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

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)

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
On 27 Jan 2004 11:46:06 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:

Ron Ritzman wrote in message . ..
On 26 Jan 2004 07:21:46 -0800, (tcomeau) wrote:

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?

Fat cells are always storing and releasing fat simultaneously. Insulin
makes fat cells release a little less and store a little more,
glucagon and certain other hormones have the opposite effect. When a
cell needs extra energy above and beyond what is provided by glucose,
it uses some of the fat floating around in the bloodstream. The fat
that is released that is not used by cells goes back into the fat
cells. Therefore, if you eat more calories then you burn, the fat
cells store more fat then they release and you gain fat, if you eat
less then you burn, then the fat cells release more fat then they
store and you lose fat.

"Insulin" is not the cause of fat gain, it's the primary mechanism the
body uses to store excess fat if there is excess fat to be stored.
There are other mechanisms however. Therefore, if you were to consume
8000 calories of oil a day, you would gain weight despite the lack of
insulin.

Which one is it? Is it the excess fat in the blood stream that
triggers fat storage or is it high insulin levels?

Does it have to be one or the other in your understanding?

And what "other mechanisms"?

I suggest you read up on all the other mechanisms.

Moosh

You guys can't even explain the basics of how excess calories causes
the body to store fat. Yep, sounds real convincing. You guys better
read up, 'cause I have, and I know you guys don't know how excess
calories trigger the body to store fat.

TC

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
On 26 Jan 2004 07:21:46 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:

"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?

You need to get a basic human physiology and biochemistry text from
your library and start from the beginning. You really don't have a
clue, and this forum is not the place to give you one, apparently.
I couldn't be bothered trying again. No-one else can either,
apparently.


Moosh

Got ya stumped, eh? Don't know the exact mechanism that explains how
excess calories trigger fat storage, do ya? Real scientific, troll.

TC

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.

"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

"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

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

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

"Mirek Fidler" wrote in message ...
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


Moosh seems to think a lot of things that were never stated or
intended.

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

I've haven't seen anything like it. But I haven't searched for that
specifically. It seems that everyone has blindly accepted that
carb/protein=4 kcals and fat=9 kcals ever since the turn of the
century with only some minor re-calculation in the late 50's or 60's.
I still haven't found one study that specifically states that the kcal
counts can be used directly to predict weight gain or loss. And Moosh
isn't volunteering any info that could clear this up.

:-)

TC