calorie theory bogus

[Wuzzy]

Tcmoeau, the discussion on how is able to juggle energy
balance does not negate the calorie theory, similarly the
theory is not disputed, at all in the literature.

aside, The new Jacn (jacn.org) is very fun to read
particularly the several reviews on whole grains and the new
NHANES study,

but take a look at vol 21, 3 pg 275 where they find that
adding ***320 kcal*** of nuts a day did not result in wait
gain after 6 months!

they argue several things including some interesting: "It is
probable that the absorption of energy from the nut fat was
incomplete. Indeed there is data to support this conjecture
for the consumption of pecans
[25], almonds (Sabaté J, unpublished observations) and
peanuts [26]. In that case, the combination of the
observed displacement of energy from other foods plus
incomplete absorption could largely explain the lack of
weight gain. "

they argue others but I'm still reading the article..

[Geowcherry]

wuzzy wrote: The new Jacn (jacn.org) is very fun to read
particularly the several reviews on whole grains and the new
NHANES study,

but take a look at vol 21, 3 pg 275 where they find that
adding ***320 kcal*** of nuts a day did not result in wait
gain after 6 months!

they argue several things including some interesting: "It is
probable that the absorption of energy from the nut fat was
incomplete. Indeed there is data to support this conjecture
for the consumption of pecans
[25], almonds (Sabaté J, unpublished observations) and
peanuts [26]. In that case, the combination of the
observed displacement of energy from other foods plus
incomplete absorption could largely explain the lack of
weight gain. "

they argue others but I'm still reading the article..

George writes: Interesting. Please post more if you find out
more.

[Tcomeau]

mypcos@hotmail.com (wuzzy) wrote in message
news:<d996c21a.0208121244.36459572@posting.google.com>...
> Tcmoeau, the discussion on how is able to juggle energy
> balance does not negate the calorie theory, similarly the
> theory is not disputed, at all in the literature.
>
> aside, The new Jacn (jacn.org) is very fun to read
> particularly the several reviews on whole grains and the new
> NHANES study,
>
> but take a look at vol 21, 3 pg 275 where they find that
> adding ***320 kcal*** of nuts a day did not result in wait
> gain after 6 months!
>
>
> they argue several things including some interesting: "It is
> probable that the absorption of energy from the nut fat was
> incomplete. Indeed there is data to support this conjecture
> for the consumption of pecans
> [25], almonds (Sabaté J, unpublished observations) and
> peanuts [26]. In that case, the combination of the
> observed displacement of energy from other foods plus
> incomplete absorption could largely explain the lack of
> weight gain. "
>
> they argue others but I'm still reading the article..

Let me clarify a couple of things.

I am not claiming that the calorie theory (ie.
excess-calories-in equals weight gain, restricted-calories-in
equals weight loss) has no validity whatsoever. Calories are a
factor in weight control. The only problem is that the human
body is not quite that simplistic. Other factors have a
greater impact on weight control. Insulin for one. A high carb
diet tends to throw insulin levels out of whack inhibiting
weight (fat) loss.

Restricting calories of fat and increasing calories of
carbs, has been shown to fail to produce weight loss in
95%+ of cases.

When a weight loss regimen allows enough fats and proteins
and restricts high-GI foods and refined carbs, it works in
80%+ of cases.

Why are we wasting time chanting the low-fat/high-carb weight
loss regimen when we know it doesn't work? And why haven't the
mainstream nutritional sciences even looked at diets other
than low-fat/low-calories? Dereliction of scientific duty?
Arrogance?

Regarding you aside. Interesting stuff. Could it be that the
human body can regulate its metabolic rate somewhat better
when dealing with excess fat and protein calories while it
still has trouble dealing with some carbs?

[Wuzzy]

geowcherry@aol.com (GeoWCherry) wrote in message
news:<20020813001614.19376.00004439@mb-ch.aol.com>...
> wuzzy wrote:

> they argue others but I'm still reading the article..
>

I have to be skeptical since most of it can be attributed to
displacement; they found that 53.6% of total cal from almonds
was displaced as per FFQ. This means you only had an excess
150kcal per day (most likely reporting error). The prior
research showing that some of the fat is not absorbed due to
fiber in nuts is encouraging though.

It is well known in nutrition research that percentage of
nutrients are more accurately measured than absolute calories
since the later has a large measurement error.(1)
Unfortunately the latter is also the major factor as all types
of energy contribute to energy balance. Off topic, i ran a
query on NHANES a while ago (a long time ago, I hope I did it
right) and mostly males and males in the 4th quintile BMI are
consuming nuts.

(1)Is dietary underreporting macronutrient-specific. EJCN 1994
48 453-454

[Dr. Dickie]

Tcomeau wrote:
>
> mypcos@hotmail.com (wuzzy) wrote in message
> news:<d996c21a.0208121244.36459572@posting.google.com>...
> > Tcmoeau, the discussion on how is able to juggle energy
> > balance does not negate the calorie theory, similarly the
> > theory is not disputed, at all in the literature.
> >
> > aside, The new Jacn (jacn.org) is very fun to read
> > particularly the several reviews on whole grains and the
> > new NHANES study,
> >
> > but take a look at vol 21, 3 pg 275 where they find that
> > adding ***320 kcal*** of nuts a day did not result in wait
> > gain after 6 months!
> >
> >
> > they argue several things including some interesting: "It
> > is probable that the absorption of energy from the nut fat
> > was incomplete. Indeed there is data to support this
> > conjecture for the consumption of pecans
> > [25], almonds (Sabaté J, unpublished observations) and
> > peanuts [26]. In that case, the combination of the
> > observed displacement of energy from other foods plus
> > incomplete absorption could largely explain the lack
> > of weight gain. "
> >
> > they argue others but I'm still reading the article..
>
> Let me clarify a couple of things.
>
> I am not claiming that the calorie theory (ie.
> excess-calories-in equals weight gain,
> restricted-calories-in equals weight loss) has no validity
> whatsoever. Calories are a factor in weight control. The
> only problem is that the human body is not quite that
> simplistic. Other factors have a greater impact on weight
> control. Insulin for one. A high carb diet tends to throw
> insulin levels out of whack inhibiting weight (fat) loss.
>
> Restricting calories of fat and increasing calories of
> carbs, has been shown to fail to produce weight loss in 95%+
> of cases.
>
> When a weight loss regimen allows enough fats and proteins
> and restricts high-GI foods and refined carbs, it works in
> 80%+ of cases.
>
> Why are we wasting time chanting the low-fat/high-carb
> weight loss regimen when we know it doesn't work? And why
> haven't the mainstream nutritional sciences even looked at
> diets other than low-fat/low-calories? Dereliction of
> scientific duty? Arrogance?
>
> Regarding you aside. Interesting stuff. Could it be that the
> human body can regulate its metabolic rate somewhat better
> when dealing with excess fat and protein calories while it
> still has trouble dealing with some carbs?

You are dealing with the great un-washed public out there. If
you tell them that fat is okay, then they will pound big Macs
and fries until they literally bust a gut. Can you eat a
relatively high fat diet and still be healthy? Seems to be so,
but you really have to watch what you are eating as far as
foods with the right fats and that have the highest
nutritional values, otherwise the calories go through the roof
before you get the proper nutrients you need. Why do the high
carbs/low fat diets not work? Because people are lazy as hell.
If they weren't, don't you think they would have educated
themselves before getting to the point that they needed to
diet? Bad food is easy to find and get. The damn stuff is
designed to push our evolutionary buttons when it comes to
taste, and people are lazy and will eat it even when they know
that it is killing them! It is easier (and more reasonable) to
simply tell people to cut the fat out than it is to try to
educate them on good and bad fats and food. If you avoid the
high fat foods, it is harder to consume 4,500 calories a day.
Can people do it? Yeah, but I suspect that most often they
cheat to do so. It seems insane to educated people who
understand nutrition (don't count me as one--I am making this
stuff up as I go along), but think of the average person out
there....50% of the people are then dumber that that person.
Not an expert, just an opinion.

--------------------------------------------------
Dr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick
--------------------------------------------------
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has
its own reason for existing."
E. Einstein

[Pbeyer]

Tcomeau wrote:

> mypcos@hotmail.com (wuzzy) wrote in message
> news:<d996c21a.0208121244.36459572@posting.google.com>...
> >, the discussion on how is able to juggle energy balance
> >does not negate the calorie theory, similarly the theory is
> >not disputed, at all in the literature.
> >
> > aside, The new Jacn (jacn.org) is very fun to read
> > particularly the several reviews on whole grains and the
> > new NHANES study,
> >
> > but take a look at vol 21, 3 pg 275 where they find that
> > adding ***320 kcal*** of nuts a day did not result in wait
> > gain after 6 months!
> >
> >
> > they argue several things including some interesting: "It
> > is probable that the absorption of energy from the nut fat
> > was incomplete. Indeed there is data to support this
> > conjecture for the consumption of pecans
> > [25], almonds (Sabaté J, unpublished observations) and
> > peanuts [26]. In that case, the combination of the
> > observed displacement of energy from other foods plus
> > incomplete absorption could largely explain the lack
> > of weight gain. "
> >
> > they argue others but I'm still reading the article..
>
> Let me clarify a couple of things.
>
> I am not claiming that the calorie theory (ie.
> excess-calories-in equals weight gain,
> restricted-calories-in equals weight loss) has no validity
> whatsoever. Calories are a factor in weight control. The
> only problem is that the human body is not quite that
> simplistic. Other factors have a greater impact on weight
> control. Insulin for one. A high carb diet tends to throw
> insulin levels out of whack inhibiting weight (fat) loss.
>
> Restricting calories of fat and increasing calories of
> carbs, has been shown to fail to produce weight loss in 95%+
> of cases.
>
> When a weight loss regimen allows enough fats and proteins
> and restricts high-GI foods and refined carbs, it works in
> 80%+ of cases.
>
> Why are we wasting time chanting the low-fat/high-carb
> weight loss regimen when we know it doesn't work? And why
> haven't the mainstream nutritional sciences even looked at
> diets other than low-fat/low-calories? Dereliction of
> scientific duty? Arrogance?
>
> Regarding you aside. Interesting stuff. Could it be that the
> human body can regulate its metabolic rate somewhat better
> when dealing with excess fat and protein calories while it
> still has trouble dealing with some carbs?

OK Tcmoeau Seems to me you've been blowin' a lot of smoke and
ignoring good science made available to you. How about *you*
coming up with good studies-- not just quips and snips but
sound studies showing that 95% of persons consuming low fat,
(eg 20-30% fat from calories) and low calorie diets fail.
(your claim). Also how about *you* showing us that you've made
the effort to look at the data in which investigators have use
different diets of different composition with weight loss.
They've been done for decades--. Try pubmed or medline or go
to your nearest medical school library. Another thing--
insulin can drop after any low calorie diet regardless of
composition. You're making claims without substantiation and
then making criticisms without merit or scientific strength.
Show us your stuff not bluff. Pete

[Sky-Hi]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:06:08 -0400, "Dr. Dickie"
<dr_dickie@chembench.com> wrote:

>You are dealing with the great un-washed public out there.

Learn to respect your brothers and sisters as equals.
Otherwise, your attitude will result in stupid decisions.

