Right, but that's not really what I was talking about... The effect of what goes in varries from one substance to the next, and so it's logical to assume that one substance will cause more weight than another when every other variable (excercise and amount of substance being key here) is held in stasis. If you regression test it, doesn't fat content contribute to weight gain more than the "empty calories" of simple sugar? (Part of the reason I never bought into diet sodas -- they taste like crap and are possibly carcinogenic in an attempt to solve a problem that I suspect they largely don't contribute to in the first place.)
> There is no magic pill. Moderation is key, just like in > everything > else in life. > There is a correlation between what comes in (eating) and > what goes > out (exercise). If they are out of balance you get too > fat or too > skinny. Metabolism and a few other factors may play a > role also, but > it's still the same equation. It's really a very basic > concept. > -Cameron > On 3/6/06, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Kinda what I thought... I mean... I'd always been under >> the impression >> that sugar by itself didn't really contribute to obeisity >> all that >> terribly much... As compared to grams of fat or possibly >> complex >> carbohydrates (I'm still on the fence re: low-carb diets, >> I'd like to >> think that there's just something fundamentally wrong >> with >> "conventional wisdom" largely because I'm not generally >> impressed with >> "conventional wisdom" because it's too convenient (see >> the book >> Freakonomics) but at the same time I'm just ... Atkins >> zealots (like >> most zealots) make me want to vomit all over them, which >> makes it >> difficult for me to give serious consideration to >> possibility of their >> rhetoric being more than propaganda.) >> >> Am I the only person here who just gets sick when I see >> people all >> glombing on to the latest hot new fad like low-carb diets >> or <shudder> >> the web without doing the homework and really >> understanding (at least >> fundamentally) the garbage they're spouting? Problem is >> that seems to >> be mostly what mainstream culture(s) produce -- people >> spouting >> garbage not because they've researched it but because >> it's popular and >> therefore "conventional wisdom" (and apparently for most >> people >> conventional widsom == ABSOLUTE TRUTH HANDED DOWN BY >> GOD). >> >> Sorry for the rant... but that really I think is what >> pisses me off >> most -- people clinging to these BS ideas as though >> they're sacred >> writ that's gonna save their immortal soul from eternal >> damnation when >> in reality it's just some stupid, inane babble that some >> under-educated lemming happened to phrase in a catchy >> sound-byte-worthy way that made it popular. <sigh>... >> >> Forgive me, I'm having a moment. :) >> >> Zealots really piss me off. :) > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:199077 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
