to consume extra calories that made the person fat in the first place?

Actually those results are pretty good!</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who has done a bit of bulking up and trimming down , I can tell you that the general opinion in professional fitness is that in order of importance losing weight is : - 50 \ % what you eat - 30 \ % how much muscle you have - 20 \ % exercise 7 pounds on just ramping up your exercise and changing nothing else - including continuing to consume extra calories that made the person fat in the first place ?
Actually those results are pretty good !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who has done a bit of bulking up and trimming down, I can tell you that the general opinion in professional fitness is that in order of importance losing weight is:
- 50\% what you eat
- 30\% how much muscle you have
- 20\% exercise

7 pounds on just ramping up your exercise and changing nothing else - including continuing to consume extra calories that made the person fat in the first place?
Actually those results are pretty good!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035332</id>
	<title>The cat got my tongue.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257792300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The formula is simple. Eat well, exercise and you will lose weight.</p><p>Eat bacon, smoke cigs, drink pepsi, eat doritos and you will be fat and gross forever. Even if you try to run your flab for 30 minutes a day, it will be worthless.</p><p>I dont need no doctor or study to prove me right.</p><p>So if you wanna lose weight, get off your ass and stop eating your gross chicken wings and ribs and pepsi and chips and hot dogs and fries. It will save your life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The formula is simple .
Eat well , exercise and you will lose weight.Eat bacon , smoke cigs , drink pepsi , eat doritos and you will be fat and gross forever .
Even if you try to run your flab for 30 minutes a day , it will be worthless.I dont need no doctor or study to prove me right.So if you wan na lose weight , get off your ass and stop eating your gross chicken wings and ribs and pepsi and chips and hot dogs and fries .
It will save your life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The formula is simple.
Eat well, exercise and you will lose weight.Eat bacon, smoke cigs, drink pepsi, eat doritos and you will be fat and gross forever.
Even if you try to run your flab for 30 minutes a day, it will be worthless.I dont need no doctor or study to prove me right.So if you wanna lose weight, get off your ass and stop eating your gross chicken wings and ribs and pepsi and chips and hot dogs and fries.
It will save your life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030652</id>
	<title>Cut the f*cking Carbs</title>
	<author>Delifisek</author>
	<datestamp>1257765960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cut sugar, sugar contained foods. Potato, bread...</p><p>Drop your blood sugar to burn your fat.</p><p>Plain simple.</p><p>Or mock me with your high knowladge about this than.</p><p>And while you mocking me, I'm melting just sitting down here and slasdotting...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cut sugar , sugar contained foods .
Potato , bread...Drop your blood sugar to burn your fat.Plain simple.Or mock me with your high knowladge about this than.And while you mocking me , I 'm melting just sitting down here and slasdotting.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cut sugar, sugar contained foods.
Potato, bread...Drop your blood sugar to burn your fat.Plain simple.Or mock me with your high knowladge about this than.And while you mocking me, I'm melting just sitting down here and slasdotting...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031388</id>
	<title>mamerto</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257775080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so this has been known for a lot of time: simply burn more calories than you consume and there you go!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so this has been known for a lot of time : simply burn more calories than you consume and there you go !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so this has been known for a lot of time: simply burn more calories than you consume and there you go!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034212</id>
	<title>Have lost 45 lbs in the last 8 months</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1257787920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've lost about 45 lbs in the last 8 months -- 1-2 lbs a week most weeks. Sometimes more, sometimes less, sometimes I gain a little. I have about 20 more to go, if that.  I won't say it was easy, because it wasn't, but it was very<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/simple/.  Common-sense simple. I've also dropped my cholesterol into a healthy range. I've listed the changes I made in the order that I 'feel' they make a difference:<ul>
<li> <i>Stop eating when you're not hungry</i> This may have been the biggest change.  I would regularly eat until I was "full" - two meals a day.  A few weeks of just paying close attention to exactly how much I was eating... eating a little slower and listening to my body when it says "Yeah that tastes really good, but I'm kinda done now."... let my body adjust to more natural meal sizes, and now it's very easy to know when I'm near to having enough.   I still have "too much" sometimes, but but it's far from occurring at every meal now.</li><li> <i>Watch proportions.</i> I don't mean the size of each portion of food, but the size relative to other portions.  I increased vegetable servings (which wasn't hard to do, since I often didn't have them at all), making them and complex carbs ('starch') the bulk of my meal.  The meat/protein is usually lesser in proportion to either one of the two, though not always.   Even without changing the specific things you eat, this by itself can make a difference.</li><li> <i>You must become aware of what you're eating, and be willing to change it</i> Keep a journal is best - I did not, but that's only because my wife did, and so I more or less tracked off of what she was doing. Don't eat mcdonalds, pizza, etc several times a week.  McDonalds I might have once per two months now (no loss, that crap is nasty but I didn't realize it until I started eating less of it).You will find that overall, you still tend to eat things that you like - but you'll also find that the things you want to eat will change over time, so that you won't find yourself missing foods when you're not having them.   And when you do "miss" (or crave..) them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... by all means have them! Just don't go to excess, and don't do it every day...</li><li> <i>Some exercise</i>I take my dogs for a walk now, 3-5 nights a week (no less than three, no more than 5). It's a fast walk, and I do it for about a half hour. Not a major effort by any stretch, and it doesn't take a lot of time out of my life. My heart rate - depending on terrain - ranges from 120-150 bpm though I don't really monitor it except once in a while.    I don't think this significantly helps in terms of burning off x calories, but rather it seems to cause an overall hike in metabolic rate.  In addition, there are smaller things you can do - stairs instead of elevator, etc.  Don't push it though... you'll eventually feel comfortable enough to just do it one day, without doing it specifically for hte purpose of getting exercise... that's probably the right time, especially if you've a lot of weight to lose in the beginning.   I've found that indulging this once in a while prevents me from "building up" and then over-indulging by far.</li><li> <i>Eat smaller and more often</i>A lot of diets recommend following these rigid, ridiculous eating schedules that have you eating 9 times a day (hyperbole...).  That's over-killl - I eat 3 meals, 2 or 3 snacks, and some nights a desert a couple hours after dinner.    It's all flexible to my schedule, which is often insane, and if I don't manage to do all of the above a day or two, it's not the end of the world. (Speaking of snacks: I don't mean nasty rice cakes, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... things that taste good and yet aren't all that bad for you.  personally, I love cheeze-its.  You can have 30 of 'em in a serving, and they're not all that horrible for you as long as you['re eating well overall.  Much better than various chips, etc.  Goldfish are even better - 60 per serving.  Fruit sometimes works...  )</li><li> <i>Minor tweaks</i> There's no one-size fits all. There are other things I d</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've lost about 45 lbs in the last 8 months -- 1-2 lbs a week most weeks .
Sometimes more , sometimes less , sometimes I gain a little .
I have about 20 more to go , if that .
I wo n't say it was easy , because it was n't , but it was very /simple/ .
Common-sense simple .
I 've also dropped my cholesterol into a healthy range .
I 've listed the changes I made in the order that I 'feel ' they make a difference : Stop eating when you 're not hungry This may have been the biggest change .
I would regularly eat until I was " full " - two meals a day .
A few weeks of just paying close attention to exactly how much I was eating... eating a little slower and listening to my body when it says " Yeah that tastes really good , but I 'm kinda done now. " .. .
let my body adjust to more natural meal sizes , and now it 's very easy to know when I 'm near to having enough .
I still have " too much " sometimes , but but it 's far from occurring at every meal now .
Watch proportions .
I do n't mean the size of each portion of food , but the size relative to other portions .
I increased vegetable servings ( which was n't hard to do , since I often did n't have them at all ) , making them and complex carbs ( 'starch ' ) the bulk of my meal .
The meat/protein is usually lesser in proportion to either one of the two , though not always .
Even without changing the specific things you eat , this by itself can make a difference .
You must become aware of what you 're eating , and be willing to change it Keep a journal is best - I did not , but that 's only because my wife did , and so I more or less tracked off of what she was doing .
Do n't eat mcdonalds , pizza , etc several times a week .
McDonalds I might have once per two months now ( no loss , that crap is nasty but I did n't realize it until I started eating less of it ) .You will find that overall , you still tend to eat things that you like - but you 'll also find that the things you want to eat will change over time , so that you wo n't find yourself missing foods when you 're not having them .
And when you do " miss " ( or crave.. ) them ... by all means have them !
Just do n't go to excess , and do n't do it every day... Some exerciseI take my dogs for a walk now , 3-5 nights a week ( no less than three , no more than 5 ) .
It 's a fast walk , and I do it for about a half hour .
Not a major effort by any stretch , and it does n't take a lot of time out of my life .
My heart rate - depending on terrain - ranges from 120-150 bpm though I do n't really monitor it except once in a while .
I do n't think this significantly helps in terms of burning off x calories , but rather it seems to cause an overall hike in metabolic rate .
In addition , there are smaller things you can do - stairs instead of elevator , etc .
Do n't push it though... you 'll eventually feel comfortable enough to just do it one day , without doing it specifically for hte purpose of getting exercise... that 's probably the right time , especially if you 've a lot of weight to lose in the beginning .
I 've found that indulging this once in a while prevents me from " building up " and then over-indulging by far .
Eat smaller and more oftenA lot of diets recommend following these rigid , ridiculous eating schedules that have you eating 9 times a day ( hyperbole... ) .
That 's over-killl - I eat 3 meals , 2 or 3 snacks , and some nights a desert a couple hours after dinner .
It 's all flexible to my schedule , which is often insane , and if I do n't manage to do all of the above a day or two , it 's not the end of the world .
( Speaking of snacks : I do n't mean nasty rice cakes , but ... things that taste good and yet are n't all that bad for you .
personally , I love cheeze-its .
You can have 30 of 'em in a serving , and they 're not all that horrible for you as long as you [ 're eating well overall .
Much better than various chips , etc .
Goldfish are even better - 60 per serving .
Fruit sometimes works... ) Minor tweaks There 's no one-size fits all .
There are other things I d</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've lost about 45 lbs in the last 8 months -- 1-2 lbs a week most weeks.
Sometimes more, sometimes less, sometimes I gain a little.
I have about 20 more to go, if that.
I won't say it was easy, because it wasn't, but it was very /simple/.
Common-sense simple.
I've also dropped my cholesterol into a healthy range.
I've listed the changes I made in the order that I 'feel' they make a difference:
 Stop eating when you're not hungry This may have been the biggest change.
I would regularly eat until I was "full" - two meals a day.
A few weeks of just paying close attention to exactly how much I was eating... eating a little slower and listening to my body when it says "Yeah that tastes really good, but I'm kinda done now."...
let my body adjust to more natural meal sizes, and now it's very easy to know when I'm near to having enough.
I still have "too much" sometimes, but but it's far from occurring at every meal now.
Watch proportions.
I don't mean the size of each portion of food, but the size relative to other portions.
I increased vegetable servings (which wasn't hard to do, since I often didn't have them at all), making them and complex carbs ('starch') the bulk of my meal.
The meat/protein is usually lesser in proportion to either one of the two, though not always.
Even without changing the specific things you eat, this by itself can make a difference.
You must become aware of what you're eating, and be willing to change it Keep a journal is best - I did not, but that's only because my wife did, and so I more or less tracked off of what she was doing.
Don't eat mcdonalds, pizza, etc several times a week.
McDonalds I might have once per two months now (no loss, that crap is nasty but I didn't realize it until I started eating less of it).You will find that overall, you still tend to eat things that you like - but you'll also find that the things you want to eat will change over time, so that you won't find yourself missing foods when you're not having them.
And when you do "miss" (or crave..) them ... by all means have them!
Just don't go to excess, and don't do it every day... Some exerciseI take my dogs for a walk now, 3-5 nights a week (no less than three, no more than 5).
It's a fast walk, and I do it for about a half hour.
Not a major effort by any stretch, and it doesn't take a lot of time out of my life.
My heart rate - depending on terrain - ranges from 120-150 bpm though I don't really monitor it except once in a while.
I don't think this significantly helps in terms of burning off x calories, but rather it seems to cause an overall hike in metabolic rate.
In addition, there are smaller things you can do - stairs instead of elevator, etc.
Don't push it though... you'll eventually feel comfortable enough to just do it one day, without doing it specifically for hte purpose of getting exercise... that's probably the right time, especially if you've a lot of weight to lose in the beginning.
I've found that indulging this once in a while prevents me from "building up" and then over-indulging by far.
Eat smaller and more oftenA lot of diets recommend following these rigid, ridiculous eating schedules that have you eating 9 times a day (hyperbole...).
That's over-killl - I eat 3 meals, 2 or 3 snacks, and some nights a desert a couple hours after dinner.
It's all flexible to my schedule, which is often insane, and if I don't manage to do all of the above a day or two, it's not the end of the world.
(Speaking of snacks: I don't mean nasty rice cakes, but ... things that taste good and yet aren't all that bad for you.
personally, I love cheeze-its.
You can have 30 of 'em in a serving, and they're not all that horrible for you as long as you['re eating well overall.
Much better than various chips, etc.
Goldfish are even better - 60 per serving.
Fruit sometimes works...  ) Minor tweaks There's no one-size fits all.
There are other things I d</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029524</id>
	<title>Its just because</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257710220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you exercise you lose fat and gain some muscle. Muscle is heavier than fat. So you don't lose much weight but you do lose fat.<br>If you just diet, you lose fat and gain no muscle so you're a lot lighter, but not fitter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you exercise you lose fat and gain some muscle .
Muscle is heavier than fat .
So you do n't lose much weight but you do lose fat.If you just diet , you lose fat and gain no muscle so you 're a lot lighter , but not fitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you exercise you lose fat and gain some muscle.
Muscle is heavier than fat.
So you don't lose much weight but you do lose fat.If you just diet, you lose fat and gain no muscle so you're a lot lighter, but not fitter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30054484</id>
	<title>Re:Conservation of Energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257863520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You say "IWAHTE" but you don't use watts and joules in your analysis?   But you do use kg?   Odd.</p><p>Let's simplify by treating your mass as entirely water (rather than just mainly water).<br>How much energy does it take to raise 70kg of water 20 kelvins (from room to body temperature)?<br>What happens as you drop the room temperature?</p><p>3500 kcal/day ~ 170 W<br>1800 kcal/day ~ 87 W</p><p>Standard human mean power is roughly 100 W; lots of assumptions are in "standard" including body temperature and environment @ STP.</p><p>Extremely vigorous exercise might take you to 400-600W which is usually limited by carbon turnover (this is usually measured backwards as VO2max or the like; what you're really interested in physically is how much CO2 is exhaled, since almost all of that is sourced from the body's internal energy stores).</p><p>An elite Tour de France or international biathlon competitor -- and possibly your friend while carrying her extra 25kg mass -- might be able to sustain a few hours of 750W total output, although most people's carbon turnover is limited by a combination of heart stroke volume and viscosity which constrains peripheral gas exchange, such that they cannot sustain 750W total output for more than a few seconds.   Elite competitors are often constrained by their cooling capacity, since several enzymes involved in catabolism and peripheral gas exchange become dramatically less efficient a few kelvins above standard body temperature; no human can ditch 1kW thermal at STP in still air for significant amounts of time, and few humans' mechanics are finely tuned such that they can get much better than a 1:4 ratio of mechanical work to thermal and often much much less when mechanical power is high (racers benefit from 1+ kW/m^2 cooling from moving through the air or water, before considering extra evaporative cooling).</p><p>Finally, yes, peripheral temperature control is part of thermal homeostasis in mammals, and is significant, but with a twist.  While it is normal to see a reduction of 10-20\% thermal output for a mammal at rest in cold conditions, it is unusual for mammals to reduce their peripheral temperatures when calorie constrained.   This follows the mammalian diving reflex pattern somewhat.  (You should look *that* up, it's a large systemic response to a cold (&lt;&amp;lt 295 K) face).</p><p>You liking your room cold is therefore plausibly reducing your resting thermal output considerably.   You yourself feeling your skin being warm is likely spontaneous symmetry breaking in your thermoceptive peripheral neurons (or where they couple with your CNS) -- it's a temperature hallucination as your neurons oscillate in and out of their ground state.   A direct physical measurement of your skin temperature, or examinations for relative blanching and other signs of peripheral vasoconstriction would show that your skin is cooler than you think.</p><p>The reverse side of this is the shiver reflex which will set in to maintain a reasonable temperature in your distal parts -- shivering will increase your thermal output by 50\% or more.</p><p>In a cold room, you may vacillate between mild diving-like reflex to mild shivering without noticing much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You say " IWAHTE " but you do n't use watts and joules in your analysis ?
But you do use kg ?
Odd.Let 's simplify by treating your mass as entirely water ( rather than just mainly water ) .How much energy does it take to raise 70kg of water 20 kelvins ( from room to body temperature ) ? What happens as you drop the room temperature ? 3500 kcal/day ~ 170 W1800 kcal/day ~ 87 WStandard human mean power is roughly 100 W ; lots of assumptions are in " standard " including body temperature and environment @ STP.Extremely vigorous exercise might take you to 400-600W which is usually limited by carbon turnover ( this is usually measured backwards as VO2max or the like ; what you 're really interested in physically is how much CO2 is exhaled , since almost all of that is sourced from the body 's internal energy stores ) .An elite Tour de France or international biathlon competitor -- and possibly your friend while carrying her extra 25kg mass -- might be able to sustain a few hours of 750W total output , although most people 's carbon turnover is limited by a combination of heart stroke volume and viscosity which constrains peripheral gas exchange , such that they can not sustain 750W total output for more than a few seconds .
Elite competitors are often constrained by their cooling capacity , since several enzymes involved in catabolism and peripheral gas exchange become dramatically less efficient a few kelvins above standard body temperature ; no human can ditch 1kW thermal at STP in still air for significant amounts of time , and few humans ' mechanics are finely tuned such that they can get much better than a 1 : 4 ratio of mechanical work to thermal and often much much less when mechanical power is high ( racers benefit from 1 + kW/m ^ 2 cooling from moving through the air or water , before considering extra evaporative cooling ) .Finally , yes , peripheral temperature control is part of thermal homeostasis in mammals , and is significant , but with a twist .
While it is normal to see a reduction of 10-20 \ % thermal output for a mammal at rest in cold conditions , it is unusual for mammals to reduce their peripheral temperatures when calorie constrained .
This follows the mammalian diving reflex pattern somewhat .
( You should look * that * up , it 's a large systemic response to a cold ( You liking your room cold is therefore plausibly reducing your resting thermal output considerably .
You yourself feeling your skin being warm is likely spontaneous symmetry breaking in your thermoceptive peripheral neurons ( or where they couple with your CNS ) -- it 's a temperature hallucination as your neurons oscillate in and out of their ground state .
A direct physical measurement of your skin temperature , or examinations for relative blanching and other signs of peripheral vasoconstriction would show that your skin is cooler than you think.The reverse side of this is the shiver reflex which will set in to maintain a reasonable temperature in your distal parts -- shivering will increase your thermal output by 50 \ % or more.In a cold room , you may vacillate between mild diving-like reflex to mild shivering without noticing much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say "IWAHTE" but you don't use watts and joules in your analysis?
But you do use kg?
Odd.Let's simplify by treating your mass as entirely water (rather than just mainly water).How much energy does it take to raise 70kg of water 20 kelvins (from room to body temperature)?What happens as you drop the room temperature?3500 kcal/day ~ 170 W1800 kcal/day ~ 87 WStandard human mean power is roughly 100 W; lots of assumptions are in "standard" including body temperature and environment @ STP.Extremely vigorous exercise might take you to 400-600W which is usually limited by carbon turnover (this is usually measured backwards as VO2max or the like; what you're really interested in physically is how much CO2 is exhaled, since almost all of that is sourced from the body's internal energy stores).An elite Tour de France or international biathlon competitor -- and possibly your friend while carrying her extra 25kg mass -- might be able to sustain a few hours of 750W total output, although most people's carbon turnover is limited by a combination of heart stroke volume and viscosity which constrains peripheral gas exchange, such that they cannot sustain 750W total output for more than a few seconds.
Elite competitors are often constrained by their cooling capacity, since several enzymes involved in catabolism and peripheral gas exchange become dramatically less efficient a few kelvins above standard body temperature; no human can ditch 1kW thermal at STP in still air for significant amounts of time, and few humans' mechanics are finely tuned such that they can get much better than a 1:4 ratio of mechanical work to thermal and often much much less when mechanical power is high (racers benefit from 1+ kW/m^2 cooling from moving through the air or water, before considering extra evaporative cooling).Finally, yes, peripheral temperature control is part of thermal homeostasis in mammals, and is significant, but with a twist.
While it is normal to see a reduction of 10-20\% thermal output for a mammal at rest in cold conditions, it is unusual for mammals to reduce their peripheral temperatures when calorie constrained.
This follows the mammalian diving reflex pattern somewhat.
(You should look *that* up, it's a large systemic response to a cold (You liking your room cold is therefore plausibly reducing your resting thermal output considerably.
You yourself feeling your skin being warm is likely spontaneous symmetry breaking in your thermoceptive peripheral neurons (or where they couple with your CNS) -- it's a temperature hallucination as your neurons oscillate in and out of their ground state.
A direct physical measurement of your skin temperature, or examinations for relative blanching and other signs of peripheral vasoconstriction would show that your skin is cooler than you think.The reverse side of this is the shiver reflex which will set in to maintain a reasonable temperature in your distal parts -- shivering will increase your thermal output by 50\% or more.In a cold room, you may vacillate between mild diving-like reflex to mild shivering without noticing much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030596</id>
	<title>Who writes these headlines?</title>
	<author>Sapphon</author>
	<datestamp>1257765240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How does the sentence, "The group lost an average of a little more than seven pounds [from exercise], and many lost barely half that" get parsed into "Exercise does not lead to weight loss"?  This is a geek news site, and the editors of a story posted in <i>science</i> section can't do maths? FFS...</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does the sentence , " The group lost an average of a little more than seven pounds [ from exercise ] , and many lost barely half that " get parsed into " Exercise does not lead to weight loss " ?
This is a geek news site , and the editors of a story posted in science section ca n't do maths ?
FFS.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does the sentence, "The group lost an average of a little more than seven pounds [from exercise], and many lost barely half that" get parsed into "Exercise does not lead to weight loss"?
This is a geek news site, and the editors of a story posted in science section can't do maths?
FFS...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029716</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>Mascot</author>
	<datestamp>1257798300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hasn't it been shown in numerous studies that overweight and unfit is what's causing the health issues? Overweight and fit, does not.</p><p>But I suppose this isn't about being healthy, but about fitting in with the current "perfect body" image.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has n't it been shown in numerous studies that overweight and unfit is what 's causing the health issues ?
Overweight and fit , does not.But I suppose this is n't about being healthy , but about fitting in with the current " perfect body " image .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hasn't it been shown in numerous studies that overweight and unfit is what's causing the health issues?
Overweight and fit, does not.But I suppose this isn't about being healthy, but about fitting in with the current "perfect body" image.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30037202</id>
	<title>Replies to Comments sub thread</title>
	<author>DoctorHow</author>
	<datestamp>1257800280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>(just for the sake of them all being together, here's a subthread for the comments and replies I've gotten)</htmltext>
<tokenext>( just for the sake of them all being together , here 's a subthread for the comments and replies I 've gotten )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(just for the sake of them all being together, here's a subthread for the comments and replies I've gotten)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031472</id>
	<title>Excercise is still essential.</title>
	<author>elucido</author>
	<datestamp>1257775560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You will lose weight when you switch diet at first because you are cutting the carbs and sugar but once your body adapts to that you'll gain your weight back. The trick to keeping your body fat percentage at the lowest possible level is to go through a cutting cycle once a year. This is where you train for approximately 3 months bootcamp style. You skip breakfast in the morning or skin dinner at night, and you run in place of that meal. The combination of skipping meals and running causes weight loss. If running is not your thing (I don't run), then play basketball or ride a bike. Anything which keeps your body moving for an hour is good enough. You don't even have to do it every day, but just a few times a week and its done to keep the metabolism from slowing down when you go into starvation mode.</p><p>That is the trick. You bulk, then you cut, then you bulk and then you cut until your body fat percentage goes down into the single digits. I judge my progress based around how much fat I have and how much muscle I'm gaining. Based on how fast I run or for how long. Weight is never accurate enough to determine progress unless you are 50 years old and cannot judge progress in other ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You will lose weight when you switch diet at first because you are cutting the carbs and sugar but once your body adapts to that you 'll gain your weight back .
The trick to keeping your body fat percentage at the lowest possible level is to go through a cutting cycle once a year .
This is where you train for approximately 3 months bootcamp style .
You skip breakfast in the morning or skin dinner at night , and you run in place of that meal .
The combination of skipping meals and running causes weight loss .
If running is not your thing ( I do n't run ) , then play basketball or ride a bike .
Anything which keeps your body moving for an hour is good enough .
You do n't even have to do it every day , but just a few times a week and its done to keep the metabolism from slowing down when you go into starvation mode.That is the trick .
You bulk , then you cut , then you bulk and then you cut until your body fat percentage goes down into the single digits .
I judge my progress based around how much fat I have and how much muscle I 'm gaining .
Based on how fast I run or for how long .
Weight is never accurate enough to determine progress unless you are 50 years old and can not judge progress in other ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You will lose weight when you switch diet at first because you are cutting the carbs and sugar but once your body adapts to that you'll gain your weight back.
The trick to keeping your body fat percentage at the lowest possible level is to go through a cutting cycle once a year.
This is where you train for approximately 3 months bootcamp style.
You skip breakfast in the morning or skin dinner at night, and you run in place of that meal.
The combination of skipping meals and running causes weight loss.
If running is not your thing (I don't run), then play basketball or ride a bike.
Anything which keeps your body moving for an hour is good enough.
You don't even have to do it every day, but just a few times a week and its done to keep the metabolism from slowing down when you go into starvation mode.That is the trick.
You bulk, then you cut, then you bulk and then you cut until your body fat percentage goes down into the single digits.
I judge my progress based around how much fat I have and how much muscle I'm gaining.
Based on how fast I run or for how long.
Weight is never accurate enough to determine progress unless you are 50 years old and cannot judge progress in other ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030862</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>Bysshe</author>
	<datestamp>1257768840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And when you get to where Iw as last summer this is what'll happen: 15\% body fat dropped significantly in 2 months. That's when the 6pack started showing. Once you get your bodyfat down to around 15\% the gain seem disproportionately huge. Keep it up!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And when you get to where Iw as last summer this is what 'll happen : 15 \ % body fat dropped significantly in 2 months .
That 's when the 6pack started showing .
Once you get your bodyfat down to around 15 \ % the gain seem disproportionately huge .
Keep it up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when you get to where Iw as last summer this is what'll happen: 15\% body fat dropped significantly in 2 months.
That's when the 6pack started showing.
Once you get your bodyfat down to around 15\% the gain seem disproportionately huge.
Keep it up!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032070</id>
	<title>Not gaining is good too...</title>
	<author>bkr1\_2k</author>
	<datestamp>1257779220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously?  A study that doesn't recognize the difference between muscle mass and fat?  Or doesn't consider that not gaining more weight is the same benefit as losing weight?  I say their study sucks.</p><p>Obese people who start exercising have to first burn enough calories to change their metabolism.  That generally takes far longer than 12 weeks but if you're trying to lose weight without changing your diet, you might as well give up.  Exercise alone won't fix things because you end up being "hungrier" and eat more, though you think you're still eating the same amount.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
A study that does n't recognize the difference between muscle mass and fat ?
Or does n't consider that not gaining more weight is the same benefit as losing weight ?
I say their study sucks.Obese people who start exercising have to first burn enough calories to change their metabolism .
That generally takes far longer than 12 weeks but if you 're trying to lose weight without changing your diet , you might as well give up .
Exercise alone wo n't fix things because you end up being " hungrier " and eat more , though you think you 're still eating the same amount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
A study that doesn't recognize the difference between muscle mass and fat?
Or doesn't consider that not gaining more weight is the same benefit as losing weight?
I say their study sucks.Obese people who start exercising have to first burn enough calories to change their metabolism.
That generally takes far longer than 12 weeks but if you're trying to lose weight without changing your diet, you might as well give up.
Exercise alone won't fix things because you end up being "hungrier" and eat more, though you think you're still eating the same amount.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035094</id>
	<title>Because its a psychological problem</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1257791400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is for a lot of people (regardless what thin snide detractors say) - and if you force them to exercise more they'll "compensate" by eating more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is for a lot of people ( regardless what thin snide detractors say ) - and if you force them to exercise more they 'll " compensate " by eating more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is for a lot of people (regardless what thin snide detractors say) - and if you force them to exercise more they'll "compensate" by eating more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030600</id>
	<title>Do or do not: There is no moderation.</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1257765300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This made me laugh. Mostly becaues I've lost about 7 pounds reccently (not quite 12 weeks, more like 16) and a significant improvement in my general well being. I'm not overweight, not an over-eater, but my weight as creeping up and I was developing a beer gut. The solitary change I've made is making a point of boosting fibre and protein intake skipping the junk food. I do have some exercise.
<br> <br>
But really, the secret to being healthy is quite simply to stop beating around the bush, prosetylizing and making excuses. An attitude change, together with getting a freaking clue is the single real solution.
<br> <br>
Here is the multi step approach to a fitter you and keeping the weight off:<br>
<b>1.  Do or do not, there is no moderation. Don't eat bullshit food and don't prosetylize about it if you do give in to temptation. Embrace your guilt, harden up and resolve to better.</b> <br>
That includes sugary drinks, salty fatty chips, snack foods, white pasta, white rice, white bread, butter/margarine, foods loaded with thickeners and no reall food content. These foods are bad even in very small quantities. They are for all practical purposes, poison. Moderation is trying to sugar coat it, and guess what you'd eat that too. These are addictive foods, the less you eat of them the more you'll not want them.
<br> <br>
*The low fat varieties are even worse than full fat, becaues the glycemic index <b>goes up</b>. *
<br> <br>
<b>2. Avoid foods loaded with artificial flavours, MSG, artificial sweetners, food acids etc. Becaues these foods lie to your brain and your palate.</b> MSG is cheating, used where there is little actual food content. Same with flavours and food acids, these substitute for natural ingredients that could have potentially given you some nutritional value. Artificial sweetners are purely demonic. They still send all the same signals to your brain, but without the calorific hit, thus making you crave more carbohydrates. There is research showing sweetners can permanently reset the calorie gauge in rats, and research in humans showing ditching the sweetners alone, resulted in weight loss. <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080210183902.htm" title="sciencedaily.com">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080210183902.htm</a> [sciencedaily.com] (one example) <br> <br>
Interestingly natural sweetners such as Xylitol have been shown (by multiple peer reviewed studies) to have health <b>benefits</b>
<br> <br>
<b>3. Get a clue on what a portion size is</b> - because this is assuredly the main problem with the North American diet. It explains the french paradox, and how my American plates don't fit properly in my European dishwasher. Don't supersize that combo, unless you want to feed 3 adults with it. Better yet go home and make a wholegrain sandwhich.
<br> <br>
<b>4. Learn to cook,</b> because you'll learn to love food, you'll learn to actually taste things for flavours and recalibrate your palate for texture, flavour, spice, rather than sweet/salty/fatty and flavourless shite which is what contemporary palates have adapted to. You need food to live, and paradoxically it'll slowly kill you if you get it wrong.
<br> <br>
Most kids these days are growing up unable to name many vegetables let alone know how do to much more than rip a seal off a microwave dinner or open a packet of crisps. Don't let your kids end up like that.
<br> <br>
<b>5. Healthy food does not taste bad, get this into your head.</b> If you think good food is bad, you are brainwashed by the gazillion marketting messages for junk food that hit you every day. Last time I checked I'm cooking with herbs I grow and fresh whole foods, lean meats, lots spices, and this stuff and the things you can make with it are delicious, especially if you have a sodding clue how to cook.
<br> <br>
<b>6. Hack your food.</b> Sure I have porridge for breakfast, yuck you say. Well my porridge is hacked, I have wheat germ, wheat bran, a seed mix with flax seed (killer omega 3 hit), thats the nutrition taken care of, tastes ok kind of hearty. What makes it taste better than any store brought</htmltext>
<tokenext>This made me laugh .
Mostly becaues I 've lost about 7 pounds reccently ( not quite 12 weeks , more like 16 ) and a significant improvement in my general well being .
I 'm not overweight , not an over-eater , but my weight as creeping up and I was developing a beer gut .
The solitary change I 've made is making a point of boosting fibre and protein intake skipping the junk food .
I do have some exercise .
But really , the secret to being healthy is quite simply to stop beating around the bush , prosetylizing and making excuses .
An attitude change , together with getting a freaking clue is the single real solution .
Here is the multi step approach to a fitter you and keeping the weight off : 1 .
Do or do not , there is no moderation .
Do n't eat bullshit food and do n't prosetylize about it if you do give in to temptation .
Embrace your guilt , harden up and resolve to better .
That includes sugary drinks , salty fatty chips , snack foods , white pasta , white rice , white bread , butter/margarine , foods loaded with thickeners and no reall food content .
These foods are bad even in very small quantities .
They are for all practical purposes , poison .
Moderation is trying to sugar coat it , and guess what you 'd eat that too .
These are addictive foods , the less you eat of them the more you 'll not want them .
* The low fat varieties are even worse than full fat , becaues the glycemic index goes up .
* 2 .
Avoid foods loaded with artificial flavours , MSG , artificial sweetners , food acids etc .
Becaues these foods lie to your brain and your palate .
MSG is cheating , used where there is little actual food content .
Same with flavours and food acids , these substitute for natural ingredients that could have potentially given you some nutritional value .
Artificial sweetners are purely demonic .
They still send all the same signals to your brain , but without the calorific hit , thus making you crave more carbohydrates .
There is research showing sweetners can permanently reset the calorie gauge in rats , and research in humans showing ditching the sweetners alone , resulted in weight loss .
http : //www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080210183902.htm [ sciencedaily.com ] ( one example ) Interestingly natural sweetners such as Xylitol have been shown ( by multiple peer reviewed studies ) to have health benefits 3 .
Get a clue on what a portion size is - because this is assuredly the main problem with the North American diet .
It explains the french paradox , and how my American plates do n't fit properly in my European dishwasher .
Do n't supersize that combo , unless you want to feed 3 adults with it .
Better yet go home and make a wholegrain sandwhich .
4. Learn to cook , because you 'll learn to love food , you 'll learn to actually taste things for flavours and recalibrate your palate for texture , flavour , spice , rather than sweet/salty/fatty and flavourless shite which is what contemporary palates have adapted to .
You need food to live , and paradoxically it 'll slowly kill you if you get it wrong .
Most kids these days are growing up unable to name many vegetables let alone know how do to much more than rip a seal off a microwave dinner or open a packet of crisps .
Do n't let your kids end up like that .
5. Healthy food does not taste bad , get this into your head .
If you think good food is bad , you are brainwashed by the gazillion marketting messages for junk food that hit you every day .
Last time I checked I 'm cooking with herbs I grow and fresh whole foods , lean meats , lots spices , and this stuff and the things you can make with it are delicious , especially if you have a sodding clue how to cook .
6. Hack your food .
Sure I have porridge for breakfast , yuck you say .
Well my porridge is hacked , I have wheat germ , wheat bran , a seed mix with flax seed ( killer omega 3 hit ) , thats the nutrition taken care of , tastes ok kind of hearty .
What makes it taste better than any store brought</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This made me laugh.
Mostly becaues I've lost about 7 pounds reccently (not quite 12 weeks, more like 16) and a significant improvement in my general well being.
I'm not overweight, not an over-eater, but my weight as creeping up and I was developing a beer gut.
The solitary change I've made is making a point of boosting fibre and protein intake skipping the junk food.
I do have some exercise.
But really, the secret to being healthy is quite simply to stop beating around the bush, prosetylizing and making excuses.
An attitude change, together with getting a freaking clue is the single real solution.
Here is the multi step approach to a fitter you and keeping the weight off:
1.
Do or do not, there is no moderation.
Don't eat bullshit food and don't prosetylize about it if you do give in to temptation.
Embrace your guilt, harden up and resolve to better.
That includes sugary drinks, salty fatty chips, snack foods, white pasta, white rice, white bread, butter/margarine, foods loaded with thickeners and no reall food content.
These foods are bad even in very small quantities.
They are for all practical purposes, poison.
Moderation is trying to sugar coat it, and guess what you'd eat that too.
These are addictive foods, the less you eat of them the more you'll not want them.
*The low fat varieties are even worse than full fat, becaues the glycemic index goes up.
*
 
