Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:57:21 +0900, Doug Lerner
posted:

I found this research interesting. Some people are saying now that maybe all
calories are not equal in the traditional sense, when metabolized by the
body.

Can you explain this difference?

Other people are saying that maybe the low-carbers in the study simply
cheated less because their appetites are under control better.

Unless you know ALL the parameters, you are just guessing.

But to me, the real issue isn't whether there is a thermogenic advantage or
not to low-carbing. I wouldn't be shocked to find there was, although I
think there is not a consensus on this point yet.

Whether there is a thermogenic effect or not from some food or other
is rather irrelevant. The calories involved will be small, and the
person who is constantly hot and sweating will go to the doc for a
cure

To me, the issue is a matter of degree. I am finding that even with very low
carb eating that I am gaining weight.

IF that weight is fat, you must be absorbing too many calories.

So even if I would be gaining *more*
weight eating the same number of calories and higher carbs, the problem
still remains.

In other words, low-carbing does not shut off normal metabolism. Eating too
many calories for your body still causes you to gain weight regardless.

Yep. Of course, in some folk, an insulin rebound occurs with high GI
loads and they tend to be hungrier. This is not making you fatter,
just making you perhaps want to eat more. Eating is a voluntary
process, and is often under the influence to a greater or lesser
degree of different psychological pressures. This doesn't influence
whether that 1000 calories you eat will be burned in that exercise you
choose to do, or fat storage if you choose not to do it.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:16:39 -0500, Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr.
posted:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:57:21 +0900, Doug Lerner
wrote:

I found this research interesting. Some people are saying now that maybe all
calories are not equal in the traditional sense, when metabolized by the
body. Other people are saying that maybe the low-carbers in the study simply
cheated less because their appetites are under control better.

But to me, the real issue isn't whether there is a thermogenic advantage or
not to low-carbing. I wouldn't be shocked to find there was, although I
think there is not a consensus on this point yet.

To me, the issue is a matter of degree. I am finding that even with very low
carb eating that I am gaining weight. So even if I would be gaining *more*
weight eating the same number of calories and higher carbs, the problem
still remains.

In other words, low-carbing does not shut off normal metabolism. Eating too
many calories for your body still causes you to gain weight regardless.

doug


I have found that a low carb diet lets me control my eating. It is
necessary to eat less even on a low carb diet to lose weight.
Appetite control is what low carb is all about. Something I never
successfully did on a low fat diet.

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.

Moosh! wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:16:39 -0500, Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr.
posted:


On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:57:21 +0900, Doug Lerner
wrote:


I found this research interesting. Some people are saying now that maybe all
calories are not equal in the traditional sense, when metabolized by the
body. Other people are saying that maybe the low-carbers in the study simply
cheated less because their appetites are under control better.

But to me, the real issue isn't whether there is a thermogenic advantage or
not to low-carbing. I wouldn't be shocked to find there was, although I
think there is not a consensus on this point yet.

To me, the issue is a matter of degree. I am finding that even with very low
carb eating that I am gaining weight. So even if I would be gaining *more*
weight eating the same number of calories and higher carbs, the problem
still remains.

In other words, low-carbing does not shut off normal metabolism. Eating too
many calories for your body still causes you to gain weight regardless.

doug


I have found that a low carb diet lets me control my eating. It is
necessary to eat less even on a low carb diet to lose weight.
Appetite control is what low carb is all about. Something I never
successfully did on a low fat diet.


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.

martin

I think that all the harvard study shows is that they really do not
understand things very well. The possibilities are that that the atkins
groups were cheating less because they were less hungry (that is my vote,
based only on my own experience) The other possibilities are that atkins
calories are not digested, or that it takes an more calories to digest (a
net effect). I tend to agree with folks who cite thermodynamics in that once
the calorie unit is absorbed, a calorie is a calorie, but getting from the
stomach to the bloodstream is a complicated process, and there is still the
post digestive side to consider (that atkins dieters live more actively and
exercise more, which I certainly have found to be true, though whether the
diet affected my resolve or it was coincidence is up for debate)

Again, it simply shows that the simplistic models that have predominated and
resulted in the fat gram fallacy are not just false, but far removed from
the reality. Dietary science is in my opinion not much further along than
folk medicine and witch doctors.

