calories - true or false

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 22:45:52 GMT, Doug Freese <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Mirek Fidler said:

Of course, eating less and exercising more is always a
basis. Negative calorie balance is always the base of
fat loss. OTOH, how to achieve it not as simple as you
put it.

And what part of this is complicated besides pure power?

The "eating less, exercising more" part 🙂

Humans are devious little devils and will cheat, rationalise
and self-deceive....

On 20 Mar 2004 18:12:23 -0800, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]-
net.com>...

Quoted message said:

We are still waiting for a fuller exposition of your new
theory which explains weight status absent reference to
calorie balance, and most especially the supporting
evidence for same.

I will accept this as your tacit admission that you have no
proof to support the calorie theory as applied to weight
management in humans.

Thanks,

TC

You have been given masses of evidence, or information on
where to find it. You flatly refuse this, produce NO
evidence, and then claim this means you are right.

I take this to be a tacit admission that you are a clueless
troll. What are you trying to sell, Terry?

On 20 Mar 2004 18:30:41 -0800, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

tcomeau said:

How do you explain people successfully losing more
weight on a low-carb diet 300 calories more than the
low-fat group.

It doesn't happen, so it requires no explanation.

You cannot be serious. It does happen and it has happened
and it has been seen in studies.

Well furchrissake, stop waving your arms and show one.
JUST ONE!!!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The human body is several steps removed from the pure
energy stage of bio-chemical processes.

No, it's not. It still follows all the rules, especially
the most basic and inviolable rules of thermodynamics.
The human body is not magic, and cannot create energy
from nothingness. Therefore, a hypocaloric diet must
produce weight loss--and it always does.

It is not creating energy from nothing. No one has
suggested this.

You do it all the time with your silly claims that "calories
don't matter with human nutrition".

Quoted message said:

The argument is that proteins and carbs are not always
metabolized to the 4 kcal/gram and fats are not always
metabolized to produce the 9 kcal/gram.

So tell us what they are metabolised to. They are either
burnt, stored or excreted. They must balance the input.
Start explaining these calories that you claim go in, but
don't come out. Sheeeeesh!!!

Quoted message said:

Ergo, one cannot use calories to predict weight/fat
gain or loss.

YOU can't, but what would one expect from your [censored]-eyed
viewpoint?

Quoted message said:

Don't worry so much, no one is challenging or suggesting we
change the rules insofar as the laws of thermo are
concerned. Just its direct application in predicting fat
storage or lose in humans.

So you are saying that the laws of thermo don't apply to
humans? Like you have on so many occasions before? Like your
ignorant argument that the human body was not a closed
system, so conservation of energy did not apply?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No-one is arguing against the basis of the laws of
thermo, just its direct application to predicting
weight gain or loss in the complex organism that is the
human body.

Anytime you argue that a hypocaloric diet cannot produce
weight loss, you're arguing against the laws of
thermodynamics, and that is a losing battle.

No I am not arguing against the laws of thermo. It may be
more accurate to apply the laws of thermo in terms of the
extreme ranges of energy usage but not to predict weight
loss or gain within the mid-range of nutritional
consumption.

Then show us ONE example where it does NOT apply. We've
NEVER seen one. How exciting! Perpetual Motion here we come.
Phone ahead to the Patent Office, folks! 🙂

Quoted message said:

For instance, one may agree that one will never put on more
weight than is available in calories consumed or that,
conversely, a higher consumption of calories makes
available more energy/food for conversion to fat.

Youve argued against this for years. Have you seen the
light? Halleluja! Kill the celebratory pig!

Quoted message said:

But the actual triggers to the creation and storage of
fats are regulated by the body by hormonal states affected
by the type of foods consumed and amount of lean body
mass, etc.

No, storage is triggered by excess, and use of storage is
triggered by need. Please crack open a basic text book for
once in your life. Are you saying that if you eat a bunch of
fat in excess of requirements, and you don't get any insulin
secretion that this fat somehow is excreted? If not, what?

Quoted message said:

No-one is suggesting that energy disappears, it just goes
thru the system or is used for processes other than
creation of fat stores.

Well what would these processes be? Remember, the contents
of the gut are NOT 'IN" the body. So how is this energy
excreted, and what is it stored as that does not have
weight? Remember that 1000 calories stored as protein will
nominally weigh 250g, whereas 1000 cal fat will nominally
weigh 111g.

Quoted message said:

No one is suggesting that energy is created to created to
store fats either, in the case of someone gaining weight on
a lower calories diet.

So how does this phenomenon happen? You have claimed many
times that a hypocaloric diet can result in fat store
increase (and the reverse)

Quoted message said:

It is being suggested that when the hormones trigger fat
storage the body will use the available glucose to create
the lipids at the expense of the other processes such as
tissue re-building or cell energy.

Yer dreamin! Get a book!

Quoted message said:

This may be a more realistic application of the laws of
thermo in humans.

Huh? Well show that this silly scenario you imagine actually
occurs. You mean that people faint from hypoglycemia,
because some insulin has stored all their glucose as fat?
What happens to excess fat you consume? You have claimed in
the past to be able to eat thousands of calories of excess
fat and still lose fat storage. But I'll bet you've
conveniently forgotten that now.

Quoted message said:

This does not diminish the laws of thermo nor does it argue
that they are generally invalid.

