Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

On 25 Jan 2004 11:48:27 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:

(tcomeau) wrote in message

snip


OK. You claim that the Laws of Thermo is directly applicable to weight
management in the human body, and you further insist that there is no
other factors involved other than the calories-in/calories-out factor.
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. 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.

Here is one study that shows that calories are not the last word on
weight mangement in humans.

*********************
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.


snip


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.

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.

"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.

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.

Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting
found her report fascinating.

"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."

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."

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.

The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale
Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly
what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with diet
plans to follow as best they could.

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.


snip

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





































TC

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

(tcomeau) writes:

OK Moosh...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.

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

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


What experience is that?

I wonder why there is not even one proper study that shows this to any
significant extent.

Moosh

"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?

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

(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.

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

Steve wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:28:14 -0500, Myway wrote
(in message m):

Stephen S wrote:

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
--------------------------------

Oh my! You would argue with the great Dr. (cough) Ching?? Or was that
Chong?

Careful... you are headed for a very unpleasant encounter with the
business end of the Truth Discernment Ray :-)

--
Steve

Weed of the Lord's Vineyards Since Adam and Eve.

*** Zap ***

Sorry this is so unpleasant for you.

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

(1) Yell at Steve
(2) Report Steve to his ISP.
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Sincerely,

Andrew

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

On 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

25 Jan 2004 19:52:32 -0800 in article
(Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:

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


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?

Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread. In
fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread.
Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected.

would suggest you be careful in your answer

LOL. See above. If _anyone needs to be more careful with his/her answers
it's you. Does BMI 21-25 still define "mild obesity" as one of your recent
answers claimed? :-):-). Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories
as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-).



--
Matti Narkia

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

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:27:53 GMT, posted:

"Moosh" writes:
Len wrote:

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?

"Energy burned" is defined to be energy consumed but not stored as
fat.

Well that's wrong for a start. Energy burned can be stored energy
burned. Expended can excreted. Playing word games doesn't change the
fact that all calories into the body (system) must be accounted for.
Some folks don't realise this, unfortunately.

Energy consumed but not burned, therefore, is defined to be
"energy stored as fat".

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

But energy can be consumed and excreted, for example.

With that definition of "burned", your
statement is a tautology.

Sorry, I still can't see the redundant meaning in my statement. I mean
what I say, and have not said it twice, AFAICS.

Nevertheless, it yields no information about the claim that a low-carb
and a low-fat diet with the same total caloric content will result in
exactly equal weight gains or losses--since you do not know how much
is "burned" in each case.

Measuring the CO2 output of the body is what I'm advocating. YOU don't
know how much is burned, I'm saying you can't say anything without
knowing EVERY energy IN and OUT.

Give it a number -- 1000 calories -- the low carb 1000, if used, will
result in 1000 calories of heat, with a small amount of muscular work.
Same for the low fat 1000. If neither is needed, then the energy will
be stored as roughly 111g of fat, or even more glycogen depending on
the energy status of the body.

If you wish to claim that the amount burned must be the same in both
cases, then you must prove it

Or even measure it? It's been measured and measured, and guess what,
there's buggerall in it. Where have you been? You are asserting that
we don't know, I suggest that you hop down to the leebrary and start
reading. Then if you come across the sofar unknown study that shows
any significant difference, tell us about it, we will be all ears, so
to speak.

--but the second law of thermodynamics is
working against you:

In what way? Surely it applies equally to both scenarios.

one of the energy outputs is the waste due to
inefficiency,

Could you please define this inefficiency? What ratio are you
referring to? The "inefficiencies" as far as a small amount of heat in
either reaction pathway will even out in both cases.

and it is unlikely that two totally dissimilar chemical
proceses will have exactly the same efficiency.

Well 100% actually, but then it depends how you are defining these
ratios (efficiencies) Chemical reactions are 100% efficient actually.
They ALWAYS do the same thing. Some are exothermic, some are
endothermic.

Physical chemistry tells us that there is a heat af reaction
associated with every chemical reaction. It can be positive or
negative and is accurately known. Going from compound A to compound Z
by whatever set of reactions, will result in the same algebraic energy
sum. So however glucose is converted to CO2 and water, it will always
yield the figure of ~4cal/g.

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.

Okay, you're on record. Now supply the proof. Specifically, give the
energy yield in converting a mol of glucose into ATP, just for
starters.

Look it up, I don't need to know, you do apparently, unless your
childish demands are evidence that you don't think these exact numbers
exist?

Are you saying that glucose to ATP varies from day to day in its
energy component? Sure sounds like it. Please make yourself clear.

You appear to be supporting TC's assertions that consuming 3000
calories of fat and expending 2000 calories can result in fat storage
loss. Now I ask for ANY metabolic lab study (where everything is
measured) to show that this has ever happened. He can't supply any,
and neither apparently can you, but yet you are arguing about glucose
to ATP having varying efficiencies of some unyet defined type.


Moosh