If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
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 I would just as soon want to make a diary of my daily footsteps. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031122.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
What a bunch of clowns ( Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh)
Ron Ritzman wrote in message . ..
Fat cells are always storing and releasing fat simultaneously. Insulin makes fat cells release a little less and store a little more, glucagon and certain other hormones have the opposite effect. Sure lipoprotein lipase is not only affected by insulin, sufficient fatty acid levels can trigger it as well. But the detail you are missing is the level of insulin that is released in the wake of a high carb meal especially in insulin resistant individuals. The insulin spike drives an LPL spike, there is no such LPL spike in response to fatty acids in the blood. Blood glucose levels are tightly controlled whereas fatty acid levels are not. Excess fatty acid molecules can ride the blood stream longer and so can be metabolized through cellular respiration more readily. When a cell needs extra energy above and beyond what is provided by glucose, it uses some of the fat floating around in the bloodstream. The fat that is released that is not used by cells goes back into the fat cells. The blood is a partial reservoir for this fat in the wake of a meal. Not all of the consumed fat goes straight to the fat cells. Also, fat cells do not release fat at the same rate they store it, otherwise there would be no accumulation. Therefore, if you eat more calories then you burn, the fat cells store more fat then they release and you gain fat, if you eat less then you burn, then the fat cells release more fat then they store and you lose fat. This is based on steady state balance assumptions. There are significant differences between fat storage rates during the transient phase following a meal depending on the insulin output which reflect differences in the induced LPL activity. The initial fatty acid excess stops being excess hours later. But you do not have a choice when it comes to excess glucose, it is either stored or burned off shortly after a meal. "Insulin" is not the cause of fat gain, it's the primary mechanism the body uses to store excess fat if there is excess fat to be stored. There are other mechanisms however. Therefore, if you were to consume 8000 calories of oil a day, you would gain weight despite the lack of insulin. And you would gain much more weight on 6000 calories of carbs. This is the whole point: on a low carb diet you avoid the levels of fat storage that you get from a high carb diet for a similar caloric intake. Of course there is a level above which an individual will gain weight on a low carb diet. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
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 |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
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 |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
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 |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Chung FAQ
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 |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
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 |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Low carb diets | General Discussion | 249 | January 8th, 2004 11:15 PM | |
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 23 | December 14th, 2003 11:39 AM |
CIMT Noninvasive testing for atherosclerosis or "hardening of the arteries" | Mineral Mu_n | General Discussion | 16 | October 30th, 2003 07:40 AM |
The Atkins Spousal Syndrome: Partners of Low-Carb Dieters Suffer | Mars at the Mu_n's Edge | General Discussion | 0 | October 28th, 2003 04:08 PM |
Is this better than Atkins? | Ferrante | General Discussion | 13 | October 8th, 2003 08:46 PM |