|
|
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On 1/22/2004 10:31 AM, tcomeau wrote: (Diarmid Logan) wrote in message . com... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3416637.stm Through a series of scientific experiments the programme shows that although the diet allows people all the fat and protein they want, they actually eat as few calories as people on low fat diets. Maybe the lesson to be learned is that calories really have little bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans. TC Or that eating fewer calories than you spend causes weight loss? -- jmk in NC |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On 22 Jan 2004 07:31:39 -0800, (tcomeau) wrote:
Maybe the lesson to be learned is that calories really have little bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans. Eat 10,000 a day and call me when you can no longer see your feet. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000620.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:45:58 -0500, Largest Mu_n wrote
(in message ): On 22 Jan 2004 07:31:39 -0800, (tcomeau) wrote: Maybe the lesson to be learned is that calories really have little bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans. Eat 10,000 a day and call me when you can no longer see your feet. And this from a self-annointed "Trainer" who trolls the usenet pushing the "Two Pound Diet"... a diet which claims calories "really have little bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans" and that all that is important is, get this, the _weight_ of the food. Oh, yeah. Let's all listen to Trainer-Boy. -- Steve Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003 |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
"tcomeau" wrote in message om... (Diarmid Logan) wrote in message . com... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3416637.stm Uncovering the Atkins diet secret The controversial and popular Atkins diet works for reasons that Dr Atkins may not have fully understood, the BBC 2 programme Horizon has discovered. Through a series of scientific experiments the programme shows that although the diet allows people all the fat and protein they want, they actually eat as few calories as people on low fat diets. And the reason for this, according to recent research is because the quantity of protein the regime encourages, acts like an appetite suppressant. The meat, fish and eggs in the Atkins diet control hunger and stop people eating their usual quantity of calories. The theory behind Dr Atkins' diet is that by cutting down on starchy foods like potatoes, bread and pasta and eating mainly protein and fats like meat, eggs and cheese you can eat as much as you want and still lose weight. Dr Atkins even said there was no need to worry about calories. The idea that people could gorge on as many calories as they desire and still lose the pounds brought Dr Atkins much criticism and even prompted some scientists to call his diet "scientific heresy". Horizon teamed up with the University of Kansas and commissioned a scientific investigation to test Dr Atkins' most controversial theory. This states that on his diet you actually burn more calories than usual - allowing you to lose more weight. Dr Atkins had two ideas about where the extra calories were going. Firstly, he believed you burn more calories when your body uses fats and proteins as fuel. If this is true, says Dr Mary Vernon, of the Atkins Physician Council, it makes exercise less important than usual. "You wouldn't have to increase your exercise at all because your body would be working harder, so that you could literally sit in your armchair and lose weight." Dr Atkins also believed that on his diet you lose unused calories by peeing them away, as part of a process known as ketosis, which happens when you stop eating starchy foods and sugar. In Horizon's investigation identical twins were put on different diets, one on the Atkins diet and one on a conventional low fat diet. Each was fed identical amounts of calories for two weeks. The twins were then locked inside a sealed chamber so that Professor Joseph Donnelly could calculate how quickly their bodies were burning calories. Over 24 hours the twin on the Atkins diet did lose more calories than the twin on low fat, but only 22. Professor Donnelly even checked the twins' urine for calories and found that the Atkins dieter had lost less than a single calorie more than his brother on low fat. Donnelly concluded that: "the differences were too small to suggest there's anything significant going on". Even though this research is at an early stage, there is little evidence for Dr Atkins' wasted calorie theories. Horizon examines other studies that reveal the real reason scientists believe the Atkins diet is effective. New results from research conducted on the popular BBC series 'Diet Trials' offer the first clue. The study examined the Atkins diet and three low fat, low calorie diets. All four diets worked, but Dr Joe Millward at the University of Surrey who headed up the research, discovered the secret to why Atkins dieters were losing weight. "The Atkins dieters were eating less calories, in exactly the same way as those going to the slimming clubs on their low fat diets." Without apparently trying, people on the Atkins diet were eating less than they would normally. Scientists are now more interested than ever in what makes us eat less. They have concluded that there is something about the Atkins diet that controls hunger. Research has shown that fat is the least filling food. But new work in Denmark is showing exactly what kinds of food may control hunger. Professor Arne Astrup, from the Royal Veterinary & Agricultural University in Copenhagen, built a supermarket for a special study to find the secret of appetite control. Professor Astrup's study focused on being able to eat as much as you want. He put one group of shoppers on a high protein diet and one on a high carbohydrate diet. He was surprised to find that the people eating more protein lost significantly more weight. "The reason they lost more weight was because they consumed fewer calories, despite the fact they had free access to all the food they wanted." Increasing the amount of meat, fish and eggs in the diet may not only be the answer to our hunger pangs, but the secret to how the Atkins diet works. Perhaps without realising it, Dr Atkins stumbled across the secret of appetite control, by discovering a high protein diet. The programme also investigates whether or not the Atkins diet is dangerous. With no long term studies on the diet, any possible health risks of the diet are, so far, unproven. Horizon: The Atkins Diet will be shown Thursday January 22nd at 9pm on BBC2. Maybe the lesson to be learned is that calories really have little bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans. TC Huh??? Maybe you missed this quote "The reason they lost more weight was because they consumed fewer calories, despite the fact they had free access to all the food they wanted." in the above. The thesis advanced above is that Atkins' dieters eat fewer calories because the large amount of protein they ingest suppresses their appetite. So it's not the fat. "It's the protein, stupid!" : o ) In case you didn't know, protein and carbohydrates both have 4 calories per gram, but fat has 9 calories per gram. Protein causes a stable and more enduring rise in glucose than carbs, and so protein reduces your hunger more reliably, con- sistently, and longer than carbs. George ("It's the protein, stupid!") |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
"jmk" wrote in message ... On 1/22/2004 10:31 AM, tcomeau wrote: (Diarmid Logan) wrote in message . com... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3416637.stm Through a series of scientific experiments the programme shows that although the diet allows people all the fat and protein they want, they actually eat as few calories as people on low fat diets. Maybe the lesson to be learned is that calories really have little bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans. TC Or that eating fewer calories than you spend causes weight loss? That's too subtle for our TC. |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
"George W. Cherry" wrote in message news:nXUPb.102676$5V2.381441@attbi_s53...
