calories are also used differentially when repairing or rebuilding our bodies. has anyone else ever noticed that their fingernails and toenails grow faster on low-carb?

I've never seen such a keto-stix-coloring exercise over differences so trivial.

It may be trivial, but there is a serious emotional element involved linked to our drive for survival itself. Many people equate "restrict calories" with "be hungry," and hunger is a sign that the body may die if not fed. Very few people want to die. Very few people enjoy being hungry. I've noticed from other, some who are worried about not getting enough calories if they stay in deep ketosis, that high-fat diets are excellent for hunger control. If one eats a moderate amount of protein and greatly restricts carbohydrates, one can eat a very low amount of calories and not be hungry. Some people see this as a selling point for a low-carb/high-fat diet, others see it as a potential danger.

I believe the stomach can be "trained" into feeling full with smaller amounts of food, especially if one eats slower, drinks more water, and/or adds fiber rich low-calorie vegetables to ones diet. "The Rosedale Diet" also gives additional techniques for controlling hunger by restoring leptin sensitivity.

I agree with him based on personal experience.

However, Omnivore would be much more successful at getting his point accross without all the dramatic name calling. If you have ever studied logic, he is superb at commiting the abusive ad hominem argument. Instead of providing a rational critique of a statement, he simply attacks the person.

Since I believe he has a very rational and valid argument, that is unfortunate. I just can't get through all the stupids, moronics and so on.

If only that was true.

I can't believe I am going to dignify this with a further response, but lets examine the "issues" here.

Anthony has issues with baseless attacks on his integrity and honesty (who doesn't?) that have been made here and in the hate mail he has received as a result of noting a simple, inescapable requirement of human metabolism.

You clearly have an issues (not just with his opinion) having been unable to resist started another thread to bask in the glory of your 'achievement' and undoubtedly seeking congratulations for your role in driving away a highly valued fellow member of this forum.

Well you won't get the slightest assistance from me, as I consider it more than disappointing that this sort of behaviour will result in one of the best and certainly most highly researched viewpoints on the reduced carbohydrate way of life in the world today, no longer making any contributions on this board.

Malcolm

Just for the record, we do not allow any such hateful attacks on our forum, and if such were made, please report them so they can be dealt with by the moderators.

However, disagreements about the calorie theory are legitimate, and do not constitute attacks. Many nutritionists state their views the on calorie theory and the laws of thermodynamics, and "a calorie is a calorie" etc., and many scientists disagree. Both opinions are welcome here, along with supporting arguments.

Wa'il

Wa'il, you will note I did not alledge "hateful" attacks occured here (only in email responses) I did report this thread because I consider it to be an extension of the attacks on Anthony's integrity and honesty which occurred (and were allowed) in the previous thread. The individuals concerned have yet to post any supporting evidence in support of their allegations (particularly as they pertain to dishonesty) despite repeated requests that they do so.

As I said, I am more than disappointed that this behaviour is permitted, and I am seriously questioning whether I will continue to contribute here if it continues.

Cheers,

Malcolm

If such thing really took place, I'd be more disappointed that no one reported them. Note that even Antony is a member on our forum, and can report any such allegations. But I don't see why would anyone want to delete this thread, that informs members of Anthony's column, which is of interest to most of us, and can't see how that would questions his honesty.

As far as emails are concerned, they are out of our control. I've never even heard of this Dr. Irland.

However, if you consider disagreements to be a violation of our forum rules, or somehow reflects on someone's honesty, they are not. I consider Anthony to be on our side (pro low-carb), but we have let many members who are anti low-carb post on our forum, as long as they refrain from personal attacks. We are not afraid of disagreements, never have, never will. And if this costs us to lose a few members, so be it.

Wa'il

Malcolm, I would be deeply disappointed if that should come to pass. Your observations are always enjoyable and a treat.

This IS what Anthny says.

