Low-carb diet inconsistent with laws of physics

According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy is neither
created
nor
destroyed, and enerygy is always conserved.
Calorie is a measure of heat, which is a form of energy. Because of
the
conservation of energy, the caloric intake must be accounted for, and
it's
either stored or expended.

or remain unused and excreted.

If the caloric expenditure is less than the caloric intake, the
excess is stored, which results in weight gain. If the caloric
expenditure is greater than the intake, then the deficit must be
made up by mobilizing stored energy, which results in weight loss.

except that energy containing substances can be expelled without being
burned/converted. Think about an inefficient stove, where the burn is
only partial.

The media constantly bombards us with false statement that if you go
on a low-carb diet, then you can eat what ever you want and still
lose weight.

The idea of low carbing, mainly, is that by dropping carbs, one gains
control of one's appetite. Due to low appetite, most people who are
low carbing eat at calorie deficit.

False! You can reduce the caloric intake in the form of
carbohydrates, but you must still account for the total caloric
intake.

Which is much easier without pies and candies.

If your total caloric intake is greater that your caloric
expenditure, then the excess calories must be stored, because
calories don't vanish or disappear. It's truely surprising that
people don't ask, "Where does all this energy go when you over eat?"
It's unlikely that you'll ever have a "scientific" discussion about
dieting, because it's such a social activity, but always keep in
mind that the only true way to lose weight is to create a caloric
differential between intake and expenditure.

It appears that you are on a right track somwehat, but are confused.

You stated that excess caloric intake may be excreted. How much energy
is
excreted in urine? Non-diabetics,... About half of stool volume is
bacteria, and the rest is mostly "roughage". Most of the digestible
intake
is in fact, digested and absorbed, of course unless you have a digestive
disorder. I'm sure excretion accounts for some trace amounts of energy
loss, but do you feel that excretion makes a substantial difference? 1
%?
2%? Certainly not 5%! The digestive system is remarkably efficient due
mostly to the natural selection of evolution.
Certain seeds were designed (again by evolution) to resist digestion, to
be
excreted with the stool, but that's an expection rather than a rule.
When you made that statement, what kind of foods were you thinking of?
Do
you think that protein is excreted undigested?
Carbohydrates, including simple sugars, give up the electron to the
oxygen,
and it's this exchange that generates energy. We inhale oxygen, which
is
combined with carbon to produce CO2. The carbon comes from
carbohydrates,
including simple sugars. Protein can be used to synthesize glucose, so
ultimately, energy can be produced from protein. Is this over your
head?
Just remember that protein can be used as a building block, and/or as a
source of energy. Carbohydrates, including simple sugars, and fats are
used
only as a source of energy.
I may buy your statement that low-carb diet helps to control appetite,
thus
resulting in reduced caloric intake, but I haven't read any literature
quatifying the effects. Self-control, discipline, inner strength, and
determination, also help control appetite. If non of that works,
sibutramine 10 mg to 15 mg per day may help.
Lastly, confusion seems to be on your side, due to lack of science
background, and influence from the media. Don't be so gullible to
believe
everythig you see on TV, and please don't embarrass yourself by telling
people that low-carb diet works by excreting unused energy. That's
actually
funny. However, I see where you got that idea. Olestra tried to
prevent
fat absortion, to effect fat excretion, but that gave people diarrhea.


I don't think anyone here is arguing that low carbs diets work because
they excrete unused energy. They work because you don't overeat. I'd
write more, but you're a troll and I'm tired right now from dealing with
trolls. When do you go back to school?

If the low-carb diet truely works by not over-eating, then the diet should
really be called "not over-eat diet", and yes, if you don't over-eat, then
you're effectively reducing your caloric intake, and as I stated, if you
create a caloric differential between intake and expenditure, then stored
energy will be mobilize, ultimately resulting in weight loss.

On 26 Jul 2004 17:53:05 GMT, Ignoramus19431
wrote:

In article .net, Arctic Wolf wrote:
According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy is neither created nor
destroyed, and enerygy is always conserved.
Calorie is a measure of heat, which is a form of energy. Because of the
conservation of energy, the caloric intake must be accounted for, and it's
either stored or expended.

or remain unused and excreted.