"Moosh!" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:57:21 +0900, Doug Lerner
posted:

I found this research interesting. Some people are saying now that maybe
all
calories are not equal in the traditional sense, when metabolized by the
body.

Can you explain this difference?

Other people are saying that maybe the low-carbers in the study simply
cheated less because their appetites are under control better.

Unless you know ALL the parameters, you are just guessing.

But to me, the real issue isn't whether there is a thermogenic advantage
or
not to low-carbing. I wouldn't be shocked to find there was, although I
think there is not a consensus on this point yet.

Whether there is a thermogenic effect or not from some food or other
is rather irrelevant. The calories involved will be small, and the
person who is constantly hot and sweating will go to the doc for a
cure

To me, the issue is a matter of degree. I am finding that even with very
low
carb eating that I am gaining weight.

IF that weight is fat, you must be absorbing too many calories.

So even if I would be gaining *more*
weight eating the same number of calories and higher carbs, the problem
still remains.

In other words, low-carbing does not shut off normal metabolism. Eating
too
many calories for your body still causes you to gain weight regardless.

Yep. Of course, in some folk, an insulin rebound occurs with high GI
loads and they tend to be hungrier. This is not making you fatter,
just making you perhaps want to eat more. Eating is a voluntary
process, and is often under the influence to a greater or lesser
degree of different psychological pressures. This doesn't influence
whether that 1000 calories you eat will be burned in that exercise you
choose to do, or fat storage if you choose not to do it.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:46:50 +0200, "M.W.Smith"
posted:

Moosh! wrote:

On 21 Oct 2003 10:43:09 -0700, (tcomeau) posted:
Using calories to predict weight gain or loss in humans,
independent of other bio-chemical influences and processes, is not a
practical application of the law of conservation of energy aka. the
first law of thermodynamics.


Sorry, it's the ONLY way. The energy is the only thing that counts. If
you don't eat excessive calories you can't store fat, and if you DO
eat excesive calories (remember "IN") you MUST store them. Whatever
else do you think could happen to them?

They get discarded without being stored *or* burned.

Howso?

Unless you mean that they never get "IN"?

The
laws of thermodynamics apply to releasing stored energy.

That's what I keep saying. They apply EVERYWHERE.

That only comes into effect for calories entering the human
body if they are actually stored or burned by the body.

That's all I'm talking about, calories "IN".

Apparently, on the Atkins diet, some of the calories
entering the body are not stored and not burned by the body,
thus enabling calories that were stored earlier as fat to be
burned instead.

You mean they don't go "IN" and are donated to the Porcelain God?
Tha's not "entering the body".

Just because you eat something doesn't mean its calories
must either be stored or burned. They can also be thrown away.

But they are not calories "IN"

You really don't have much of a clue about science, do you.

A gram of fat may be stored and not metabolised, you realise (I do
hope, forlornly)?

And it may be not stored and not metabolised.

So when it goes "IN" the body, can you explain what happens to it?

It will be metabolised (burned) if it is needed by the body, and will
not be, if the body has sufficient energy for its needs. Buggerall to
do with hormones, sorry.

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

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.

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.

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.

martin

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.

The possibilities are that that the atkins
groups were cheating less because they were less hungry (that is my vote,
based only on my own experience) The other possibilities are that atkins
calories are not digested,

Then they remain as fat/carb/protein. These weigh one ninth/one
fourth/one fourth of a gram each.

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

Can you describe this?

I tend to agree with folks who cite thermodynamics in that once
the calorie unit is absorbed, a calorie is a calorie, but getting from the
stomach to the bloodstream is a complicated process, and there is still the
post digestive side to consider (that atkins dieters live more actively and
exercise more, which I certainly have found to be true, though whether the
diet affected my resolve or it was coincidence is up for debate)

Some claim a low fat diet leads to more activity. I suspect it's
rather variable (idiosyncratic)

A gram of fat in the blood stream weighs one gram and can be converted
to 9 calories of energy (mechanical/heat) and one gram of carbon
dioxide and water. The latter two leave via the lungs and kidneys
respectively in the main.

