A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Calorie
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Uncovering the Atkins diet secret



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old January 26th, 2004, 04:15 AM
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

"Stephen S" wrote in message news:[email protected]
In response to Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD's post:


High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the
ground.

Humbly,

Andrew


So why isn't there a dialysis center next door to every Gold's Gym?


The same reason why there isn't a liver transplant center next door to
every package store or a lung transplant center next door to every
convenience store (selling cigarettes).

Humbly,

Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
  #42  
Old January 26th, 2004, 04:30 AM
kvs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What a bunch of clowns ( Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh)

(tcomeau) wrote in message . com...

*********************
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896

Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight

By DANIEL Q. HANEY

AP Medical Editor

10/14/2003


Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania
State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has
ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."


This is not uttered by a scientist but a lemming. Why is it so hard
for these drones to understand that the action of insulin affects how
glucose is metabolized? Diets which involve higher insulin output
will involve more fat storage than those that do not. In addition,
insulin resistance differentiates individuals in terms of fat storage
rate. Individuals with fewer insulin receptors in the membranes of
their cells will convert more glucose to tryglicerides stored in
adipose tissue than "normal" individuals who convert glucose to heat
through higher levels of cellular respiration. Both types of
individuals will get fat on sufficient excess food consumption for a
given exercise level but the former will get fatter faster. No
violations of energy conservation are involved.

Clearly Barbara Rolls doesn't know anything about thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics is the aggregate behaviour of a system and derives from
the microphysics of the system (in statistical mechanics everything
flows from the system Hamiltonian, but good luck writing it down).

Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra
calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting
their food.


It couldn't possibly be insulin related could it now...sheesh.
Insulin is the fat storage switch. It is obvious why the people that
ate a diet which induced less insulin output could avoid fat storage
at a higher calorie level. The only way that you can lose weight on
a high carbohydrate diet is through the right level of exercise or
calorie restriction. If the additional 300 calories were given to the
high carb group they would not have lost anywhere near the amount of
weight that the low carb group did. This shows that the study is
"fixed" against low carb. The only fair comparison is for identical
calorie consumption on both types of diet.

Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's
president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the
people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less
apt to cheat because they were less hungry.


Twit. This joker is accusing the people on the high carb diet of
cheating and spoiling the image of the rotten theory he adheres to.
He should buy a clue instead of buying a phony internet M.D.
certificate.
  #43  
Old January 26th, 2004, 04:52 AM
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

Matti Narkia wrote in message . ..
25 Jan 2004 14:46:32 -0800 in article
(Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:

wrote in message ...

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000620.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

sigh.... you poor idiot....

Extremes do not prove or disprove anything other than the extreme.


So would you please point out any metabolic lab study that shows that
a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss as you keep
claiming?

Moosh


Great programme on BBC last week. Scientists have been puzzled by the
success of Atkins diet but conclusion is that protein food makes you
feel full but they still maintain it is dangerous. Diana (a non
dieter)


High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground.

Not true for people with healthy kidneys.


Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti?

would suggest you be careful in your answer

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
  #44  
Old January 26th, 2004, 09:10 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What a bunch of clowns ( Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh)

On 25 Jan 2004 19:30:47 -0800, (kvs) posted:

(tcomeau) wrote in message . com...

*********************
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896

Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight

By DANIEL Q. HANEY

AP Medical Editor

10/14/2003


Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania
State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has
ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."


This is not uttered by a scientist but a lemming. Why is it so hard
for these drones to understand that the action of insulin affects how
glucose is metabolized?


Does it? Could you please explain?

Diets which involve higher insulin output
will involve more fat storage than those that do not.


Surely it depends on how many calories are absorbed and how many are
needed. If you eat 2000 calories of glucose, and expend 3000 calories
running a marathon, you won't store any fat.
Doesn't matter what your insulin level is.

In addition,
insulin resistance differentiates individuals in terms of fat storage
rate.


Fat storage occurs when there are excess calories about.
Without these, no fat storage occurs.
To get fat, you have to eat too much. End of story.
Unless you want to get into why folks eat too much. I don't.

Individuals with fewer insulin receptors in the membranes of
their cells will convert more glucose to tryglicerides stored in
adipose tissue than "normal" individuals who convert glucose to heat
through higher levels of cellular respiration.