2.
Avoid foods loaded with artificial flavours, MSG, artificial sweetners, food acids etc.
Becaues these foods lie to your brain and your palate.
MSG is cheating, used where there is little actual food content.
Same with flavours and food acids, these substitute for natural ingredients that could have potentially given you some nutritional value.
Artificial sweetners are purely demonic.
They still send all the same signals to your brain, but without the calorific hit, thus making you crave more carbohydrates.
There is research showing sweetners can permanently reset the calorie gauge in rats, and research in humans showing ditching the sweetners alone, resulted in weight loss.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080210183902.htm [sciencedaily.com] (one example)  
Interestingly natural sweetners such as Xylitol have been shown (by multiple peer reviewed studies) to have health benefits
 
3.
Get a clue on what a portion size is - because this is assuredly the main problem with the North American diet.
It explains the french paradox, and how my American plates don't fit properly in my European dishwasher.
Don't supersize that combo, unless you want to feed 3 adults with it.
Better yet go home and make a wholegrain sandwhich.
4. Learn to cook, because you'll learn to love food, you'll learn to actually taste things for flavours and recalibrate your palate for texture, flavour, spice, rather than sweet/salty/fatty and flavourless shite which is what contemporary palates have adapted to.
You need food to live, and paradoxically it'll slowly kill you if you get it wrong.
Most kids these days are growing up unable to name many vegetables let alone know how do to much more than rip a seal off a microwave dinner or open a packet of crisps.
Don't let your kids end up like that.
5. Healthy food does not taste bad, get this into your head.
If you think good food is bad, you are brainwashed by the gazillion marketting messages for junk food that hit you every day.
Last time I checked I'm cooking with herbs I grow and fresh whole foods, lean meats, lots spices, and this stuff and the things you can make with it are delicious, especially if you have a sodding clue how to cook.
6. Hack your food.
Sure I have porridge for breakfast, yuck you say.
Well my porridge is hacked, I have wheat germ, wheat bran, a seed mix with flax seed (killer omega 3 hit), thats the nutrition taken care of, tastes ok kind of hearty.
What makes it taste better than any store brought</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30039834</id>
	<title>Not exercising enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257768900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't burn a tank of gas if you only drive 20 miles a day. Either fill up less or drive more. This isn't rocket science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't burn a tank of gas if you only drive 20 miles a day .
Either fill up less or drive more .
This is n't rocket science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't burn a tank of gas if you only drive 20 miles a day.
Either fill up less or drive more.
This isn't rocket science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035264</id>
	<title>Diet and exercise : everyting else is a fad</title>
	<author>angevin</author>
	<datestamp>1257792060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Diet and exercise is the only way to lose weight and keep it off forever. Everything else is a fad and a delusion. Nothing else works so this study is no surprise. If they jogged weekly and changed their diet they would have seen significant weight loss. Thing is bonafide joggers are alot more conscious of the fuel they use to stoke their furnaces compared to average people and newbie joggers. Personally right now I do a modified NAVY SEALs training regimen (even though I'm not in the NAVY SEALs) and I'm in elite physical condition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Diet and exercise is the only way to lose weight and keep it off forever .
Everything else is a fad and a delusion .
Nothing else works so this study is no surprise .
If they jogged weekly and changed their diet they would have seen significant weight loss .
Thing is bonafide joggers are alot more conscious of the fuel they use to stoke their furnaces compared to average people and newbie joggers .
Personally right now I do a modified NAVY SEALs training regimen ( even though I 'm not in the NAVY SEALs ) and I 'm in elite physical condition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Diet and exercise is the only way to lose weight and keep it off forever.
Everything else is a fad and a delusion.
Nothing else works so this study is no surprise.
If they jogged weekly and changed their diet they would have seen significant weight loss.
Thing is bonafide joggers are alot more conscious of the fuel they use to stoke their furnaces compared to average people and newbie joggers.
Personally right now I do a modified NAVY SEALs training regimen (even though I'm not in the NAVY SEALs) and I'm in elite physical condition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030624</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>ms1234</author>
	<datestamp>1257765600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was grossly overweight to the point that the doctor was worried so I said to myself that this cannot go on. I changed the amount of food I ate from large dishes to normal dishes and skipped any evening meals except vegetables. I also picked up daily one hour walks or swimming. During 4 months I lost somewhere close to 100 pounds and felt great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was grossly overweight to the point that the doctor was worried so I said to myself that this can not go on .
I changed the amount of food I ate from large dishes to normal dishes and skipped any evening meals except vegetables .
I also picked up daily one hour walks or swimming .
During 4 months I lost somewhere close to 100 pounds and felt great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was grossly overweight to the point that the doctor was worried so I said to myself that this cannot go on.
I changed the amount of food I ate from large dishes to normal dishes and skipped any evening meals except vegetables.
I also picked up daily one hour walks or swimming.
During 4 months I lost somewhere close to 100 pounds and felt great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031350</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>An anonymous Frank</author>
	<datestamp>1257774780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I used to work out three times a week with mostly weight lifting and cables, with only 20 minutes of cardio at first to warm up and get the blood flowing, though for no more than 1.5 hours total each session, I would have cravings for proper/healthy-ish food, and would find junk food appalling; basically eating fast food made me feel bad!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I used to work out three times a week with mostly weight lifting and cables , with only 20 minutes of cardio at first to warm up and get the blood flowing , though for no more than 1.5 hours total each session , I would have cravings for proper/healthy-ish food , and would find junk food appalling ; basically eating fast food made me feel bad !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I used to work out three times a week with mostly weight lifting and cables, with only 20 minutes of cardio at first to warm up and get the blood flowing, though for no more than 1.5 hours total each session, I would have cravings for proper/healthy-ish food, and would find junk food appalling; basically eating fast food made me feel bad!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029634</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>whizzleteats</author>
	<datestamp>1257797460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "conversion" of fat to muscle is a myth.  You can burn fat, then increase your muscle mass, but fat does not convert to muscle.

FYI</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " conversion " of fat to muscle is a myth .
You can burn fat , then increase your muscle mass , but fat does not convert to muscle .
FYI</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "conversion" of fat to muscle is a myth.
You can burn fat, then increase your muscle mass, but fat does not convert to muscle.
FYI</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029578</id>
	<title>Re:But it's all physics? *snark*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257797040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sound fat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sound fat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sound fat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030398</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>UnHolier than ever</author>
	<datestamp>1257763020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Diet food tastes like shit. The box it comes in is tastier than the contents in my opinion.</p></div><p>

General tip: If your food comes in a box, it will taste like shit.
<br> <br>
Eat vegetables.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Diet food tastes like shit .
The box it comes in is tastier than the contents in my opinion .
General tip : If your food comes in a box , it will taste like shit .
Eat vegetables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Diet food tastes like shit.
The box it comes in is tastier than the contents in my opinion.
General tip: If your food comes in a box, it will taste like shit.
Eat vegetables.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031880</id>
	<title>Re:Conservation of Energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257778020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I go outside on a 5deg day in nothing more than a sweater and <b>a top hat</b>. I routinely mock my friends</p></div><p>You're going out in the freezing cold wearing a top hat and no pants and you're the one doing the mocking? Put your monocle in sir and take a good look at yourself!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I go outside on a 5deg day in nothing more than a sweater and a top hat .
I routinely mock my friendsYou 're going out in the freezing cold wearing a top hat and no pants and you 're the one doing the mocking ?
Put your monocle in sir and take a good look at yourself !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I go outside on a 5deg day in nothing more than a sweater and a top hat.
I routinely mock my friendsYou're going out in the freezing cold wearing a top hat and no pants and you're the one doing the mocking?
Put your monocle in sir and take a good look at yourself!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031054</id>
	<title>If we kill all the fat people ...</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1257771780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... seriously<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... nature did that.  Nature killed off those least able to survive.  The end result is a species that is well adapted to live in nature.  Guess where we are going now?  We are making a species better able to survive a modern society with its technologies like internet, computers, and advanced health care.  So fat people live, and thrive<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. at least long enough to make a couple babies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... which they don't have to care for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... seriously ... nature did that .
Nature killed off those least able to survive .
The end result is a species that is well adapted to live in nature .
Guess where we are going now ?
We are making a species better able to survive a modern society with its technologies like internet , computers , and advanced health care .
So fat people live , and thrive .. at least long enough to make a couple babies ... which they do n't have to care for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... seriously ... nature did that.
Nature killed off those least able to survive.
The end result is a species that is well adapted to live in nature.
Guess where we are going now?
We are making a species better able to survive a modern society with its technologies like internet, computers, and advanced health care.
So fat people live, and thrive .. at least long enough to make a couple babies ... which they don't have to care for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30045996</id>
	<title>Re:It's the hormones that control fattening, not f</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257870660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In practice, many studies have been done, and none have shown notably higher weight loss from low card diets than from low fat diets.</p></div><p>I have noticed the opposite, and Wikipedia seems to agree with me.  Low carb diets, when followed closely, cause higher weight loss than most other diets.  However, the attrition rate (people stopping the diet) is significantly higher with low carb diets, so the benefits over a population are negated.</p><p>Different bodies have vastly varying ways of dealing with different carbohydrates, proteins, hormones, etc.  So making a blanket statement that this guy's theories on the effects of hormones is incorrect, is poor judgment at best. I have my doubts, but it certainly is not impossible.  There is simply too much that we do not understand about how everyone's bodies react to the myriad of different simultaneous inputs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In practice , many studies have been done , and none have shown notably higher weight loss from low card diets than from low fat diets.I have noticed the opposite , and Wikipedia seems to agree with me .
Low carb diets , when followed closely , cause higher weight loss than most other diets .
However , the attrition rate ( people stopping the diet ) is significantly higher with low carb diets , so the benefits over a population are negated.Different bodies have vastly varying ways of dealing with different carbohydrates , proteins , hormones , etc .
So making a blanket statement that this guy 's theories on the effects of hormones is incorrect , is poor judgment at best .
I have my doubts , but it certainly is not impossible .
There is simply too much that we do not understand about how everyone 's bodies react to the myriad of different simultaneous inputs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In practice, many studies have been done, and none have shown notably higher weight loss from low card diets than from low fat diets.I have noticed the opposite, and Wikipedia seems to agree with me.
Low carb diets, when followed closely, cause higher weight loss than most other diets.
However, the attrition rate (people stopping the diet) is significantly higher with low carb diets, so the benefits over a population are negated.Different bodies have vastly varying ways of dealing with different carbohydrates, proteins, hormones, etc.
So making a blanket statement that this guy's theories on the effects of hormones is incorrect, is poor judgment at best.
I have my doubts, but it certainly is not impossible.
There is simply too much that we do not understand about how everyone's bodies react to the myriad of different simultaneous inputs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30038454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486</id>
	<title>But it's all physics? *snark*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257709860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But..but...it's just thermodynamics!  There's no way that the human body could be a complex organism that adapts to it's environment or anything like that!  If you're fat it's because you're lazy!  Exercise and you must lose weight!  2nd law says so!</p><p>Oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But..but...it 's just thermodynamics !
There 's no way that the human body could be a complex organism that adapts to it 's environment or anything like that !
If you 're fat it 's because you 're lazy !
Exercise and you must lose weight !
2nd law says so ! Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But..but...it's just thermodynamics!
There's no way that the human body could be a complex organism that adapts to it's environment or anything like that!
If you're fat it's because you're lazy!
Exercise and you must lose weight!
2nd law says so!Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30036438</id>
	<title>South Beach diet FTW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257796860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off, my quick story.  I'm a programmer and I gained some weight.  I asked on a martial arts forum, "Hey, what's the best way to dump some weight I've picked up?"  As a chorus they responded South Beach Diet.  So I tried it.  Two months, twenty pounds.  Still going.  I'm not going to say it's easy, but it is easy enough.  It's a great diet, makes good sense, and you're *never* hungry.

