Three reasons why calories probably don't count

1) There is no fundamental science to support it.

The following is supposed to be the scientific basis of the concept of
calories being applicable to animals and weigt control:

*
second ed. of White, Handler and Smith "Principles of Biochemistry"
Chaper 1 and
Chapter 15 (metabolism) plus the citations and references therin. It
states: (pp8) "Three historic discoveries led to the concept that the
fundamental laws of phsics and chemistry, which apply to nonliving
systems, also apply to living structures. These discoveries are (1)
the establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
conservation of energy in its application of animals"-- (the others
have to do with (2) synthesis of urea and (3) fermentation). (pp9) "In
living, as in nonliving, systems therefore, these laws of physical
chemistry require that energy must be supplied in orderto accomplish
the reversal of a spontaneous process or for the synthesis of a new
compound from precursors of lower energy content".
*

A very highly regarded bio-chemistry textbook references "the
establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
conservation of energy in its application of animals"

Except that the study or the paper by Lavoisier and Laplace does not
exist.

http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lav....asp?anno=1785

Any studies by these two together occurred much later than 1785 and
none specifically established "the law of conservation of energy in its
application of animals". They never did any such study or paper.

This textbook is used to educate all medical people. They are being
told that science has established "the law of conservation of energy in
its application of animals" and then fails to provide a correct or
relevant reference.

Is this acceptable scientific "proof"? Can you find the study or the
paper that originally established "the law of conservation of energy in
its application of animals"?

************************

2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight loss
in humans fails 95% of the time.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/309/6955/655

"Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
ineffective
C S Wooley, D M Garner

University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio 45267,
USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research, Bala Cynwood,
Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr Wooley.

It is surprising that debate continues about the effectiveness of
dietary treatments for obesity. Perhaps this is partly related to
ambiguity in the term effectiveness. It is well known that most
treatments produce temporary weight loss. But it is equally well known
that 90% to 95% of those who lose weight regain it within several
years.1 This poor outcome has led to charges that traditional
treatments for obesity should be abandoned and countercharges that it
is irresponsible to withhold treatment for such a serious problem. The
failure of reducing diets to produce lasting improvement was recently
reiterated at a National Institutes of Health consensus conference,
which also warned about the adverse effects of treatment.2 "

If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of effort
would lose at least weight over time and they would successfully keep
it off. There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local grocer.
And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine effort and
succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the expected and desired
results. Applying the low calorie diet and the very low calorie diet in
the real world does not result in the desired weight loss in 90 to 95%
of cases.

*******************

3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors or is
triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage and weight
loss or fat loss.

Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients that we
consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals, water, air and
light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that handles and
metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good bio-chemistry textbook
will give you the whole story of how our bodies use and process these
various nutrients.

Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels which
in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn triggers our body to
create and store fat.

There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is triggered
by calories specifically. It is a black box concept that has never gone
further than the mysterious black box. And it does not fit into any
bio-chemical explanation of the various bio-chemical and metabolic
processes of the human body. In light of the entire metabolic systems
bio-chemical processes and various chemical cascades involved in fat
storage and fat breakdown, calories become the red-headed step-child
with no role to play whatsoever.

********

I am sure that calories mean something somewhere. Possibly at the
extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at the
other extreme, way too many calories will cause some problems. But in
the middle area where we are eating within normal ranges of food, the
actual number of calories consumed and the amounts expended cannot be
used to reliably predict weight gain or loss. The basic and simple math
of the calorie deficit concept simply does not work in the real world.

It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
Except it fails in the real world.

TC

"TC" wrote in message
oups.com...
1) There is no fundamental science to support it.

The following is supposed to be the scientific basis of the concept of
calories being applicable to animals and weigt control:

*
second ed. of White, Handler and Smith "Principles of Biochemistry"
Chaper 1 and
Chapter 15 (metabolism) plus the citations and references therin. It
states: (pp8) "Three historic discoveries led to the concept that the
fundamental laws of phsics and chemistry, which apply to nonliving
systems, also apply to living structures. These discoveries are (1)
the establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
conservation of energy in its application of animals"-- (the others
have to do with (2) synthesis of urea and (3) fermentation). (pp9) "In
living, as in nonliving, systems therefore, these laws of physical
chemistry require that energy must be supplied in orderto accomplish
the reversal of a spontaneous process or for the synthesis of a new
compound from precursors of lower energy content".
*

A very highly regarded bio-chemistry textbook references "the
establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
conservation of energy in its application of animals"

Except that the study or the paper by Lavoisier and Laplace does not
exist.

http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lav....asp?anno=1785

Any studies by these two together occurred much later than 1785 and
none specifically established "the law of conservation of energy in its
application of animals". They never did any such study or paper.