The arguements he was getting was that they NEVER count! However, if you sit on your butt all day and eat nothing but meat and fat in large quantities, eventually you WILL gain weight. Initially you might loose, due to water loss, but eventually you will gain. But yes, lc foods count less. (The Eades also makes this point in their books)

The rule used to be that matter was neither created nor destroyed. Einstein changed the perception of that. But the fact remains that, outside of nuclear reactions which we don't ordinarily experience -- except for the sun, of course -- and outside of phenomena that take place under extraordinary circumstances, such as travelling close to the speed of light, it is safe to assume that matter is stable. Further, atoms don't change from one kind of atom to another in chemical reactions, they only bond or break bonds with each other, and the making and breaking of these bonds can absorb or release bonding energy.

But the core of the debate that rages on is this idea that "a calorie is a calorie." The meaning of this seems to be that dietary composition does not matter, what matters is how many calories you consume. If you are on a diet that keeps your weight stable, and you change the composition of that diet, substituting, say, fat calories for carbohydrate calories, you won't, it is claimed, lose weight. Someone who wants to promote the "calorie is a calorie" idea is free to come up with a better explanation.

But the problem is that there is a huge and very common misconception: that food "calories" are units of energy. Not exactly. Rather, they have been modified from energy calories by a factor, called the Atwater factor, that is supposed to account for the differences in the way in which the body metabolizes them. This factor varies with the kind of food. The original work was done, as I recall, over 100 years ago; more recent work has shown that Atwater factors aren't exact; among other things, it appears that there are factors in the diet which can change the way in which the body treats a food.

The following is from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, an article entitled "Is a calorie a calorie?", http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/5/899S

***begin quote***
The Atwater general factors, however, continue to be commonly used. In 1970 Southgate and Durnin (27) tested the Atwater general factors and determined that they were still valid, with one exception. Large amounts of unavailable dietary carbohydrate resulted in increased excretion of fecal fat, nitrogen, and energy, and these findings were subsequently confirmed by other researchers (28–31). Thus, Southgate and Durnin (27) found that the Atwater protein and fat factors overestimate the energy derived from these constituents. Others have since found that the Atwater general factors overestimate the measured metabolizable energy of mixed diets, especially those high in dietary fiber, by a mean (±SD) of 6.7 ± 4.4% (range: 1.2–18.1%) (28–30, 32–35). The reasons hypothesized to explain the effect of dietary fiber on metabolizable energy are many. Dietary fiber may decrease the transit time of food in the intestine (resulting in less time for digestion and absorption), increase bulk and water-holding capacity (reducing the rate of diffusion of digestion products toward the intestinal mucosal surface for absorption), or cause mechanical erosion of the mucosal surface (leading to increased endogenous material) (29, 36). Wisker and Feldheim (28) also note that in contrast with the energy content of protein and fat, the energy content of dietary fiber is liberated by fermentation. Thus, factors affecting the microbial degradation of dietary fiber—the chemical structure of nonstarch polysaccharides, the solubility and degree of lignification of the fiber components, and physiologic factors such as the composition of the colon microflora and the transit time—may affect metabolizable energy (28). This may be the reason why the Atwater general factors were found to overestimate measured metabolizable energy to a greater extent for diets high in nonavailable fiber than for diets high in available fiber (overestimations of 7.0% and 2.6%, respectively; P < 0.05) (35). Together, findings from the above studies show that not all dietary carbohydrates provide 4 kcal/g.

The differences between the general Atwater factors, the specific Atwater factors, and true metabolizable energy might explain some of the difference in weight loss observed after consumption of 2 diets with different fiber content.
***end quotation***

In other words, fiber in the diet, for example, may result in changes in the effective energy release from other foods.

If "a calorie is a calorie," it would be because the differences in the utilizability by the body of oxidation calories in foods have been factored into food label calories, based on very old measurements of the factors for different foods. There are *very* many ways for this to go wrong.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what work has been done, but I would assume that there might be differences from person to person, for example, in how efficiently people handle calories, how efficiently they convert one kind of nutrient to another (as, for example, carbs to stored fat), and, further, that there could be all kinds of interactions between foods, not just between fiber and other foods as described in the quoted material.

