% cal from ***...



Well,

Not all vegans are idiots, but the ones at this webpage are.

Percent of calories from protein might be a bad concept, but percentage of
carbs, alcohol, or fat is quite relevant.

"Laurie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Anyone know where, who, and when the fallacious concept "Percent
> calories from ***..." started? http://www.ecologos.org/pcf.htm
> How about the "Four Food Groups"?
>
>
> Laurie
>
>
 
"Cubit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:0gF%[email protected]...
> If I knew them better, I would have used an ad hominem attack.
You have already confirmed the fact that you can not craft a logical,
polite reply, no need to substantiate that further.

> I should have said that I found their webpage idiotic.
Yet, you have completely failed to present any logical criticism or
attempt correct any 'errors' All you can do is write juvenile insults, not
a commendable talent.

> I assumed that your comment, that suggested percentages of calories from
> *** was a fallacious concept, was referring to macronutrients.
No need to "assume"; it is CLEARLY stated.
You also refuse to answer questions, another sure sign of lack of
intellectual development.
Your behavior is that of an idiotic troll.
Yawn...

Laurie
 
> Anyone know where, who, and when the fallacious concept "Percent
> calories from ***..." started? http://www.ecologos.org/pcf.htm
> How about the "Four Food Groups"?

the website is very badly put together and what is said is not thought
through to the end.
it seems someone wanted to make a statement against nutrition science and
miserably failed so.

as i stated before: the ammount of calories needed a day can be estimated
for a person of given sex, age and bmi. therefore saying "recommendations
are x% of every macronutrient on total energy intake" is not irrational at
all and allows rough comparison of various food patterns to the
macronutrient recommendations.

example#1 (which i will not quote here for better readability) is, excuse
me, total bogus.

if you like to criticize someone's ability in arithmetics you should ask
youself what the difference between relative and absolute numbers is and
what each of these can be used for an what not.

on every food that has nutritional value information on it that i have ever
seen you find the absolute number (the total ammount of calories).
the relative numbers give information about how much the food fits or does
not fit the recommended food composition.

same goes for example#2. relative <> absolute. thus example pretty
pointless.
if you only eat stuff that has 100% fat content you know you won't fit the
recommendation on daily intake for macronutrients.

example#3:

If we have a certain food with, say, 10% of calories as protein, how much of
this food should we eat to get 20 grams of protein?? There is NO way to
calculate this, since the absolute amounts of all nutrients are irreversibly
lost when one goes from true weight percent to "percent of calories from
...."
[end of quote]

how about:
calories of food[per 100g] * 0,1 / 4 kcal/g = xx g Protein[per 100g food]

xxg Protein in 100g equals
20g Protein in ?g
I will leave calculating the ammount of food for 20g protein to you.

by the way: you are aware that weight percent is also a relative number..
right?
if you have food with

50% (w/w) water
10% (w/w) carbohydrates
20% (w/w) protein
15% (w/w) fat
5% (w/w) minerals/ash

with this info you cannot tell how many grams of protein you have either.
you need the weight.
Click to expand...
 
"MMu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> as i stated before: the ammount of calories needed a day can be estimated
> for a person of given sex, age and bmi. therefore saying "recommendations
> are x% of every macronutrient on total energy intake" is not irrational at
> all and allows rough comparison of various food patterns to the
> macronutrient recommendations.
Since all macronutrients are NOT oxidized to completion (all C -> CO2,
all H -> H2O) in human digestion, and they are in the process (Parr Bomb
Calorimeter) by which caloric contents are measured, the -theoretical-
energy possible from *complete combustion* from each is -never- realized.
If one wants to "estimate", it is not necessary to run the estimates
through an arithmetically-absurd paradigm, simply just estimate pro, fat,
cho needs on a gm/pound bodyweight basis.

> example#1 ... total bogus.
Since there are an infinite number of 'foods' with radically-differing
wt% compositions that produce -identical- PCF profiles, the latter are
useless and obscure the absolute amounts consumed. Thus, choosing 'foods'
based on PCF profiles that are identical to the 'target' profile will very
likely not choose 'foods' with identical nutrient profiles. Biochemistry
works on grams of material, not internal ratios of irrelevant entities.

> the relative numbers give information about how much the food fits or does
> not fit the recommended food composition.
If there an infinite number of 'foods' that have the same PCF profile,
and they do not have the same composition, the PCF profile is useless as a
quantitative tool.

