physics of atkins: Discover Magazine, Jan. 2005

OK, if I remember this group correctly, this is going to generate some
hostile reaction, so let me say from the outset that I make no comment, only
pass along the article. On page 14 of Discover Magazine, Jan. 2005,
delivered to my home today is a blurb in the R&D section entitled "The
Physics of Atkins"

"A calorie is a calorie, no matter the source-right? Wrong, "
They site biochemist Richard Feinman and Eugene Fin of SUNY Downstate
Medical Center in New York. "critics of low carb diets always invoke the
laws of thermodynamics, but they are not understanding them properly"
Feinman "argues that two laws not one are involved. Detractors of the Atkins
Diet often emphasize the first law of thermodynamics, that the total energy
in a system is always conserved. Deinman considers the secon law-that energy
tends to dissipateat over time-just as important. It determines what happens
to the energy in food when it is broken down in the body. 'We know ton a
molecular level that the body's pathways are less efficient at turning
protiein caleries into glucose,' he says 'That means that more energy is
lost as heat.'

Note that "Feinman emphasizes that his arguement is solely rooted in
physics." and does not consider any other health effects.

let the yelling begin.....

Bob

My usual reaction to this is that the laws of thermodynamics are
inappropriate laws to use to try to model human biology. Yes, they
hold - at the molecular interaction level. So what? They hold for
computers as well, but thermo won't make you understand a computer
program.

The reality is, human metabolism is a complex thing, and there's a lot
we can do to influence it in various ways, and yet still not
understand it fully. What works for one doesn't always work for
others, which wouldn't be the case if thermo was all that mattered.

I did see one simplification that made sense, though. Organic food
has carbon atoms in it. When you eat, you add carbon atoms to your
body. To lose weight, you have to get rid of those carbon atoms. The
body only has a few ways of doing this, but only exhaling carbon
dioxide deals with nontrivial amounts, so it's up to metabolism to
reduce body mass.

Yeah, oxygen and hydrogen too, but those become water and other things
and make the example much more complex.

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 23:25:25 GMT, bob wrote:

OK, if I remember this group correctly, this is going to generate some
hostile reaction, so let me say from the outset that I make no comment, only
pass along the article. On page 14 of Discover Magazine, Jan. 2005,
delivered to my home today is a blurb in the R&D section entitled "The
Physics of Atkins"

"A calorie is a calorie, no matter the source-right? Wrong, "
They site biochemist Richard Feinman and Eugene Fin of SUNY Downstate
Medical Center in New York. "critics of low carb diets always invoke the
laws of thermodynamics, but they are not understanding them properly"
Feinman "argues that two laws not one are involved. Detractors of the Atkins
Diet often emphasize the first law of thermodynamics, that the total energy
in a system is always conserved. Deinman considers the secon law-that energy
tends to dissipateat over time-just as important. It determines what happens
to the energy in food when it is broken down in the body. 'We know ton a
molecular level that the body's pathways are less efficient at turning
protiein caleries into glucose,' he says 'That means that more energy is
lost as heat.'

Note that "Feinman emphasizes that his arguement is solely rooted in
physics." and does not consider any other health effects.

let the yelling begin.....

Bob

No need to yell. Only the most shortsighted and blinded by loyalty folks
know Atkins sux when it comes to his (lack) of science.

I don't think you read the quote carefully, it is in scientific (albeit
narrowly focused) support of atkins.....

"MU" wrote in message

No need to yell. Only the most shortsighted and blinded by loyalty folks
know Atkins sux when it comes to his (lack) of science.


...
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 23:25:25 GMT, bob wrote:

OK, if I remember this group correctly, this is going to generate some
hostile reaction, so let me say from the outset that I make no comment,
only
pass along the article. On page 14 of Discover Magazine, Jan. 2005,
delivered to my home today is a blurb in the R&D section entitled "The
Physics of Atkins"

"A calorie is a calorie, no matter the source-right? Wrong, "
They site biochemist Richard Feinman and Eugene Fin of SUNY Downstate
Medical Center in New York. "critics of low carb diets always invoke the
laws of thermodynamics, but they are not understanding them properly"
Feinman "argues that two laws not one are involved. Detractors of the
Atkins
Diet often emphasize the first law of thermodynamics, that the total
energy
in a system is always conserved. Deinman considers the secon law-that
energy
tends to dissipateat over time-just as important. It determines what
happens
to the energy in food when it is broken down in the body. 'We know ton a
molecular level that the body's pathways are less efficient at turning
protiein caleries into glucose,' he says 'That means that more energy is
lost as heat.'