This textbook is used to educate all medical people. They are being
told that science has established "the law of conservation of energy in
its application of animals" and then fails to provide a correct or
relevant reference.

Is this acceptable scientific "proof"? Can you find the study or the
paper that originally established "the law of conservation of energy in
its application of animals"?

************************

2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight loss
in humans fails 95% of the time.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/309/6955/655

"Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
ineffective
C S Wooley, D M Garner

University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio 45267,
USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research, Bala Cynwood,
Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr Wooley.

It is surprising that debate continues about the effectiveness of
dietary treatments for obesity. Perhaps this is partly related to
ambiguity in the term effectiveness. It is well known that most
treatments produce temporary weight loss. But it is equally well known
that 90% to 95% of those who lose weight regain it within several
years.1 This poor outcome has led to charges that traditional
treatments for obesity should be abandoned and countercharges that it
is irresponsible to withhold treatment for such a serious problem. The
failure of reducing diets to produce lasting improvement was recently
reiterated at a National Institutes of Health consensus conference,
which also warned about the adverse effects of treatment.2 "

If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of effort
would lose at least weight over time and they would successfully keep
it off. There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local grocer.
And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine effort and
succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the expected and desired
results. Applying the low calorie diet and the very low calorie diet in
the real world does not result in the desired weight loss in 90 to 95%
of cases.

*******************

3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors or is
triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage and weight
loss or fat loss.

Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients that we
consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals, water, air and
light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that handles and
metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good bio-chemistry textbook
will give you the whole story of how our bodies use and process these
various nutrients.

Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels which
in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn triggers our body to
create and store fat.

There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is triggered
by calories specifically. It is a black box concept that has never gone
further than the mysterious black box. And it does not fit into any
bio-chemical explanation of the various bio-chemical and metabolic
processes of the human body. In light of the entire metabolic systems
bio-chemical processes and various chemical cascades involved in fat
storage and fat breakdown, calories become the red-headed step-child
with no role to play whatsoever.

********

I am sure that calories mean something somewhere. Possibly at the
extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at the
other extreme, way too many calories will cause some problems. But in
the middle area where we are eating within normal ranges of food, the
actual number of calories consumed and the amounts expended cannot be
used to reliably predict weight gain or loss. The basic and simple math
of the calorie deficit concept simply does not work in the real world.

It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
Except it fails in the real world.

It fails in the real world precisely because people consume more calories
than they burn. With the ready availability of high calorie foods, and the
decreasing requirement for movement in modern life, it's no wonder people
are getting fatter and fatter. This also explains why we're getting fatter
over time - years ago, high fat food was less plentiful (you couldn't buy 64
oz sodas), and there were very few jobs that required sitting down for 8
hours per day. Years ago people also weren't sitting on their butts
watching television for 6 hours per day.

Study after study has demonstrated that overweight people consistently
underestimate how many calories they consume, and consistently overestimate
how many calories they burn through exercise. The results are quite
predictable.

GG


TC

"TC" wrote in message
oups.com...
[snip]
And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine effort and
succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the expected and desired
results.
[snip]

Nonsense. Weight gain and loss is directly linked to calories. When humans
are caloricaly restricted their behavior changes. They cheat. We think we
have control over our lives, but the evidence shows that innate survival
drives can alter the perceptions of the conscious mind and change behavior.

Diets don't fail. People do.

GaryG wrote:
"TC" wrote in message
oups.com...
1) There is no fundamental science to support it.

