Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

Moosh! wrote:
Not my definition.

Yeah, it's *your* definition. You know what everyone means
when they talk about eating food. When you swallow it, it's
in the body.


But we are a scientific group,

No, we are the dieting group alt.support.diet.low-carb. You
must pay attention to who you are addressing.

and the GI tract is not regarded as internal.

So you're saying that internal medicine doesn't deal with
diseases of the GI tract. And you say I'm the one grasping
at straws?

It must be confusing to you, the difficult concept that the
GI tract contents are actually physiologically external to the body.

It isn't confusing to me. I understand your opinion. It's
wrong.

Nevertheless, your confusion with much else in this area is not
helping your understanding.

Please explain, before you finally disappear, just how stored fat can
be gotten rid of without burning it, as you have claimed.

I'm not disappearing. I have explained how fat can go
through the body without being stored or burned. I don't
know whether it can be stored without later being burned, so
I don't claim that. It depends on whether the body has a
process for removing fat from the blood without burning it.

martin

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:33:23 +0200, "M.W.Smith"
posted:

Moosh! wrote:
Not my definition.

Yeah, it's *your* definition. You know what everyone means
when they talk about eating food. When you swallow it, it's
in the body.


But we are a scientific group,

No, we are the dieting group alt.support.diet.low-carb. You
must pay attention to who you are addressing.

Same for you, Dopey, you are addressing sci.med.nutrition.

and the GI tract is not regarded as internal.

So you're saying that internal medicine doesn't deal with
diseases of the GI tract. And you say I'm the one grasping
at straws?

No, get it straight. The contents of the GI tract are "external" to
the body. Every doctor will tell you that.
You really are desperate to confirm your ignorance with this silly
tenuous connection.

It must be confusing to you, the difficult concept that the
GI tract contents are actually physiologically external to the body.

It isn't confusing to me. I understand your opinion. It's
wrong.

Except with every physiologist, biologist, medical practitioner in the
world, but don't let that sway your insular little opinion.

Nevertheless, your confusion with much else in this area is not
helping your understanding.

Please explain, before you finally disappear, just how stored fat can
be gotten rid of without burning it, as you have claimed.

I'm not disappearing.

Good, you're fun

I have explained how fat can go
through the body without being stored or burned.

Yeeess. Now for the difficult bit. How the fat in fat stores gets lost
without burning it, as you claim. Remember, I said that fat that gets
into the bloodstream must be either burned for energy or stored. You
disagreed insisting that it can be excreted somehow. When pressed
several times, you thought insulin was involved.

I don't
know whether it can be stored without later being burned, so
I don't claim that.

No, you claimed that it can be gotten rid of without burning. Please
explain. You used this to claim that energy was not conserved here,
remember? Or would you like me to refresh your memory?

It depends on whether the body has a
process for removing fat from the blood without burning it.

Well you're the one who is claiming just that, Sunshine.

Now you admit that you don't know? I wonder why you were so certain of
it. Perhaps you cocked up the Thermo Laws as well?

Are you withdrawing this silly asssertion?

Moosh! wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:35:48 +0200, "M.W.Smith"
posted:


Moosh! wrote:

Well I suppose it isn't, if it is conserved
It is ALWAYS conserved. Never shown to vary from this.

Actually it has been shown in theory, but only at the
quantum level.


Irrelevant to nutrition science.
You appear to be grasping at straws.

Me? Are you being ironic? You are the one who is grasping at
the laws of thermodynamics inappropriately. It is trivally
true that the law of conservation of energy applies to
systems inside the human body. It is irrelevant to the issue
we are discussing, which is the question of what the the
Harvard study means re the operation of the Atkins diet.
Conservation of energy is irrelevant, because, as you say,
it is true for all closed systems.

Your claim is that
calories in must be less than calories burned to lose
weight. This is not an application of the law of
conservation of energy.


Well it follows from it. If all calories must be accounted for, and
calories "IN" can only be burned for energy or stored, to actually
burn any storage, you must take in less that you burn.

Yes, the closed system you are defining is not the human
body.


Doesn't matter. Energy is always conserved! EVERYWHERE!

Oh frabjous day!

That is what the results of the study of the Atkins
diet show.


What results? For that matter, what study?

Didn't you read the study on which this thread is based, the
study referred to in the subject line of this thread? I
understand now why you could be so stridently wrong.

