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

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

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:39:30 +0200, Matti Narkia
posted:

25 Jan 2004 19:52:32 -0800 in article
m (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? :-):-):-).


Hey, Andy, you blew it there mate

You meant 2# of *powdered* spud, didn't you? Easy arithmetic error in
my book. Geez, Matti is an anal retentive from way back
Hey, I've just had 2# of white wine. That OK?

Doesn't BMI depend on your racial height? You're a short ass, No?

Hey, a fit fatty is much better off than an unfit anything.

Yours in admiration, Moosh

On the one hand it is suggested that calories are calories, and that
low carb diets work simply because they result in less calorie intake.

Note the difference in terminology. "Calories are calories" is
actually used to mean "intake calores are intake calories."

It is commonly also alleged, though not clearly stated, that output
calories are NOT all equal. For example, it is often stated that
dieting without exercise will result in muscle loss while dieting with
exercise will result in fat loss, which is more desirable.

I am not sure that is proven either. But if true, then clearly output
calories are not all equal. Output through work is not equal to
output through excretion, e.g. And to the extent that input calorie
choice may affect output calories, the equality of input calories
begins to be questionable.

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
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

See there is your main problem. You do not even know what a low-carb
diet is. The mainstream recommends a 55 to 65% carb diet. Anything
less than this is a low-carb diet. 40% carbs is a low carb diet. Now
this is a major misconception on your part. Here you are arguing with
everybody and coming across as if you know more than everybody,
showing nothing but arrogance, making your high-handed assertations
and you do not even understand what ow-carb is and why it is low-carb.
Maybe you ought to get to understand the parameters and the context of
the discussion before you open your mouth and make nonsensical
arguments that end up embarassing you yet again.

TC

"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

"Moosh" wrote in message
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.


Here is an interesting question for you.

What is the precise mechanism that allows the body to know that there
is an overabundance of calories and to start storing it as fat? What
mechanism is there for the individual cells to register that it has
its maximum intake of calories? Are all nutrients broken down to their
basic energy values at all times in every circumstance? How does the
body gauge that it has consumed more energy than needed and how does
it then know to store the excess?

Conversely, when intake of calories is less than needed, how exactly
does the individual cells make it known to the system in general that
it is deficient of energy and that fat needs to be broken down into
calories for the cell to use?

There must be a feedback mechanism between the individual non-fat
cells and the fat cells for energy to be stored as fat or used as
energy. What is this mysterious mechanism that knows whether to store
fat or break down fat based on the number of calories consumed?

TC

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:39:30 +0200, Matti Narkia
wrote:

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.

Answer the question, Matti.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031122.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:33:42 -0600, "Stephen S" wrote:

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?
--

Oooh, let me think about that.

rolling eyes

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031122.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

I checked a few of the "scientists" mentioned in this study and found
a couple of interesting things. Read on.


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.

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.

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."


Schwartz appears open minded. I found no conflicts of interest or
connections with industry. I also found no industry connections or
conflicts of interests for the author of the study Penelope Greene.

Keep reading.


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."


A sceptic, Barbara Rolls. Aheres to the calorie-is-all concept. Who is
Barbara Rolls:

Barbara J. Rolls, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
(1992); Professor of Nutrition, Penn State University. Consultant for
Knoll Pharmaceuticals and has received research support from, among
others, Knoll, P&G, and ILSI. Coauthored (with James O. Hill) a 1998
report for ILSI on "Carbohydrates and Weight Management." (phone
conversation w/ R. Collins, CSPI, December 6, 2000) (Newark
Star-Ledger, 2/17/97)Research on lipid and lipoprotein responses to
different diets partially supported by Abbott Laboratories. (Am. J.
Clin. Nurt. 2000;70:839-46) Research on age related impairments in the
regulation of food intake supported in part by the Campbell Soup
Company. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1995;62:923-31)

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, owned by none other than
Mayor Bloomberg of New York who was recently lambasted publicly for
criticizing Dr Atkins personally. Hummmm... interesting connection.

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.

"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.

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.

In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb
regimen took off 23 pounds, while people who got the same calories on
the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was that
volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food lost
20 pounds.

"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."


Another sceptic. Raises more questions eh? Who is Gary Foster?

Gary D. Foster, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Pennsylvania
School of Medicine, Philadelphia. Consultant for Abbott Laboratories
and HealtheTech. Receives speakers fees from Abbott Laboratories and
Roche Laboratories. (N. Engl. J. Med. 2003;348:2082-90)

An industry shill.


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.

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.


Another sceptic. Making up possible scenarios to minimize and explain
away the fidings. Who is Dr. Samuel Klein?

Samuel Klein, M.D., Washington University School of Medicine.
Participated in a 9/96 meeting of gastroenterologists sponsored by
Procter & Gamble that resulted in a paper, Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol.
26:210-218 (1997). Research support from ILSI (1988-89; $30,000); Ross
Laboratories (1991-94; $86,000); Sandias (1992-93; $12,000);
Alimentarics, Inc. (1996-97; $100,000) (from 1997 resumé)

Another industry shill.

It seems that the only ones criticizing low-carb are industry shills
and the only ones who are open minded about low-carb are independent
scientists interested in the truth.

TC