Someone should be able to figure that out, right? Calories are
determined by burning the food in question and measuring the heat
generated (or is that just BS?). If poop burns, then calories are
excreted.

There's also the water factor. Low carb works as a diuretic. While
it is not fat, it is weight, which makes a difference on a bum foot.

And of course the big deal is the appetite suppression of fat. I
probably eat 30% less calories than when I ate high carb.

On 26 Jul 2004 17:53:05 GMT, Ignoramus19431
wrote:

In article .net, Arctic Wolf wrote:
According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy is neither created nor
destroyed, and enerygy is always conserved.
Calorie is a measure of heat, which is a form of energy. Because of the
conservation of energy, the caloric intake must be accounted for, and it's
either stored or expended.

or remain unused and excreted.



Someone should be able to figure that out, right? Calories are
determined by burning the food in question and measuring the heat
generated (or is that just BS?). If poop burns, then calories are
excreted.

There's also the water factor. Low carb works as a diuretic. While
it is not fat, it is weight, which makes a difference on a bum foot.

And of course the big deal is the appetite suppression of fat. I
probably eat 30% less calories than when I ate high carb.

"Arctic Wolf" -SpamShield wrote:

According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy is neither created
nor
destroyed, and enerygy is always conserved.
Calorie is a measure of heat, which is a form of energy. Because of the
conservation of energy, the caloric intake must be accounted for, and
it's
either stored or expended.

or remain unused and excreted.

If the caloric expenditure is less than the caloric intake, the
excess is stored, which results in weight gain. If the caloric
expenditure is greater than the intake, then the deficit must be
made up by mobilizing stored energy, which results in weight loss.

except that energy containing substances can be expelled without being
burned/converted. Think about an inefficient stove, where the burn is
only partial.

The media constantly bombards us with false statement that if you go
on a low-carb diet, then you can eat what ever you want and still
lose weight.

The idea of low carbing, mainly, is that by dropping carbs, one gains
control of one's appetite. Due to low appetite, most people who are
low carbing eat at calorie deficit.

False! You can reduce the caloric intake in the form of
carbohydrates, but you must still account for the total caloric
intake.

Which is much easier without pies and candies.

If your total caloric intake is greater that your caloric
expenditure, then the excess calories must be stored, because
calories don't vanish or disappear. It's truely surprising that
people don't ask, "Where does all this energy go when you over eat?"
It's unlikely that you'll ever have a "scientific" discussion about
dieting, because it's such a social activity, but always keep in
mind that the only true way to lose weight is to create a caloric
differential between intake and expenditure.

It appears that you are on a right track somwehat, but are confused.

You stated that excess caloric intake may be excreted. How much energy is
excreted in urine? Non-diabetics,...

Non-diabetics?? Are we not allowed to discuss diabetics? What about
pre-diabetics? Are you aware that many people who respond well to
Low-carb diets may actually be pre-diabetic--just not up to the
standard currently used by "informed" doctors? Low carbing seeks to
control "misbehaving" insulin systems.

About half of stool volume is
bacteria, and the rest is mostly "roughage".
Are you mesasuring this yourself or just quoting some short lived and
vague study that included all of two guys for 72 hours.

Most of the digestible intake
is in fact, digested and absorbed,
Really? That's funny cause I often see a few corn kernels completely
undigested in my stool. Also changes in texture, density and color
radically depending upon diet and health--yet you suggest almost
everything is completely digested.