The assumption that all calories must be
accounted for as either stored fat or burned energy is wrong.


Well if you want to dismiss the laws of thermodynamics.
All calories into the human body (bloodstream) BTW.

Yes, you are now changing the terms of the discussion. The
discussion is not about calories in the bloodstream. The
discussion is about the Atkins diet and possible
explanations for how and why it works so well. The
bloodstream is only one part of the system known as the
human being.

What do you propose happens to these mysterious calories that don't
need to be counted? They truly can't just disappear, it's not allowed!

I've explained what might happene to them. I've explained it
several times now, and every time I have explained it, you
have ignored the explanation and returned to your irrelevant
first law of thermodynamics. When I say the law doesn't
apply to this discussion, I mean it is irrelevant. I don't
mean it is violated. Did you really think I meant the Atkins
diet violates the laws of thermodynamics?

Do you understand that since no known chemical process can
violate the laws of thermodynamics, they can't be relevant
to the discussion? We begin by assuming them. Then they are
no longer important.

If they are not absorbed into the body, they are not part of the
discussion.

Only in your alleged mind. For the purposes of this group,
if food is eaten, it is in the body, and in the system.


Well if you want to deny physiology in the group you have sprung from.
For me, physiology is rather important to understanding nutrition.

Eating food is part of the physiology of the system. You are
the only one denying that here.


Where have I ever denied the physiology of eating food?
You appear to be becoming delusional.


If they are absorbed INTO the body, they will be stored or
burned. Unless you can suggest something else.

I already have suggested something else. They are neither
stored nor burned. Transferring fat from the blood to the
surrounding tissues requires some chemical agent(s).


Can you tell me what these "chemical agent(s)" might be?

They might include insulin.


Really? So insulin can eject fat from the bloodstream into the GI
tract? Amazing. Have you found any confirmation of this amazing
discovery? Do you know of any others?

Stop being a ****wit. We are not talking about transferring
fat from the blood to the GI tract. You are the only person
who has raised that strawman. Insulin is an agent that
facillitates the transfer of fat from the blood into storage
in the body. When the level of insulin is stabilized low, as
it is with the Atkins diet, then, possibly, the blood
level of fats reaches its maximum, because the process of
transferring fat from the blood into storage is slowed due
to stabilized low insulin. That causes a backup in the
system, which must cause the blood to stop absorbing fat
from the GI tract. That actually is an application of the
second law of thermodynamics. When the level of fat in the
blood reaches its maximum, the blood *must* stop absorbing
fat from the GI tract, or else it will violate the second
law of thermodynamics. Do you understand that at least? If
the blood must stop, or even just slow down, absorbing fat
from the GI tract, then the fat will have more time to be
eliminated through the bunghole.

I propose that this explanation is *part* of the reason that
the Atkins diet works.

If that
agent isn't there in sufficient quantities, the storage
cannot take place.


When you tell me what this agent might be, I will then ask, what
actually happens to this non-burned, non-stored fat.

It gets flushed down the toilet.


Yes, I understand now, the insulin rejects it from the bloodstream.
I'd just never heard of this before. Silly me.

Insulin facillitates storage of fat, yes? If not, then high
blood sugar? Use your imagination. What is the agent that
determines whether and how much fat is transferred from the
blood into storage? Surely you aren't thinking the fat just
decides on its own to be stored.

When it cannot take place, if the fat
level in the blood is at its normal level, the GI tract must
stop putting more fat into the blood. Then where does the
fat in the GI tract go? Down the toilet.


Now you are changing the story. How does this fat in the body
(bloodstream) get back into the GI tract which, believe me is NOT in
the body. Have you any evidence for this hypothesis of yours?
I want to know how blood fats get back into the GI tract.

At no time did I say or imply that fat returns to the GI
tract from the blood.


Quote:

"Fat going into the bloodstream and coming back out again is not a
chemical reaction." In the context of your claiming that the fat is
neither stored nor burned.

Sorry. All I meant by that was the part you cut, which
stated that mixing two chemicals is not a chemical reaction
that burns energy according to the law of conservation of
energy. Sometimes chemicals can be mixed together and then
separated again. That is what happenes with fat and blood.

And this classic from you:

"Just because a gram of fat enters the bloodstream doesn't mean the
only ways out are for it to be stored as fat or burned as energy. And
just because a gram of fat is stored as fat doesn't mean it must
re-enter the bloodstream and be burned as energy to get rid of it."

