Thermodynamics and Metabolic Advantage of Weight Loss Diets

jbuch said:

Links to the actual published full articles involved are given below.

Caution, actually uses equations and large tables of data.

Thermodynamics and Metabolic Advantage of Weight Loss Diets

Richard D. Feinman, PhD, Eugene J. Fine, MD
Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders
September 2003, Vol. 1, No. 3, Pages 209-219
Posted online on July 8, 2004.
(doi:10.1089/154041903322716688)

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089%2F154041903322716688?cookieSet=1

Very interesting. Everyone seems to know about "calories consumed", but how
about "calorires excreted".

You could define, say:
calories burned = calories consumed - calories excreted
eating "octane ratio" = calories burned/calories consumed * 100

I looks like, given diets with identical total calories, the body readily
absorbs carbs more than protein.

gtoomey

Wozza said:

Very interesting. Everyone seems to know about "calories consumed", but how
about "calorires excreted".

You could define, say:
calories burned = calories consumed - calories excreted
eating "octane ratio" = calories burned/calories consumed * 100

Rarely mentioned in this whole "counting cals" lunacy is that what goes in
your mouth is not necessarily even close to what is "pulled" into (use) in
your system.

Think corn kernels and your [censored].

So, you start with a cal counting "handbook", you mix in the fact that the
handbook is a guesstimate, then you don't weigh your food to know whether
that steak is 4 or 5.1 ounces, much less the veggies and deserts, add food
that passes through the gut relatively untouched (and never subtracted from
the cals intake) and you have about as useless a system as one can imagine.

Of course, you get the "privilege" of wasting your time writing down this
mess of inaccuracies to boot.

MU said:

Wozza said:

Very interesting. Everyone seems to know about "calories consumed", but how
about "calorires excreted".

You could define, say:
calories burned = calories consumed - calories excreted
eating "octane ratio" = calories burned/calories consumed * 100

Rarely mentioned in this whole "counting cals" lunacy is that what goes in
your mouth is not necessarily even close to what is "pulled" into (use) in
your system.

Think corn kernels and your [censored].

So, you start with a cal counting "handbook", you mix in the fact that the
handbook is a guesstimate, then you don't weigh your food to know whether
that steak is 4 or 5.1 ounces, much less the veggies and deserts, add food
that passes through the gut relatively untouched (and never subtracted from
the cals intake) and you have about as useless a system as one can imagine.

Of course, you get the "privilege" of wasting your time writing down this
mess of inaccuracies to boot.

Who the hell knows, I mean really? What seems to hold true for one
person doesn't work at all for another.

I have read on this ng (alt.support.diet), reports of people who
essentially eat the same diet and yet lose weight by increasing their
exercise level. For me, I can kill myself exercising and eating the
same diet and *nothing* happens, I'm sure that there are people who
experience the same thing with calorie restriction.

Judging from this group, of the umteem jillion obese people in the
world, there are a relative few who have figured out what works.

Em

-----
When in trouble or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout.

Auntie Em said:

I have read on this ng (alt.support.diet), reports of people who
essentially eat the same diet and yet lose weight by increasing their
exercise level. For me, I can kill myself exercising and eating the
same diet and *nothing* happens, I'm sure that there are people who
experience the same thing with calorie restriction.

There was a very good medical study published in the past couple months
that proved that while many people do, in fact, lose weight with
exercise, there are quite a few others, who have some kind of genetic
difference in how their muscle metabolisms work, do not.

I know I'm one of those in the latter category and always have been.
Exercise will make my muscles look nicer but does not make me lose weight.
--Jenny Type 2 diabetes since 1998. Hba1c 5.7%
Low Carbing for 5 years. 140 lbs (goal)

Cut the "carbs" to respond to my email address.
-----------------------------------------------------
What they Don't Tell You About Diabetes Web Site
http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/

Jenny's Low Carb Diet Facts & Figures site
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/

Looking for help controlling your blood sugar?
Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------

Mu:
"Rarely mentioned in this whole "counting cals" lunacy is that what
goes in
your mouth is not necessarily even close to what is "pulled" into (use)
in
your system.