> If you tell them that fat is okay, then they will pound big
> Macs and fries until they literally bust a gut. Can you eat
> a relatively high fat diet and still be healthy? Seems to be
> so, but you really have to watch what you are eating as far
> as foods with the right fats and that have the highest
> nutritional values, otherwise the calories go through the
> roof before you get the proper nutrients you need. Why do
> the high carbs/low fat diets not work? Because people are
> lazy as hell. If they weren't, don't you think they would
> have educated themselves before getting to the point that
> they needed to diet? Bad food is easy to find and get. The
> damn stuff is designed to push our evolutionary buttons when
> it comes to taste, and people are lazy and will eat it even
> when they know that it is killing them! It is easier (and
> more reasonable) to simply tell people to cut the fat out
> than it is to try to educate them on good and bad fats and
> food. If you avoid the high fat foods, it is harder to
> consume 4,500 calories a day. Can people do it? Yeah, but I
> suspect that most often they cheat to do so. It seems insane
> to educated people who understand nutrition (don't count me
> as one--I am making this stuff up as I go along), but think
> of the average person out there....50% of the people are
> then dumber that that person. Not an expert, just an
> opinion.
>
>--------------------------------------------------
>Dr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
> Poking kooks with a pointy stick
>--------------------------------------------------
>"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity
>has its own reason for existing."
>A. Einstein

[Clay Tidwe]

tcomeau@mts.net (Tcomeau) wrote in message news:

> A high carb diet tends to throw insulin levels out of whack
> inhibiting weight (fat) loss.

The NHANES data strongly refutes your contention that
Americans eat high carb/low-fat diets. Americans do eat a
lot...again back to the calories...and that probably has more
to do with weight gain then insulin response.

> Restricting calories of fat and increasing calories of
> carbs, has been shown to fail to produce weight loss in 95%+
> of cases.

Where is this number coming from? What studies show that this
premise is true in 95%+ of cases?

[Tcomeau]

pbeyer <pbeyer@kumc.edu> wrote in message
news:<3D592714.C9E550B9@kumc.edu>...
>
> OK Tcmoeau Seems to me you've been blowin' a lot of smoke
> and ignoring good science made available to you. How about
> *you* coming up with good studies-- not just quips and snips
> but sound studies showing that 95% of persons consuming low
> fat, (eg 20-30% fat from calories) and low calorie diets
> fail. (your claim). Also how about *you* showing us that
> you've made the effort to look at the data in which
> investigators have use different diets of different
> composition with weight loss. They've been done for
> decades--. Try pubmed or medline or go to your nearest
> medical school library. Another thing-- insulin can drop
> after any low calorie diet regardless of composition. You're
> making claims without substantiation and then making
> criticisms without merit or scientific strength. Show us
> your stuff not bluff. Pete

I am in the process of doing further research to "substantiate
my claims".

As a famous man once said: "I'll be back".

[Wuzzy]

tcomeau@mts.net (Tcomeau) wrote in message
> Let me clarify a couple of things.
>
> I am not claiming that the calorie theory (ie.
> excess-calories-in equals weight gain,
> restricted-calories-in equals weight loss) has no validity
> whatsoever. Calories are a factor in weight control. The
> only problem is that the human body is not quite that
> simplistic. Other factors have a greater impact on weight
> control. Insulin for one. A high carb diet tends to throw
> insulin levels out of whack inhibiting weight (fat) loss.

Last part is theoretical, yes high carb affects insulin but
insulin probably does not affect fat loss, more likely weight
is what is affecting insulin:

also in americans, *%*carb is not a major predictor of obesity
nor of fasting insulin. Physical activity in contrast is a
good factor in fasting insulin, and probably explains some
difference across bmis as well as difference between genders.
(about %10 of fasting insulin explained by this) At least 40%
of Fasting Insulin, and also fasting leptin can be explained
by waist-circumference - never by %carb intake. The rest is
due to error - within-person fasting insulin is probably about
+-15%(guess).

Refined carbs are only theoretically linked to
hyperinsulinemia even then explaining probably at most 5% of
variance - eg,. rice and bread are linked with diabetes and
colon cancer in European, Chinese, and American countries. But
since food is eaten every and throughout the day even this
small amount may be significant. Also you are correct and many
studies have shown that low carb does reduce daylong insulin
in obese and insulin requirements in type 1 diabetics as well
as body weight..

My point is that high insulin is most certainly not what has
caused obesity in americans. But it, and also leptin, are
probably caused by and reflect bmi.

I agree with you though that low carb is one strategy that
researchers are looking at and is interesting in terms of
reducing insulin levels. (end of position statement? - jada
has a position statement on optimum way to reduce bmi coming
out this or next week I don't expect any surprises..)

[Tcomeau]

claytid@yahoo.com (Clay Tidwell) wrote in message
news:<51eef7a1.0208151035.540510ba@posting.google.com>...
> tcomeau@mts.net (Tcomeau) wrote in message news:
>
> > A high carb diet tends to throw insulin levels out of
> > whack inhibiting weight (fat) loss.
>
> The NHANES data strongly refutes your contention that
> Americans eat high carb/low-fat diets. Americans do eat a
> lot...again back to the calories...and that probably has
> more to do with weight gain then insulin response.
>
>
> > Restricting calories of fat and increasing calories of
> > carbs, has been shown to fail to produce weight loss in
> > 95%+ of cases.
>
> Where is this number coming from? What studies show that
> this premise is true in 95%+ of cases?

D.M.Garner & S.C.Wooley: "Confronting the Failure of
Behavioral and Dietary Treatments for Obesity", Clinical
Psychology Review, 1991, vol.11, pp. 729--780

[Tcomeau]

pbeyer <pbeyer@kumc.edu> wrote in message
news:<3D592714.C9E550B9@kumc.edu>...
>
> OK Tcmoeau Seems to me you've been blowin' a lot of smoke
> and ignoring good science made available to you. How about
> *you* coming up with good studies-- not just quips and snips
> but sound studies showing that 95% of persons consuming low
> fat, (eg 20-30% fat from calories) and low calorie diets
> fail. (your claim). Also how about *you* showing us that
> you've made the effort to look at the data in which
> investigators have use different diets of different
> composition with weight loss. They've been done for
> decades--. Try pubmed or medline or go to your nearest
> medical school library. Another thing-- insulin can drop
> after any low calorie diet regardless of composition. You're
> making claims without substantiation and then making
> criticisms without merit or scientific strength. Show us
> your stuff not bluff. Pete

Here is some science dealing with energy requirements of the
human body. It is long so please bear with me.

Gathered from Exercise Physiology, Energy Nutrition, and Human
Performance, Fourth Edition, authored by William D. McArdle,
Frank I. Katch and Victor I Katch.

*************************************************************-
****************************

Chapter 1, Carbohydrates, Lipids, and Proteins, p. 28

"In well-nourished individuals at rest, the protein breakdown
contributes between 2 to 5% of the body's total energy
requirement."

*** Note energy requirement only, does not include protein for
body processes or re-building. *** end of note, Terry

Chapter 8, Measurement of Human Energy Expenditures, p.
145-147

"Because of inherent differences in the chemical compositions
of carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins, different amounts of
oxygen are required to oxidize completely the molecule's
carbon and hydrogen atoms to the carbon dioxide and water end
products. Thus, the quantity of carbon dioxide produced in
relation to oxygen consumed varies somewhat depending on the
substrate metabolized. This ratio of metabolic gas exchange in
the combustion of food is termed the respiratory quotient, or
RQ, and is defined as follows:

RQ = CO2 produced / O2 consumed

The RQ is useful for evaluating rest and aerobic exercise
because it serves as a convenient, though perhaps general,
guide to the macronutrient mixture catabolized for energy."

"... the RQ for carbohydrate is unity, or 1.00."

"... the RQ value for lipid is considered to be 0.70."

"... The general value for the RQ of protein is 0.82."

"NONPROTEIN RQ

The RQ computed from the compositional analysis of expired
air usually reflects the catabolism of a blend of
carbohydrates, lipids and proteins. The precise contribution
of each of these nutrients to the metabolic mixture can be
determined. For example, approximately 1 g of urinary
nitrogen is excreted for every 6.25 g of protein metabolized
for energy. Each gram of excreted represents a carbon dioxide
production of approximately 4.8 L and an oxygen uptake of
approximately 6.0 L. "

*** Note Using a five step calculation, one is able to
calculate a "Nonprotein RQ" for a given subject. This RQ is
then used to look up value in a table to quantify the
percentages of lipids to carbohydrates, or "macronutrient
mixture catabolized for energy". *** End of note, Terry

"RQ For a Mixed Diet

During activities that range from complete bed rest to mild,
aerobic exercise such as walking or slow jogging, the RQ
seldom reflects the oxidation of pure carbohydrate or pure
lipid. Instead, a mixture of these nutrients is usually used,
and the intermediate RQ value is between 0.70 and 1.00. For
most purposes, an RQ of 0.82 from the metabolism of a mixture
of 40% carbohydrate and 60% lipid can be assumed, and the
caloric equivalent of 4.825 kcal per liter of oxygen can be
applied to energy transformations. Using this midpoint value,
the maximum error possible in estimating energy metabolism
from oxygen uptake would be only about 4%."

*************************************************************-
***

So... in a relatively sedentary subject, energy expenditure
will occur in the above calculated amounts:

Fats: approx. 60% Proteins: 2 to 5% Carbs: approx. 40%

Yeah, yeah, it adds up to more than 100%, but you get the
idea, if we prorate to 100% it is still about 57/5/38 which is
a looong way from the rda of 30/10/60.

If this is the ratio that our body's are genetically wired to
expend energy under these circumstances, how can we justify
60% carbs in the diets of the average American?

I assume that our requirements of lipids and proteins would be
more than these amounts. Beyond just energy, the body needs
amino acids and essential fatty acids for body processes and
tissue regeneration, etc.

Here are a couple of more quotes from the same book.

***********************************************

"Individuals involved in **heavy training** should consume
about 60% of daily calories as carbohydrates." p. 10

my emphasis, Last time I looked the vast majority of americans
were NOT involved in heavy training.

"The main function of carbohydrate is to serve as an energy
fuel, particularly during exercise." p. 10

"Daily carbohydrate intake must be adequate to maintain the
body's relatively limited glycogen stores. On the other hand,
once the capacity of the cell for glycogen storage is reached,
excess sugars are converted to and stored as lipid. This
action helps explain how the body's fat content can increase
when excess carbohydrates are consumed, even if the diet is
low in lipids." p. 11

************************************************

My point was that the low-calorie diet does not work, this is
because we are hard wired to turn excess carbs into bodyfat,
even when our fat intake is low. 60% carbs is way too many
carbs for the average american, especially when trying to
lose bodyfat.

Terry

[jril3882]

On 13 Aug 2002 06:59:39 -0700, tcomeau@mts.net (Tcomeau)
wrote:

>mypcos@hotmail.com (wuzzy) wrote in message
>news:<d996c21a.0208121244.36459572@posting.google.com>...
>> Tcmoeau, the discussion on how is able to juggle energy
>> balance does not negate the calorie theory, similarly the
>> theory is not disputed, at all in the literature.
>>
>> aside, The new Jacn (jacn.org) is very fun to read
>> particularly the several reviews on whole grains and the
>> new NHANES study,
>>
>> but take a look at vol 21, 3 pg 275 where they find that
>> adding ***320 kcal*** of nuts a day did not result in wait
>> gain after 6 months!
>>
>>
>> they argue several things including some interesting: "It
>> is probable that the absorption of energy from the nut fat
>> was incomplete. Indeed there is data to support this
>> conjecture for the consumption of pecans
>> [25], almonds (Sabaté J, unpublished observations) and
>> peanuts [26]. In that case, the combination of the
>> observed displacement of energy from other foods plus
>> incomplete absorption could largely explain the lack of
>> weight gain. "
>>
>> they argue others but I'm still reading the article..
>
>
>Let me clarify a couple of things.
>
>I am not claiming that the calorie theory (ie.
>excess-calories-in equals weight gain, restricted-calories-in
>equals weight loss) has no validity whatsoever.