You answered my questions about what else could happen to this fat in
the bloodstream by suggesting it went down the toilet.

No, I addressed the issue. The issue is implied by the
subject line of the thread. How and why does the Atkins diet
work? Try to understand what issue we are talking about
before you start introducing new problems. I'm sorry I
didn't explain my argument clearly.

And then this lulu trying to come to grips with "conservation of
energy":

"That's the law we are talking about. The human body is not a
closed system. Some energy goes right through it without
being stored or burned. Some energy goes in, gets stored,
but then is later discarded without being burned. You are
only talking about the energy that gets stored and later burned."

I asked how this blood fat got discarded, you suggested "chemical
agents" and when I asked what these "chemical agents" might be, you
coyly suggested insulin -- Snaaaarf!

Do you understand the process I described, and do you
understand how, if it is correct, it explains the findings
of the Harvard study you haven't read and didn't even know
about? I don't know if fat can be discarded without beiong
burned, once it has been stored. I think it probably can,
for the same kind of reason I explained how the body can
avoid storing it as fat in the first place. If the body
needs energy, fat will be made available. When the fat is
made available, if the chemical agents(s) that is required
at the point of use to convert it to energy that can be
burned is not available in sufficient quantity, then I
assume some of the fat will not be converted to burnable
energy and will be discarded. No, I don't know what those
enzymes might be. Use your immagination.

I said that if the blood is saturated
with the level of fat it can carry, then the transfer of fat

from the GI tract into the blood must stop.

That was your rapid change of story.
And what actually stops this absorption?
I've not heard of this phenomenon. Please explain.

**** off. I explained it. You ignored the explanation.
We're done now. Wait. You take the last word, then **** off.

martin

"M.W.Smith" wrote in message
news:bnb1fq$hqb$1@

I've explained it
several times now, and every time I have explained it, you
have ignored the explanation

Martin, you are dealing with a complete arsehole who is pretty much ignored
by everyone on sci.med.nutrition. Believe me when I say that your highly
interesting posts have been through this topic in enough detail to assist
the general reader and the newbie, and that there will be no shame in your
now just ceasing to respond to the idiot's loony droolings. I don't doubt
for a second that you have better things to do!

Thanks for going through all this stuff.

Russ.

"Moosh!" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:39:46 GMT, "bob"
posted:


"Moosh!" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:54:06 GMT, "bob"
posted:

I think that all the harvard study shows is that they really do not
understand things very well.

I suspect they understand things VERY well.

you are being a little conspiratorial here. i work all day with
scientists,
and while they can be over focused to the point of obliviousness, and
prejuidiced to convention to the point of obtuseness, they are seldom
dishonest.

I didn't for one moment mean to suggest that they were dishonest.
I was suggesting that a scientific "team" from Harvard understands the
implications of their work thoroughly. Any misunderstanding is in the
minds of followers of their work. The suggestion that the Harvard
researchers were somehow naive was what I objected to.

well, like a lot of researchers and reporters convering the story, they did
not seem to understand atkins that well, in that they felt that the atkins
diet they served was not typical (fish and salads and other veggies) my
experience, and the experience of many atkins dieters i have met online and
in reality is that this is the normal atkins diet, most people quickly
migrate away from bacon and steak.


when i say not digested, i mean they pass through as feces.

OK, cross purposes. These are not take "INTO" the body.

semantic/definitional differences. I always find this definition of "into"
funny and useful when cheating on a diet.


a simple
calorimeter on excretions (do people excrete any caloric value in sweat?)

A tiny amount. And in skin oils and urine and semen and snot, as I've
mentioned before, but these are insignificant in the energy balance
and are generally ignored for simplicity.

would answer this question. has this ever been done?

I've asked several times here, but from memory, no-one has confirmed
that this was done, much. Someone suggested that very little is
excreted here. As the calorie value of nuts put in the mouth depends a
lot on how well they are chewed, I would guess that the calorific
value of feces is a lot higher than folks assume.

I agree, and the fact that no one can cite such BASIC scientific study
demonstrates my point that the science on nutrition is not well developed.

or that it takes an more calories to digest (a
net effect).

Can you describe this?


the digestive process consumes calories, and that there is clearly a
difference in how many calories are burned concsuming say 100 calories
from
sugar water and 100 calories consumed from steak. whether this difference
is
enough to account for the observed effect in the harvard study is yet to
be
measured. this kind of basic lack of knowledge is why i say that the
science
is immature

Scientists understand this very well in my experience.
I'm curious about your idea that there is some difference between 100
grams of steak protein, and 100 grams of sugar.


