A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Calorie
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Uncovering the Atkins diet secret



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #82  
Old January 28th, 2004, 09:41 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh

On 26 Jan 2004 07:08:59 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
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 Such a ground breaking and historical document must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


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.

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?

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
  #83  
Old January 28th, 2004, 09:42 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What a bunch of clowns ( Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh)

On 26 Jan 2004 07:21:46 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message
Diets which involve higher insulin output
will involve more fat storage than those that do not.


Surely it depends on how many calories are absorbed and how many are
needed. If you eat 2000 calories of glucose, and expend 3000 calories
running a marathon, you won't store any fat.
Doesn't matter what your insulin level is.

In addition,
insulin resistance differentiates individuals in terms of fat storage
rate.


Fat storage occurs when there are excess calories about.
Without these, no fat storage occurs.
To get fat, you have to eat too much. End of story.
Unless you want to get into why folks eat too much. I don't.


Here is an interesting question for you.

What is the precise mechanism that allows the body to know that there
is an overabundance of calories and to start storing it as fat? What
mechanism is there for the individual cells to register that it has
its maximum intake of calories? Are all nutrients broken down to their
basic energy values at all times in every circumstance? How does the
body gauge that it has consumed more energy than needed and how does
it then know to store the excess?

Conversely, when intake of calories is less than needed, how exactly
does the individual cells make it known to the system in general that
it is deficient of energy and that fat needs to be broken down into
calories for the cell to use?

There must be a feedback mechanism between the individual non-fat
cells and the fat cells for energy to be stored as fat or used as
energy. What is this mysterious mechanism that knows whether to store
fat or break down fat based on the number of calories consumed?


You need to get a basic human physiology and biochemistry text from
your library and start from the beginning. You really don't have a
clue, and this forum is not the place to give you one, apparently.
I couldn't be bothered trying again. No-one else can either,
apparently.


Moosh
  #84  
Old January 28th, 2004, 09:49 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:23:21 GMT, posted:

writes:
"Moosh" writes:

You aren't counting waste energy.

What waste energy is this that I don't know about? How does it
manifest itself?


It manifests itself as energy present in glucose minus energy present
in ATP resulting from glycolysis. You've been asked many times now to
do this calculation yourself, since you have already boasted that you
are able to do so. Do it now.


Moosh obviously isn't going to, so I've decided to offer a little
pointer in the right direction. See http://tinyurl.com/2o38j.
Highlight:

Burning glucose (literally) releases 686 KCal/mole. Hydrolysis of ATP
produces ADP as a by-product and releases 7.3 KCal/mole. Glycolysis,
conversion of glucose to ATP, produces 2 moles ATP per mole of glucose.
The energy efficiency of glycolysis is therefore (7.3*2)/686, or
approximately 2%.

From this one concludes that 1000 calories of glucose in the blood
stream makes about 20 calories of energy available to the cells when
the glucose is metabolized by glycolysis (i.e., anaerobically). The
aerobic process, on the other hand, has a theoretical efficiency of
about 38%.

In practice, intracellular conditions differ from those assumed in the
theoretical calculation (for example, intracellular temperatures are
higher), and the actual efficiencies are about 4% and 68%, respectively.

Therefore 1000 calories of glucose in the bloodstream yield about 40
calories of energy to the body's cells, when glycolysis is used, or
about 680 calories of energy, when the oxidative process is used.

During sufficiently intense physical activity periods, the body starts
out by producing 70% of energy anaerobically (inefficiently) and 30%
aerobically (efficiently); when activity is sufficiently prolonged,
the balance changes to about 2% and 98%. See http://tinyurl.com/2llcw

The upshot: certain types of physical exercise, which induce aerobic
respiration, result in the same physical work being done on THREE
TIMES FEWER calories--assuming that ALL energy is derived from
glucose! (To enter this state requires elevated activity, so even with
more efficient cell respiration the total calorie requirement will be
higher than for an inactive person, in this case.)

In short, with NO changes in diet, a calorie is not a calorie--calories
burned depend on the body's state. And Mr. Moosh should note, lest he
still not get it, that I'm not referring to the fact that exercise
burns calories, but to the fact that in certain states of activity the
body burns those same input calories THREE TIMES MORE EFFICIENTLY.

Now, will Mr. Moosh perform a similar calculation for triglycerides?

Regards,
Len.



PS Here's a hint:

The limiting factor for lipolysis is the presence of oxygen. When
oxygen is present in unlimited quantities, lipolysis is actually about
four times MORE efficient, mole for mole. However, when fat is
abundant(!) and oxygen is limited, lipolysis is actually 5% less
efficient per mole of oxygen consumed. See http://tinyurl.com/25f9p

Other complicating factors include the synthesis of glucose from
protein, which the body will also do to a limited extent during an
aerobic workout.




So the bottom line is that 1000 calories of fatty acids into the
bloodstream compared to 1000 calories of glucose into the bloodstream
are for all practial purposes the same, and as normal humans eat very
roughly a 50:50 mix of these, the crap about minute differences in
energy from this pathway to that is irrelevant.

Calories are calories are calories. Eat more than you use (more
precisely, absorb into the bloodstream more than are burned/excreted
or otherwise removed from the body) and you will gain weight. The
converse also applies. The constituent food types has such a marginal
effect that it can be ignored. So a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.
To paraphrase Lyle "Get off yer fat asses and stop ****ing overeating"

Moosh
  #85  
Old January 28th, 2004, 10:07 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 28th, 2004, 10:16 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

On 27 Jan 2004 08:23:15 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..