So explain where the calories go in a 2000 cal eucaloric
intake of pure glucose. You say that this will stimulate
insulin secretion and it will be stored as fat. Where then
does the energy for daily activities and BMR come from, or
does the person curl up and die?

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 04:05:06 GMT, "William"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

WRONG! It occurs in several places, beginning in the mouth.

Well not really. Unless you can explain how an oil can be
broken down by chewing.

Quoted message said:

Yes, a large portion of the digestion actually takes place
in the small bowel (not bowels),

Unless you have more than one. Most folks have more than one
bowel -- a small and a large -- hence "bowels" which
includes the small "bowel", and the large "bowel".

Quoted message said:

mostly in the duodenum, but not ALL. Remember that chewing
is an important part of digestion (to break down), as are
the mastication (salavic juices), emulsification of the
fats (pancreatic secretions), etc.

What effect has saliva on oils? What effect has chewing on
oils. Where does pancreatic secretion occur? Nuff said!

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:49:58 GMT, "William"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

FAT digestion doen not take place in the bowels, but
rather in it starts

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the mouth, then continues in the stomach and finished in
the begining the small intestine (duodenum).

Fat digestion ONLY occurs in the small bowel (intestine),
surely.

Moosh:) said:

Because it's usually drunk cold?

In a strict sense, I suppose, but that's like pointing out
that people at sea level expend more calories than people at
an altitude of 1000 metres because the Earth's gravitational
field is stronger at sea level and the friction of air at
sea-level pressure is greater.

In other words, it doesn't matter and can be ignored.

In practice, I think that drinking a cold fluid is more
likely to remove waste heat than to induce exothermic
processes that burn calories. After all, the body is
constantly producing heat that must be removed, anyway. So
in all probability no extra calories at all are burned--and
perhaps less, if the cool water lessens the need to generate
perspiration.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach
me directly.

Mxsmanic said:

Moosh:) said:

Because it's usually drunk cold?

In a strict sense, I suppose, but that's like pointing out
that people at sea level expend more calories than people
at an altitude of 1000 metres because the Earth's
gravitational field is stronger at sea level and the
friction of air at sea-level pressure is greater.

In other words, it doesn't matter and can be ignored.

In practice, I think that drinking a cold fluid is more
likely to remove waste heat than to induce exothermic
processes that burn calories. After all, the body is
constantly producing heat that must be removed, anyway. So
in all probability no extra calories at all are burned--and
perhaps less, if the cool water lessens the need to
generate perspiration. i drink body balance cold, it ives
me energy, i get exercise, i burn calories

fat, metabolism works well, then buuilding more muscle it
contains 121 nutrients some i would not get because i tend
to stay away from sea food. it is a liquid ionic,
phytonutrient dietary supplement from whole foods that i
need but wouldn't normally get, due to some foods, i would
say,idon't like that, but this is liquid, goes right in
blood stream a lot faster thatn vitamin capsules or pills, i
get it at htttp://ran23healthyoudesrve.com they have been in
business 20 years.

Quoted message said:

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to
reach me directly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The argument is that proteins and carbs are not always
metabolized

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the 4 kcal/gram and fats are not always metabolized to
produce the 9 kcal/gram.

7 kcal/gram for fat. The numbers are adjusted to account
for their

real

Quoted message said:

influence in weight loss or gain.

Oh, wait a moment.

ADJUSTED!?

Does not it mean that there might be at least some truth in
what tcomeau says?

Is it ALWAYS 7kcal/g, or is it sometimes little bit more and
then little bit less?!

So far, most "calorie is a calorie" experts always said
9kcal/g. Now it is 7kcal. Strange 🙂

Does not it have something to do with usage of that fat?

Quoted message said:

It is possible to eat more than one burns and not gain
weight, if the added calories are excreted. However, it is
never possible to eat

less

Quoted message said:

than one burns _without losing weight_. That is a physical
impossibility.

Nobody argues that. But the key phrase is "one burns".

Quoted message said:

So fat people who claim that they eat less than they burn
and still

fail

Quoted message said:

to lose weight are either having trouble with arithmetic
or lying.

🙂

Or retain water. That happens too and is not quite uncommon
in some diseases (but is out of scope of this thread).

Mirek

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

Quoted message said:

tcomeau said:

You cannot be serious.

I am always serious.

Quoted message said:

It does happen and it has happened and it has been seen
in studies.

No, it has not.

If you refuse to accept the realisty in front of your eyes ,
then it is no use pursuing this discussion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is not creating energy from nothing. No one has
suggested this.

If you eat less than you burn, and you are not burning
fat, then the only way to remain alive is to create energy
from nothing ... which is impossible.

This is why people starve.

If the energy values for food (ie. calorie value) are
incorrect or if they are not a static value (ie. the body
can extraxt more or less than the estimated 4 kcal of energy
from a gram of carb or protein, or 9 kcal from fats) then it
is impossible to correctly estimate the calories needed or
the calories extracted from the food, therefore the calorie
calculation proposed to estimate weight gain or loss are way
to fluid to be accurate.

No energy is created from nothing and no energy is lost.
Only the efficiency of nutrient and energy extraction from
the foods varies.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The argument is that proteins and carbs are not always
metabolized to the 4 kcal/gram and fats are not always
metabolized to produce the 9 kcal/gram.

7 kcal/gram for fat. The numbers are adjusted to account
for their real influence in weight loss or gain.

