Low-carb diet inconsistent with laws of physics

Arctic Wolf wrote:

According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy is neither
created nor destroyed, and enerygy is always conserved.

Yep.

Calorie is a measure of heat, which is a form of energy.

Yep.

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

Sorry. This line of reasoning assumes efficient and total conversion.
It assumes caloric usage on the order of a calorimeter and humans
don't work that way. We ingest lots of food components that are
energetic but that energy is unavailable to us. Like cellulose from
every plant we eat that is available in theoretical measure but not
metabolically.

Not everything we eat that is available will be converted efficiently,
either. Ketone production and use is less efficient than glucose use.
There's waste in the process.

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

And yet, recent research says that low-carbers can eat more calories
than people on a "normal" diet and still lose weight. It's just not so
simple as energy in vs. energy out. It's a good rule of thumb, but
that's merely an approximation, not a hard law.

Pastorio

Jim Bard intoned :

Nobody, EVER, that followed a low-carb diet ever said that anyone
could eat all they want.

Actually, they do. And it's true.

You can't eat way more than you want and still lose weight, but most of
the effect is the increased feeling of satiety that means that "all you
want" is much less than with high carb diets.

--
Sam-I-Am
When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be
free. -Charles Evans Hughes

Jim Bard intoned :

Nobody, EVER, that followed a low-carb diet ever said that anyone
could eat all they want.

Actually, they do. And it's true.

You can't eat way more than you want and still lose weight, but most of
the effect is the increased feeling of satiety that means that "all you
want" is much less than with high carb diets.

--
Sam-I-Am
When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be
free. -Charles Evans Hughes

"Bob (this one)" writes:
It assumes caloric usage on the order of a calorimeter and humans
don't work that way.

One problem with this line of reasoning is that the calorie numbers on
food labels are adjusted to compensate for this. Unfortunately,
calorie numbers on food labels are also allowed a certain amount of
inaccuracy.

It's just not so simple as energy in vs. energy out.

Actually energy in vs energy out *IS* the rule, the problem is that
"energy out" is nearly impossible to calculate, and varies for more
reasons that we can imagine.

"Bob (this one)" writes:
It assumes caloric usage on the order of a calorimeter and humans
don't work that way.

One problem with this line of reasoning is that the calorie numbers on
food labels are adjusted to compensate for this. Unfortunately,
calorie numbers on food labels are also allowed a certain amount of
inaccuracy.

It's just not so simple as energy in vs. energy out.

Actually energy in vs energy out *IS* the rule, the problem is that
"energy out" is nearly impossible to calculate, and varies for more
reasons that we can imagine.

"Arctic Wolf" -SpamShield wrote in message hlink.net...
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. 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.
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.
False! You can reduce the caloric intake in the form of carbohydrates, but
you must still account for the total caloric intake. 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.

Reminds me of the cartoon character that is flapping his arms and
flying around until another cartoon character points out that they
can't fly, immediately the flyer plummets like a stone to the ground.

I can picture a bunch of low-carb dieters losing dozens and dozens of
pounds then being told that low-carb doesn't work and immediately they
balloon out to their weight before they started the diet. Boing......

Low-carbers eat as much as they need to to feel full. They thus eat as
much as they "want". And they lose weight doing it. Period. Some
low-carbers end up eating more calories on low-carb and only then they
start to lose weight. Yes, it appears to contradict the laws of
thermo.

If you are concerned about the math and the calories and the science,
count them yourself and let us know why it works and how it works. All
we are concerned about is the fact that low-carb does work. It works
above and beyond any low-fat/low-calorie diet and, according to you,
in apparent contradiction to the laws of thermo.

If the calorie science and the laws of thermo appear to be
inconsistent as a result, well that is your problem now, isn't it? The
results (ie.weight loss, improved health) of low-carb is undeniable.
Just because you say that it doesn't work on paper does not change the
fact that it does work in the real world.

In science we do not change reality to match the science, we change
the science to match the reality. You can make all the calculations
you want, on as many calculators you want, as many times as you want,
but if the math doesn't mesh with the reality you need to find the
error in your calculations and fix it.

The laws of thermo apply. They are just not a good predictor of fat
storage and/or loss in the human body. It is not a strictly linear
equation. The laws of thermo may be useful to determine minimum amd
maximum energy needs and usage, they just do not predict very well the
complex process of fat storage and loss. There are other factors in
play other than just the calorific content of the food. What are those
other factors? You tell us. You seem to have all the answers. You tell
us why the laws of thermo appear to be contradicted.

