|
|
| Author |
Message |
Just Cocky
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 297
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:18 am Post subject:
A calorie is NOT a calorie!
|
|
|
"Both groups ate the same total calories, which were carefully metered
to be just enough for subsistence. [...] After six years on the diet,
the trans-fat-fed monkeys had gained 7.2% of their body weight,
compared to just 1.8% in the unsaturated group."
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9318
--
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are
cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt"
-- Bertrand Russell |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mr-Natural-Health
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1807
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 4:31 am Post subject:
Re: A calorie is NOT a calorie!
|
|
|
|
Who cares? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Peterson
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:14 pm Post subject:
Re: A calorie is NOT a calorie!
|
|
|
Just Cocky wrote:
| Quote: | "Both groups ate the same total calories, which were carefully metered
to be just enough for subsistence. [...] After six years on the diet,
the trans-fat-fed monkeys had gained 7.2% of their body weight,
compared to just 1.8% in the unsaturated group."
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9318
|
Other studies have indicated that the fatty acids in body fat reflects
the fatty acids in the diet. It would have been nice if the researchers
had biopsied the fat to determine the percentage of transfats.
I have read that transfats are burned by the body, but I haven't
learned whether they are burned faster than other fatty acids. I have
read that in one study, saturated fats and monounsaturated fats formed
fat deposits in the liver while PUFAs didn't.
--
Ron |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TC
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1814
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject:
Re: A calorie is NOT a calorie!
|
|
|
Just Cocky wrote:
| Quote: | "Both groups ate the same total calories, which were carefully metered
to be just enough for subsistence. [...] After six years on the diet,
the trans-fat-fed monkeys had gained 7.2% of their body weight,
compared to just 1.8% in the unsaturated group."
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9318
--
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are
cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt"
-- Bertrand Russell
|
1) Very interesting.
2) Confirms my past assertations in this ng
3) I wonder if there was a difference in types or amounts of carbs ie.
hfcs
I look forward to reading this once it is published.
TC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr-Natural-Health
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1807
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:13 am Post subject:
Re: A calorie is NOT a calorie!
|
|
|
Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
Certainly, no NORMAL person does. :)
You FatSo's have my condolences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsor@citynet.net
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 569
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:23 pm Post subject:
Re: A calorie is NOT a calorie!
|
|
|
Ah, whatever was going on it had nothing to do with carbs, which were held
equal and the kind of fat varied. So the real question is why some fat
sources cause greater fat storage and retention then do other types. Fat
contains alot of water which is why weight loss involves liquid loss
especially in the first period of loss. So the question here is why
should the saturated fats cause retention and not the less saturated
forms. The answer will have nothing to do with the 2nd law but with
different metabolic paths.
"I think that a couple of people may care that there is yet another
exception to the direct application of the laws of thermodynamics to
human weight maintenance.
Yet another piece of scientific evidence that says that calories are
not the final word on fat storage or fat loss in humans.
Calories mean squat." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TC
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1814
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:48 pm Post subject:
Re: A calorie is NOT a calorie!
|
|
|
Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
I think that a couple of people may care that there is yet another
exception to the direct application of the laws of thermodynamics to
human weight maintenance.
Yet another piece of scientific evidence that says that calories are
not the final word on fat storage or fat loss in humans.
Calories mean squat.
TC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsor@citynet.net
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 569
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:33 pm Post subject:
Re: A calorie is NOT a calorie!
|
|
|
What you say below is a change for you, good, all can learn. You used to
claim eating large proportions of carbs all by itself was the cause for
weight gain, the study at hand shows not. I have always said that the
energy burden for different metabolic pathways can cause differences in
energy balance because all biological processes are described by the bell
curve. "Quality" is not relevant in the question. The 2nd law still
applies because it describes all the energy sinks of all the variations
regardless of cause. The bottom line is that within a degree of variation
based as above calories will predict weight status regardless of nutrition
form. A diet of "quality" of anything based on double the calories
required to sustain a calorie balance will cause weight gain and a diet of
half same will cause weight loss. Substitute "not quality" and same
happens. We are talking about a few percentage points at the margins of
energy intake and it says nothing about the ratio of carbs/fats/protiens
as being the dominate factor. So go ahead and increase the carbs in your
diet and redduce protien within the energy balance for your body and find
no weight gain and thank the 2nd law..
"The real question is how is it possible for the same number of calories
to have different weight ramifications in different instances,
regardless of whether the issue is types of fat or types of carbs.
There have been studies showing these kinds of mathematical paradoxes
with carbs and now with fats.
It is time to understand that quality of foods is the much greater
influence on weight than quantity of calories ever has been. There is
no biological mechanism that can monitor and react to calories
directly. There are biological mechanisms that react to quality and
quantity of carbs directly and now we know that there is something that
causes differring reactions to the quality of fats.