Are you aware that for a 200 lb man a mere 1% of energy wasted equals
shedding 2 pounds of overweight. If one man wastes 5% of his "energy"
consumption he will be 10 lbs lighter than the next without dieting,
exercise or even trying.

of course unless you have a digestive
disorder. I'm sure excretion accounts for some trace amounts of energy
loss, but do you feel that excretion makes a substantial difference? 1 %?
2%? Certainly not 5%! The digestive system is remarkably efficient due
mostly to the natural selection of evolution.
Certain seeds were designed (again by evolution) to resist digestion, to be
excreted with the stool, but that's an expection rather than a rule.
When you made that statement, what kind of foods were you thinking of? Do
you think that protein is excreted undigested?
Carbohydrates, including simple sugars, give up the electron to the oxygen,
and it's this exchange that generates energy. We inhale oxygen, which is
combined with carbon to produce CO2. The carbon comes from carbohydrates,
including simple sugars. Protein can be used to synthesize glucose, so
ultimately, energy can be produced from protein. Is this over your head?

Since you've obviously never been here before and never read jack from
this group you are obviously clueless about what people know here.

Just remember that protein can be used as a building block, and/or as a
source of energy. Carbohydrates, including simple sugars, and fats are used
only as a source of energy.
I may buy your statement that low-carb diet helps to control appetite, thus
resulting in reduced caloric intake, but I haven't read any literature
quatifying the effects.

Let's see... I've lost 3-4 pounds a week eating 2000 calories with 30
carbs a day. I increase carbs to 70 a day and consume the same 2000
calories and for three weeks I lose nothing. My body was able to
appear to conserve an estimated 1500 calories a day for 21 days.
Decrease carbs back to 30 and 7 pounds drop in 1 week-right on cue.

It is obviously beyond your knowledge and ability to accept that
dietary composition is critical to weight loss for many and simple
calorie restriction is the old "if all you have is a hammer everything
looks like a nail" strategy.


Self-control, discipline, inner strength, and
determination, also help control appetite. If non of that works,
sibutramine 10 mg to 15 mg per day may help.
Lastly, confusion seems to be on your side, due to lack of science
background, and influence from the media.

And everything you know is based upon rock hard evidence that is
irrefutable and you have personally inspected every study and
gauranteed that the process follows modern scientific principals.

There is so much flawed science passed as "knowledge" it is laughable.

Don't be so gullible to believe
everythig you see on TV, and please don't embarrass yourself by telling
people that low-carb diet works by excreting unused energy. That's actually
funny. However, I see where you got that idea. Olestra tried to prevent
fat absortion, to effect fat excretion, but that gave people diarrhea.


DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/277/Jun-273/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
OWL-40 carbs/day (CCLL=50-60)

"Arctic Wolf" -SpamShield wrote:

According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy is neither created
nor
destroyed, and enerygy is always conserved.
Calorie is a measure of heat, which is a form of energy. Because of the
conservation of energy, the caloric intake must be accounted for, and
it's
either stored or expended.

or remain unused and excreted.

If the caloric expenditure is less than the caloric intake, the
excess is stored, which results in weight gain. If the caloric
expenditure is greater than the intake, then the deficit must be
made up by mobilizing stored energy, which results in weight loss.

except that energy containing substances can be expelled without being
burned/converted. Think about an inefficient stove, where the burn is
only partial.

The media constantly bombards us with false statement that if you go
on a low-carb diet, then you can eat what ever you want and still
lose weight.

The idea of low carbing, mainly, is that by dropping carbs, one gains
control of one's appetite. Due to low appetite, most people who are
low carbing eat at calorie deficit.

False! You can reduce the caloric intake in the form of
carbohydrates, but you must still account for the total caloric
intake.

Which is much easier without pies and candies.

If your total caloric intake is greater that your caloric
expenditure, then the excess calories must be stored, because
calories don't vanish or disappear. It's truely surprising that
people don't ask, "Where does all this energy go when you over eat?"
It's unlikely that you'll ever have a "scientific" discussion about
dieting, because it's such a social activity, but always keep in
mind that the only true way to lose weight is to create a caloric
differential between intake and expenditure.

It appears that you are on a right track somwehat, but are confused.

You stated that excess caloric intake may be excreted. How much energy is
excreted in urine? Non-diabetics,...

Non-diabetics?? Are we not allowed to discuss diabetics? What about
pre-diabetics? Are you aware that many people who respond well to
Low-carb diets may actually be pre-diabetic--just not up to the
standard currently used by "informed" doctors? Low carbing seeks to
control "misbehaving" insulin systems.