"jmk" wrote in message ... On 1/22/2004 10:31 AM, tcomeau wrote: (Diarmid Logan) wrote in message . com... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3416637.stm Through a series of scientific experiments the programme shows that although the diet allows people all the fat and protein they want, they actually eat as few calories as people on low fat diets. Maybe the lesson to be learned is that calories really have little bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans. TC Or that eating fewer calories than you spend causes weight loss? That's too subtle for our TC. My POV is obviously too subtle for all of you people. TC |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
"George W. Cherry" wrote in message news:iWUPb.102671$5V2.381758@attbi_s53...
snip Maybe the lesson to be learned is that calories really have little bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans. TC Huh??? Maybe you missed this quote "The reason they lost more weight was because they consumed fewer calories, despite the fact they had free access to all the food they wanted." The reason that they *claim* and *assume* *apparently* caused the weight loss was the *apparent* restriction of calories. They've assumed this for generations and in spite of the ease of eating a low-calorie diet and the availability of a huge variety of low-calorie foods the population, including low-calorie dieters, are still getting fat. Of course, with the exception of low-carb dieters. in the above. The thesis advanced above is that Atkins' dieters eat fewer calories because the large amount of protein they ingest suppresses their appetite. So it's not the fat. "It's the protein, stupid!" : o ) In case you didn't know, protein and carbohydrates both have 4 calories per gram, but fat has 9 calories per gram. Protein causes a stable and more enduring rise in glucose than carbs, and so protein reduces your hunger more reliably, con- sistently, and longer than carbs. George ("It's the protein, stupid!") Last I heard was that fat was what caused satiation. And carbs that caused high levels of insulin, which causes hunger. The only thing complicating this simple concept is peoples unreasonable adherence to the calories fallacy. The calories math doesn't, hasn't and will never be a valid predictor of weight loss or gain in humans. TC |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
|
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On 22 Jan 2004 18:02:47 -0800, (tcomeau) wrote:
Last I heard was that fat was what caused satiation. And carbs that caused high levels of insulin, which causes hunger. The only thing complicating this simple concept is peoples unreasonable adherence to the calories fallacy. The calories math doesn't, hasn't and will never be a valid predictor of weight loss or gain in humans. lol tunderbar rewrites the Laws of Thermodynamics. Hey, I believe him, don't you? lol http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040122.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
SadMu_n wrote:
On 22 Jan 2004 18:02:47 -0800, (tcomeau) wrote: Last I heard was that fat was what caused satiation. Not the sole cause, but certainly a major contributor. And carbs that caused high levels of insulin, which causes hunger. Simplistic, but close. The only thing complicating this simple concept is peoples unreasonable adherence to the calories fallacy. The calories math doesn't, hasn't and will never be a valid predictor of weight loss or gain in humans. lol Poor sappy M_onkfish. Laughs all by himself sitting there down at the end of the bar, drooling into his beer. tunderbar rewrites the Laws of Thermodynamics. See, M_indless, he's right and you're not. But it is impressive seeing you use a word with more than 2 syllables. Just because there may be the equivalent of 4 calories in a gram of food, it doesn't mean that all that energy is available to us through digestion and metabolism. Caloric intake versus caloric use will always be a sketchy relationship. Humans aren't bomb calorimeters and humans aren't perfect, closed systems. Read science a book, for a change. Put away those crayons. Hey, I believe him, don't you? Like it matters what you believe. You believe that you have a free "get out of hell" card no matter what you do. lol What he said. Bob |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
SadMu_n wrote in message . ..
On 22 Jan 2004 18:02:47 -0800, (tcomeau) wrote: Last I heard was that fat was what caused satiation. And carbs that caused high levels of insulin, which causes hunger. The only thing complicating this simple concept is peoples unreasonable adherence to the calories fallacy. The calories math doesn't, hasn't and will never be a valid predictor of weight loss or gain in humans. lol tunderbar rewrites the Laws of Thermodynamics. Hey, I believe him, don't you? lol http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040122.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. It has nothing to do with the Laws of Thermo. They apply to a closed system. The human body is not a closed system. TC |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
Largest Mu_n wrote in message . ..