Note that "Feinman emphasizes that his arguement is solely rooted in
physics." and does not consider any other health effects.

let the yelling begin.....

Bob

bob wrote:
OK, if I remember this group correctly, this is going to generate some
hostile reaction, so let me say from the outset that I make no comment, only
pass along the article. On page 14 of Discover Magazine, Jan. 2005,
delivered to my home today is a blurb in the R&D section entitled "The
Physics of Atkins"

"A calorie is a calorie, no matter the source-right? Wrong, "
They site biochemist Richard Feinman and Eugene Fin of SUNY Downstate
Medical Center in New York. "critics of low carb diets always invoke the
laws of thermodynamics, but they are not understanding them properly"
Feinman "argues that two laws not one are involved. Detractors of the Atkins
Diet often emphasize the first law of thermodynamics, that the total energy
in a system is always conserved. Deinman considers the secon law-that energy
tends to dissipateat over time-just as important. It determines what happens
to the energy in food when it is broken down in the body. 'We know ton a
molecular level that the body's pathways are less efficient at turning
protiein caleries into glucose,' he says 'That means that more energy is
lost as heat.'

I fully accept this but I don't see how it makes any real difference. It
isn't as though the energy consumed when processing protein is hugely
different to that consumed when processing simple carbohydrates. It
might make a difference of a few calories, not of a few hundred.

The reason that I accept this is that I have often noticed a rise in
body temperature after eating less easily digestible foods, also that a
feeling of fullness lasts longer. It has never made a difference to my
weight, or energy levels overall, although after eating unprocessed
protein, it takes longer before I feel "re-energised". This is why,
prior to exercise, I eat carbs, not protein. I eat protein afterward to
allow muscle to rebuild.

By the same token, although probably not following the same logic, the
times when you feel a "real" rise in body temperature after eating is
after eating curries and chillies. I have found that if I eat hot foods
as a lifestyle thing, i.e., when living in parts of Asia, my weight does
drop even when I am eating, as normal, to satisfy an unchanged appetite.
I don't believe that it is the difference in protein/carb balance in
these cases, but the fact that for some reason hot foods seem to both
boost metabolism, and reduce appetite; to sate more easily.

As far back as the early Adelle Davis books, ('60s) she notes that
adding hot spices to food increases BMR.

Before the onset of my diabetes my weight was very stable, the only time
it ever changed was when eating nothing but Asian foods; it always
dropped. This included Japanese (very high carb) as well as the more
spicy Asian styles. It did not include Vietnamese foods, they were too
French (sauce) oriented to make much difference. In the end it still
all comes back to total calorie intake, the difference in metabolic
processing, while measurable, isn't sufficient to make a difference long
term, just an interesting bit of metabolic trivia.

Regards

David


--

To email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line.

All other mail is automatically deleted.

Hi Bob,

I suspect that nobody understands.

Nobody needs to understand.

This is DIET stuff, and that is remarkably like religion.

FAITH.

I look forward to reading the whole article. Did you fully understand
it, or did you pass along what you felt you gathered?

In other words, have you ever taken several classes in thermodynamics?

Jim



bob wrote:

OK, if I remember this group correctly, this is going to generate some
hostile reaction, so let me say from the outset that I make no comment, only
pass along the article. On page 14 of Discover Magazine, Jan. 2005,
delivered to my home today is a blurb in the R&D section entitled "The
Physics of Atkins"

"A calorie is a calorie, no matter the source-right? Wrong, "
They site biochemist Richard Feinman and Eugene Fin of SUNY Downstate
Medical Center in New York. "critics of low carb diets always invoke the
laws of thermodynamics, but they are not understanding them properly"
Feinman "argues that two laws not one are involved. Detractors of the Atkins
Diet often emphasize the first law of thermodynamics, that the total energy
in a system is always conserved. Deinman considers the secon law-that energy
tends to dissipateat over time-just as important. It determines what happens
to the energy in food when it is broken down in the body. 'We know ton a
molecular level that the body's pathways are less efficient at turning
protiein caleries into glucose,' he says 'That means that more energy is
lost as heat.'