Yes you are. Look at the subject.

>Calories are a factor in weight control. The only problem is
>that the human body is not quite that simplistic. Other
>factors have a greater impact on weight control. Insulin for
>one. A high carb diet tends to throw insulin levels out of
>whack inhibiting weight (fat) loss.
>
>Restricting calories of fat and increasing calories of
>carbs, has been shown to fail to produce weight loss in 95%+
>of cases.

No it hasn't. When it is hypocaloric and adhered to.

>When a weight loss regimen allows enough fats and proteins
>and restricts high-GI foods and refined carbs, it works in
>80%+ of cases.

No it doesn't, unless it is hypocaloric.

>Why are we wasting time chanting the low-fat/high-carb weight
>loss regimen when we know it doesn't work?

The only diet that ever works is a hypocaloric one.

>And why haven't the mainstream nutritional sciences even
>looked at diets other than low-fat/low-calories? Dereliction
>of scientific duty? Arrogance?

Your myopia, most likely.

>Regarding you aside. Interesting stuff. Could it be that the
>human body can regulate its metabolic rate somewhat better
>when dealing with excess fat and protein calories while it
>still has trouble dealing with some carbs?

How does the human bod alter its MR other than altering
activity?

jl remove digits to reply

[jril3882]

On 16 Aug 2002 20:18:38 -0700, tcomeau@mts.net (Tcomeau)
wrote:

>pbeyer <pbeyer@kumc.edu> wrote in message
>news:<3D592714.C9E550B9@kumc.edu>...
>>
>> OK Tcmoeau Seems to me you've been blowin' a lot of smoke
>> and ignoring good science made available to you. How about
>> *you* coming up with good studies-- not just quips and
>> snips but sound studies showing that 95% of persons
>> consuming low fat, (eg 20-30% fat from calories) and low
>> calorie diets fail. (your claim). Also how about *you*
>> showing us that you've made the effort to look at the data
>> in which investigators have use different diets of
>> different composition with weight loss. They've been done
>> for decades--. Try pubmed or medline or go to your nearest
>> medical school library. Another thing-- insulin can drop
>> after any low calorie diet regardless of composition.
>> You're making claims without substantiation and then making
>> criticisms without merit or scientific strength. Show us
>> your stuff not bluff. Pete
>
>Here is some science dealing with energy requirements of the
>human body. It is long so please bear with me.
>
>Gathered from Exercise Physiology, Energy Nutrition, and
>Human Performance, Fourth Edition, authored by William D.
>McArdle, Frank I. Katch and Victor I Katch.
>
>************************************************************-
>*****************************
>
>Chapter 1, Carbohydrates, Lipids, and Proteins, p. 28
>
>"In well-nourished individuals at rest, the protein breakdown
>contributes between 2 to 5% of the body's total energy
>requirement."
>
>*** Note energy requirement only, does not include protein
>for body processes or re-building. *** end of note, Terry
>
>Chapter 8, Measurement of Human Energy Expenditures, p.
>145-147
>
>"Because of inherent differences in the chemical compositions
>of carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins, different amounts of
>oxygen are required to oxidize completely the molecule's
>carbon and hydrogen atoms to the carbon dioxide and water end
>products. Thus, the quantity of carbon dioxide produced in
>relation to oxygen consumed varies somewhat depending on the
>substrate metabolized. This ratio of metabolic gas exchange
>in the combustion of food is termed the respiratory quotient,
>or RQ, and is defined as follows:
>
>RQ = CO2 produced / O2 consumed
>
>The RQ is useful for evaluating rest and aerobic exercise
>because it serves as a convenient, though perhaps general,
>guide to the macronutrient mixture catabolized for energy."
>
>
>"... the RQ for carbohydrate is unity, or 1.00."
>
>"... the RQ value for lipid is considered to be 0.70."
>
>"... The general value for the RQ of protein is 0.82."
>
>"NONPROTEIN RQ
>
>The RQ computed from the compositional analysis of expired
>air usually reflects the catabolism of a blend of
>carbohydrates, lipids and proteins. The precise contribution
>of each of these nutrients to the metabolic mixture can be
>determined. For example, approximately 1 g of urinary
>nitrogen is excreted for every 6.25 g of protein metabolized
>for energy. Each gram of excreted represents a carbon dioxide
>production of approximately 4.8 L and an oxygen uptake of
>approximately 6.0 L. "
>
>*** Note Using a five step calculation, one is able to
>calculate a "Nonprotein RQ" for a given subject. This RQ is
>then used to look up value in a table to quantify the
>percentages of lipids to carbohydrates, or "macronutrient
>mixture catabolized for energy". *** End of note, Terry
>
>"RQ For a Mixed Diet
>
>During activities that range from complete bed rest to mild,
>aerobic exercise such as walking or slow jogging, the RQ
>seldom reflects the oxidation of pure carbohydrate or pure
>lipid. Instead, a mixture of these nutrients is usually used,
>and the intermediate RQ value is between 0.70 and 1.00. For
>most purposes, an RQ of 0.82 from the metabolism of a mixture
>of 40% carbohydrate and 60% lipid can be assumed, and the
>caloric equivalent of 4.825 kcal per liter of oxygen can be
>applied to energy transformations. Using this midpoint value,
>the maximum error possible in estimating energy metabolism
>from oxygen uptake would be only about 4%."
>
>*******************************************************-
>*********
>
>So... in a relatively sedentary subject, energy expenditure
>will occur in the above calculated amounts:
>
>Fats: approx. 60% Proteins: 2 to 5% Carbs: approx. 40%

Sorry, weren't these just assumed for convenience? Maybe the
typical Western diet?

>Yeah, yeah, it adds up to more than 100%, but you get the
>idea, if we prorate to 100% it is still about 57/5/38 which
>is a looong way from the rda of 30/10/60.

Not far, but the 30/10/60 is a goal
57/5/38 is an assumed typical diet.

>If this is the ratio that our body's are genetically wired to
>expend energy under these circumstances, how can we justify
>60% carbs in the diets of the average American?

Who says this is genetically wired? Humans can eat a hugely
variable diet.

>I assume that our requirements of lipids and proteins would
>be more than these amounts. Beyond just energy, the body
>needs amino acids and essential fatty acids for body
>processes and tissue regeneration, etc.

The EFAs are just about negligable.

>Here are a couple of more quotes from the same book.
>
>
>***********************************************
>
>"Individuals involved in **heavy training** should consume
>about 60% of daily calories as carbohydrates." p. 10
>
>my emphasis, Last time I looked the vast majority of
>americans were NOT involved in heavy training.

But they should be much more active. Again, a goal.

>"The main function of carbohydrate is to serve as an energy
>fuel, particularly during exercise." p. 10
>
>"Daily carbohydrate intake must be adequate to maintain the
>body's relatively limited glycogen stores. On the other hand,
>once the capacity of the cell for glycogen storage is
>reached, excess sugars are converted to and stored as lipid.
>This action helps explain how the body's fat content can
>increase when excess carbohydrates are consumed, even if the
>diet is low in lipids." p. 11
>
>************************************************
>
>My point was that the low-calorie diet does not work, this is
>because we are hard wired to turn excess carbs into bodyfat,
>even when our fat intake is low.

We are designed to turn ALL excess energy into body fat.

>60% carbs is way too many carbs for the average american,
>especially when trying to lose bodyfat.

Sixty percent of what? A maintenance diet will cause NO weight
gain. It matters little what you eat. Calories in equal
calories out!

jl remove digits to reply

[Wuzzy]

Tcomeau wrote:

<snip>

>Gathered from Exercise Physiology, Energy Nutrition, and
>Human Performance, Fourth Edition, authored by William D.
>McArdle, Frank I. Katch and Victor I Katch.

<snip>

>Fats: approx. 60% Proteins: 2 to 5% Carbs: approx. 40%

This is famous data that was taken during the: fasting state.

I am surprised that body can burn that much carbs:40%! during
fasting! Most of this comes from glycogen and only some from
blood glucose depending on time and intensity.

During most of the day people are postprandial and burn mostly
glucose for food. I don't know the act number but it should be
more than 50%..

[Wuzzy]

Wuzzy wrote:
>I am surprised that body can burn that much carbs:40%! during
fasting!
>Most of this comes from glycogen and only some from blood
>glucose depending on time and intensity.

My surprise is because people have 500,000 kcal on average
stored as fat, so why burn any carbs at all during fasting?!

the reason is that the enzymes that convert triglycerides
to FFAs cannot work fast enough so you need alot coming
from carbs.

Therefore it isn't so impressive that in a state of low blood
glucose you can burn alot (40%) of carbs..

[Elzinator]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 07:42:19 GMT,
jril3882@digitsbigpond.net.au wrote:
>On 16 Aug 2002 20:18:38 -0700, tcomeau@mts.net
>(Tcomeau) wrote:

>>If this is the ratio that our body's are genetically wired
>>to expend energy under these circumstances, how can we
>>justify 60% carbs in the diets of the average American?

Those with a high activity level.

>Who says this is genetically wired? Humans can eat a hugely
>variable diet.

That is true. However, our genome evolved during eons of
generations of alternating feast and famine, consumption of
foods that were not as calorically dense (or as available),
and higher activity levels. Our genetics have not changed as
fast as our agriculture-based society and associated
lifestyles.

>>"Individuals involved in **heavy training** should consume
>>about 60% of daily calories as carbohydrates." p. 10
>>
>>my emphasis, Last time I looked the vast majority of
>>americans were NOT involved in heavy training.
>
>But they should be much more active. Again, a goal.

Ideally, modern humans should be more active. But the reality
is startlingly pessimistic. People are inherently lazy and
modern society permits physical activity. So we eat too much,
sit on our butts and watch the world get fat.

>>My point was that the low-calorie diet does not work, this
>>is because we are hard wired to turn excess carbs into
>>bodyfat, even when our fat intake is low.
>
>We are designed to turn ALL excess energy into body fat.

Fifth Law of Thermodynamics? :) It doesn't matter where the
excess calories originate: if not used for fuel, they will be
stored. Usually as fat.

Elzi

<insert whatever here

[Tcomeau]

jril3882@digitsbigpond.net.au wrote in message
news:<k1vrlus7ef09q20flag3ogu5plq2fdg3mp@4ax.com>...
> >
> >During activities that range from complete bed rest to
> >mild, aerobic exercise such as walking or slow jogging, the
> >RQ seldom reflects the oxidation of pure carbohydrate or
> >pure lipid. Instead, a mixture of these nutrients is
> >usually used, and the intermediate RQ value is between 0.70
> >and 1.00. For most purposes, an RQ of 0.82 from the
> >metabolism of a mixture of 40% carbohydrate and 60% lipid
> >can be assumed, and the caloric equivalent of 4.825 kcal
> >per liter of oxygen can be applied to energy
> >transformations. Using this midpoint value, the maximum
> >error possible in estimating energy metabolism from oxygen
> >uptake would be only about 4%."
> >
> >*********************************************************-
> >*******
> >
> >So... in a relatively sedentary subject, energy expenditure
> >will occur in the above calculated amounts:
> >
> >Fats: approx. 60% Proteins: 2 to 5% Carbs: approx. 40%
>
> Sorry, weren't these just assumed for convenience? Maybe the
> typical Western diet?