Yeah, but are the adjustments correct? Are they correct in
all states that the body experiences from hour to hour. (ie.
hormonal states, hunger states, satiated states, states of
hydration, etc). That is the question. So far no-one has
shown any concrete scientific evidence that shows that the
caloric values were ever validated in studies.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ergo, one cannot use calories to predict weight/fat gain
or loss.

It works perfectly, so obviously one _can_ use them in
this way.

If it did, anyone who wanted to lose weight would. Only
those people who did not restrict calories would be obese.
Anyone could easily lose weight. Low-fat and low-calorie
foods are in abundance. But that isn't the case is it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No I am not arguing against the laws of thermo. It may
be more accurate to apply the laws of thermo in terms of
the extreme ranges of energy usage but not to predict
weight loss or gain within the mid-range of nutritional
consumption.

The mid-range is not exempt from the laws of
thermodynamics.

That is not what I said. I said that we may be able to apply
the laws of thermo to predict the most fat storage possible
with the number of calories, or we can predict the most
weight loss possible with a minimal amount of calories. What
I am saying is that in the mid-ranges of calorie
consumption, it is not the basic number of calories that
trigger fat storage or usage. What triggers fat storage are
hormones that are affect by multiple factors independntly of
calories except for the min-max as indicated above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For instance, one may agree that one will never put on
more weight than is available in calories consumed or
that, conversely, a higher consumption of calories makes
available more energy/food for conversion to fat. But
the actual triggers to the creation and storage of fats
are regulated by the body by hormonal states affected by
the type of foods consumed and amount of lean body mass,
etc. No-one is suggesting that energy disappears, it
just goes thru the system or is used for processes other
than creation of fat stores. No one is suggesting that
energy is created to created to store fats either, in
the case of someone gaining weight on a lower calories
diet. It is being suggested that when the hormones
trigger fat storage the body will use the available
glucose to create the lipids at the expense of the other
processes such as tissue re-building or cell energy.

It is possible to eat more than one burns and not gain
weight, if the added calories are excreted. However, it is
never possible to eat less than one burns _without losing
weight_. That is a physical impossibility.

You are assuming that the 4 cal/g for protein and carbs and
the 9 cal/grams for fat hold in every instance therfore this
weight gain or loss is predictable. That is where we differ.

Quoted message said:

So fat people who claim that they eat less than they burn
and still fail to lose weight are either having trouble
with arithmetic or lying.

No one claims that they eat less than they burn. They
claim that they eat less calories and they still fail to
lose weight, or they may actually gain weight on fewer
calories. You view this as being counter to the laws of
thermo and thus impossible. I see it as being counter to
the belief that the caloric value assigned to foods are
static in all circumstances, which is not only possible
but it is probable.

TC

Mirek Fidler said:

Oh, wait a moment.

ADJUSTED!?

Does not it mean that there might be at least some truth
in what tcomeau says?

No.

Quoted message said:

Is it ALWAYS 7kcal/g, or is it sometimes little bit more
and then little bit less?!

Overall, it is always 7 kcal per gram. The other two
kcal are lost in the "overhead" of converting other
forms of energy to fat and back again. This overhead is
quite constant.

Quoted message said:

So far, most "calorie is a calorie" experts always said
9kcal/g. Now it is 7kcal. Strange 🙂

It's 7 kcal/g when you are counting calories to
control weight.

Quoted message said:

Does not it have something to do with usage of that fat?

No. It has to do with the overhead of conversion to
and from fat.

Quoted message said:

Nobody argues that. But the key phrase is "one burns".

Human beings are extremely consistent in the amount of
energy they

much can calculate energy requirements with a very high
degree of accuracy.

Quoted message said:

Or retain water.

Nobody retains 300 pounds of water.

Quoted message said:

That happens too and is not quite uncommon in some
diseases (but is out of scope of this thread).

If it is more than mild, it will cause serious problems that
will render completely moot any others.

The average fat person is not carrying extra water, just
extra fat.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach
me directly.

tcomeau said:

If you refuse to accept the realisty in front of your eyes
, then it is no use pursuing this discussion.

You haven't put any reality in front of my eyes. You've made
unsupported assertions--assertions that contradict the laws
of physics. Why should I accept those on your word alone?

Quoted message said:

If the energy values for food (ie. calorie value) are
incorrect or if they are not a static value (ie. the body
can extraxt more or less than the estimated 4 kcal of
energy from a gram of carb or protein, or 9 kcal from
fats) then it is impossible to correctly estimate the
calories needed or the calories extracted from the food,
therefore the calorie calculation proposed to estimate
weight gain or loss are way to fluid to be accurate.

The energy values for food are correct, and they are static.

Quoted message said:

No energy is created from nothing and no energy is lost.
Only the efficiency of nutrient and energy extraction from
the foods varies.

In fact, it scarcely varies at all, and certainly not enough
to provide the excuses for failure that fat people are
constantly grasping for.

Quoted message said:

Yeah, but are the adjustments correct?

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Are they correct in all states that the body experiences
from hour to hour.

They are correct over long periods, and since long periods
are required to gain or lose any real weight, these are the
only periods that matter. Hour-to-hour changes have no
effect on long-term weight control.

Quoted message said:

So far no-one has shown any concrete scientific evidence
that shows that the caloric values were ever validated in
studies.

You haven't shown any concrete scientific evidence of
anything you claim, either.