Again, it simply shows that the simplistic models that have predominated and
resulted in the fat gram fallacy are not just false, but far removed from
the reality. Dietary science is in my opinion not much further along than
folk medicine and witch doctors.

I suspect that's an artifact of your understanding.


"Moosh!" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:57:21 +0900, Doug Lerner
posted:

I found this research interesting. Some people are saying now that maybe
all
calories are not equal in the traditional sense, when metabolized by the
body.

Can you explain this difference?

Other people are saying that maybe the low-carbers in the study simply
cheated less because their appetites are under control better.

Unless you know ALL the parameters, you are just guessing.

But to me, the real issue isn't whether there is a thermogenic advantage
or
not to low-carbing. I wouldn't be shocked to find there was, although I
think there is not a consensus on this point yet.

Whether there is a thermogenic effect or not from some food or other
is rather irrelevant. The calories involved will be small, and the
person who is constantly hot and sweating will go to the doc for a
cure

To me, the issue is a matter of degree. I am finding that even with very
low
carb eating that I am gaining weight.

IF that weight is fat, you must be absorbing too many calories.

So even if I would be gaining *more*
weight eating the same number of calories and higher carbs, the problem
still remains.

In other words, low-carbing does not shut off normal metabolism. Eating
too
many calories for your body still causes you to gain weight regardless.

Yep. Of course, in some folk, an insulin rebound occurs with high GI
loads and they tend to be hungrier. This is not making you fatter,
just making you perhaps want to eat more. Eating is a voluntary
process, and is often under the influence to a greater or lesser
degree of different psychological pressures. This doesn't influence
whether that 1000 calories you eat will be burned in that exercise you
choose to do, or fat storage if you choose not to do it.

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.

Moosh! wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:46:50 +0200, "M.W.Smith"
posted:


Moosh! wrote:


On 21 Oct 2003 10:43:09 -0700, (tcomeau) posted:

Using calories to predict weight gain or loss in humans,
independent of other bio-chemical influences and processes, is not a
practical application of the law of conservation of energy aka. the
first law of thermodynamics.


Sorry, it's the ONLY way. The energy is the only thing that counts. If
you don't eat excessive calories you can't store fat, and if you DO
eat excesive calories (remember "IN") you MUST store them. Whatever
else do you think could happen to them?

They get discarded without being stored *or* burned.


Howso?

Unless you mean that they never get "IN"?

They go o'er your lips and passed your gums, look out
abdoment, here she comes. And then they just keep on going,
being neither stored nor burned.

The
laws of thermodynamics apply to releasing stored energy.


That's what I keep saying. They apply EVERYWHERE.

Yes, when stored energy is released by some chemical
reaction. It is not necessary for every calorie that enters
your mouth to be handled so. That energy might pass through
your body without ever being burned.

That only comes into effect for calories entering the human
body if they are actually stored or burned by the body.


That's all I'm talking about, calories "IN".

Yes, then you are not contradicting the study, because your
claim is a tautology. You are just saying calories absorbed
and either stored or burned equals calories absorbed and
either stored or burned. When you write "in", you actually
mean "absorbed", but calories that are injested are also
inside the body, and they are not necessarily stored and or
burned.

Apparently, on the Atkins diet, some of the calories
entering the body are not stored and not burned by the body,
thus enabling calories that were stored earlier as fat to be
burned instead.

You mean they don't go "IN" and are donated to the Porcelain God?
Tha's not "entering the body".


No, I mean they did go in. In means I ate them. That is the
kind of in the rest of us are talking about, so get on the
same page before you start shouting.

Just because you eat something doesn't mean its calories
must either be stored or burned. They can also be thrown away.


But they are not calories "IN"

Yes, they are calories in. In this group, we are concerned
with calories we eat and drink. Eat and drink means in.

You really don't have much of a clue about science, do you.

A gram of fat may be stored and not metabolised, you realise (I do
hope, forlornly)?

And it may be not stored and not metabolised.


So when it goes "IN" the body, can you explain what happens to it?

It comes out again.

It will be metabolised (burned) if it is needed by the body, and will
not be, if the body has sufficient energy for its needs. Buggerall to
do with hormones, sorry.

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


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.

They come back out of the bloodstream and are discarded.

martin