These unfortunate individuals with the fewer insulin receptors are
suffering from what disease? Why are they wasting glucose as heat?
Perhaps they are doing lots of exercise and these cells are muscle
cells?

Both types of
individuals will get fat on sufficient excess food consumption for a
given exercise level but the former will get fatter faster.


So where do these mysterious extra calories come from?
Fat storage requires 9 extra calories for each gram of fat stored.

No
violations of energy conservation are involved.


Hang on, you say that these two individuals eat the same calories, and
do the same exercise, but one group will get fatter? Water retention?
Last I looked, fat weighed about one gram for each 9 calories stored.

Clearly Barbara Rolls doesn't know anything about thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics is the aggregate behaviour of a system and derives from
the microphysics of the system (in statistical mechanics everything
flows from the system Hamiltonian, but good luck writing it down).


Codswallop. Thermo is nothing of the kind.

Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra
calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting
their food.


It couldn't possibly be insulin related could it now...sheesh.


So insulin can now dissolve calories?

Insulin is the fat storage switch.


Bull****! Energy excess is the fat storage switch.

It is obvious why the people that
ate a diet which induced less insulin output could avoid fat storage
at a higher calorie level.


But we don't know what they did. Almost nothing was measured,
remember?
These higher calorie levels? Without fat storage? Where did the extra
calories go, do you think?

The only way that you can lose weight on
a high carbohydrate diet is through the right level of exercise or
calorie restriction.


Same for any calorie intake. Doesn't matter where it comes from.

If the additional 300 calories were given to the
high carb group they would not have lost anywhere near the amount of
weight that the low carb group did.


Well can you tell us what this weight that was lost consisted of?

This shows that the study is
"fixed" against low carb. The only fair comparison is for identical
calorie consumption on both types of diet.


Been done hundreds of times. And properly.

Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's
president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the
people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less
apt to cheat because they were less hungry.


Twit. This joker is accusing the people on the high carb diet of
cheating and spoiling the image of the rotten theory he adheres to.
He should buy a clue instead of buying a phony internet M.D.
certificate.


And you should not be so gullible. The study said nothing. It was a
total waste of time and money.

Moosh
  #46  
Old January 26th, 2004, 10:12 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

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

"Moosh" writes:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:48:11 GMT,
posted:
"Moosh" writes:

OK, I thought you said conservation of energy only occurred in a
"closed system" (whatever that arbitrary system means exactly).

In a non-closed system, energy appears (from "sources") and
disappers (through "sinks"),


And this obvious point is supposed to shed light on what?


I was merely explaining what a "closed system" means, since you
expressed ignorance on that point. See above.


But what were you trying to shed light on wrt our conversation, is
what I mean. I know what a closed system is, but not in relation to
our present discussion, and neither do you, apparently.

As traditionally stated, the first law of thermodynamics applies to
systems having no sources and no sinks.


Since when? Can you quote this? Conservation of energy is UNIVERSAL.


The UNIVERSE is a close system. The first law of thermodynamics states
that total energy is constant. The statement is true only if there are
no sources and sinks; otherwise the total energy can change.


This means that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, in case you
hadn't realised. The human body does not have to be a closed system of
whatever variety you wish, to demonstrate this first law.
(Conservation of Energy). It holds everywhere so far.

BTW, that's the first law, I believe, although whatever number you
give...


If you read carefully, you will observe that I call it "the first
law".


No, you were referring to the second law in regard to the conservation
of energy that I was discussing. I have always and only been
discussing the conservation of energy principle. The entropy one is
only relevant if I was interested in ignoring some forms of energy.
I'm not, nor have I ever been.

The law about entropy is the second, I believe, and is irrelevant
here.


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.
In this discussion of the inability to create or destroy calories, it
is irrelevant.

So show us the metabolic lab studies to back this assetion up.
"Hypercaloric" means taking more calories into the body than are
expended by that same body...

For some definition of "expended", your statement is a tautology.


How a tautology?


Assuming you know what a "tautology" is,


I do, that's why I asked what you meant.

observe that "expended" can
be defined to be "energy consumed but not stored as fat".


It can also be defined as other things, but....

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.

"taking more calories into the body than are
'not stored as fat' by that same body..."

Is an awkward way of saying the same thing, but hardly a tautology.
Have you got worms?

The interesting question is WHAT HAPPENS to calories
consumed but not stored as fat.


That interesting question that you appear to have just discovered is
what I've been banging on about for years, but never mind. Terry just
dismisses it as mysteriously disappearing.