</p><p>I bought a jogging machine and ran on the damn thing for three months without losing a pound.  All I did was torque my foot.  I started this diet and quit jogging on the same day - 20 pounds.  Really, weight loss is <i>far</i> more about nutrition than activity.  The calories going into you are far easier to deal with on the outside before you put them in your mouth rather than trying to blast them off your gut by exercise.

</p><p>Here's how <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur\_Agatston" title="wikipedia.org">Dr. Agaston</a> [wikipedia.org] says weight gain works.

</p><p>It's all about insulin and sugar crashes.  Let's say you eat a typical programmer's snack.  A couple of doughnuts and a coke.  What happens next?

</p><p>The doughnuts are covered in sugar which goes directly into the bloodstream.  The coke is HFCS which is sugar, it goes directly into the bloodstream.  The flour in the doughnuts are carbohydrates which are chains of easily accessible sugar moledules.  They convert to sugar and go directly into the bloodstream.  So in the course of a couple of minutes suddenly your blood sugar skyrockets.

</p><p>Your pancreas will record this as an emergency.  Your body knows that high blood sugar is potentially fatal.  Diabetics who don't get their shot can die, your body knows this, and responds in a crisis mode.  "Quick!  Make as much insulin as you can or we're going to die!"  So you begin making insulin like mad trying to keep up with the emergency.

</p><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin" title="wikipedia.org">So what is insulin?</a> [wikipedia.org]  In short, it acts like a key that opens up cells and moves nutrition into them.  So now your blood has a pile of sugar in it (nutrition/energy) and an equally large pile of insulin to move it into cells.  And seeing as how you're not running the Boston marathon at the moment, you don't actually need that much mobile food in your blood.  So your body does the next best thing and stores it.  As fat.

</p><p>That's only the first half of the problem.  The second part is what happens next once the doughnuts and coke are dealt with.

</p><p>Your pancreas will overrespond to the emergency.  It's not really built to make a ton of insulin at a moment's notice.  You'll notice that doughnuts don't grow on trees.  Nothing in nature hits your body like it.  So since it's evolutionarily speaking something new and unexpected, it can't really deal with it effectively.  It will typically produce too much insulin.  What does that do?

</p><p>If your blood sugar was at X, and your body makes too much insulin (let's call it X + E, E for 'extra'), then what will happen is the doughnuts sugar will be moved into fat by X, and whatever sugar/nutrition you had in your bloodstream from before you ate the doughnuts will also be stored as fat.  And now your blood sugar level will be just where it was from before you ate the doughnuts, minus E.  In other words you will have lower blood sugar than before you started!

</p><p>And what does your body do when you have low blood sugar?  <i>Make you hungry.</i>  You are nutrition deficient - go eat something.

</p><p>And the cycle continues.

</p><p>How to break the cycle?  LAY OFF THE SUGAR AND CARBS.  Avoid them.  Once you stop spiking your body with these gigantic whopping doses of sugar and eat lean meat, vegetables, and the like you'll lose weight.  Because you won't be sugar crashing all the time.  It's not that you have to diet, you will simply not want to eat like you did before.  Portion control happens all by itself.

</p><p>For the science minded, here is an experiment you can try.  Go to your local Chinese food place for dinner.  What's the joke with Chinese food?  Fifteen minutes later you're</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , my quick story .
I 'm a programmer and I gained some weight .
I asked on a martial arts forum , " Hey , what 's the best way to dump some weight I 've picked up ?
" As a chorus they responded South Beach Diet .
So I tried it .
Two months , twenty pounds .
Still going .
I 'm not going to say it 's easy , but it is easy enough .
It 's a great diet , makes good sense , and you 're * never * hungry .
I bought a jogging machine and ran on the damn thing for three months without losing a pound .
All I did was torque my foot .
I started this diet and quit jogging on the same day - 20 pounds .
Really , weight loss is far more about nutrition than activity .
The calories going into you are far easier to deal with on the outside before you put them in your mouth rather than trying to blast them off your gut by exercise .
Here 's how Dr. Agaston [ wikipedia.org ] says weight gain works .
It 's all about insulin and sugar crashes .
Let 's say you eat a typical programmer 's snack .
A couple of doughnuts and a coke .
What happens next ?
The doughnuts are covered in sugar which goes directly into the bloodstream .
The coke is HFCS which is sugar , it goes directly into the bloodstream .
The flour in the doughnuts are carbohydrates which are chains of easily accessible sugar moledules .
They convert to sugar and go directly into the bloodstream .
So in the course of a couple of minutes suddenly your blood sugar skyrockets .
Your pancreas will record this as an emergency .
Your body knows that high blood sugar is potentially fatal .
Diabetics who do n't get their shot can die , your body knows this , and responds in a crisis mode .
" Quick ! Make as much insulin as you can or we 're going to die !
" So you begin making insulin like mad trying to keep up with the emergency .
So what is insulin ?
[ wikipedia.org ] In short , it acts like a key that opens up cells and moves nutrition into them .
So now your blood has a pile of sugar in it ( nutrition/energy ) and an equally large pile of insulin to move it into cells .
And seeing as how you 're not running the Boston marathon at the moment , you do n't actually need that much mobile food in your blood .
So your body does the next best thing and stores it .
As fat .
That 's only the first half of the problem .
The second part is what happens next once the doughnuts and coke are dealt with .
Your pancreas will overrespond to the emergency .
It 's not really built to make a ton of insulin at a moment 's notice .
You 'll notice that doughnuts do n't grow on trees .
Nothing in nature hits your body like it .
So since it 's evolutionarily speaking something new and unexpected , it ca n't really deal with it effectively .
It will typically produce too much insulin .
What does that do ?
If your blood sugar was at X , and your body makes too much insulin ( let 's call it X + E , E for 'extra ' ) , then what will happen is the doughnuts sugar will be moved into fat by X , and whatever sugar/nutrition you had in your bloodstream from before you ate the doughnuts will also be stored as fat .
And now your blood sugar level will be just where it was from before you ate the doughnuts , minus E. In other words you will have lower blood sugar than before you started !
And what does your body do when you have low blood sugar ?
Make you hungry .
You are nutrition deficient - go eat something .
And the cycle continues .
How to break the cycle ?
LAY OFF THE SUGAR AND CARBS .
Avoid them .
Once you stop spiking your body with these gigantic whopping doses of sugar and eat lean meat , vegetables , and the like you 'll lose weight .
Because you wo n't be sugar crashing all the time .
It 's not that you have to diet , you will simply not want to eat like you did before .
Portion control happens all by itself .
For the science minded , here is an experiment you can try .
Go to your local Chinese food place for dinner .
What 's the joke with Chinese food ?
Fifteen minutes later you 're</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, my quick story.
I'm a programmer and I gained some weight.
I asked on a martial arts forum, "Hey, what's the best way to dump some weight I've picked up?
"  As a chorus they responded South Beach Diet.
So I tried it.
Two months, twenty pounds.
Still going.
I'm not going to say it's easy, but it is easy enough.
It's a great diet, makes good sense, and you're *never* hungry.
I bought a jogging machine and ran on the damn thing for three months without losing a pound.
All I did was torque my foot.
I started this diet and quit jogging on the same day - 20 pounds.
Really, weight loss is far more about nutrition than activity.
The calories going into you are far easier to deal with on the outside before you put them in your mouth rather than trying to blast them off your gut by exercise.
Here's how Dr. Agaston [wikipedia.org] says weight gain works.
It's all about insulin and sugar crashes.
Let's say you eat a typical programmer's snack.
A couple of doughnuts and a coke.
What happens next?
The doughnuts are covered in sugar which goes directly into the bloodstream.
The coke is HFCS which is sugar, it goes directly into the bloodstream.
The flour in the doughnuts are carbohydrates which are chains of easily accessible sugar moledules.
They convert to sugar and go directly into the bloodstream.
So in the course of a couple of minutes suddenly your blood sugar skyrockets.
Your pancreas will record this as an emergency.
Your body knows that high blood sugar is potentially fatal.
Diabetics who don't get their shot can die, your body knows this, and responds in a crisis mode.
"Quick!  Make as much insulin as you can or we're going to die!
"  So you begin making insulin like mad trying to keep up with the emergency.
So what is insulin?
[wikipedia.org]  In short, it acts like a key that opens up cells and moves nutrition into them.
So now your blood has a pile of sugar in it (nutrition/energy) and an equally large pile of insulin to move it into cells.
And seeing as how you're not running the Boston marathon at the moment, you don't actually need that much mobile food in your blood.
So your body does the next best thing and stores it.
As fat.
That's only the first half of the problem.
The second part is what happens next once the doughnuts and coke are dealt with.
Your pancreas will overrespond to the emergency.
It's not really built to make a ton of insulin at a moment's notice.
You'll notice that doughnuts don't grow on trees.
Nothing in nature hits your body like it.
So since it's evolutionarily speaking something new and unexpected, it can't really deal with it effectively.
It will typically produce too much insulin.
What does that do?
If your blood sugar was at X, and your body makes too much insulin (let's call it X + E, E for 'extra'), then what will happen is the doughnuts sugar will be moved into fat by X, and whatever sugar/nutrition you had in your bloodstream from before you ate the doughnuts will also be stored as fat.
And now your blood sugar level will be just where it was from before you ate the doughnuts, minus E.  In other words you will have lower blood sugar than before you started!
And what does your body do when you have low blood sugar?
Make you hungry.
You are nutrition deficient - go eat something.
And the cycle continues.
How to break the cycle?
LAY OFF THE SUGAR AND CARBS.
Avoid them.
Once you stop spiking your body with these gigantic whopping doses of sugar and eat lean meat, vegetables, and the like you'll lose weight.
Because you won't be sugar crashing all the time.
It's not that you have to diet, you will simply not want to eat like you did before.
Portion control happens all by itself.
For the science minded, here is an experiment you can try.
Go to your local Chinese food place for dinner.
What's the joke with Chinese food?
Fifteen minutes later you're</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033362</id>
	<title>EAT LESS, move more, lose weight.</title>
	<author>kheldan</author>
	<datestamp>1257784440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's the formula. If you aren't bothering to keep track of everything you eat, then you're more likely to eat more because you're hungrier when you exercise regularly. Wouldn't at all be surprised if some people actually end up gaining weight while exercising for that reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the formula .
If you are n't bothering to keep track of everything you eat , then you 're more likely to eat more because you 're hungrier when you exercise regularly .
Would n't at all be surprised if some people actually end up gaining weight while exercising for that reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the formula.
If you aren't bothering to keep track of everything you eat, then you're more likely to eat more because you're hungrier when you exercise regularly.
Wouldn't at all be surprised if some people actually end up gaining weight while exercising for that reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031660</id>
	<title>because you need to eat less to lose weight?</title>
	<author>js3</author>
	<datestamp>1257776760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I lost 25 pounds this year, and it mostly came from a diet change. Excersizing is great, and can speed things up but the biggest factor to losing weight and keeping it off was just eating less. Cut out the crap like snacks and pop soda, try to "feel hungry" more often it won't kill you. Excersize makes you look great and develop some muscule but that alone won't take off the weight until you change your diet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I lost 25 pounds this year , and it mostly came from a diet change .
Excersizing is great , and can speed things up but the biggest factor to losing weight and keeping it off was just eating less .
Cut out the crap like snacks and pop soda , try to " feel hungry " more often it wo n't kill you .
Excersize makes you look great and develop some muscule but that alone wo n't take off the weight until you change your diet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I lost 25 pounds this year, and it mostly came from a diet change.
Excersizing is great, and can speed things up but the biggest factor to losing weight and keeping it off was just eating less.
Cut out the crap like snacks and pop soda, try to "feel hungry" more often it won't kill you.
Excersize makes you look great and develop some muscule but that alone won't take off the weight until you change your diet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029654</id>
	<title>bjsm tag?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257797760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What kind of tag is that? Blow Job Sado Maso helps losing weight?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of tag is that ?
Blow Job Sado Maso helps losing weight ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of tag is that?
Blow Job Sado Maso helps losing weight?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033114</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1257783540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're doing it wrong. To be fair, I have a problem exercising for the same reason -- hard to be motivated about spending time getting nothing useful done. You shouldn't eat diet food or go on strange diets, though. It's a big change for limited gain. (If the gain isn't limited, probably it's not permanent.) You can make subtle dietary changes and end up with a net caloric loss. If you can maintain that permanently, you'll lose weight eventually with no effort.</p><p>I've lost about 20 pounds in the past year solely by being more thoughtful about what I eat -- and I still consume too much alcohol, pasta, and pizza.</p><p>If you're not cooking for yourself, you should. If you are, use less processed food.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're doing it wrong .
To be fair , I have a problem exercising for the same reason -- hard to be motivated about spending time getting nothing useful done .
You should n't eat diet food or go on strange diets , though .
It 's a big change for limited gain .
( If the gain is n't limited , probably it 's not permanent .
) You can make subtle dietary changes and end up with a net caloric loss .
If you can maintain that permanently , you 'll lose weight eventually with no effort.I 've lost about 20 pounds in the past year solely by being more thoughtful about what I eat -- and I still consume too much alcohol , pasta , and pizza.If you 're not cooking for yourself , you should .
If you are , use less processed food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're doing it wrong.
To be fair, I have a problem exercising for the same reason -- hard to be motivated about spending time getting nothing useful done.
You shouldn't eat diet food or go on strange diets, though.
It's a big change for limited gain.
(If the gain isn't limited, probably it's not permanent.
) You can make subtle dietary changes and end up with a net caloric loss.
If you can maintain that permanently, you'll lose weight eventually with no effort.I've lost about 20 pounds in the past year solely by being more thoughtful about what I eat -- and I still consume too much alcohol, pasta, and pizza.If you're not cooking for yourself, you should.
If you are, use less processed food.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033632</id>
	<title>Re:All you slim theoreticians...</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1257785580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if you can devise exercises that are fun, it could work.</p></div><p>This is why one of the common pieces of wisdom from athletic instructors is to change up your routine once in a while. Your muscles get used to a set pattern and stop responding as well, but more importantly you get bored by the repetition. It's important to introduce variety into your routine so it doesn't become <i>too</i> routine. Get a bike and ride for miles (I wouldn't recommend someone who's really overweight start running, it's pretty easy to destroy your knees that way); join a martial arts program or a Pilates group; take up rock climbing. Best of all, get a workout buddy to keep you motivated (and return the favor).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you can devise exercises that are fun , it could work.This is why one of the common pieces of wisdom from athletic instructors is to change up your routine once in a while .
Your muscles get used to a set pattern and stop responding as well , but more importantly you get bored by the repetition .
It 's important to introduce variety into your routine so it does n't become too routine .
Get a bike and ride for miles ( I would n't recommend someone who 's really overweight start running , it 's pretty easy to destroy your knees that way ) ; join a martial arts program or a Pilates group ; take up rock climbing .
Best of all , get a workout buddy to keep you motivated ( and return the favor ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you can devise exercises that are fun, it could work.This is why one of the common pieces of wisdom from athletic instructors is to change up your routine once in a while.
Your muscles get used to a set pattern and stop responding as well, but more importantly you get bored by the repetition.
It's important to introduce variety into your routine so it doesn't become too routine.
Get a bike and ride for miles (I wouldn't recommend someone who's really overweight start running, it's pretty easy to destroy your knees that way); join a martial arts program or a Pilates group; take up rock climbing.
Best of all, get a workout buddy to keep you motivated (and return the favor).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029640</id>
	<title>Re:Sit and be fit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257797460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you mean "Sit and lose weight". Being fit implies that you are, well, fit. I'd go so far as to say that being overweight and fit is healthier than being a slim couch potato.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you mean " Sit and lose weight " .
Being fit implies that you are , well , fit .
I 'd go so far as to say that being overweight and fit is healthier than being a slim couch potato .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you mean "Sit and lose weight".
Being fit implies that you are, well, fit.
I'd go so far as to say that being overweight and fit is healthier than being a slim couch potato.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034250</id>
	<title>Wrong perspective</title>
	<author>ka9dgx</author>
	<datestamp>1257788100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I learned a lot from this video <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM" title="youtube.com">Sugar: The Bitter Truth</a> [youtube.com] wherein Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin.</p><p>One of the things I learned is that exercise <b>can't possibly</b> burn off the calories you need it to for most people. The real reason exercise works is that it decreases appetite, which then reduces calorie consumption, while increasing metabolism, and is a health negative feedback loop to help stabilize weight.</p><p>If you start exercising and keep your caloric intake equal, you're negating the feedback look, and you'll have to do a LOT of exercise to do.</p><p>I think that if you learn more about the whole system, you'll approach things from a different perspective, and you can reach reasonable goals instead of constant frustration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I learned a lot from this video Sugar : The Bitter Truth [ youtube.com ] wherein Robert H. Lustig , MD , UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology , explores the damage caused by sugary foods .
He argues that fructose ( too much ) and fiber ( not enough ) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin.One of the things I learned is that exercise ca n't possibly burn off the calories you need it to for most people .
The real reason exercise works is that it decreases appetite , which then reduces calorie consumption , while increasing metabolism , and is a health negative feedback loop to help stabilize weight.If you start exercising and keep your caloric intake equal , you 're negating the feedback look , and you 'll have to do a LOT of exercise to do.I think that if you learn more about the whole system , you 'll approach things from a different perspective , and you can reach reasonable goals instead of constant frustration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I learned a lot from this video Sugar: The Bitter Truth [youtube.com] wherein Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods.
He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin.One of the things I learned is that exercise can't possibly burn off the calories you need it to for most people.
The real reason exercise works is that it decreases appetite, which then reduces calorie consumption, while increasing metabolism, and is a health negative feedback loop to help stabilize weight.If you start exercising and keep your caloric intake equal, you're negating the feedback look, and you'll have to do a LOT of exercise to do.I think that if you learn more about the whole system, you'll approach things from a different perspective, and you can reach reasonable goals instead of constant frustration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029814</id>
	<title>Be lazy and lose weight. Work hard and get fat!</title>
	<author>eriktderek</author>
	<datestamp>1257799440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its NOT superficially logical, but eating less is much better than exercise to lose weight! But exercise sounds appealing and people can sell it to you - capitalism. Whereas it is difficult to make money from eating less. Thus capitalism is so deeply entrenched even in science and logic that it seems illogical that exercise does not work well.

Just think how capitalistic our science is; spend thousands of dollars and do Protestent hard work to lose weight. Gym membership, Fancy bikes, work out clothes, protein supplement, personal trainer. No pain no gain. Compare this to the easy way- just eat less. No big deal, easy. Lazy. - How unamerican!

Micahel Pollan talks about this stuff, how 100 years ago everybody was thin and it was easy. Now everybody is highly educated and we are all fat. All very counterintuitive.

