Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

wrote:

"Moosh" writes:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:42:12 GMT, posted:

Note: of course restricting calories CAN lead to weight loss (even
if a person has to be locked up to prevent their escaping in search
of food). The question is, does calorie deficit fully explain
weight loss--meaning that all diets at a given calorie level will
be equally eficacious in promoting weight loss.

By experience, most of us know that the answer is "no".

What experience is that?


Many of us have changed from gaining to losing, without reducing
calories, by changing dietary composition. Are you really so dense
that you have to ask the question?

And you know for a scientific fact that you were consuming and expending
the same number of calories before and after changing your WOL? Don't
you think that lifestyle change is a contributing factor as a part of WOE?
--
jmk in NC

Sun & Mun_ wrote:

USDA Nutrient database for potatoes shows (among other things) caloric
content per 100 grams. 2 pounds is approximately 900 grams, so I
multiplied caloric counts below by 9 to get figures for 2 pounds.

Potatoes, baked, flesh and skin, with salt - 93 cal (X 9= 837)
Potatoes, boiled, cooked in skin, flesh, without salt - 87 cal (X 9 = 783)
Potatoes, boiled, cooked without skin, flesh, without salt - 86 cal (X
9= 774)
Potatoes, frozen, french fried, par fried, cottage-cut, unprepared -
153 cal (X 9= 1337)
Potatoes, mashed, dehydrated, flakes without milk, dry form - 354 cal
(X 9= 3186)
Potato flour - 357 (X 9= 3213)
Fast foods, potato, mashed - 83 cal (X 9= 747)
Fast foods, potato, french fried in vegetable oil - 342 (X 9= 3078)
Snacks, potato chips, made from dried potatoes, plain - 558 (X 9=
5022) [38 g of fat = 342 cal of 558 or just 216 from potato]
Snacks, potato chips, plain, unsalted - 536 (X 9= ) [34 g of fat = 306
of 536 cal or just 230 from potato]

On 27 Jan 2004 09:48:54 -0800, (Dr. Andrew B.
Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:

After reviewing the above, is it really any wonder that
calorie-counting fails?

lol

Laugh at Chung's flaccid efforts to divert attention from his
astonishing blunder of asserting and then insisting that 2 pounds of
potatoes contain 3600 calories.

I agree. It's funny.

I would just as soon want to make a diary of my daily footsteps.

What has a diary to do with the flagrantly inaccurate posturing of
Chung and your efforts to change the subject.

You've mentioned diaries several times as though people who are trying
to lose weight all have to keep some sort of ledgers or something. As
though low fat people can't remember to not eat too much fat or low
carbers not to eat too many carbs. How stupid must be the people you
associate with that they can only live using these crutches.

Bob

Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:42:12 -0500 in article
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:

Matti Narkia wrote:

Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:20:00 -0500 in article
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:

Matti Narkia wrote:

Between 30 and 50 % of people with diabetes are at risk of kidney disease,
but that was not an issue here. Chung's comment about protein and kidneys
was general and as such also and mostly aimed at the large majority of
general population with no kidney disease and no diabetes. Chung's attempts
to change the subject (the next twist would probably be totally off-topic
religious mantras) when caught answering inaccurately (or otherwise
challenged) should be resisted. A citation from the recently posted "Dr.
Chung FAQ, Issue 1"
(URL:http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=chungfaq-8E35A7.05173026012004%40library.airnews.net):

"o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs,
dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible, religious
mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem arguments, and other
such disreputable, unethical, and unprofessional tactics.

See also the chapters dealing with Mu. ;-)

Is the source you cite a reliable source by your usual "vitamin-counter" standards, Matti?

Anyone who has followed this ng for a few weeks or longer and read the cited
FAQ knows that the FAQ is highly accurate and hence reliable.

What happened to your search for the truth, Matti?

It's a life time commitment. Right now one of the active projects is the
truth about you. In that project the above FAQ is a great help.



--
Matti Narkia

Steve wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:48:54 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message ) :

Bob wrote in message
...
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Thorsten Schier wrote:

Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories
as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-).

Yes.

Why can't you just admit that you made a mistake when you stated that 2
pounds of potatoes have 3600 calories?

It is not a mistake to guestimate 3600 calories per 2 lbs of potatoes
(especially if one is trying to lose
weight).

USDA Nutrient database for potatoes shows (among other things) caloric
content per 100 grams. 2 pounds is approximately 900 grams, so I
multiplied caloric counts below by 9 to get figures for 2 pounds.