On 22 Jan 2004 07:31:39 -0800, (tcomeau) wrote: Maybe the lesson to be learned is that calories really have little bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans. Eat 10,000 a day and call me when you can no longer see your feet. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000620.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. sigh.... you poor idiot.... Extremes do not prove or disprove anything other than the extreme. TC |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On 23 Jan 2004 12:10:12 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:
Largest Mu_n wrote in message . .. On 22 Jan 2004 07:31:39 -0800, (tcomeau) wrote: Maybe the lesson to be learned is that calories really have little bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans. Eat 10,000 a day and call me when you can no longer see your feet. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000620.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. sigh.... you poor idiot.... Extremes do not prove or disprove anything other than the extreme. So would you please point out any metabolic lab study that shows that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss as you keep claiming? Moosh:) |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On 23 Jan 2004 12:07:49 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:
SadMu_n wrote in message . .. On 22 Jan 2004 18:02:47 -0800, (tcomeau) wrote: Last I heard was that fat was what caused satiation. And carbs that caused high levels of insulin, which causes hunger. The only thing complicating this simple concept is peoples unreasonable adherence to the calories fallacy. The calories math doesn't, hasn't and will never be a valid predictor of weight loss or gain in humans. lol tunderbar rewrites the Laws of Thermodynamics. Hey, I believe him, don't you? lol http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040122.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. It has nothing to do with the Laws of Thermo. They apply to a closed system. The human body is not a closed system. Where does it state that the "conservation of energy principle" applies only to a closed system? And what do you understand by a closed system? Not what thermodynamics understands. The human body can be studied as a closed system. It depends what you measure and how rigorously. Bathroom scales don't cut it, sorry. Moosh:) |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
|
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On 22 Jan 2004 07:31:39 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:
(Diarmid Logan) wrote in message . com... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3416637.stm Uncovering the Atkins diet secret The controversial and popular Atkins diet works for reasons that Dr Atkins may not have fully understood, the BBC 2 programme Horizon has discovered. Through a series of scientific experiments the programme shows that although the diet allows people all the fat and protein they want, they actually eat as few calories as people on low fat diets. And the reason for this, according to recent research is because the quantity of protein the regime encourages, acts like an appetite suppressant. The meat, fish and eggs in the Atkins diet control hunger and stop people eating their usual quantity of calories. The theory behind Dr Atkins' diet is that by cutting down on starchy foods like potatoes, bread and pasta and eating mainly protein and fats like meat, eggs and cheese you can eat as much as you want and still lose weight. Dr Atkins even said there was no need to worry about calories. The idea that people could gorge on as many calories as they desire and still lose the pounds brought Dr Atkins much criticism and even prompted some scientists to call his diet "scientific heresy". Horizon teamed up with the University of Kansas and commissioned a scientific investigation to test Dr Atkins' most controversial theory. This states that on his diet you actually burn more calories than usual - allowing you to lose more weight. Dr Atkins had two ideas about where the extra calories were going. Firstly, he believed you burn more calories when your body uses fats and proteins as fuel. If this is true, says Dr Mary Vernon, of the Atkins Physician Council, it makes exercise less important than usual. "You wouldn't have to increase your exercise at all because your body would be working harder, so that you could literally sit in your armchair and lose weight." Dr Atkins also believed that on his diet you lose unused calories by peeing them away, as part of a process known as ketosis, which happens when you stop eating starchy foods and sugar. In Horizon's investigation identical twins were put on different diets, one on the Atkins diet and one on a conventional low fat diet. Each was fed identical amounts of calories for two weeks. The twins were then locked inside a sealed chamber so that Professor Joseph Donnelly could calculate how quickly their bodies were burning calories. Over 24 hours the twin on the Atkins diet did lose more calories than the twin on low fat, but only 22. Professor Donnelly even checked the twins' urine for calories and found that the Atkins dieter had lost less than a single calorie more than his brother on low fat. Donnelly concluded that: "the differences were too small to suggest there's anything significant going on". Even though this research is at an early stage, there is little evidence for Dr Atkins' wasted calorie theories. Horizon examines other studies that reveal the real reason scientists believe the Atkins diet is effective. New results from research conducted on the popular BBC series 'Diet Trials' offer the first clue. The study examined the Atkins diet and three low fat, low calorie diets. All four diets worked, but Dr Joe Millward at the University of Surrey who headed up the research, discovered the secret to why Atkins dieters were losing weight. "The Atkins dieters were eating less calories, in exactly the same way as those going to the slimming clubs on their low fat diets." Without apparently trying, people on the Atkins diet were eating less than they would normally. Scientists are now more interested than ever in what makes us eat less. They have concluded that there is something about the Atkins diet that controls hunger. Research has shown that fat is the least filling food. But new work in Denmark is showing exactly what kinds of food may control hunger. Professor Arne Astrup, from the Royal Veterinary & Agricultural University in Copenhagen, built a supermarket for a special study to find the secret of appetite control. Professor Astrup's study focused on being able to eat as much as you want. He put one group of shoppers on a high protein diet and one on a high carbohydrate diet. He was surprised to find that the people eating more