Think corn kernels and your [censored]."

It's not mentioned in counting cals, but it is indeed focused on in
Atkins, where fiber gets subtracted
from the carb count. Seems Atkins was right!

"There was a very good medical study published in the past couple
months
that proved that while many people do, in fact, lose weight with
exercise, there are quite a few others, who have some kind of genetic
difference in how their muscle metabolisms work, do not."

I can see how this could be true for modest amounts of excercise. But
if you increase excercise a
lot and maintain the same diet, it's hard to see how this is possible.
The extra energy burned
has to come from somewhere. Some of the weight will be converted to
muscle, but it's hard to
figure out how they could not lose some weight in the process.
Do you have a link to the study?

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Ignoramus31471" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 31 Dec 2004 16:35:54 GMT, [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"I have read on this ng (alt.support.diet), reports of people who
essentially eat the same diet and yet lose weight by increasing their
exercise level. For me, I can kill myself exercising and eating the
same diet and *nothing* happens, I'm sure that there are people who
experience the same thing with calorie restriction.

Judging from this group, of the umteem jillion obese people in the
world, there are a relative few who have figured out what works."

Calories work. Exercise uses fairly few calories per sey if one

consults

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the charts showing activity and calories per hour. Exercise primes

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

body for more weight loss because the effect which is using calories
during exercise continues up to 48 hours after the exercise stops,ie.

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

body is in a greater calorie using mode

"up to 48 hours" is not true for many forms of exercise, namely those that
don't drive HR up.

. Calories work, there were no

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

obese people to survive the camps in europe. The way each of our

bodies

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is set up to react to fewer calories differes and most people lose

weight

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

when a few hundred calories less per day are eaten over time.

You are forgetting that a person who exercises may conceivably be
hungrier and eat more.

Again. Exercise helps some people to lose weight and it does not help
other people. Also, some people's fitness is not improved by exercise,
as strange as it sounds.

the number of people who don't benefit from exericse are far and few
between. And below you only list one article...there is great risk in
assuming it is the last word on whether exercise is not beneficial for

even

Quoted message said:

a small number of people. There could be many issue at play that produced
those results.

I have noticed that some people's perception of effort seems to be
warped, which would cause them to believe that exercise does not help them.
I saw a woman in the gym once that was arm curling with small pink 2lb
weights and leg pressing with 20lbs on the machine. She appeared to be
getting a serious workout by looking at her facial expressions. In reality,
an average grocery shopping trip would be more strenuous. 10 bags weighing
5lbs each, carried up a flight of stairs would be more of an effort than the
weights she was using. In order to build muscle, a person has to stress them
by lifting more than they normally do. Genetic factors would of course limit
the amount of muscle that could be obtained.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Exercise is not a cure all and it is not always helpful for
everyone.

Perhaps.

Quoted message said:

If you are one of the lucky people who do benefit from
exercise, count your blessings.

The vast majority fall into this group, even according to that article.

Quoted message said:

I am also one of those lucky people. I
am slim and fit, and exercise, so please do not construe my message as
though i am making some sort of an excuse for not exercising or
staying fat.

======================================================================

Some people are 'immune' to exercise

10:45 02 December 04

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996735

Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition.

Public-health campaigns regularly plug exercise as a sure-fire way to
avoid an early grave. But that message may be too simplistic. For an
unhappy few, even quite strenuous exercise may have no effect on their
fitness or their risk of developing diseases like diabetes.

"There is astounding variation in the response to exercise. The vast
majority will benefit in some way, but there will be a minority who will
not benefit at all," says Claude Bouchard of Louisiana State University
in Baton Rouge, US.