Quoted message said:

If it did, anyone who wanted to lose weight would.

Exactly, and that happens every day.

Quoted message said:

Only those people who did not restrict calories would
be obese.

Exactly, and that's how it actually works in real life.

Quoted message said:

Anyone could easily lose weight.

EXACTLY.

Quoted message said:

Low-fat and low-calorie foods are in abundance. But that
isn't the case is it?

It IS the case. People DO lose weight by counting and
restricting calories. In fact, it is the only way to
lose weight.

Quoted message said:

What I am saying is that in the mid-ranges of calorie
consumption, it is not the basic number of calories that
trigger fat storage or usage.

In every range and in every situation, a hypocaloric diet
will produce weight loss. There are no exceptions, ever.

Quoted message said:

What triggers fat storage are hormones that are affect by
multiple factors independntly of calories except for the
min-max as indicated above.

See above. A hypocaloric diet is all that is required to
produce weight loss, and it always works. A diet that is not
hypocaloric will not produce weight loss.

Quoted message said:

You are assuming that the 4 cal/g for protein and carbs
and the 9 cal/grams for fat hold in every instance
therfore this weight gain or loss is predictable. That is
where we differ.

They always hold.

Quoted message said:

No one claims that they eat less than they burn. They
claim that they eat less calories and they still fail to
lose weight, or they may actually gain weight on fewer
calories.

They must eat less than they burn to lose weight.

Basically, it reduces to this: People who understand and
acknowledge the importance of total calories consumed versus
total calories burned are able to successfully lose weight.
Those who do not remain fat.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach
me directly.

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 12:28:49 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Moosh:) said:

Because it's usually drunk cold?

In a strict sense, I suppose, but that's like pointing out
that people at sea level expend more calories than people
at an altitude of 1000 metres because the Earth's
gravitational field is stronger at sea level and the
friction of air at sea-level pressure is greater.

In other words, it doesn't matter and can be ignored.

I was just trying to understand what Mirek was getting at,
not suggesting a serious factor to consider. Twenty cal/l is
insignificant, I would have thought.

Quoted message said:

In practice, I think that drinking a cold fluid is more
likely to remove waste heat than to induce exothermic
processes that burn calories. After all, the body is
constantly producing heat that must be removed, anyway. So
in all probability no extra calories at all are burned--and
perhaps less, if the cool water lessens the need to
generate perspiration.

I disagree with the constantly. Well "yes" in Perth today at
41C 🙂 But in winter, I contend that humans are trying to
conserve heat energy in order to maintain their 37C. So a
cold drink in that circumstance may indeed cause a minute
weight loss by the involuntary exercise involved in
shivering 🙂 That's why folks prefer a hot drink, but I
agree it is silly to worry about such minor amounts when
there are such huge errors in estimating calories involved
in the food we eat and the exercise we take.

On 21 Mar 2004 11:11:50 -0600, "randy gallimore"
ran23.quickpros.bizran23.quickpros.bizOpen ↗ posted:

Quoted message said:

Mxsmanic said:

Moosh:) said:

Because it's usually drunk cold?

In a strict sense, I suppose, but that's like pointing out
that people at sea level expend more calories than people
at an altitude of 1000 metres because the Earth's
gravitational field is stronger at sea level and the
friction of air at sea-level pressure is greater.

In other words, it doesn't matter and can be ignored.

In practice, I think that drinking a cold fluid is more
likely to remove waste heat than to induce exothermic
processes that burn calories. After all, the body is
constantly producing heat that must be removed, anyway. So
in all probability no extra calories at all are burned--
and perhaps less, if the cool water lessens the need to
generate perspiration. i drink body balance cold, it ives
me energy, i get exercise, i burn calories

fat, metabolism works well, then buuilding more muscle it
contains 121 nutrients some i would not get because i tend
to stay away from sea food. it is a liquid ionic,
phytonutrient dietary supplement from whole foods that i
need but wouldn't normally get, due to some foods, i would
say,idon't like that, but this is liquid, goes right in
blood stream a lot faster thatn vitamin capsules or pills,
i get it at htttp://ran23healthyoudesrve.com they have been
in business 20 years.

Ummmm.....

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:46:48 +0100, "Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The argument is that proteins and carbs are not always
metabolized

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the 4 kcal/gram and fats are not always metabolized to
produce the 9 kcal/gram.

7 kcal/gram for fat. The numbers are adjusted to account
for their

real

Quoted message said:

influence in weight loss or gain.

Oh, wait a moment.

ADJUSTED!?

Does not it mean that there might be at least some truth in
what tcomeau says?

Is it ALWAYS 7kcal/g, or is it sometimes little bit more
and then little bit less?!

So far, most "calorie is a calorie" experts always said
9kcal/g. Now it is 7kcal. Strange 🙂

In what? Fat you eat, or fat you have synthesised and
stored?

Quoted message said:

Does not it have something to do with usage of that fat?

Of course, but you must account for all calories involved.
If you can't account for any, you must go back to the
drawing board. Waving arms and claimig imaginary evidence
and dismissing all the huge body of existing evidence like
TC does won't help explain anything.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is possible to eat more than one burns and not gain
weight, if the added calories are excreted. However, it
is never possible to eat

less

Quoted message said:

than one burns _without losing weight_. That is a
physical impossibility.