protein lost significantly more weight. "The reason they lost more weight was because they consumed fewer calories, despite the fact they had free access to all the food they wanted." Increasing the amount of meat, fish and eggs in the diet may not only be the answer to our hunger pangs, but the secret to how the Atkins diet works. Perhaps without realising it, Dr Atkins stumbled across the secret of appetite control, by discovering a high protein diet. The programme also investigates whether or not the Atkins diet is dangerous. With no long term studies on the diet, any possible health risks of the diet are, so far, unproven. Horizon: The Atkins Diet will be shown Thursday January 22nd at 9pm on BBC2. Maybe the lesson to be learned is that calories really have little bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans. You are probably right. So please tell us of any metabolic lab study that shows that a hypercaloric diet can ever result in fat storage loss. Moosh:) |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:07:13 GMT, posted:
writes: On 23 Jan 2004 12:07:49 -0800, (tcomeau) posted: It has nothing to do with the Laws of Thermo. They apply to a closed system. The human body is not a closed system. Where does it state that the "conservation of energy principle" applies only to a closed system? In any text that covers thermodynamics. However, some conclusions can be drawn anyway; the previous poster is incorrect. Energy is conserved whatever. Over what arbitrary boundaries energy transfers are measured, determines what a "closed system" is. And what do you understand by a closed system? A closed system is any system which has no energy sources or sinks. The body is not "closed" because food provides an external source of energy, and the toilet provides an external sink (!). However, a locked room containing food for a month and a chemical toilet IS a closed system. Exactly! Draw the boundaries and measure the energy transfers. The human body can be studied as a closed system. It depends what you measure and how rigorously. Right. I've been waiting many months for TC to point out ANY metabolic lab study to show that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss. No show, but he still persists. Moosh:) |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:58:02 GMT, posted:
"Moosh:)" writes: On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:07:13 GMT, posted: writes: On 23 Jan 2004 12:07:49 -0800, (tcomeau) posted: It has nothing to do with the Laws of Thermo. They apply to a closed system. The human body is not a closed system. Where does it state that the "conservation of energy principle" applies only to a closed system? In any text that covers thermodynamics. However, some conclusions can be drawn anyway; the previous poster is incorrect. Energy is conserved whatever. Over what arbitrary boundaries energy transfers are measured, determines what a "closed system" is. Never said otherwise. OK, I thought you said conservation of energy only occurred in a "closed system" (whatever that arbitrary system means exactly). However, a locked room containing food for a month and a chemical toilet IS a closed system. Exactly! Draw the boundaries and measure the energy transfers. Yup. The human body can be studied as a closed system. It depends what you measure and how rigorously. Right. I've been waiting many months for TC to point out ANY metabolic lab study to show that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss. No show, but he still persists. I'm not sure what you mean by "hypercaloric". Nobody has ever disputed that a normal person eating 5000 cal/day will not lose weight. What is claimed, and some of us have measured in practice, is that changing the source of calories WITHOUT changing the number of calories has changed us from gaining or maintaining to losing. So show us the metabolic lab studies to back this assetion up. "Hypercaloric" means taking more calories into the body than are expended by that same body. There are two other self-explanatory terms that go with this; "Eucaloric", and "hypocaloric". Here the SECOND law of thermodynamics is relevant: no conversion is 100% efficient. Therefore, an easy corollary states that two different conversion methods are a priori unlikely to exhibit the same efficiency. The general principle of conservation of energy means that a calorie can neither be created nor destroyed. All must be accounted for. Efficiency is irrelevant. All calories into this system (the human body) must exactly equal all calories out of this system. If they don't, then the measurements are wrong, until you can get the Nobel Prize for changing Faraday's Laws :) I am unaware of any study measuring the exact conversion efficiency of the conversion process for various fats and simple or complex carbs. Conversion to what? All chemical reaction pathways have been studied rigorously. There are reference books that can tell you the exact thermal equations for every known chemical reaction. Moosh:) |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
"Moosh:)" wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:07:13 GMT, posted: writes: On 23 Jan 2004 12:07:49 -0800, (tcomeau) posted: It has nothing to do with the Laws of Thermo. They apply to a closed system. The human body is not a closed system. Where does it state that the "conservation of energy principle" applies only to a closed system? In any text that covers thermodynamics. However, some conclusions can be drawn anyway; the previous poster is incorrect. Energy is conserved whatever. Over what arbitrary boundaries energy transfers are measured, determines what a "closed system" is. And what do you understand by a closed system? A closed system is any system which has no energy sources or sinks. The body is not "closed" because food provides an external source of energy, and the toilet provides an external sink (!). However, a locked room containing food for a month and a chemical toilet IS a closed system. Exactly! Draw the boundaries and measure the energy transfers. The human body can be studied as a closed system. It depends what you measure and how rigorously. Right. I've been waiting many months for TC to point out ANY metabolic lab study to show that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss. No show, but he still persists. Moosh:) And I've been waiting just as long for you to show us the one seminal metabolic lab study, or any metabolic lab study that conclusively proves otherwise. I'm still waiting. I may not have the study to disprove the calorie fallacy, but you do not have the study or studies that proved it in the first place. You are placing your trust in a theory that has never been proven scientifically, it has only been assumed. TC |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
"Moosh:)" wrote in message . ..