Watch as china gets capitalstic and gets fat...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its NOT superficially logical , but eating less is much better than exercise to lose weight !
But exercise sounds appealing and people can sell it to you - capitalism .
Whereas it is difficult to make money from eating less .
Thus capitalism is so deeply entrenched even in science and logic that it seems illogical that exercise does not work well .
Just think how capitalistic our science is ; spend thousands of dollars and do Protestent hard work to lose weight .
Gym membership , Fancy bikes , work out clothes , protein supplement , personal trainer .
No pain no gain .
Compare this to the easy way- just eat less .
No big deal , easy .
Lazy. - How unamerican !
Micahel Pollan talks about this stuff , how 100 years ago everybody was thin and it was easy .
Now everybody is highly educated and we are all fat .
All very counterintuitive .
Watch as china gets capitalstic and gets fat.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its NOT superficially logical, but eating less is much better than exercise to lose weight!
But exercise sounds appealing and people can sell it to you - capitalism.
Whereas it is difficult to make money from eating less.
Thus capitalism is so deeply entrenched even in science and logic that it seems illogical that exercise does not work well.
Just think how capitalistic our science is; spend thousands of dollars and do Protestent hard work to lose weight.
Gym membership, Fancy bikes, work out clothes, protein supplement, personal trainer.
No pain no gain.
Compare this to the easy way- just eat less.
No big deal, easy.
Lazy. - How unamerican!
Micahel Pollan talks about this stuff, how 100 years ago everybody was thin and it was easy.
Now everybody is highly educated and we are all fat.
All very counterintuitive.
Watch as china gets capitalstic and gets fat...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033272</id>
	<title>No shit Sherlock? ^^</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257784080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder what genius came to the conclusion, that an action that builds up muscles (weight) through burning of energy, only leads to weight loss, if you actually burn up your fat. And not the additional food you will then most likely eat, or even worse: Your heart, liver, etc, that you drain in the first two weeks of "emergency mode" (like a battery backup) that happens when you suddenly don't eat enough. ^^</p><p>I mean the only people thinking otherwise, are those who still think that "low-fat" products would mean that you become "low-fat" too. lol.</p><p>But OK. The knowledge gap between what you read in magazines, and what really works, is quite huge. Even doctors often can't help you at all.</p><p>That is, because... let me make this "bold" statement: 90\% of all weight problems are psychological problems.</p><p>It really is not hard to lose weight. Eat stuff with a high amount of fibers. As much vegetables as you like. Until you burst. Never without some unsaturated (=liquid! never solid. never margarine &amp; co.) fat (like olive oil- or the like (which is essential!!).<br>If the energy density is low enough, you will feel stuffed, but still lose weight. Obviously.<br>More so, if you work out, of course. (More in the time between the workouts, because your base energy usage/wasting goes up.)</p><p>BUT: Who can actually do that? And for whom, the call of Cthul...uuum... sugar (short carbohydrates) and saturated fats, simply is too strong?<br>No nutritionist can ever help you with that, can he?</p><p>That's why often, finding out what you replace with your addiction... or a behavioral re-training (therapy)... will help you more, than any guide about thousand facts (that you already read about a thousand and one times) ever could.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what genius came to the conclusion , that an action that builds up muscles ( weight ) through burning of energy , only leads to weight loss , if you actually burn up your fat .
And not the additional food you will then most likely eat , or even worse : Your heart , liver , etc , that you drain in the first two weeks of " emergency mode " ( like a battery backup ) that happens when you suddenly do n't eat enough .
^ ^ I mean the only people thinking otherwise , are those who still think that " low-fat " products would mean that you become " low-fat " too .
lol.But OK. The knowledge gap between what you read in magazines , and what really works , is quite huge .
Even doctors often ca n't help you at all.That is , because... let me make this " bold " statement : 90 \ % of all weight problems are psychological problems.It really is not hard to lose weight .
Eat stuff with a high amount of fibers .
As much vegetables as you like .
Until you burst .
Never without some unsaturated ( = liquid !
never solid .
never margarine &amp; co. ) fat ( like olive oil- or the like ( which is essential ! !
) .If the energy density is low enough , you will feel stuffed , but still lose weight .
Obviously.More so , if you work out , of course .
( More in the time between the workouts , because your base energy usage/wasting goes up .
) BUT : Who can actually do that ?
And for whom , the call of Cthul...uuum... sugar ( short carbohydrates ) and saturated fats , simply is too strong ? No nutritionist can ever help you with that , can he ? That 's why often , finding out what you replace with your addiction... or a behavioral re-training ( therapy ) ... will help you more , than any guide about thousand facts ( that you already read about a thousand and one times ) ever could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what genius came to the conclusion, that an action that builds up muscles (weight) through burning of energy, only leads to weight loss, if you actually burn up your fat.
And not the additional food you will then most likely eat, or even worse: Your heart, liver, etc, that you drain in the first two weeks of "emergency mode" (like a battery backup) that happens when you suddenly don't eat enough.
^^I mean the only people thinking otherwise, are those who still think that "low-fat" products would mean that you become "low-fat" too.
lol.But OK. The knowledge gap between what you read in magazines, and what really works, is quite huge.
Even doctors often can't help you at all.That is, because... let me make this "bold" statement: 90\% of all weight problems are psychological problems.It really is not hard to lose weight.
Eat stuff with a high amount of fibers.
As much vegetables as you like.
Until you burst.
Never without some unsaturated (=liquid!
never solid.
never margarine &amp; co.) fat (like olive oil- or the like (which is essential!!
).If the energy density is low enough, you will feel stuffed, but still lose weight.
Obviously.More so, if you work out, of course.
(More in the time between the workouts, because your base energy usage/wasting goes up.
)BUT: Who can actually do that?
And for whom, the call of Cthul...uuum... sugar (short carbohydrates) and saturated fats, simply is too strong?No nutritionist can ever help you with that, can he?That's why often, finding out what you replace with your addiction... or a behavioral re-training (therapy)... will help you more, than any guide about thousand facts (that you already read about a thousand and one times) ever could.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029894</id>
	<title>Exercise leads to weight gain</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1257800340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everytime I exercise I gain weight, I started overweight about a year ago and am now 16 pounds heavier. I lost fat and gained muscle and I feel better for it.</p><p>Obsessing over weight is pointless as muscle is 3 times heavier per unit of volume than fat. BMI is a really stupid measure as it can't tell muscle from fat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everytime I exercise I gain weight , I started overweight about a year ago and am now 16 pounds heavier .
I lost fat and gained muscle and I feel better for it.Obsessing over weight is pointless as muscle is 3 times heavier per unit of volume than fat .
BMI is a really stupid measure as it ca n't tell muscle from fat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everytime I exercise I gain weight, I started overweight about a year ago and am now 16 pounds heavier.
I lost fat and gained muscle and I feel better for it.Obsessing over weight is pointless as muscle is 3 times heavier per unit of volume than fat.
BMI is a really stupid measure as it can't tell muscle from fat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30042486</id>
	<title>Getting fat is hard work!</title>
	<author>lanner</author>
	<datestamp>1257790380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand how fat people can not comprehend how they got fat.  It was hard work!  They had to eat a LOT of food, and food isn't cheap.  They had to sit around on their ass a WHOLE lot, doing not much.  How could they have forgotten all of that eating and doing a whole lot of not-much?  Getting fat is an achievement!  It's hard work and should be recognized as such.  It takes determination and commitment.  I can't even imagine eating that much food over a long period of time and then sitting still.  It would be like torture.  I just don't understand how fat people do it.  I'll never be fat!  I'm going to go for a walk now and eat some rice. Waaaaa!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand how fat people can not comprehend how they got fat .
It was hard work !
They had to eat a LOT of food , and food is n't cheap .
They had to sit around on their ass a WHOLE lot , doing not much .
How could they have forgotten all of that eating and doing a whole lot of not-much ?
Getting fat is an achievement !
It 's hard work and should be recognized as such .
It takes determination and commitment .
I ca n't even imagine eating that much food over a long period of time and then sitting still .
It would be like torture .
I just do n't understand how fat people do it .
I 'll never be fat !
I 'm going to go for a walk now and eat some rice .
Waaaaa !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand how fat people can not comprehend how they got fat.
It was hard work!
They had to eat a LOT of food, and food isn't cheap.
They had to sit around on their ass a WHOLE lot, doing not much.
How could they have forgotten all of that eating and doing a whole lot of not-much?
Getting fat is an achievement!
It's hard work and should be recognized as such.
It takes determination and commitment.
I can't even imagine eating that much food over a long period of time and then sitting still.
It would be like torture.
I just don't understand how fat people do it.
I'll never be fat!
I'm going to go for a walk now and eat some rice.
Waaaaa!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029800</id>
	<title>Ideal body weight</title>
	<author>cbope</author>
	<datestamp>1257799320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention that everyone has a slightly different ideal body weight. This has nothing to do with what you *think* you should weigh, how you look or what your BMI is (which I believe is a completely useless number). Muscle mass and bone structure or density can vary quite a lot from one person to the next, and both of these can be significant influences to your overall weight. As several posts have already pointed out, muscle weighs more than fat, so converting fat into muscle through exercise is not going to make you lose weight. Exercise can help develop lean muscle tissue and contributes to burning more calories, but the issues behind weight gain/loss are much more complex than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that everyone has a slightly different ideal body weight .
This has nothing to do with what you * think * you should weigh , how you look or what your BMI is ( which I believe is a completely useless number ) .
Muscle mass and bone structure or density can vary quite a lot from one person to the next , and both of these can be significant influences to your overall weight .
As several posts have already pointed out , muscle weighs more than fat , so converting fat into muscle through exercise is not going to make you lose weight .
Exercise can help develop lean muscle tissue and contributes to burning more calories , but the issues behind weight gain/loss are much more complex than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that everyone has a slightly different ideal body weight.
This has nothing to do with what you *think* you should weigh, how you look or what your BMI is (which I believe is a completely useless number).
Muscle mass and bone structure or density can vary quite a lot from one person to the next, and both of these can be significant influences to your overall weight.
As several posts have already pointed out, muscle weighs more than fat, so converting fat into muscle through exercise is not going to make you lose weight.
Exercise can help develop lean muscle tissue and contributes to burning more calories, but the issues behind weight gain/loss are much more complex than that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032532</id>
	<title>Re:Conservation of Energy</title>
	<author>jayspec462</author>
	<datestamp>1257781260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I go outside on a 5deg day in nothing more than a sweater and a top hat.</p></div><p>This is not a fair comparison.  You burn significantly more calories, since you're constantly running from police trying to arrest you for indecent exposure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I go outside on a 5deg day in nothing more than a sweater and a top hat.This is not a fair comparison .
You burn significantly more calories , since you 're constantly running from police trying to arrest you for indecent exposure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I go outside on a 5deg day in nothing more than a sweater and a top hat.This is not a fair comparison.
You burn significantly more calories, since you're constantly running from police trying to arrest you for indecent exposure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033818</id>
	<title>exercise burns plenty of calories</title>
	<author>mtrupe</author>
	<datestamp>1257786420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is people don't know how to exercise. I'm at the gym a lot, and I see people who think they are getting a good workout but are not.</p><p>You can't walk for 20 minutes on a treadmill, go home and eat two cookies as a reward, and expect to lose weight.</p><p>Run 10 miles and get back to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is people do n't know how to exercise .
I 'm at the gym a lot , and I see people who think they are getting a good workout but are not.You ca n't walk for 20 minutes on a treadmill , go home and eat two cookies as a reward , and expect to lose weight.Run 10 miles and get back to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is people don't know how to exercise.
I'm at the gym a lot, and I see people who think they are getting a good workout but are not.You can't walk for 20 minutes on a treadmill, go home and eat two cookies as a reward, and expect to lose weight.Run 10 miles and get back to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029824</id>
	<title>Re:Warm</title>
	<author>Eraevous</author>
	<datestamp>1257799560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The best way to lose weight is to do both. Diets primarily burn through the glycogen before any fat is broken down. See: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieting#How\_the\_body\_gets\_rid\_of\_fat" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">this wikipedia article</a> [wikipedia.org]. Speaking of low calorie foods, try celery; it has a negative calorie balance!  Combined with a lower nutritional value than most common lawn grasses, celery is a completely useless food.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best way to lose weight is to do both .
Diets primarily burn through the glycogen before any fat is broken down .
See : this wikipedia article [ wikipedia.org ] .
Speaking of low calorie foods , try celery ; it has a negative calorie balance !
Combined with a lower nutritional value than most common lawn grasses , celery is a completely useless food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best way to lose weight is to do both.
Diets primarily burn through the glycogen before any fat is broken down.
See: this wikipedia article [wikipedia.org].
Speaking of low calorie foods, try celery; it has a negative calorie balance!
Combined with a lower nutritional value than most common lawn grasses, celery is a completely useless food.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031430</id>
	<title>I've been on a diet for one month...</title>
	<author>jplopez</author>
	<datestamp>1257775320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>- and how much did you lose?
- 31 days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>- and how much did you lose ?
- 31 days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- and how much did you lose?
- 31 days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30042060</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257785160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm already a broke college student, you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm already a broke college student , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm already a broke college student, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030982</id>
	<title>12 weeks?</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1257770640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's your problem right there. Let's see:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Fat is a long term storage form of energy. Everything (proteins, glucose) can be converted to fat, but fat cannot be converted back to glucose (unless you count the lone glycerol molecule that holds the 3 fatty acids together on the triglyceride). It's NOT a reverse reaction. Thus the problems begin. It's easy to make fat, and hard to get rid of it.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; So how is exercise supposed to get rid of fat then? Well, fat CAN be converted to acetyl-COA and shoved into the Krebs cycle. Only the Krebs cycle is an AEROBIC process and takes place in the mitochondria, not in the cytoplasm of the cells. Aha! Problem #2. Sedentary people have fewer mitochondria than athletic people. Therefore their ability to "burn" fat as acetyl-CoA is limited. An athlete can burn fat just as efficiently as glucose, the only difference being he'll lose out on the couple ATP from glycolysis.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; So you need mitochondria, in quantity, to burn up acetyl-CoA and therefore fat. If you don't get rid of the acetyl-CoA somehow, the whole catabolic process starts backing up. How do you obtain mitochondria? Increased exercise - over a sustained period. 12 weeks is hardly enough to increase the number of mitochondria in your muscle cells, much less expect them to burn through a dozens of kilos of fat. But the title of this article is misleading - according to the study the cited article is based on -</p><p><i>Mean reduction in body weight was -3.3 &#177;3.63kg (P less than 0.01). However, 26 of the 58 participants failed to attain the predicted weight loss estimated from individuals' exercise-induced energy expenditure. Their mean weight loss was only -0.9 &#177;1.8kg (P less than 0.01). Despite attaining lower than predicted weight reduction, these individuals experienced significant increases in aerobic capacity (6.3 &#177;6.0ml.kg-1.min-1; P less than 0.01), decreased systolic (-6.00 &#177;11.5mmHg; P less than 0.05) and diastolic blood pressure (-3.9 &#177;5.8mmHg; P less than 0.01), waist circumference (-3.7 &#177;2.7cm; P less than 0.01) and resting heart rate (-4.8&#177;8.9bpm, p less than 0.001). In addition, these individuals experienced an acute exercise-induced increase in positive mood.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; So they ALL lost weight. Only some (probably cheated on their diets/lied about their original diet) lost LESS weight than others. Continuing the exercise for more than 12 weeks would probably have caused further reduction in weight. I don't know HOW the submitter can turn that into "Why Doesn't Exercise Lead To Weight Loss?". Oh yeah, but this is slashdot- news for nerds. This site should be renamed to "Slashdot - news for trolls: engage critical thinking now".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's your problem right there .
Let 's see :       Fat is a long term storage form of energy .
Everything ( proteins , glucose ) can be converted to fat , but fat can not be converted back to glucose ( unless you count the lone glycerol molecule that holds the 3 fatty acids together on the triglyceride ) .
It 's NOT a reverse reaction .
Thus the problems begin .
It 's easy to make fat , and hard to get rid of it .
      So how is exercise supposed to get rid of fat then ?
Well , fat CAN be converted to acetyl-COA and shoved into the Krebs cycle .
Only the Krebs cycle is an AEROBIC process and takes place in the mitochondria , not in the cytoplasm of the cells .
Aha ! Problem # 2 .
Sedentary people have fewer mitochondria than athletic people .
Therefore their ability to " burn " fat as acetyl-CoA is limited .
An athlete can burn fat just as efficiently as glucose , the only difference being he 'll lose out on the couple ATP from glycolysis .
      So you need mitochondria , in quantity , to burn up acetyl-CoA and therefore fat .
If you do n't get rid of the acetyl-CoA somehow , the whole catabolic process starts backing up .
How do you obtain mitochondria ?
Increased exercise - over a sustained period .
12 weeks is hardly enough to increase the number of mitochondria in your muscle cells , much less expect them to burn through a dozens of kilos of fat .
But the title of this article is misleading - according to the study the cited article is based on -Mean reduction in body weight was -3.3   3.63kg ( P less than 0.01 ) .
However , 26 of the 58 participants failed to attain the predicted weight loss estimated from individuals ' exercise-induced energy expenditure .
Their mean weight loss was only -0.9   1.8kg ( P less than 0.01 ) .
Despite attaining lower than predicted weight reduction , these individuals experienced significant increases in aerobic capacity ( 6.3   6.0ml.kg-1.min-1 ; P less than 0.01 ) , decreased systolic ( -6.00   11.5mmHg ; P less than 0.05 ) and diastolic blood pressure ( -3.9   5.8mmHg ; P less than 0.01 ) , waist circumference ( -3.7   2.7cm ; P less than 0.01 ) and resting heart rate ( -4.8   8.9bpm , p less than 0.001 ) .
In addition , these individuals experienced an acute exercise-induced increase in positive mood .
      So they ALL lost weight .
Only some ( probably cheated on their diets/lied about their original diet ) lost LESS weight than others .
Continuing the exercise for more than 12 weeks would probably have caused further reduction in weight .
I do n't know HOW the submitter can turn that into " Why Does n't Exercise Lead To Weight Loss ? " .
Oh yeah , but this is slashdot- news for nerds .
This site should be renamed to " Slashdot - news for trolls : engage critical thinking now " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's your problem right there.
Let's see:
      Fat is a long term storage form of energy.
Everything (proteins, glucose) can be converted to fat, but fat cannot be converted back to glucose (unless you count the lone glycerol molecule that holds the 3 fatty acids together on the triglyceride).
It's NOT a reverse reaction.
Thus the problems begin.
It's easy to make fat, and hard to get rid of it.
      So how is exercise supposed to get rid of fat then?
Well, fat CAN be converted to acetyl-COA and shoved into the Krebs cycle.
Only the Krebs cycle is an AEROBIC process and takes place in the mitochondria, not in the cytoplasm of the cells.
Aha! Problem #2.
Sedentary people have fewer mitochondria than athletic people.
Therefore their ability to "burn" fat as acetyl-CoA is limited.
An athlete can burn fat just as efficiently as glucose, the only difference being he'll lose out on the couple ATP from glycolysis.
      So you need mitochondria, in quantity, to burn up acetyl-CoA and therefore fat.
If you don't get rid of the acetyl-CoA somehow, the whole catabolic process starts backing up.
How do you obtain mitochondria?
Increased exercise - over a sustained period.
12 weeks is hardly enough to increase the number of mitochondria in your muscle cells, much less expect them to burn through a dozens of kilos of fat.
But the title of this article is misleading - according to the study the cited article is based on -Mean reduction in body weight was -3.3 ±3.63kg (P less than 0.01).
However, 26 of the 58 participants failed to attain the predicted weight loss estimated from individuals' exercise-induced energy expenditure.
Their mean weight loss was only -0.9 ±1.8kg (P less than 0.01).
Despite attaining lower than predicted weight reduction, these individuals experienced significant increases in aerobic capacity (6.3 ±6.0ml.kg-1.min-1; P less than 0.01), decreased systolic (-6.00 ±11.5mmHg; P less than 0.05) and diastolic blood pressure (-3.9 ±5.8mmHg; P less than 0.01), waist circumference (-3.7 ±2.7cm; P less than 0.01) and resting heart rate (-4.8±8.9bpm, p less than 0.001).
In addition, these individuals experienced an acute exercise-induced increase in positive mood.
      So they ALL lost weight.
Only some (probably cheated on their diets/lied about their original diet) lost LESS weight than others.
Continuing the exercise for more than 12 weeks would probably have caused further reduction in weight.
I don't know HOW the submitter can turn that into "Why Doesn't Exercise Lead To Weight Loss?".
Oh yeah, but this is slashdot- news for nerds.
This site should be renamed to "Slashdot - news for trolls: engage critical thinking now".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031458</id>
	<title>Some other points</title>
	<author>Badmovies</author>
	<datestamp>1257775500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am going to hit two points I didn't see mentioned.</p><p>The first is that the intensity of your exercise matters a lot.  High intensity burns a lot more calories than medium or low intensity.  Jog 3 miles at an easy pace.  Now run 1.5 miles pushing yourself.  You'll see a difference.  The same goes for working other parts of the body.  One routine I like to do is 10 pull-ups, 20 push-ups, 40 abs (bicycle crunches, obliques, etc.) - do 8 sets of that, then run 3 miles.  When I'm trying to improve, I push myself and it works.  However, I can do that same workout for weeks at just medium intensity (taking my time) and I don't see an improvement in my performance.  High intensity also burns calories faster.</p><p>Oh, and a good exercise session will increase your metabolism for hours.  Do it early.</p><p>Another issue is that when you eat your calories matters.  Having a big meal helps to set your body's metabolism for the day.  Your other meals should be sensible, but don't have a huge dinner and then go to bed 2 hours later.  That's terrible for losing weight.  I tell people trying to lose weight to have a healthy breakfast, decent lunch, and then keep dinner reasonable, and dinner cannot be right before bed.  After dinner the only thing you should be doing is drinking water.  Don't starve yourself; you have to take in calories or else your body slows down metabolism.</p><p>If someone is exercising and thinks they are watching what they eat, I also tell them to keep a journal of everything they eat and drink (except water).  They often find they've picked up calories in expected places, like sports drinks or a food item.</p><p>There's a lot more to losing weight and getting in shape, but I'm pressed for time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am going to hit two points I did n't see mentioned.The first is that the intensity of your exercise matters a lot .
High intensity burns a lot more calories than medium or low intensity .
Jog 3 miles at an easy pace .
Now run 1.5 miles pushing yourself .
You 'll see a difference .
The same goes for working other parts of the body .
One routine I like to do is 10 pull-ups , 20 push-ups , 40 abs ( bicycle crunches , obliques , etc .
) - do 8 sets of that , then run 3 miles .
When I 'm trying to improve , I push myself and it works .
However , I can do that same workout for weeks at just medium intensity ( taking my time ) and I do n't see an improvement in my performance .
High intensity also burns calories faster.Oh , and a good exercise session will increase your metabolism for hours .
Do it early.Another issue is that when you eat your calories matters .
Having a big meal helps to set your body 's metabolism for the day .
Your other meals should be sensible , but do n't have a huge dinner and then go to bed 2 hours later .
That 's terrible for losing weight .
I tell people trying to lose weight to have a healthy breakfast , decent lunch , and then keep dinner reasonable , and dinner can not be right before bed .
After dinner the only thing you should be doing is drinking water .
Do n't starve yourself ; you have to take in calories or else your body slows down metabolism.If someone is exercising and thinks they are watching what they eat , I also tell them to keep a journal of everything they eat and drink ( except water ) .
They often find they 've picked up calories in expected places , like sports drinks or a food item.There 's a lot more to losing weight and getting in shape , but I 'm pressed for time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am going to hit two points I didn't see mentioned.The first is that the intensity of your exercise matters a lot.
High intensity burns a lot more calories than medium or low intensity.
Jog 3 miles at an easy pace.
Now run 1.5 miles pushing yourself.
You'll see a difference.
The same goes for working other parts of the body.
One routine I like to do is 10 pull-ups, 20 push-ups, 40 abs (bicycle crunches, obliques, etc.
) - do 8 sets of that, then run 3 miles.
When I'm trying to improve, I push myself and it works.
However, I can do that same workout for weeks at just medium intensity (taking my time) and I don't see an improvement in my performance.
High intensity also burns calories faster.Oh, and a good exercise session will increase your metabolism for hours.
Do it early.Another issue is that when you eat your calories matters.
Having a big meal helps to set your body's metabolism for the day.
Your other meals should be sensible, but don't have a huge dinner and then go to bed 2 hours later.
That's terrible for losing weight.
I tell people trying to lose weight to have a healthy breakfast, decent lunch, and then keep dinner reasonable, and dinner cannot be right before bed.
After dinner the only thing you should be doing is drinking water.
Don't starve yourself; you have to take in calories or else your body slows down metabolism.If someone is exercising and thinks they are watching what they eat, I also tell them to keep a journal of everything they eat and drink (except water).
They often find they've picked up calories in expected places, like sports drinks or a food item.There's a lot more to losing weight and getting in shape, but I'm pressed for time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029754</id>
	<title>Health</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257798720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exercise is not necessarily linked to weight loss because body weight is a bad parameter. A much more interesting parameter is body fat \%.</p><p>Muscle has a much higher density than fat, meaning that if you exercise, reducing fat and increasing muscle, your weight loss is negligible.</p><p>But who cares about weight, when exercise can cure your type II diabetes, strengthen your cardio-vascular endurance and make you feel comfortable in your own body.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exercise is not necessarily linked to weight loss because body weight is a bad parameter .
A much more interesting parameter is body fat \ % .Muscle has a much higher density than fat , meaning that if you exercise , reducing fat and increasing muscle , your weight loss is negligible.But who cares about weight , when exercise can cure your type II diabetes , strengthen your cardio-vascular endurance and make you feel comfortable in your own body .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exercise is not necessarily linked to weight loss because body weight is a bad parameter.
A much more interesting parameter is body fat \%.Muscle has a much higher density than fat, meaning that if you exercise, reducing fat and increasing muscle, your weight loss is negligible.But who cares about weight, when exercise can cure your type II diabetes, strengthen your cardio-vascular endurance and make you feel comfortable in your own body.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30039930</id>
	<title>Re:Conservation of Energy</title>
	<author>Macgrrl</author>
	<datestamp>1257769320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Odd. I carry more weight that I really want to or is perhaps good for me. I definately feel extremes of heat or cold before many of my contemporaries. I am usually very warm to the touch - my husband complains I am too warm sometimes. Conversely he has a genetic disorder, a symptom of which is a copper deficiency in the blood which makes it difficult for him to regulate his body temperature.</p><p>I've always assumed the problem is I am excessively efficient in how I digest food - I've had digestive issues all my life, have always been cuddly despite having months at a time where I have issues keeping food down for any length of time. I have just assumed the exothermic reaction is one way my body excretes excess energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Odd .
I carry more weight that I really want to or is perhaps good for me .
I definately feel extremes of heat or cold before many of my contemporaries .
I am usually very warm to the touch - my husband complains I am too warm sometimes .
Conversely he has a genetic disorder , a symptom of which is a copper deficiency in the blood which makes it difficult for him to regulate his body temperature.I 've always assumed the problem is I am excessively efficient in how I digest food - I 've had digestive issues all my life , have always been cuddly despite having months at a time where I have issues keeping food down for any length of time .
I have just assumed the exothermic reaction is one way my body excretes excess energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odd.
I carry more weight that I really want to or is perhaps good for me.
I definately feel extremes of heat or cold before many of my contemporaries.
I am usually very warm to the touch - my husband complains I am too warm sometimes.
Conversely he has a genetic disorder, a symptom of which is a copper deficiency in the blood which makes it difficult for him to regulate his body temperature.I've always assumed the problem is I am excessively efficient in how I digest food - I've had digestive issues all my life, have always been cuddly despite having months at a time where I have issues keeping food down for any length of time.
I have just assumed the exothermic reaction is one way my body excretes excess energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030336</id>
	<title>It does</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257762060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Moderate exercise, i.e. being active does lead to weight loss if you are overweight.  If you were leading a normal active lifestyle then you would not be overweight in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moderate exercise , i.e .
being active does lead to weight loss if you are overweight .
If you were leading a normal active lifestyle then you would not be overweight in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moderate exercise, i.e.
being active does lead to weight loss if you are overweight.
If you were leading a normal active lifestyle then you would not be overweight in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029900</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>codeButcher</author>
	<datestamp>1257800340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The box it comes in</p></div></blockquote><p>Excuse me, I think that's the problem right there.
</p><p>The stuff that western civilisation pushed on us under the label food, is often highly processed, devoid of useful nutrients, and stuffed with harmful chemicals and empty calories. Not buying stuff that comes in boxes (and tins and plastic packaging) if often a good (if somewhat rough) rule of thumb to improve health (including losing weight).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The box it comes inExcuse me , I think that 's the problem right there .
The stuff that western civilisation pushed on us under the label food , is often highly processed , devoid of useful nutrients , and stuffed with harmful chemicals and empty calories .
Not buying stuff that comes in boxes ( and tins and plastic packaging ) if often a good ( if somewhat rough ) rule of thumb to improve health ( including losing weight ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The box it comes inExcuse me, I think that's the problem right there.
The stuff that western civilisation pushed on us under the label food, is often highly processed, devoid of useful nutrients, and stuffed with harmful chemicals and empty calories.
Not buying stuff that comes in boxes (and tins and plastic packaging) if often a good (if somewhat rough) rule of thumb to improve health (including losing weight).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029980</id>
	<title>Re:But it's all physics? *snark*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257758100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spoken like a true fatty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spoken like a true fatty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spoken like a true fatty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030254</id>
	<title>Re:Warm</title>
	<author>Rakshasa Taisab</author>
	<datestamp>1257761100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No it's not... Once of the best ways of \_increasing\_ your resting metabolism is by getting healthy and gaining some muscle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No it 's not... Once of the best ways of \ _increasing \ _ your resting metabolism is by getting healthy and gaining some muscle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it's not... Once of the best ways of \_increasing\_ your resting metabolism is by getting healthy and gaining some muscle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032700</id>
	<title>Re:Do or do not: There is no moderation.</title>
	<author>Jarlsberg</author>
	<datestamp>1257781800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I also find juicing to be a fantastic way of consuming a lot of healthy vitamins and minerals. I make a veggie/fruit-juice every day consisting of ginger, carrot, spinach, broccoli, beet root together with apple, lemon, grape fruit and blueberries. Fantastic stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also find juicing to be a fantastic way of consuming a lot of healthy vitamins and minerals .
I make a veggie/fruit-juice every day consisting of ginger , carrot , spinach , broccoli , beet root together with apple , lemon , grape fruit and blueberries .
Fantastic stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also find juicing to be a fantastic way of consuming a lot of healthy vitamins and minerals.
I make a veggie/fruit-juice every day consisting of ginger, carrot, spinach, broccoli, beet root together with apple, lemon, grape fruit and blueberries.
Fantastic stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032780</id>
	<title>Duh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257782160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To lose weight, put the fork down.<br>To get healthier and/or build muscle, work out.</p><p>If you are on a 3.5 kcal a day diet, all the working out in the world isn't going to help unless you are Michael Phelps, work out for 6-8 hours a day and burn it all.</p><p>Unless you are always a little hungry and eat healthy, you aren't going to lose weight. If you are working out, and not losing weight, you need to eat less. It's a simple equation. You have to burn more calories than you take in.</p><p>Not putting the fork down (or overdoing it leading to yo yo dieting) is the part that screws people up. You can lose weight the healthy way and not work out at all if you simply stop eating when you are no longer hungry, instead of vacuuming your plate and getting seconds. You also can't eat a bag of corn chips and a cup of queso dip while watching CSI, then again that falls under the whole put the fork down rule.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To lose weight , put the fork down.To get healthier and/or build muscle , work out.If you are on a 3.5 kcal a day diet , all the working out in the world is n't going to help unless you are Michael Phelps , work out for 6-8 hours a day and burn it all.Unless you are always a little hungry and eat healthy , you are n't going to lose weight .
If you are working out , and not losing weight , you need to eat less .
It 's a simple equation .
You have to burn more calories than you take in.Not putting the fork down ( or overdoing it leading to yo yo dieting ) is the part that screws people up .
You can lose weight the healthy way and not work out at all if you simply stop eating when you are no longer hungry , instead of vacuuming your plate and getting seconds .
You also ca n't eat a bag of corn chips and a cup of queso dip while watching CSI , then again that falls under the whole put the fork down rule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To lose weight, put the fork down.To get healthier and/or build muscle, work out.If you are on a 3.5 kcal a day diet, all the working out in the world isn't going to help unless you are Michael Phelps, work out for 6-8 hours a day and burn it all.Unless you are always a little hungry and eat healthy, you aren't going to lose weight.
If you are working out, and not losing weight, you need to eat less.
It's a simple equation.
You have to burn more calories than you take in.Not putting the fork down (or overdoing it leading to yo yo dieting) is the part that screws people up.
You can lose weight the healthy way and not work out at all if you simply stop eating when you are no longer hungry, instead of vacuuming your plate and getting seconds.
You also can't eat a bag of corn chips and a cup of queso dip while watching CSI, then again that falls under the whole put the fork down rule.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032646</id>
	<title>Reptiles, snakes ect</title>
	<author>sgt101</author>
	<datestamp>1257781680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crocs, aligators, snakes... they eat once a week, but are pretty active animals inbetween.</p><p>They can do this because they are cold blooded, we run hot, so we can't.</p><p>If you want to loose weight fast then wear one less jumper.</p><p>Or go outside (if you live somewhere cold) for an extra 20 minutes a day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crocs , aligators , snakes... they eat once a week , but are pretty active animals inbetween.They can do this because they are cold blooded , we run hot , so we ca n't.If you want to loose weight fast then wear one less jumper.Or go outside ( if you live somewhere cold ) for an extra 20 minutes a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crocs, aligators, snakes... they eat once a week, but are pretty active animals inbetween.They can do this because they are cold blooded, we run hot, so we can't.If you want to loose weight fast then wear one less jumper.Or go outside (if you live somewhere cold) for an extra 20 minutes a day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30036112</id>
	<title>Re:12 weeks?</title>
	<author>DoctorHow</author>
	<datestamp>1257795180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>It's all about the hormones... </b>
<p>
Check out my reply to the original post here and tell me what you think.
</p><p>
<a href="http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&amp;cid=30035102" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&amp;cid=30035102</a> [slashdot.org]
</p><p>
I used to be all about the "calories in/calories out" bookeeping, but once you see the actual cellular mechanisms at work, its a real DOH! eye opener.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all about the hormones.. . Check out my reply to the original post here and tell me what you think .
http : //science.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1436166&amp;cid = 30035102 [ slashdot.org ] I used to be all about the " calories in/calories out " bookeeping , but once you see the actual cellular mechanisms at work , its a real DOH !
eye opener .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all about the hormones... 