This is not the assumed western diet. Read it again. This is
the calculated ratio that the human body burns macronutrients
in a subject which we assume has an RQ of 0.82. Less activity,
the lower the RQ (more lipids are burned), the higher the
activity level the higher the RQ (more carbs are burned). We
assume that most people are around .82.

>
> >Yeah, yeah, it adds up to more than 100%, but you get the
> >idea, if we prorate to 100% it is still about 57/5/38 which
> >is a looong way from the rda of 30/10/60.
>
> Not far, but the 30/10/60 is a goal
> 57/5/38 is an assumed typical diet.

It is not an assumed diet. It is the actual ratio that our
body's use its macronutrients for energy. Read again, McDuff.

>
> >If this is the ratio that our body's are genetically wired
> >to expend energy under these circumstances, how can we
> >justify 60% carbs in the diets of the average American?
>
> Who says this is genetically wired? Humans can eat a hugely
> variable diet.

It is the actual ratio. It is how our body's burn its
macronutrients. I think we can assume that it is how we are
created. I assume it is genetics, You can ascribe it to the
gods of nutrition if you like, whatever.

>
> >I assume that our requirements of lipids and proteins would
> >be more than these amounts. Beyond just energy, the body
> >needs amino acids and essential fatty acids for body
> >processes and tissue regeneration, etc.
>
> The EFAs are just about negligable.
>
> >Here are a couple of more quotes from the same book.
> >
> >
> >***********************************************
> >
> >"Individuals involved in **heavy training** should consume
> >about 60% of daily calories as carbohydrates." p. 10
> >
> >my emphasis, Last time I looked the vast majority of
> >americans were NOT involved in heavy training.
>
> But they should be much more active. Again, a goal.
>

If they match their nutrient intake to their actual nutrient
expenditure the neede to increase physical activity
un-important.

> >"The main function of carbohydrate is to serve as an energy
> >fuel, particularly during exercise." p. 10
> >
> >"Daily carbohydrate intake must be adequate to maintain the
> >body's relatively limited glycogen stores. On the other
> >hand, once the capacity of the cell for glycogen storage is
> >reached, excess sugars are converted to and stored as
> >lipid. This action helps explain how the body's fat content
> >can increase when excess carbohydrates are consumed, even
> >if the diet is low in lipids." p. 11
> >
> >************************************************
> >
> >My point was that the low-calorie diet does not work, this
> >is because we are hard wired to turn excess carbs into
> >bodyfat, even when our fat intake is low.
>
> We are designed to turn ALL excess energy into body fat.

Especially when your macronutrient ratio is excessive in
carbs, and even when lipid intake is low.

>
> >60% carbs is way too many carbs for the average american,
> >especially when trying to lose bodyfat.
>
> Sixty percent of what? A maintenance diet will cause NO
> weight gain. It matters little what you eat. Calories in
> equal calories out!
>

Plain and simply bullshit. That is abolute nonsense. A
maintenance diet MUST take into account the realities of the
ratio of the mixture of macronutrients. I've just shown you
evidence that the body (under moderate activity) burns
macronutrients in a ratio of 60% lipids and 40% carbs. This
ratio can't be ignored. It is how we are hardwired, hence my
reference to genetics.

This is exactly the wrinkle that has caused the
low-calorie/high-carb diet to fail in 95% of cases. This is
also the wrinkle that supports the fact that low-carb diets
work in 80%+ of cases.

Read the textbook, buddy. It's in black and white.

>
>
> jl remove digits to reply

[Elzinator]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 08:50:29 -0400, Elzinator wrote:
>Ideally, modern humans should be more active. But the reality
>is startlingly pessimistic. People are inherently lazy and
>modern society permits physical activity.

That should have been 'inactivity'.

Not enough coffee.....

Elzi

<insert whatever here

[Wuzzy]

> Here is some science dealing with energy requirements of the
> human body. It is long so please bear with me.
>
> Gathered from Exercise Physiology, Energy Nutrition, and
> Human Performance, Fourth Edition, authored by William D.
> McArdle, Frank I. Katch and Victor I Katch.

Okay cool got a copy I have the 1996 version, the newest one..
i believe there is a 1980s version too..

> RQ = CO2 produced / O2 consumed
>
>
> "... the RQ for carbohydrate is unity, or 1.00."
>
> "... the RQ value for lipid is considered to be 0.70."
>
> "... The general value for the RQ of protein is 0.82."

ie. you are describing to the stoichiometry of producing CO2
in these numbers.

> between 0.70 and 1.00. For most purposes, an RQ of 0.82 from
> the metabolism of a mixture of 40% carbohydrate and 60%
> lipid can be assumed, and the caloric equivalent of 4.825
> kcal per liter of oxygen can be applied to energy
> transformations. Using this midpoint value, the maximum
> error possible in estimating energy metabolism from oxygen
> uptake would be only about 4%."

Yep, also look at table 8.1:

For most purposes, an RQ of 1.00 from the metabolism of a
mixture of 100% carbohydrate and 100% lipid can be assumed,
and the caloric equivalent of 5.047kcal per liter of
oxygen.. etc.

if. this paragraph means nothing.

>
> ********************************************************-
> ********
>
> So... in a relatively sedentary subject, energy expenditure
> will occur in the above calculated amounts:
>
> Fats: approx. 60% Proteins: 2 to 5% Carbs: approx. 40%

No, the book does not say this.

Off topic, humans during fasting do get 50% of carb from carb
- that is extremely high amount of carb burning happening
during fasting, more than people probably realize since blood
glucose concentrations are low.

anyway read the chapter again, I believe you misinterpret it..

[Wuzzy]

tcomeau@mts.net (Tcomeau) wrote in message

Your text does not provide any way of calculating substrate
utilization during fasting. It provides a general purpose way
of calculating RQs from various percentages of carb from 0%
carb to 100% carb fuel they exclude protein.

For actual numbers, get a copyh of Substrate utilization
during exercise in active people. AJCN 1995:61: 968S-79S.

figure 3: *exercise during fasting*: At rest, 45% is glycogen,
5% is blood glucose, 25% is plasma FFA, 25% is muscle
triglycerides. After 1hr, 35% glycogen, 15%bgs, 25%ffa, 25%
muscle triglycerds

etc.

therefore at almost all points in time 50% of fuel is
from carb.

During postprandial, however, most of energy is from, carbs
are preffered as fuel over fat in the hierarchy: ie. if there
is carb, no fat will be burned. Similarly if there is alcohol,
no fat will be burned.. Hence during the day when most people
are postprandial throughout the day, carb is the main fuel.

most low-carb-supporting researchers agree that low-calorie is
the main mechanism and that this may be due to appetite
suppression through ketosis or glucose level balancing by
reducing insulin spikes..

similarly a high fiber diet leads to similar appetite
suppression and weight loss but neither of these diets (high
fiber, low carb) have any magical ability of overcoming
calories in = calories out..

[Wuzzy]

> "... the RQ for carbohydrate is unity, or 1.00."
>
> "... the RQ value for lipid is considered to be 0.70."
>
> "... The general value for the RQ of protein is 0.82."

NOTES on stoichiometry:

CARB BURNS LIKE C6H12O6 + 602 --> 6CO2 + 6H20 +720 KCAL
Ie. 1mol of Glucose=180g=720KCAL math:C6H12O6=
(12*6)+(1*12)+(16*6)=180g=720

TRIGLYCERIDES BURN LIKE: C57H107O6 + 78O2 ---> 57CO2 + 52H2o
+ 7983KCAL
If. 1mol of triglyceride is about 887g*9=7983KCAL
Math:C57H107O6=(12*57)+(1*107)+(16*6)=887g=7983KCAL

SO FOR CARB, the respiratory quotient is CO2/O2= 6/6=1
FOR FAT, respiratory quotient is CO2/O2 = 57/78 = 73

REFERENCES: http://www.chemicalelements.com/show/mass.html H=1
O=16 C=12 (you should know these)

Basically as you can tell from discussion atkins diet burns
more fat because there is no CHO that can compete
hierarchicaly, but if person is consuming more fat than they
can burn it will get stored. Similarly if carb-eating person
is getting more calories than they burn they will get stored..

[Tcomeau]

mypcos@hotmail.com (wuzzy) wrote in message
news:<d996c21a.0208170406.1e4b9e3e@posting.google.com>...
> Tcomeau wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Gathered from Exercise Physiology, Energy Nutrition, and
> >Human Performance, Fourth Edition, authored by William D.
> >McArdle, Frank I. Katch and Victor I Katch.
>
> <snip>
>
> >Fats: approx. 60% Proteins: 2 to 5% Carbs: approx. 40%
>
>
> This is famous data that was taken during the: fasting
> state.
>
> I am surprised that body can burn that much carbs:40%!
> during fasting! Most of this comes from glycogen and only
> some from blood glucose depending on time and intensity.
>
> During most of the day people are postprandial and burn
> mostly glucose for food. I don't know the act number but it
> should be more than 50%..

What famous data are you talking about? Could you clarify your
references to fasting and how it is related to this?

Thanks

TC

[Tcomeau]

mypcos@hotmail.com (wuzzy) wrote in message
news:<d996c21a.0208171520.73386a76@posting.google.com>...
> > "... the RQ for carbohydrate is unity, or 1.00."
> >
> > "... the RQ value for lipid is considered to be 0.70."
> >
> > "... The general value for the RQ of protein is 0.82."
>
> NOTES on stoichiometry:
>
> CARB BURNS LIKE C6H12O6 + 602 --> 6CO2 + 6H20 +720 KCAL
> Ie. 1mol of Glucose=180g=720KCAL math:C6H12O6=
> (12*6)+(1*12)+(16*6)=180g=720
>
>
>
> TRIGLYCERIDES BURN LIKE: C57H107O6 + 78O2 ---> 57CO2 + 52H2o
> + 7983KCAL
> ie. 1mol of triglyceride is about 887g*9=7983KCAL
> Math:C57H107O6=(12*57)+(1*107)+(16*6)=887g=7983KCAL
>
> SO FOR CARB, the respiratory quotient is CO2/O2= 6/6=1
> FOR FAT, respiratory quotient is CO2/O2 = 57/78 = 73
>
> REFERENCES: http://www.chemicalelements.com/show/mass.html
> H=1 O=16 C=12 (you should know these)
>
> Basically as you can tell from discussion atkins diet burns
> more fat because there is no CHO that can compete
> hierarchicaly, but if person is consuming more fat than they
> can burn it will get stored. Similarly if carb-eating person
> is getting more calories than they burn they will get
> stored..

Would you agree that the *** trend *** as shown in the
table is that:

1) less physical activity (nonprotein RQ of approx. 0.82)
causes the body to burn its nutrient mix with more lipids
and less carbs - 60/40 and
2) more physical activity (nonprotein RQ of approx. 0.89)
causes the body to burn its nutrient mix with less lipids
and more carbs - 40/60

.82 RQ reflects a range of activity from "complete bed rest to
mild aerobic exercise".

