View Single Post
  #46  
Old January 26th, 2004, 10:12 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:22:51 GMT, posted:

"Moosh" writes:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:48:11 GMT,
posted:
"Moosh" writes:

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?


I was merely explaining what a "closed system" means, since you
expressed ignorance on that point. See above.


But what were you trying to shed light on wrt our conversation, is
what I mean. I know what a closed system is, but not in relation to
our present discussion, and neither do you, apparently.

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.


The UNIVERSE is a close system. The first law of thermodynamics states
that total energy is constant. The statement is true only if there are
no sources and sinks; otherwise the total energy can change.


This means that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, in case you
hadn't realised. The human body does not have to be a closed system of
whatever variety you wish, to demonstrate this first law.
(Conservation of Energy). It holds everywhere so far.

BTW, that's the first law, I believe, although whatever number you
give...


If you read carefully, you will observe that I call it "the first
law".


No, you were referring to the second law in regard to the conservation
of energy that I was discussing. I have always and only been
discussing the conservation of energy principle. The entropy one is
only relevant if I was interested in ignoring some forms of energy.
I'm not, nor have I ever been.

The law about entropy is the second, I believe, and is irrelevant
here.


It is the second law--that's why I refer to it as "the second law". It
is relevant to any system in which energy is converted.


Only if you are interested into what it is converted.
In this discussion of the inability to create or destroy calories, it
is irrelevant.

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?


Assuming you know what a "tautology" is,


I do, that's why I asked what you meant.

observe that "expended" can
be defined to be "energy consumed but not stored as fat".


It can also be defined as other things, but....

With that
definition, calories consumed but not expended are stored as fat--by
definition.


So where is the tautology? That's the definition of hypercaloric.

"taking more calories into the body than are
'not stored as fat' by that same body..."

Is an awkward way of saying the same thing, but hardly a tautology.
Have you got worms?

The interesting question is WHAT HAPPENS to calories
consumed but not stored as fat.


That interesting question that you appear to have just discovered is
what I've been banging on about for years, but never mind. Terry just
dismisses it as mysteriously disappearing.

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.


Then you are dodging the interesting question. Atkins claimed a
"metabolic advantage" which is neither more nor less than the claim
that a body in ketosis "expends" non-carb calories differently than a
body not in ketosis "expends" carb calories.


Sorry, you won't be in ketosis when you get 40% of your calories from
carb, and the modern Atkins diet involves this, apparently.

The question of course is where do these mysteriously disappearing
calories go to. That's what I've been asking in vain for so long. They
MUST be accounted for as I hope you will now agree. A metabolic lab
study seems to be the only way to discover. My theory in part is that
a sudden increase in fat consumption will mean an increase in calories
going down the porcelain pedestal. Probably other things involved in
concert. Slightly raised BMR with high protein, more satiety, water
loss, and so on...
Most of these return to normal in a short while -- homeostasis.

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.


A rather idiotic reply--I certainly understand BOTH of the laws of
thermodynamics discussed here.


Well you haven't shown it, that's all I can go on. You started the
idiotic replies, remember? See above?
You still can't seem to see that the argument I'm having with Terry is
that I say all calories must be accounted for, and he says otherwise.
You agree with him, I take it?

You seem not to realize that the second
law implies a mandatory expenditure beyond the useful work performed.


I'm counting ALL energy. I don't care what form it is in, so the
second law doesn't apply to my discussion. I wonder what it has to do
with in your discussion but haven't discovered it yet. Perhaps you
still think I'm ignoring some energy forms, in spite of my stressing
the contrary several times.
All metabolic lab studies have found that calories are it, wrt fat
store gain or loss. Food constituents have minimal effect.

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...


Yes, because I'm pointing out something you SHOULD be accounting for,
but ARE NOT.


Why should I when I'm wanting to measure ALL energy, whatever form?
When you test a diet, you should measure ALL INs and OUTs, and all of
these must add up. If you do a half-baked experiment and neglect to
measure a particular parameter, you can't just assume.

When I pointed out that you were neglecting to consider
the scond law, I did indeed realize that you were not talking about
the second law--thus the "neglect".


I've only been talking about the conservation of energy in the light
of measuring ALL energy INs and OUTs, what have you been talking
about?

All systems produce TWO things: the thing you wanted them to
produce, and waste energy.


Whoa! We are measuring ALL energy.


Then we're back to square one: the (primary) claim under discussion is
that waste energy is higher for metabolism of fat than for metabolism
of carbs.


Waste energy? Could you be more specific? What forms would these be?
Who made these claims?

My poin't is that energy can neither be created or destroyed.


So what? Nobody ever disputed it, friend.


Well you seem to have written an awful lot disputing what I originally
said, which was that the Cconservation of Energy principle always
held.
What on earth did you think I said?

Any energy (waste or useful) must be accounted for. Energy *in*
MUST equal energy *out*.


Duh. That has nothing to do with the assertion that all food calories
are equal; energy in always equals energy out--but two different
processes may and probably do involve two different quantities of
waste energy out.


So, 1000 calories into the bloodstream as trigycerides, and 1000
calories into the bloodstream as glucose. Both can be used to provide
the same amount of muscular energy, or stored as roughly 111 grams of
fat. What are you actually trying to say? What is the form of this
"waste energy"?

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?


Then of course you ARE advancing a tautology which has NOTHING to do
with the assertion that all food calories are equal.


Sorry, this tautology or repetition of the same idea is where exactly?
I can't see what you keep referring to.

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?


Okay, then: apply the same reasoning to low-carb versus low-fat diets
with the same total number of calories. There is no a priori reason
for assuming that both diets yield the same useful energy content;


Huh??? What do you think the total calories means?

to
answer that question involves (among other things) determining the
relative efficiency of energy conversion for carbs and fat.


What are you on about? If you convert 1000 calories of glucose to fat,
you get effectively 1000 calories of fat, or roughly 111g of fat.

In a normal individual, 1000 calories of whatever will yield 1000
calories of mechanical/heat energy or roughly 111 g of fat storage, or
even roughly 250 g of protein or any combination.
What exactly are you trying to say?

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.


You disappoint.


You mean you don't know what "efficiency" means?
Look it up. You must specify which efficiency you mean.

Give the conversion efficiency in passing from glucose
to ATP.


Gravimetrically?

Likewise for the lipid of your choice.


Stoichometrically?

That'll be a good
start. You do realize that the ONLY fuel consumed by cells is ATP,
right? That ALL food energy is converted to ATP for use?


Umm, ATP supplies energy for various reactions, but so what?

Are you trying to divert from your errors by impressing us with
irrelevant trivia? You related to my brother in law?

I've told you that glucose to CO2/water yields about 4 cal/g
Same for protein to urea/CO2/water. Fat about 9 cal/g
Doesn't really matter what pathway the reaction takes. You can even
set fire to it, and the yield is the same. Basic Chemistry.

You have claimed that this information is readily available. Produce
it.


So you are saying it isn't? I am not off to the library for some days,
I suggest *you* look it up unless you really believe that it doesn't
exist.

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!!!


Excellent. Then answer the above question. But note that if you really
counted all energy, then you would not consider the second law of
thermodynamics irrelevant: WASTE ENERGY IS AN OUTPUT!


And if it's counted (as it is), what has the second law to do with
this? Please explain.

All I say is that ALL calories MUST be accounted for if a system is to
be understood. All such studies to date show your (and Terry's) theory
is wrong. If you have evidence to the contary of the body of science,
please point it out.

Moosh