Check out my reply to the original post here and tell me what you think.
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&amp;cid=30035102 [slashdot.org]

I used to be all about the "calories in/calories out" bookeeping, but once you see the actual cellular mechanisms at work, its a real DOH!
eye opener.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034712</id>
	<title>Re:12 weeks?</title>
	<author>tekrat</author>
	<datestamp>1257789900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; Problem #2. Sedentary people have fewer mitochondria than athletic people. </p><p>So.... Fat people can never become Jedi Knights?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Problem # 2 .
Sedentary people have fewer mitochondria than athletic people .
So.... Fat people can never become Jedi Knights ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; Problem #2.
Sedentary people have fewer mitochondria than athletic people.
So.... Fat people can never become Jedi Knights?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029774</id>
	<title>Diets</title>
	<author>quantaman</author>
	<datestamp>1257798960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary said that they didn't change their diets but the abstract makes no mention of that.</p><p>I suspect the poster just inferred that because they didn't mention diet in the abstract, but not mentioning diet does not mean the diet didn't change. In my experience when you exercise you tend to eat more. I'm not particularly large (BMI 24.9) but I've never lost any weight by increasing my exercise, it takes changing my diet to affect my weight.</p><p>I know for myself, and other relatively fit people I know, when we exercise more we simply eat the extra calories we burned. Of course this isn't the case for all people and I suspect that once you start getting larger you might start to see benefits more often, but note that diet is still the biggest single factor.</p><p>I'm actually surprised this study showed as big a difference as it did (-3.3 kg in 12 weeks is pretty good) although 31.8 BMI is starting to trend towards the chubbier side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary said that they did n't change their diets but the abstract makes no mention of that.I suspect the poster just inferred that because they did n't mention diet in the abstract , but not mentioning diet does not mean the diet did n't change .
In my experience when you exercise you tend to eat more .
I 'm not particularly large ( BMI 24.9 ) but I 've never lost any weight by increasing my exercise , it takes changing my diet to affect my weight.I know for myself , and other relatively fit people I know , when we exercise more we simply eat the extra calories we burned .
Of course this is n't the case for all people and I suspect that once you start getting larger you might start to see benefits more often , but note that diet is still the biggest single factor.I 'm actually surprised this study showed as big a difference as it did ( -3.3 kg in 12 weeks is pretty good ) although 31.8 BMI is starting to trend towards the chubbier side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary said that they didn't change their diets but the abstract makes no mention of that.I suspect the poster just inferred that because they didn't mention diet in the abstract, but not mentioning diet does not mean the diet didn't change.
In my experience when you exercise you tend to eat more.
I'm not particularly large (BMI 24.9) but I've never lost any weight by increasing my exercise, it takes changing my diet to affect my weight.I know for myself, and other relatively fit people I know, when we exercise more we simply eat the extra calories we burned.
Of course this isn't the case for all people and I suspect that once you start getting larger you might start to see benefits more often, but note that diet is still the biggest single factor.I'm actually surprised this study showed as big a difference as it did (-3.3 kg in 12 weeks is pretty good) although 31.8 BMI is starting to trend towards the chubbier side.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031798</id>
	<title>BURN BABY, BURN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257777480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have gone through large weight swings at different periods throughout my life.  I was ectomorphic growing up, and matured into a mesomorph.  Because my job is IT, I'm sedentary for long periods of time, and as such, will accumulate fat, especially given that in my mid-30's I still eat just like I did in my mid-teens.</p><p>Due to my particular personality - mild OCD, extremely impatient - I am very, very good at modifying the way I look in short periods of time.  I lost 19 pounds in a week, just to prove a point.  I ate 3 hard boiled eggs per day, 1 slice of whole wheat toast, lots of water, lots of coffee, and never stopped chewing sugarfree gum.  I also exercised for 4-5 hours per day.  It takes incredible willpower.  It absolutely sucks.  You'll feel like shit.  But it <b>does</b> work.</p><p>Swimmers who cross the English Channel and Florida Straits also lose huge amounts of weight in very short periods of time.  Susie Maroney lost 22 pounds in just over a day when she swam from Cuba to Key West.  Not all of it fat, to be sure, but a lot of it was.</p><p>Much hype was made about Michael Phelps' diet when he trains.  He consumes between 10,000 - 12,000 calories <i>per day</i> while training.  So imagine your daily food intake, and quadruple it.  That's how much he eats.  And that's just to prevent him from losing weight.  He has to eat that much to <i>stay the same</i>.</p><p>I also freedive.  Freedivers are some of the leanest athletes in the world.  They tend to stay away from gyms as too much muscle burns too much oxygen.  The repeated depletion and replenishment of O2 across the cell membrane really burns the calories.  After a 4-day freediving training session off the coast of Florida, I had lost 6 pounds of fat in 4 days.</p><p>As others have noted, most people <i>feel</i> like they're doing a lot of exercise, but they simply aren't.</p><p>Exercise absolutely works.  Just just aren't doing it intensely enough or long enough if you aren't burning fat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have gone through large weight swings at different periods throughout my life .
I was ectomorphic growing up , and matured into a mesomorph .
Because my job is IT , I 'm sedentary for long periods of time , and as such , will accumulate fat , especially given that in my mid-30 's I still eat just like I did in my mid-teens.Due to my particular personality - mild OCD , extremely impatient - I am very , very good at modifying the way I look in short periods of time .
I lost 19 pounds in a week , just to prove a point .
I ate 3 hard boiled eggs per day , 1 slice of whole wheat toast , lots of water , lots of coffee , and never stopped chewing sugarfree gum .
I also exercised for 4-5 hours per day .
It takes incredible willpower .
It absolutely sucks .
You 'll feel like shit .
But it does work.Swimmers who cross the English Channel and Florida Straits also lose huge amounts of weight in very short periods of time .
Susie Maroney lost 22 pounds in just over a day when she swam from Cuba to Key West .
Not all of it fat , to be sure , but a lot of it was.Much hype was made about Michael Phelps ' diet when he trains .
He consumes between 10,000 - 12,000 calories per day while training .
So imagine your daily food intake , and quadruple it .
That 's how much he eats .
And that 's just to prevent him from losing weight .
He has to eat that much to stay the same.I also freedive .
Freedivers are some of the leanest athletes in the world .
They tend to stay away from gyms as too much muscle burns too much oxygen .
The repeated depletion and replenishment of O2 across the cell membrane really burns the calories .
After a 4-day freediving training session off the coast of Florida , I had lost 6 pounds of fat in 4 days.As others have noted , most people feel like they 're doing a lot of exercise , but they simply are n't.Exercise absolutely works .
Just just are n't doing it intensely enough or long enough if you are n't burning fat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have gone through large weight swings at different periods throughout my life.
I was ectomorphic growing up, and matured into a mesomorph.
Because my job is IT, I'm sedentary for long periods of time, and as such, will accumulate fat, especially given that in my mid-30's I still eat just like I did in my mid-teens.Due to my particular personality - mild OCD, extremely impatient - I am very, very good at modifying the way I look in short periods of time.
I lost 19 pounds in a week, just to prove a point.
I ate 3 hard boiled eggs per day, 1 slice of whole wheat toast, lots of water, lots of coffee, and never stopped chewing sugarfree gum.
I also exercised for 4-5 hours per day.
It takes incredible willpower.
It absolutely sucks.
You'll feel like shit.
But it does work.Swimmers who cross the English Channel and Florida Straits also lose huge amounts of weight in very short periods of time.
Susie Maroney lost 22 pounds in just over a day when she swam from Cuba to Key West.
Not all of it fat, to be sure, but a lot of it was.Much hype was made about Michael Phelps' diet when he trains.
He consumes between 10,000 - 12,000 calories per day while training.
So imagine your daily food intake, and quadruple it.
That's how much he eats.
And that's just to prevent him from losing weight.
He has to eat that much to stay the same.I also freedive.
Freedivers are some of the leanest athletes in the world.
They tend to stay away from gyms as too much muscle burns too much oxygen.
The repeated depletion and replenishment of O2 across the cell membrane really burns the calories.
After a 4-day freediving training session off the coast of Florida, I had lost 6 pounds of fat in 4 days.As others have noted, most people feel like they're doing a lot of exercise, but they simply aren't.Exercise absolutely works.
Just just aren't doing it intensely enough or long enough if you aren't burning fat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029684</id>
	<title>Perpetual motion 'fat'?</title>
	<author>TiggertheMad</author>
	<datestamp>1257797940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Still, physics still stand: Use more energy than you get through food you \_will\_ lose weight</i>
<br> <br>
Agreed, I call bullshit on any conclusion that make the claim that exercise doesn't lead to weight loss . Show me a overweight Olympic level marathon runner, and I might believe it.
<br> <br>
Delta in &lt; delta out = delta down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still , physics still stand : Use more energy than you get through food you \ _will \ _ lose weight Agreed , I call bullshit on any conclusion that make the claim that exercise does n't lead to weight loss .
Show me a overweight Olympic level marathon runner , and I might believe it .
Delta in &lt; delta out = delta down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still, physics still stand: Use more energy than you get through food you \_will\_ lose weight
 
Agreed, I call bullshit on any conclusion that make the claim that exercise doesn't lead to weight loss .
Show me a overweight Olympic level marathon runner, and I might believe it.
Delta in &lt; delta out = delta down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032370</id>
	<title>Re:All you slim theoreticians...</title>
	<author>JerryLove</author>
	<datestamp>1257780600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One problem is that you are contradicting yourself.</p><p>You tie miserableness to high weight, but then also map out a weight loss as though the weight will always be high.</p><p>A 240lb person who moves to 220lb in three months will not spend the next 3 years a 220. His weight will be constantly moving down putting him in that "slim theoretician" range.</p><p>Also, presuming he's muscle building (as opposed to aerobics, which I personally think is a bad way to do weight loss), then his fat loss will accellerate over time. The muscle he built in the first 3 months will continue to consume calories over the next three months. The muscle he adds to that in the second three months will also burn calories. Finally, he will be ablt to build faser (till he plateaus) later on because of the improved enduarnce from earlier.</p><p>So no. The "feeling misearble" goes away with time, and the results accellerate... though I don't recommend using a scale as your measure early in (got for enduarnce / strength goals).</p><p>But you are right in the need to change habits. For some, that happens automatically. When I am doing circuit training, I loose my taste for soad, most candy, and beef... I start craving chicken.</p><p>Yes people eat because they are depressed. People also workout because they are depressed. The latter works better and is better for you. Ditto bored.</p><p>So you are right: habitual eaters need to retrain those habits for good results. That's much easier to do when you have another outlet.</p><p>To put it another way: a dieter looses weight by denying themselves eating. An athlete looses weight by replacing some eating with exercise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One problem is that you are contradicting yourself.You tie miserableness to high weight , but then also map out a weight loss as though the weight will always be high.A 240lb person who moves to 220lb in three months will not spend the next 3 years a 220 .
His weight will be constantly moving down putting him in that " slim theoretician " range.Also , presuming he 's muscle building ( as opposed to aerobics , which I personally think is a bad way to do weight loss ) , then his fat loss will accellerate over time .
The muscle he built in the first 3 months will continue to consume calories over the next three months .
The muscle he adds to that in the second three months will also burn calories .
Finally , he will be ablt to build faser ( till he plateaus ) later on because of the improved enduarnce from earlier.So no .
The " feeling misearble " goes away with time , and the results accellerate... though I do n't recommend using a scale as your measure early in ( got for enduarnce / strength goals ) .But you are right in the need to change habits .
For some , that happens automatically .
When I am doing circuit training , I loose my taste for soad , most candy , and beef... I start craving chicken.Yes people eat because they are depressed .
People also workout because they are depressed .
The latter works better and is better for you .
Ditto bored.So you are right : habitual eaters need to retrain those habits for good results .
That 's much easier to do when you have another outlet.To put it another way : a dieter looses weight by denying themselves eating .
An athlete looses weight by replacing some eating with exercise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One problem is that you are contradicting yourself.You tie miserableness to high weight, but then also map out a weight loss as though the weight will always be high.A 240lb person who moves to 220lb in three months will not spend the next 3 years a 220.
His weight will be constantly moving down putting him in that "slim theoretician" range.Also, presuming he's muscle building (as opposed to aerobics, which I personally think is a bad way to do weight loss), then his fat loss will accellerate over time.
The muscle he built in the first 3 months will continue to consume calories over the next three months.
The muscle he adds to that in the second three months will also burn calories.
Finally, he will be ablt to build faser (till he plateaus) later on because of the improved enduarnce from earlier.So no.
The "feeling misearble" goes away with time, and the results accellerate... though I don't recommend using a scale as your measure early in (got for enduarnce / strength goals).But you are right in the need to change habits.
For some, that happens automatically.
When I am doing circuit training, I loose my taste for soad, most candy, and beef... I start craving chicken.Yes people eat because they are depressed.
People also workout because they are depressed.
The latter works better and is better for you.
Ditto bored.So you are right: habitual eaters need to retrain those habits for good results.
That's much easier to do when you have another outlet.To put it another way: a dieter looses weight by denying themselves eating.
An athlete looses weight by replacing some eating with exercise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033066</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>foo fighter</author>
	<datestamp>1257783240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to have to guess you aren't married or have children. Those two hours you spend in the gym can be a huge sacrifice when they are two fewer hours a day you get to spend with your family. They are also two hours you don't have to get your kids ready for the next day and prepare healthy food for them to eat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to have to guess you are n't married or have children .
Those two hours you spend in the gym can be a huge sacrifice when they are two fewer hours a day you get to spend with your family .
They are also two hours you do n't have to get your kids ready for the next day and prepare healthy food for them to eat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to have to guess you aren't married or have children.
Those two hours you spend in the gym can be a huge sacrifice when they are two fewer hours a day you get to spend with your family.
They are also two hours you don't have to get your kids ready for the next day and prepare healthy food for them to eat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029490</id>
	<title>Warm</title>
	<author>tsa</author>
	<datestamp>1257709860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compared to keeping your body at 37 degrees, exercise hardly costs any energy. It just makes you healthier. The only way to lose weight is by eating less, and eating low-calory food.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compared to keeping your body at 37 degrees , exercise hardly costs any energy .
It just makes you healthier .
The only way to lose weight is by eating less , and eating low-calory food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compared to keeping your body at 37 degrees, exercise hardly costs any energy.
It just makes you healthier.
The only way to lose weight is by eating less, and eating low-calory food.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30036296</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the low-carbers in 3... 2... 1...</title>
	<author>DoctorHow</author>
	<datestamp>1257796140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>It \_is\_ all about the hormones... </b>
<p>
Check out my reply relating Taubes' info to the original post here and tell me what you think.
</p><p>
<a href="http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&amp;cid=30035102" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&amp;cid=30035102</a> [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]
</p><p>
I used to be all about the "calories in/calories out" bookeeping, but once you see the actual cellular mechanisms at work, its a real DOH! eye opener.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It \ _is \ _ all about the hormones.. . Check out my reply relating Taubes ' info to the original post here and tell me what you think .
http : //science.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1436166&amp;cid = 30035102 [ slashdot.org ] [ slashdot.org ] I used to be all about the " calories in/calories out " bookeeping , but once you see the actual cellular mechanisms at work , its a real DOH !
eye opener .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It \_is\_ all about the hormones... 