.89 RQ reflects an activity level of "heavy training".

Do you agree that the table indicates a trend as described?

Yes of No?

[Jay Tanzma]

Tcomeau wrote:

> So... in a relatively sedentary subject, energy expenditure
> will occur in the above calculated amounts:
>
> Fats: approx. 60% Proteins: 2 to 5% Carbs: approx. 40%
>
> Yeah, yeah, it adds up to more than 100%, but you get the
> idea, if we prorate to 100% it is still about 57/5/38 which
> is a looong way from the rda of 30/10/60.
>
> If this is the ratio that our body's are genetically wired
> to expend energy under these circumstances, how can we
> justify 60% carbs in the diets of the average American?

You've badly misinterpreted what you've read. The body burns
the macronutrients you feed it. If your diet is eucaloric and
40/20/40, you burn 40/20/40, at least to a very good first
approximation. If you change your diet to, say,
60/10/30, then within a few days your body will adjust and
will burn 60/10/30.

-Jay

[Wuzzy]

Tcomeau:
>Would you agree that the *** trend *** as shown in
>the table is
that:
>
>1) less physical activity (nonprotein RQ of approx. 0.82)
> causes
the
>body to burn its nutrient mix with more lipids and
>less carbs -
60/40
>and

Oh I see. (others: the table is designed for you to select
nutrient mix and it will tell you the RQ.)

>2) more physical activity (nonprotein RQ of approx. 0.89)
> causes the body to burn its nutrient mix with less lipids
> and more carbs - 40/60 .82 RQ reflects a range of activity
> from "complete bed rest to mild aerobic exercise".

Where does it say that activity causes changes in RQ?

Exercise causes changes in VO2. But to my knowledge the
ratio of VCO2 to VO2 is entirely dependent on type of
fuel, not intensity of exercise. (why would intensity
change this ratio?!)

[Wuzzy]

>less physical activity (nonprotein RQ of approx. 0.82) causes
>the body to burn its nutrient mix with more lipids and less
>carbs - 60/40 and
>2) more physical activity (nonprotein RQ of approx. 0.89)
> causes the body to burn its nutrient mix with less lipids
> and more carbs - 40/60

I agree with this: You burn more glycogen when you run vs.
walk. This is from the fact that there is a limit to how much
albumin can transport fatty acids to muscle. Same amount of
fat is burned but since you need more energy and this can't
come from fat, it comes from glycogen, - this leads to
exhaustion when glycogen stores are depleted..

see Regulation of endogenous fat and carbohydrate metabolism
in relation to exercise intensity. A J Physiol
1993:265:E3808-91

[Jay Tanzma]

wuzzy wrote:
>
> Tcomeau:
> >Would you agree that the *** trend *** as shown in the
> >table is
> that:
> >
> >1) less physical activity (nonprotein RQ of approx. 0.82)
> > causes
> the
> >body to burn its nutrient mix with more lipids and less
> >carbs -
> 60/40
> >and
>
> Oh I see. (others: the table is designed for you to select
> nutrient mix and it will tell you the RQ.)
>
> >2) more physical activity (nonprotein RQ of approx. 0.89)
> > causes the body to burn its nutrient mix with less
> > lipids and more carbs - 40/60 .82 RQ reflects a range of
> > activity from "complete bed rest to mild aerobic
> > exercise".
>
> Where does it say that activity causes changes in RQ?
>
> Exercise causes changes in VO2. But to my knowledge the
> ratio of VCO2 to VO2 is entirely dependent on type of fuel,
> not intensity of exercise. (why would intensity change this
> ratio?!)

The more intense the exercise, the more the anaerobic
pathways, which cannot burn fat, will be utilized. Intense
exercise should thus increase RQ. Aerobic exercise on the
other hand should reduce RQ.

-Jay

[Bicker]

What impresses me most about this ongoing discussion is how
incredibly esoteric it has become, and how much further we
get from a consensus view of things, the longer the
discussion goes on.

Medical science fails again.

--
¤bicker¤ 263/161 fitness@brianandrobbie.com BP: 130/80 ->
100/60 See web site for Total Cholesterol: 256->200 before and
after photos. Waist: 46 -> 34 http://brianandrobbie.com BF%:
39% -> 13%

[Tcomeau]

OK people, it is time for me to re-state my position.

First, I said that the calorie theory as it has been applied
by the nutritional sciences for weight management in humans
was bogus. In other words, it doesn't work the way it is being
applied. The traditional low-calorie low-fat weight-loss diet
is predicated on the idea of decreasing overall
calories-consumed by restricting the higher calorie fat and
increasing the amount of lower calories carbs, and my point
was that it fails to work in 95%+ of the cases.

To prove this point I referred to the following study:
D.M.Garner & S.C.Wooley: "Confronting the Failure of
Behavioral and Dietary Treatments for Obesity", Clinical
Psychology Review, 1991, vol.11, pp. 729--780

Secondly, I suggested that a low-carb diet works in 80%+ of
cases. To prove this point I referred to a now well-known
study in the American Journal of Medicine, July 15th issue,
2002. I'm sure that you are all familiar with it.

In the absence of any credible explanation, or even
acknowledgement of this gross abberation, from the "experts"
in this forum, I presented a couple of possible hypothesi.

1) high-GI foods lead to elevated insulin levels, thus
impeding fat-loss or encouraging fat-gain
2) People with low activity levels (ranging from bed rest to
low level aerobic activity) have non-protein nutrient ratio
requirements of around 60% fats to 40% carbs. People with
very high activity levels (heavy training) require a ratio
of 40% fats and 60% carbs. The more active the individual
the greater the % of carbs to fats and vice-versa.

Both (or either) of these hypothesi would account for the
fact that low-fat diets don't work and low-carb diets do. And
both of these concepts are generally accepted in the
nutritional sciences.

The calorie theory, as applied to weight-management, does not
differentiate between the type of nutrient consumed. All
calories, regardless of source are considered the exact same
when it comes to applying the calorie theory to weight
management in humans. This is its achilles heel. The
traditional low-calorie diet restricts the higher-calorie
nutrient - fat, while increasing the low-calorie nutrient -
carbs, in order to restrict overall calories consumed. It is
a simple and straightforward idea, but it doesn't work. In
fact, it is skewing the diet in the opposite direction of the
body's actual nutrient ratio requirements. Hence the 95%+
failure rate.

Do calories matter at all? Yes they do. But the nutrient ratio
has to be normalized first. For more sedentary individuals the
non-protein nutrient ratio should be normalized to
approximately 60% fat and 40% carbs, with a healthy .8 grams
per kg of bodyweight of proteins (or more, the jury is still
out on the protein requirements, I won't deal with that here).
Once these ratios are met and the nutrients consumed more
closely matches the nutrients required, then we can consider
calories, and when the overall amount of calories is
restricted, weight loss will occur. The currently popular
low-carb diets bring these nonprotein ratios closer into line
with our actual nutrient ratio requirements, which explains
the greater success of these weight-management diets compared
to the traditional low-fat diets.

I'm sure that a number of you will have all kinds of arguments
to make against these ideas. But before you do, please
consider that it is a proven and accepted fact that low-fat
diets do not work in 95%+ of cases and it is a proven (and
soon to be accepted fact) that low-carb diets do work (80% of
cases, anyway). If you chose to dis-regard these realities,
then you should leave the sci. forums and go to the philosophy
discussions, there you can feel free to speculate about and
imagine any make-believe world that you desire. I think that
here in the sci. forums we want to deal with the real world.

As an aside, I've noticed how many researchers and "experts"
in the field of nutrition have PHD's. Now I see how an
advanced degree in philosophy can be useful to a nutritional
scientist. He can always sit in his castle in the sky and
preach his 100 year old theories to us poor fat slobs who just
don't have the will power to cut fat from our diets. Or hang
on, maybe its that we aren't socially adjusted, or maybe we're
just genetically pre-disposed to be fat, maybe we just have
mental problems. Either way, it can't be the theory and how it
is applied in the real world that is the problem, can it? That
would be too simple a solution to such a complex problem,
right? Besides, how embarassing would it be if it was found
that, in order to lose bodyfat, we have to do exactly the
opposite of what the PHD's have been expousing for 100 years,
eat a nutrient ratio of MORE fat and LESS carbs. Man, If I was
a nutritional scientist, I would be embarrassed too.

The mainstream nutritional sciences have had 130 years to
investigate and improve their knowledge in this area and
they've plainly out-and-out refused to do so. As far back as
William Banting and the Letter on Corpulence in 1869 and as
lately as The Dr. Atkins phenomenon. Further to this, they
labelled the only **currently proven** method of weight
management as "quackery" and the proponents of these diets as
"fakes". These labels were affixed without any investigation
whatsoever. Now we find out that these "quacks" and "fakes"
were right all along. Oops, talk about egg on their faces.
There goes their scientific credibility. Any chance that
Atkins will get an apology? Yeah, right.

But the PHD's will always invoke their skewed Cartesian logic,
"I think I am right, therefore I am", and they will always
"win" their arguments, even when they are dead wrong.
Meanwhile, we, the mere plebes of this world, will have to
find other ways to find out the true scientific facts behind
human nutrition and weight management. It sure would be nice
to be able to place some modicum of trust in the mainstream
nutritional sciences, but then, I am just philosophising now
.... and wasting time. I'm going back to the real world.

Au revoir, tout le monde. Mon travail ici est fini.

Terry

[Pbeyer]

Tcomeau wrote:

> pbeyer <pbeyer@kumc.edu> wrote in message
> news:<3D592714.C9E550B9@kumc.edu>...
> >
> > OK Tcmoeau Seems to me you've been blowin' a lot of smoke
> > and ignoring good science made available to you. How about
> > *you* coming up with good studies-- not just quips and
> > snips but sound studies showing that 95% of persons
> > consuming low fat, (eg 20-30% fat from calories) and low
> > calorie diets fail. (your claim). Also how about *you*
> > showing us that you've made the effort to look at the data
> > in which investigators have use different diets of
> > different composition with weight loss. They've been done
> > for decades--. Try pubmed or medline or go to your nearest
> > medical school library. Another thing-- insulin can drop
> > after any low calorie diet regardless of composition.
> > You're making claims without substantiation and then
> > making criticisms without merit or scientific strength.
> > Show us your stuff not bluff. Pete
>
> Here is some science dealing with energy requirements of the
> human body. It is long so please bear with me.
>
> Gathered from Exercise Physiology, Energy Nutrition, and
> Human Performance, Fourth Edition, authored by William D.
> McArdle, Frank I. Katch and Victor I Katch.
>
> ***********************************************************-
> ******************************
>
> Chapter 1, Carbohydrates, Lipids, and Proteins, p. 28
>
> So... in a relatively sedentary subject, energy expenditure
> will occur in the above calculated amounts:
>
> Fats: approx. 60% Proteins: 2 to 5% Carbs: approx. 40%
>
> Yeah, yeah, it adds up to more than 100%, but you get the
> idea, if we prorate to 100% it is still about 57/5/38 which
> is a looong way from the rda of 30/10/60.

From Pete: First of all this just deals with just the RQ of
three substrates (which I referred you earlier)-- First done
in the 1920's and 30's. Second, this does not tell one what
you *should* eat but what the body is using under the
conditions it was measured. Third, The RDA Does not deal with
the ratio of substrates-- just protein and calories. We can
very nicely adjust to a wide variety of energy substrates.
Many populations around the world eat very low fat diets, some
consume relatevely high fat, high protein.

