Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low Carb Health & Technical Forums > General Health
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, May-27-04, 23:02
loCarbJ's Avatar
loCarbJ loCarbJ is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 408
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 232/162/162 Male 69 inches
BF:30%/13%/11%
Progress: 100%
Location: San Jose, CA
Default When a Calorie is Not a Calorie

http://bufftitude.com/lesson3.html


WHEN A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE

I have been made to realize that this lesson does a lot of ranting and raving, but I cannot write this lesson without~ ranting and raving. 50% of North Americans are overweight, and 33% are considered obese, and a major factor in all of this, is the Traditional medicine’s belief in this one statement:~ "Calorie is a calorie BECAUSE THE LAW OF PHYSICS SAYS: CALORIE IN~ - CALORIE OUT~ = WEIGHTLOSS~ OR~ WEIGHTGAIN”, therefore,~ if people would just eat less, they would weigh less. I realize Einstein and his theory of relativity can account for everything, but first rule of science is, all the units must be the same, therefore calories in - calories out = difference in calories, NOT mass.

Here is the actual definition of an energy balance:~ the rate of heat liberation or absorption expressed as a function of the reaction rate and various thermal properties of the reaction system (in this case the human body) is obtained from an energy balance.~ Please note unknown heat of reactions, temperature of mass in and mass out, various thermal properties of the human body and a host of other factors and variables unknown to man at this time. This energy equation above, in association with a mass balance equation~ is used to balance every single chemical process in the real world. Man cannot even begin to do an energy balance of the human body because of the human body's trillions of variables and factors involved.~~ Man cannot even begin to do a mass balance equation on the human body much less to even attempt a much more complicated energy balance of the human body.

Anyway, let’s assume 200 years from now, man does have the capability to calculate every single reaction in the human body, every single quantity of heat used and dissipated, every single component in and out and the temperature that they come in and leave out, and with the right fudge factor can turn an energy balance into a mass balance.. Assuming all of that, “calorie in - calorie out = weightloss or gain” and “a calorie is a calorie” are both separate energy statements totally and completely unrelated from a human body’s viewpoint. Combining the two statements is totally and completely false, and borders on immoral and unethical. Basically by combining the two statements, one is~ saying~ that because a calorie is a calorie, “calorie in” and “calorie out” are completely unrelated, and are independent of each other. Meaning the science of biology, microbiology, nutrition, kiniesiology, chemistry, chemical engineering, metabolism, obesity are all non-factors and are bogus sciences with respect to weightloss, and physics is the only applicable science.

By the way, when did traditional medical doctors become physicists? Well, the biggest mistake is starting with an energy balance and ending up with a mass balance. To every single Doctor, Nutritionist, anyone that says a "calorie is a calorie" because "calorie in - calorie out = weightloss", please tell me the conversion factor because

3500 food calories burned by exercise equals 1 pound of weight loss
3500 food calories of water equals a whopping 7700 pounds of weightloss
3500 food calories of fat equals .856 pounds
3500 food calories of protein equals 1.925 pounds
3500 food calories of raw cabbage equals 30.8 pounds
3500 food calories of bacon equals 2.48 pounds

Combining the two statements is the underlying theme of “just eat less if you want to lose weight theory”.~~~ This is the program that the traditional medical establishment and commercial diets have been using for well over 30 years, and it has been failing year after year after year. Now why is this theory false, imcompetent, nonsense, stupid, inconsistent, unethical, immoral. When you think about this, please keep in mind the great lobbying and influential powers of Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Saralee, Proctor and Gamble, Lever Brothers, Prescription Drug Community, Burger King, McDonald, Pizza Hut, ADM, and the list goes on and on and on.

Here are the 9 main reasons why this "calorie in - calorie out = weightloss" formula has failed 98% of those that have tried it.~ I will outline them in a list,and then expand on each.