Potatoes, baked, flesh and skin, with salt - 93 cal (X 9= 837)
Potatoes, boiled, cooked in skin, flesh, without salt - 87 cal (X 9 = 783)
Potatoes, boiled, cooked without skin, flesh, without salt - 86 cal (X
9= 774)
Potatoes, frozen, french fried, par fried, cottage-cut, unprepared -
153 cal (X 9= 1337)
Potatoes, mashed, dehydrated, flakes without milk, dry form - 354 cal
(X 9= 3186)
Potato flour - 357 (X 9= 3213)
Fast foods, potato, mashed - 83 cal (X 9= 747)
Fast foods, potato, french fried in vegetable oil - 342 (X 9= 3078)
Snacks, potato chips, made from dried potatoes, plain - 558 (X 9=
5022) [38 g of fat = 342 cal of 558 or just 216 from potato]
Snacks, potato chips, plain, unsalted - 536 (X 9= ) [34 g of fat = 306
of 536 cal or just 230 from potato]

desperate, hateful Chung hissing snipped

Oh, and Chung... when you respond, please trim your headers to
only sci.med.cardiology. Thanks ever so much.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 5:17:30 -0500, Steve wrote
(in message ):


---------------------------------
| The Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD FAQ |
| Version 1.0, January, 2004 |
libelous statements snipped

You poor guy.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message.
Because the author of the message to which I am responding maliciously
requested that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are
upset about reading this message, a few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Steve
(2) Report Steve to his ISP for violating their TOS by posting libelous and
defamatory material.
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is
described completely at:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet
discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and
has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been
entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian.
Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp

From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently
opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every
perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument
soundly at every point:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp

These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other
discussion threads.

However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s),
certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward
its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message
then try to discredit the messenger."

Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone
who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion
value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars.

These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following
observations were made:

(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the
discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to
achieve near-ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight
becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs
of the actual diplomas).

Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to
attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to
libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp

When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful
folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their
fallen hero.

Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or
as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line
third-party resources at:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp

where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims
that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked.

Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon
posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig, Steve, and Mack):

(1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or
accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided
insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its
author.

and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.

It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed.

It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing
from the peanut gallery.


Sincerely,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:22:32 GMT, posted:

"Moosh" writes:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:22:51 GMT, posted:

But what were you trying to shed light on wrt our conversation, is
what I mean. I know what a closed system is...

"(whatever that arbitrary system means exactly)." --Moosh


And?
Is the human body in a metabolic chamber a closed system or not, and
what has that to do with the discussion?
You are so full of red herrings it's rather pathetic.
If you can't show a met lab study that shows what you claim, that 1000
excess fat calories has a significantly different effect on fat stores
than 1000 excess glucose calories, then perhaps you should just bow
out quietly.

It is the second law--that's why I refer to it as "the second
law". It is relevant to any system in which energy is converted.

Only if you are interested into what it is converted.

Sigh.

Childish avoidance tricks noted.

Cells do not run on ham sandwiches, my learned friend.

One of your tautologies? Snarfff!

They run
on ATP *only*. Conversion from ham sandwiches to ATP is the ENTIRE
point of the discussion.

So when glucose is converted to triglycerides for storage? Doh!

You have confused yourself with ATP. It is merely a carrier of energy.
Glucose is not converted to ATP. Merely transfers its energy to this
energetic molecule. The glucose is converted to carbon dioxide, water
and the energy that is carried by the ATP. Why are you avoiding the
question of this discussion?

All properly done evidence so far shows that the type of food fed to
properly measured subjects has insignificant effect on fat storage or
loss. You appear to claim otherwise, so please make with the evidence,
and stop beating around the bush with red herrings (that's a mixed
metaphor, in case you were wondering).

With that definition, calories consumed but not expended are stored
as fat--by definition.

So where is the tautology? That's the definition of hypercaloric.

Sigh. If you define "expended" as above, your statement becomes
trivially true by definition

Trivially true does not a tautology make. Look it up if you don't
know. The statement is trivially true coz dumbfux like you and TC
don't understand it.

--i.e., a "tautology". For *other*
definitions, your statement becomes false.

What definitions would these be?

The usual, loose definition
of "expended" is one such, since it ignores energy lost due to the
inefficiency of conversion (and improperly accounts for malabsorption).

Malabsorption is not absorption. Please keep up.
All inefficiencies of any conversion, (no matter how defined) are
accounted for. In a metabolic chamber, all inputs will exactly balance
all outputs. Now unless you are saying that the human body must absorb
one heck of a lot more heat than it needs, how come body temperature
is pretty constant between individuals?

