View Single Post
  #6  
Old January 26th, 2004, 10:17 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:27:53 GMT, posted:

"Moosh" writes:
Len wrote:

As indicated in another post, the issue here is the definition of
"burn". If you include energy converted into unusable (or unused)
forms, then your statement is a tautology.


In what way a tautology?


"Energy burned" is defined to be energy consumed but not stored as
fat.


Well that's wrong for a start. Energy burned can be stored energy
burned. Expended can excreted. Playing word games doesn't change the
fact that all calories into the body (system) must be accounted for.
Some folks don't realise this, unfortunately.

Energy consumed but not burned, therefore, is defined to be
"energy stored as fat".


So long as you regard consumed as not just taken into the gut but
absorbed into the bloodstream -- the physiological understanding of IN
the body.

But energy can be consumed and excreted, for example.

With that definition of "burned", your
statement is a tautology.


Sorry, I still can't see the redundant meaning in my statement. I mean
what I say, and have not said it twice, AFAICS.

Nevertheless, it yields no information about the claim that a low-carb
and a low-fat diet with the same total caloric content will result in
exactly equal weight gains or losses--since you do not know how much
is "burned" in each case.


Measuring the CO2 output of the body is what I'm advocating. YOU don't
know how much is burned, I'm saying you can't say anything without
knowing EVERY energy IN and OUT.

Give it a number -- 1000 calories -- the low carb 1000, if used, will
result in 1000 calories of heat, with a small amount of muscular work.
Same for the low fat 1000. If neither is needed, then the energy will
be stored as roughly 111g of fat, or even more glycogen depending on
the energy status of the body.

If you wish to claim that the amount burned must be the same in both
cases, then you must prove it


Or even measure it? It's been measured and measured, and guess what,
there's buggerall in it. Where have you been? You are asserting that
we don't know, I suggest that you hop down to the leebrary and start
reading. Then if you come across the sofar unknown study that shows
any significant difference, tell us about it, we will be all ears, so
to speak.

--but the second law of thermodynamics is
working against you:


In what way? Surely it applies equally to both scenarios.

one of the energy outputs is the waste due to
inefficiency,


Could you please define this inefficiency? What ratio are you
referring to? The "inefficiencies" as far as a small amount of heat in
either reaction pathway will even out in both cases.

and it is unlikely that two totally dissimilar chemical
proceses will have exactly the same efficiency.


Well 100% actually, but then it depends how you are defining these
ratios (efficiencies) Chemical reactions are 100% efficient actually.
They ALWAYS do the same thing. Some are exothermic, some are
endothermic.

Physical chemistry tells us that there is a heat af reaction
associated with every chemical reaction. It can be positive or
negative and is accurately known. Going from compound A to compound Z
by whatever set of reactions, will result in the same algebraic energy
sum. So however glucose is converted to CO2 and water, it will always
yield the figure of ~4cal/g.

The only outcome of this clarification is to rephrase the question:
"Does a change in caloric composition, all other things being
equal, result in a change in calories burned?"


Very minimally. Some foods may make the BMR rise marginally.


Okay, you're on record. Now supply the proof. Specifically, give the
energy yield in converting a mol of glucose into ATP, just for
starters.


Look it up, I don't need to know, you do apparently, unless your
childish demands are evidence that you don't think these exact numbers
exist?

Are you saying that glucose to ATP varies from day to day in its
energy component? Sure sounds like it. Please make yourself clear.

You appear to be supporting TC's assertions that consuming 3000
calories of fat and expending 2000 calories can result in fat storage
loss. Now I ask for ANY metabolic lab study (where everything is
measured) to show that this has ever happened. He can't supply any,
and neither apparently can you, but yet you are arguing about glucose
to ATP having varying efficiencies of some unyet defined type.


Moosh