The following is supposed to be the scientific basis of the concept of
calories being applicable to animals and weigt control:

*
second ed. of White, Handler and Smith "Principles of Biochemistry"
Chaper 1 and
Chapter 15 (metabolism) plus the citations and references therin. It
states: (pp8) "Three historic discoveries led to the concept that the
fundamental laws of phsics and chemistry, which apply to nonliving
systems, also apply to living structures. These discoveries are (1)
the establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
conservation of energy in its application of animals"-- (the others
have to do with (2) synthesis of urea and (3) fermentation). (pp9) "In
living, as in nonliving, systems therefore, these laws of physical
chemistry require that energy must be supplied in orderto accomplish
the reversal of a spontaneous process or for the synthesis of a new
compound from precursors of lower energy content".
*

A very highly regarded bio-chemistry textbook references "the
establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
conservation of energy in its application of animals"

Except that the study or the paper by Lavoisier and Laplace does not
exist.

http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lav....asp?anno=1785

Any studies by these two together occurred much later than 1785 and
none specifically established "the law of conservation of energy in its
application of animals". They never did any such study or paper.

This textbook is used to educate all medical people. They are being
told that science has established "the law of conservation of energy in
its application of animals" and then fails to provide a correct or
relevant reference.

Is this acceptable scientific "proof"? Can you find the study or the
paper that originally established "the law of conservation of energy in
its application of animals"?

************************

2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight loss
in humans fails 95% of the time.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/309/6955/655

"Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
ineffective
C S Wooley, D M Garner

University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio 45267,
USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research, Bala Cynwood,
Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr Wooley.

It is surprising that debate continues about the effectiveness of
dietary treatments for obesity. Perhaps this is partly related to
ambiguity in the term effectiveness. It is well known that most
treatments produce temporary weight loss. But it is equally well known
that 90% to 95% of those who lose weight regain it within several
years.1 This poor outcome has led to charges that traditional
treatments for obesity should be abandoned and countercharges that it
is irresponsible to withhold treatment for such a serious problem. The
failure of reducing diets to produce lasting improvement was recently
reiterated at a National Institutes of Health consensus conference,
which also warned about the adverse effects of treatment.2 "

If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of effort
would lose at least weight over time and they would successfully keep
it off. There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local grocer.
And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine effort and
succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the expected and desired
results. Applying the low calorie diet and the very low calorie diet in
the real world does not result in the desired weight loss in 90 to 95%
of cases.

*******************

3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors or is
triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage and weight
loss or fat loss.

Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients that we
consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals, water, air and
light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that handles and
metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good bio-chemistry textbook
will give you the whole story of how our bodies use and process these
various nutrients.

Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels which
in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn triggers our body to
create and store fat.

There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is triggered
by calories specifically. It is a black box concept that has never gone
further than the mysterious black box. And it does not fit into any
bio-chemical explanation of the various bio-chemical and metabolic
processes of the human body. In light of the entire metabolic systems
bio-chemical processes and various chemical cascades involved in fat
storage and fat breakdown, calories become the red-headed step-child
with no role to play whatsoever.

********

I am sure that calories mean something somewhere. Possibly at the
extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at the
other extreme, way too many calories will cause some problems. But in
the middle area where we are eating within normal ranges of food, the
actual number of calories consumed and the amounts expended cannot be
used to reliably predict weight gain or loss. The basic and simple math
of the calorie deficit concept simply does not work in the real world.

It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
Except it fails in the real world.

It fails in the real world precisely because people consume more calories
than they burn. With the ready availability of high calorie foods, and the
decreasing requirement for movement in modern life, it's no wonder people
are getting fatter and fatter. This also explains why we're getting fatter
over time - years ago, high fat food was less plentiful (you couldn't buy 64
oz sodas), and there were very few jobs that required sitting down for 8
hours per day. Years ago people also weren't sitting on their butts
watching television for 6 hours per day.

Study after study has demonstrated that overweight people consistently
underestimate how many calories they consume, and consistently overestimate
how many calories they burn through exercise. The results are quite
predictable.

GG

Did you even read what I wrote?

TC

Cubit wrote:
"TC" wrote in message
oups.com...
[snip]
And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine effort and
succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the expected and desired
results.
[snip]

Nonsense. Weight gain and loss is directly linked to calories. When humans
are caloricaly restricted their behavior changes. They cheat. We think we
have control over our lives, but the evidence shows that innate survival
drives can alter the perceptions of the conscious mind and change behavior.

Diets don't fail. People do.

People fail but calories don't. Sure. That explains it all.