Both of these paradoxes, carbs and fats, illustrate clearly that
calories are not a practical system for predicting weight gaim or loss
in humans. And my guess is that we will see a similar situation with
quality of proteins.
FACT: 95%+ of low calorie diets fail." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TC
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1814
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:55 pm Post subject:
Re: A calorie is NOT a calorie!
|
|
|
I did not say anything about carbs. But since you bring it up.......
The laws of thermo are always quoted by mainstream medical people as
the final word and proof positive that calories are all when it comes
to weight management in humans. The laws are written in stone, as are
the ten commandments, so are the laws of thermo. And to question the
application of the laws of thermo to fat management in humans is akin
to a heathen questioning the existence of god in religion, and liable
to create the same kind of extreme reaction. There is but one
nutritional god and calories is He.
The real question is how is it possible for the same number of calories
to have different weight ramifications in different instances,
regardless of whether the issue is types of fat or types of carbs.
There have been studies showing these kinds of mathematical paradoxes
with carbs and now with fats.
It is time to understand that quality of foods is the much greater
influence on weight than quantity of calories ever has been. There is
no biological mechanism that can monitor and react to calories
directly. There are biological mechanisms that react to quality and
quantity of carbs directly and now we know that there is something that
causes differring reactions to the quality of fats.
Both of these paradoxes, carbs and fats, illustrate clearly that
calories are not a practical system for predicting weight gaim or loss
in humans. And my guess is that we will see a similar situation with
quality of proteins.
FACT: 95%+ of low calorie diets fail.
TC
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
| Quote: | Ah, whatever was going on it had nothing to do with carbs, which were held
equal and the kind of fat varied. So the real question is why some fat
sources cause greater fat storage and retention then do other types. Fat
contains alot of water which is why weight loss involves liquid loss
especially in the first period of loss. So the question here is why
should the saturated fats cause retention and not the less saturated
forms. The answer will have nothing to do with the 2nd law but with
different metabolic paths.
"I think that a couple of people may care that there is yet another
exception to the direct application of the laws of thermodynamics to
human weight maintenance.
Yet another piece of scientific evidence that says that calories are
not the final word on fat storage or fat loss in humans.
Calories mean squat." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Just Cocky
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 297
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:19 pm Post subject:
Re: A calorie is NOT a calorie!
|
|
|
On 14 Jun 2006 06:48:21 -0700, "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
I think that a couple of people may care that there is yet another
exception to the direct application of the laws of thermodynamics to
human weight maintenance.
|
Actually, it's a *BAD* application of thermodynamics to the system in
question. The caloric model is just way too simple. It tries to do all
of the accounting with energy when people actually lose or gain weight
by changes in mass! The implicit assumption that there is some kind of
linear relationship, in this model, between energy and mass is
obviously flawed.
| Quote: |
Yet another piece of scientific evidence that says that calories are
not the final word on fat storage or fat loss in humans.
|
Yeap!
--
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are
cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt"
-- Bertrand Russell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mattlb@angelfire.com
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 36
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:59 pm Post subject:
Re: A calorie is NOT a calorie!
|
|
|
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
| Quote: | Ah, whatever was going on it had nothing to do with carbs, which were held
equal and the kind of fat varied. So the real question is why some fat
sources cause greater fat storage and retention then do other types. Fat
contains alot of water
|
Pardon? Are you talking about fat or fat cells? Either way it's not
true.
| Quote: | which is why weight loss involves liquid loss
especially in the first period of loss.
|
Water loss is usually attributed to breakdown of glycogen, a very
osmotically-active molecule, reducing the attraction for water.
| Quote: | So the question here is why
should the saturated fats cause retention and not the less saturated
forms.
|
It's trans fats not saturated fats that were being tested and caused
retention. Trans fatty acids are unsaturated.
MattLB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Peterson
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject:
Re: A calorie is NOT a calorie!
|
|
|
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
| Quote: | Ah, whatever was going on it had nothing to do with carbs, which were held
equal and the kind of fat varied. So the real question is why some fat
sources cause greater fat storage and retention then do other types. Fat
contains alot of water which is why weight loss involves liquid loss
especially in the first period of loss. So the question here is why
should the saturated fats cause retention and not the less saturated
forms. The answer will have nothing to do with the 2nd law but with
different metabolic paths.
|
It has to do with melting points. PUFAs have the lowest melting point,
so they are more likely to be metabolized. (That's just a wild theory
and hasn't been verified).
--
Ron |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsor@citynet.net
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 569
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:17 pm Post subject:
Re: A calorie is NOT a calorie!
|
|
|
"That is not what I've maintained. I've maintained that weight gain was
primarily carb related, and I stand by that. I've also been on the"
Then you are still wrong, by the time glucose enters the blood from any
source the body doesn't distinguish in terms of fat storage or not its
original source. Eat twice your energy needs as calories in steak or
pasta and you will gain weight. Eat half and you will lose weight.