Nobody argues that. But the key phrase is "one burns".

One can only "burn, store or excrete" They must add up to
what goes in, exactly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So fat people who claim that they eat less than they burn
and still

fail

Quoted message said:

to lose weight are either having trouble with arithmetic
or lying.

🙂

Or retain water.

In other words, they don't know what they are doing? Strange
basis for an Earth-shaking new theory?

Quoted message said:

That happens too and is not quite uncommon in some diseases
(but is out of scope of this thread).

Not the scope, but the subject. It is a disease, and not to
do with energy balance.

On 21 Mar 2004 11:59:53 -0800, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

tcomeau said:

You cannot be serious.

I am always serious.

Quoted message said:

It does happen and it has happened and it has been seen
in studies.

No, it has not.

If you refuse to accept the realisty in front of your eyes
, then it is no use pursuing this discussion.

What reality? What are you seeing that no-one else but you
is?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is not creating energy from nothing. No one has
suggested this.

If you eat less than you burn, and you are not burning
fat, then the only way to remain alive is to create
energy from nothing ... which is impossible.

This is why people starve.

If the energy values for food (ie. calorie value) are
incorrect or if they are not a static value (ie. the body
can extraxt more or less than the estimated 4 kcal of
energy from a gram of carb or protein, or 9 kcal from fats)
then it is impossible to correctly estimate the calories
needed or the calories extracted from the food, therefore
the calorie calculation proposed to estimate weight gain or
loss are way to fluid to be accurate.

At last, the penny drops. And there you were running around
with a calorie counter book and a bathroom scale screaming
"Eureka!" and claiming some new principle. The only way to
show the conservation of energy in the human body is in a
metabolic lab. Now make with the evidence for your claimed
new theory or stfu.

Quoted message said:

No energy is created from nothing and no energy is lost.

At last. So you can now explain where every last
calorie goes to?

Quoted message said:

Only the efficiency of nutrient and energy extraction from
the foods varies.

So describe exactly what happens. Are you now admitting that
your claims that a hypocaloric diet can result in weight
gain (fat store) is due to inaccurate estimations?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The argument is that proteins and carbs are not always
metabolized to the 4 kcal/gram and fats are not always
metabolized to produce the 9 kcal/gram.

7 kcal/gram for fat. The numbers are adjusted to account
for their real influence in weight loss or gain.

Yeah, but are the adjustments correct?

No, still estimations in many cases. A good metabolic lab
study will be much more accurate and show that what you
claim is just an artifact of the poor experimental design.

Quoted message said:

Are they correct in all states that the body experiences
from hour to hour. (ie. hormonal states, hunger states,
satiated states, states of hydration, etc).

Please learn some basic physiology. Look, the observed
anomalies are experimental errors. THERE IS NO HORMONAL
EFFECT ON ENERGY BALANCE. It is all supply and demand!

Quoted message said:

That is the question. So far no-one has shown any concrete
scientific evidence that shows that the caloric values were
ever validated in studies.

[censored]. You are back on the roundabout. Calorie counters
are rough estimates. Foods vary widely in just the
constituents, and then the body extracts only roughly
estimated percentages of these from the foods. Then the
exercise taken is only a rough estimate. The principle is
always sound (when measured properly) but the measurements
are difficult to be any more than estimations.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ergo, one cannot use calories to predict weight/fat
gain or loss.

It works perfectly, so obviously one _can_ use them in
this way.

If it did, anyone who wanted to lose weight would.

And anyone who can manage a hypocaloric diet always will.

Quoted message said:

Only those people who did not restrict calories would
be obese.

And they are. ALWAYS!

Quoted message said:

Anyone could easily lose weight.

If they find reducing calories to a hypocaloric diet
easy. Many folks don't, hence the high failure rate.
Compliance problems.

Quoted message said:

Low-fat and low-calorie foods are in abundance. But that
isn't the case is it?

They eat more calories than they burn. Simple. If you eat
four times a food that contains half the calories, you are
still getting twice the calories. Lo cal foods are not
magic, sorry.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No I am not arguing against the laws of thermo. It may
be more accurate to apply the laws of thermo in terms
of the extreme ranges of energy usage but not to
predict weight loss or gain within the mid-range of
nutritional consumption.

The mid-range is not exempt from the laws of
thermodynamics.

That is not what I said. I said that we may be able to
apply the laws of thermo to predict the most fat storage
possible with the number of calories, or we can predict the
most weight loss possible with a minimal amount of
calories. What I am saying is that in the mid-ranges of
calorie consumption, it is not the basic number of calories
that trigger fat storage or usage.

But it is. If however your measurements are poor, you will
be working in the dark. A state which you appear to be very
used to 🙂

Quoted message said:

What triggers fat storage are hormones that are affect by
multiple factors independntly of calories except for the
min-max as indicated above.

Where do you get this strange notion of hormonal
triggering. Look, storage is triggered by excess energy in
the bloodstream over that which is needed. Fat store
utilisation is triggered by need for energy in the
bloodstream. It is so simple.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For instance, one may agree that one will never put on
more weight than is available in calories consumed or
that, conversely, a higher consumption of calories
makes available more energy/food for conversion to fat.
But the actual triggers to the creation and storage of
fats are regulated by the body by hormonal states
affected by the type of foods consumed and amount of
lean body mass, etc. No-one is suggesting that energy
disappears, it just goes thru the system or is used for
processes other than creation of fat stores. No one is
suggesting that energy is created to created to store
fats either, in the case of someone gaining weight on a
lower calories diet. It is being suggested that when
the hormones trigger fat storage the body will use the
available glucose to create the lipids at the expense
of the other processes such as tissue re-building or
cell energy.