About half of stool volume is
bacteria, and the rest is mostly "roughage".
Are you mesasuring this yourself or just quoting some short lived and
vague study that included all of two guys for 72 hours.

Most of the digestible intake
is in fact, digested and absorbed,
Really? That's funny cause I often see a few corn kernels completely
undigested in my stool. Also changes in texture, density and color
radically depending upon diet and health--yet you suggest almost
everything is completely digested.

Are you aware that for a 200 lb man a mere 1% of energy wasted equals
shedding 2 pounds of overweight. If one man wastes 5% of his "energy"
consumption he will be 10 lbs lighter than the next without dieting,
exercise or even trying.

of course unless you have a digestive
disorder. I'm sure excretion accounts for some trace amounts of energy
loss, but do you feel that excretion makes a substantial difference? 1 %?
2%? Certainly not 5%! The digestive system is remarkably efficient due
mostly to the natural selection of evolution.
Certain seeds were designed (again by evolution) to resist digestion, to be
excreted with the stool, but that's an expection rather than a rule.
When you made that statement, what kind of foods were you thinking of? Do
you think that protein is excreted undigested?
Carbohydrates, including simple sugars, give up the electron to the oxygen,
and it's this exchange that generates energy. We inhale oxygen, which is
combined with carbon to produce CO2. The carbon comes from carbohydrates,
including simple sugars. Protein can be used to synthesize glucose, so
ultimately, energy can be produced from protein. Is this over your head?

Since you've obviously never been here before and never read jack from
this group you are obviously clueless about what people know here.

Just remember that protein can be used as a building block, and/or as a
source of energy. Carbohydrates, including simple sugars, and fats are used
only as a source of energy.
I may buy your statement that low-carb diet helps to control appetite, thus
resulting in reduced caloric intake, but I haven't read any literature
quatifying the effects.

Let's see... I've lost 3-4 pounds a week eating 2000 calories with 30
carbs a day. I increase carbs to 70 a day and consume the same 2000
calories and for three weeks I lose nothing. My body was able to
appear to conserve an estimated 1500 calories a day for 21 days.
Decrease carbs back to 30 and 7 pounds drop in 1 week-right on cue.

It is obviously beyond your knowledge and ability to accept that
dietary composition is critical to weight loss for many and simple
calorie restriction is the old "if all you have is a hammer everything
looks like a nail" strategy.


Self-control, discipline, inner strength, and
determination, also help control appetite. If non of that works,
sibutramine 10 mg to 15 mg per day may help.
Lastly, confusion seems to be on your side, due to lack of science
background, and influence from the media.

And everything you know is based upon rock hard evidence that is
irrefutable and you have personally inspected every study and
gauranteed that the process follows modern scientific principals.

There is so much flawed science passed as "knowledge" it is laughable.

Don't be so gullible to believe
everythig you see on TV, and please don't embarrass yourself by telling
people that low-carb diet works by excreting unused energy. That's actually
funny. However, I see where you got that idea. Olestra tried to prevent
fat absortion, to effect fat excretion, but that gave people diarrhea.


DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/277/Jun-273/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
OWL-40 carbs/day (CCLL=50-60)

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:02:21 -0400, Bryan Schwerer wrote:

On 26 Jul 2004 17:53:05 GMT, Ignoramus19431
wrote:

In article .net,
Arctic Wolf wrote:
According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy is neither
created nor
destroyed, and enerygy is always conserved.
Calorie is a measure of heat, which is a form of energy. Because of
the
conservation of energy, the caloric intake must be accounted for, and
it's
either stored or expended.

or remain unused and excreted.



Someone should be able to figure that out, right? Calories are
determined by burning the food in question and measuring the heat
generated (or is that just BS?). If poop burns, then calories are
excreted.

There's also the water factor. Low carb works as a diuretic. While
it is not fat, it is weight, which makes a difference on a bum foot.