Given individual response differences and any differences in metabolism
energy costs between the two foods weight will come within the normal
variation of a few percent at the margins. Most response will fall in the
fat middle of the bell curve as to energy balance and weight status. Eat
fewer calories and lose, more and gain, this has been demonstrated in
controlled research where all food eaten was strictly measured as to macro
content and calories and no other food available for "cheating". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr-Natural-Health
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1807
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:37 pm Post subject:
Re: A calorie is NOT a calorie!
|
|
|
TC wrote:
| Quote: | Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
Who cares?
I think that a couple of people may care that there is yet another
exception to the direct application of the laws of thermodynamics to
human weight maintenance.
Yet another piece of scientific evidence that says that calories are
not the final word on fat storage or fat loss in humans.
Calories mean squat.
|
Oh, what a wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive. :)
Life is simple, TC.
Do NOT eat gigantic portions of food everyday. And, get off your butt
once in a while.
It actually enables people to manage their weight a whole lot better
than chronic complaining.
Just thought that you might want to know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TC
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1814
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:06 pm Post subject:
Re: A calorie is NOT a calorie!
|
|
|
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
| Quote: | What you say below is a change for you, good, all can learn. You used to
claim eating large proportions of carbs all by itself was the cause for
weight gain, the study at hand shows not.
|
That is not what I've maintained. I've maintained that weight gain was
primarily carb related, and I stand by that. I've also been on the
record against all new modern processed and manufactured foods which
include hydrogenated oils and highly processes vegetable oils like
canola oil. And anything containing trans fats.
| Quote: | I have always said that the
energy burden for different metabolic pathways can cause differences in
energy balance because all biological processes are described by the bell
curve. "Quality" is not relevant in the question.
|
Not relevant? It is the crux. One can only consume excessive amounts of
carbs when they are poor quality highly processed and purified forms of
carbs like hfcs, sugar, refined white flour, etc., (the exception being
large amounts of starchy tubers).
When one eats fresh real whole produce, (excluding high starch tubers),
it is almost impossible to eat excessive amounts of carbs. You would
have to eat bales of produce to cause the same or similar problems as
carb dense pasta, white bread, soda, etc.
| Quote: | The 2nd law still
applies because it describes all the energy sinks of all the variations
regardless of cause.
|
It applies as far as the laws of physics applies to inanimate objects
and closed systems. Energy consumed by a animal, ie. an open system,
cannot be considered a good example of the applicability of the laws of
thermo to weight management. The calculated and assumed amount of
energy consumed and the energy calculated as expended cannot be
directly converted to a predict a precisely calculated mass of fat
stored or shed. It is not a one hundred percent exact and precise
calculable concept. It is not even a moderately accurate syatem. And it
is not even close to being a practical way to calculate and predict fat
storage or fat gain. The math does not and cannot accurately reflect
the reality of a given specific situation. It is too loosey goosey to
be applied accurately, especially with the advent of new fats (trans)
and new carbs (hfcs).
| Quote: | The bottom line is that within a degree of variation
based as above calories will predict weight status regardless of nutrition
form.
|
What degree? How about outside of the third standard deviation, which
statistically mean that the system is pretty much dead wrong. More than
95% of low-calorie diets fail. Statistically, this is the exact
opposite of what would be expected of this kind of approach. More than
95% of low-calorie diets should succeed.
| Quote: | A diet of "quality" of anything based on double the calories
required to sustain a calorie balance will cause weight gain and a diet of
half same will cause weight loss.
|
Possibly, but how about within a more reasonable measure of calories?
At least one study showed that low-carbers could eat as much as 300
calories and still shed the same or more fat. In a 1500kcal/day diet
that amounts to 20%. In a 1200kcal/day diet that becomes 25%. On a
1000kcal/day diet it becomes 30%. Is that not significant enough to
prove your argument wrong?
| Quote: | Substitute "not quality" and same
happens. We are talking about a few percentage points at the margins of
energy intake and it says nothing about the ratio of carbs/fats/protiens
as being the dominate factor. So go ahead and increase the carbs in your
diet and redduce protien within the energy balance for your body and find
no weight gain and thank the 2nd law..
|
BS. That is what has been shown to be wrong here. Here we've changed
the types of fat while maintaining the SAME caloric intake and the
results were different. According to you and the argument you just
stated, this is impossible, yet it was just shown to be the case.
Studies have shown that low-carbers ate more calories and lost more
weight. What part of this do you not understand? One only needs one
exception to prove the laws applicability to human weight management
wrong, and here we have the *second* exception. Therefore the laws of
thermo cannot be used to reliably predict weight gain or loss in
humans.
FACT: 95%+ of low calorie diets fail."
<snip>
TC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:28 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Loans | Remortgages | Overtime Laws | Credit Counseling | Bankruptcy Certification
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
electronics forum,
Science forum
Unix/Linux blog
Unix/Linux documentation
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Medicine forums
»
nutrition