Note that "Feinman emphasizes that his arguement is solely rooted in
physics." and does not consider any other health effects.

let the yelling begin.....

Bob





--
................................


Keepsake gift for young girls.
Unique and personal one-of-a-kind.
Builds strong minds 12 ways.
Guaranteed satisfaction
- courteous money back
- keep bonus gifts

http://www.alicebook.com

Thanks for the post. It sounds like a good enough summary that I don't need
to buy the magazine. "Discover" is my favorite magazine.

This sounds like logical support for Atkins' claim of a metabolic advantage.

IMHO: The body has what I call a "calorie thermostat" that regulates
calorie consumption. I believe that a low carb high fat diet alters this
calorie thermostat to a lower level. Thus, sustained weightloss becomes
possible.

I have not tried high protein.


"bob" wrote in message
. com...
OK, if I remember this group correctly, this is going to generate some
hostile reaction, so let me say from the outset that I make no comment,
only
pass along the article. On page 14 of Discover Magazine, Jan. 2005,
delivered to my home today is a blurb in the R&D section entitled "The
Physics of Atkins"

"A calorie is a calorie, no matter the source-right? Wrong, "
They site biochemist Richard Feinman and Eugene Fin of SUNY Downstate
Medical Center in New York. "critics of low carb diets always invoke the
laws of thermodynamics, but they are not understanding them properly"
Feinman "argues that two laws not one are involved. Detractors of the
Atkins
Diet often emphasize the first law of thermodynamics, that the total
energy
in a system is always conserved. Deinman considers the secon law-that
energy
tends to dissipateat over time-just as important. It determines what
happens
to the energy in food when it is broken down in the body. 'We know ton a
molecular level that the body's pathways are less efficient at turning
protiein caleries into glucose,' he says 'That means that more energy is
lost as heat.'

Note that "Feinman emphasizes that his arguement is solely rooted in
physics." and does not consider any other health effects.

let the yelling begin.....

Bob

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:33:51 GMT, Cubit wrote:

IMHO: The body has what I call a "calorie thermostat" that regulates
calorie consumption. I believe that a low carb high fat diet alters this
calorie thermostat to a lower level.

Where did you come up with this?

Ignoramus20242 wrote:
|| On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:33:51 GMT, Cubit wrote:
||| Thanks for the post. It sounds like a good enough summary that I
||| don't need to buy the magazine. "Discover" is my favorite magazine.
|||
||| This sounds like logical support for Atkins' claim of a metabolic
||| advantage.
|||
||| IMHO: The body has what I call a "calorie thermostat" that
||| regulates calorie consumption. I believe that a low carb high fat
||| diet alters this calorie thermostat to a lower level. Thus,
||| sustained weightloss becomes possible.
|||
||| I have not tried high protein.
||
|| Low carb enables my hunger thermostat to work. I eat all I want,
|| literally, and do not gain. Life is now nice and free of hunger. I
|| can
|| now apply my "willpower" elsewhere.
||
|| I thought that LC enabled me to eat more calories. To my great
|| surprise, when I entered my day's food into fitday, the total count
|| of calories turned out to be pretty similar to what I ate pre-LC.

You mean pre-LC, post weight loss, right?

I combined info from a study where subjects ate only a shake from a spout,
claims in Dr. Herman Taller's 1961 diet book, "Calories Don't Count," and my
personal experience.

In the study, they found that it took about two weeks for subjects to
unconsciously adjust their volume of shake consumption after the scientists
covertly changed the caloric density of the shake. I read about it years
ago, and I do not have the citation.

The study also led me to suspect that there might be an advantage to eating
only caloricly dense foods, if one does it for the several weeks needed for
the body to adjust. I suspect that alternating between caloricly dense and
caloricly sparse foods may screw things up and exacerbate weight gain, but I
have no evidence yet.

"MU" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:33:51 GMT, Cubit wrote:

IMHO: The body has what I call a "calorie thermostat" that regulates
calorie consumption. I believe that a low carb high fat diet alters
this
calorie thermostat to a lower level.

Where did you come up with this?