Eating less does not result in weight loss

"Mxsmanic" :
RLW writes:

And I have cited a one reputable journal article which shows that they
aren't.

So? There are millions of "reputable journal articles" in the world.

So you should read them before you decide whether to take them seriously.
Duh!

The laws of thermodynamics apply to closed systems. The
human body isn't a closed system.

Yes, it is, to the same extent that a gasoline engine is a closed
system. And the same rules apply.

Don't you know what a closed system is? 100% of fuel that goes into a car
isn't converted into kinetic energy. Car motors are very ineffecient, even
more so than human bodies.

Your simple-minded understanding of high school chemistry
does not apply perfectly to a complex system such as the
human body.

My "simple-minded" understanding works remarkably well for producing
weight loss. The "complex understandings" advocated by others don't
seem to produce any weight loss at all.

Once again, I was not addressing the issue of what works for weight loss. I
was saying that not all calories get converted to the same amount of fat.
That's all I said. You've yet to demonstrate to me that that isn't true.
I'll infer from your snippage that you can't.

I'm not arguing with your main point that people need to
eat less to lose weight. That's completely obvious. It's
not the whole story, however.

So you just dismiss out of hand anything that doesn't
agree with you?

No, I simply go with the consensus of informed scientific opinion. A
single pointer to a single Web site isn't very significant against all
that. See, I don't just Google for a URL when I want evidence to
support my position; I actually read books (if anyone remembers those).

Yeah, I know what they are. I've got a BSc in Chemistry.

Rowena.

RLW writes:

So you should read them before you decide whether to
take them seriously.

I do. But just because an article is serious doesn't mean that it is
correct.

Don't you know what a closed system is?

Sure.

100% of fuel that goes into a car isn't converted
into kinetic energy.

Actually it is, insofar as it is burned. Some of the kinetic energy is
organized to perform work; the rest is disorganized and is lost as heat.
The human body is the same way.

I was saying that not all calories get converted to the same
amount of fat.

But they do. That's why there is only one kind of dietary calorie.

You've yet to demonstrate to me that that isn't true.

The burden of prove falls upon you. If you believe that all calories
are not the same, you must explain your belief, because by default they
are identical (which is why they all use the same unit).

Yeah, I know what they are. I've got a BSc in Chemistry.

Then why do you base your position on biology?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On 10/8/2003 8:50 PM, Bob wrote:
Bicycle racers need 8,000 calories per day to stay
alive.

Huh? Where did you get that number? From reading their journals, this
does not seem to be anywhere near true.

On 10/8/2003 6:15 PM, Michael Snyder wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

Bob Ward writes:


In other words, you post here only to stroke your own ego.



No, I post here to inform people who have no religious attachment to any
particular fad diet, and who simply wish to lose weight.


And since your advice works, whereas none of the others do,
and you provide yours for free, the $XXbillion diet industry
should be collapsing... any second now...

I think that the point is, people want an EASY way to loose weight. Eat
less and exercise more doesn't seem that easy so people don't do it.
That is where the diet industry comes in... They say, just eat this
prepackaged something (eat LESS) and you will loose weight. That is the
advice that they give you.

On 10/8/2003 4:39 PM, SuperSpark (R) wrote:
In article ,
jmk wrote:


On 10/8/2003 12:49 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:

jmk writes:



Perhaps I missunderstood you, do you have any citations to support this
or just your personal observation to base that one.


It is based on both personal observations and statistics I have read.



I think that you may have missed my previous post. If you want the
attributions, please see my earlier post, here's a summary:

Obese Americans - 33%
Overweight/Obese Australians - 56%
Obese British Men - 20%
Overweight British Men - 50%


Where are the numbers for the Germans, Spaniards, Finns, Austrians,
Swedes, French, Italians, Greeks, Danes, Poles, Irish, Portuguese,
Dutch, and all the other Europeans in Europe?

I don't have time to look for them. If you find that they do not share
this trend, please let us know. In the meantime, I look forward to
seeing citations to support your claims.




Uh, where is your hard evidence? Is that the iVillage link and the
outdated CDC info you posted earlier? Got anything current and/or
remotely accurate or actually science based? How does the 56% Austalians
figure break down? Which is which? Overweight and obese are two
different things.

You've posted no evidence other than the fact you can operate a search
engine.

And you've posted no evidence whatsoever.

jmk wrote:
On 10/8/2003 8:50 PM, Bob wrote:

Bicycle racers need 8,000 calories per day to stay
alive.


