Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:07:14 -0500, marengo posted:


"Moosh!" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:24:01 +0200, "M.W.Smith"
posted:

Moosh! wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:51:48 +0200, "M.W.Smith"
posted:


Spot on, Ray.

Some folk find low carbing helps their appetite control, some that low
fat and some that other strategies help. Whatever floats your boat,
but you are spot on when you say that "less calories" are always
required to lose weight.

...less calories stored as fat, not necessarily less
calories injested.


Umm, less calories "IN" is required to lose stored fat.

We've been over this many times before. You are assuming the
body is 100% efficient, but it isn't. Some calories are
injested but neither stored nor burned.

So what happens to them?

Everything is 100% efficient wrt energy "IN" and energy "OUT".
Hence the Conservation of Energy Principle.
It has NEVER been found to be otherwise.

Do you never take a crap or pee? Get diarrheah? Vomit?

What I do is surely irrelevant.

Do you honestly
believe that every single bit of food ingested is processed in exactly the
same way with the same result regardless of any other factors whatsoever?

Not exactly, but near enough. Extra fat, when little is the norm, will
tend to pass through and not get absorbed into the body until the body
gets used to this and grabs more fat. Not chewing some foods such as
nuts and meat and probably many other things reduces absorption into
the body.

Nevertheles. the energy balance of what ever system you choose is
100%. It must be. Calories into the mouth will exactly balance with
calories absorbed by the body and calories rejected by the body.

It depends where you draw the thermodynamic boundary. I choose the
physiological "human body" coz I think it means more.
Calories "IN" ALWAYS EQUAL calories "OUT"

Or is every single "calorie" that you eat totally, completely stored in your
body as fat, or burned off by exercise? What a ridiculous notion! This
isn't even common sense, let alone scientific.

Well do please explain what can happen to calories in the body
(bloodstream/cells) other than be stored or burned for energy.

You cannot ignore the variance in metabolism from insulin spike caused by
eating sugars and simple starches,

Well if you can tell me what they are, I will address them for you.
Are you saying that calories are unaccountable in the presence of
insulin spikes? Coz that's what it looks like you are saying.

and the resulting increased efficinecy in
storing these calorie-laden foods as fat.

Can you explain how a never-observed phenomenon -- storing more fat on
a hypocaloric diet -- works?

And the impact on fiber
consumption in speeding elimination of some calories that might otherwise be
absorbed, e.g.

I'm only talking about calories absorbed into the body. The contents
of the GI tract are physiologically external to the body.
Cellulose has the same caloric density as glucose, but I don't count
that here in this discussion, although if you want to include the
contents of the GI tract, perhaps you should.

"Moosh!" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:15:38 +0200, "M.W.Smith"
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.

Do you have any sense just how dramatically you limit your thinking by
assuming that "calories "IN" can only be burned for energy or stored"?

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

But that is his point, in a nutshell.

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.

Now, I'm beginning to wonder if you can even read. A plausible argument as
to why ingestion alone may not be a valid measure of bioavailable energy
content of food has been offered, and you don't even take the time to grasp
the concept before you give your knee-jerk (emphasis on the jerk?) response.

regarding the energy required to digest food
simple google search
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03287/230601.stm
pertinent part:
************************************************** *********
Thermic effect of digestion. Your body also uses energy to digest food,
known as the thermic effect, which involves approximately 10 percent of your
total energy expenditure each day. You can increase the energy burned by
consuming smaller but more frequent meals, or by increasing the protein
content of your meals.
************************************************** *********
Since atkins does increase the protein content, (not to mention encouraging
more frequent meals) it would increase the thermic effect, and burn more
calories, resulting in a decreased net caloric intake. However, Since we are
talking about 10% of your daily caloric expenditures, it would seem to me
that while that effect would be measurable, unless one can double or triple
the thermic effect, it is not enough to account entirely for the extra 300
calories a day consumed in the harvard study.
For that there must be either differences in digestive efficiencies or human
behavioral effects (less cheating or more exercise)

Again, less cheating gets my vote as the most likely reason.

Bob

"Moosh!" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:48:53 GMT, "bob"
posted:

"Moosh!" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:08:43 GMT, "bob"
posted:

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.

they are calories expended, in the same way that calories are expended
exercising, or in basal metabolism.

But they can only be lost by burning (BM or exercise).
Calories don't burn unless there is a need.

calories expended producing enzymes,
etc.

Last I checked, enzymes, etc weighed one gram for every four calories
"stored".