To imagine, as some have done, that "a calorie is a calorie" is an immutable law of thermodynamics, when speaking of food calories, is to be seriously deluded. For some reason, there are plenty of sources which explain food calories and which completely neglect the Atwater factors, so it is easy to forgive a lay person for erring with regard to this. But for a nutrition expert to make this mistake is.... appalling.

Quite obviously, the thermodynamic calories contained in foods (i.e., how much energy is released when you literally burn them) and the energy that those foods make available to the body are not the same. The thermodynamic energy is essentially the *maximum* energy that the body can extract from the foods by oxidation. I.e., by combining them with oxygen, which is how we obtain energy from food; we are slow flames. Sort of.

The food calories that we find on labels have been reduced by a factor based on experiment, calculation, and assumption so that food calories can be compared from one food to another. Again, sort of. It is not exact, and might even be pretty far off in some cases.

The article concludes, oddly, with a reaffirmation of "a calorie is a calorie," which is strange, because it has shown that this is not true, when we are talking about food calories. Still, it's worth reading! This is the conclusion:

*Begin quote*
We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another. In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy, because the Atwater factors used in calculating metabolizable energy are not exact. As such, our food tables are not perfect, and small errors are associated with their use.

In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another.
***end quote***

I'm tempted to start measuring in kilojoules, just so that nobody (including myself) has any idea of my caloric intake.

Anyway, I like to quote from this page a lot: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/banting.html


Emphasis is mine. And this is the heart of the matter, not calories but caloric threshold. How much food can I eat and still see the scale go down on a weekly basis?

The basic problem has been that Anthony misinterpreted comments by Atkins and others that "you don't have to count calories" to mean that "calories don't count." *Many* of us have found that one can lose weight on a low carb diet without counting calories; it may actually be rare that counting calories would be useful.

But I didn't notice anyone claiming that "calories don't count." The question is not whether calories count, but whether or not, for most people, counting calories is useful in losing or maintaining weight. Atkins proposed that counting carbs was (1) easier, and (2) more effective, generally.

But what happens if you gorge on fat and protein? I suppose you would get fat; however, what I've noticed is that I can literally eat my fill of high-fat low-carb meals and I don't gain weight. As has been pointed out by many people, fat sates. In other words, "my fill" is not so much food, after all. Now, there are individual differences, and if someone goes on a low-carb diet, and somehow manages to eat sufficiently large amounts of fat and protein calories, certainly total caloric intake might be quite relevant. But most people, it appears, won't have that problem. Watch the carbs and the calories, for most people, seem to take care of themselves.

Two other aspects to this: one is the "calorie is a calorie" argument, where proponents of a nutritional theory assert that the laws of thermodynamics mean that they are 100% correct.... and it appears that Anthony does make this argument. It's fallacious, which I hope I have pointed out in another response in this thread. At least those laws don't apply to human nutrition in the precise way claimed. Oddly, this is recognized when the writer to whom I'm responding says that "lc foods count less." This is a reference to the alleged metabolic advantage of fat, principally, and is a direct contradiction to the "calorie is a calorie" argument.

The final aspect is that Anthony (and at least one of his defenders) assumed that Anthony's honesty was questioned. That was due to a misreading of something I wrote. I asserted that, if Anthony were to think more carefully about it, he would know that what he was saying was incorrect. Somehow this was read by Anthony as an assertion that he was dishonest, which I not only did I not write, I did and do not think or suspect. Rather, I think that Anthony sometimes gets carried away with polemic writing and the making of bold assertions, resulting in his being insufficiently careful in some cases.

None of this means that he is not a valuable writer on the subject; I just think that he could be even more valuable if he were to be a little more careful.

No, Anthony didn't misinterpret anything. He pointed out that many low carbers misinterpret what Atkins said to think you don't have to be concerned about calories. So there's a large number of people that do low carb thinking that calories don't matter. Then eventually they stop losing weight because they're eating too many calories and blame it on the diet.

Of course, by his pointing this out a lot of low carbers seem to think he's attacking low carb. He's not, he is just pointing out what is obvious to most of us who have done this awhile.

I didn't read this article before writing my previous two responses to this thread.... I'm glad I didn't, what I wrote is not contaminated by response to the delusions there.