Check out my reply relating Taubes' info to the original post here and tell me what you think.
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&amp;cid=30035102 [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]

I used to be all about the "calories in/calories out" bookeeping, but once you see the actual cellular mechanisms at work, its a real DOH!
eye opener.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30038108</id>
	<title>Re:But it's all physics? *snark*</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1257760800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Exercise and you must lose weight! 2nd law says so!</i></p><p>Which second law? Thermodynamics of robotics? I didn't know robots could lose weight...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exercise and you must lose weight !
2nd law says so ! Which second law ?
Thermodynamics of robotics ?
I did n't know robots could lose weight.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exercise and you must lose weight!
2nd law says so!Which second law?
Thermodynamics of robotics?
I didn't know robots could lose weight...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031622</id>
	<title>Re:All you slim theoreticians...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257776520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you can devise a diet that is low-calorie but filling and tasty, if you can devise exercises that are fun, it could work.</p></div><p>Diet: Rice (not the white sort, preferably), Couscous, beans, things made out of whole wheat flour, oatmeal, etc. Anything with lots of fiber. Cheap, extremely filling and not a lot of calories. Fiber also hinders fat digestion - neat side effect.<br>In my experience, cheese also tends to be quite filling, especially the hard types (Parmesan, etc.). And there is a dazzling variety of (IMO very tasty) cheeses in the world, but YMMV.</p><p>Try to stay away from sugar, regular flour, fried shit, etc. Which - in the US - means cooking yourself. You can start by making your own whole wheat bread at the very least - one hour of work every two weeks, recipes are all over the net.</p><p>Exercise: Always depends on the person. Personally, I took up dancing which almost everybody can do if he's not morbidly obese (well, Standard at least, Latin looks strange with fat people). But one can also start cycling (or the city - I went biking in LA, so don't whine to me about traffic, etc!), swimming, weight lifting, the various martial arts, etc. There are a million ways to work out - just try them and see what you like.<br>And if one is so morbidly obese that none of that works, then that person will have to do something "not fun". But that person is <b>very sick</b> and should treat itself accordingly. Chemotherapy is "not fun", too.</p><p>BTW, if you have anything even just resembling a sane exercise regime, you will still feel miserable during exercise, but you will also see the results - like those "thin, weak muscles" aching considerably later. And especially at the beginning, those results come rather fast - I once started to do push-ups until exhaustion in the evening, just to test how fast your body adapts to something like that, and went from ~30 in the beginning to 150+ (with 5 minute breaks every 30) in something like 4 months.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can devise a diet that is low-calorie but filling and tasty , if you can devise exercises that are fun , it could work.Diet : Rice ( not the white sort , preferably ) , Couscous , beans , things made out of whole wheat flour , oatmeal , etc .
Anything with lots of fiber .
Cheap , extremely filling and not a lot of calories .
Fiber also hinders fat digestion - neat side effect.In my experience , cheese also tends to be quite filling , especially the hard types ( Parmesan , etc. ) .
And there is a dazzling variety of ( IMO very tasty ) cheeses in the world , but YMMV.Try to stay away from sugar , regular flour , fried shit , etc .
Which - in the US - means cooking yourself .
You can start by making your own whole wheat bread at the very least - one hour of work every two weeks , recipes are all over the net.Exercise : Always depends on the person .
Personally , I took up dancing which almost everybody can do if he 's not morbidly obese ( well , Standard at least , Latin looks strange with fat people ) .
But one can also start cycling ( or the city - I went biking in LA , so do n't whine to me about traffic , etc !
) , swimming , weight lifting , the various martial arts , etc .
There are a million ways to work out - just try them and see what you like.And if one is so morbidly obese that none of that works , then that person will have to do something " not fun " .
But that person is very sick and should treat itself accordingly .
Chemotherapy is " not fun " , too.BTW , if you have anything even just resembling a sane exercise regime , you will still feel miserable during exercise , but you will also see the results - like those " thin , weak muscles " aching considerably later .
And especially at the beginning , those results come rather fast - I once started to do push-ups until exhaustion in the evening , just to test how fast your body adapts to something like that , and went from ~ 30 in the beginning to 150 + ( with 5 minute breaks every 30 ) in something like 4 months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can devise a diet that is low-calorie but filling and tasty, if you can devise exercises that are fun, it could work.Diet: Rice (not the white sort, preferably), Couscous, beans, things made out of whole wheat flour, oatmeal, etc.
Anything with lots of fiber.
Cheap, extremely filling and not a lot of calories.
Fiber also hinders fat digestion - neat side effect.In my experience, cheese also tends to be quite filling, especially the hard types (Parmesan, etc.).
And there is a dazzling variety of (IMO very tasty) cheeses in the world, but YMMV.Try to stay away from sugar, regular flour, fried shit, etc.
Which - in the US - means cooking yourself.
You can start by making your own whole wheat bread at the very least - one hour of work every two weeks, recipes are all over the net.Exercise: Always depends on the person.
Personally, I took up dancing which almost everybody can do if he's not morbidly obese (well, Standard at least, Latin looks strange with fat people).
But one can also start cycling (or the city - I went biking in LA, so don't whine to me about traffic, etc!
), swimming, weight lifting, the various martial arts, etc.
There are a million ways to work out - just try them and see what you like.And if one is so morbidly obese that none of that works, then that person will have to do something "not fun".
But that person is very sick and should treat itself accordingly.
Chemotherapy is "not fun", too.BTW, if you have anything even just resembling a sane exercise regime, you will still feel miserable during exercise, but you will also see the results - like those "thin, weak muscles" aching considerably later.
And especially at the beginning, those results come rather fast - I once started to do push-ups until exhaustion in the evening, just to test how fast your body adapts to something like that, and went from ~30 in the beginning to 150+ (with 5 minute breaks every 30) in something like 4 months.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029934</id>
	<title>"without changing their diets"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257757560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did they really expect any results without moving from a high sugar/fat/calorie diet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they really expect any results without moving from a high sugar/fat/calorie diet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they really expect any results without moving from a high sugar/fat/calorie diet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029832</id>
	<title>The article is correct</title>
	<author>cavver</author>
	<datestamp>1257799680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a guy who lost 70 pounds of fat over 1 year I can tell you that the article is correct. This is due to the fact that fat tissue is replaced by muscle tissue , the latter beeing denser  than the former. The whole point of trying to loose weight is not to care about how much you loose. The most important thing is to start exercising , and keep exercising. I did not watch my weight at all in the begining , all I cared was to run for at least 45 minutes for a session. But over the time , running became less tiring and more rewarding due to the endorphins released after the effort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a guy who lost 70 pounds of fat over 1 year I can tell you that the article is correct .
This is due to the fact that fat tissue is replaced by muscle tissue , the latter beeing denser than the former .
The whole point of trying to loose weight is not to care about how much you loose .
The most important thing is to start exercising , and keep exercising .
I did not watch my weight at all in the begining , all I cared was to run for at least 45 minutes for a session .
But over the time , running became less tiring and more rewarding due to the endorphins released after the effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a guy who lost 70 pounds of fat over 1 year I can tell you that the article is correct.
This is due to the fact that fat tissue is replaced by muscle tissue , the latter beeing denser  than the former.
The whole point of trying to loose weight is not to care about how much you loose.
The most important thing is to start exercising , and keep exercising.
I did not watch my weight at all in the begining , all I cared was to run for at least 45 minutes for a session.
But over the time , running became less tiring and more rewarding due to the endorphins released after the effort.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030106</id>
	<title>The study followed a known-failing program!</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1257759480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The researchers did a very naive thing - they followed the standard aerobic exercise program, which is widely known not to help with weight loss.   Everybody knows that if you want to lose weight, the right way to do it is to exercise hard, not to do aerobic exercise.   Aerobic exercise is for improving your cardiopulmonary fitness, not for losing weight.   What surprises me is that these researchers didn't know that, and didn't study the regimen that fitness trainers actually recommend for weight loss: building muscle mass with exercise much closer to your aerobic limit.   Burning calories in the workout is a waste of time - what you want to do is increase the number of calories your body burns outside of the workout, and you do that by building muscle and not bonking (not allowing your glycogen levels to drop to zero during the workout).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The researchers did a very naive thing - they followed the standard aerobic exercise program , which is widely known not to help with weight loss .
Everybody knows that if you want to lose weight , the right way to do it is to exercise hard , not to do aerobic exercise .
Aerobic exercise is for improving your cardiopulmonary fitness , not for losing weight .
What surprises me is that these researchers did n't know that , and did n't study the regimen that fitness trainers actually recommend for weight loss : building muscle mass with exercise much closer to your aerobic limit .
Burning calories in the workout is a waste of time - what you want to do is increase the number of calories your body burns outside of the workout , and you do that by building muscle and not bonking ( not allowing your glycogen levels to drop to zero during the workout ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The researchers did a very naive thing - they followed the standard aerobic exercise program, which is widely known not to help with weight loss.
Everybody knows that if you want to lose weight, the right way to do it is to exercise hard, not to do aerobic exercise.
Aerobic exercise is for improving your cardiopulmonary fitness, not for losing weight.
What surprises me is that these researchers didn't know that, and didn't study the regimen that fitness trainers actually recommend for weight loss: building muscle mass with exercise much closer to your aerobic limit.
Burning calories in the workout is a waste of time - what you want to do is increase the number of calories your body burns outside of the workout, and you do that by building muscle and not bonking (not allowing your glycogen levels to drop to zero during the workout).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030036</id>
	<title>Re:Your body doesn't have a 100\% conversion factor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257758760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you haven't been in the situation, you probably won't believe how efficient the human body can be when it comes to working with a shortage of food. Of course, if you use more than you eat, you'll lose weight. The problem is, that is not something your body will readily do. It's like the body treats its fat reserves as a second to last resort and throttles down before even trying to metabolize fat. For a proper diet it is very important when you eat, to steer the metabolism towards using its reserves. When you push the blood sugar level up right after you exercised, you might as well not exercise, even if your total calorie intake would suggest that you should lose weight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have n't been in the situation , you probably wo n't believe how efficient the human body can be when it comes to working with a shortage of food .
Of course , if you use more than you eat , you 'll lose weight .
The problem is , that is not something your body will readily do .
It 's like the body treats its fat reserves as a second to last resort and throttles down before even trying to metabolize fat .
For a proper diet it is very important when you eat , to steer the metabolism towards using its reserves .
When you push the blood sugar level up right after you exercised , you might as well not exercise , even if your total calorie intake would suggest that you should lose weight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you haven't been in the situation, you probably won't believe how efficient the human body can be when it comes to working with a shortage of food.
Of course, if you use more than you eat, you'll lose weight.
The problem is, that is not something your body will readily do.
It's like the body treats its fat reserves as a second to last resort and throttles down before even trying to metabolize fat.
For a proper diet it is very important when you eat, to steer the metabolism towards using its reserves.
When you push the blood sugar level up right after you exercised, you might as well not exercise, even if your total calorie intake would suggest that you should lose weight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034362</id>
	<title>Re:All you slim theoreticians...</title>
	<author>rabtech</author>
	<datestamp>1257788460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Food addicts are one of the few cases where addicts can't quit getting their fix. There is no detox because you must eat to live.</p><p>Imagine trying to help someone who wants to quit using heroine or coke, but they still need to inject/snort some every day or they will die... they just need to use a little bit less. If anyone seriously proposed such a thing we would laugh at them for being so stupid.</p><p>Yet it is possible... I should know, I used to wear size 50 pants and weigh 320+ lbs. Losing the weight was one of the most difficult things I've ever done, but I am so glad that I did. I haven't reached my goal yet, but wearing pants in the 34-36 range makes me feel like a person again and not a bloated man-blob.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Food addicts are one of the few cases where addicts ca n't quit getting their fix .
There is no detox because you must eat to live.Imagine trying to help someone who wants to quit using heroine or coke , but they still need to inject/snort some every day or they will die... they just need to use a little bit less .
If anyone seriously proposed such a thing we would laugh at them for being so stupid.Yet it is possible... I should know , I used to wear size 50 pants and weigh 320 + lbs .
Losing the weight was one of the most difficult things I 've ever done , but I am so glad that I did .
I have n't reached my goal yet , but wearing pants in the 34-36 range makes me feel like a person again and not a bloated man-blob .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Food addicts are one of the few cases where addicts can't quit getting their fix.
There is no detox because you must eat to live.Imagine trying to help someone who wants to quit using heroine or coke, but they still need to inject/snort some every day or they will die... they just need to use a little bit less.
If anyone seriously proposed such a thing we would laugh at them for being so stupid.Yet it is possible... I should know, I used to wear size 50 pants and weigh 320+ lbs.
Losing the weight was one of the most difficult things I've ever done, but I am so glad that I did.
I haven't reached my goal yet, but wearing pants in the 34-36 range makes me feel like a person again and not a bloated man-blob.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30037270</id>
	<title>Re:Replies to Comments sub thread</title>
	<author>DoctorHow</author>
	<datestamp>1257757380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>comment -&gt; <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&amp;cid=30036546" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&amp;cid=30036546</a> [slashdot.org]
<p>+++ Reply:</p><blockquote><div><p>hey don't throw the baby out with the bathwater<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)
</p><p>
I appreciate your skepticism so don't take my word for it, please!  I'm just J random interwerb.
</p><p>
but the evidence Taubes presents, though nailed up 'protestant' in many ways, is very accessible to those with a medical background -- he's dug up the "commonly accepted" knowledge that prevailed for a century, and shows how it was then basically forgotten when glitzier science came along.  He shows very convincingly in the 176 pages of citations and notes (on top of the 460 pages before!) that "the rigourous pursuit of truth" that science is supposed to be, got lost on the way...
</p><p>
If I was a doctor myself, I'd be excited to find what seems to be the invisible elephant in the room.  if only for the river of obese patients whom I see and wish I could help more... At least enough to dig in a little myself before turning to the bathwater...</p><p>
Do check out some of the slides in his presentation at least<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>comment - &gt; http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1436166&amp;cid = 30036546 [ slashdot.org ] + + + Reply : hey do n't throw the baby out with the bathwater : ^ ) I appreciate your skepticism so do n't take my word for it , please !
I 'm just J random interwerb .
but the evidence Taubes presents , though nailed up 'protestant ' in many ways , is very accessible to those with a medical background -- he 's dug up the " commonly accepted " knowledge that prevailed for a century , and shows how it was then basically forgotten when glitzier science came along .
He shows very convincingly in the 176 pages of citations and notes ( on top of the 460 pages before !
) that " the rigourous pursuit of truth " that science is supposed to be , got lost on the way.. . If I was a doctor myself , I 'd be excited to find what seems to be the invisible elephant in the room .
if only for the river of obese patients whom I see and wish I could help more... At least enough to dig in a little myself before turning to the bathwater.. . Do check out some of the slides in his presentation at least : ^ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>comment -&gt; http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&amp;cid=30036546 [slashdot.org]
+++ Reply:hey don't throw the baby out with the bathwater :^)

I appreciate your skepticism so don't take my word for it, please!
I'm just J random interwerb.
but the evidence Taubes presents, though nailed up 'protestant' in many ways, is very accessible to those with a medical background -- he's dug up the "commonly accepted" knowledge that prevailed for a century, and shows how it was then basically forgotten when glitzier science came along.
He shows very convincingly in the 176 pages of citations and notes (on top of the 460 pages before!
) that "the rigourous pursuit of truth" that science is supposed to be, got lost on the way...

If I was a doctor myself, I'd be excited to find what seems to be the invisible elephant in the room.
if only for the river of obese patients whom I see and wish I could help more... At least enough to dig in a little myself before turning to the bathwater...
Do check out some of the slides in his presentation at least :^)