At the Australian Health and Medical Research Congress in Sydney,
Australia, last week Bouchard reported the results of a study assessing
the role of genes in fitness and health changes in response to exercise.

In the study, 742 people from 213 families were put through a strict
20-week endurance training programme. The volunteers had not taken
regular physical activity for the previous six months. Exercise on
stationary bikes was gradually increased so that by the last six weeks
the volunteers were exercising for 50 minutes three times a week at 75%
of the maximum output they were capable of before the study.

Previous reports indicated that there are huge variations in
"trainability" between subjects. For example, the team found that
training improved maximum oxygen consumption, a measure of a person's
ability to perform work, by 17% on average.

But the most trainable volunteers gained over 40%, and the least
trainable showed no improvement at all. Similar patterns were seen with
cardiac output, blood pressure, heart rate and other markers of fitness.

Weblinks

Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University

Australian Health and Medical Research Congress

Institute of Neuromuscular Research, Children's Hospital, Westmead

School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University

Bouchard reported that the impact of training on insulin sensitivity - a
marker of risk for diabetes and heart disease - also varied. It improved
in 58% of the volunteers following exercise, but in 42% it showed no
improvement or, in a few cases, may have got worse.

"It's negative, but it's true. Some people slog away and don't get any
improvement," says Kathryn North of the Institute of Neuromuscular
Research at the Children's Hospital at Westmead in Sydney, Australia.

In the eight volunteers who showed the largest improvement in insulin
sensitivity, 51 genes were expressed in muscles at double the levels of
the eight people who showed the least improvement, and 74 genes were
expressed at half the level. Many of these genes were a surprise to the
researchers because they have not previously been linked to exercise.

"We need to recognise that although on average exercise may have clear
benefits, it may not work for everyone," says Mark Hargreaves of Deakin
University in Melbourne, Australia. "Some people may do better to change
their diet."

Rachel Nowak, Sydney
--
...............................

Keepsake gift for young girls.
Unique and personal one-of-a-kind.
Builds strong minds 12 ways.
Guaranteed satisfaction
- courteous money back
- keep bonus gifts

http://www.alicebook.com

--
223/172.3/180

Quoted message said:

I can see how this could be true for modest amounts of excercise. But
if you increase excercise a
lot and maintain the same diet, it's hard to see how this is possible.
The extra energy burned
has to come from somewhere. Some of the weight will be converted to
muscle, but it's hard to
figure out how they could not lose some weight in the process.
Do you have a link to the study?

Here's the link to the article, from the Dec. 2004 New Scientist,
entitled "Some People are Immune to Exercise".

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6735

Here is a portion of that article:
In the study, 742 people from 213 families were put through a strict
20-week endurance training programme. The volunteers had not taken
regular physical activity for the previous six months. Exercise on
stationary bikes was gradually increased so that by the last six weeks
the volunteers were exercising for 50 minutes three times a week at 75%
of the maximum output they were capable of before the study.

<snip>
But the most trainable volunteers gained over 40%, and the least
trainable showed no improvement at all. Similar patterns were seen with
cardiac output, blood pressure, heart rate and other markers of fitness.
Slogging away

Bouchard reported that the impact of training on insulin sensitivity – a
marker of risk for diabetes and heart disease – also varied. It improved
in 58% of the volunteers following exercise, but in 42% it showed no
improvement or, in a few cases, may have got worse.

“It’s negative, but it’s true. Some people slog away and don’t get any
improvement,” says Kathryn North of the Institute of Neuromuscular
Research at the Children’s Hospital at Westmead in Sydney, Australia.

In the eight volunteers who showed the largest improvement in insulin
sensitivity, 51 genes were expressed in muscles at double the levels of
the eight people who showed the least improvement, and 74 genes were
expressed at half the level. Many of these genes were a surprise to the
researchers because they have not previously been linked to exercise.

“We need to recognise that although on average exercise may have clear
benefits, it may not work for everyone,” says Mark Hargreaves of Deakin
University in Melbourne, Australia. “Some people may do better to change
their diet.”