There are hosts of them, but I won't insist on that. I'll just focus on one or two. Quotations below are from the article cited above.



It would be more accurate to say that Mr. Colpo pays no attention when others point out errors in what he writes. Whether or not these errors are "main points of contention," is a matter of interpretation, but certainly clear, and I think, compelling evidence was presented regarding the error that precipitated all this brouhaha. But instead of *answering* those objections, Mr. Colpo resorts to polemic and ridicule and bluster. It's unfortunate.



This is a reference to another thread on this forum. It wasn't a World War. It wasn't even close....

My background was in chemistry and physics. If there is an "inviolable law of nature" like what Mr. Colpo asserts, I must have missed it, and so must quite a few writers who did participate in that thread. I'll give one example of how one might lose weight while consuming "more calories than what they burn."

("Each day" is irrelevant to the argument. Any period of time would do.)

Take a large dose of laxative with the food. You will "consume" lots of calories, but you will also lose weight, because you will excrete the food, your body won't have be able to digest much of it. I'm not proposing this as a diet method!!! My point is just that there are many factors other than "burning."

The whole argument about calories is hopelessly confused. We don't consume calories, we consume foods which are, partly, fuels which can be burned for energy. But that isn't about weight, that's about how we derive energy from food. Weight is about what we store. And we don't store calories, specifically, we store fuel, which we may have made from foods, such as carbohydrates. It takes energy to convert carbohydrates into fat. (But that's covered under "burning.")

Food calories are *not* thermodynamic calories, but have been converted from thermodynamic calories by conversion factors presumed to be accurate and useful. They aren't all that accurate.

Now, if Mr. Colpo's point is that total caloric intake is relevant and important, I'd have to say that, properly qualified, this would be true. But Colpo argued *against* Atkins' comments that "you don't have to count calories," when Atkins' comment is true, apparently, under most conditions. And Colpo, numerous times, has converted this statement ("you don't have to...) into "Calories don't count." Which nobody, as far as I know, claimed. The caloric value of food is relevant, but apparently not nearly as relevant, under most conditions, as the net carb content.



Right now this should be addressed head-on. Mr. Colpo was never accused of being "dishonest." It seems he likes to issue challenges. So I presume that he would also like to receive one. I challenge Mr. Colpo to produce one quotation in this exchange (on low-carber.org) where he was accused of "dishonesty." He put it in quotes, which would ordinarily mean, for a careful writer, that it was a direct quote. So if there was no such charge, then I'd suggest he should apologize. And then, if there was some statement using equivalent language, he'd be free to assert that. But he won't find it, I'm sure.

Now, what kind of person so readily and radically takes offense at a presumed insult? Dare I say that it might be one under the influence of "testosterone?" But that's not really relevant here. The testosterone comment was an aside that must have struck some nerve; it certainly was not relevant to the nutritional issues, and if I did not apologize before for making it, I do now.



It *is* impossible, but not for the reason that Mr. Colpo alleges. It's impossible because there is no practical way to measure "daily caloric output," short of living in a large calorimeter, which would be, among other things, expensive and not terribly pleasant. Further, Mr. Colpo surely knows that anecdotal evidence, which this would be if it could be done, means little scientifically except as an indication, perhaps, for further research. I'm supposed to drastically alter my life because some "cocky mouth" -- sheesh, pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw it -- makes some misleading statements and gets upset when he is called on it?

And what would I gain from this exercise if I succeeded, in spite of the scientific difficulties, the expense, and the discomfort? I'd get the presumed satisfaction of seeing Mr. Colpo walk down the street naked. Yes, that is what he offered. Wow! Why am I not rushing to figure out how to take on this challenge?

Look, I'm sure that Mr. Colpo has done a lot of research and has written lots of good stuff. I think I remember seeing some in the past. Those of you who consider yourselves his friends and supporters, how about having a word with him? As was pointed out by "eepobee," "sombody's got issues."

When I and others pointed out ways in which there was some truth to what Colpo was saying, he treated this as an admission that we were wrong, for if we could say *that*, surely we should know that he was 100% right about everything.

Enough, already.