And of course the big deal is the appetite suppression of fat. I
probably eat 30% less calories than when I ate high carb.


I always wondered about the appetite suppression of fat. I'm almost
convinced that it's the lack of insulin (and/or the lack of a blood sugar
rush) that causes appetite suppression. However, I'm not willing to go
on a low fat and low carb diet to test my theory.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

You stated that excess caloric intake may be excreted. How much
energy is

Well, it looks like our fat absorption capacity is limited to 15-20g /
h.

That is around 200g / day, 1800 kcal. Explains both weight loss and
common stall at BMI 27 (as you will eat some protein calories too).

Eat more and you might find the rest in fesces - and sometimes pretty
quickly

I may buy your statement that low-carb diet helps to control appetite,
thus
resulting in reduced caloric intake, but I haven't read any literature
quatifying the effects. Self-control, discipline, inner strength, and
determination, also help control appetite. If non of that works,
sibutramine 10 mg to 15 mg per day may help.
Lastly, confusion seems to be on your side, due to lack of science
background, and influence from the media. Don't be so gullible to
believe
everythig you see on TV, and please don't embarrass yourself by
telling
people that low-carb diet works by excreting unused energy. That's
actually

Well, other than what I wrote, the consensus here is that it is really
appetite control.

But I think you are a little bit understimating the real processes
behind this appetite control. Try to study some biochemistry to find out
why low-carb might provide exact nutrition that the human body is
designed to run on. Just some hints:

Normal persion needs 70-80% of his energy needs as fat in form on
triglycerides, that is why it converts most carbs (anything over 100g /
day) to fat. This conversion process prevents body fat to be used,
resulting in uncontrolable hunger in some persons.

Also, unlike fat, there is no absorption limit of carbs. Concentrated
carbs are quickly digested and promptly stored as fat. Next load of
carbs (eat several high-carb meals a day, have not you heard this ?
will prevent usage of this stored fat and stores once again, leaving you
with hunger.

funny. However, I see where you got that idea. Olestra tried to
prevent
fat absortion, to effect fat excretion, but that gave people diarrhea.

Overeating fat will give you the same effect - kind of proof that there
is fat absorption limit... that fat itself, over certain threshold,
blocks fat absorption.

Mirek

You stated that excess caloric intake may be excreted. How much
energy is

Well, it looks like our fat absorption capacity is limited to 15-20g /
h.

That is around 200g / day, 1800 kcal. Explains both weight loss and
common stall at BMI 27 (as you will eat some protein calories too).

Eat more and you might find the rest in fesces - and sometimes pretty
quickly

I may buy your statement that low-carb diet helps to control appetite,
thus
resulting in reduced caloric intake, but I haven't read any literature
quatifying the effects. Self-control, discipline, inner strength, and
determination, also help control appetite. If non of that works,
sibutramine 10 mg to 15 mg per day may help.
Lastly, confusion seems to be on your side, due to lack of science
background, and influence from the media. Don't be so gullible to
believe
everythig you see on TV, and please don't embarrass yourself by
telling
people that low-carb diet works by excreting unused energy. That's
actually

Well, other than what I wrote, the consensus here is that it is really
appetite control.

But I think you are a little bit understimating the real processes
behind this appetite control. Try to study some biochemistry to find out
why low-carb might provide exact nutrition that the human body is
designed to run on. Just some hints:

Normal persion needs 70-80% of his energy needs as fat in form on
triglycerides, that is why it converts most carbs (anything over 100g /
day) to fat. This conversion process prevents body fat to be used,
resulting in uncontrolable hunger in some persons.

Also, unlike fat, there is no absorption limit of carbs. Concentrated
carbs are quickly digested and promptly stored as fat. Next load of
carbs (eat several high-carb meals a day, have not you heard this ?
will prevent usage of this stored fat and stores once again, leaving you
with hunger.

funny. However, I see where you got that idea. Olestra tried to
prevent
fat absortion, to effect fat excretion, but that gave people diarrhea.

Overeating fat will give you the same effect - kind of proof that there
is fat absorption limit... that fat itself, over certain threshold,
blocks fat absorption.