On 22 Jan 2004 18:02:47 -0800, (tcomeau) posted: snip Maybe the lesson to be learned is that calories really have little bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans. TC snip The only thing complicating this simple concept is peoples unreasonable adherence to the calories fallacy. The calories math doesn't, hasn't and will never be a valid predictor of weight loss or gain in humans. So show us the study. You've claimed this nonsense for years with not a shred of evidence. Make with the evidence please. Metabolic lab study showing hypercaloric diet results in fat storage loss. Moosh:) OK. You claim that the Laws of Thermo is directly applicable to weight management in the human body, and you further insist that there is no other factors involved other than the calories-in/calories-out factor. If that is the case then it applies in *every* circumstance with no exceptions. No Exceptions. That is the nature of a *Law* of physics. No Exceptions. In this case we are not restricted to metabolic lab studies to disprove the applicability of the Law of Thermo to weight management in the human body. One exception, and only one exceprion, is enough to disprove the idea that the Law of Thermo applies to weight management in the human body. Here is one study that shows that calories are not the last word on weight mangement in humans. ********************* http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896 Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight By DANIEL Q. HANEY AP Medical Editor 10/14/2003 FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight. Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the contention -- long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without paying a price on the scales. Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many experts' surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at least in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard American Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels, as many feared would happen. Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not get so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot. Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually can eat more. The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet. Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories. That should have added up to about seven pounds. But for some reason, it did not. "There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said. That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in just the same way. Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting found her report fascinating. "A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to be open-minded." Others, though, found the data hard to swallow. "It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects." In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day. The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with diet plans to follow as best they could. Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of lots of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and unsaturated oils. "This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins diet," Greene said. Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to pay for the research, though it had no input into the study's design, conduct or analysis. Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes. The low-carb meals were 5 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 30 percent fat. In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb regimen took off 23 pounds, while people who got the same calories on the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was that volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food lost 20 pounds. "It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it answers," said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots of data to suggest this shouldn't be true." Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting their food. Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less apt to cheat because they were less hungry. ------ EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special correspondent for The Associated Press. ****************** |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896
Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight I guess that that 3lb difference was very likely caused by LC waterloss... Mirek |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000620.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. sigh.... you poor idiot.... Extremes do not prove or disprove anything other than the extreme. So would you please point out any metabolic lab study that shows that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss as you keep claiming? Moosh:) Great programme on BBC last week. Scientists have been puzzled by the success of Atkins diet but conclusion is that protein food makes you feel full but they still maintain it is dangerous. Diana (a non dieter) |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
(tcomeau) wrote in message
snip OK. You claim that the Laws of Thermo is directly applicable to weight management in the human body, and you further insist that there is no other factors involved other than the calories-in/calories-out factor. If that is the case then it applies in *every* circumstance with no exceptions. No Exceptions. That is the nature of a *Law* of physics. No Exceptions. In this case we are not restricted to metabolic lab studies to disprove the applicability of the Law of Thermo to weight management in the human body. One exception, and only one exceprion, is enough to disprove the idea that the Law of Thermo applies to weight management in the human body. Here is one study that shows that calories are not the last word on weight mangement in humans. ********************* http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896 Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight By DANIEL Q. HANEY AP Medical Editor 10/14/2003 FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight. Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the contention -- long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without paying a price on the scales. snip The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet. Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories. That should have added up to about seven pounds. But for some reason, it did not. "There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said. That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in just the same way. Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting found her report fascinating. "A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to be open-minded." Others, though, found the data hard to swallow. "It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects." In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day. The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with diet plans to follow as best they could. Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of lots of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and unsaturated oils. snip OK Moosh. There is your study that shows or at least indicates the real possibility that calories are not a valid and practical approach to weight management. I challenge you to find me *one* study that wasn't put out by industry researchers that proves definitively that calories are directly applicable to control weight in humans. I want any study that wasn't paid for by industry that makes it crystal clear that weight can be managed by restricting calories. Better yet, find me the seminal study that first made this assertion. Find me the one or the series of studies that *first* concluded that calories are it. Such a ground breaking and historical document must be easy to find. The researchers must be world reknown for their brilliant discovery. Give me the study(s) and the names. This is the study(s) that your whole world of nutritional science hangs its hat on. Should be easy. TC |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
"Mirek Fidler" wrote in message ...
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896 Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight I guess that that 3lb difference was very likely caused by LC waterloss... Mirek You guess? Well that settles it then. You *guess* then it must be true. What an amazing scientific mind you have. TC |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
I guess that that 3lb difference was very likely caused by LC
waterloss... Mirek You guess? Well that settles it then. You *guess* then it must be true. What an amazing scientific mind you have. What is wrong with guessing ? :) Do not get me wrong, I am on LC WOE. That is how I know how easily you loose water during the induction, depleting glycogen stores. Now the question is whether you will loose the same amount of water on low-fat regime... I think that there simply will be more water bound with glycogen when on low-fat/high-carb A study I would like to see would compare weight loss starting _after_ first two weeks of regime. Mirek |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
wrote in message ...