TC

GaryG wrote:
:: "TC" wrote in message
:: oups.com...
::: 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
:::
::: The following is supposed to be the scientific basis of the concept
::: of calories being applicable to animals and weigt control:
:::
::: *
::: second ed. of White, Handler and Smith "Principles of Biochemistry"
::: Chaper 1 and
::: Chapter 15 (metabolism) plus the citations and references therin. It
::: states: (pp8) "Three historic discoveries led to the concept that
::: the fundamental laws of phsics and chemistry, which apply to
::: nonliving systems, also apply to living structures. These
::: discoveries are (1) the establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in
::: 1785 of the law of conservation of energy in its application of
::: animals"-- (the others have to do with (2) synthesis of urea and
::: (3) fermentation). (pp9) "In living, as in nonliving, systems
::: therefore, these laws of physical chemistry require that energy
::: must be supplied in orderto accomplish the reversal of a
::: spontaneous process or for the synthesis of a new compound from
::: precursors of lower energy content". *
:::
::: A very highly regarded bio-chemistry textbook references "the
::: establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
::: conservation of energy in its application of animals"
:::
::: Except that the study or the paper by Lavoisier and Laplace does not
::: exist.
:::
::: http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lav....asp?anno=1785
:::
::: Any studies by these two together occurred much later than 1785 and
::: none specifically established "the law of conservation of energy in
::: its application of animals". They never did any such study or paper.
:::
::: This textbook is used to educate all medical people. They are being
::: told that science has established "the law of conservation of
::: energy in its application of animals" and then fails to provide a
::: correct or relevant reference.
:::
::: Is this acceptable scientific "proof"? Can you find the study or the
::: paper that originally established "the law of conservation of
::: energy in its application of animals"?
:::
::: ************************
:::
::: 2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight
::: loss in humans fails 95% of the time.
:::
::: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/309/6955/655
:::
::: "Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
::: ineffective
::: C S Wooley, D M Garner
:::
::: University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
::: 45267, USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research, Bala
::: Cynwood, Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr Wooley.
:::
::: It is surprising that debate continues about the effectiveness of
::: dietary treatments for obesity. Perhaps this is partly related to
::: ambiguity in the term effectiveness. It is well known that most
::: treatments produce temporary weight loss. But it is equally well
::: known that 90% to 95% of those who lose weight regain it within
::: several years.1 This poor outcome has led to charges that
::: traditional treatments for obesity should be abandoned and
::: countercharges that it is irresponsible to withhold treatment for
::: such a serious problem. The failure of reducing diets to produce
::: lasting improvement was recently reiterated at a National
::: Institutes of Health consensus conference, which also warned about
::: the adverse effects of treatment.2 "
:::
::: If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
::: exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of effort
::: would lose at least weight over time and they would successfully
::: keep it off. There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local
::: grocer. And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine
::: effort and succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the
::: expected and desired results. Applying the low calorie diet and the
::: very low calorie diet in the real world does not result in the
::: desired weight loss in 90 to 95% of cases.
:::
::: *******************
:::
::: 3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors or
::: is triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage and
::: weight loss or fat loss.
:::
::: Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients
::: that we consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals,
::: water, air and light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that
::: handles and metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good
::: bio-chemistry textbook will give you the whole story of how our
::: bodies use and process these various nutrients.
:::
::: Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels
::: which in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn triggers
::: our body to create and store fat.
:::
::: There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is
::: triggered by calories specifically. It is a black box concept that
::: has never gone further than the mysterious black box. And it does
::: not fit into any bio-chemical explanation of the various
::: bio-chemical and metabolic processes of the human body. In light of
::: the entire metabolic systems bio-chemical processes and various
::: chemical cascades involved in fat storage and fat breakdown,
::: calories become the red-headed step-child with no role to play
::: whatsoever.
:::
::: ********
:::
::: I am sure that calories mean something somewhere. Possibly at the
::: extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
::: calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at the
::: other extreme, way too many calories will cause some problems. But
::: in the middle area where we are eating within normal ranges of
::: food, the actual number of calories consumed and the amounts
::: expended cannot be used to reliably predict weight gain or loss.
::: The basic and simple math of the calorie deficit concept simply
::: does not work in the real world.
:::
::: It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
::: Except it fails in the real world.
::
:: It fails in the real world precisely because people consume more
:: calories than they burn. With the ready availability of high
:: calorie foods, and the decreasing requirement for movement in modern
:: life, it's no wonder people are getting fatter and fatter. This
:: also explains why we're getting fatter over time - years ago, high
:: fat food was less plentiful (you couldn't buy 64 oz sodas),

I truly hope you meant "high calorie food". However, high calorie food as
always been available. Nuts, for example. Meat in large enough quantities
is high calorie.