Mirek

According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy is neither
created
nor
destroyed, and enerygy is always conserved.
Calorie is a measure of heat, which is a form of energy. Because of
the
conservation of energy, the caloric intake must be accounted for, and
it's
either stored or expended.

or remain unused and excreted.

If the caloric expenditure is less than the caloric intake, the
excess is stored, which results in weight gain. If the caloric
expenditure is greater than the intake, then the deficit must be
made up by mobilizing stored energy, which results in weight loss.

except that energy containing substances can be expelled without being
burned/converted. Think about an inefficient stove, where the burn is
only partial.

The media constantly bombards us with false statement that if you go
on a low-carb diet, then you can eat what ever you want and still
lose weight.

The idea of low carbing, mainly, is that by dropping carbs, one gains
control of one's appetite. Due to low appetite, most people who are
low carbing eat at calorie deficit.

False! You can reduce the caloric intake in the form of
carbohydrates, but you must still account for the total caloric
intake.

Which is much easier without pies and candies.

If your total caloric intake is greater that your caloric
expenditure, then the excess calories must be stored, because
calories don't vanish or disappear. It's truely surprising that
people don't ask, "Where does all this energy go when you over eat?"
It's unlikely that you'll ever have a "scientific" discussion about
dieting, because it's such a social activity, but always keep in
mind that the only true way to lose weight is to create a caloric
differential between intake and expenditure.

It appears that you are on a right track somwehat, but are confused.

You stated that excess caloric intake may be excreted. How much energy
is
excreted in urine? Non-diabetics,... About half of stool volume is
bacteria, and the rest is mostly "roughage". Most of the digestible
intake
is in fact, digested and absorbed, of course unless you have a digestive
disorder. I'm sure excretion accounts for some trace amounts of energy
loss, but do you feel that excretion makes a substantial difference? 1
%?
2%? Certainly not 5%! The digestive system is remarkably efficient due
mostly to the natural selection of evolution.

They did studies of metabolic efficiency, related to "calorie
restriction".

It turned out that about 50% of energy supplied with food, was
actually expended as energy, by CRed subjects.

For subjects who eat ad lib, this efficiency is about 40%.

So, yes, metabolic efficiency depends on the diet.

Certain seeds were designed (again by evolution) to resist digestion, to
be
excreted with the stool, but that's an expection rather than a rule.
When you made that statement, what kind of foods were you thinking of?
Do
you think that protein is excreted undigested?

See above.

Carbohydrates, including simple sugars, give up the electron to the
oxygen, and it's this exchange that generates energy. We inhale
oxygen, which is combined with carbon to produce CO2. The carbon
comes from carbohydrates, including simple sugars. Protein can be
used to synthesize glucose, so ultimately, energy can be produced
from protein. Is this over your head?

I understand this, but, there could be other mechanisms that are less
efficient and that burn food less efficiently.

Just remember that protein can be used as a building block, and/or as a
source of energy. Carbohydrates, including simple sugars, and fats are
used
only as a source of energy.
I may buy your statement that low-carb diet helps to control appetite,
thus
resulting in reduced caloric intake, but I haven't read any literature
quatifying the effects. Self-control, discipline, inner strength, and
determination, also help control appetite. If non of that works,
sibutramine 10 mg to 15 mg per day may help.

Some very short term studies, which I can look up for you, indicate
that subjects on low carb can eat more calories.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...3-lowcarb.html

``The study, conducted with Walter Willett, Nutrition Department chair
and Fredrick Stare Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition, put three
groups of dieters on different regimens. They included a low-fat
group, a low-carbohydrate group that ate the same number of calories,
and a third group on a similar low-carbohydrate plan that included 300
extra calories a day.

Participants in all three groups lost weight, Greene said, with the
low-fat group losing an average of 17 pounds and the low-carbohydrate
group that ate the same number of calories losing 23 pounds. The
biggest surprise, however, was that the low-carbohydrate dieters
eating extra calories lost more than those on the low-fat
diet. Participants in that low- carbohydrate group lost an average of
20 pounds.''

