View Single Post
  #47  
Old January 26th, 2004, 10:26 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:31:30 GMT, posted:

"Moosh" writes:

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...


He is not. He is claiming that the useful energy yield differs between
equal-calorie diets depending on their composition.



Yes, and he supplies absolutely NO evidence for this wild assertion.

Tell me, what happens to the say 1000 cal fat and 1000 cal glucose
being compared? What do you define as "useful energy"?
What would these be do you think in this 1000cal example?

Specifically, that
a body in ketosis taking in a low-carbohydrate diet will derive less
energy from that food, because more of the energy will be wasted.


Folks only stay in ketosis for a few weeks if carb-deprived, so forget
that abnormal condition. The Inuit are not in ketosis, get it?

So this less energy they derive must leave some energy over. All I
want to know is where did it go?

ALL metabolic lab studies to date back up the physical laws exactly.


That statement is idiotic: the first law of thermodynamics is a
universal;


The statement might be unnecessary, except that there are twits here
who don't realise it.

one doesn't do clinical studies to verify it.


I didn't say they did, but then most experiments don't set out to
disprove the basic laws of physics, they just do so as a byproduct.
Do try to keep up!

And as
observed, the issue concerns outputs you are not acknowledging.


I am acknowledging ALL outputs. What do you think I'm not?

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.


Way to duck the question. Now prove that the useful energy yield does
not depend on the dietary composition.


Well after you prove that the Earth goes around the Sun.

Does it not worry you that you claim that energy content of foods
depends on the composition apart from the energy content(???), yet you
can't show one study or reference to back this? My backing is the
total body of science and to ask me to quote it is puerile and
avoiding the question.

Please even just explain the difference between absorbing 1000 cal
glucose, fatty acids, or amino acids. You said it, so demonstrate that
you don't derive 1000 cal from each when doing violent physical
exercise, to simplify matters. Or if you want to complicate it to hide
something, assume the subjects are sated and flat on their backs, that
these ingestions won't result in ~111g of fat deposition, or ~250g of
protein or glycogen storage/deposition/creation or combinations of
these.

Moosh