The calorie theory imposes a strictly linear equation for calories
consumed and fat storage and/or loss. I challenge you to find the
science that first showed that. Show us the seminal and definitive
study or research paper that makes that specific finding. Who is the
visionary scientist(s) that made this discovery and wrote the paper?
Or show us any study that specifically finds that fat storage and loss
is strictly related to the exact amounts of calories consumed.

Don't give us any of that "everybody knows that calories are the only
factor" crap or the "the laws of thermo applies in every case"
nonsense either. We know that the laws of thermo apply somehow. Just
give us the name of the study that proves that it is a strictly
*linear equation* for calories consumed to bodyfat.

TC

DJ Delorie wrote:

"Bob (this one)" writes:

It assumes caloric usage on the order of a calorimeter and humans
don't work that way.

One problem with this line of reasoning is that the calorie numbers
on food labels are adjusted to compensate for this.

I haven't seen it to be that way. Labels seem to only reflect the
standards of 9 cal/gm fat, 4 cal/gm of carb and prot, rounded in any
of several ways to suit regulations and convenience.

To pick a blatant example, I haven't seen labels that recognize that
the carbs in sugar alcohols are actually available in significantly
smaller amounts than the carbs in sucrose. Another problem is
definition with carbs often being calculated "by exception" rather
than actually measured. There's a lot of inaccuracy inherent in the
system. Still, they can be decent working approximations.

Unfortunately, calorie numbers on food labels are also allowed a
certain amount of inaccuracy.

It's just not so simple as energy in vs. energy out.

Actually energy in vs energy out *IS* the rule, the problem is that
"energy out" is nearly impossible to calculate, and varies for
more reasons that we can imagine.

Agreed. I stated it poorly. I meant that it's a good deal more complex
than taking label info or database info of caloric contents of foods
and trying to balance them against caloric usage based on tables and
charts we've all seen. Too many variables, too many individual
conditions, too many unique aspects of each of the users. Which is
pretty much what you said...

The preachers of the laws of thermodynamics as though they directly
applied to humans seem to either be trolls or others who've taken a
shallow draft of the Pierian Spring.

Pastorio

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:21:16 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote:

DJ Delorie wrote:

"Bob (this one)" writes:

It assumes caloric usage on the order of a calorimeter and humans
don't work that way.

One problem with this line of reasoning is that the calorie numbers
on food labels are adjusted to compensate for this.

I haven't seen it to be that way. Labels seem to only reflect the
standards of 9 cal/gm fat, 4 cal/gm of carb and prot, rounded in any of
several ways to suit regulations and convenience.

To pick a blatant example, I haven't seen labels that recognize that the
carbs in sugar alcohols are actually available in significantly smaller
amounts than the carbs in sucrose. Another problem is definition with
carbs often being calculated "by exception" rather than actually
measured. There's a lot of inaccuracy inherent in the system. Still,
they can be decent working approximations.

Unfortunately, calorie numbers on food labels are also allowed a
certain amount of inaccuracy.

It's just not so simple as energy in vs. energy out.

Actually energy in vs energy out *IS* the rule, the problem is that
"energy out" is nearly impossible to calculate, and varies for
more reasons that we can imagine.

Agreed. I stated it poorly. I meant that it's a good deal more complex
than taking label info or database info of caloric contents of foods and
trying to balance them against caloric usage based on tables and charts
we've all seen. Too many variables, too many individual conditions, too
many unique aspects of each of the users. Which is pretty much what you
said...

The preachers of the laws of thermodynamics as though they directly
applied to humans seem to either be trolls or others who've taken a
shallow draft of the Pierian Spring.

Pastorio


And besides, who cares whether low carb diets are or are not consistent
with the "laws" of physics? I eat low carb because I feel a heck of a lot
better than I did when I ate low fat. That's all that matters to me.

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

"Bob (this one)" writes:
I haven't seen it to be that way. Labels seem to only reflect the
standards of 9 cal/gm fat, 4 cal/gm of carb and prot, rounded in any
of several ways to suit regulations and convenience.

Except that protein is 5 cal/gm in a calorimeter.

DJ Delorie wrote in message ...
"Bob (this one)" writes:
I haven't seen it to be that way. Labels seem to only reflect the
standards of 9 cal/gm fat, 4 cal/gm of carb and prot, rounded in any
of several ways to suit regulations and convenience.

Except that protein is 5 cal/gm in a calorimeter.

Not after they apply the factors and adjustments. Without the factors
and adjustments the math simply doesn't work out. How convenient eh?
What a way to do science?

TC