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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
snip 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. They all do, take your pick. In other words, you can't produce even one study! 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. Good argument, can you see the flaws in it yet? Gotcha on this one. You cannot give me anything but vague references about a large body of work that doesn't exist. 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. Well it's the only thing that has ever been shown to work. If you disagree, then show one study that demonstrates it NOT working. Hundreds or thousands that show it does, and none that it doesn't See a pattern yet? Moosh Show me one study that shows that it works. Just one of the hundreds or thousands. Just one. The onus is not on me to disprove this, many of us believe that it has been disproved. The ball is in your court to show us what you base your science on. Again, put up or shut up. The way you talk, it sounds as if the calorie theory has been proven by hundreds or thousands of studies. Show me one. TC |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
snip Then give me the name of even one metabolic lab study that clearly demonstrates this. Put the **** up or shut the **** up. snip But surely there must be one metabolic lab study that supports what the entire nutrition establishment has based its science on. snip Surely the entire field of nutritional science has something to show for its rock solid beliefs. Where is it? snip Do you have the evidence to support your POV? snip Which one exactly? snip The only thing left that will end this argument once and for all is a metabolic lab study that shows the data and the specific finding that the laws of thermo apply directly to weight management in humans. snip Please show us this document and I will gladly concede the argument to you. Put up or shut up. Troll. TC |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:16:41 +0000, MattLB
wrote: You need to make the distinction between the 'raw' energy in say, a gram of glucose, and what that corresponds to when the glucose is converted to ATP. Energy is lost in the conversion of protein/fat/carb to ATP so the calories in ATP are less than the calories in the glucose(or ATP is just one of many things that a glucose molecule may end up in. Entering ribulose-5-phosphate shunt is one thing, ending up as part of DNA chain. Glycerol is another thing. So all energy in glucose do not end up as ATP. And, intermediates in TCA cycle may end up in amino acids, like alpha-ketoglutarate plus NH3 goes to glutamate and several other skeletons end up in other amino acids by aminating them (like the other way may happen, deaminating may increase TCA pool) |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
What a bunch of clowns ( Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh)
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
Still don't get it. YOU are the one seeming to claim disappearing
calories... No. That's your straw man. I never claimed that calories disappeared. Your intellectual honesty appears to be equal to your mental capacity. Both breathtaking examples of the microscopic world. Calculate and post the quantity of energy available to the cells from 1000 calories of triglyceride in the blood. I have already done your work for you in the case of glucose. Well, uhm, energy available to the cells is one thing. But what Moosh wants to say is that energy that is not used by cells cannot disappear. Even if wasted, it has to go somewhere. The most apparent forms are heat (which could probably be measured) or energy can be bound to another chemicals and excerted (e.g. in form of ketones). But it cannot disappear. Mirek P.S.: I am doing LC, so I think I am NOT biased I still think there might be some metabolic advantage, but even if it is not, pure calorie in calorie out is enough for me to stay on LC. It is so simple - replace starches and sugar by vegetables and 0cal sweetener and your calorie intake drops by one third or even half - and you will not notice it in form of hunger or taste - quite opposite... Makes me think that human body simply is not build to live from hi-glycemic food. There is only a little satiety difference between eating a lb of bread or cauliflower, esp. if mixed with some fat or protein. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
snip Still don't get it. YOU are the one seeming to claim disappearing calories. snip Who exactly has claimed disapearance of calories? Could you please find and quote the post where anyone has claimed disappearance of calories? TC |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh - again
"Mirek Fidler" wrote in message ...
Still don't get it. YOU are the one seeming to claim disappearing calories... No. That's your straw man. I never claimed that calories disappeared. Your intellectual honesty appears to be equal to your mental capacity. Both breathtaking examples of the microscopic world. Calculate and post the quantity of energy available to the cells from 1000 calories of triglyceride in the blood. I have already done your work for you in the case of glucose. Well, uhm, energy available to the cells is one thing. But what Moosh wants to say is that energy that is not used by cells cannot disappear. Even if wasted, it has to go somewhere. The most apparent forms are heat (which could probably be measured) or energy can be bound to another chemicals and excerted (e.g. in form of ketones). But it cannot disappear. Mirek P.S.: I am doing LC, so I think I am NOT biased I still think there might be some metabolic advantage, but even if it is not, pure calorie in calorie out is enough for me to stay on LC. It is so simple - replace starches and sugar by vegetables and 0cal sweetener and your calorie intake drops by one third or even half - and you will not notice it in form of hunger or taste - quite opposite... Makes me think that human body simply is not build to live from hi-glycemic food. There is only a little satiety difference between eating a lb of bread or cauliflower, esp. if mixed with some fat or protein. Oddly enough, I haven't read anywhere where a single person in any of these threads has said anything about calories disappearing, except for Moosh-troll who has been insisting that what we are saying amounts to calorie disappearance. Which only serves to clearly show his/her inability to comprehend simple english. All I've ever suggested was that maybe the calculations that insist that one gram of protein or carb is 4 kcals and one gram of fat equals 9 kcals is wrong. Either they are wrong in the sense that food is not always broken down to those energy values in every single case or they are simply to rough a guess to be useful in predicting weight loss or gain in humans. Or they are wrong in that fat storage is more a function of hormonal balance than it is a function of the very basic energy values of food. No-one has suggested that the Law of Thermo is invalid. Only that it is not directly applicable in terms of the currently used caloric values of foods for predicting whether the body will store fat or rid itself of fat. The evidence is pretty over-whelming that low-calorie diets do not work and that low-carb diets do work significantly better and are significantly healthier than high-junk-carb diets. TC |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh - again
Oddly enough, I haven't read anywhere where a single person in any of
these threads has said anything about calories disappearing, except Well, reading the whole thread, I think that it was what Moosh thinks you are saying Anyway, I would still like to see metabolism efficiency for fat/protein/carbs in different context. Are there some web resources to show it ? Mirek |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
What a bunch of clowns ( Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh)
On 27 Jan 2004 11:46:06 -0800, (tcomeau) wrote:
And what "other mechanisms"? Your Google search term for today is "acylation stimulating protein" From Mr. "Ketogenic Diet" himself Lyle McDonald. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2...onr.com&rnum=1 Or http://tinyurl.com/2fbpf -- Ron Ritzman http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart Smart people can figure out my email address |
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 |