--Jenny Type 2 diabetes since 1998. Hba1c 5.7%
Low Carbing for 5 years. 140 lbs (goal)

Cut the "carbs" to respond to my email address.
-----------------------------------------------------
What they Don't Tell You About Diabetes Web Site
http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/

Jenny's Low Carb Diet Facts & Figures site
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/

Looking for help controlling your blood sugar?
Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------

"Jenny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can see how this could be true for modest amounts of excercise. But
if you increase excercise a
lot and maintain the same diet, it's hard to see how this is possible.
The extra energy burned
has to come from somewhere. Some of the weight will be converted to
muscle, but it's hard to
figure out how they could not lose some weight in the process.
Do you have a link to the study?

Here's the link to the article, from the Dec. 2004 New Scientist,
entitled "Some People are Immune to Exercise".

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6735

Here is a portion of that article:
In the study, 742 people from 213 families were put through a strict
20-week endurance training programme. The volunteers had not taken
regular physical activity for the previous six months. Exercise on
stationary bikes was gradually increased so that by the last six weeks
the volunteers were exercising for 50 minutes three times a week at 75%
of the maximum output they were capable of before the study.

So...these volunteers had not taken regular phsical activity for the
previous six months. We don't know if they did anything prior to that
either.

So, by the last six week they were exercsing for 50 minutes 3x per week at
75% of the maximum output there were capable of before the study.

Maybe I'm jaded, but I see lots of possibilities there for some [censored]
results. How was the maximum output determined? If some of these people
had been sedentary for long before, they may have very low output as they
are not used to exercise. And if their true maximum output was not
correctly determined, say by them not pushing hard enough or them not being
pushed hard enough due to concerns for their safety, then what? They (or
some) might have been exercisng at 75% of what could have been an
artificially low level in the first place.

Frankly, I think this work needs to be corroborated by other studies before
given any weight. Only one type of exercise was used.

The comment below about diet needs some attention too. What were these
folks eating during this time? Did their weight stay the same or did it
change (up or down)? It seems to be that diet makes a huge difference in
nearly everything a human being does. Does this study really isolate the
effect of exercise on the particiants? Could diet and other lifestyle
issues mask benefits of exercise for some of these folks?

Quoted message said:

<snip>
But the most trainable volunteers gained over 40%, and the least
trainable showed no improvement at all. Similar patterns were seen with
cardiac output, blood pressure, heart rate and other markers of fitness.
Slogging away

Bouchard reported that the impact of training on insulin sensitivity – a
marker of risk for diabetes and heart disease – also varied. It improved
in 58% of the volunteers following exercise, but in 42% it showed no
improvement or, in a few cases, may have got worse.

“It’s negative, but it’s true. Some people slog away and don’t get any
improvement,” says Kathryn North of the Institute of Neuromuscular
Research at the Children’s Hospital at Westmead in Sydney, Australia.

In the eight volunteers who showed the largest improvement in insulin
sensitivity, 51 genes were expressed in muscles at double the levels of
the eight people who showed the least improvement, and 74 genes were
expressed at half the level. Many of these genes were a surprise to the
researchers because they have not previously been linked to exercise.

“We need to recognise that although on average exercise may have clear
benefits, it may not work for everyone,” says Mark Hargreaves of Deakin
University in Melbourne, Australia. “Some people may do better to change
their diet.”

--Jenny Type 2 diabetes since 1998. Hba1c 5.7%
Low Carbing for 5 years. 140 lbs (goal)

Cut the "carbs" to respond to my email address.
-----------------------------------------------------
What they Don't Tell You About Diabetes Web Site
http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/

Jenny's Low Carb Diet Facts & Figures site
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/

Looking for help controlling your blood sugar?
Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------

Jenny said:

Quoted message said:

I can see how this could be true for modest amounts of excercise. But
if you increase excercise a
lot and maintain the same diet, it's hard to see how this is possible.
The extra energy burned
has to come from somewhere. Some of the weight will be converted to
muscle, but it's hard to
figure out how they could not lose some weight in the process.
Do you have a link to the study?