> example#3:
>
>
> If we have a certain food with, say, 10% of calories as protein, how much
> of this food should we eat to get 20 grams of protein?? There is NO way
> to calculate this, since the absolute amounts of all nutrients are
> irreversibly lost when one goes from true weight percent to "percent of
> calories from ..."
> [end of quote]
>
> how about:
> calories of food[per 100g] * 0,1 / 4 kcal/g = xx g Protein[per 100g food]
Click to expand...
First, you are indiscriminately identifying cal and kcal as the same,
but what is a erroneous factor of 1,000 between friends??
Then, you do not know the total number of calories in the food, just
that 10% of an unknown number of calories is that hypothetically from
protein.

> xxg Protein in 100g equals 20g Protein in ?g
> I will leave calculating the ammount of food for 20g protein to you.
Why, can't you do it? Of course not, you have one equation in two
unknowns: "xx" and "?", no one can solve that. Thanks for illustrating my
point, though.

> 50% (w/w) water
> 10% (w/w) carbohydrates
> 20% (w/w) protein
> 15% (w/w) fat
> 5% (w/w) minerals/ash
>
> with this info you cannot tell how many grams of protein you have either.
> you need the weight.
Just as you needed the total amount of calories, but did not have it, in
the previous example. Interesting, you just ignored that when you did it.
However, taking arbitrary amounts of several different foods with this
w% profile will allow one to easily maintain the target w% composition,
while taking arbitrary amounts of several different foods with identical PCF
profiles will not. That is the point you missed in Example #1.

Laurie
Click to expand...
 
"MMu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> The energy content of food is also measured by other methods like indirect
> calorimentry by measuring the CO2 and O2 of breath ...
Outbreath can NOT differentiate between pro, fat, and cho.

> The food profile is a QUALITY information not a QUANTITY information.
So, you are agreeing with my statement that the PCF concept permanently
obscures the true -quantities- of the nutrients??

>>> how about:
>>> calories of food[per 100g] * 0,1 / 4 kcal/g = xx g Protein[per 100g
>>> food]
>> First, you are indiscriminately identifying cal and kcal as the same,
>> but what is a erroneous factor of 1,000 between friends??
>
> It is redundant information to add the "kilo-" every time mentioning it
> ...
Using different definitions of 'calorie' in the SAME equation destroys
the equality. It is not 'redundant', it is imperative.

> do you know food with nutrition tables that do not have the total calories
> on them?
Irrelevant; if one's 'target' is a diet with 1% pro, then simply
choosing a variety of foods with that % gives an average of 1%.
With a 'target' of 10% of calories as pro, choosing a variety of foods
with that PCF will NOT yield an average diet with that target.

> I don't.
> if they do exist but have the x% of calories of macronutrient on it i will
> be the first to call that nonsense.
PCF profiles are generally not presented in nutrition composition
tables.
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

> you seem, for some reason, to believe that when i put "weight" instead of
> "energy" in front of a percentage value it suddenly gives me some kind of
> absolute mathematical information it didn't before..
All chemical reactions are presented with weights of reagents, and
molecular weights of the reactants; have you ever taken a chem course? Mass
is conserved in mixtures and chemical reactions; internal ratios of calories
are not.

>>> xxg Protein in 100g equals 20g Protein in ?g
>>> I will leave calculating the ammount of food for 20g protein to you.
>> Why, can't you do it? Of course not, you have one equation in two
>> unknowns: "xx" and "?", no one can solve that. Thanks for illustrating
>> my point, though.
> I thought you were able to do at least this little bit of math..
You have presented ONE equation with TWO unknowns, no one can solve
that, or are you going actually to refute this fundamental law of
mathematics??

> harry reads something has 50 energy% from protein on the package.
> harry reads this something has 40 kcal/100g on the package.
Not the same question; transparent dodge.

Laurie
 
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:50:45 -1000, "Laurie" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"MMu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> The energy content of food is also measured by other methods like indirect
>> calorimentry by measuring the CO2 and O2 of breath ...
> Outbreath can NOT differentiate between pro, fat, and cho.

If you don't know how, of course it is impossible.

By quantifying urine and nitrogen content for the period and computing
RQ you can compute the composition and quantities of carbohydrates,
protein and fat combusted. By the way, if RQ is above 1, you are
producing glucose,that is, gluconeogenesis.