It is possible to eat more than one burns and not gain
weight, if the added calories are excreted. However, it
is never possible to eat less than one burns _without
losing weight_. That is a physical impossibility.

You are assuming that the 4 cal/g for protein and carbs
and the 9 cal/grams for fat hold in every instance
therfore this weight gain or loss is predictable. That is
where we differ.

Those numbers are only approximations. Please do some
reading. Didn't you post a good historical description of
the estimating of food energy contents? A met lab study can
feed foods of exactly known energy content. These will be
totally absorbed, as well. Calorie books and a kitchen scale
are very rough. Studies which don't accurately measure ALL
inputs and outputs are useless.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So fat people who claim that they eat less than they burn
and still fail to lose weight are either having trouble
with arithmetic or lying.

No one claims that they eat less than they burn.

Huh? They are doing it all the time.

Quoted message said:

They claim that they eat less calories and they still fail
to lose weight,

Less than what? Less than four times what they need?
Three times?

Quoted message said:

or they may actually gain weight on fewer calories.

See above.

Quoted message said:

You view this as being counter to the laws of thermo and
thus impossible.

I think you are confused about what they claim.

Quoted message said:

I see it as being counter to the belief that the caloric
value assigned to foods are static in all circumstances,
which is not only possible but it is probable.

Foods have an actual calorie content. Sometimes finding this
with any degree of accuracy is problematic with tables and
scales. Nevertheless, it will be an exact number. It doesn't
vary. What may vary is the proportion of a food that is
actually absorbed into the body. This amount is what we are
talking about, not the amount we put into the tube that goes
through our bodies.

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

Quoted message said:

tcomeau said:

If you refuse to accept the realisty in front of your
eyes , then it is no use pursuing this discussion.

You haven't put any reality in front of my eyes. You've
made unsupported assertions--assertions that contradict
the laws of physics. Why should I accept those on your
word alone?

The reality is that obesity rates have increased in spite of
the low-calorie approach to weight control. Is that
unsupported? Sheesh. You are getting pretty darned tiresome.
And one more time, no one is suggesting a contradiction of
the laws of physics. You are a complete idiot and I once
again assert that the calorie theory in itself is
unsupported bay any science whatsoever. Idiot.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the energy values for food (ie. calorie value) are
incorrect or if they are not a static value (ie. the
body can extraxt more or less than the estimated 4 kcal
of energy from a gram of carb or protein, or 9 kcal from
fats) then it is impossible to correctly estimate the
calories needed or the calories extracted from the food,
therefore the calorie calculation proposed to estimate
weight gain or loss are way to fluid to be accurate.

The energy values for food are correct, and they are
static.

Prove it or stfu.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No energy is created from nothing and no energy is lost.
Only the efficiency of nutrient and energy extraction
from the foods varies.

In fact, it scarcely varies at all, and certainly not
enough to provide the excuses for failure that fat people
are constantly grasping for.

How do you know this? References? Don't [censored] on us and tell
us it's raining. Prove it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yeah, but are the adjustments correct?

Yes.

How do you know? References?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are they correct in all states that the body experiences
from hour to hour.

They are correct over long periods, and since long periods
are required to gain or lose any real weight, these are
the only periods that matter. Hour-to-hour changes have no
effect on long-term weight control.

How do you know this? References?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So far no-one has shown any concrete scientific evidence
that shows that the caloric values were ever validated
in studies.

You haven't shown any concrete scientific evidence of
anything you claim, either.

Oddly enough, neither have you. Which is really odd when you
consider that you are supposed to know this based on a
*mountain* of evidence that no one, including you, seem to
be able to bring forward. I

yours?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If it did, anyone who wanted to lose weight would.

Exactly, and that happens every day.

As many as 95 to 98% who attempt to lose weight by
restricting fats and calories FAIL. Losing weigth on a low
calories diet is the exception and not the rule.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Only those people who did not restrict calories would be
obese.

Exactly, and that's how it actually works in real life.

Busllshit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyone could easily lose weight.

EXACTLY.

[censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Low-fat and low-calorie foods are in abundance. But that
isn't the case is it?

It IS the case. People DO lose weight by counting and
restricting calories. In fact, it is the only way to
lose weight.

[censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What I am saying is that in the mid-ranges of calorie
consumption, it is not the basic number of calories that
trigger fat storage or usage.

In every range and in every situation, a hypocaloric diet
will produce weight loss. There are no exceptions, ever.

[censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What triggers fat storage are hormones that are affect
by multiple factors independntly of calories except for
the min-max as indicated above.

See above. A hypocaloric diet is all that is required to
produce weight loss, and it always works. A diet that is
not hypocaloric will not produce weight loss.

[censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are assuming that the 4 cal/g for protein and carbs
and the 9 cal/grams for fat hold in every instance
therfore this weight gain or loss is predictable. That
is where we differ.

They always hold.

[censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No one claims that they eat less than they burn. They
claim that they eat less calories and they still fail to
lose weight, or they may actually gain weight on fewer
calories.

They must eat less than they burn to lose weight.