Here's the link to the article, from the Dec. 2004 New Scientist,
entitled "Some People are Immune to Exercise".

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6735

Here is a portion of that article:
In the study, 742 people from 213 families were put through a strict
20-week endurance training programme. The volunteers had not taken
regular physical activity for the previous six months. Exercise on
stationary bikes was gradually increased so that by the last six weeks
the volunteers were exercising for 50 minutes three times a week at 75%
of the maximum output they were capable of before the study.

<snip>
But the most trainable volunteers gained over 40%, and the least
trainable showed no improvement at all. Similar patterns were seen with
cardiac output, blood pressure, heart rate and other markers of fitness.
Slogging away

Bouchard reported that the impact of training on insulin sensitivity – a
marker of risk for diabetes and heart disease – also varied. It improved
in 58% of the volunteers following exercise, but in 42% it showed no
improvement or, in a few cases, may have got worse.

“It’s negative, but it’s true. Some people slog away and don’t get any
improvement,” says Kathryn North of the Institute of Neuromuscular
Research at the Children’s Hospital at Westmead in Sydney, Australia.

In the eight volunteers who showed the largest improvement in insulin
sensitivity, 51 genes were expressed in muscles at double the levels of
the eight people who showed the least improvement, and 74 genes were
expressed at half the level. Many of these genes were a surprise to the
researchers because they have not previously been linked to exercise.

“We need to recognise that although on average exercise may have clear
benefits, it may not work for everyone,” says Mark Hargreaves of Deakin
University in Melbourne, Australia. “Some people may do better to change
their diet.”

The specific change would be eating less.

"Eating less is necessary and sufficient for losing weight."

You read it here first...

....now enter the 2PD Approach:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

At His service,

Andrew

--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129

Jenny wrote and quoted the below article:

Quoted message said:

Here's the link to the article, from the Dec. 2004 New Scientist,
entitled "Some People are Immune to Exercise".
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6735

Thank you Jenny for the excellent link. However I believe the
journalist is trying to put her own sensational spin by the headline:

"Some people are 'immune' to exercise".

I couldn't find this anywhere implied in the full text below. Perhaps
someone could look at the full text that has a statistically inclined
medical background and see this implied?

Here is the full text:
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/90/5/1770?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=claude+bouchard&searchid=1105167263812_7070&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=90&issue=5

And two quotes from the paper:

"Individual responses varied widely, but Vo2max increased
significantly for all groups"

"In summary, we have shown in a large heterogeneous, biracial,
sedentary population that age, sex, race, and initial fitness level
have little or no effect on the response of Vo2max to a standardized
20-wk endurance exercise training program. There appear to be high,
medium, and low responders to training at all ages, in both sexes, in
both races, and at all levels of initial fitness studied. Genetics may
help explain the large variation in training response in these
subjects."

The above studies low exercise regiment (75% maxVo2), probably only
burned around 1250 calories per week (2.5hour * 500cals). This other
study took the subjects to 83% peak heart rate with fantastic results.
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/1/40

At 85%-110% MHR 2-6 hrs at a time (biking up to 100miles), can lower
this X-hypertensive 56yo's BP => 10mmHg the next day after
rehydrating. Plus since changing from jogging (due to arthritic joints)
to prolonged low impact exercising (1-8 hrs day) my HDL has steadily
increased from a 47 low to 101 over several years. I admire your
ability to tolerate low-carbing, as for myself it had my LDL >160s for
2 years (now 70's). I just do CRONE and frequently to my surprise eat
a non-sugar high fiber diet of < 2 lbs per day (10 day avg multiple
times), just to maintain my weight. I may be pre MetS or have such a
predisposition?

CU. Mike.