Then you are dodging the interesting question. Atkins claimed a
"metabolic advantage" which is neither more nor less than the claim
that a body in ketosis "expends" non-carb calories differently than
a body not in ketosis "expends" carb calories.

Sorry, you won't be in ketosis when you get 40% of your calories from
carb, and the modern Atkins diet involves this, apparently.

The only thing that's obvious is that you can't read. 40% of calories
come from carb (more or less) ON MAINTENANCE.

Maintenance being "the rest of your life"? Or are you saying that
weight loss only occurs during the first two weeks of Atkins diet?
You can't have it both ways. Are we in ketosis or not?

So, 1000 calories into the bloodstream as trigycerides, and 1000
calories into the bloodstream as glucose. Both can be used to provide
the same amount of muscular energy, or stored as roughly 111 grams of
fat...

Sigh.

Are you tired? Do you need a nap? Then quit the childish dramatics,
Drama Queen!

Only *ONE* question on your plate, and you fumble it! Neither
provides any energy whatsoever in that form--they must be converted to
ATP first,

There you go with the confusion again. One thousand calories of
glucose provides 1000 calories of energy. Just because the energy
pathway include ATP should really not throw you. Or are you saying
that sometimes glucose calories are transferred to ATP, and sometimes
they just disappear?

which is the ONLY fuel used by cells.

Well calling it a fuel is a total misnomer, it is merely an energy
carrier. Glucose (or precursors) is the fuel.

Now, complete your
OWN argument: what is the efficiency of conversion of 1000 calories of
glucose into ATP, and 1000 calories of your favorite triglyceride?

Totally irrelevant. What do the measurements of different diets in a
metabolic chamber tell you?
All evidence so far shows insignificant difference in food constituent
variations. You say different? Where's your evidence?

(Hint: the second law guarantees that it's 100%, and a priori one
would find it astonishing if the efficiency in each case were the
same.)

This reaction pathway is irrelevant to the figures we get from
metabolic chambers where insignificant differences are shown wrt fat
storage from different food constituent ratios.

What are you actually trying to say? What is the form of this
"waste energy"?

Energy contained in said glucose, but not contained in the resulting
quantity of ATP. You can't possibly be this dense, while still
pretending to be taking a scientific perspective.

So you don't know? Can't characterise it? I asked you, remember?

Your arrogant attitude would earn you a smack in the face from someone
so inclined, but I realise that your aggressiveness is an artefact of
your insecurity.

Then of course you ARE advancing a tautology which has NOTHING to
do with the assertion that all food calories are equal.

Sorry, this tautology or repetition of the same idea is where exactly?
I can't see what you keep referring to.

"Repetition of the same idea"? Thanks, all is clear now! You have NO
idea what a tautology is, and went to dictionary.com when I used the
word. (Hint: the definition at dictionary.com is wrong, or at best
misleading.)

Then tell us your definition. You obviously have a unique definition
that only you use. How convenient you must find communication.
BTW, I don't use dictionary.com. I use a dictionary of the person I'm
communicating with. In this case I would consult my American Heritage
Dictionary if I needed to know what a tautology was to Americans.
I am fully aware what a tautology is. Tell us how you use the word.

In a normal individual, 1000 calories of whatever will yield 1000
calories of mechanical/heat energy...

And you say that you count ALL outputs, and that the second law is
irrelevant! *THE* question could be stated thus: how much of that is
mechanical, and how much is waste?

Define waste. Hint: heat output is mostly NOT waste. Are you referring
to the thermal efficiency of production of mechanical energy from
muscle cells? You resort to childish insult whenever you are cornered,
so it is difficult to know what your position is.

If the body requires 100 calories
of mechanical energy,

WTF does this mean? Do you need lifting into the bath or something?

then the number of food calories required will
depend on the conversion efficiency.

No **** Sherlock! What is your point?
The body needs to produce a lot of heat for itself, remember.
I'd be careful with throwing around that "waste energy" that you are
fond of.

Given two foods with conversion
efficiency x and y, the required food energy is 100/x and 100/y. If
food composition doesn't matter, then you are asserting that x equals
y. Now prove it.

All the work done so far backs this. Pick any you like when you hit
the medical library. BTW, neither can be proven. HTH

As YOU are claiming vast differences in x and y, then the onus is on
you to show where this claim comes from, if you can. TC can't and I've
asked you and you can't.

But what has this to do with the second law of thermodynamics? Isn't
entropy just a given that we put up with and why we must make
measurement? It changes nothing here. It cancels itself out.