1.~ Assumes total absorption of food, meaning food goes in and nothing comes out.~ I cannot speak for the people that use this calorie theory but I go to the bathroom, and I will bet my bottom dollar that you do too.~~ Therefore, this calorie theory does not apply to you neither.~ The Sciences of Biology, Microbiology, Food Sciences, and Nutrition does exist.

2.~ The very same people that talk about calories calories calories, are always the first to flash the Food Pyramid in our faces.~~ One cannot speak of calories being the end all of losing weight and then try to tell us that about the food pyramid, those two statements contradict each other.

3.~ The very same people that talk about calories calories calories, are always the first to tell you to eat 3 balanced meals and do not eat anything after dinner.~ HELLO, One cannot speak of calories being the end all of losing weight and then try to tell us that the timing of the caloric intake matters, those two statements contradict each other.

4.~ The calorie thingy is the most incredible theory known to man because it takes the most complex structure known to man (the human body), applies the most complex of Conservative Laws known to man (energy balance), and just like that, the simpliest of theories, "calories in - calorie out = weightloss".~~ So simple that even doctors and dieticians that have never ever calculated a real energy balance in their lives can use an energy balance and apply it to the human body, wow wow wow.~ Even more miraculous is that it starts with energy on one side, and ends up with mass on the other side. Hhhhmmmm, can you say "WOW".

5. "Calories in" too conveniently leaves out other just as important factors.~ Namely, WATER, TOXINS, EXTERNAL FACTORS, INTERNAL FACTORS, STRESS FACTORS, OUTLOOK (faiths, psychology, brain).

6.~ "Calories out" is a function of RMR, exercises, outside temperature, temperature of food digested, type of food digested, and the snyergistic balance between food, exercise, and rest.~~ All of which is conveniently left out by the calorie out calculation.

7. Calories expended by exercising is directly related to performance, which is directly related to nutrition.~ There is a field of science called Sports Nutrition.~ Meaning "calorie out" is a function of "calories in", therefore types of calories does matter, your body will tell you the next time you exercise.

8.~ Calories expended during rest is directly related to metabolism which is directly related to lean muscle mass.~~ It is beyond my comprehension to suggest that the type of food eaten, type of exercise done has no relationship with a person's lean body mass.~ Therefore types of calories matter, because it affects the body's ability to build, maintain, spare lean body mass, which affects your RMR-resting metabolic rate.

9.~ Using this calorie balance theory, and depending only on calorie counting results in the yo-yo syndrome.

Now I will try and expand on each of these statements.

1) Calorie counting is hogwash (Taken from OPTIMUM SPORTS NUTRITION by Dr.Michael Colgan, same book reviewed in my Book section).

Few people realize that the calorie counts on food labels and calorie charts have little to do with the caloric value of foods to any particular human being. Calorie counts for foods are obtained by burning the food in a bomb calorimeter and measuring the heat produced. The values of four calories per gram of carbohydrates and proteins, and nine calories per gram of fats, are rough approximation made up almost a hundred years ago. They have become entrenched and prevailing myth of the diet industry.

The caloric values of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats vary not only with the particular foods that contain them and your dietary composition. They vary also with each person’s biochemical individuality which affects the digestibility and efficiency of the use of food by the body.~ Just an example of dietary composition should be enough to convince you of the nonsense of calorie charts. Table sugar mixed with water, for example, provides more energy and puts on more body fat than table sugar eaten by the spoonful.28 One good reason to avoid sugared sodas.

We did one study at the Colgan Institute with four men and two women aged 23-40 whose weight and body fat were stable, that is, did not vary week to week by more than 2%. For six weeks, they reduced their usual lunch by 250-400 calories every day, and kept all other meals strictly at their usual levels. According to the American diet industry, that’s a sure fire prescription for losing weight.

Over the six weeks, subjects reduced their so-called “caloric intake” by a total of 8,400-18,900 calories. According to the calories in - calories out myth that dominates American dieting, they should have lost substantial weight. At approximately 3,600 calories per pound, they should have lost between 2,25 and 5.25 pounds. In fact, only one man lost and one woman lost any weight, the man 1.5 lb., and the woman .75 lb. The other four lost nothing at all.29~ Counting calories just doesn’t add up.