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000620.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. sigh.... you poor idiot.... Extremes do not prove or disprove anything other than the extreme. So would you please point out any metabolic lab study that shows that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss as you keep claiming? Moosh:) Great programme on BBC last week. Scientists have been puzzled by the success of Atkins diet but conclusion is that protein food makes you feel full but they still maintain it is dangerous. Diana (a non dieter) High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground. Humbly, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
25 Jan 2004 14:46:32 -0800 in article
(Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote: wrote in message ... http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000620.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. sigh.... you poor idiot.... Extremes do not prove or disprove anything other than the extreme. So would you please point out any metabolic lab study that shows that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss as you keep claiming? Moosh:) Great programme on BBC last week. Scientists have been puzzled by the success of Atkins diet but conclusion is that protein food makes you feel full but they still maintain it is dangerous. Diana (a non dieter) High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground. Not true for people with healthy kidneys. -- Matti Narkia |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
In response to Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD's post:
High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground. Humbly, Andrew So why isn't there a dialysis center next door to every Gold's Gym? -- Stephen S. 331 / 286 / 220 - as of 21 Jan. 04 LC since 28 Sept. 03 http://dragonfen.com/diet -------------------------------- |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
Stephen S wrote:
In response to Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD's post: High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground. Humbly, Andrew So why isn't there a dialysis center next door to every Gold's Gym? -- Stephen S. 331 / 286 / 220 - as of 21 Jan. 04 LC since 28 Sept. 03 http://dragonfen.com/diet -------------------------------- Oh my! You would argue with the great Dr. (cough) Ching?? Or was that Chong? |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:28:14 -0500, Myway wrote
(in message m): Stephen S wrote: In response to Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD's post: High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground. Humbly, Andrew So why isn't there a dialysis center next door to every Gold's Gym? -- Stephen S. 331 / 286 / 220 - as of 21 Jan. 04 LC since 28 Sept. 03 http://dragonfen.com/diet -------------------------------- Oh my! You would argue with the great Dr. (cough) Ching?? Or was that Chong? Careful... you are headed for a very unpleasant encounter with the business end of the Truth Discernment Ray :-) -- Steve Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003 |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
"Stephen S" wrote in message news:4yYQb.57939$Xq2.30132@fed1read07... In response to Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD's post: High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground. Humbly, Andrew So why isn't there a dialysis center next door to every Gold's Gym? -- Stephen S. 331 / 286 / 220 - as of 21 Jan. 04 LC since 28 Sept. 03 http://dragonfen.com/diet -------------------------------- Because the medical district is in another part of town? |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:48:11 GMT, posted:
"Moosh:)" writes: On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:58:02 GMT, posted: Energy is conserved whatever. Over what arbitrary boundaries energy transfers are measured, determines what a "closed system" is. Never said otherwise. OK, I thought you said conservation of energy only occurred in a "closed system" (whatever that arbitrary system means exactly). In a non-closed system, energy appears (from "sources") and disappers (through "sinks"), And this obvious point is supposed to shed light on what? which means that energy equations must add terms for the sources and sinks. Of course. That's what I'm advocating As traditionally stated, the first law of thermodynamics applies to systems having no sources and no sinks. Since when? Can you quote this? Conservation of energy is UNIVERSAL. BTW, that's the first law, I believe, although whatever number you give to the principle of conservation of energy, energy is still conserved. The law about entropy is the second, I believe, and is irrelevant here. I'm not sure what you mean by "hypercaloric". Nobody has ever disputed that a normal person eating 5000 cal/day will not lose weight. What is claimed, and some of us have measured in practice, is that changing the source of calories WITHOUT changing the number of calories has changed us from gaining or maintaining to losing. So show us the metabolic lab studies to back this assetion up. "Hypercaloric" means taking more calories into the body than are expended by that same body... For some definition of "expended", your statement is a tautology. How a tautology? The real issue is the definition of "expended", where one expenditure includes the inefficiency of metabolizing various energy sources. Expended simply means leaving the body in whatever form. Sorry, I thought this would be obvious. Here the SECOND law of thermodynamics is relevant: no conversion is 100% efficient. Therefore, an easy corollary states that two different conversion methods are a priori unlikely to exhibit the same efficiency. The general principle of conservation of energy means that a calorie can neither be created nor destroyed. All must be accounted for. Efficiency is irrelevant... In other words, you don't really know anything about thermodynamics, Well I do know that energy is always conserved, a basic fact which seems to have escaped you. and don't understand the second law. The second law states that all energy conversions involve some energy changing to an unusable form. Which is not what I'm talking about. You may be. Try "conservation of energy", the first law, I believe. You can't gain sustenance from the heat ouput of muscular effort, but it is accounted for in the energy balance statement. Energy in equals energy out PLUS the change in entropy resulting from wasted energy. So put some numbers to this. You are saying that 1000 calories into the body will be equal to 1000 calories out of the body plus this "change in entropy resulting from wasted energy". Care to put a ballpark figure on the number of calories in this PLUS bit? All systems produce TWO things: the thing you wanted them to produce, and waste energy. Whoa! We are measuring ALL energy. My poin't is that energy can neither be created or destroyed. Any energy (waste or useful) must be accounted for. Energy *in* MUST equal energy *out*. All calories into this system (the human body) must exactly equal all calories out of this system... Where "energy out", for type I diabetics receiving no insulin, includes lots of sugar energy wasted in their ****. You don't seem to understand what the "energy out" comprises. Of course I do. What part of "energy out" do you not understand? The abnormal situation you cite is why diabetics lose a lot of weight Doh! The sugar energy is counted. Why on Earth would you not count it? I'm saying ALL calories MUST be accounted for. You seem to be trying to find ones that don't. Why? I am unaware of any study measuring the exact conversion efficiency of the conversion process for various fats and simple or complex carbs. Conversion to what? All chemical reaction pathways have been studied rigorously. There are reference books that can tell you the exact thermal equations for every known chemical reaction. Then share your great wisdom by posting the exact conversion efficiency for a given fat of your choice, and for glucose. Well I don't know what "conversion efficiency" means other than percentage yield of product perhaps, but you still haven't said what the conversion is to. Then we can talk turkey, so to speak. Your basic fallacy is that you do not account for all of the system's energy outputs. I do, but you seem to be trying to excuse some and invent others. My point is that energy into a system MUST equal energy OUT of a system. ANNOUNCEMENT: I COUNT ALL ENERGY!!! You appear to be considering only metabolism plus work done in the form of physical activity. Not at all. What do you mean here by "metabolism"? That is your strange interpretation, and I'm not sure why you came to this misunderstanding. I thought I'd been clear. Moosh:) |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On 24 Jan 2004 10:37:56 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:
"Moosh:)" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:07:13 GMT, posted: writes: On 23 Jan 2004 12:07:49 -0800, (tcomeau) posted: It has nothing to do with the Laws of Thermo. They apply to a closed system. The human body is not a closed system. Where does it state that the "conservation of energy principle" applies only to a closed system? In any text that covers thermodynamics. However, some conclusions can be drawn anyway; the previous poster is incorrect. Energy is conserved whatever. Over what arbitrary boundaries energy transfers are measured, determines what a "closed system" is. And what do you understand by a closed system? A closed system is any system which has no energy sources or sinks. The body is not "closed" because food provides an external source of energy, and the toilet provides an external sink (!). However, a locked room containing food for a month and a chemical toilet IS a closed system. Exactly! Draw the boundaries and measure the energy transfers. The human body can be studied as a closed system. It depends what you measure and how rigorously. Right. I've been waiting many months for TC to point out ANY metabolic lab study to show that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss. No show, but he still persists. Moosh:) And I've been waiting just as long for you to show us the one seminal metabolic lab study, or any metabolic lab study that conclusively proves otherwise. Huh? The basic laws of physics show that calories are the only source of fat storage. Calories are indestructible, and uncreatable. You are claiming different, and yet you can show NOT ONE study to demonstrate this. ALL metabolic lab studies to date back up the physical laws exactly. Why are you avoiding giving us just one study? Perhaps there are none? I'm still waiting. I may not have the study to disprove the calorie fallacy, Well you still have your cockeyed scientific train of thought. The calorie theory "conservation of energy" has NEVER been faulted. You claim different, make with the evidence! but you do not have the study or studies that proved it in the first place. Yes, they ALL do, every one of them! The principle of conservation of energy has NEVER been faulted. Are you angling for a Nobel Prize? Oh, no, of course not, they have a conflict of interest :) You are placing your trust in a theory that has never been proven scientifically, it has only been assumed. Well that's because you appear to have lived in the dark all your life. Science has been trying to disprove the laws underpinning them for centuries. There has NEVER been any evidence that the laws of thermo are ever false. Moosh:) |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
On 24 Jan 2004 10:51:45 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:
"Moosh:)" wrote in message . .. On 22 Jan 2004 18:02:47 -0800, (tcomeau) posted: snip Maybe the lesson to be learned is that calories really have little bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans. TC snip The only thing complicating this simple concept is peoples unreasonable adherence to the calories fallacy. The calories math doesn't, hasn't and will never be a valid predictor of weight loss or gain in humans. So show us the study. You've claimed this nonsense for years with not a shred of evidence. Make with the evidence please. Metabolic lab study showing hypercaloric diet results in fat storage loss. Moosh:) OK. You claim that the Laws of Thermo is directly applicable to weight management in the human body, They are directly applicable EVERYWHERE. They have never been shown to be untrue. and you further insist that there is no other factors involved other than the calories-in/calories-out factor. There are other factors which influence how much energy is ingested or expended, but these are secondary/psychological. The basic energy physics is never faulted. If that is the case then it applies in *every* circumstance with no exceptions. No Exceptions. That is the nature of a *Law* of physics. No Exceptions. In this case we are not restricted to metabolic lab studies to disprove the applicability of the Law of Thermo to weight management in the human body. No, your logic is slipping as usual. You claim that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss. This has never been observed when measured rigorously. Can you supply a study that shows otherwise? Apparently not. One exception, and only one exceprion, is enough to disprove the idea that the Law of Thermo applies to weight management in the human body. Yep, but of course it must be measured properly. It's so easy to be fooled by bathroom scales and food labelling. Here is one study that shows that calories are not the last word on weight mangement in humans. And if you think this is an energy balance statement, then you are really sillier than you sound, and that takes some doing. ********************* http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896 Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight By DANIEL Q. HANEY AP Medical Editor 10/14/2003 FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight. Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the contention -- long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without paying a price on the scales. Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many experts' surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at least in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard American Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels, as many feared would happen. Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not get so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot. Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually can eat more. Hint? No evidence? How sad. The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet. Does she give the fecal calorie counts? Thought not :) Wanna buy a bridge? Have I got a deal for you? Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories. That should have added up to about seven pounds. But for some reason, it did not. And where are the energy balance sheets? This is a terrible study, sorry, come back with a properly measured study. "There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said. Does she really? How strange. Wouldn't some numbers be more convincing than her vapid speculations. You heard of conflict of interest? Well here it is conflict between doing some proper work, and cheap sensationalist publicity. That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in just the same way. What strikes? Greene's vapid speculations? Not even Greene says this settles the case, Well at least she has SOME integrity. but some at the meeting found her report fascinating. The journos perhaps? "A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to be open-minded." But not so open that your brains fall out , Dear. (Credit: Richard Dawkins) Others, though, found the data hard to swallow. Well there was so little of it. 2, 3, 7. Now what can we postulate from these three data? "It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects." Terry Comeau has, apparently, but he is saving it for the Nobel Prize Committee. In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day. With you, so far. The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass., Holy ****, Batman, that DOES make it scientific. You Americans will swallow such crap!!! so researchers knew exactly what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with diet plans to follow as best they could. And you see what we are up against. Metabolic lab studies only, thankyou. Measure the calories IN the calories OUT (CO2, heat, **** ****, sweat, semen, earwax, the bloody lot, ferchrissakes!) Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of lots of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and unsaturated oils. So ****ing what??? "This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins diet," Greene said. Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to pay for the research, though it had no input into the study's design, conduct or analysis. Looks like no-one did. A bloody three year old chimp could design a better experiment. The Atkins is same as Zone according to experts here on this group. I'm confused. The term "low carb" is bandied about for just about anything. Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes. The low-carb meals were 5 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 30 percent fat. What? No 40% carb a la Atkins/Zone? What a swiz!!! In the end, everyone lost weight. How much was water, fat store, bone, muscle???? Oh, dear, back to the drawing board. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb regimen took off 23 pounds, OF WHAT??? while people who got the same calories on the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. OF WHAT??? The big surprise, though, was that volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food lost 20 pounds. The big surprise to me is that this bull**** got funded. PT Barnham lives!!! "It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it answers," said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots of data to suggest this shouldn't be true." What exactly shouldn't be true? There is so much data missing, the second coming could be deduced from this crock of ****! Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting their food. Sheesh, enough said! Has this dumb bitch got no imagination? Why not do an experiment to see where the calories went? Don't want to know? Already been done? You certainly have been, folks! Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less apt to cheat because they were less hungry. It gets better!!! Why not throw this out, and go back and do the bloody thing properly? EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special correspondent for The Associated Press. Now why doesn't this surprise me? ****************** Have you got anything else Terry? That was such fun.... Moosh:) |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
|
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:03:35 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
posted: http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896 Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight I guess that that 3lb difference was very likely caused by LC waterloss... Nah, every decrease in Terry's bathroom scale reading is pure fat storage loss, just ask him :) Moosh:) |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
On 25 Jan 2004 14:23:51 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:
"Mirek Fidler" wrote in message ... http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896 Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight I guess that that 3lb difference was very likely caused by LC waterloss... Mirek You guess? Well that settles it then. You *guess* then it must be true. What an amazing scientific mind you have. But how do you "know"? You are guessing as well, like you are doing with your bathroom scales and food labels. Moosh:) |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
On 25 Jan 2004 11:48:27 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:
(tcomeau) wrote in message snip OK. You claim that the Laws of Thermo is directly applicable to weight management in the human body, and you further insist that there is no other factors involved other than the calories-in/calories-out factor. If that is the case then it applies in *every* circumstance with no exceptions. No Exceptions. That is the nature of a *Law* of physics. No Exceptions. In this case we are not restricted to metabolic lab studies to disprove the applicability of the Law of Thermo to weight management in the human body. One exception, and only one exceprion, is enough to disprove the idea that the Law of Thermo applies to weight management in the human body. Here is one study that shows that calories are not the last word on weight mangement in humans. ********************* http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896 Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight By DANIEL Q. HANEY AP Medical Editor 10/14/2003 FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight. Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the contention -- long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without paying a price on the scales. snip The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet. Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories. That should have added up to about seven pounds. But for some reason, it did not. "There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said. That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in just the same way. Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting found her report fascinating. "A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to be open-minded." Others, though, found the data hard to swallow. "It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects." In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day. The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with diet plans to follow as best they could. Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of lots of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and unsaturated oils. snip OK Moosh. There is your study that shows or at least indicates the real possibility that calories are not a valid and practical approach to weight management. In your gullible little eyes, apparently. How sad! That report shows to me much confusion and NO science. I challenge you to find me *one* study that wasn't put out by industry researchers that proves definitively that calories are directly applicable to control weight in humans. I want any study that wasn't paid for by industry that makes it crystal clear that weight can be managed by restricting calories. Restricting calories is the ONLY way to reduce fat storage loss. No other way has ever been demonstrated. And calorie restriction ALWAYS results in fat storage loss. Of course the way you achieve this calorie restriction is of very little interest to me here (smn). Try a dieting group for the most effective schemes. Better yet, find me the seminal study that first made this assertion. Find me the one or the series of studies that *first* concluded that calories are it. Such a ground breaking and historical document must be easy to find. The researchers must be world reknown for their brilliant discovery. Give me the study(s) and the names. This is the study(s) that your whole world of nutritional science hangs its hat on. Should be easy. That's the whole body of science. Open your eyes. You are contradicting this huge body of science, so the onus is on you to show just one anomaly, and it will turn the whole scentific corpus on its head Good luck! Moosh:) TC |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
WeightLossBanter