I am not sure why you don't seem to get what I am talking about. When you
put 100 grams of sugar in your stomach, the body has little or no work to do
to absorb the caloric value into the body. When you put an equivalent
caloric value of steak in your stomach, the body has to work much harder.
blood is diverted, enzymes are created. All this takes energy, so the NET
calories from equivalent caloric intake (and by intake i mean eating) is
different. How different is what i don't know, and whether it can account
for the harvard study with 300 more calories a day i don't know and
personally doubt.

Endocrinology appears to be used as a scapegoat.

"Oh, it's his glands that he's so fat"
Pig's ass! Its coz he scoffs mega calories infront of theTV day in and
day out!

Look, hormones don't make you fat. They can make you feel hungry, but
then you should see your doc, or lose weight and get your hormones
back into normal range. The ONLY thing that makes you fat is
absorbing more calories than you expend. End of story.

i was not referring to hormonal obesity, but as you alluded to, the
endocrinology of hunger craving. And while from a strict engineering pov,
you are correct, it is calories absorbed vs calories expended, it is not the
end of story. We in the medical field made the mistake many years ago of
ignoring human behavior in many of our models and many people suffered for
our less than human practices. Perception of pain, prescription adherence
all resulted in deaths that could have been avoided if the models
incorporated an acknowledgement of the human factor.

My belief is that Atkins works for one reason: it reduces hunger and enables
people to eat less. While the harvard study raises interesting metabolic
possibilities, I believe that when the study is repeated or examined more
closely, they will discover that the low fat group was cheating at home. It
would be much more interesting if it wasn't true, but the more boring
explanation is usually true....

The reasons for
this energy imbalance (why one chooses to eat too much or do too
little) is irrelevant to the chemistry.

reminds me of a something I heard a surgeon say once: "The operation was a
success as the autopsy will show"

Bob

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 13:12:59 +0200, "M.W.Smith"
posted:

Moosh! wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:35:48 +0200, "M.W.Smith"
posted:


Moosh! wrote:

Well I suppose it isn't, if it is conserved
It is ALWAYS conserved. Never shown to vary from this.

Actually it has been shown in theory, but only at the
quantum level.


Irrelevant to nutrition science.
You appear to be grasping at straws.

Me? Are you being ironic? You are the one who is grasping at
the laws of thermodynamics inappropriately.

I suppose I am. Silly me, thinking that all energy was conserved
everywhere.

It is trivally
true that the law of conservation of energy applies to
systems inside the human body.

So why are you arguing that they don't?

It is irrelevant to the issue
we are discussing, which is the question of what the the
Harvard study means re the operation of the Atkins diet.

That all calories need accounting for? You claimed that the
conservation of energy principle didn't apply to the human body.
You claimed that energy in the human body (bloodstream) could be
gotten rid of other than burning it. Do you now admit that you don't
know anything about this?

BTW, the Harvard study as reported in the OP, tells us nothing about
much at all.

My original involvement in this thread was the statement :

"Calories available for storage (not burned as energy or heat)
determine how much fat the body stores."

You disagreed with this, I believe.

Conservation of energy is irrelevant, because, as you say,
it is true for all closed systems.

It is true everywhere. When are you going to realise this universal
fact?

Your claim is that
calories in must be less than calories burned to lose
weight. This is not an application of the law of
conservation of energy.


Well it follows from it. If all calories must be accounted for, and
calories "IN" can only be burned for energy or stored, to actually
burn any storage, you must take in less that you burn.

Yes, the closed system you are defining is not the human
body.


Doesn't matter. Energy is always conserved! EVERYWHERE!

Oh frabjous day!

Good response. Have you finally realised your silly comments that it
applies some places but not others?

That is what the results of the study of the Atkins
diet show.


What results? For that matter, what study?

Didn't you read the study on which this thread is based, the
study referred to in the subject line of this thread? I
understand now why you could be so stridently wrong.

That wasn't a study, was it? I understood it was a newspaper story
that couldn't even add up. But if that passes for a study for you,
then no wonder you are ignorant of thermodynamics and physiology

The assumption that all calories must be
accounted for as either stored fat or burned energy is wrong.