However, years ago "high-calorie, nutrient-poor, chemically-enriched
convenience" foods were less plentiful. And people were more active.

and
:: there were very few jobs that required sitting down for 8 hours per
:: day. Years ago people also weren't sitting on their butts watching
:: television for 6 hours per day.
::
:: Study after study has demonstrated that overweight people
:: consistently underestimate how many calories they consume, and
:: consistently overestimate how many calories they burn through
:: exercise. The results are quite predictable.

What? Most overweight people don't estimate one way or another how much the
consume or burn, and that's part of the problem. Merely trying tends to
result in doing better in that regard. Another part of the problem is that
many of them (certainly speaking from experience here) overeat carb-heavy
calorie-dense foods and don't get any exercise to speak of. The greater
part of that problem is the consumption part, as far as weight goes.
Exercise isn't needed to lose weight but it is benefical for a lot of
reasons, with weight control being one .

::
:: GG
::
:::
::: TC

TC wrote:
:: 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
::

[snipped the useless stuff]

::
:: ************************
::
:: 2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight
:: loss in humans fails 95% of the time.

Now, had your subject reflected this statement, TC, then I'd have no issue
with you. This statement suggests that as a practical matter, people refuse
to restrict calories 95% of the time to achieve or maintain weight loss.
Agreed. In times of cheap but good tasting junk foods, people would rather
stuff their faces than go hungry or do without something that makes them
feel good. Understandable, really. But, you're saying calories don't count.
That, I'm not so sure about....

Less calories = less nutrient-containing food = less usable matter = less
energy for the body = less body

::
:: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/309/6955/655
::
:: "Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
:: ineffective
:: C S Wooley, D M Garner
::
:: University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
:: 45267, USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research, Bala
:: Cynwood, Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr Wooley.
::
:: It is surprising that debate continues about the effectiveness of
:: dietary treatments for obesity. Perhaps this is partly related to
:: ambiguity in the term effectiveness. It is well known that most
:: treatments produce temporary weight loss. But it is equally well
:: known that 90% to 95% of those who lose weight regain it within
:: several years.1 This poor outcome has led to charges that traditional
:: treatments for obesity should be abandoned and countercharges that it
:: is irresponsible to withhold treatment for such a serious problem.
:: The failure of reducing diets to produce lasting improvement was
:: recently reiterated at a National Institutes of Health consensus
:: conference, which also warned about the adverse effects of
:: treatment.2 "

I have no problem with that statement as it stands.

::
:: If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
:: exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of effort
:: would lose at least weight over time and they would successfully keep
:: it off.

The vast majority of people who try, do lose weight. The vast majorit of
people who lose weight using mere calorie restriction, fail at maintaining
calorie restriction.


There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local
:: grocer. And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine
:: effort and succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the
:: expected and desired results.

This is where you aren't seeing clearly. "If you do what you've always
done, you'll get what you've always got."

:: Applying the low calorie diet and the
:: very low calorie diet in the real world does not result in the
:: desired weight loss in 90 to 95% of cases.
::

It does not result in maintaining the weight loss because people get bored
with 1) counting, 2) eating boring foods, 3) being without stuff they like,
4) etc.

:: *******************
::
:: 3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors or
:: is triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage and
:: weight loss or fat loss.
::
:: Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients that
:: we consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals, water, air
:: and light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that handles and
:: metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good bio-chemistry textbook
:: will give you the whole story of how our bodies use and process these
:: various nutrients.
::
:: Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels which
:: in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn triggers our body
:: to create and store fat.
::
:: There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is
:: triggered by calories specifically. It is a black box concept that
:: has never gone further than the mysterious black box. And it does
:: not fit into any bio-chemical explanation of the various
:: bio-chemical and metabolic processes of the human body. In light of
:: the entire metabolic systems bio-chemical processes and various
:: chemical cascades involved in fat storage and fat breakdown,
:: calories become the red-headed step-child with no role to play
:: whatsoever.

