On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Robert McGlohon wrote:

> My own experience, and limited
> reading on the matter, leads me to believe that the body's metabolism is
> *extremely* efficient at fluctuating to meet caloric input, and that it
> fluctuates around a somewhat stable "set point."

This is my experience as well, which is why weight loss is
difficult.

> However, if you include increased output -- e.g., exercise -- as an integral
> part of "caloric restriction," then I'd guess we'd be talking about the same
> thing.

Yes, "caloric deficit" would be a better description.  Even so,
it is important that the deficit be small.

> To wax philosophical a bit, I'm wondering if weight-loss, like, say,
> "happiness," isn't a viable goal in and of itself.  That is, I've never met
> someone who constantly *tried* for happiness who was consistently
> successful.  On the other hand, I know many people who pursue other goals --
> virtue, duty, honor, etc. -- who, in pursuing those goals, are essentially
> happy.  I wonder if I would be better off pursuing goals consistent with
> weight loss -- eating healthy, of course, and say, running a marathon, or
> even a moderately fast 10K.  I've never met a fat long-distance runner.

I have.  I have a colleague who is an extremely dedicated
distance runner.  To look at him you wouldn't say he is fat, but
despite the miles he logs he can't get his body fat below about
23%.  But I don't disagree with your point here; it makes good
sense to choose goals that are consistent with weight loss as a
side effect, so to speak.  It's also possible that people like
myself need to learn to be happy with 18% body fat and let it go
at that.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]