Well if you want to dismiss the laws of thermodynamics.
All calories into the human body (bloodstream) BTW.

Yes, you are now changing the terms of the discussion. The
discussion is not about calories in the bloodstream.

Oh yes it was. But maybe you were distracted by trying to argue for
the silly proposition that the contents of the GI tract are internal
to the human body.

The
discussion is about the Atkins diet and possible
explanations for how and why it works so well.

As it does no better than any other fad diet, I don't see the point,
but we were discussing whether the conservation of energy principle
had areas where it didn't apply, and how fat stores could be gotten
rid of in other ways from burning in the body, for energy needs.

The
bloodstream is only one part of the system known as the
human being.

Well it is pretty much all of the internal part.

What do you propose happens to these mysterious calories that don't
need to be counted? They truly can't just disappear, it's not allowed!

I've explained what might happene to them.

And silly me thouight you were sure of your position

I've explained it
several times now, and every time I have explained it, you
have ignored the explanation and returned to your irrelevant
first law of thermodynamics.

Um, where have you explained your claim that fat stores can be gotten
rid of by other means than burning for energy.
Have you come around to agreeing now that conservation of energy
applies EVERYWHERE?

When I say the law doesn't
apply to this discussion, I mean it is irrelevant.

How can it be irrelevant to a discussion of energy utilisation by the
body. I would have thought it would be central. Silly me.

I don't
mean it is violated. Did you really think I meant the Atkins
diet violates the laws of thermodynamics?

It certainly seemed like it, but your story is all over the place.
Which bit do you want me to take note of?

Do you understand that since no known chemical process can
violate the laws of thermodynamics, they can't be relevant
to the discussion? We begin by assuming them. Then they are
no longer important.

But then you immedistely propose a situation where they are breached;
namely that the human body can make fat stores disappear by other
means than metabolising for energy. I suggest you keep these laws
firmly in mind in case you make more silly mistakes

If they are not absorbed into the body, they are not part of the
discussion.

Only in your alleged mind. For the purposes of this group,
if food is eaten, it is in the body, and in the system.


Well if you want to deny physiology in the group you have sprung from.
For me, physiology is rather important to understanding nutrition.

Eating food is part of the physiology of the system. You are
the only one denying that here.


Where have I ever denied the physiology of eating food?
You appear to be becoming delusional.


If they are absorbed INTO the body, they will be stored or
burned. Unless you can suggest something else.

I already have suggested something else. They are neither
stored nor burned. Transferring fat from the blood to the
surrounding tissues requires some chemical agent(s).


Can you tell me what these "chemical agent(s)" might be?

They might include insulin.


Really? So insulin can eject fat from the bloodstream into the GI
tract? Amazing. Have you found any confirmation of this amazing
discovery? Do you know of any others?

Stop being a ****wit. We are not talking about transferring
fat from the blood to the GI tract.

Yes you were. Do you want me to quote you again?

You are the only person
who has raised that strawman.

OK. Quote from RWL to you:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is what you said:

And if the body doesn't need its insulin level is low, it
might not store the fat either.

Someone else said: [me actually]

Sorry, not too sure about this sentence
If there are fats/fatty acids floating around the bloodstream, surplus
to the requirements, they will be stored, unless you have some other
suggestion.

To which you replied:

They come back out of the bloodstream and are discarded.

This, to me, implies that you think fat returns to the GI tract from
the bloodstream, otherwise, how else would they 'come back out of the
bloodstream' and be 'discarded'?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Insulin is an agent that
facillitates the transfer of fat from the blood into storage
in the body. When the level of insulin is stabilized low, as
it is with the Atkins diet, then, possibly, the blood
level of fats reaches its maximum, because the process of
transferring fat from the blood into storage is slowed due
to stabilized low insulin.

This shows a poor grasp of biochemistry.
Excess calories will be stored.
A shortfall will result in burning those stores.

That causes a backup in the
system, which must cause the blood to stop absorbing fat
from the GI tract.

Can you demonstrate that this happens? What level of fat must you eat
for it to be not absorbed into the gut?

That actually is an application of the
second law of thermodynamics.

Can you explain this? Coz I understood that the second law was to do
with the inexorable increase in entropy of any system, but I could be
wrong

When the level of fat in the
blood reaches its maximum, the blood *must* stop absorbing
fat from the GI tract, or else it will violate the second
law of thermodynamics.

How interesting. Again, I wonder what levels of fat consumption is
needed for this claimed backlog.