Where is your reference for this? Are these your statements?

Maybe we should hold a contest where people just eat 6000 calories / day
steak or the fatty meats for a week and see if there is no weight gain. I'd
enjoy that. Zero carb for one week at a fix calorie level that would
produced weight gain. One of us would have to shut the hell up at the end
of that week, TC. Would you enjoy that?

::
:: ********
::
:: I am sure that calories mean something somewhere.

More calories from food = more bio-usable mass entering the body = more
weight stored on body

Possibly at the
:: extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
:: calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at the
:: other extreme, way too many calories will cause some problems. But in
:: the middle area where we are eating within normal ranges of food, the
:: actual number of calories consumed and the amounts expended cannot be
:: used to reliably predict weight gain or loss. The basic and simple
:: math of the calorie deficit concept simply does not work in the real
:: world.
::
:: It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
:: Except it fails in the real world.

No, for thoses who do it, it works. The problem is, most can't sustain it
for various reasons. Think about it. A lot of people get fat over time.
They get used to eating a certain way and having the foods they enjoy. They
get used to a lifestyle. Then, they become unsightly or unhealthy. To
address it requires a major lifestyle change which has been developed over a
period of time. But most would apparently rather live with the consequences
than do the work to make the major change in lifestyle.

TC, you're a good LCer for sure. But I think the reason you don't really
get this is because you were only ever 20 lbs overweight. You found LC and
it diminshed your appetite without any discomfort and you got your weight
under control. And you continue that without any major lifestyle change
since you eat foods you like (cause LC food is good). Good deal, really.
However, you, to your benefit, have never been a true fat person like me.
Hence, you don't have the 'monkey on your back' as people like me do. We
have to work harder to maintain. That's just how it is. Most don't want to
do they work. I do, because if I don't, my future will indeed not be a good
one.

I am neither trying to gain or lose weight. I am dieting for better
nutrition. I also cheat. To much salt too many non nutritional calories.

Bob

"Cubit" wrote in message
t...
"TC" wrote in message
oups.com...
[snip]
And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine effort and
succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the expected and desired
results.
[snip]

Nonsense. Weight gain and loss is directly linked to calories. When
humans
are caloricaly restricted their behavior changes. They cheat. We think
we
have control over our lives, but the evidence shows that innate survival
drives can alter the perceptions of the conscious mind and change
behavior.

Diets don't fail. People do.

"Probably don't count" is not the same as "Actually don't count"

Your argument is quite weak and deceptive.... See below.



TC wrote:

"A Very Highly Regarded...." begins to sound like an advertising claim
without substantiation.

*

A very highly regarded bio-chemistry textbook references "the
establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
conservation of energy in its application of animals"

Except that the study or the paper by Lavoisier and Laplace does not
exist.

http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lav....asp?anno=1785

Any studies by these two together occurred much later than 1785 and
none specifically established "the law of conservation of energy in its
application of animals". They never did any such study or paper.

This textbook is used to educate all medical people. They are being
told that science has established "the law of conservation of energy in
its application of animals" and then fails to provide a correct or
relevant reference.

Is this acceptable scientific "proof"? Can you find the study or the
paper that originally established "the law of conservation of energy in
its application of animals"?


This is crappy textbook writing, if it in fact exists, of the form of
retelling yet again of an unfounded urban legend as fact.

Happens often, unfortunately.

Not the big deal you make of it. And it does sound like you are
repeating, or could be repeating, another urban myth.



************************

2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight loss
in humans fails 95% of the time.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/309/6955/655

"Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
ineffective
C S Wooley, D M Garner

University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio 45267,
USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research, Bala Cynwood,
Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr Wooley.


This appears to be "scientific work" by "Shrinks", not physiologists or
MD's.