28 Pi-Sunyer FX. Effect of the composition of the diet on energy intake. Nutr Rev 1990;48:94-105
29 Colgan M.Your Personal Vitamin Profile. New York:Morrow, 1982.
~

2) A person must eat a well balanced diet by following the FOOD PYRAMID. That statement alone contradicts “a calorie is a calorie because calorie in - calories out = weight loss or gain”.~ The Food Pyramid is actually if I recall correctly, 75 pages of accompanying text, yes, a whole lot of pages.~~ So when the food pyramid is flashed before your eyes, you need to read those 75 pages before accepting someone's elses interpretation of the diagram.~~ Here are some interpretation/misinterpretations of the data:

a)This one is used by the traditional medical organiztions.~ Will someone please explain to me how anyone eating unprocessed foods, can consume 35% of their calories by fat (no substantiation here between saturated, trans-fatty acids, and poly/mono unstaurated fats) and only 10% of their calories by protein. How is it possible to get in 350% more calories of fat than protein eating a well balanced diet of unprocessed foods?

b)This one is used by Wheat Boards and Baking industry.~ Will someone please explain to me how eating the majority of one’s daily intake of calories in the form of processed carbs is okay with the food pyramid. This is how the diagram can be manipulated without the text is the only way to explain that it is okay to eat more processed carbs calories over the combination of caloric intake of vegetables, fruits, lean meats, 1% or skim milk products combined.

c)There is however one huge problem with the food pyramid.~~ The data used to calculate protein intake is totally based on old data which says protein requirements is not affected by exercise regimend or if a person is trying to lose weight.~~ From my knowledge, too much knowledge is now available to disprove those more than 25 year old theories, and savings muscles inspite of losing weight is the key to a more permanent transformation.

A person on a low restrictive diet of say 1000 calories, with only 10% protein by caloric intake, equals 100 calories by protein = 25 grams of protein for the day. Assume the maximum of 50% actually goes to rebuilding muscles, at the end of the year, 25grams/day x 365 days/year x 50% = 4564 grams or 10 lbs
(remember basic biology 101, every body cell is replaced and rebuilt by the body, bones every 18 months, blood every 6 weeks, and muscles every 12 months). 10lbs is the total amount of muscles mass a person will have at the end of the year.~~~ Also remember, if the body turns into a catabolic state, it will hold on to every ounce of fat it has, and completely ravage muscles as energy, then you’re in big trouble. Remember no muscles= total inability to exercise=an incredible low metabolic rate. This is the explanation for yo-yo syndrome and plateauing.

3) One must eat three balance meals every day, and do not forget breakfast. Hhmmmmm, this doesn’t sound like a calorie is a calorie. If a calorie is a calorie, then please explain to me Traditional medical community, why the timing of the caloric intake matters. Well, we all know the importance of spreading out our meals, and so does the traditional medical community, but they still insist on a calorie is a calorie.

4) The body is the most complexed structure man has ever come across. To suggest that a simple energy balance (and especially one that doesn’t exist) will explain weight loss or gain, is for doctors to venture into a combination of both physics and chemical engineering principles. There is no factory, no chemical plant, no building, nothing built by man that is balanced by such an energy equation. But yet the most complexed of all creation, can be balanced by a simple non-existant energy equation, yeah right. Listen, along with an energy equation, there will always be a mass balance equation, and even a mechanical energy equation. Now a mass equation says that mass in - mass out = difference in mass, now that sound more plausible, they all have the same units. All of a sudden, things are quite different, we now have to account for water, the air that we breathe, the micronutrients, ruffage from foods, water from foods, vitamins. As for any energy balance, temperature is the most important energy factor, water is the most important weight factor(for a human body), and chemical reactions determine what masses leave the body. However, this particular energy equation does not account for any of these factors. There is not enough biology/chemistry/engineering/physics to determine either the amount of calories in, or calories out in a real energy equation (the real energy equation can be found at the end of this lesson). Listen, the next time someone tells you that weight loss is a simple energy balance, you ask them to calculate it for you, ask them to look up every single published textbook, and see if such a calculation can be done today, and I am not talking about this physics equation offered by the Traditional medical community, I am talking about a real energy balance equation. The combination of making three completely and separate mass, energy, and mechanical energy calculation balances is the fundamental of any chemical/physical process, well, except for the human body according to traditional medical establishment where they start with an energy balance and end up with a mass balance.