Well I don't know what "conversion efficiency" means other than
percentage yield of product perhaps, but you still haven't said
what the conversion is to. Then we can talk turkey, so to speak.

You disappoint.

You mean you don't know what "efficiency" means?

No, fool, I'm disappointed that you don't know what the conversion is
to.

Well I was wondering if it might be to glycogen, or tryglycerides.
I think YOU have earned the "fool" title here.

It's to ATP, friend.

Thanks, was that too difficult?
A simple answer of what you mean between alternatives instead of
childish abuse. Helps the flow of discussion.

You are arguing about the physiology of food
metabolism without knowing the most basic fact of biology.

Well back at yer. There are many different conversions of glucose. I
suggest you consult an elementary text on the subject afore ye put the
foot in the mouth again.

[further ignorant ranting snipped]

Avoiding civil answers is a sure sign of lack of cogent argument.
Was there something embarrassing you that you had to snip?
Like characterising this "waste energy" that you keep waving your arms
about?

Answer your own question, concerning conversion of glucose or
triglycerides to ATP, and we can then finish the conversation handily.

And you talked about the conversion of glucose. I asked to what, and
you went off your face.

If glucose is converted to ATP as you erroniously assume, where does
the phosphorus come from?
You have been hoist by your own petard in cocking up the simple
"burning" or storing of glucose, and coz your original attack on me
has been shown to be childish attack on the bleedin' obvious you have
spat the dummy (pacifier)

Look, if you have any proper evidence that changing the dietary
constituents in any significant way changes the fat storage status,
spit it out, or STFU. Take your pick.


Moosh

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:23:59 GMT, posted:

"Moosh" writes:

So long as you regard consumed as not just taken into the gut but
absorbed into the bloodstream -- the physiological understanding of
IN the body.

Please don't bandy about "physiological understanding".

Well if we don't get you straight on these (like tautology which you
seem to have a unique definition of), we won't be able to communicate
properly.

Glucose in the
bloodstream is only halfway there; to be used it must be converted to
ATP in the cells.

How is this done? I understood the energy was transferred from glucose
metabolites to ADP energising it to ATP.
If this is only a few percent efficient, what happens to all the other
calories. I'm counting ALL INs and OUTs remember.

Please answer your own question (for which, see
another post in this thread).

[more ignorant ranting snipped]

This rude response is designed to deflect readers from the fact that
he has run out of any argument, not that he had any point in the first
place. We still haven't pinned TC down in his belief that a
hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss. Ah well, maybe there
is someone about who can tell TC AGAIN (many good minds have tried)
that calories can neither be create nor destroyed.

Moosh

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:27:58 GMT, posted:

"Moosh" writes:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:31:30 GMT, posted:

He is not. He is claiming that the useful energy yield differs
between equal-calorie diets depending on their composition.

Yes, and he supplies absolutely NO evidence for this wild assertion.

The second law of thermodynamics gives good a priori reasons for
doubting that conversion of glucose and trygliceride to ATP is equally
efficient.

Yet you haven't defined the efficiencey you refer to here. I wonder
why. Lack of understandinng springs to mind.

Why shouldn't the energy of these substances be transferred to ATP in
a roughly equal manner? That which is not transferred to ATP remains
as what? You haven't answered except with insult.
The bottom line that you are avoiding is for you to show any evidence
that a significant difference can be brought to fat storage by varying
the food constituents supplied.

It's YOUR view that is wild, given an understanding of the
biochemistry involved (and mine is of the most basic; your's is simply
pathetic).

So just for argument, of the 1000 calories of the glucose energy, 100
calories is transferred to ATP. What happens to the 900 calories?
You haven't answered this, apart from you resort to personal attack.

Tell me, what happens to the say 1000 cal fat and 1000 cal glucose
being compared? What do you define as "useful energy"?

They are converted to ATP, which is then used to fuel the cell.

So what happens to that not converted? If you say heat, why do you
regard that as "wasted"?

For a
definition of "useful energy", I'll be content with that energy not
wasted during the conversion to ATP. Something you should, I hope,
have heard of.

So what exactly is this "wasted energy" that you keep talking about,
yet only characterise with personal insult?

[further ignorant ranting snipped]

Code for can't answer the awkward questions that show Len is an
argumentative twit without a point.

Moosh

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:30:00 GMT, posted:

"Moosh" writes:

You aren't counting waste energy.

What waste energy is this that I don't know about? How does it
manifest itself?