Basically, it reduces to this: People who understand and
acknowledge the importance of total calories consumed
versus total calories burned are able to successfully lose
weight. Those who do not remain fat.

You are completely out of touch with reality. Unless you can
show me clear evidence or any scientific proof of all this
[censored] you are peddling, I declare my argument won.

You are blowing a lot of smoke but I see no fire, just
smoke.

TC

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

7 kcal/gram for fat. The numbers are adjusted to
account for their

In what? Fat you eat, or fat you have synthesised
and stored?

Ask mxsmanic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Does not it have something to do with usage of that fat?

Of course, but you must account for all calories involved.
If you can't account for any, you must go back to the
drawing board.

Agree. Anyway, while not exactly asked, the question
is whether you can influence BMR by nutrients and to
what degree.

And, BTW, I am NOT speaking about thousands of kcals. If
there is "ketogenic advantage", I do not believe it is
higher than something like 300 kcal. Now given that atkins
dieter is adviced to drink a lot of water each day, it is
quite possible that maybe 100kcal of this advantage is
caused just by increased water intake. Not that unlikely
that other 200kcal would be found in excess of excerted
ketones, increased production of body substances etc...

Well, 300kcal is not what could save you from gaining fat
while overeating, OTOH if your daily "budget" for loosing is
around 1800kcal, this is HUGE difference.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nobody argues that. But the key phrase is "one burns".

One can only "burn, store or excrete" They must add up to
what goes in, exactly.

No question.

Mirek

tcomeau said:

The reality is that obesity rates have increased in spite
of the low-calorie approach to weight control.

No. Obesity rates have increased because nobody is taking
the low-calorie approach. People are consistently
overeating, and that makes them fat.

Quoted message said:

You are getting pretty darned tiresome.

It's very hard to successfully debate with me using ad
hominem and unsupported assertions alone, as I tend to be
relentless in showing the errors.

Quoted message said:

You are a complete idiot and I once again assert that the
calorie theory in itself is unsupported bay any science
whatsoever. Idiot.

See above.

Quoted message said:

Prove it or stfu.

There is no reason to believe that they are not static, and
the successful weight-loss programs built upon the accepted
values make it clear that they are reliable.

I don't know what stfu is.

Quoted message said:

How do you know this?

I read a lot.

Quoted message said:

References? Don't [censored] on us and tell us it's raining.
Prove it.

Who is "us"? You're the only one complaining.

Quoted message said:

How do you know? References?

See above.

Quoted message said:

How do you know this? References?

See above.

Quoted message said:

Oddly enough, neither have you.

But I am logically consistent in that I don't demand it of
others, either. I can successfully debate a position without
resorting to such fallacies.

Quoted message said:

Which is really odd when you consider that you are
supposed to know this based on a *mountain* of evidence
that no one, including you, seem to be able to bring
forward.

What does that say about your position?

Quoted message said:

I readily admit that I have no scientific evidence ...

Then what is the basis for your disagreement with
mainstream science?

If you have no evidence, why do you demand it of others?

Quoted message said:

As many as 95 to 98% who attempt to lose weight by
restricting fats and calories FAIL.

They fail to restrict calories. That's very different from
restricting calories and failing to lose weight, which is
impossible.

Quoted message said:

Losing weigth on a low calories diet is the exception and
not the rule.

If you have a hypocaloric diet, you are guaranteed to lose
weight. It is the exception to the rule only in that very
few people actually undertake hypocaloric diets, despite
their claims to the contrary.

Quoted message said:

Busllshit.

Quoted message said:

[censored].

See my previous comments above. I omit the following four
iterations of the same response for the sake of brevity.

Quoted message said:

You are completely out of touch with reality. Unless you
can show me clear evidence or any scientific proof of all
this [censored] you are peddling, I declare my argument won.

If only declarations could create reality, eh?

Quoted message said:

You are blowing a lot of smoke but I see no fire,
just smoke.

I don't smoke. It must be coming from somewhere else.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach
me directly.

On 21 Mar 2004 21:30:58 -0800, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

tcomeau said:

If you refuse to accept the realisty in front of your
eyes , then it is no use pursuing this discussion.

You haven't put any reality in front of my eyes. You've
made unsupported assertions--assertions that contradict
the laws of physics. Why should I accept those on your
word alone?

The reality is that obesity rates have increased in spite
of the low-calorie approach to weight control. Is that
unsupported? Sheesh.

Sheeesh yourself. Calorie consumption has risen and activity
rates fallen. Where exactly is this low-calorie practice you
refer to? Or are you trying to say in crippled English that
attempting to lower calories but not actually doing so
doesn't work? We were giving you the benefit of the doubt
that you didn't actually mean to make such an idiotically
self-evident statement. Sorry for that. I'll look for the
worst translation of what you say in future. The fact
remains that calories are the only thing affecting weight
status. If you can't lower them, (with whatever tricks work
for you) then you won't lose weight.

Quoted message said:

You are getting pretty darned tiresome.

That's rich! You've been doing this silly tapdancing for
years here.

Quoted message said:

And one more time, no one is suggesting a contradiction of
the laws of physics.

Except you for years? Would you like a dozen quotes? About
three years ago you started a humungous thread titled
"Calorie theory bogus". You have a very selective memory.

Quoted message said:

You are a complete idiot and I once again assert that the
calorie theory in itself is unsupported bay any science
whatsoever. Idiot.