>
>
> If this is the ratio that our body's are genetically wired
> to expend energy under these circumstances, how can we
> justify 60% carbs in the diets of the average American?

From Pete: AS above.

> I assume that our requirements of lipids and proteins would
> be more than these amounts. Beyond just energy, the body
> needs amino acids and essential fatty acids for body
> processes and tissue regeneration, etc.

From Pete: Very small amounts of essential fatty acids are
required and a little protein is required-- The US diet
typically exceeds the requirements by a great deal--
especially in men.

>
> Here are a couple of more quotes from the same book.
>
> ***********************************************
>
> "Individuals involved in **heavy training** should consume
> about 60% of daily calories as carbohydrates." p. 10
>
> my emphasis, Last time I looked the vast majority of
> americans were NOT involved in heavy training.

From Pete: Doesn't mean anything-- has to do with affecting
preferential use of carbs at high intensity exercise. Percent
of calories ingested when at energy balance can come from a
variety of sources. Actually carb is less efficiently used
than lipid, so one is better consuming carb than lipid if
trying to control weight gain.

>
> "The main function of carbohydrate is to serve as an energy
> fuel, particularly during exercise." p. 10
>
> "Daily carbohydrate intake must be adequate to maintain the
> body's relatively limited glycogen stores. On the other
> hand, once the capacity of the cell for glycogen storage is
> reached, excess sugars are converted to and stored as lipid.
> This action helps explain how the body's fat content can
> increase when excess carbohydrates are consumed, even if the
> diet is low in lipids." p. 11

> Only at excess energy intake.
>
> My point was that the low-calorie diet does not work, this
> is because we are hard wired to turn excess carbs into
> bodyfat, even when our fat intake is low. 60% carbs is way
> too many carbs for the average american, especially when
> trying to lose bodyfat.

> Terry

From Pete --Not good reasoning for the reasons explained
above. Give you credit, Terry, for looking at a textbook but
it's out of context and does not support your premise.

Pete

>
>
> Terry

[Lyle McDon]

bicker wrote:
>
> What impresses me most about this ongoing discussion is how
> incredibly esoteric it has become, and how much further we
> get from a consensus view of things, the longer the
> discussion goes on.
>
> Medical science fails again.

You're a fucking moron. A lack of concensus is not the
equivalent of failure, except to fucking morons like
yourself. There is debate in nearly every area of science, by
your fucking moronic logic, that would indicate failure in
those fields.

Lyle

[Bicker]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:26:02 GMT, Lyle McDonald
<lylemcd@onr.com> wrote:
> bicker wrote:
> > What impresses me most about this ongoing discussion is
> > how incredibly esoteric it has become, and how much
> > further we get from a consensus view of things, the longer
> > the discussion goes on. Medical science fails again.
> You're a fucking moron.

You're a rude child.

> A lack of concensus is not the equivalent of failure, except
> to fucking morons like yourself.

A lack of consensus on such a critical issue is a failure.
Your puerile language does nothing to support, and lots of
undercut your assertion to the contrary.

> There is debate in nearly every area of science, by your
> fucking moronic logic, that would indicate failure in
> those fields.

There is a vast different between debate and the direct
contradictions that pervade the field of nutrition.
Furthermore, efforts should be more specifically focused on
limiting the period of conflict commensurate with the gravity
of the problem; instead, all I see is the various camps
digging in on their positions and refusing to work together to
find a unified understanding.

Failure.

--
¤bicker¤ 263/158 fitness@brianandrobbie.com BP: 130/80 ->
100/60 See web site for Total Cholesterol: 256->200 before and
after photos. Waist: 46 -> 34 http://brianandrobbie.com BF%:
39% -> 13%

[Lyle McDon]

Jay Tanzman wrote:
>
> wuzzy wrote:
> >
> > Tcomeau:
> > >Would you agree that the *** trend *** as shown in the
> > >table is
> > that:
> > >
> > >1) less physical activity (nonprotein RQ of approx.
> > > 0.82) causes
> > the
> > >body to burn its nutrient mix with more lipids and less
> > >carbs -
> > 60/40
> > >and
> >
> > Oh I see. (others: the table is designed for you to select
> > nutrient mix and it will tell you the RQ.)
> >
> > >2) more physical activity (nonprotein RQ of approx. 0.89)
> > > causes the body to burn its nutrient mix with less
> > > lipids and more carbs - 40/60 .82 RQ reflects a range
> > > of activity from "complete bed rest to mild aerobic
> > > exercise".
> >
> > Where does it say that activity causes changes in RQ?
> >
> > Exercise causes changes in VO2. But to my knowledge the
> > ratio of VCO2 to VO2 is entirely dependent on type of
> > fuel, not intensity of exercise. (why would intensity
> > change this ratio?!)
>
> The more intense the exercise, the more the anaerobic
> pathways, which cannot burn fat, will be utilized. Intense
> exercise should thus increase RQ. Aerobic exercise on the
> other hand should reduce RQ.

Be careful to distinguish what happens during exercise vs.
afterwards. High intensity may rely more on glycogen, but that
glycogen depletion promotes greater fat oxidation during the
day (see work by Schrauwen for example).

Lyle

[Lawrence F]

In article <1da933c7.0208190955.6b9f9f1b@posting.google.com>,
Tcomeau <tcomeau@mts.net> wrote:
>OK people, it is time for me to re-state my position.
>
>First, I said that the calorie theory as it has been applied
>by the nutritional sciences for weight management in humans
>was bogus. In other words, it doesn't work the way it is
>being applied. The traditional low-calorie low-fat
>weight-loss diet is predicated on the idea of decreasing
>overall calories-consumed by restricting the higher calorie
>fat and increasing the amount of lower calories carbs, and my
>point was that it fails to work in 95%+ of the cases.

But you don't specify low or high GI carbs here. Replace
cheese steaks with apples and see if you can manage to gain
weight on that.

>To prove this point I referred to the following study:
>D.M.Garner & S.C.Wooley: "Confronting the Failure of
> Behavioral and Dietary Treatments for Obesity", Clinical
> Psychology Review, 1991, vol.11, pp. 729--780
>
>Secondly, I suggested that a low-carb diet works in 80%+ of
>cases. To prove this point I referred to a now well-known
>study in the American Journal of Medicine, July 15th issue,
>2002. I'm sure that you are all familiar with it.

I know a number of low-carb fans, they like many other dieters
cycle between weight gain and crash diets. This diet isn't
working for long term weight loss either.

Long term weight loss is only going to come from a diet that
you can stick to for a long time. A diet that works without
being overly restrictive, and a diet thats healthy in other
respects. People should be looking at lowering glycemic
index while eating reasonable proportions of fat, carbs and
protein rather than smothering cheese steaks in butter and
calling it healthy.

A typical meal for me: A small amount of rice (long grain or
brown), lentils, olive oil, spices, walnuts and olives,
followed by fruit. This is very filling, long lasting and
still reasonably low calorie (400-600?). If exercising I may
cheat and eat some more refined stuff like corn chips, but
still avoid anything beyond the smallest amounts of sugar.
--
Be a counter terrorist perpetrate random senseless acts
of kindness Rave: Immanentization of the Eschaton in a
Temporary Autonomous Zone.
- Anyone have any work at all thats not customer service,
please let me know -

[Tcomeau]

Jay Tanzman <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
news:<3D5FF22B.9E1F1096@sph.llu.edu>...
> Tcomeau wrote:
>
> > So... in a relatively sedentary subject, energy
> > expenditure will occur in the above calculated amounts:
> >
> > Fats: approx. 60% Proteins: 2 to 5% Carbs: approx. 40%
> >
> > Yeah, yeah, it adds up to more than 100%, but you get the
> > idea, if we prorate to 100% it is still about 57/5/38
> > which is a looong way from the rda of 30/10/60.
> >
> > If this is the ratio that our body's are genetically wired
> > to expend energy under these circumstances, how can we
> > justify 60% carbs in the diets of the average American?
>
> You've badly misinterpreted what you've read. The body burns
> the macronutrients you feed it. If your diet is eucaloric
> and 40/20/40, you burn 40/20/40, at least to a very good
> first approximation. If you change your diet to, say,
> 60/10/30, then within a few days your body will adjust and
> will burn 60/10/30.
>
> -Jay

I haven't misinterpreted anything.

OK people, it is time for me to re-state my position.

First, I said that the calorie theory as it has been applied
by the nutritional sciences for weight management in humans
was bogus. In other words, it doesn't work the way it is being
applied. The traditional low-calorie low-fat weight-loss diet
is predicated on the idea of decreasing overall
calories-consumed by restricting the higher calorie fat and
increasing the amount of lower calories carbs, and my point
was that it fails to work in 95%+ of the cases.

To prove this point I referred to the following study:
D.M.Garner & S.C.Wooley: "Confronting the Failure of
Behavioral and Dietary Treatments for Obesity", Clinical
Psychology Review, 1991, vol.11, pp. 729--780

Secondly, I suggested that a low-carb diet works in 80%+ of
cases. To prove this point I referred to a now well-known
study in the American Journal of Medicine, July 15th issue,
2002. I'm sure that you are all familiar with it.

In the absence of any credible explanation, or even
acknowledgement of this gross abberation, from the "experts"
in this forum, I presented a couple of possible hypothesi.

1) high-GI foods lead to elevated insulin levels, thus
impeding fat-loss or encouraging fat-gain
2) People with low activity levels (ranging from bed rest to
low level aerobic activity) have non-protein nutrient ratio
requirements of around 60% fats to 40% carbs. People with
very high activity levels (heavy training) require a ratio
of 40% fats and 60% carbs. The more active the individual
the greater the % of carbs to fats and vice-versa.

Both (or either) of these hypothesi would account for the
fact that low-fat diets don't work and low-carb diets do. And
both of these concepts are generally accepted in the
nutritional sciences.

The calorie theory, as applied to weight-management, does not
differentiate between the type of nutrient consumed. All
calories, regardless of source are considered the exact same
when it comes to applying the calorie theory to weight
management in humans. This is its achilles heel. The
traditional low-calorie diet restricts the higher-calorie
nutrient - fat, while increasing the low-calorie nutrient -
carbs, in order to restrict overall calories consumed. It is
a simple and straightforward idea, but it doesn't work. In
fact, it is skewing the diet in the opposite direction of the
body's actual nutrient ratio requirements. Hence the 95%+
failure rate.

Do calories matter at all? Yes they do. But the nutrient ratio
has to be normalized first. For more sedentary individuals the
non-protein nutrient ratio should be normalized to
approximately 60% fat and 40% carbs, with a healthy .8 grams
per kg of bodyweight of proteins (or more, the jury is still
out on the protein requirements, I won't deal with that here).
Once these ratios are met and the nutrients consumed more
closely matches the nutrients required, then we can consider
calories, and when the overall amount of calories is
restricted, weight loss will occur. The currently popular
low-carb diets bring these nonprotein ratios closer into line
with our actual nutrient ratio requirements, which explains
the greater success of these weight-management diets compared
to the traditional low-fat diets.