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30037202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031724</id>
	<title>Re:Conservation of Energy</title>
	<author>Fished</author>
	<datestamp>1257777120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've hinted at an important truth here.  The law of conservation of energy applies (of course) however where it really plays itself out is at the CELLULAR level.  It cannot be applied in a simple way at the level of diet and exercise because there are too many confusing and confounding factors.  One you mention is the question of body temperature regulation.  Another is the relative efficiency of the body's digestive processes wrt various macronutrients--the body processes carbohydrates far more easily than fats or proteins and far more efficiently.  Beyond that, there is the whole issue of "fidgeting"--i.e. small-scale 'exercise' that nonetheless adds up over a day.  When someone has lots of energy available to their system, because it hasn't been or can't be stored as fat, they tend to walk around the house  more, pace, fidget, stand up, roll over in their sleep etc.  Such "micro-exercise" adds up.</p><p>The key truth is this: Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation.  Insulin is the hormone that allows your body to deposit fat, and carbohydrates are the food that causes your body to make excessive amounts of insulin.  That doesn't mean everyone needs to go to Atkins Induction levels of carbohydrate consumption (although many diabetics do!) but many studies have shown that, all else being equal, the more you reduce carbohydrate in the diet the faster you'll lose weight.</p><p>Calories in, Calories out--i.e. the Law of Conservation of energy as applied to human diet--just doesn't work, and it NEVER HAS.  This sort of "wisdom" is what has given us an obesity epidemic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've hinted at an important truth here .
The law of conservation of energy applies ( of course ) however where it really plays itself out is at the CELLULAR level .
It can not be applied in a simple way at the level of diet and exercise because there are too many confusing and confounding factors .
One you mention is the question of body temperature regulation .
Another is the relative efficiency of the body 's digestive processes wrt various macronutrients--the body processes carbohydrates far more easily than fats or proteins and far more efficiently .
Beyond that , there is the whole issue of " fidgeting " --i.e .
small-scale 'exercise ' that nonetheless adds up over a day .
When someone has lots of energy available to their system , because it has n't been or ca n't be stored as fat , they tend to walk around the house more , pace , fidget , stand up , roll over in their sleep etc .
Such " micro-exercise " adds up.The key truth is this : Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation .
Insulin is the hormone that allows your body to deposit fat , and carbohydrates are the food that causes your body to make excessive amounts of insulin .
That does n't mean everyone needs to go to Atkins Induction levels of carbohydrate consumption ( although many diabetics do !
) but many studies have shown that , all else being equal , the more you reduce carbohydrate in the diet the faster you 'll lose weight.Calories in , Calories out--i.e .
the Law of Conservation of energy as applied to human diet--just does n't work , and it NEVER HAS .
This sort of " wisdom " is what has given us an obesity epidemic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've hinted at an important truth here.
The law of conservation of energy applies (of course) however where it really plays itself out is at the CELLULAR level.
It cannot be applied in a simple way at the level of diet and exercise because there are too many confusing and confounding factors.
One you mention is the question of body temperature regulation.
Another is the relative efficiency of the body's digestive processes wrt various macronutrients--the body processes carbohydrates far more easily than fats or proteins and far more efficiently.
Beyond that, there is the whole issue of "fidgeting"--i.e.
small-scale 'exercise' that nonetheless adds up over a day.
When someone has lots of energy available to their system, because it hasn't been or can't be stored as fat, they tend to walk around the house  more, pace, fidget, stand up, roll over in their sleep etc.
Such "micro-exercise" adds up.The key truth is this: Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation.
Insulin is the hormone that allows your body to deposit fat, and carbohydrates are the food that causes your body to make excessive amounts of insulin.
That doesn't mean everyone needs to go to Atkins Induction levels of carbohydrate consumption (although many diabetics do!
) but many studies have shown that, all else being equal, the more you reduce carbohydrate in the diet the faster you'll lose weight.Calories in, Calories out--i.e.
the Law of Conservation of energy as applied to human diet--just doesn't work, and it NEVER HAS.
This sort of "wisdom" is what has given us an obesity epidemic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034746</id>
	<title>Re:Conservation of Energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257790020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone living in Minnesota, I had to laugh at this.  I'm not sure if it was intended, but implying that living in Minnesota is what lead to her towards being anorexic is belayed by all the fat people in this state.</p><p>Still, I tend to agree with your idea that core temperature is tied to metabolism, and thus to weight.  When I go to bed after eating a lot of carbs, I feel like my body lights a fire to burn them off and I struggle to stay comfortably cool, shedding blankets.  I think that's part of what keeps me thin (that and physical activity).</p><p>I wonder, do other<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers feel their internal engines crank up in response to a large meal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone living in Minnesota , I had to laugh at this .
I 'm not sure if it was intended , but implying that living in Minnesota is what lead to her towards being anorexic is belayed by all the fat people in this state.Still , I tend to agree with your idea that core temperature is tied to metabolism , and thus to weight .
When I go to bed after eating a lot of carbs , I feel like my body lights a fire to burn them off and I struggle to stay comfortably cool , shedding blankets .
I think that 's part of what keeps me thin ( that and physical activity ) .I wonder , do other /.ers feel their internal engines crank up in response to a large meal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone living in Minnesota, I had to laugh at this.
I'm not sure if it was intended, but implying that living in Minnesota is what lead to her towards being anorexic is belayed by all the fat people in this state.Still, I tend to agree with your idea that core temperature is tied to metabolism, and thus to weight.
When I go to bed after eating a lot of carbs, I feel like my body lights a fire to burn them off and I struggle to stay comfortably cool, shedding blankets.
I think that's part of what keeps me thin (that and physical activity).I wonder, do other /.ers feel their internal engines crank up in response to a large meal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034732</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257789960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Diet food tastes like shit."</p><p>Diet food is shit. Eat your (seasonal) fruits and vegetables and stop paying for "factory fresh" sludge!</p><p>I don't blame Americans. I'm an expat in Tokyo and the food industry in the us, the Midwest especially, is just awful compared to what it is in japan. Forget health care reform. Fucking get REAL food on people's tables.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Diet food tastes like shit .
" Diet food is shit .
Eat your ( seasonal ) fruits and vegetables and stop paying for " factory fresh " sludge ! I do n't blame Americans .
I 'm an expat in Tokyo and the food industry in the us , the Midwest especially , is just awful compared to what it is in japan .
Forget health care reform .
Fucking get REAL food on people 's tables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Diet food tastes like shit.
"Diet food is shit.
Eat your (seasonal) fruits and vegetables and stop paying for "factory fresh" sludge!I don't blame Americans.
I'm an expat in Tokyo and the food industry in the us, the Midwest especially, is just awful compared to what it is in japan.
Forget health care reform.
Fucking get REAL food on people's tables.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032162</id>
	<title>Re:All you slim theoreticians...</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1257779640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I went from 255 to 170 (where people actually told me I was too skinny - never been called that before *EVER*) on an "unofficial Weight Watchers" plan.  (Unofficial because I obtained all the formulas myself and kept track of it without joining Weight Watchers.)  I now hover around 195.</p><p>I've found a few simple rules to weight loss/diet modification:</p><p>1) Drink lots of water.  A lot of times when you think you're hungry, you're really thirsty.  And no, drinking soda instead isn't acceptable.  If you can't stand water, get some of those flavor mix-ins, but I actually prefer the taste of plain water.</p><p>2) Put your food on small plates.  Don't underestimate the power of tricking the mind.  There have been studies where people are served stale popcorn while watching a movie.  Some had big cups and some had little cups.  The people with the big cups ate more even though they thought it tasted awful.  So give yourself an overflowing small plate and your mind will think you're eating a lot.  Even if the same amount of food would leave plenty of room on your normal big plates.</p><p>3) Learn proper portion sizes.  The average American portion size is about 3 or 4 times the size of a proper portion.  Also read nutrition labels.  Many times a bag of chips will say it is 2.5 servings even though pretty much anyone will eat the entire bag in one sitting.  So make sure you're aware that the calories you ingest by eating that entire bag is more than the figure printed next to the word "calories."</p><p>4) Don't deprive yourself.  If you feel like you're being deprived of your favorite food, you will fall off the wagon.  And when you do, you'll likely binge, wrecking weeks of hard work.  Instead, find ways of working in reasonable portions of your favorite food into your diet.  For example, if you like cake, treat yourself to a cupcake once a week.  Better still, find healthier alternatives that taste similar.  For example, I've found some brands of low fat frozen yogurt (e.g. Blue Bunny) taste just as good as ice cream.</p><p>5) Increase your fiber intake.  As the Anonymous poster said, fiber makes you feel fuller and helps fat from being absorbed.  I'll mix FiberOne cereal into salads (gives it a good crunch), eat fresh fruits, eat lentils/beans/brown rice, etc.</p><p>6) Set sub-goals.  If your goal is to lose 50 pounds, you'll be disappointed when you lose a pound a week - even though that's good progress.  So set sub goals, say every five pounds, and reward yourself for achieving them.  If the reward is food, though, don't go overboard.  Don't pig out at the all-you-can-eat buffet in celebration of five pounds gone or you'll wipe out your progress.  Also, you will plateau from time to time.  Don't get discouraged as this is a natural part of weight loss.  Just keep at it and you'll break through the plateau eventually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I went from 255 to 170 ( where people actually told me I was too skinny - never been called that before * EVER * ) on an " unofficial Weight Watchers " plan .
( Unofficial because I obtained all the formulas myself and kept track of it without joining Weight Watchers .
) I now hover around 195.I 've found a few simple rules to weight loss/diet modification : 1 ) Drink lots of water .
A lot of times when you think you 're hungry , you 're really thirsty .
And no , drinking soda instead is n't acceptable .
If you ca n't stand water , get some of those flavor mix-ins , but I actually prefer the taste of plain water.2 ) Put your food on small plates .
Do n't underestimate the power of tricking the mind .
There have been studies where people are served stale popcorn while watching a movie .
Some had big cups and some had little cups .
The people with the big cups ate more even though they thought it tasted awful .
So give yourself an overflowing small plate and your mind will think you 're eating a lot .
Even if the same amount of food would leave plenty of room on your normal big plates.3 ) Learn proper portion sizes .
The average American portion size is about 3 or 4 times the size of a proper portion .
Also read nutrition labels .
Many times a bag of chips will say it is 2.5 servings even though pretty much anyone will eat the entire bag in one sitting .
So make sure you 're aware that the calories you ingest by eating that entire bag is more than the figure printed next to the word " calories .
" 4 ) Do n't deprive yourself .
If you feel like you 're being deprived of your favorite food , you will fall off the wagon .
And when you do , you 'll likely binge , wrecking weeks of hard work .
Instead , find ways of working in reasonable portions of your favorite food into your diet .
For example , if you like cake , treat yourself to a cupcake once a week .
Better still , find healthier alternatives that taste similar .
For example , I 've found some brands of low fat frozen yogurt ( e.g .
Blue Bunny ) taste just as good as ice cream.5 ) Increase your fiber intake .
As the Anonymous poster said , fiber makes you feel fuller and helps fat from being absorbed .
I 'll mix FiberOne cereal into salads ( gives it a good crunch ) , eat fresh fruits , eat lentils/beans/brown rice , etc.6 ) Set sub-goals .
If your goal is to lose 50 pounds , you 'll be disappointed when you lose a pound a week - even though that 's good progress .
So set sub goals , say every five pounds , and reward yourself for achieving them .
If the reward is food , though , do n't go overboard .
Do n't pig out at the all-you-can-eat buffet in celebration of five pounds gone or you 'll wipe out your progress .
Also , you will plateau from time to time .
Do n't get discouraged as this is a natural part of weight loss .
Just keep at it and you 'll break through the plateau eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went from 255 to 170 (where people actually told me I was too skinny - never been called that before *EVER*) on an "unofficial Weight Watchers" plan.
(Unofficial because I obtained all the formulas myself and kept track of it without joining Weight Watchers.
)  I now hover around 195.I've found a few simple rules to weight loss/diet modification:1) Drink lots of water.
A lot of times when you think you're hungry, you're really thirsty.
And no, drinking soda instead isn't acceptable.
If you can't stand water, get some of those flavor mix-ins, but I actually prefer the taste of plain water.2) Put your food on small plates.
Don't underestimate the power of tricking the mind.
There have been studies where people are served stale popcorn while watching a movie.
Some had big cups and some had little cups.
The people with the big cups ate more even though they thought it tasted awful.
So give yourself an overflowing small plate and your mind will think you're eating a lot.
Even if the same amount of food would leave plenty of room on your normal big plates.3) Learn proper portion sizes.
The average American portion size is about 3 or 4 times the size of a proper portion.
Also read nutrition labels.
Many times a bag of chips will say it is 2.5 servings even though pretty much anyone will eat the entire bag in one sitting.
So make sure you're aware that the calories you ingest by eating that entire bag is more than the figure printed next to the word "calories.
"4) Don't deprive yourself.
If you feel like you're being deprived of your favorite food, you will fall off the wagon.
And when you do, you'll likely binge, wrecking weeks of hard work.
Instead, find ways of working in reasonable portions of your favorite food into your diet.
For example, if you like cake, treat yourself to a cupcake once a week.
Better still, find healthier alternatives that taste similar.
For example, I've found some brands of low fat frozen yogurt (e.g.
Blue Bunny) taste just as good as ice cream.5) Increase your fiber intake.
As the Anonymous poster said, fiber makes you feel fuller and helps fat from being absorbed.
I'll mix FiberOne cereal into salads (gives it a good crunch), eat fresh fruits, eat lentils/beans/brown rice, etc.6) Set sub-goals.
If your goal is to lose 50 pounds, you'll be disappointed when you lose a pound a week - even though that's good progress.
So set sub goals, say every five pounds, and reward yourself for achieving them.
If the reward is food, though, don't go overboard.
Don't pig out at the all-you-can-eat buffet in celebration of five pounds gone or you'll wipe out your progress.
Also, you will plateau from time to time.
Don't get discouraged as this is a natural part of weight loss.
Just keep at it and you'll break through the plateau eventually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032572</id>
	<title>Re:All you slim theoreticians...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257781440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My two cents... learn to like tea.  (With milk, no sugar, in as big a mug as you have access to.)  It's fairly demoralising trying to just drink water instead of eating, but it is much easier to sip great mugs of tea over a long period.  The (small amount of) milk in the tea makes it feel a bit bulkier, but so long as you aren't adding sugar it's still got a pretty negligible calorie count.  Because it's hot, you'll take longer over drinking it, keeping your mouth and tummy busy for longer.  (And it's supposed to have lots of anti-oxidants in it and be generally healthy as well as making you feel good<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as they say, the British Empire was founded on frequent cups of tea.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>My two cents... learn to like tea .
( With milk , no sugar , in as big a mug as you have access to .
) It 's fairly demoralising trying to just drink water instead of eating , but it is much easier to sip great mugs of tea over a long period .
The ( small amount of ) milk in the tea makes it feel a bit bulkier , but so long as you are n't adding sugar it 's still got a pretty negligible calorie count .
Because it 's hot , you 'll take longer over drinking it , keeping your mouth and tummy busy for longer .
( And it 's supposed to have lots of anti-oxidants in it and be generally healthy as well as making you feel good ... as they say , the British Empire was founded on frequent cups of tea .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My two cents... learn to like tea.
(With milk, no sugar, in as big a mug as you have access to.
)  It's fairly demoralising trying to just drink water instead of eating, but it is much easier to sip great mugs of tea over a long period.
The (small amount of) milk in the tea makes it feel a bit bulkier, but so long as you aren't adding sugar it's still got a pretty negligible calorie count.
Because it's hot, you'll take longer over drinking it, keeping your mouth and tummy busy for longer.
(And it's supposed to have lots of anti-oxidants in it and be generally healthy as well as making you feel good ... as they say, the British Empire was founded on frequent cups of tea.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030194</id>
	<title>Fat vs muscle</title>
	<author>joseprio</author>
	<datestamp>1257760380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>7 pounds in 12 weeks isn't a bad result; experts recommend a weight loss of half a pound per week, so they were in the range.</p><p>Still, a good explanation for the relatively small weight loss is that they were developing muscle while loosing fat, as they moved from a sedentary lifestyle to working out 5 times a week; it would have been nice to see the body fat percentage before and after the 12 week period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>7 pounds in 12 weeks is n't a bad result ; experts recommend a weight loss of half a pound per week , so they were in the range.Still , a good explanation for the relatively small weight loss is that they were developing muscle while loosing fat , as they moved from a sedentary lifestyle to working out 5 times a week ; it would have been nice to see the body fat percentage before and after the 12 week period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>7 pounds in 12 weeks isn't a bad result; experts recommend a weight loss of half a pound per week, so they were in the range.Still, a good explanation for the relatively small weight loss is that they were developing muscle while loosing fat, as they moved from a sedentary lifestyle to working out 5 times a week; it would have been nice to see the body fat percentage before and after the 12 week period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029866</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1257799980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's the problem with exercise and diet: it's like a job that pays $1 per hour: a lot of work and sacrifice for tiny results. Diet food tastes like shit. The box it comes in is tastier than the contents in my opinion. Repeated studies show that even fairly intense diet and exercise result in only about a 15 pound reduction over the longer run. People then think, "Why should I bust my ass chasing that 15 lbs? I'm still overweight. Fuck it, I want a donut!"</p><blockquote><div><p>I think the results of the study probably show that people overestimate their exercise and/or decide to reward themselves with a small snack afterward that more than makes up the calories burnt.</p><p>Lifestyle change is hard.  No need to deny it.</p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the problem with exercise and diet : it 's like a job that pays $ 1 per hour : a lot of work and sacrifice for tiny results .
Diet food tastes like shit .
The box it comes in is tastier than the contents in my opinion .
Repeated studies show that even fairly intense diet and exercise result in only about a 15 pound reduction over the longer run .
People then think , " Why should I bust my ass chasing that 15 lbs ?
I 'm still overweight .
Fuck it , I want a donut !
" I think the results of the study probably show that people overestimate their exercise and/or decide to reward themselves with a small snack afterward that more than makes up the calories burnt.Lifestyle change is hard .
No need to deny it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the problem with exercise and diet: it's like a job that pays $1 per hour: a lot of work and sacrifice for tiny results.
Diet food tastes like shit.
The box it comes in is tastier than the contents in my opinion.
Repeated studies show that even fairly intense diet and exercise result in only about a 15 pound reduction over the longer run.
People then think, "Why should I bust my ass chasing that 15 lbs?
I'm still overweight.
Fuck it, I want a donut!
"I think the results of the study probably show that people overestimate their exercise and/or decide to reward themselves with a small snack afterward that more than makes up the calories burnt.Lifestyle change is hard.
No need to deny it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029726</id>
	<title>You're half right</title>
	<author>Rix</author>
	<datestamp>1257798420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Losing weight is a slow, methodical task. Worse, the slow speed means you won't be able to notice the effect. As I said elsewhere, I've been losing 2-3 kg a month for the last 6 months (for a total of about 17 kg or a bit less than 40lb), and I'm <i>just</i> starting to feel a difference.</p><p>There's no reason it has to stop at 15 lbs, though. I don't know where you're getting that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Losing weight is a slow , methodical task .
Worse , the slow speed means you wo n't be able to notice the effect .
As I said elsewhere , I 've been losing 2-3 kg a month for the last 6 months ( for a total of about 17 kg or a bit less than 40lb ) , and I 'm just starting to feel a difference.There 's no reason it has to stop at 15 lbs , though .
I do n't know where you 're getting that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Losing weight is a slow, methodical task.
Worse, the slow speed means you won't be able to notice the effect.
As I said elsewhere, I've been losing 2-3 kg a month for the last 6 months (for a total of about 17 kg or a bit less than 40lb), and I'm just starting to feel a difference.There's no reason it has to stop at 15 lbs, though.
I don't know where you're getting that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030202</id>
	<title>Re:But it's all physics? *snark*</title>
	<author>misanthrope101</author>
	<datestamp>1257760560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"If you're fat it's because you're lazy!"</p></div></blockquote><p>

I agree it isn't all that simple.   But after you continue to meet fat people who don't work out at all (or barely) that conclusion isn't all that astounding.   I know men and women who have lost 50+ pounds by changing their diet and working out.   I myself have lost 30ish.   The people who want to get healthier eat better and work out.   The ones with the most significant effects are the ones who are most committed--intense, frequent workouts, etc.   Then I see way overweight people walking slowly on the treadmill or track, and I hear them at work saying "I work out all the time, but can't lose any of this."   They grasp at these "exercise doesn't work" or "it's all genetics" arguments as an excuse to not work out more, or more intensely.   </p><p>No, it's not going to be fair.   I know muscular, well-defined men, who can run a 7 minute mile, who work out (and run) far less than I do.   And that means nothing as far as *my* health goes.   I  have very little sympathy for fat people who don't even try because they're convinced that it won't do anything anyway.   Do some have metabolic disorders?   No doubt.   But we also look for excuses to be lazy, and futility is one of the best excuses going.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you 're fat it 's because you 're lazy !
" I agree it is n't all that simple .
But after you continue to meet fat people who do n't work out at all ( or barely ) that conclusion is n't all that astounding .
I know men and women who have lost 50 + pounds by changing their diet and working out .
I myself have lost 30ish .
The people who want to get healthier eat better and work out .
The ones with the most significant effects are the ones who are most committed--intense , frequent workouts , etc .
Then I see way overweight people walking slowly on the treadmill or track , and I hear them at work saying " I work out all the time , but ca n't lose any of this .
" They grasp at these " exercise does n't work " or " it 's all genetics " arguments as an excuse to not work out more , or more intensely .
No , it 's not going to be fair .
I know muscular , well-defined men , who can run a 7 minute mile , who work out ( and run ) far less than I do .
And that means nothing as far as * my * health goes .
I have very little sympathy for fat people who do n't even try because they 're convinced that it wo n't do anything anyway .
Do some have metabolic disorders ?
No doubt .
But we also look for excuses to be lazy , and futility is one of the best excuses going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you're fat it's because you're lazy!
"

I agree it isn't all that simple.
But after you continue to meet fat people who don't work out at all (or barely) that conclusion isn't all that astounding.
I know men and women who have lost 50+ pounds by changing their diet and working out.
I myself have lost 30ish.
The people who want to get healthier eat better and work out.
The ones with the most significant effects are the ones who are most committed--intense, frequent workouts, etc.
Then I see way overweight people walking slowly on the treadmill or track, and I hear them at work saying "I work out all the time, but can't lose any of this.
"   They grasp at these "exercise doesn't work" or "it's all genetics" arguments as an excuse to not work out more, or more intensely.
No, it's not going to be fair.
I know muscular, well-defined men, who can run a 7 minute mile, who work out (and run) far less than I do.
And that means nothing as far as *my* health goes.
I  have very little sympathy for fat people who don't even try because they're convinced that it won't do anything anyway.
Do some have metabolic disorders?
No doubt.
But we also look for excuses to be lazy, and futility is one of the best excuses going.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030136</id>
	<title>The 'N' word : Nutrition</title>
	<author>Voxol</author>
	<datestamp>1257759720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's more than calories and exercise to losing weight.</p><p>High calcium is important while losing weight for instace, people often cut out dairy when dieting, and a lot of people don't eat enough calcium anyway. (studies have shown)</p><p>Less accessible energy sources are a good idea too, hydrophilic colloids can create a matrix through which your nutrients get absorbed. (In terms of what you eat this means stew/chilli/curry with flour in it, also cut out simple sugars)</p><p>Ticking all your mineral and vitamin intake boxes is a really good idea (a daily multi vitamin is a great way to do this).</p><p>I personally found I could lose a lot of previously very stubborn weight by doing the above and then running for an hour in the morning. (n=1 study and so totally worthless)..</p><p>A lot of the overweight people in the study may have been overweight partly because of their bad diets in the first place, without changing that you don't expect changes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's more than calories and exercise to losing weight.High calcium is important while losing weight for instace , people often cut out dairy when dieting , and a lot of people do n't eat enough calcium anyway .
( studies have shown ) Less accessible energy sources are a good idea too , hydrophilic colloids can create a matrix through which your nutrients get absorbed .
( In terms of what you eat this means stew/chilli/curry with flour in it , also cut out simple sugars ) Ticking all your mineral and vitamin intake boxes is a really good idea ( a daily multi vitamin is a great way to do this ) .I personally found I could lose a lot of previously very stubborn weight by doing the above and then running for an hour in the morning .
( n = 1 study and so totally worthless ) ..A lot of the overweight people in the study may have been overweight partly because of their bad diets in the first place , without changing that you do n't expect changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's more than calories and exercise to losing weight.High calcium is important while losing weight for instace, people often cut out dairy when dieting, and a lot of people don't eat enough calcium anyway.
(studies have shown)Less accessible energy sources are a good idea too, hydrophilic colloids can create a matrix through which your nutrients get absorbed.
(In terms of what you eat this means stew/chilli/curry with flour in it, also cut out simple sugars)Ticking all your mineral and vitamin intake boxes is a really good idea (a daily multi vitamin is a great way to do this).I personally found I could lose a lot of previously very stubborn weight by doing the above and then running for an hour in the morning.
(n=1 study and so totally worthless)..A lot of the overweight people in the study may have been overweight partly because of their bad diets in the first place, without changing that you don't expect changes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030774</id>
	<title>Old News</title>
	<author>chooks</author>
	<datestamp>1257767460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have known for a while that exercise by itself is not as effective as diet for weight loss. However, weight loss due to dietary changes are much much less likely to "stick" without an exercise program. That being said, the target rate of weight loss is only 10\% in a six month period.  So a loss of 7lb in 12 weeks?  Not too shabby - especially considering that they are probably gaining muscle mass which is heavier than fat during those 12 weeks. The real question in my mind would be if they kept this off.
It is easy to lose lots of weight quickly (crash diets make you lose lots of water weight). Keeping it off though is hard, and exercise is one thing that helps keeps those pounds off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have known for a while that exercise by itself is not as effective as diet for weight loss .
However , weight loss due to dietary changes are much much less likely to " stick " without an exercise program .
That being said , the target rate of weight loss is only 10 \ % in a six month period .
So a loss of 7lb in 12 weeks ?
Not too shabby - especially considering that they are probably gaining muscle mass which is heavier than fat during those 12 weeks .
The real question in my mind would be if they kept this off .
It is easy to lose lots of weight quickly ( crash diets make you lose lots of water weight ) .
Keeping it off though is hard , and exercise is one thing that helps keeps those pounds off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have known for a while that exercise by itself is not as effective as diet for weight loss.
However, weight loss due to dietary changes are much much less likely to "stick" without an exercise program.
That being said, the target rate of weight loss is only 10\% in a six month period.
So a loss of 7lb in 12 weeks?
Not too shabby - especially considering that they are probably gaining muscle mass which is heavier than fat during those 12 weeks.
The real question in my mind would be if they kept this off.
It is easy to lose lots of weight quickly (crash diets make you lose lots of water weight).
Keeping it off though is hard, and exercise is one thing that helps keeps those pounds off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464</id>
	<title>How can that be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257709560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, a 3.5 to 7 pound weight loss over 12 weeks isn't such a bad result.  You can't just diet, you have to change lifestyle.  TFA seemed kind of whiny, like one expects to magically melt the pounds off if you run around a while.  Even moderate physical activity only burns a couple of hundred calories per hour - that's one brownie.<br> <br>
Then there is the issue of converting fat to muscle (which weighs more) and the fact that people in general don't exercise as much as they think they do. For most people, weight control is hard, it's basically a lifetime commitment to minimizing calories and maximizing physical work.<br>
<br>
The world continues to deteriorate<br> <br>
Give up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , a 3.5 to 7 pound weight loss over 12 weeks is n't such a bad result .
You ca n't just diet , you have to change lifestyle .
TFA seemed kind of whiny , like one expects to magically melt the pounds off if you run around a while .
Even moderate physical activity only burns a couple of hundred calories per hour - that 's one brownie .
Then there is the issue of converting fat to muscle ( which weighs more ) and the fact that people in general do n't exercise as much as they think they do .
For most people , weight control is hard , it 's basically a lifetime commitment to minimizing calories and maximizing physical work .
The world continues to deteriorate Give up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, a 3.5 to 7 pound weight loss over 12 weeks isn't such a bad result.
You can't just diet, you have to change lifestyle.
TFA seemed kind of whiny, like one expects to magically melt the pounds off if you run around a while.
Even moderate physical activity only burns a couple of hundred calories per hour - that's one brownie.
Then there is the issue of converting fat to muscle (which weighs more) and the fact that people in general don't exercise as much as they think they do.
For most people, weight control is hard, it's basically a lifetime commitment to minimizing calories and maximizing physical work.
The world continues to deteriorate 
Give up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033990</id>
	<title>Bunkum</title>
	<author>possogroenoe</author>
	<datestamp>1257787080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There a few points which should be made about the first story and the Denver study (didn't bother reading the second).</p><p>Firstly, they did lose weight. On average about 3kg (7 pounds) over 12 weeks.</p><p>Secondly these folk were obese when they started out. Presumably they haven't been exercising much and on average   their hearts, muscles and bones aren't that strong.

55\% HR could probably be achieved just by raising themselves up out of a chair.