Do you understand that at least?

Nope, sorry. Could you explain it more fully?
None of your stories seem very plausible

If
the blood must stop, or even just slow down, absorbing fat
from the GI tract, then the fat will have more time to be
eliminated through the bunghole.

Yes, interesting theory. Can you point us to any corroboration?

I propose that this explanation is *part* of the reason that
the Atkins diet works.

And the rest? Have you any numbers on the magnitude of this *part*?

If that
agent isn't there in sufficient quantities, the storage
cannot take place.


When you tell me what this agent might be, I will then ask, what
actually happens to this non-burned, non-stored fat.

It gets flushed down the toilet.


Yes, I understand now, the insulin rejects it from the bloodstream.
I'd just never heard of this before. Silly me.

Insulin facillitates storage of fat, yes? If not, then high
blood sugar? Use your imagination. What is the agent that
determines whether and how much fat is transferred from the
blood into storage? Surely you aren't thinking the fat just
decides on its own to be stored.

Well sort of, the amount in the bloodstream primarily determines how
much is stored, afterall, I'm the silly bugger who thinks that there
are only two things that can happen to fat in the bloodstream, and
that is storage or burning if there are bodily energy needs for this.

When it cannot take place, if the fat
level in the blood is at its normal level, the GI tract must
stop putting more fat into the blood. Then where does the
fat in the GI tract go? Down the toilet.


Now you are changing the story. How does this fat in the body
(bloodstream) get back into the GI tract which, believe me is NOT in
the body. Have you any evidence for this hypothesis of yours?
I want to know how blood fats get back into the GI tract.

At no time did I say or imply that fat returns to the GI
tract from the blood.


Quote:

"Fat going into the bloodstream and coming back out again is not a
chemical reaction." In the context of your claiming that the fat is
neither stored nor burned.

Sorry. All I meant by that was the part you cut, which
stated that mixing two chemicals is not a chemical reaction
that burns energy according to the law of conservation of
energy.

WTF are you talking about? Conservation of energy applies EVERYWHERE.

Sometimes chemicals can be mixed together and then
separated again. That is what happenes with fat and blood.

So how does this assertion of yours, that there is some other way to
rid the body of fat stores other than burning, come into the picture?

And this classic from you:

"Just because a gram of fat enters the bloodstream doesn't mean the
only ways out are for it to be stored as fat or burned as energy. And
just because a gram of fat is stored as fat doesn't mean it must
re-enter the bloodstream and be burned as energy to get rid of it."

You answered my questions about what else could happen to this fat in
the bloodstream by suggesting it went down the toilet.

No, I addressed the issue. The issue is implied by the
subject line of the thread. How and why does the Atkins diet
work? Try to understand what issue we are talking about
before you start introducing new problems. I'm sorry I
didn't explain my argument clearly.

Hang about. Please explain your:"Just because a gram of fat enters the
bloodstream doesn't mean the only ways out are for it to be stored as
fat or burned as energy."
You then went on to repeat this for clarification, so it can't be a
typo or just poor expression on your part. It looks pretty clear to
me. Either explain it, or admit that it is dead wrong.
It is central to how you think the Atkins diet works.

And then this lulu trying to come to grips with "conservation of
energy":

"That's the law we are talking about. The human body is not a
closed system. Some energy goes right through it without
being stored or burned. Some energy goes in, gets stored,
but then is later discarded without being burned. You are
only talking about the energy that gets stored and later burned."

I asked how this blood fat got discarded, you suggested "chemical
agents" and when I asked what these "chemical agents" might be, you
coyly suggested insulin -- Snaaaarf!

Do you understand the process I described, and do you
understand how, if it is correct, it explains the findings
of the Harvard study you haven't read and didn't even know
about?

I know the pathetic newspaper story, the one where they couldn't add
up, the one you thought was a proper study, yes.

You are claiming that the Atkins diet works somehow because the
conservation of energy doesn't apply to some things at some times
which seem to vary And that fat stores can be gotten rid of by
other means than being metabolised by the body for energy needs.

I don't know if fat can be discarded without beiong
burned, once it has been stored.

But you said it could -- several times.

I think it probably can,
for the same kind of reason I explained how the body can
avoid storing it as fat in the first place.

The first one breaches the laws of thermodynamics, and the second one
has no evidence for it.

If the body
needs energy, fat will be made available.

