If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
What a bunch of clowns ( Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh)
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:16:41 +0000, MattLB
posted: "Moosh" wrote: 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. You need to make the distinction between the 'raw' energy in say, a gram of glucose, and what that corresponds to when the glucose is converted to ATP. So as our friend Len says that only 7% of the energy of the glucose is transferred to ATP molecules (well he says converted to), maybe you can characterise the 93% of the energy left with the glucose? Len, just avoids the question by insult and judicious snipping. Energy is lost in the conversion of protein/fat/carb to ATP so the calories in ATP are less than the calories in the glucose(or whatever) it was made from. So where does this huge amount of energy get lost to? If the conversion to ATP differs for each of the macronutrients (which it does) then the net energy gain also differs. While the overall energy balances (taking energy to include matter), the proportion that's stored and that's lost can be influenced by diet. Of course, but not to any degree that matters in day to day life and weight control. The only way to lose weight is to eat less than you use (lose) there is NO magic bullet like mucking about with macronutrient ratios. 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. They all need to be converted to something else first before they can be used for muscular work. Yes, a long chain of reactions, but this is just splitting straws. ATP carries energy, it does not contract muscles of do chemical conversions. Even converting glucose to fat loses calories, To where? I do hope you are not saying these just disappear. If you answer heat, then that is not often waste. and in fact ATP calories are consumed just to make it happen. If you're doing violent physical exercise you can't use fat as a fuel source anyway. But the bottom line is that a hypercaloric diet can NEVER result in fat store loss, and frigging around with macronutrient ratios won't change your fat store status without altering your calorie balance. Moosh |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:26:24 GMT, posted:
jmk writes: wrote: Many of us have changed from gaining to losing, without reducing calories, by changing dietary composition. Are you really so dense that you have to ask the question? And you know for a scientific fact that you were consuming and expending the same number of calories before and after changing your WOL? Don't you think that lifestyle change is a contributing factor as a part of WOE? You're rather misusing terms he anecdotal experience is by nature unscientific. However, within the limits of the accuracy of our carb- and calorie-counters, we know that our caloric intake was not changed, and that our physical activity underwent no special changes. With what accuracy? How did you measure physical activity or the calorie content of your different foods? As for "expending more calories", you raise the same circularity problem that Moosh did: if one starts losing weight, apparently those calories are being "expended" someplace. Still don't get it. YOU are the one seeming to claim disappearing calories. Calories are ALWAYS expended. When this is more than is taken IN, then fat storage is reduced (it is burned). It ain't that difficult, surely. But we do know that it's not in the form of increased physical activity. Therefore, some other expenditure appears to be at work. And you don't know? How dumb is that. Now do you wonder why I insist everything is measured properly in a metabolic chambre? Verifying this is of course one necessary step. Doh! Finally. Addressing why would then be a second step. Why? How strange. Do you ask why the Sun rises each morning? Whether it's the relative efficiency of lipolysis versus glycolysis, or some other metabolic factors, would need to be explored. So where is the evidence that you claim? Moosh |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
What a bunch of clowns ( Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh)
Ron Ritzman wrote:
"Insulin" is not the cause of fat gain, it's the primary mechanism the body uses to store excess fat if there is excess fat to be stored. Read that over a few times again. The first half says insulin is not the primary mechanism the body uses to store excess fat and the second half says insulin is the cause of fat gain if there's enough fat available. If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullsh*t, right? Two halves of a sentence whose meanings boil down to the same thing, with a not thrown into one half. Bzzt. But there is something in there "if there is excess fat to be stored". That's the mechanism by which low fat plans work. It is not the mechanism by which low carb plans work. There are other mechanisms however. Therefore, if you were to consume 8000 calories of oil a day, you would gain weight despite the lack of insulin. Where did this 8000 calorie nonsense appear from all of a sudden? No plan endorses over eating. Even 3000 calories as an example is a red herring argument for the simple reason that not a single plan out there endorses anyone eating 3000 calories unless their body mess justifies it. And how many people are that large? Very few. I doubt that anyone is so large that 4000 calories are justified based on their size. Argument by red herring, logical falacy. The discussion of relative fat intake is within the context of not over eating. Introduce over eating into the discussion to justify a conclusion and your conclusion is not valid. Once insulin levels are low, the body is protected against storing new fat for a simple reason. Even with a very large percentage of the eaten calories coming from fat, the total calories eaten are well below the level it takes to force the fat into storage. Sure, over eat and you can store new fat. So what? Over eating isn't a part of any existing plan. TRy it with reasonable numbers some time. For me with an ideal weight in the 170-175 range a daily caloric intake of 1800 is quite reasonable. Running the number of 50 grams of carb and 100- grams of protein, the amount of fat to get up to 1800 is in the 100-150 range. High fat by the usual definition and hense the type of high fat meant in every statement about low carb. But that 100-140 grams within an 1800 calorie total limit is far below the amount it takes to force new fat into storage. Discussion about 8000 or 6000 calories of fat are irrelevant nonsense. Sure, I could eat an extra 100 grams of fat, bring my daily calories up to the 2700 range, and I would gain new fat. So what? There isn't a sinple plan out there that endorses doing so. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
snip Well show the one piece of that whole body of science that specifically concluded that calories are the only factor in weight management in humans. They all do, take your pick. In other words, you can't produce even one study! If someone were to ask what was the seminal work in nuclear science, the instant response is Einstein, relativity and E=mc2. Ask about rocket science and you get Von Braun. Ask about the planets and you get Copernicus and Galileo. Ask about modern electricity and you get Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla. Ask about gravity and you get Newton. Ask about flight and you get the Wright Brothers. Ask about nutrition and you get ?????????. Nothing. Vague references to a large body of work. Good argument, can you see the flaws in it yet? Gotcha on this one. You cannot give me anything but vague references about a large body of work that doesn't exist. Put your money where your mouth is. Who made and proved this concept? What specific study or set of studies specifically showed that calories could be applied directly in weight management in humans. Put up or shut up. Well it's the only thing that has ever been shown to work. If you disagree, then show one study that demonstrates it NOT working. Hundreds or thousands that show it does, and none that it doesn't See a pattern yet? Moosh Show me one study that shows that it works. Just one of the hundreds or thousands. Just one. The onus is not on me to disprove this, many of us believe that it has been disproved. The ball is in your court to show us what you base your science on. Again, put up or shut up. The way you talk, it sounds as if the calorie theory has been proven by hundreds or thousands of studies. Show me one. TC |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
You want PROOF - Here's Quackery Proof. | marengo | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 173 | April 17th, 2004 11:26 PM |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 135 | February 14th, 2004 05:56 PM |
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 23 | December 14th, 2003 12:39 PM |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works | Jim Marnott | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 108 | December 12th, 2003 04:12 AM |
Was Atkins Right After All? | Ken Kubos | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | November 23rd, 2003 12:01 AM |