5) When~"calories in" are totalled, all the food calories a person intake are added up, and that total will be very close to the amount of FOOD calories we take in.~~ However no such calculation exist anywehre else in the world and for no other processes.~~~~ A true energy balance would have to include Temperatures, Chemical Reactions, Water, etc etc etc.~ Leaving out all these factors as in the “calorie in” calculation is let’s say, inappropriately too convenient.~~ Also, other low or non caloric~ input are just as important is not more important on the journey towards proper weightloss.~~ There are so many other factors that affect the human body which also have been conveniently dismissed by the caloric theory such as:

a) Water, 1 Liter of water equals 1 food calorie, or 1 food calorie = 1000 energy calories.
b) Toxins, whether it's measurable or not, it must be accounted for.
c) External inputs such as a body massage, heat from the sun.
d) Internal inputs(micronutrients such as vitamins, minerals, herbs, spices, SALT, prescription drugs).
e) Stress factors, and its impact on health, and the immune system.
f) Output on life, motivator effects, faiths and beliefs.
g) Temperature, Reaction Rates.

6) Calories out is mainly a factor of RMR-resting metabolic rate, and the exercise we do, plus our systems ability to get rid of the toxins and waste in our body. According to calorie counters, whether the body consumes 5 calories of saturated pork fat with all the extra salt and preservatives, or 5 calories of unsaturated virgin olive oil with all that efa protection, or 5 calories of celery with all that extra ruffage and vitamins, or 5 calories of all that good wheat bran fibers that clear out the pipes, or 5 litres of water, the body processes all calories the exact same way because calories in - calories out = weight loss or gain. This is what the traditional medical community wants us to believe.~~~ Biology cannot even begin to know all the reactions that occur in the human body, much less to know the thermodynamics involved with these reactions period. So how can Traditional medicine even begin to assume to be able to calculate an energy balance, forgot the traditional medical did, and without the use of temperature, water, and chemical reactions, and ended up with a mass balance also.

7) Calories expended by exercising is directly related to performance. The better our body can perform, then the more effective our workout in keeping our muscle mass, and the greater our caloric expenditure.~ To believe that when a person exercises, their type and timing of caloric intake has absolutely no effect on their ability to perform, is to say that the Science of Sports Medicine/Nutrition/fitness and exercising is bogus. To believe the type of caloric intake has no effect on the body ability to preserve/repair/rebuild/build lean muscle mass is to again say that the Science of sport medicine, sport nutrition, exercise and fitness, are all bogus sciences.

8) Resting Metabolic Rate. Again, resting metabolic rate is directly related to lean muscle mass, activity level during the day, and the body ability to heat up, and cool down. To suggest that the type of calorie in has no effect on a person’s metabolic rate is to say that all those good doctors/phd’s/researchers/professors/university research centers and clinics of the science of obesity is bogus. It also suggests that the relationship between resting metabolic rate and lean muscle mass is bogus science, and it also suggests the body ability to perform and its relationship to resting metabolic rate is also bogus.

9) A calorie is a calorie is an over simplification of science that cannot explain the effects of the yo-yo syndrome or the fact that people on a very low restrictive caloric diet eventually~ plateau, and then do the yo-yo thingy. That is why the traditional medical profession still to this day, keeps putting people on these very restrictive caloric diets because the science they have been taught has no explanation for it and therefore dismisses the yo-yo syndrome and plateauing as we must simply must eat less calories to lose weight. And consequently ends up making people more and more obese.