I still do not see what you are missing here.

Calories that disappear without burning and having spare heat energy
to dissipate.

clearly it takes energy
to digest protein, and just as clearly it takes less calories to digest
sugar water.

And so, what do you think happens to these calories needed for this
digestion? Think about it. One of two things. The creation of an
energy containing molecule which has weight, or, heat. The heat
"spares" the metabolism of other molecules that would have been used
to provide heat for keeping the body at 37C. So the net effect is that
this "energy needed for digestion" makes negligible net difference

The number of calories out may well be the same (depending upon
digestive efficiencies discussed ad naseum) but the number of calories
net
will be different.

Calories "IN" the body can be in the form of chemical energy (fat,
carb, protein molecules that all have weight) or as heat which raises
the temperature. What did you have in mind?

Conceptually it is the same as eating while jogging
versus eating while reclining.

Howso?

Anyone who has felt sleepy after eating a
steak versus alert after eating pie understands this on a personal level.

I would have guessed that was probably hormonal, amongst other things.
The amount of energy available for exercise has little bearing on the
enthusiasm to do exercise, otherwise all these couch pototoes would be
tearing around the countyside.......

Anyone who looks at the basic chemistry understands it at that level as
well.

Sorry, I must be slow. What level are you talking about?

As noted, I don't think the difference is enough to account for what
we are talking about, but I don't know, and even wonder how it would be
measured. It is one of those unknowns that to me demonstrate the high
level
of ignorance in nutritional science.

Sorry, because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't out there.
Your ignorance of this cannot be reasonably transferred to the
nutritional sciences.

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

for someone that can write intelligently, you are amazingly obtuse. Is
this
an intetional argumentative strategy, or a personal flaw?

No, it's just that your little anecdote poorly paralelled our
discussion. The surgeon is divorcing his technical success from the
patients fate. This in no way impinges on the technical success of the
surgeon.

We haven't got a patient. We are discussing the chemistry of
nutrition. Our rejection of anything to do with actual patients is
even less relevant here.

"bob" wrote in message
m...

Since atkins does increase the protein content, (not to mention
encouraging
more frequent meals)
snip drivel
Again, less cheating gets my vote as the most likely reason.
Bob

This is the same ignorant bullcrap legend that has been thrown around about
Atkins since the inception of his original low-carb diet it the 70's.
Either read his books and get your facts straight, or stop making yourself
look stupid by spouting off incorrect "facts." Atkins certainly *does not*
"increase the protein content" of meals, nor does he advocate smaller more
frequent meals!!!! What is this, your Atkins/American Diabetes
Association/Weight Watchers hybrid diet that you dreamed in a nightmare? It
certainly has absolutely NO basis in fact or correllation to the Atkins
plan. Infact; the truth is exactly the opposite; Dr. Atkins advocates
moderation in eating meat.

Atkins is a low-carb/moderate protein/high-fat diet. Since I have been on
Atkins (About 2 years) I follow his advice and do not eat any more protein
than I did pre-Atkins; probably less. I also certainly eat more healthy
vegetables than I did before, in accordance with his plan. My prio junk
food diet was already high in fat, so that didn't increase either on Atkins.
Atkins is *not* a high-protein diet! DUH! Read the book!

p.s. I don't need any studies to tell me what works for me. I had the blood
work done before, and during Atkins. My overall cholesterol dropped, HDL
inreased, LDL decreased, and triglycerides decreased *dramatically!* Blood
pressure dropped significantly. Test on kidney and liver function: all
normal. Not to mention losing 50 pounds without being hungry. My
cardiovascular system is much healthier than it was two years ago. Not to
mention IBS and GERD symptoms are gone. It simply doesn't matter what sour
grapes you naysayers spout off. 500 years ago I'm sure you're one of the
ones who would have sworn on your mother's grave that the world is flat, and
the sun revolves around the earth -- and that it is solidly based on
scientific theory.

Your idea that low-carb dieters lose more weight than low-fat dieters just
because they cheat less really is funny! Not to mention inredibly arrogant!
Do you really believe that you are smarter and more knowledgeable than the
team at Harvards that did a controlled study?

(Diarmid Logan) wrote in message . com...
http://www.suntimes.com/output/healt...s-fside14.html


Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

October 14, 2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued
it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the
idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than
folks on standard low-fat plans and still lose weight.