If these people  kept exercising for longer than the 12 weeks  they would start to see physiological changes:
1.  a stronger heart pumping a higher volume of blood per stroke
2.  a higher volume of blood
3.  stronger muscles   and bones
4.  more capillaries and mitochondria in muscle tissues   etc .
</p><p>
A year later these people would be able to sustain much higher work rates at the same percentage of maximum heart rate, they would also be capable of exercising for longer periods and more often. The weight loss would quicken over time until their bodies came to reflect their new lifestyles.
</p><p>
Thirdly this stuff about low intensity leading to maximum weight loss because it's in the high "fat burning zone" is utterly wrong.  Whilst the percentage of of calories taken from fat is higher  at lower intensities, the total energy used at high intensities is so much greater that more fat is burnt overall (i.e 40\% of 1000 is more than 80\% of 300). Also it's really the total energy spent  that matters.
</p><p>
The point is exercise DOES work. A little exercise only works a little.  If you want big results you need to build up to higher intensity and more frequent workouts. Running is the best exercise for weight loss and general health. Cycling and swimming are also great.
</p><p>
The author of this article probably should read this study: <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18695077" title="nih.gov" rel="nofollow">Reduced disability and mortality among aging runners: a 21-year longitudinal study</a> [nih.gov]
   </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There a few points which should be made about the first story and the Denver study ( did n't bother reading the second ) .Firstly , they did lose weight .
On average about 3kg ( 7 pounds ) over 12 weeks.Secondly these folk were obese when they started out .
Presumably they have n't been exercising much and on average their hearts , muscles and bones are n't that strong .
55 \ % HR could probably be achieved just by raising themselves up out of a chair .
If these people kept exercising for longer than the 12 weeks they would start to see physiological changes : 1. a stronger heart pumping a higher volume of blood per stroke 2. a higher volume of blood 3. stronger muscles and bones 4. more capillaries and mitochondria in muscle tissues etc .
A year later these people would be able to sustain much higher work rates at the same percentage of maximum heart rate , they would also be capable of exercising for longer periods and more often .
The weight loss would quicken over time until their bodies came to reflect their new lifestyles .
Thirdly this stuff about low intensity leading to maximum weight loss because it 's in the high " fat burning zone " is utterly wrong .
Whilst the percentage of of calories taken from fat is higher at lower intensities , the total energy used at high intensities is so much greater that more fat is burnt overall ( i.e 40 \ % of 1000 is more than 80 \ % of 300 ) .
Also it 's really the total energy spent that matters .
The point is exercise DOES work .
A little exercise only works a little .
If you want big results you need to build up to higher intensity and more frequent workouts .
Running is the best exercise for weight loss and general health .
Cycling and swimming are also great .
The author of this article probably should read this study : Reduced disability and mortality among aging runners : a 21-year longitudinal study [ nih.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There a few points which should be made about the first story and the Denver study (didn't bother reading the second).Firstly, they did lose weight.
On average about 3kg (7 pounds) over 12 weeks.Secondly these folk were obese when they started out.
Presumably they haven't been exercising much and on average   their hearts, muscles and bones aren't that strong.
55\% HR could probably be achieved just by raising themselves up out of a chair.
If these people  kept exercising for longer than the 12 weeks  they would start to see physiological changes:
1.  a stronger heart pumping a higher volume of blood per stroke
2.  a higher volume of blood
3.  stronger muscles   and bones
4.  more capillaries and mitochondria in muscle tissues   etc .
A year later these people would be able to sustain much higher work rates at the same percentage of maximum heart rate, they would also be capable of exercising for longer periods and more often.
The weight loss would quicken over time until their bodies came to reflect their new lifestyles.
Thirdly this stuff about low intensity leading to maximum weight loss because it's in the high "fat burning zone" is utterly wrong.
Whilst the percentage of of calories taken from fat is higher  at lower intensities, the total energy used at high intensities is so much greater that more fat is burnt overall (i.e 40\% of 1000 is more than 80\% of 300).
Also it's really the total energy spent  that matters.
The point is exercise DOES work.
A little exercise only works a little.
If you want big results you need to build up to higher intensity and more frequent workouts.
Running is the best exercise for weight loss and general health.
Cycling and swimming are also great.
The author of this article probably should read this study: Reduced disability and mortality among aging runners: a 21-year longitudinal study [nih.gov]
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029966</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257757980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK - first off: you can't turn fat into muscle.  you can lost fat and gain muscle but one doesn't turn into the other.  second (this one is actually a question) for years and years I've heard people say "muscle weighs more than fat" - can anyone tell me definitely how much more?  is it 1\% more? 50\% more? 600\% more?  "more" is not a very useful term (in this case) without quantification</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK - first off : you ca n't turn fat into muscle .
you can lost fat and gain muscle but one does n't turn into the other .
second ( this one is actually a question ) for years and years I 've heard people say " muscle weighs more than fat " - can anyone tell me definitely how much more ?
is it 1 \ % more ?
50 \ % more ?
600 \ % more ?
" more " is not a very useful term ( in this case ) without quantification</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK - first off: you can't turn fat into muscle.
you can lost fat and gain muscle but one doesn't turn into the other.
second (this one is actually a question) for years and years I've heard people say "muscle weighs more than fat" - can anyone tell me definitely how much more?
is it 1\% more?
50\% more?
600\% more?
"more" is not a very useful term (in this case) without quantification</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029540</id>
	<title>SCIENCE!</title>
	<author>KaiLoi</author>
	<datestamp>1257710340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Geee... let me see... "without changing their diets" Could this perhaps be it? <br> <br>

"I'm burning 300 calories a day in excersise and taking in 2000 a day in whoppers. Why can't I lose weight?"<br> <br>

Science fail!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Geee... let me see... " without changing their diets " Could this perhaps be it ?
" I 'm burning 300 calories a day in excersise and taking in 2000 a day in whoppers .
Why ca n't I lose weight ?
" Science fail !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geee... let me see... "without changing their diets" Could this perhaps be it?
"I'm burning 300 calories a day in excersise and taking in 2000 a day in whoppers.
Why can't I lose weight?
" 

Science fail!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030226</id>
	<title>Re:Your body doesn't have a 100\% conversion factor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257760740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Putting stuff in your mouth is just step one. How you chew your food, how well it is digested, how active your metabolism is, all these will affect how much energy you actually get out of your food.</p><p>Still, physics still stand: Use more energy than you get through food you \_will\_ lose weight.</p></div><p>am primit un msg pe mail...a aparut un blog inedit de actualitate romaneasca....e tareee..... poze curve din politica, anchete, dari in gat, exclusivitati.......http://crizeleluarvinte.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/lirismul-unui-cur-postit</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting stuff in your mouth is just step one .
How you chew your food , how well it is digested , how active your metabolism is , all these will affect how much energy you actually get out of your food.Still , physics still stand : Use more energy than you get through food you \ _will \ _ lose weight.am primit un msg pe mail...a aparut un blog inedit de actualitate romaneasca....e tareee..... poze curve din politica , anchete , dari in gat , exclusivitati.......http : //crizeleluarvinte.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/lirismul-unui-cur-postit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting stuff in your mouth is just step one.
How you chew your food, how well it is digested, how active your metabolism is, all these will affect how much energy you actually get out of your food.Still, physics still stand: Use more energy than you get through food you \_will\_ lose weight.am primit un msg pe mail...a aparut un blog inedit de actualitate romaneasca....e tareee..... poze curve din politica, anchete, dari in gat, exclusivitati.......http://crizeleluarvinte.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/lirismul-unui-cur-postit
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029736</id>
	<title>fear, walking, salad, and consistent measurement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257798480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What really works is fear.  Here's what to do: pass out, go to the hospital, wonder if that's going to become commonplace and maybe you can't drive or go outside any more, ask doctors why you passed out and they don't know but tell you to lose weight.</p><p>Walk fast for 1 to 1.5 hrs every day and eat a lot of salad, shoot for 1200 calories a day intake (you won't get there but it's a target).  Weight yourself on an accurate scale every week (protip: home scales suck, including expensive digital ones.  They vary by a few pounds from measurement to measurement, especially if you move them.  Try to find an old-timey balance-beam scale you can use, there's a reason the doctors have those in their offices).  Went from 245 to 180 lb in something like a year (not 12 weeks!), at 1 to 2 lb per week.  Now I've slacked on the salad and am back up to 188 dammit, but I've mostly kept it off for a year after, and kept on exercising.</p><p>That's discouraging actually... it can be done, but something has to scare you enough.  Most people don't get that "lucky".</p><p><div class="quote"><p>&ldquo;If you work out at an easy intensity, you will burn a higher percentage of fat calories&rdquo; than if you work out a higher intensity"</p></div><p> (from TFA)</p><p>That's surprising!  Maybe that's why I gained 5lb after I started running instead of walking... and I told myself it was probably muscle<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What really works is fear .
Here 's what to do : pass out , go to the hospital , wonder if that 's going to become commonplace and maybe you ca n't drive or go outside any more , ask doctors why you passed out and they do n't know but tell you to lose weight.Walk fast for 1 to 1.5 hrs every day and eat a lot of salad , shoot for 1200 calories a day intake ( you wo n't get there but it 's a target ) .
Weight yourself on an accurate scale every week ( protip : home scales suck , including expensive digital ones .
They vary by a few pounds from measurement to measurement , especially if you move them .
Try to find an old-timey balance-beam scale you can use , there 's a reason the doctors have those in their offices ) .
Went from 245 to 180 lb in something like a year ( not 12 weeks !
) , at 1 to 2 lb per week .
Now I 've slacked on the salad and am back up to 188 dammit , but I 've mostly kept it off for a year after , and kept on exercising.That 's discouraging actually... it can be done , but something has to scare you enough .
Most people do n't get that " lucky " .    If you work out at an easy intensity , you will burn a higher percentage of fat calories    than if you work out a higher intensity " ( from TFA ) That 's surprising !
Maybe that 's why I gained 5lb after I started running instead of walking... and I told myself it was probably muscle ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What really works is fear.
Here's what to do: pass out, go to the hospital, wonder if that's going to become commonplace and maybe you can't drive or go outside any more, ask doctors why you passed out and they don't know but tell you to lose weight.Walk fast for 1 to 1.5 hrs every day and eat a lot of salad, shoot for 1200 calories a day intake (you won't get there but it's a target).
Weight yourself on an accurate scale every week (protip: home scales suck, including expensive digital ones.
They vary by a few pounds from measurement to measurement, especially if you move them.
Try to find an old-timey balance-beam scale you can use, there's a reason the doctors have those in their offices).
Went from 245 to 180 lb in something like a year (not 12 weeks!
), at 1 to 2 lb per week.
Now I've slacked on the salad and am back up to 188 dammit, but I've mostly kept it off for a year after, and kept on exercising.That's discouraging actually... it can be done, but something has to scare you enough.
Most people don't get that "lucky".“If you work out at an easy intensity, you will burn a higher percentage of fat calories” than if you work out a higher intensity" (from TFA)That's surprising!
Maybe that's why I gained 5lb after I started running instead of walking... and I told myself it was probably muscle ;-)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030360</id>
	<title>Re:How can that be?</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1257762360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try cooking your own food! Boxed food is for fat lardos. Try cooking elaborate, difficult to make meals! Try growing a garden, and incorporate your home-grown food into your meals. Fresh, raw food is extremely filling, and if you don't have any food you can simply pop in the microwave whenever the feeling strikes you, you'll find you'll only eat if you have the time, energy and incination to cook that meal. In my fridge is only steaks, bell peppers, onions,  and butter. The only stuff in my pantry is rice, pasta and some spices, a variety of sauces, plus the flavor of the week (now playing: Anaheim peppers) or some new style of dish I'm working with. More importantly <b>my freezer is empty</b>. Actually it's full of ice (that way the fridge cycles less often), but all the quick, easy food is kept in the freezer. You're going to get fat if you have quick, easy foot on hand at all times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try cooking your own food !
Boxed food is for fat lardos .
Try cooking elaborate , difficult to make meals !
Try growing a garden , and incorporate your home-grown food into your meals .
Fresh , raw food is extremely filling , and if you do n't have any food you can simply pop in the microwave whenever the feeling strikes you , you 'll find you 'll only eat if you have the time , energy and incination to cook that meal .
In my fridge is only steaks , bell peppers , onions , and butter .
The only stuff in my pantry is rice , pasta and some spices , a variety of sauces , plus the flavor of the week ( now playing : Anaheim peppers ) or some new style of dish I 'm working with .
More importantly my freezer is empty .
Actually it 's full of ice ( that way the fridge cycles less often ) , but all the quick , easy food is kept in the freezer .
You 're going to get fat if you have quick , easy foot on hand at all times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try cooking your own food!
Boxed food is for fat lardos.
Try cooking elaborate, difficult to make meals!
Try growing a garden, and incorporate your home-grown food into your meals.
Fresh, raw food is extremely filling, and if you don't have any food you can simply pop in the microwave whenever the feeling strikes you, you'll find you'll only eat if you have the time, energy and incination to cook that meal.
In my fridge is only steaks, bell peppers, onions,  and butter.
The only stuff in my pantry is rice, pasta and some spices, a variety of sauces, plus the flavor of the week (now playing: Anaheim peppers) or some new style of dish I'm working with.
More importantly my freezer is empty.
Actually it's full of ice (that way the fridge cycles less often), but all the quick, easy food is kept in the freezer.
You're going to get fat if you have quick, easy foot on hand at all times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035174</id>
	<title>Re:Lifestyle Change</title>
	<author>PingPongBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1257791700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>The biggest mistake the majority of people who go on a diet is that they approach it as a way to lose weight.<br>Actually the only way to do this effectively is to approach it as a change in lifestyle<br></em></p><p>Lifestyle - that is a big problem. There are a lot of incentives to be sitting down, and the business world doesn't make it easy for people to get exercise while make it easier to get fat. People accumulate debt, pay exorbitantly for housing and transportation so they need to work long hours, commute for hours more, breathe polluted air, buy supersized packages of food (and eat it all so as to not waste their hard earned money), while having too many entertainment choices for purchase.</p><p>Some parents encourage their kids to exercise. It's something that needs to be instilled in the home, and parents running the rat race would be prone to set bad examples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest mistake the majority of people who go on a diet is that they approach it as a way to lose weight.Actually the only way to do this effectively is to approach it as a change in lifestyleLifestyle - that is a big problem .
There are a lot of incentives to be sitting down , and the business world does n't make it easy for people to get exercise while make it easier to get fat .
People accumulate debt , pay exorbitantly for housing and transportation so they need to work long hours , commute for hours more , breathe polluted air , buy supersized packages of food ( and eat it all so as to not waste their hard earned money ) , while having too many entertainment choices for purchase.Some parents encourage their kids to exercise .
It 's something that needs to be instilled in the home , and parents running the rat race would be prone to set bad examples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest mistake the majority of people who go on a diet is that they approach it as a way to lose weight.Actually the only way to do this effectively is to approach it as a change in lifestyleLifestyle - that is a big problem.
There are a lot of incentives to be sitting down, and the business world doesn't make it easy for people to get exercise while make it easier to get fat.
People accumulate debt, pay exorbitantly for housing and transportation so they need to work long hours, commute for hours more, breathe polluted air, buy supersized packages of food (and eat it all so as to not waste their hard earned money), while having too many entertainment choices for purchase.Some parents encourage their kids to exercise.
It's something that needs to be instilled in the home, and parents running the rat race would be prone to set bad examples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035860</id>
	<title>Keep it entertaining....</title>
	<author>SwingMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1257794220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>A million comments and viewpoints, so I couldn't help throwing mine into the mix.  While not an adherent of the Hackers Diet per se, it articulates the same principles that I beleive.</p><p>I've lost 80lbs in the six months from May to October this year, from 320 down to 240.  I anticipate being around 200lbs by January 1.  I limit my calorie intake and endeavour to avoid too much fatty food, do weight circuits three times a week, aerobics (elliptical and cycle) 5-6 times a week and, VERY IMPORTANT, dance salsa<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Calorie control works.  If you can't measure it, you can't control it.  If you don't track it (I use an iPhone app) you can't measure it.
</p><p>The time in the gym is mainly about maintaining metabolism and preventing muscle loss.  The calories burned give you some headroom in keeping under your intake limits as a secondary benefit.
</p><p>Find a supplemantary activity you can *enjoy* that is going to contribute to your goals.  I personally hate the gym.

</p><p>When I say Salsa, I'm really menaing a lifestle change - for me that is Salsa.  Salsa classes are as effective as an aerobics class (and far more entertaining).  Meanwhile, in an evening out dancing, I can burn through anything up to 800 or 1,000 calories (polar heart monitor based readings).  At a minimum I'm far ahead, even if I have a couple of drinks, and your metabolism is cranked for a good portion of the night.  Worst case, I can grab a slice on the way home and not feel particularly guilty about it.  Compared to sitting at the bar boozing, or sitting on the couch at home, enough said.</p><p>Salsa might not be what works for you, but finding something that is entertaining while being beneficial makes it far easier to acheive your goals, and goes along way to maintaining the results once you've acheived them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A million comments and viewpoints , so I could n't help throwing mine into the mix .
While not an adherent of the Hackers Diet per se , it articulates the same principles that I beleive.I 've lost 80lbs in the six months from May to October this year , from 320 down to 240 .
I anticipate being around 200lbs by January 1 .
I limit my calorie intake and endeavour to avoid too much fatty food , do weight circuits three times a week , aerobics ( elliptical and cycle ) 5-6 times a week and , VERY IMPORTANT , dance salsa : ) Calorie control works .
If you ca n't measure it , you ca n't control it .
If you do n't track it ( I use an iPhone app ) you ca n't measure it .
The time in the gym is mainly about maintaining metabolism and preventing muscle loss .
The calories burned give you some headroom in keeping under your intake limits as a secondary benefit .
Find a supplemantary activity you can * enjoy * that is going to contribute to your goals .
I personally hate the gym .
When I say Salsa , I 'm really menaing a lifestle change - for me that is Salsa .
Salsa classes are as effective as an aerobics class ( and far more entertaining ) .
Meanwhile , in an evening out dancing , I can burn through anything up to 800 or 1,000 calories ( polar heart monitor based readings ) .
At a minimum I 'm far ahead , even if I have a couple of drinks , and your metabolism is cranked for a good portion of the night .
Worst case , I can grab a slice on the way home and not feel particularly guilty about it .
Compared to sitting at the bar boozing , or sitting on the couch at home , enough said.Salsa might not be what works for you , but finding something that is entertaining while being beneficial makes it far easier to acheive your goals , and goes along way to maintaining the results once you 've acheived them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
A million comments and viewpoints, so I couldn't help throwing mine into the mix.
While not an adherent of the Hackers Diet per se, it articulates the same principles that I beleive.I've lost 80lbs in the six months from May to October this year, from 320 down to 240.
I anticipate being around 200lbs by January 1.
I limit my calorie intake and endeavour to avoid too much fatty food, do weight circuits three times a week, aerobics (elliptical and cycle) 5-6 times a week and, VERY IMPORTANT, dance salsa :)Calorie control works.
If you can't measure it, you can't control it.
If you don't track it (I use an iPhone app) you can't measure it.
The time in the gym is mainly about maintaining metabolism and preventing muscle loss.
The calories burned give you some headroom in keeping under your intake limits as a secondary benefit.
Find a supplemantary activity you can *enjoy* that is going to contribute to your goals.
I personally hate the gym.
When I say Salsa, I'm really menaing a lifestle change - for me that is Salsa.
Salsa classes are as effective as an aerobics class (and far more entertaining).
Meanwhile, in an evening out dancing, I can burn through anything up to 800 or 1,000 calories (polar heart monitor based readings).
At a minimum I'm far ahead, even if I have a couple of drinks, and your metabolism is cranked for a good portion of the night.
Worst case, I can grab a slice on the way home and not feel particularly guilty about it.
Compared to sitting at the bar boozing, or sitting on the couch at home, enough said.Salsa might not be what works for you, but finding something that is entertaining while being beneficial makes it far easier to acheive your goals, and goes along way to maintaining the results once you've acheived them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034310</id>
	<title>Re:All you slim theoreticians...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257788340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; First off, if you weight 238 pounds, going down to 232 pounds is just a pathetic joke. It took you 3 months to get there. It will take you 5 years to get there at current speed. It would be a reachable goal if it was fun, but...</p><p>I don't follow you. 7 pounds over 12 weeks, translates in to 30.34 pounds a year. Your 5 year analysis means your 238 pound person's goal is to weigh about 85 lbs. Also 7 pounds is close to a waist size smaller, you would notice it.</p><p>Also the point isn't to suffer through *dull, boring, miserable exercise*, the first few minutes are tough as your body warms up, but as it continues you feel better and at the end of your workout you feel great. This is true whether your fat or thin.</p><p>Also your making a lifestyle change, get over this I just need to do this for a few months (diet or excersize) and I'll be good. You need to think I'll be doing this for the rest of my life. And really its simple choices like having a apple instead of a bad of chips for a snack, or counting your calories when you prepare a meal so you don't cook up a 2000 calorie meal for dinner and feel the need to finish it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; First off , if you weight 238 pounds , going down to 232 pounds is just a pathetic joke .
It took you 3 months to get there .
It will take you 5 years to get there at current speed .
It would be a reachable goal if it was fun , but...I do n't follow you .
7 pounds over 12 weeks , translates in to 30.34 pounds a year .
Your 5 year analysis means your 238 pound person 's goal is to weigh about 85 lbs .
Also 7 pounds is close to a waist size smaller , you would notice it.Also the point is n't to suffer through * dull , boring , miserable exercise * , the first few minutes are tough as your body warms up , but as it continues you feel better and at the end of your workout you feel great .
This is true whether your fat or thin.Also your making a lifestyle change , get over this I just need to do this for a few months ( diet or excersize ) and I 'll be good .
You need to think I 'll be doing this for the rest of my life .
And really its simple choices like having a apple instead of a bad of chips for a snack , or counting your calories when you prepare a meal so you do n't cook up a 2000 calorie meal for dinner and feel the need to finish it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; First off, if you weight 238 pounds, going down to 232 pounds is just a pathetic joke.
It took you 3 months to get there.
It will take you 5 years to get there at current speed.
It would be a reachable goal if it was fun, but...I don't follow you.
7 pounds over 12 weeks, translates in to 30.34 pounds a year.
Your 5 year analysis means your 238 pound person's goal is to weigh about 85 lbs.
Also 7 pounds is close to a waist size smaller, you would notice it.Also the point isn't to suffer through *dull, boring, miserable exercise*, the first few minutes are tough as your body warms up, but as it continues you feel better and at the end of your workout you feel great.
This is true whether your fat or thin.Also your making a lifestyle change, get over this I just need to do this for a few months (diet or excersize) and I'll be good.
You need to think I'll be doing this for the rest of my life.
And really its simple choices like having a apple instead of a bad of chips for a snack, or counting your calories when you prepare a meal so you don't cook up a 2000 calorie meal for dinner and feel the need to finish it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034072</id>
	<title>Its pretty simple...</title>
	<author>Time Ed</author>
	<datestamp>1257787320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This: <a href="http://www.zonediet.com/" title="zonediet.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.zonediet.com/</a> [zonediet.com]</p><p>Plus this: <a href="http://www.crossfit.com/" title="crossfit.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.crossfit.com/</a> [crossfit.com]</p><p>Equal this: <a href="http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/Jeremy-Wann.html" title="crossfit.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/Jeremy-Wann.html</a> [crossfit.com]</p><p>In one year. Guaranteed. No bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This : http : //www.zonediet.com/ [ zonediet.com ] Plus this : http : //www.crossfit.com/ [ crossfit.com ] Equal this : http : //www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/Jeremy-Wann.html [ crossfit.com ] In one year .
Guaranteed. No bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This: http://www.zonediet.com/ [zonediet.com]Plus this: http://www.crossfit.com/ [crossfit.com]Equal this: http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/Jeremy-Wann.html [crossfit.com]In one year.
Guaranteed. No bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032820</id>
	<title>Re:All you slim theoreticians...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257782280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cycling. Fun *and practical*.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cycling .
Fun * and practical * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cycling.
Fun *and practical*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30042294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30036296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30134784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30172884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30037202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30037270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30045674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30038454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30040774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30036144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30043670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30038454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30045996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30043124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30037296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30061404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30054484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30036216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30042060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30038238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30037474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30039768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30057754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30039142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30038108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30037846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30052164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30039930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30036112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30038356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0556210_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30043124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30039930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30054484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30038454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30045996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30040774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30037202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30037270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30037474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30134784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30172884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30038940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30061404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30037846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30035174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30036144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30052164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30057754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30039142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30043670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30038108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30036216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029900
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30039768
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30045674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030566
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30038238
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30042060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30042294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029726
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030152
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029854
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030454
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030942
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30033066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030624
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30038356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30036438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30036296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30034712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30036112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30031788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30037296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30029746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0556210.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30030600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0556210.30032700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
