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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
"Stephen S" wrote in message news:4yYQb.57939$Xq2.30132@fed1read07... 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? -- Stephen S. 331 / 286 / 220 - as of 21 Jan. 04 LC since 28 Sept. 03 http://dragonfen.com/diet -------------------------------- Because the medical district is in another part of town? |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:52:46 GMT, posted:
"Moosh" writes: On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:18:36 GMT, posted: I'm curious--when was ASDLC invaded by this crowd? I've been reading here on-and-off for four years or more, and have never encountered this before. ASDLC? OK, I looked above I'm posting on smn. Ah, gotcha. So let me rephrase the question. Is there a troll on ASDLCarb cross-posting to ASDLCal et al, or is there a troll on one of those other newsgroups crossposting to ASDLCarb? No idea. I comment on what I see. If tracking this down fascinates you, try looking at the OP. In rec.org.mensa (and almost any other newsgroup), I've learned to filter any posts cross-posted to alt.atheism or talk.origins; they're always trolls. Apparently I need to kill cross-posts to ASDLCal now as well. Whatever floats your boat. In the past, it was well recognized that calories are not irrelevant--that eating 5,000 cal/day will not result in weight loss... It will if you burn 5,001 cal/day. As indicated in another post, the issue here is the definition of "burn". If you include energy converted into unusable (or unused) forms, then your statement is a tautology. In what way a tautology? My statement is a truism, perhaps? In what way could the opposite of what I said pertain? The only outcome of this clarification is to rephrase the question: "Does a change in caloric composition, all other things being equal, result in a change in calories burned?" Very minimally. Some foods may make the BMR rise marginally. The general principle is that if energy IN is at all less than energy OUT (and ALL forms of energy are accounted for) then the body will lose tissue mass. Since you have access to the chemical equations for fat metabolism and for glucose metabolism, go ahead and post an answer in one specific case. Metabolism to what? Fat or glucose may be stored or partially interconverted, or metabolised to carbon dioxide and water. If you mean the latter, the fat will yield approx 9 cal/gram, and glucose approximately 4cal/g. This can be mechanical energy or heat, although they all eventually relsove to heat HTH Moosh |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:55:48 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
posted: Are you equating a Zone diet, (40% carbs), with Atkins? Just for your information, maintainance Atkins is hardly distinguishable from Zone... OK, it's apparently changed. I read the book back in 1970 or thereabouts. So Atkins is 40% carb calories nowadays? Not a low carb diet then. One wonders what all the fuss is. Stick to the good old, tried and true, varied, wholefood, eucaloric diet with regular exercise and you won't likely go wong, unless you habitually wrestle with busses Moosh |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On 24 Jan 2004 10:37:56 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:
"Moosh" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:07:13 GMT, posted: writes: On 23 Jan 2004 12:07:49 -0800, (tcomeau) posted: It has nothing to do with the Laws of Thermo. They apply to a closed system. The human body is not a closed system. Where does it state that the "conservation of energy principle" applies only to a closed system? In any text that covers thermodynamics. However, some conclusions can be drawn anyway; the previous poster is incorrect. Energy is conserved whatever. Over what arbitrary boundaries energy transfers are measured, determines what a "closed system" is. And what do you understand by a closed system? A closed system is any system which has no energy sources or sinks. The body is not "closed" because food provides an external source of energy, and the toilet provides an external sink (!). However, a locked room containing food for a month and a chemical toilet IS a closed system. Exactly! Draw the boundaries and measure the energy transfers. The human body can be studied as a closed system. It depends what you measure and how rigorously. Right. I've been waiting many months for TC to point out ANY metabolic lab study to show that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss. No show, but he still persists. Moosh And I've been waiting just as long for you to show us the one seminal metabolic lab study, or any metabolic lab study that conclusively proves otherwise. 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, and yet you can show NOT ONE study to demonstrate this. ALL metabolic lab studies to date back up the physical laws exactly. Why are you avoiding giving us just one study? Perhaps there are none? I'm still waiting. I may not have the study to disprove the calorie fallacy, Well you still have your cockeyed scientific train of thought. The calorie theory "conservation of energy" has NEVER been faulted. You claim different, make with the evidence! but you do not have the study or studies that proved it in the first place. Yes, they ALL do, every one of them! The principle of conservation of energy has NEVER been faulted. Are you angling for a Nobel Prize? Oh, no, of course not, they have a conflict of interest You are placing your trust in a theory that has never been proven scientifically, it has only been assumed. 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. Moosh |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
"Moosh" wrote in
: On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:55:48 +0100, "Mirek Fidler" posted: Are you equating a Zone diet, (40% carbs), with Atkins? Just for your information, maintainance Atkins is hardly distinguishable from Zone... OK, it's apparently changed. I read the book back in 1970 or thereabouts. So Atkins is 40% carb calories nowadays? Not a low carb diet then. One wonders what all the fuss is. Stick to the good old, tried and true, varied, wholefood, eucaloric diet with regular exercise and you won't likely go wong, unless you habitually wrestle with busses Moosh I agree. I just looked back over the past week in my graphs. Today i was. fat 26% prot 37% carbs 37% The past month looked like this fat 31% prot 36% carbs 33% My body seems to like the numbers staying along those ranges and i lose weight fine. Albeit very slow now that im reaching my goal. But still. We all know everyone is different though. 365/222/200 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
On 24 Jan 2004 10:51:45 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:
"Moosh" wrote in message . .. On 22 Jan 2004 18:02:47 -0800, (tcomeau) posted: snip Maybe the lesson to be learned is that calories really have little bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans. TC snip The only thing complicating this simple concept is peoples unreasonable adherence to the calories fallacy. The calories math doesn't, hasn't and will never be a valid predictor of weight loss or gain in humans. So show us the study. You've claimed this nonsense for years with not a shred of evidence. Make with the evidence please. Metabolic lab study showing hypercaloric diet results in fat storage loss. Moosh OK. You claim that the Laws of Thermo is directly applicable to weight management in the human body, They are directly applicable EVERYWHERE. They have never been shown to be untrue. and you further insist that there is no other factors involved other than the calories-in/calories-out factor. There are other factors which influence how much energy is ingested or expended, but these are secondary/psychological. The basic energy physics is never faulted. If that is the case then it applies in *every* circumstance with no exceptions. No Exceptions. That is the nature of a *Law* of physics. No Exceptions. In this case we are not restricted to metabolic lab studies to disprove the applicability of the Law of Thermo to weight management in the human body. No, your logic is slipping as usual. You claim that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss. This has never been observed when measured rigorously. Can you supply a study that shows otherwise? Apparently not. One exception, and only one exceprion, is enough to disprove the idea that the Law of Thermo applies to weight management in the human body. Yep, but of course it must be measured properly. It's so easy to be fooled by bathroom scales and food labelling. Here is one study that shows that calories are not the last word on weight mangement in humans. And if you think this is an energy balance statement, then you are really sillier than you sound, and that takes some doing. ********************* 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 FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight. Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the contention -- long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without paying a price on the scales. Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many experts' surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at least in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard American Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels, as many feared would happen. Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not get so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot. Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually can eat more. Hint? No evidence? How sad. The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet. Does she give the fecal calorie counts? Thought not Wanna buy a bridge? Have I got a deal for you? Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories. That should have added up to about seven pounds. But for some reason, it did not. And where are the energy balance sheets? This is a terrible study, sorry, come back with a properly measured study. "There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said. Does she really? How strange. Wouldn't some numbers be more convincing than her vapid speculations. You heard of conflict of interest? Well here it is conflict between doing some proper work, and cheap sensationalist publicity. That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in just the same way. What strikes? Greene's vapid speculations? Not even Greene says this settles the case, Well at least she has SOME integrity. but some at the meeting found her report fascinating. The journos perhaps? "A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to be open-minded." But not so open that your brains fall out , Dear. (Credit: Richard Dawkins) Others, though, found the data hard to swallow. Well there was so little of it. 2, 3, 7. Now what can we postulate from these three data? "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." Terry Comeau has, apparently, but he is saving it for the Nobel Prize Committee. In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day. With you, so far. The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass., Holy ****, Batman, that DOES make it scientific. You Americans will swallow such crap!!! so researchers knew exactly what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with diet plans to follow as best they could. And you see what we are up against. Metabolic lab studies only, thankyou. Measure the calories IN the calories OUT (CO2, heat, **** ****, sweat, semen, earwax, the bloody lot, ferchrissakes!) Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of lots of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and unsaturated oils. So ****ing what??? "This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins diet," Greene said. Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to pay for the research, though it had no input into the study's design, conduct or analysis. Looks like no-one did. A bloody three year old chimp could design a better experiment. The Atkins is same as Zone according to experts here on this group. I'm confused. The term "low carb" is bandied about for just about anything. Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes. The low-carb meals were 5 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 30 percent fat. What? No 40% carb a la Atkins/Zone? What a swiz!!! In the end, everyone lost weight. How much was water, fat store, bone, muscle???? Oh, dear, back to the drawing board. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb regimen took off 23 pounds, OF WHAT??? while people who got the same calories on the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. OF WHAT??? The big surprise, though, was that volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food lost 20 pounds. The big surprise to me is that this bull**** got funded. PT Barnham lives!!! "It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it answers," said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots of data to suggest this shouldn't be true." What exactly shouldn't be true? There is so much data missing, the second coming could be deduced from this crock of ****! 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. Sheesh, enough said! Has this dumb bitch got no imagination? Why not do an experiment to see where the calories went? Don't want to know? Already been done? You certainly have been, folks! 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. It gets better!!! Why not throw this out, and go back and do the bloody thing properly? EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special correspondent for The Associated Press. Now why doesn't this surprise me? ****************** Have you got anything else Terry? That was such fun.... Moosh |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:03:35 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
posted: http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896 Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight I guess that that 3lb difference was very likely caused by LC waterloss... Nah, every decrease in Terry's bathroom scale reading is pure fat storage loss, just ask him Moosh |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
On 25 Jan 2004 14:23:51 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:
"Mirek Fidler" wrote in message ... http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896 Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight I guess that that 3lb difference was very likely caused by LC waterloss... Mirek You guess? Well that settles it then. You *guess* then it must be true. What an amazing scientific mind you have. But how do you "know"? You are guessing as well, like you are doing with your bathroom scales and food labels. 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 |