This study shows exactly what I would have expected; I have been
saying for years that you need fat (and omega-3 oil in particular) to
digest your white fat. So those who ate more fish oil lost weight
faster. Their metabolisms should have been higher as well. To any
PIs and proposal writers that are reading: future studies should be
able to further confirm my hypothesis by doing temperature
measurements of two iso-caloric groups: one fed fish oil one fed
butter. These types of studies are cheap and have a good bang for the
buck. Good job Penelope.

Jason Taylor

I am so sick of hearing people say "a calorie is a calorie is a
calorie" or that the metabolic advantage of Atkins violates the laws
of thermodynamics.. These people obviously don't understand the laws
of thermodynamics.. THE HUMAN BODY IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. We vary
what goes in, and the body varies what goes out.. Also, our
metabolism is not fixed -- the energy needs vary with both diet,
exercise, and environmental conditions..

The Harvard study showed that people on a low carb diet can eat more
and lose the same, if not more weight.. why do reputable researchers(I
would question that status) feel the need to blindy attack the
results.. I think it's pointing to the obvious -- that the medical
establishment, nutritionalists in general, *do not understand what
happens in the body with respect to dieting, and energy usage.* This
isn't anyone's fault, it just means that we need to re-evaluate what
we think we know about nutrition and metabolism. I was also taught
that in research, you have to believe results over theory. Otherwise,
you're not doing your job as a researcher.. If there's a discrepency,
we have to figure out why..

--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie

It has bothered me all my life that I do not paint like everybody
else.
.........................~Henri Matisse



"Duane Storey" wrote in message
om...
I am so sick of hearing people say "a calorie is a calorie is a
calorie" or that the metabolic advantage of Atkins violates the laws
of thermodynamics.. These people obviously don't understand the laws
of thermodynamics.. THE HUMAN BODY IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. We vary
what goes in, and the body varies what goes out.. Also, our
metabolism is not fixed -- the energy needs vary with both diet,
exercise, and environmental conditions..

The Harvard study showed that people on a low carb diet can eat more
and lose the same, if not more weight.. why do reputable researchers(I
would question that status) feel the need to blindy attack the
results.. I think it's pointing to the obvious -- that the medical
establishment, nutritionalists in general, *do not understand what
happens in the body with respect to dieting, and energy usage.*



i believe you are correct!


This isn't anyone's fault, it just means that we need to re-evaluate
what
we think we know about nutrition and metabolism.

and re-evaluate and re-evaluate........................."the state of
the art of medicine" is ALWAYS changing.
i remember when i first came to ASD, talking to diabetics about going
LOW CARB and just "giving it a chance" (you would have thought i asked
them to sacrifice their first born.........................)
THE STATE OF THE ART OF MEDICINE is always changing, and that's a good
thing!

On 30 Oct 2003 14:06:03 -0800, (Duane Storey)
wrote:

The Harvard study showed that people on a low carb diet can eat more
and lose the same, if not more weight.. why do reputable researchers(I

Did they measure how much of the energy was excreted in the poo? Most
often in such cases, more carbohydrates are taken up by bacteria and
increases stool volume, and much less is absorbed by body. So you will
eat more and still slim more because body absorb far less of the food
an most of it are either metabolized by bacteria giving increased
stool volume (most of stool are dead bacteria or fiber and some
minerals) or undigested food

"ron lorden" wrote in message
om...

Carbs increase serum glucose, resulting in increased insulin
to facilitate glucose's entry into muscle and fat cells which could
result in stored body fat. Obviously, this is a serious
oversimplification of a complex phenomenon, but isn't the notion that
a calorie is a calorie, etc. an equal oversimplification?

How in your oversimplification do you conclude that the more body fat that
is stored equals a reduction in metabolism? So lets suppose that every bit
of food eaten gets converted to bodyfat (with 100% efficiency), so where
exactly do your cells get the energy they need?

--
261/200/175
Keto from 04/28/03- 07/20/03 Legally keto once a year.
If ANY diet places you in a negative energy balance, you'll lose weight. If
not, you won't.

"Duane Storey" wrote in message
om...
I am so sick of hearing people say "a calorie is a calorie is a
calorie" or that the metabolic advantage of Atkins violates the laws
of thermodynamics.. These people obviously don't understand the laws
of thermodynamics.. THE HUMAN BODY IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. We vary
what goes in, and the body varies what goes out.. Also, our
metabolism is not fixed -- the energy needs vary with both diet,
exercise, and environmental conditions..

I must have missed it, but can you show me where metabolism was measured,
and how it increased from pre to post diet conditions of the low-carbers to
indicate that an increase in metabolism took place?