I'm sure that a number of you will have all kinds of arguments
to make against these ideas. But before you do, please
consider that it is a proven and accepted fact that low-fat
diets do not work in 95%+ of cases and it is a proven and
accepted fact that low-carb diets do work (80% of cases,
anyway). If you chose to dis-regard these realities, then you
should leave the sci. forums and go to the philosophy
discussions, there you can feel free to speculate about and
imagine any make-believe world that you desire. I think that
here in the sci. forums we want to deal with the real world.

As an aside, I've noticed how many researchers and "experts"
in the field of nutrition have PHD's. Now I see how an
advanced degree in philosophy can be useful to a nutritional
scientist. He can always sit in his castle in the sky and
preach his 100 year old theories to us poor fat slobs who just
don't have the will power to cut fat from our diets. Or hang
on, maybe its that we aren't socially adjusted, or maybe we're
just genetically pre-disposed to be fat, maybe we just have
mental problems. Either way, it can't be the theory and how it
is applied in the real world that is the problem, can it? That
would be too simple a solution to such a complex problem,
right? Besides, how embarassing would it be if it was found
that, in order to lose bodyfat, we have to do exactly the
opposite of what the PHD's have been expousing for 100 years,
eat a nutrient ratio of MORE fat and LESS carbs. Man, If I was
a nutritional scientist, I would be embarrassed too.

The mainstream nutritional sciences have had 130 years to
investigate and improve their knowledge in this area and
they've plainly out-and-out refused to do so. As far back as
William Banting and the Letter on Corpulence in 1869 and as
lately as The Dr. Atkins phenomenon. Further to this, they
labelled the only **currently proven** method of weight
management as "quackery" and the proponents of these diets as
"fakes". These labels were affixed without any investigation
whatsoever. Now we find out that these "quacks" and "fakes"
were right all along. Oops, talk about egg on their faces.
There goes their scientific credibility. Any chance that
Atkins will get an apology? Yeah, right.

But the PHD's will always invoke their skewed Cartesian logic,
"I think I am right, therefore I am", and they will always
"win" their arguments, even when they are dead wrong.
Meanwhile, we, the mere plebes of this world, will have to
find other ways to find out the true scientific facts behind
human nutrition and weight management. It sure would be nice
to be able to place some modicum of trust in the mainstream
nutritional sciences, but then, I am just philosophising now
.... and wasting time. I'm going back to the real world.

Au revoir, tout le monde. Mon travail ici est fini.

Terry

[Tcomeau]

pbeyer <pbeyer@kumc.edu> wrote in message
news:<3D60F15E.3E43B531@kumc.edu>...
> Give you credit, Terry, for looking at a textbook but it's
> out of context and does not support your premise.

Thanks Pete, its been fun. I plan on continuing my research
and education in this field for some time to come. There is
just so much contradictory material that it is downright
confusing.

Even the agriculture studies that quantified the caloric
values of food have a major caveat in its conclusion. The
writers/researchers themselves were painfully aware that the
methodologies used were based of quite a few assumptions and
that more research was needed to confirm what they had and
possibly improve on the methodologies. You have wonder why the
methodologies haven't been reviewed more than they have since
then. We've all accepted these caloric values as gospel. Same
with the low-calorie diet. It's all based on very tenuous and
contradictory research. And lots of it. Most is so narrow in
scope that you wonder if it can be made to fit within the
larger framework, and vice versa. We don't need more science
we just need better science.

Anyways, its been quite educational.

Terry

[Lyle McDon]

bicker wrote:
>
> What impresses me most about this ongoing discussion is how
> incredibly esoteric it has become, and how much further we
> get from a consensus view of things, the longer the
> discussion goes on.

And incidentally, you fucking moron, there's no lack of
concensus in terms of what needs to be done to lose weight
(i.e. what is required to cause weight loss). It's
fundamentally very simple: skew the energy balance equation so
that more energy is expended than taken in.

If there's debate or lack of concensus, it's over what the
ideal way of creating that imbalance is. This likely
represents the simple fact that there is not going to be any
single approach that will be optimal for all individuals. This
is no different from any other aspect of medicine, some drugs
work better for some people than othesr (but I imagine you're
one of those moronic fucks who think that medicine fails
because there is no single approach to solving various
problems). Some people do better on lowered carbs, others on
lowered fat, others on increased activity. If research needs
to do anything, it's to pinpoint what biological, behavioral,
etc. factors affect what approach might be optimal for any
given person.

It also represents the simple fact that there are multiple
paths to the same goal. Reducing carbs to low levels generally
leads to spontaneously reduced caloric intakes, and weight
loss. No big shock, when you remove a food taht typically
makes up 50% or more of your total caloric intake, you're
going to eat less. Reducing fat intake can have the same
impact assuming the individual doesn't compensate by
substituting high energy density non-fat foods. Especially
when fat intake is excessive to begin with. Increasing
activity can work as well, assuming the person doesn't eat
more in compensation (for either biological or
psychologica/rationalization reasons).

There's also behavioral issues to deal with which is the other
issue that needs to get dealt with. Knowing how to get people
to lose weight is not the issue; figuring out how to get them
to change their behaviors and stick to them is. This is an
important but often forgotten/ignored (esp. by fucking morons
like yourself) issue.

Basically, you're a fucking moron who doesn't know shit from
up. Just so you know.

Lyle

[Jay Tanzma]

Tcomeau wrote:
>
> Jay Tanzman <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
> news:<3D5FF22B.9E1F1096@sph.llu.edu>...
> > Tcomeau wrote:
> >
> > > So... in a relatively sedentary subject, energy
> > > expenditure will occur in the above calculated amounts:
> > >
> > > Fats: approx. 60% Proteins: 2 to 5% Carbs: approx. 40%
> > >
> > > Yeah, yeah, it adds up to more than 100%, but you get
> > > the idea, if we prorate to 100% it is still about
> > > 57/5/38 which is a looong way from the rda of 30/10/60.
> > >
> > > If this is the ratio that our body's are genetically
> > > wired to expend energy under these circumstances, how
> > > can we justify 60% carbs in the diets of the average
> > > American?
> >
> > You've badly misinterpreted what you've read. The body
> > burns the macronutrients you feed it. If your diet is
> > eucaloric and 40/20/40, you burn 40/20/40, at least to a
> > very good first approximation. If you change your diet
> > to, say,
> > 60/10/30, then within a few days your body will adjust and
> > will burn 60/10/30.
> >
> > -Jay
>
> I haven't misinterpreted anything.
>
> OK people, it is time for me to re-state my position.

[snip BS]

Yes, you've misinterpreted everything. You are completely
clueless about physiology and biochemistry. On a eucaloric
diet (look it up) the body must burn macronutrients in very
close proportion to what it is fed. This is true because we
cannot store excess protein or carbohydrate to any meaningful
degree; unless carbohydrate is massively overfed, carbs and
protein aren't converted to fat at a nutritionally important
rate; fat can't be converted to any other macronutreint; and
total energy must be conserved. The consequence of the above
is that, if you consume sufficient calories, the fuel mix you
burn will be a close match to the macronutrient mix you
consume. If you consume fewer calories than you burn for more
than a few days, then your body will burn body fat and/or
muscle tissue to make up the difference. Don't restate your
position. It proves nothing, except that you are a moron. In
order to prove your position is correct, you must find a flaw
in what I've written and discuss it directly. If you can't,
you've lost the argument, and should shut up.

-Jay

[Lyle McDon]

Tcomeau wrote:
>
> Jay Tanzman <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
> news:<3D5FF22B.9E1F1096@sph.llu.edu>...
> > Tcomeau wrote:
> >
> > > So... in a relatively sedentary subject, energy
> > > expenditure will occur in the above calculated amounts:
> > >
> > > Fats: approx. 60% Proteins: 2 to 5% Carbs: approx. 40%
> > >
> > > Yeah, yeah, it adds up to more than 100%, but you get
> > > the idea, if we prorate to 100% it is still about
> > > 57/5/38 which is a looong way from the rda of 30/10/60.
> > >
> > > If this is the ratio that our body's are genetically
> > > wired to expend energy under these circumstances, how
> > > can we justify 60% carbs in the diets of the average
> > > American?
> >
> > You've badly misinterpreted what you've read. The body
> > burns the macronutrients you feed it. If your diet is
> > eucaloric and 40/20/40, you burn 40/20/40, at least to a
> > very good first approximation. If you change your diet
> > to, say,
> > 60/10/30, then within a few days your body will adjust and
> > will burn 60/10/30.
> >
> > -Jay
>
> I haven't misinterpreted anything.
>
> OK people, it is time for me to re-state my position.
>
> First, I said that the calorie theory as it has been applied
> by the nutritional sciences for weight management in humans
> was bogus. In other words, it doesn't work the way it is
> being applied. The traditional low-calorie low-fat
> weight-loss diet is predicated on the idea of decreasing
> overall calories-consumed by restricting the higher calorie
> fat and increasing the amount of lower calories carbs, and
> my point was that it fails to work in 95%+ of the cases.

Right, over a 5 year span, the failure rate of diets are
90-95% or so. 5 years. 5 years 5 years

> Secondly, I suggested that a low-carb diet works in 80%+ of
> cases. To prove this point I referred to a now well-known
> study in the American Journal of Medicine, July 15th issue,
> 2002. I'm sure that you are all familiar with it.

That study was 6 months long. 6 months 6 months months

See the hangup?

You're comparing success rates over 5 years to successs
rates over 6 months and drawing a retarded conclusion.
Wanna know why?

Cuz you (like that bicker guy) are a fucking moron who can't
read and are intent on proving what you already believe by
selectively interpreting research rather than looking at
research to draw your conclusions.

Lyle

[Bicker]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:41:54 GMT, Lyle McDonald
<lylemcd@onr.com> wrote:
> bicker wrote:
> > What impresses me most about this ongoing discussion is
> > how incredibly esoteric it has become, and how much
> > further we get from a consensus view of things, the longer
> > the discussion goes on.
> And incidentally, you fucking moron, there's no lack of
> concensus in terms of what needs to be done to lose weight

What's the matter Lyle? Have I shook up your little world
today? Did your parents send you to be without supper last
night? To think you kiss your mother with that mouth.

> (i.e. what is required to cause weight loss). It's
> fundamentally very simple: skew the energy balance
> equation so that more energy is expended than taken
> in.

No, Lyle. There are a lot of people who disagree even
with that summary, as such. I happen to agree with it,
but the world is bigger than just you and I, or in your
mind, just you.

> If there's debate or lack of concensus, it's over what the
> ideal way of creating that imbalance is. This likely
> represents the simple fact that there is not going to be any
> single approach that will be optimal for all individuals.

That, in itself, is YET ANOTHER assertion that the discipline
hasn't come to consensus on -- they can't even agree that
there may be different answers to the same question!!! The
establishment attacks Atkins, instead of recognizing that he
might have simply-another-approach.

> This is no different from any other aspect of medicine, some
> drugs work better for some people than othesr (but I imagine
> you're one of those moronic fucks who think that medicine
> fails because there is no single approach to solving various
> problems).

And you must be one of those children who can't get over the
fact that no one is going to spank you if your parents don't
find out that you've cussed on the Internet.

Regardless, son, this is NOT just like "some drugs" -- this
controversy rages, and has raged for decades, without
movement. There are camps set up, staunching holding to their
own positions, not letting on that there may be some other
answer than theirs.

It's different, that's my point.

And perhaps you'll grow up some day and stop cussing long
enough to read and understand what other people are saying.