The real issue is the definition of "expended", where one
expenditure includes the inefficiency of metabolizing various
energy sources.


Expended simply means leaving the body in whatever form. Sorry, I
thought this would be obvious.


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 question of course is where do these mysteriously disappearing
calories go to. That's what I've been asking in vain for so long. They
MUST be accounted for as I hope you will now agree. A metabolic lab
study seems to be the only way to discover. My theory in part is that
a sudden increase in fat consumption will mean an increase in calories
going down the porcelain pedestal. Probably other things involved in
concert. Slightly raised BMR with high protein, more satiety, water
loss, and so on...
Most of these return to normal in a short while -- homeostasis.

In other words, you don't really know anything about
thermodynamics,


Well I do know that energy is always conserved, a basic fact which
seems to have escaped you.


A rather idiotic reply--I certainly understand BOTH of the laws of
thermodynamics discussed here.


Well you haven't shown it, that's all I can go on. You started the
idiotic replies, remember? See above?
You still can't seem to see that the argument I'm having with Terry is
that I say all calories must be accounted for, and he says otherwise.
You agree with him, I take it?

You seem not to realize that the second
law implies a mandatory expenditure beyond the useful work performed.


I'm counting ALL energy. I don't care what form it is in, so the
second law doesn't apply to my discussion. I wonder what it has to do
with in your discussion but haven't discovered it yet. Perhaps you
still think I'm ignoring some energy forms, in spite of my stressing
the contrary several times.
All metabolic lab studies have found that calories are it, wrt fat
store gain or loss. Food constituents have minimal effect.

and don't understand the second law. The second law states that all
energy conversions involve some energy changing to an unusable
form.


Which is not what I'm talking about. You may be...


Yes, because I'm pointing out something you SHOULD be accounting for,
but ARE NOT.


Why should I when I'm wanting to measure ALL energy, whatever form?
When you test a diet, you should measure ALL INs and OUTs, and all of
these must add up. If you do a half-baked experiment and neglect to
measure a particular parameter, you can't just assume.

When I pointed out that you were neglecting to consider
the scond law, I did indeed realize that you were not talking about
the second law--thus the "neglect".


I've only been talking about the conservation of energy in the light
of measuring ALL energy INs and OUTs, what have you been talking
about?

All systems produce TWO things: the thing you wanted them to
produce, and waste energy.


Whoa! We are measuring ALL energy.


Then we're back to square one: the (primary) claim under discussion is
that waste energy is higher for metabolism of fat than for metabolism
of carbs.


Waste energy? Could you be more specific? What forms would these be?
Who made these claims?

My poin't is that energy can neither be created or destroyed.


So what? Nobody ever disputed it, friend.


Well you seem to have written an awful lot disputing what I originally
said, which was that the Cconservation of Energy principle always
held.
What on earth did you think I said?

Any energy (waste or useful) must be accounted for. Energy *in*
MUST equal energy *out*.


Duh. That has nothing to do with the assertion that all food calories
are equal; energy in always equals energy out--but two different
processes may and probably do involve two different quantities of
waste energy out.


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

Where "energy out", for type I diabetics receiving no insulin,
includes lots of sugar energy wasted in their ****. You don't seem
to understand what the "energy out" comprises.


Of course I do. What part of "energy out" do you not understand?


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.

The abnormal situation you cite is why diabetics lose a lot of
weight Doh! The sugar energy is counted. Why on Earth would you not
count it?


Okay, then: apply the same reasoning to low-carb versus low-fat diets
with the same total number of calories. There is no a priori reason
for assuming that both diets yield the same useful energy content;


Huh??? What do you think the total calories means?

to
answer that question involves (among other things) determining the
relative efficiency of energy conversion for carbs and fat.


What are you on about? If you convert 1000 calories of glucose to fat,
you get effectively 1000 calories of fat, or roughly 111g of fat.

In a normal individual, 1000 calories of whatever will yield 1000
calories of mechanical/heat energy or roughly 111 g of fat storage, or
even roughly 250 g of protein or any combination.
What exactly are you trying to say?

Then share your great wisdom by posting the exact conversion
efficiency for a given fat of your choice, and for glucose.


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?
Look it up. You must specify which efficiency you mean.

Give the conversion efficiency in passing from glucose
to ATP.


Gravimetrically?