Sorry? Only if there is little glucose available (insulin assumed to
be available).

When the fat is
made available, if the chemical agents(s) that is required
at the point of use to convert it to energy that can be
burned is not available in sufficient quantity, then I
assume some of the fat will not be converted to burnable
energy and will be discarded.

No, whatever energy that is required by the body will be extracted
from carb, fat or protein as they are available.

How will this fat be discarded? You keep repeating what you
occasionally admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

No, I don't know what those
enzymes might be. Use your immagination.

Sorry, what enzymes? What enzymes are in short supply to obtain energy
from body stores?

I said that if the blood is saturated
with the level of fat it can carry, then the transfer of fat

from the GI tract into the blood must stop.

That was your rapid change of story.
And what actually stops this absorption?
I've not heard of this phenomenon. Please explain.

**** off. I explained it. You ignored the explanation.

Maybe coz I didn't see it. I suspect you didn't even post it

We're done now.

Well you certainly are, like a dinner, but too bloody gutless to admit
your stupid errors and retract them, Oh well, it was fun while it
lasted

Wait. You take the last word, then **** off.

Ohh, and I thought you weren't leaving. Too hot in the kitchen Duckie?

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:03:48 +1000, "RLW"
posted:

I have told you more than once now, so you can take "****
off" any way you want. Just do it.

Why are you so hostile?

In my experience, this happens when smartasses make a total fool of
themselves and want to forget the thread, but haven't the self-control
to bow out gracefully.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:40:06 +0100, "Russell.Beale"
posted:

"M.W.Smith" wrote in message
news:bnb1fq$hqb$1@

I've explained it
several times now, and every time I have explained it, you
have ignored the explanation

Martin, you are dealing with a complete arsehole who is pretty much ignored
by everyone on sci.med.nutrition. Believe me when I say that your highly
interesting posts have been through this topic in enough detail to assist
the general reader and the newbie, and that there will be no shame in your
now just ceasing to respond to the idiot's loony droolings. I don't doubt
for a second that you have better things to do!

Thanks for going through all this stuff.

Remind me not to visit your group if that's the pathetic standard.

You agree with this Smith idiot about his variable notion of the laws
of thermo, and physiology? Good oh. I wouldn't spout them on
sci.med.nutrition if I were you

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:40:06 +0100, "Russell.Beale"
posted:

"M.W.Smith" wrote in message
news:bnb1fq$hqb$1@

I've explained it
several times now, and every time I have explained it, you
have ignored the explanation

Martin, you are dealing with a complete arsehole who is pretty much ignored
by everyone on sci.med.nutrition. Believe me when I say that your highly
interesting posts have been through this topic in enough detail to assist
the general reader and the newbie, and that there will be no shame in your
now just ceasing to respond to the idiot's loony droolings. I don't doubt
for a second that you have better things to do!

Thanks for going through all this stuff.

Just a thought, are you his sock puppet getting him out of an
embarrassing fix, or are you expecting a favour for this rescue
mission? Snaaaaarf!

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:08:43 GMT, "bob"
posted:


"Moosh!" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:39:46 GMT, "bob"
posted:


"Moosh!" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:54:06 GMT, "bob"
posted:

I think that all the harvard study shows is that they really do not
understand things very well.

I suspect they understand things VERY well.

you are being a little conspiratorial here. i work all day with
scientists,
and while they can be over focused to the point of obliviousness, and
prejuidiced to convention to the point of obtuseness, they are seldom
dishonest.

I didn't for one moment mean to suggest that they were dishonest.
I was suggesting that a scientific "team" from Harvard understands the
implications of their work thoroughly. Any misunderstanding is in the
minds of followers of their work. The suggestion that the Harvard
researchers were somehow naive was what I objected to.

well, like a lot of researchers and reporters convering the story, they did
not seem to understand atkins that well, in that they felt that the atkins
diet they served was not typical (fish and salads and other veggies) my
experience, and the experience of many atkins dieters i have met online and
in reality is that this is the normal atkins diet, most people quickly
migrate away from bacon and steak.

The Alkins diet seems rather peripheral to me. I'm more interested in
the pure fat/protein/carb effect on the human metabolism.

when i say not digested, i mean they pass through as feces.

OK, cross purposes. These are not take "INTO" the body.

semantic/definitional differences. I always find this definition of "into"
funny and useful when cheating on a diet.