It is surprising that debate continues about the effectiveness of
dietary treatments for obesity. Perhaps this is partly related to
ambiguity in the term effectiveness. It is well known that most
treatments produce temporary weight loss. But it is equally well known
that 90% to 95% of those who lose weight regain it within several
years.1 This poor outcome has led to charges that traditional
treatments for obesity should be abandoned and countercharges that it
is irresponsible to withhold treatment for such a serious problem. The
failure of reducing diets to produce lasting improvement was recently
reiterated at a National Institutes of Health consensus conference,
which also warned about the adverse effects of treatment.2 "

If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of effort
would lose at least weight over time and they would successfully keep
it off. There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local grocer.
And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine effort and
succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the expected and desired
results. Applying the low calorie diet and the very low calorie diet in
the real world does not result in the desired weight loss in 90 to 95%
of cases.

There is nothing "Scientific" in this short piece, and it could be the
result of anybody who does much popular reading.


*******************

There is no "Referenced Source" for the information below. It could be
the typing of a pretty smart canine on the web. It could be...... anything.



3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors or is
triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage and weight
loss or fat loss.

Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients that we
consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals, water, air and
light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that handles and
metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good bio-chemistry textbook
will give you the whole story of how our bodies use and process these
various nutrients.

Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels which
in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn triggers our body to
create and store fat.

There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is triggered
by calories specifically. It is a black box concept that has never gone
further than the mysterious black box. And it does not fit into any
bio-chemical explanation of the various bio-chemical and metabolic
processes of the human body. In light of the entire metabolic systems
bio-chemical processes and various chemical cascades involved in fat
storage and fat breakdown, calories become the red-headed step-child
with no role to play whatsoever.

********

I am sure that calories mean something somewhere. Possibly at the
extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at the
other extreme, way too many calories will cause some problems. But in
the middle area where we are eating within normal ranges of food, the
actual number of calories consumed and the amounts expended cannot be
used to reliably predict weight gain or loss. The basic and simple math
of the calorie deficit concept simply does not work in the real world.

It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
Except it fails in the real world.

TC



--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

jbuch wrote:
"Probably don't count" is not the same as "Actually don't count"

Your argument is quite weak and deceptive.... See below.



TC wrote:

"A Very Highly Regarded...." begins to sound like an advertising claim
without substantiation.

*

A very highly regarded bio-chemistry textbook references "the
establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
conservation of energy in its application of animals"

Except that the study or the paper by Lavoisier and Laplace does not
exist.

http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lav....asp?anno=1785

Any studies by these two together occurred much later than 1785 and
none specifically established "the law of conservation of energy in its
application of animals". They never did any such study or paper.

This textbook is used to educate all medical people. They are being
told that science has established "the law of conservation of energy in
its application of animals" and then fails to provide a correct or
relevant reference.

Is this acceptable scientific "proof"? Can you find the study or the
paper that originally established "the law of conservation of energy in
its application of animals"?


This is crappy textbook writing, if it in fact exists, of the form of
retelling yet again of an unfounded urban legend as fact.

Happens often, unfortunately.

Not the big deal you make of it. And it does sound like you are
repeating, or could be repeating, another urban myth.


second ed. of White, Handler and Smith "Principles of Biochemistry"
Chaper 1 and
Chapter 15 (metabolism) plus the citations and references therin. It
states: (pp8) "Three historic discoveries led to the concept that the
fundamental laws of phsics and chemistry, which apply to nonliving
systems, also apply to living structures. These discoveries are (1)
the establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
conservation of energy in its application of animals"-- (the others
have to do with (2) synthesis of urea and (3) fermentation). (pp9) "In
living, as in nonliving, systems therefore, these laws of physical
chemistry require that energy must be supplied in orderto accomplish
the reversal of a spontaneous process or for the synthesis of a new
compound from precursors of lower energy content".
*

This textbook is used in most, if not all, universities in North
America. Go to your nearest medical library at your nearest medical
university and read it for yourself.

My guess is that you did not even do that before you chose to rag on
the very textbook that most medical people are taught from in North
America.

I am sure that the professors that use this textbook will probably
disagree with your glib comments about this textbook.

The text you see quoted was written by a professor: pbeyer

He was trying to provide me with definitive scientific proof that
calories do count. Except that the study that was referenced in the
textbook did not exist. I've not heard from him since. That was in
2002. I gather that he was quite embarassed that the textbook was
fraudulent on this reference.

If you have a better textbook that you want to quote and reference, go
for it. Most textbooks use real references to support their teachings.

TC