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.


What basic law of physics shows this?


The laws of thermodynamics.

The Laws of Thermodynamics do
not make any reference to food-calories and the human body.


And?
The laws are universal, they don't refer to any specific chemical
reaction, they refer to ALL of them, and the human body is just a
large bunch of chemical reactions, ALL of which obey exactly, the laws
of thermodynsmics.

It only
makes reference to energy and systems.


Yes, ALL energy and ALL systems, including animals and plants.

Food calories are not to be
confused with a calorie of pure energy.


Energy is energy is energy. Calorie, Joule are just units of energy.

And the human body does not
operate on the basis of the pure energy values of food.


What is "pure energy value" of food?

It is all
derived energy.


What is "derived energy"?

Sorry, unless you are clear with your terms, no-one will understand
you.

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.


Then give me the name of even one metabolic lab study that clearly
demonstrates this. Put the **** up or shut the **** up.


They ALL do. Pick any review of nutrition or similar in a good med
library and start reading. Get the librarian to do a search for you.

There are NONE that show what you claim, so if you want to claim it,
you are out on a limb.

Why are you avoiding giving us just one study?
Perhaps there are none?


If there is none, then there is none.


Then on what basis are you claiming it. Feel it in your water?

I do not have one to support my
revolutionary ideas, oh well, I'm just an upstart aren't I. No big
disaster there.


Well, if all the evidence shows the opposite to what you claim, and
none supports it, why are you claiming it?

But surely there must be one metabolic lab study that supports what
the entire nutrition establishment has based its science on.


Yes, they all do. Start reading.

Surely
the entire field of nutritional science has something to show for its
rock solid beliefs. Where is it?


The med libraries are full of it. Start reading.

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!


I do not have the evidence.


Then on what basis are you claiming it?

Do you have the evidence to support your
POV?


Yep, thousands of studies and measurements over the decades. They all
support what I say (or more precisely I support what they say).

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


Which one exactly?


ALL of them. Start reading.

Which one clearly states that food calories are a
valid and proven method of weight management in humans and that the
Laws of Thermo are directly applicable to humans and weigh management?


They all do, start reading.

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


But are they applicable directly to weigh management in humans?


They are applicable directly to every chemical reaction ever observed.

A lot
of the evidence suggests that it isn't.


But you can't cite any? (not the joke you posted recently, please)

No metabolic lab studies,


If you don't measure properly, you can't deduce anything. Met labs are
the only way to measure what you need properly.

but
plenty of evidence that restricting calories does not necessarily lead
to weight loss in humans.


But if you don't even know how many calories have gone into the body,
and have even less of a clue what has come out, this evidence is
nonsense. Try "calories into the bloodstream", and "fat storage loss"
instead of the vague meaningless terms you have used here.

Nor that increasing calories consumption
necessarily leads to weight gain in every circumstance.


Well it has wherever it has been properly measured.
Unless you can show that it has ever been measured properly to be
different.

There is
plenty of new studies involving low-carb diets to raise serious
questions about the calorie theory as applied to weight management.


And where are the properly conducted experiments to demonstrate this?

There is no metabolic lab study that dis-proves the calorie theory.


So why do you persist in claiming it is bogus?

The only thing left that will end this argument once and for all is a
metabolic lab study that shows the data and the specific finding that
the laws of thermo apply directly to weight management in humans.


Huh? There are plenty of them Start that remedial reading marathon.
Science works by "disproving" hypotheses. You must disprove the
established laws with evidence which can be replicated. You will then
get the Nobel Prize.

Please show us this document and I will gladly concede the argument to
you.


Huh? See above. YOU must show any variation from the huge mass of
evidence in existence. Please understand how science works. It is
about the only system that weeds out any conflict of interest.


Moosh
  #87  
Old January 28th, 2004, 10:23 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What a bunch of clowns ( Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh)

On 27 Jan 2004 11:46:06 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:

Ron Ritzman wrote in message . ..
On 26 Jan 2004 07:21:46 -0800,
(tcomeau) wrote:

Fat storage occurs when there are excess calories about.
Without these, no fat storage occurs.
To get fat, you have to eat too much. End of story.
Unless you want to get into why folks eat too much. I don't.


Here is an interesting question for you.

What is the precise mechanism that allows the body to know that there
is an overabundance of calories and to start storing it as fat? What
mechanism is there for the individual cells to register that it has
its maximum intake of calories? Are all nutrients broken down to their
basic energy values at all times in every circumstance? How does the
body gauge that it has consumed more energy than needed and how does
it then know to store the excess?


Fat cells are always storing and releasing fat simultaneously. Insulin
makes fat cells release a little less and store a little more,
glucagon and certain other hormones have the opposite effect. When a
cell needs extra energy above and beyond what is provided by glucose,
it uses some of the fat floating around in the bloodstream. The fat
that is released that is not used by cells goes back into the fat
cells. Therefore, if you eat more calories then you burn, the fat
cells store more fat then they release and you gain fat, if you eat
less then you burn, then the fat cells release more fat then they
store and you lose fat.

"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.
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.


Which one is it? Is it the excess fat in the blood stream that
triggers fat storage or is it high insulin levels?


Does it have to be one or the other in your understanding?

And what "other mechanisms"?


I suggest you read up on all the other mechanisms.

Moosh
  #88  
Old January 28th, 2004, 10:25 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 28th, 2004, 04:11 PM
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 28th, 2004, 04:16 PM
tcomeau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.