Although unless you practice the finger-down-the-throat trick, you
have little control over what the gut takes from what you push down
the throat

a simple
calorimeter on excretions (do people excrete any caloric value in sweat?)

A tiny amount. And in skin oils and urine and semen and snot, as I've
mentioned before, but these are insignificant in the energy balance
and are generally ignored for simplicity.

would answer this question. has this ever been done?

I've asked several times here, but from memory, no-one has confirmed
that this was done, much. Someone suggested that very little is
excreted here. As the calorie value of nuts put in the mouth depends a
lot on how well they are chewed, I would guess that the calorific
value of feces is a lot higher than folks assume.

I agree, and the fact that no one can cite such BASIC scientific study
demonstrates my point that the science on nutrition is not well developed.

Because half a dozen posters haven't posted info on fecal energy
content doesn't mean it isn't out there. I haven't bothered to look
yet. I may do one day when I have half an hour to kill.
Trying to outshuffle someone else

or that it takes an more calories to digest (a
net effect).

Can you describe this?


the digestive process consumes calories, and that there is clearly a
difference in how many calories are burned concsuming say 100 calories
from
sugar water and 100 calories consumed from steak. whether this difference
is
enough to account for the observed effect in the harvard study is yet to
be
measured. this kind of basic lack of knowledge is why i say that the
science
is immature

Scientists understand this very well in my experience.
I'm curious about your idea that there is some difference between 100
grams of steak protein, and 100 grams of sugar.


I am not sure why you don't seem to get what I am talking about. When you
put 100 grams of sugar in your stomach, the body has little or no work to do
to absorb the caloric value into the body. When you put an equivalent
caloric value of steak in your stomach, the body has to work much harder.

And what do you think the outcome of this work is? Heat! And I've
explained that this just "spares" some other form of heat production
needed to keep the body at 37C.

blood is diverted, enzymes are created. All this takes energy,

Yes, but think where that energy goes.

so the NET
calories from equivalent caloric intake (and by intake i mean eating) is
different.

Please account for the calories. Remember they can't just disappear.

How different is what i don't know, and whether it can account
for the harvard study with 300 more calories a day i don't know and
personally doubt.

My money is on some of the fat not being absorbed. Eventually, on a
high fat diet, you will absorb more fat, but that's another story.

Endocrinology appears to be used as a scapegoat.

"Oh, it's his glands that he's so fat"
Pig's ass! Its coz he scoffs mega calories infront of theTV day in and
day out!

Look, hormones don't make you fat. They can make you feel hungry, but
then you should see your doc, or lose weight and get your hormones
back into normal range. The ONLY thing that makes you fat is
absorbing more calories than you expend. End of story.

i was not referring to hormonal obesity, but as you alluded to, the
endocrinology of hunger craving. And while from a strict engineering pov,
you are correct, it is calories absorbed vs calories expended, it is not the
end of story.

I never actually said it was. But it is very much the basis of all
weight management, and anyone who tries to kid themselves that it does
not apply to weight management will surely fail.

We in the medical field made the mistake many years ago of
ignoring human behavior in many of our models and many people suffered for
our less than human practices.

Quite likely. I'm discussing nutritional biochemistry. I sometimes
discuss strategies for achieving weight control, on a personal amateur
level, but that's not what I'm interested in here.
I'm trying to correct thermodynamic errors and misconceptions.

Perception of pain, prescription adherence
all resulted in deaths that could have been avoided if the models
incorporated an acknowledgement of the human factor.

More than likely true.

My belief is that Atkins works for one reason: it reduces hunger and enables
people to eat less.

Only for some people, apparently. That's the major problem as I see
it, the folks for whom it works try to thrust it down the thoats of
all others.

While the harvard study raises interesting metabolic
possibilities, I believe that when the study is repeated or examined more
closely, they will discover that the low fat group was cheating at home. It
would be much more interesting if it wasn't true, but the more boring
explanation is usually true....

It could be anything. The high fat group could be passing some fat
straight through until their systems accommodate to catch all the fat
consumed. They could be losing other than actual fat stores. The study
is quite poor if we go on the newspaper story

The reasons for
this energy imbalance (why one chooses to eat too much or do too
little) is irrelevant to the chemistry.

reminds me of a something I heard a surgeon say once: "The operation was a
success as the autopsy will show"

Well as we haven't got a patient, just a discussion of chemnistry, I
don't see the relevance of this that you apparenlty do