It manifests itself as energy present in glucose minus energy present
in ATP resulting from glycolysis. You've been asked many times now to
do this calculation yourself, since you have already boasted that you
are able to do so. Do it now.

Why do you keep demanding irrelevant numbers?

Answer the question. What is the energy of glucose that is NOT
transferred to ATP? What form does it take?

[further ignorant ranting snipped]

Code for run out of cogent argument.

Moosh

On 26 Jan 2004 06:39:07 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:55:48 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
posted:

Are you equating a Zone diet, (40% carbs), with Atkins?

Just for your information, maintainance Atkins is hardly distinguishable
from Zone...

OK, it's apparently changed. I read the book back in 1970 or
thereabouts. So Atkins is 40% carb calories nowadays?
Not a low carb diet then. One wonders what all the fuss is.
Stick to the good old, tried and true, varied, wholefood, eucaloric
diet with regular exercise and you won't likely go wong, unless you
habitually wrestle with busses

Moosh

See there is your main problem. You do not even know what a low-carb
diet is.

Well what is it? The scientists use something like 10% sometimes.

The mainstream recommends a 55 to 65% carb diet.

Do they? I've heard this is a high carbohydrate diet.
I've seen recommendations for 40% to 60% depending on physical
activity and total calorie requirement.

Anything
less than this is a low-carb diet.

What happend to "moderate carb diet"?
Do you just have high and low in your lexicon?

40% carbs is a low carb diet.

That's moderate from what I read. Geez it's nearly half, hardly low.
Maybe you mean "lower"?

Now
this is a major misconception on your part.

And many scientists, apparently.
See what they regard as low carb diet.
Certainly not 40%

Here you are arguing with
everybody and coming across as if you know more than everybody,

To you perhaps

showing nothing but arrogance,

Ditto

making your high-handed assertations

Those facts can be annoying, I know.

and you do not even understand what ow-carb is and why it is low-carb.

Well you tell us why eating two fifths of your calories as carbs is
low carb. What would 30%, or 20% or 10% carbs be called?

Maybe you ought to get to understand the parameters and the context of
the discussion before you open your mouth and make nonsensical
arguments that end up embarassing you yet again.

So once again, you claim that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat
storage loss, please show us the evidence that you base this weird
assertion on. And please don't regurgitate that silly study you did
recently, my sides are still sore

Moosh

On 26 Jan 2004 07:08:59 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
OK Moosh. There is your study that shows or at least indicates the
real possibility that calories are not a valid and practical approach
to weight management.

In your gullible little eyes, apparently. How sad!
That report shows to me much confusion and NO science.

I challenge you to find me *one* study that wasn't put out by industry
researchers that proves definitively that calories are directly
applicable to control weight in humans. I want any study that wasn't
paid for by industry that makes it crystal clear that weight can be
managed by restricting calories.

Restricting calories is the ONLY way to reduce fat storage loss.
No other way has ever been demonstrated.
And calorie restriction ALWAYS results in fat storage loss.
Of course the way you achieve this calorie restriction is of very
little interest to me here (smn). Try a dieting group for the most
effective schemes.

Better yet, find me the seminal study that first made this assertion.
Find me the one or the series of studies that *first* concluded that
calories are it. Such a ground breaking and historical document must
be easy to find. The researchers must be world reknown for their
brilliant discovery. Give me the study(s) and the names. This is the
study(s) that your whole world of nutritional science hangs its hat
on. Should be easy.

That's the whole body of science. Open your eyes.
You are contradicting this huge body of science, so the onus is on you
to show just one anomaly, and it will turn the whole scentific corpus
on its head Good luck!

Moosh


Well show the one piece of that whole body of science that
specifically concluded that calories are the only factor in weight
management in humans.

They all do, take your pick.

If someone were to ask what was the seminal work in nuclear science,
the instant response is Einstein, relativity and E=mc2. Ask about
rocket science and you get Von Braun. Ask about the planets and you
get Copernicus and Galileo. Ask about modern electricity and you get
Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla. Ask about gravity and you get Newton.
Ask about flight and you get the Wright Brothers.

Ask about nutrition and you get ?????????. Nothing. Vague references
to a large body of work.

Good argument, can you see the flaws in it yet?

Put your money where your mouth is. Who made and proved this concept?
What specific study or set of studies specifically showed that
calories could be applied directly in weight management in humans.

Put up or shut up.

Well it's the only thing that has ever been shown to work. If you
disagree, then show one study that demonstrates it NOT working.
Hundreds or thousands that show it does, and none that it doesn't See
a pattern yet?

Moosh