Likewise for the lipid of your choice.


Stoichometrically?

That'll be a good
start. You do realize that the ONLY fuel consumed by cells is ATP,
right? That ALL food energy is converted to ATP for use?


Umm, ATP supplies energy for various reactions, but so what?

Are you trying to divert from your errors by impressing us with
irrelevant trivia? You related to my brother in law?

I've told you that glucose to CO2/water yields about 4 cal/g
Same for protein to urea/CO2/water. Fat about 9 cal/g
Doesn't really matter what pathway the reaction takes. You can even
set fire to it, and the yield is the same. Basic Chemistry.

You have claimed that this information is readily available. Produce
it.


So you are saying it isn't? I am not off to the library for some days,
I suggest *you* look it up unless you really believe that it doesn't
exist.

Your basic fallacy is that you do not account for all of the
system's energy outputs.


I do, but you seem to be trying to excuse some and invent others.
My point is that energy into a system MUST equal energy OUT of a
system. ANNOUNCEMENT: I COUNT ALL ENERGY!!!


Excellent. Then answer the above question. But note that if you really
counted all energy, then you would not consider the second law of
thermodynamics irrelevant: WASTE ENERGY IS AN OUTPUT!


And if it's counted (as it is), what has the second law to do with
this? Please explain.

All I say is that ALL calories MUST be accounted for if a system is to
be understood. All such studies to date show your (and Terry's) theory
is wrong. If you have evidence to the contary of the body of science,
please point it out.

Moosh
  #47  
Old January 26th, 2004, 10:26 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

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

"Moosh" writes:

Huh? The basic laws of physics show that calories are the only
source of fat storage. Calories are indestructible, and uncreatable.
You are claiming different...


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.

Tell me, what happens to the say 1000 cal fat and 1000 cal glucose
being compared? What do you define as "useful energy"?
What would these be do you think in this 1000cal example?

Specifically, that
a body in ketosis taking in a low-carbohydrate diet will derive less
energy from that food, because more of the energy will be wasted.


Folks only stay in ketosis for a few weeks if carb-deprived, so forget
that abnormal condition. The Inuit are not in ketosis, get it?

So this less energy they derive must leave some energy over. All I
want to know is where did it go?

ALL metabolic lab studies to date back up the physical laws exactly.


That statement is idiotic: the first law of thermodynamics is a
universal;


The statement might be unnecessary, except that there are twits here
who don't realise it.

one doesn't do clinical studies to verify it.


I didn't say they did, but then most experiments don't set out to
disprove the basic laws of physics, they just do so as a byproduct.
Do try to keep up!

And as
observed, the issue concerns outputs you are not acknowledging.


I am acknowledging ALL outputs. What do you think I'm not?

Well that's because you appear to have lived in the dark all your
life. Science has been trying to disprove the laws underpinning
them for centuries. There has NEVER been any evidence that the laws
of thermo are ever false.


Way to duck the question. Now prove that the useful energy yield does
not depend on the dietary composition.


Well after you prove that the Earth goes around the Sun.

Does it not worry you that you claim that energy content of foods
depends on the composition apart from the energy content(???), yet you
can't show one study or reference to back this? My backing is the
total body of science and to ask me to quote it is puerile and
avoiding the question.

Please even just explain the difference between absorbing 1000 cal
glucose, fatty acids, or amino acids. You said it, so demonstrate that
you don't derive 1000 cal from each when doing violent physical
exercise, to simplify matters. Or if you want to complicate it to hide
something, assume the subjects are sated and flat on their backs, that
these ingestions won't result in ~111g of fat deposition, or ~250g of
protein or glycogen storage/deposition/creation or combinations of
these.

Moosh
  #48  
Old January 26th, 2004, 10:44 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:43:27 GMT, posted:

"Moosh" writes:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:16:20 GMT,
posted:

I should make it clear that Mr. Moosh *believes* that conservation of
energy implies that (food) calories in equals (energy) calories
out. As I pointed out, he is neglecting the second law of
thermodynamics, which implies that there is a wastage term he is
neglecting to consider.


Try the first law! The second is irrelevant to our discussion coz I'm
counting ALL energy.


You aren't counting waste energy.


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

The second law guarantees that waste
energy is greater than zero.


No ****! So what! Isn't it universal? Or does it only apply to fat
metabolism.

You are remarkably ill-informed on the
physics here.