Huh? Where did you get that number? From reading their journals, this
does not seem to be anywhere near true.


It was from the Milton Friedman TV special about calories and diet a few
years ago. He illustrated the point by following the Tour de France,
filming some typical meals, and burning a pile of doughnuts equal to
8,000 calories to show how much heat energy the bicycle racers were
using.

I have no clue where you would find the information today.

Bob

"Mxsmanic" :
RLW writes:

Actually it is, insofar as it is burned. Some of the kinetic energy is
organized to perform work; the rest is disorganized and is lost as heat.

And other forms of energy.

The human body is the same way.

Right.

I was saying that not all calories get converted to the same
amount of fat.

But they do. That's why there is only one kind of dietary calorie.

I feel like I'm banging my head on a brick wall.

You've yet to demonstrate to me that that isn't true.

The burden of prove falls upon you. If you believe that all calories
are not the same, you must explain your belief, because by default they
are identical (which is why they all use the same unit).

I believe I already explained why in a previous post. Different
macronutrients have different amounts of energy intrinsically within their
chemical bonds. Both fat and carbohydrate can be metabolised completely to
water and carbon dioxide, so I can see why you'd think calories from them
would be identical. However, when carbohydrate is converted and stored in
adipose tissue, more energy is lost than when fat is stored. Conversion of
carbohydrate and protein to fat stores requires them to undergo an
inefficient chemical conversion and therefore energy is lost. When fat is
deposited into adipose tissue, there is no real chemical conversion
necessary and hence there is little energy lost. That's why the body heats
up during exercise: because the body's chemical reactions are inefficient.
*Theoretically*, you could eat a slightly higher calorie diet if it had a
greater percentage of its calories from protein and carbs, than one which
had a greater percentage of its calories from fat, and maintain the same
body fat composition. Like I said, though, the body is complex and I'll
take good experimental evidence over theory any day.

I tried to find exact amounts of energy lost for these reactions in my
undergrad biochem textbook, but they didn't give any. It's been a while
since I studied biochemistry to be honest. I can't be arsed to go down to
the library for a usenet debate when I have a lot better things to do with
my time.

If you can cite some solid evidence to show that 100 calories of fat and 100
calories of protein or carbohydrate are stored as the same amount of adipose
tissue in the human body, I'd be interested in seeing it and would recant my
position immediately.

In the meantime, I shall say that I think the most effective way to lose
weight is to cut caloric intake. From my own experiences, exercise by
itself while maintaining a contant caloric intake did practically nothing to
change my weight. I did that for about six months (aerobic exercise for
30-60 minutes, at least six days per week) and lost less than 5kg.

Yeah, I know what they are. I've got a BSc in Chemistry.

Then why do you base your position on biology?

I was talking about biochemical processes within the body, which are based
on chemistry.

However, I also studied biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and a few other
subjects before finally settling on organic chemistry as my major.

You may have the last word if you wish. I'm not going to waste any more
time on this thread.

Rowena.

Oh, this is totally true. This is because during the first 10
miles, you are burning glucose and glycogen. But this is neither
here nor there.

The total fat lost over time remains the same.

Yes, I should have said that, instead of "this is neither here
nor there."

Intense weight lifting actually causes *more* fat loss over time,
because of the increased metabolic load required by both the
addition of new muscle tissue, as well as its maintenance.

C//

Courageous wrote in message ...

loss, all of which compete in a free economy. If yours worked,
no one would be paying billions for the others.

Non sequitur. What he says works, the parties in question just
don't *like* it.

And why do they like Atkins, Scarsdale, Grapefruit, and Richard
Simmons better? Why do they follow programs that require equal
or greater effort and sacrifice, if yours works for all? How is it
that the multi-billion-dollar weight loss industry is able to convince
people that the simple plan that everyone knows about doesn't work
for everyone?

Courageous wrote in message ...

Your claim is not even consistant with those of physiologists
or fitness trainers, who may tell you that you are likely to
burn off more fat calories in the second 10 miles than you did
in the first.

I've never heard that claim.

Oh, this is totally true. This is because during the first 10
miles, you are burning glucose and glycogen. But this is neither
here nor there.

It is both here and there. It is an illustration of the fact that
the claims of simple linear relationships do not apply here.
Walking 20 miles does NOT burn exactly twice the calories
that are burned by walking 10 miles. Eating less does NOT
inevitably result in gaining less weight.