Fats are more fattening than carbs: is the calorie

wuzzy said:

Theory false? The high fat had 10 times more storage.++ ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.Open ↗
fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9280170&dopt=Abstract

Firstly, look at the difference in energy intake

High carb 14.41 +/- 0.85 MJ/d High fat 18.25 +/- 0.90 MJ/d

i.e. 3.84 MJ/day extra for the group eating fat, which on an energy basis corresponds to about
100g of fat.

Secondly it's only a 2 day study and you'll never see energy balance over two days, particularly
when eating high calorie diets.

MattLB

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

Quoted message said:

wuzzy said:

Theory false? The high fat had 10 times more storage.++

ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgiOpen ↗

No, they didn't. They both had roughly equivalent gains in weight, just in different forms. I bet
the difference wasn't even statistically significant.

Quoted message said:

Firstly, look at the difference in energy intake

High carb 14.41 +/- 0.85 MJ/d High fat 18.25 +/- 0.90 MJ/d

i.e. 3.84 MJ/day extra for the group eating fat, which on an energy basis corresponds to about
100g of fat.

Secondly it's only a 2 day study and you'll never see energy balance over two days, particularly
when eating high calorie diets.

MattLB

Some more considerations:

Both groups ate enough to gain about a half kilo of stored energy over two days. I don't see the
relevance of such an artificial (read highly manipulated) process to the typical behaviour of
people at large. The results could be artifacts of the severity of the manipulation itself. I don't
think you need a study like this to demonstrate that it's not a good idea to gorge yourself at a
buffet table.

The high-carb people stored carbs. The high-fat people stored fat. Is that in itself surprising?
Stored carbs would be in what form, in particular? Do you think *that's* a healthy thing to do to
your liver?

Taking into account the differences in total energy taken in (about equivalent to 100 grams of fat),
the high-fat people gained less weight than did the high-carbers.

Also, it's not valid to extrapolate from a two-day-long manipulation to trends induced by long-term
dietary composition. Short-term effects do not predict long-term changes.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:40:24 -0400, "Larry Hoover" <[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

wuzzy said:

Theory false? The high fat had 10 times more storage.++

ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgiOpen ↗
=Abstract

No, they didn't. They both had roughly equivalent gains in weight, just in different forms. I bet
the difference wasn't even statistically significant.

Quoted message said:

Firstly, look at the difference in energy intake

High carb 14.41 +/- 0.85 MJ/d High fat 18.25 +/- 0.90 MJ/d

i.e. 3.84 MJ/day extra for the group eating fat, which on an energy basis corresponds to about
100g of fat.

Secondly it's only a 2 day study and you'll never see energy balance over two days, particularly
when eating high calorie diets.

MattLB

Some more considerations:

Both groups ate enough to gain about a half kilo of stored energy over two days. I don't see the
relevance of such an artificial (read highly manipulated) process to the typical behaviour of
people at large. The results could be artifacts of the severity of the manipulation itself. I don't
think you need a study like this to demonstrate that it's not a good idea to gorge yourself at a
buffet table.

It's not as bad as slightly overdoing it every day of the year.

Quoted message said:

The high-carb people stored carbs. The high-fat people stored fat. Is that in itself surprising?
Stored carbs would be in what form, in particular? Do you think *that's* a healthy thing to do to
your liver?

Why not? Happens every day in billions of healthy humans.

Quoted message said:

Taking into account the differences in total energy taken in (about equivalent to 100 grams of
fat), the high-fat people gained less weight than did the high-carbers.

Taken in where, and what *was* this "weight"? BTW, did anyone take into account what the fat
consumption habit was of these subjects before they went on the high fat diet?

Quoted message said:

Also, it's not valid to extrapolate from a two-day-long manipulation to trends induced by long-term
dietary composition. Short-term effects do not predict long-term changes.

Probably. The well-measured short-term tests confirm basic principles. If the basic principles are
relevant to long term effects.....

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

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:40:24 -0400, "Larry Hoover"

Quoted message said:

The high-carb people stored carbs. The high-fat people stored fat. Is

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in itself surprising? Stored carbs would be in what form, in particular?

Do

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you think *that's* a healthy thing to do to your liver?

Why not? Happens every day in billions of healthy humans.

What, adding 400 grams of what was called carb storage? Surely, a good chunk of that is liver
weight? I wouldn't call that an everyday occurrence, nor would I call it healthy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Taking into account the differences in total energy taken in (about equivalent to 100 grams of
fat), the high-fat people gained less weight

than

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

did the high-carbers.

Taken in where, and what *was* this "weight"?

Defined in the study as fat and carb weight increase. Deduct the difference in total kcal intake, as
fat or carb, your call. Stored energy weighs something, and that was estimated to be about 100 grams
of fat. The high-fat people didn't store that much carb, so what would you deduct, to balance the
energy intake fairly?

Quoted message said:

BTW, did anyone take into account what the fat consumption habit was of these subjects before they
went on the high fat diet?

Exactly what I was implying. Enzyme induction takes longer than two days.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, it's not valid to extrapolate from a two-day-long manipulation to trends induced by
long-term dietary composition. Short-term effects do

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

predict long-term changes.

Probably.

.....because of enzyme induction.

Quoted message said:

The well-measured short-term tests confirm basic principles.

...may be in accord with assumptions, which may be false.

Quoted message said:

If the basic principles are relevant to long term effects.....

That's a big if.