Good argument, Terry. Perhaps another "idiot" in the middle
would balance it out?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the energy values for food (ie. calorie value) are
incorrect or if they are not a static value (ie. the
body can extraxt more or less than the estimated 4 kcal
of energy from a gram of carb or protein, or 9 kcal
from fats) then it is impossible to correctly estimate
the calories needed or the calories extracted from the
food, therefore the calorie calculation proposed to
estimate weight gain or loss are way to fluid to be
accurate.

The energy values for food are correct, and they are
static.

Prove it or stfu.

Go to the library for a change, Terry. You can't really
expect others to do your homework for you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No energy is created from nothing and no energy is
lost. Only the efficiency of nutrient and energy
extraction from the foods varies.

In fact, it scarcely varies at all, and certainly not
enough to provide the excuses for failure that fat people
are constantly grasping for.

How do you know this? References? Don't [censored] on us and tell
us it's raining. Prove it.

After you prove the Sun rises in the East! Don't be so
childish and repetitive. Do you really expect us to
educate you?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yeah, but are the adjustments correct?

Yes.

How do you know? References?

The clear sky is blue. Prove it! Prove it! References! You
are so childish! Grow up, and read a book!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are they correct in all states that the body
experiences from hour to hour.

They are correct over long periods, and since long
periods are required to gain or lose any real weight,
these are the only periods that matter. Hour-to-hour
changes have no effect on long-term weight control.

How do you know this? References?

See above!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So far no-one has shown any concrete scientific
evidence that shows that the caloric values were ever
validated in studies.

You haven't shown any concrete scientific evidence of
anything you claim, either.

Oddly enough, neither have you.

But it is everywhere. Just open your eyes and read. No-one
has EVER seen what you keep referring to. You have been
given several articles, but you dismiss them. Are you
related to my brother in law?

Quoted message said:

Which is really odd when you consider that you are supposed
to know this based on a *mountain* of evidence that no one,
including you, seem to be able to bring forward.

Not can't, Terry, just couldn't be bothered providing you
with a basic education, which so many folks here have
already done, and all you can do is ignore them and screech
for evidence for the bleedin' obvious, or find some tenuous
link between a resercher and industry to dismiss anything
given to you.

Quoted message said:

I

Quoted message said:

yours?

Got to the library, and ask an indulgent librarian. They
sometimes take on cases like yours as a project for their
qualifications. Titles are "Thick Customers, and How to
Help Them".

Don't you think it is strange that you have not a shred of
evidence for what you are claiming? You have been given a
few (from thousands) articles to the contrary. I wouldn't
have spoon fed you with them. Now look what you did with
them. Ignored them!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If it did, anyone who wanted to lose weight would.

Exactly, and that happens every day.

As many as 95 to 98% who attempt to lose weight by
restricting fats and calories FAIL.

Same for most attempts at weight loss. Changing
lifestyles is very difficult for most. Do you have a
relevant point here?

Quoted message said:

Losing weigth on a low calories diet is the exception and
not the rule.

Just like all attempts to change lifestyle. They fail
because compliance is difficult, not because the method does
not work. It does, every time.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Only those people who did not restrict calories would
be obese.

Exactly, and that's how it actually works in real life.

Busllshit.

Good argument. Show us anyone who eats hypocalorically and
doesn't lose weight. (Met lab, of course, you can't trust
patients' memories)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyone could easily lose weight.

EXACTLY.

[censored].

Open your eyes. It happens often and is the only way is
does happen.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Low-fat and low-calorie foods are in abundance. But
that isn't the case is it?

It IS the case. People DO lose weight by counting and
restricting calories. In fact, it is the only way to lose
weight.

[censored].

More good argument. The literature is full of such examples.
Show us just one where a person gains weight on a
hypocaloric diet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What I am saying is that in the mid-ranges of calorie
consumption, it is not the basic number of calories
that trigger fat storage or usage.

In every range and in every situation, a hypocaloric diet
will produce weight loss. There are no exceptions, ever.

[censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What triggers fat storage are hormones that are affect
by multiple factors independntly of calories except for
the min-max as indicated above.

See above. A hypocaloric diet is all that is required to
produce weight loss, and it always works. A diet that is
not hypocaloric will not produce weight loss.

[censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are assuming that the 4 cal/g for protein and carbs
and the 9 cal/grams for fat hold in every instance
therfore this weight gain or loss is predictable. That
is where we differ.

They always hold.

[censored].

Is that the best you can do? I suppose it is, without a
shred of evidence to back your cockeyed ideas.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No one claims that they eat less than they burn. They
claim that they eat less calories and they still fail
to lose weight, or they may actually gain weight on
fewer calories.

They must eat less than they burn to lose weight.

Basically, it reduces to this: People who understand and
acknowledge the importance of total calories consumed
versus total calories burned are able to successfully
lose weight. Those who do not remain fat.

You are completely out of touch with reality.

That really IS rich. Look at the scientific literature.
Crack open some books. Ask your doctor. What reality are you
referring to?

Quoted message said:

Unless you can show me clear evidence or any scientific
proof of all this [censored] you are peddling, I declare my
argument won.

A world full of evidence against your zero evidence and you
claim to "win"? Whatever....

Quoted message said:

You are blowing a lot of smoke but I see no fire,
just smoke.

Where's your fire?