--
¤bicker¤ 263/158 fitness@brianandrobbie.com BP: 130/80 ->
100/60 See web site for Total Cholesterol: 256->200 before and
after photos. Waist: 46 -> 34 http://brianandrobbie.com BF%:
39% -> 13%

[Jay Tanzma]

bicker wrote:

> > (i.e. what is required to cause weight loss). It's
> > fundamentally very simple: skew the energy balance
> > equation so that more energy is expended than taken
> > in.
>
> No, Lyle. There are a lot of people who disagree even
> with that summary, as such. I happen to agree with it,
> but the world is bigger than just you and I, or in your
> mind, just you.

Brian, no scientifically literate individual would disagree
with Lyle's statement. The question is how best to achieve
the energy deficit and maintain it long enough for
significant results. At the gross level, there's no debate
there either: reduce caloric intake and exercise more. The
question is why do some people find it so difficult to reduce
caloric intake, and are there certain diets that are easier
to maintain than others.

-Jay

[K]

"Jay Tanzman" <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote> Brian, no
scientifically literate individual would disagree with Lyle's
> statement. The question is how best to achieve the energy
> deficit and
maintain
> it long enough for significant results. At the gross
> level, there's
no debate
> there either: reduce caloric intake and exercise more.

(sustaining E is also problematic) injury varying levels of
stamina/strength occupation mental state illness

> The question is why do some people find it so difficult to
> reduce caloric intake

What lures people away from healthy eating?

hunger habit mental state society/social
grouping/events/customs proximity to food - chefs, homemakers,
etc. suggestion/advertisity a taste for the food/bon vivant
association of food with happiness/well-being

, and are there certain
> diets that are easier to maintain than others.

and for how long? Do diets need to be modified from time to
time?

--
Kosta www.cactus48.com

[Jay Tanzma]

Tcomeau wrote:
>
> pbeyer <pbeyer@kumc.edu> wrote in message
> news:<3D60F15E.3E43B531@kumc.edu>...
> > Give you credit, Terry, for looking at a textbook but it's
> > out of context and does not support your premise.
>
> Thanks Pete, its been fun. I plan on continuing my research
> and education in this field for some time to come. There is
> just so much contradictory material that it is downright
> confusing.

Then why aren't you downright confused?

> Even the agriculture studies that quantified the caloric
> values of food have a major caveat in its conclusion. The
> writers/researchers themselves were painfully aware that the
> methodologies used were based of quite a few assumptions and
> that more research was needed to confirm what they had and
> possibly improve on the methodologies. You have wonder why
> the methodologies haven't been reviewed more than they have
> since then.

Because the caloric values in food tables are close enough and
it would be ridiculous to do total body calorimetric
measurements on every food we eat.

> We've all accepted these caloric values as gospel.

Maybe _you_ have. Scientists know they are approximations, but
most of them are pretty good. How do I know this? Because we
use those tables to design a variety of eucaloric diets for
our studies, and the figures are close enough to allow us to
get 85% of subjects' diets right the first time -- "right"
being that they show now appreciable change in body weight
after 4 weeks on the diet. That's pretty good, considering we
also have to estimate their energy needs.

> Same with the low-calorie diet. It's all based on very
> tenuous and contradictory research. And lots of it. Most is
> so narrow in scope that you wonder if it can be made to fit
> within the larger framework, and vice versa.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Low-calorie diets are
based on the Frist Law of Thermodynamics, which everybody
except for a few carackpots on the Internet, such as yourself,
understands is an immutable law of nature.

-Jay

[Elzinator]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:24:56 -0700, Jay Tanzman wrote:
>
>
>bicker wrote:
>
>> > (i.e. what is required to cause weight loss). It's
>> > fundamentally very simple: skew the energy balance
>> > equation so that more energy is expended than taken
>> > in.
>>
>> No, Lyle. There are a lot of people who disagree even
>> with that summary, as such. I happen to agree with it,
>> but the world is bigger than just you and I, or in your
>> mind, just you.
>
>Brian, no scientifically literate individual would disagree
>with Lyle's statement. The question is how best to achieve
>the energy deficit and maintain it long enough for
>significant results. At the gross level, there's no debate
>there either: reduce caloric intake and exercise more. The
>question is why do some people find it so difficult to reduce
>caloric intake, and are there certain diets that are easier
>to maintain than others.

Lyle's synopsis is indeed the assessment that is becoming more
vocal in the research, medical and even political arenas,
despite Bicker's assertion to the contrary.

I believe the fields that now need to integrated in the
issues are
psychology and sociology. How can the populace be motivated to
change the trend in obesigenic lifestyles? Which tactics are
most effective: education, monetary, health awareness, etc?

I've seen regional subpopulations where overweight/excess
bodyfat is considered the 'norm' and people generally are not
concerned about the long-term health implications. I've also
lived in areas where physical activity is promoted and
'trendy' and health consciousness is prevalent. Self-image is
another important contribution (hot climates tend to encourage
a lower prevalence of obesity because more skin is exposed
year round).

What needs to be addressed more than anything now is the
psychological and sociological issues.

Elzi

<insert whatever here

[K]

"K" <Kosta@NoSpam.net> wrote in message
news:SKg89.871$I4.155729@news.iquest.net...
>
> "Jay Tanzman" <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote> Brian, no
> scientifically literate individual would disagree with
> Lyle's
> > statement. The question is how best to achieve the energy
> > deficit
and
> maintain
> > it long enough for significant results. At the gross
> > level, there's
> no debate
> > there either: reduce caloric intake and exercise more.

In a nutshell, over-eating is usually easy, cheap, and
enjoyable. Exercising and diet controls can be difficult, more
costly, and miserable.

>
> (sustaining E is also problematic) injury varying levels of
> stamina/strength occupation mental state illness
>
> > The question is why do some people find it so difficult to
> > reduce caloric intake
>
> What lures people away from healthy eating?
>
> hunger habit mental state society/social
> grouping/events/customs proximity to food - chefs,
> homemakers, etc. suggestion/advertisity a taste for the
> food/bon vivant association of food with
> happiness/well-being
>
> , and are there certain
> > diets that are easier to maintain than others.
>
> and for how long? Do diets need to be modified from time
> to time?
>
>
> --
> Kosta www.cactus48.com

[Tcomeau]

entropy@farviolet.com (Lawrence Foard) wrote in message
news:<ajrddc$930$1@farviolet.com>...
> In article
> <1da933c7.0208190955.6b9f9f1b@posting.google.com>, Tcomeau
> <tcomeau@mts.net> wrote:
> >OK people, it is time for me to re-state my position.
> >
> >First, I said that the calorie theory as it has been
> >applied by the nutritional sciences for weight management
> >in humans was bogus. In other words, it doesn't work the
> >way it is being applied. The traditional low-calorie
> >low-fat weight-loss diet is predicated on the idea of
> >decreasing overall calories-consumed by restricting the
> >higher calorie fat and increasing the amount of lower
> >calories carbs, and my point was that it fails to work in
> >95%+ of the cases.
>
> But you don't specify low or high GI carbs here. Replace
> cheese steaks with apples and see if you can manage to gain
> weight on that.

Welcome to the discussion.

No I don't specify low or high GI carbs. I was being
very general.

>
> >To prove this point I referred to the following study:
> >D.M.Garner & S.C.Wooley: "Confronting the Failure of
> > Behavioral and Dietary Treatments for Obesity",
> > Clinical Psychology Review, 1991, vol.11, pp. 729--780
> >
> >Secondly, I suggested that a low-carb diet works in 80%+ of
> >cases. To prove this point I referred to a now well-known
> >study in the American Journal of Medicine, July 15th issue,
> >2002. I'm sure that you are all familiar with it.
>
> I know a number of low-carb fans, they like many other
> dieters cycle between weight gain and crash diets. This diet
> isn't working for long term weight loss either.
>
> Long term weight loss is only going to come from a diet that
> you can stick to for a long time. A diet that works without
> being overly restrictive, and a diet thats healthy in other
> respects. People should be looking at lowering glycemic
> index while eating reasonable proportions of fat, carbs and
> protein rather than smothering cheese steaks in butter and
> calling it healthy.

Good point. If you look at it as a diet, you will eventually
revert to the old habits. I, myself, look at it as a way of
eating in general. I find it absolutely wonderful to be able
to guiltlessly fire up the BBQ or the broiler and grill up
some succulent beef, chicken or pork. The only restriction I
really place on myself is high-GI foods and the old saying
"everything in moderation including moderation". I've yet to
experience any craving like low-fat diets cause. I lost weight
and I am keeping it off effortlessly, 3 years so far.

BTW, if you do have some high-GI food, adding olive oil or
butter will slow down its absorption and minimize its
induced insulin spike. So a baked potato with butter is a
better option than a baked potato naked, and infinitely more
palatable. My caveat here is that potato serving shouldn't
be TOO BIG.

>
> A typical meal for me: A small amount of rice (long grain or
> brown), lentils, olive oil, spices, walnuts and olives,
> followed by fruit. This is very filling, long lasting and
> still reasonably low calorie (400-600?). If exercising I may
> cheat and eat some more refined stuff like corn chips, but
> still avoid anything beyond the smallest amounts of sugar.

Typical meal for me: 3 to 4 ounces of any meat (sometimes
more), all the salad (mostly lettuce, some tomato and other
low-GI stuff) I want, some broccoli or peas or other low-GI
veggie. I don't even consider how much fat is in the meal.
Very filling and I don't gain weight.

Meats and fats are quite dense in vitamins and minerals,
denser than any refined and hi-GI carbs.

When I eat potatos, pasta or rice, I keep the portions small,
less volume than the meat.

My weakness? Low-carb salsa with corn chips. And the
occasional chocolate (Aero) bar. Oh yeah, some ice-cream, the
real stuff made with real cream. Even with these regular
treats, I still maintain my weight where I want it.

On fat, I don't even concern myself with the amount in my
diet. I just try to make sure that I get a good percentage
from non-animal sources. I've eaten 3 to 4 eggs a day for
about 3 years now. My blood cholesterol levels are bang on,
well within normal and I've no problems whatsoever with my
blood pressure.

I also drink at least 8 glasses of water a day. I eat 5 times
a day, regularly. Breakfast, Lunch, mid-afternoon snack,
supper, late day snack. I never starve, never feel weak or
dizzy and I am more alert.

I also try to play tennis once or twice a week, and walk once
or twice a week.

[Clay Tidwe]

tcomeau@mts.net (Tcomeau) wrote in message news:
> > > Restricting calories of fat and increasing calories of
> > > carbs, has been shown to fail to produce weight loss in
> > > 95%+ of cases.
> >
> > Where is this number coming from? What studies show that
> > this premise is true in 95%+ of cases?
>
>
> D.M.Garner & S.C.Wooley: "Confronting the Failure of
> Behavioral and Dietary Treatments for Obesity", Clinical
> Psychology Review, 1991, vol.11, pp. 729--780

This article confirms the various citations that Lyle M put up
in response to some of your earlier assertions. Reducing
calories (and just about every other dietary method of losing
weight) almost always produces weight loss, it's just not
lasting. It does not support your position.

[Pbeyer]

Tcomeau wrote:

> pbeyer <pbeyer@kumc.edu> wrote in message
> news:<3D60F15E.3E43B531@kumc.edu>...
> > Give you credit, Terry, for looking at a textbook but it's
> > out of context and does not support your premise.
>
> Thanks Pete, its been fun. I plan on continuing my research
> and education in this field for some time t