And as this waste energy is counted, (even though you seem to have
difficulty grasping this) WTF difference does this make. There is
waste energy, I count it, so what? It applies to everything.

More generally, he has failed to consider all possible energy
expenditures in the body.


I am specifically including ALL calories IN and OUT. You are the one
postulating that this and that have been neglected.


Okay, then answer the question: how much energy is wasted when
converting glucose to ATP, and when converting the lipid of your
choice to ATP.


Does this change the argument? You keep squawking for a number, which
I am counting. What is you problem?

That's why I'm insisting that Terry supply a metabolic lab study
where ALL these INs and OUTs can be measured and accounted for. When
this is done, they MUST balance. Never been a variation in this.


Straw man: the question at issue is, "Do all diets of a given caloric
level result in identical gain or loss?"


Gain or loss of what? You haven't specified, as is your habit.

You changed the subject to
conservation of energy because


That has been the subject with Terry for years.
He can't understand that all the calories must balance. I know it is
obvious, but he keeps dismissing considerable chunks of energy out of
hand. I keep asking "Where did they go?"

(1) many people would take the bait and
dispute this principle,


No bait, I thought it was blindingly obvious, but I haven't taken into
account falling standards of basic education in the sciences, and
there are so many who think certain drugs and illnesses can cause fat
storage gains, and it has nothing to do with the diet that they swear
is hypocaloric.

and (2) most people would fail to observe that
it is irrelevant.


To you, apparently, but you are not even on the same page.

Conservation of energy is crucial to the difference between me and
Terry. I say all calories must be accounted for, he says otherwise,
from time to time.

So you are now saying that the energy account DOESN'T need to balance?

I am saying that every calorie into the body (bloodstream) must be
accounted for. There can't be any over or under.
Terry says that one can take IN 3000 calories and expend only 2000 yet
not explain where the 1000 cal not accounted for goes.
But then he has no idea what the weight gain or loss consists of, so
his outburts are tantamount to nonsense.

Lest it be unclear, the reason the first law is irrelevant is that the
question is not whether energy in equals energy out, but measuring the
energy out under conditions of varied dietary composition.


That, is a stupid styatement! Of course it means measurements under
different conditions. WTF would you keep measuring the same conditions
for? Sheesh! The point is that you must assume that all calories must
be accounted for, otherwise your measurements mean nothing.

Your
assertion that energy out is invariant under change of diet needs to
be proven, and switching to your thermodynamic straw man eliminates it
from the debate.


What? Is English your first language? You seem to be having difficulty
comprehending.

Energy out is invarying from energy in, unless you have a modification
of the laws of physics.

Let me explain some simple concepts that you appear to be having
difficulty with:

A subject is placed in a metabolic chamber and fed a known diet
constituent and energywise.

The subject is periodically measured for weight and fat/water
composition, the CO2 and heat energy and water vapour is meaured in
the exhaust, The excretions are measured for energy and other
constituents.

It turns out that all calories IN exactly balance all calories OUT,
and it makes little difference what the food composition is.
Been done hundreds of times.

How so, when I insist on a metabolic lab study where NOTHING is
neglected...


Try the shoe on--give a study which proves YOUR claim that weight gain
or loss is a function of total calories ONLY, and is invariant under
changes in dietary composition.


Try any of them, I've seen dozens of them without looking, and see no
need to look again, you apparently could benefit, as you are showng
your considerable ignorance and arrogance again.

I suggest you try reading more carefully in future.


Coming from Mr. "The Second Law of Thermodynamics is totally
irrelevant", that's rather a hoot.


Misquoting is the weakest form of argument.

I said that the conservation of energy was irrelevant to my
discussion. It still is, despite your inability to grasp it.

Moosh
  #50  
Old January 26th, 2004, 04:08 PM
tcomeau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh

"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.

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.

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.

TC
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
You want PROOF - Here's Quackery Proof. marengo Low Carbohydrate Diets 173 April 17th, 2004 11:26 PM
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret Diarmid Logan General Discussion 135 February 14th, 2004 05:56 PM
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy Diarmid Logan General Discussion 23 December 14th, 2003 12:39 PM
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works Jim Marnott Low Carbohydrate Diets 108 December 12th, 2003 04:12 AM
Was Atkins Right After All? Ken Kubos Low Carbohydrate Diets 5 November 23rd, 2003 12:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.