Lastly, confusion seems to be on your side, due to lack of science
background, and influence from the media. Don't be so gullible to
believe everythig you see on TV, and please don't embarrass yourself
by telling people that low-carb diet works by excreting unused
energy. That's actually funny. However, I see where you got that
idea. Olestra tried to prevent fat absortion, to effect fat
excretion, but that gave people diarrhea.

cheap insults are not a substitute for a good argument.

Let me explain how energy expenditure is measured, *exactly*. The subject
is enclosed in an air-tight room, and O2 is put into the room while CO2 is
removed from the room, so the concentrations of these gases remain constant.
The CO2 production from the subject is the *exact* measure of energy
expenditure. This is the measure of the electron transport system in the
mitochondria. It accounts for *all* the energy expened in the system. Your
statment, "It turned out that about 50% of energy supplied with food, was
actually expended as energy.",.. Are you talking about *total* energy, or
the energy seen on the treadmill machine read out? Estimated energy? If
the total energy expended from the food was 50%, where did the other 50% go?
Stored? If some of the energy was in the form of protein, then the protein
may have been incorporated into the building block. You keep referring to
"efficiency", but even in an inefficient system, the energy conservation
applies. We radiate heat, so we "lose" energy when we exercise, and because
we "lose" energy in the form of heat, you may say that it's an inefficient
system, and yes, but the total energy, including heat loss, is accounted
for. So when you referr to efficiency, where is the loss?
Your reference regarding low-carb group losing more weigth than low-fat
group, doesn't address the issue of caloric differential between intake and
expenditure. Did the two groups increase or decrease *total* energy
expenditure? Doesn't it disturb you that they don't address caloric
expenditure? I will guarantee that if the low-carb group lost more weight
while the caloric intake of both groups were the same (or more), then the
caloric expenditure of the low-carb group must've been greater than the
low-fat group. An interesting question would be, "why did the caloric
expenditure increase"? Low-carb diet only works if the caloric intake is
less than the total expenditure, but that principle works in *any* diet,
whether low-carb or not, and that's something impossible to dispute.

"Arctic Wolf" -SpamShield wrote:

According to the first law of thermodynamics,

Which has almost nothing of significance to do with your metabolism,
making the rest of your argument irrelevent.

Because of the conservation of energy, the caloric intake must be
accounted for, and it's either stored or expended.

Since "expended" is so variable in the human body, and for so many
reasons, simple arguments cannot be held true for metabolism. A
change in diet composition CAN change energy expended, even if the
total caloric level remains the same.

The media constantly bombards us with false statement

The media is not accurately reflecting the facts of the diets. I.e.
they're wrong. That has no impact on whether the diet itself works as
expected, so is irrelvent to your aguments.

The diet composition may affect the metabolism thus energy expenditure, so
if the energy intake remains constant while the energy expenditure
increases, then the energy deficit is made up by mobilizing stored energy.
What did you not understand? By energy expenditure, I mean the TOTAL energy
expenditure, not just what you see at the gym. Simple act of breathing or
just being alive requires energy.

What part of the concept of weight loss do you not get?

Let me explain it terms your little brother might understand, but you
have missed because you are more "intelligent" but less mature.

The goal of weight loss is to reduce overweight. We don't care about
how energy expenditure is accomplished. Any person who dieted for a
while can prove to themselves how little can be absolutely understood
about what is going on in your body. Try and you will learn the body
can do amazing things--even when you don't want it to or don't
understand how it is accomplishing it.

How the energy deficit is accomplished will never be understood to the
average dieter because science has been failing to adequately
understand the everyday functions of the human body for a few
centuries now. The average dieter isn't going to figure this out.

But they can lose weight while low-carbing, even while the doctors,
scientists, and pseudo-scientific-pomps (such as yourself) refuse to
impartially investigate and understand low-carbing cause they are too
busy attacking it.

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/277/Jun-273/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
OWL-40 carbs/day (CCLL=50-60)