Making program for indirect calorimetry of rats using an Luxor ABC80
was my first work at this department. Back in 1981. Very nice
measuring computer by the way
 
>> The energy content of food is also measured by other methods like
>> indirect calorimentry by measuring the CO2 and O2 of breath ...
> Outbreath can NOT differentiate between pro, fat, and cho.

what is the matter with you making ridiculous claims out of the blue one
after another?
look up "respiratory quotient"

>> It is redundant information to add the "kilo-" every time mentioning it
>> ...
> Using different definitions of 'calorie' in the SAME equation destroys
> the equality. It is not 'redundant', it is imperative.

pure polemics; leads nowhere.
if you deliberately like to act stupid trying to prove something please feel
free.

> Irrelevant; if one's 'target' is a diet with 1% pro, then simply
> choosing a variety of foods with that % gives an average of 1%.
> With a 'target' of 10% of calories as pro, choosing a variety of foods
> with that PCF will NOT yield an average diet with that target.

g/ kcal / Energy % / Weight %

Food item 1
g kcal % %
prot 15 60 33 50
fat 12 108 60 40
carbs 3 12 7 10
TOTAL 30 180 100 100

Food item 2
Energy Weight
g kcal % %
prot 1 4 33 33
fat 0 0 0 0
carbs 2 8 67 67
TOTAL 3 12 100 100

Food item 3
Energy Weight
g kcal % %
prot 10 40 33 36
fat 2 18 15 7
carbs 16 64 52 57
TOTAL 28 122 100 100

Total
prot 26 104 33 43
fat 14 126 40 23
carbs 21 84 27 34
TOTAL 61 314 100 100

three food items.
different ammounts but same protein% of calories,
different ammounts of macronutrients total,
same %protein of calories in the end.

>> I don't.
>> if they do exist but have the x% of calories of macronutrient on it i
>> will be the first to call that nonsense.
> PCF profiles are generally not presented in nutrition composition
> tables.
> http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

"do you know food with nutrition tables that do not have the total calories
on them? "
".. reads this something has 40 kcal/100g *ON THE PACKAGE*."

> All chemical reactions are presented with weights of reagents, and
> molecular weights of the reactants; have you ever taken a chem course?

in fact, most chemical _reactions_ are presented in mole's- that is, a
number of [avogadro's number]*atoms but that is *sigh* again *sigh* beside
the point.

it is pointless to discuss if relative numbers are useful items of
expression in nutrition -
of course they are.

> Mass is conserved in mixtures and chemical reactions; internal ratios of
> calories are not.

mass is not a relative number.
see example above.

> You have presented ONE equation with TWO unknowns, no one can solve that,
> or are you going actually to refute this fundamental law of mathematics??
>> harry reads something has 50 energy% from protein on the package.
>> harry reads this something has 40 kcal/100g on the package.
> Not the same question; transparent dodge.

I remember your point was:
"There is NO way to calculate this" [end
of quote]
and I showed you there is.

What exactly is your problem here talking all the time about two unknowns?
there never were two unknowns .. its just that you have a massive problem
with arithmetics.

z = 2

x = 2*z

y = x / 4

there are TWO variables in that last equation where one is known (x) and one
is unknown (y).
what the hell is your problem with that?
Click to expand...
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alf Christophersen" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: % cal from ***...

> By quantifying urine and nitrogen content for the period and computing
> RQ you can compute the composition and quantities of carbohydrates,
> protein and fat combusted. By the way, if RQ is above 1, you are
> producing glucose,that is, gluconeogenesis.
Do you have a -credible- link explaining this technique?
The first one I found started off with:
"Electrons from the chemical bonds of the fuel source combine with oxygen
and hydrogen ions to form water and *carbon* dioxide.", thus, emphasizing
the lack of comprehension of baby chemistry by the nutritional
establishment.
http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed/webmodules/respiratoryquotient.htmls

Laurie
 
"Alf Christophersen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> By quantifying urine and nitrogen content for the period and computing
> RQ you can compute the composition and quantities of carbohydrates,
> protein and fat combusted. By the way, if RQ is above 1, you are
> producing glucose,that is, gluconeogenesis.

Do you have a credible link explaining this measurement?

Laurie
 
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:51:24 -1000, "Laurie" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Do you have a credible link explaining this measurement?

You must look it up in energy physiology textbooks.

One of my first work with computers was making a program of indirect
calorimetry where we measured nitrogen released in urine, and from RQ,
amount of oxygen consumption and CO2 production could compute amounts
burned of sugar, fat and protein,or netto carbohydrates produced (if
RQ>1)
I'll try to find the textbook mention the equations used, but I made
that program back in around 1982, so I don't remember the exact title
now. I doubt you may find it on Internet. The theory behind was
published before WWII (I hope). At least, many years ahead of Pubmed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back