Please note that I am not advocating or telling any of us how to lose weight, but I am pointing out the fallacy of Traditional medicine answer to losing weight by dieting, or eating less to lose weight. Eating less and less calories does not solve our weight problem, it never has and it never will. Eating properly, meaning unprocessed foods, 5-6 times a day is what I refer to as properly. One factor of such a lifestyle eating change means not just lower calories, but also more fibers, more lower glycymic carbs., more ruffage, better protein, lower saturated fats, higher unsaturated fats, more vitamins, more minerals, more anti-oxidants, etc etc etc. I won’t even bother delving into exercise since the most traditional medical schools does not even teach exercise courses, as a matter of fact, most don’t teach nutrition or preventative medicine neither, and they certainly do not teach the theory of relativity. The statement of “a calorie is a calorie because physics say calorie in - calories out = weight gain or loss” is the basis of this crazy idea that eating less and less will make us weigh less and less.

Another note I would like to say or to bring up is I do not possess the answers, but I know what makes sense to me and what doesn’t. With 30 Failing years of telling people how to lose weight, one would think the Traditional medical community would look towards their medical cousins in Sports Medicine(who concentrates on fat loss as opposed to weight loss), Preventative Medicine (who concentrates on overall moderate lifestyle changes), University Obesity Clinics and Research Centre(who deals with obesity as a disease and health issue), nutrition, metabolism, etc etc etc. for help. And from my readings, I firmly believe the combination of these other progressive medical doctors and researchers have the answers you seek.

So Foxy, the next time you see Wayne, please ask him if the sciences of sport medicine , kiniesiology, nutrition, obesity medicine, rehab medicine, preventative medicine, holistic medicine, oriental medicine, eastern medicine good old chemistry, good old biology, and for you foxy-microbiology, human metabolism, engineering, chemical engineering, if all these sciences are bogus. Ask him to explain the yo-yo syndrome and plateauing? Please ask him if he knows what a mass balance is?~ As a matter of fact, what an energy balance is?~ And please let him know, that 50 calories a day equals like he said .5 lbs a month, which equals 6 lbs per year, 60lbs over ten years, and 120 lbs over 20 years. So foxy, please ask him again if he wants to take back his statement that 50 calories a day means nothing. And ask him again, if the type of calories matters to the body.

All I am saying is that this energy balance takes into account one factor, food calories and basically dismisses all other factors.~~ In real life, nothing works under one factor, it would be marvelous if it did, but it doesn’t. And the human body being the most complex of living beings, is governed by CHANGING variables and CHANGING factors daily, consequently the human body never has, and never will be governed by only one factor.

Bufftitude.com

Last edited by loCarbJ : Fri, May-28-04 at 12:17.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Fri, May-28-04, 08:38
Iowagirl's Avatar
Iowagirl Iowagirl is offline
empress of fashion
Posts: 16,339
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 178/161.5/145 Female 5'3"
BF:
Progress: 50%
Location: Iowa
Default

Excellent article!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What If Both The Medical Establishment And Dr. Atkins Promoted Big Fat Lies? tamarian Low-Carb War Zone 136 Tue, May-17-11 14:19
Facts About Dr. Atkins Diet Calorie Intake fern2340 LC Research/Media 8 Wed, Mar-01-06 03:21
Majority of Low-Carb Dieters are in 'Calorie Denial' Demi LC Research/Media 29 Wed, May-12-04 17:45
Calorie restriction study JHTuresson Paleolithic & Neanderthin 1 Mon, Apr-26-04 12:12
I found this info on Dr. Ellis Ultimate Diet Secrets, in case you are interested. Eveee Low-Carb War Zone 22 Tue, Jan-13-04 20:45


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:18.


Copyright © 2000-2021 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.