Atkins vindicated yet again!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Let me tell you a very simple physical fact. You don't
lose weight by emitting infrared radiation;

Actually you do. E = Mc^2, okay?

Michael, we are in the realm of low energy physics here.
It means we can forget about relativistic effects
altogether. I know you know that.

I knew you knew it as well, but I couldn't resist pointing
it out. :-)

"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Lyle McDonald said:

You lose weight when stored calories (i.e. glycogen,
fatty acids) are oxidized (combusted with oxygen) and
generate energy and heat.

Ok, how many pounds are 2kcals?

Quoted message said:

I suppose if you want to consider water loss (zero
calories but is excreted) or waste products as part of
that you can.

What do you mean, I can? If I don't do it, I'm ignoring
the principle of conservation of mass. Of course I, and
every knowledgeable person, needs to take into
consideration the quantity of matter you exchange with the
environment.

Quoted message said:

But quantiatively, it is minor.

Oh really?

Quoted message said:

Water contains zero calories regardless of how much is
lost and urea and the rest is also a small contributor.

So, if you pee half a pound of water (zero calories), you
don't lose any weight?

--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-
one percent of the people may take away the rights of the
other forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

What percentage of weight loss would you estimate comes from
waste products
(i.e., urine and excrement only)?

-CF

Socialism is a Mental Disease said:

Lyle McDonald said:

You lose weight when stored calories (i.e. glycogen, fatty
acids) are oxidized (combusted with oxygen) and generate
energy and heat.

Ok, how many pounds are 2kcals?

Quoted message said:

I suppose if you want to consider water loss (zero
calories but is excreted) or waste products as part of
that you can.

What do you mean, I can? If I don't do it, I'm ignoring
the principle of conservation of mass. Of course I, and
every knowledgeable person, needs to take into
consideration the quantity of matter you exchange with the
environment.

Quoted message said:

But quantiatively, it is minor.

Oh really?

Quoted message said:

Water contains zero calories regardless of how much is
lost and urea and the rest is also a small contributor.

So, if you pee half a pound of water (zero calories), you
don't lose any weight?

This has to be a troll, surely nobody can be this dumb.
C'mon, serious now, this is a joke, right?

Socialism is a Mental Disease said:

Lyle McDonald said:

You lose weight when stored calories (i.e. glycogen,
fatty acids) are oxidized (combusted with oxygen) and
generate energy and heat.

Ok, how many pounds are 2kcals?

Generated from the oxidation of which nutrient?

1 gram FFA generates 9 kcal when oxidized 1 gram glucose
generates 4 when oxidized

So 2 calories from glucose would be .5 grams. 2 calories
from FFA would be 1/9th of a gram.

The conversion of one pound of bodyfat (containing ~454
grams of triglcyerides although the actual number is alittle
less since 10% or so of fat is water) will generate 3,500
calories (a measure of heat energy). Basic conversion of
mass to energy.

Convert it to metric yourself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suppose if you want to consider water loss (zero
calories but is excreted) or waste products as part of
that you can.

What do you mean, I can? If I don't do it, I'm ignoring
the principle of conservation of mass. Of course I, and
every knowledgeable person, needs to take into
consideration the quantity of matter you exchange with the
environment.

Except that the majority of relevant (read: non-water)
weight loss is NOT from excretion of anything.

It's conversion of mass (of a stored fuel) to energy
(ATP, heat).

So losing bodyfat (what matters most) is a functino of
mobilizing fatty acids from fat stores, having them
transport to muscle or liver tissue where they are oxidized
w/in the mitochondria, generating ATP and heat (depending on
the efficiency of coupling between oxidation and energy
production). Nothing is excreted.

A loss of muscle ass (generally undesirable) occurs when
muscle protein is degraded to amino acids which are either
oxidized (BCAA and a couple of others) in the muscle or
converted to gltamine or alanine which go to the liver where
they are converted to glucose which is used for energy. This
produces an excess nitro group (from amino acid deamination)
which is made into urea which does have to be excreted.

The majority of real tissue loss is still about the
conversion of a mass of stored fuel to energy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Water contains zero calories regardless of how much is
lost and urea and the rest is also a small contributor.

So, if you pee half a pound of water (zero calories), you
don't lose any weight?

Of course you do but as it contains zero calories, it is
irrelevant. It's also not real (read: tissue weight).

If you were to drink a half pund of water, it come
right back.

Waht has changed with regards to adipose tissue or muscle
mass or glycogen or protein stores? Zero.

Now, if you want to be a moron and not be worried about real
tissue losses, by all means focus on water balance. Just
realiz taht it's neither adding nor subtracting any actual
energy to or from the body.

Lyle

Havirrion said:

Lyle McDonald said:

Socialism is a Mental Disease said:

On 05 May 2004 19:05:09 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:

>If we are doing matter in and matter out balances, a
>diet of hay would provide max carbs, max out and max
>weight loss; and would be a "bomb" of a kind. Thus far,
>the energy balance model accounts for weight status
>well, what have you in support of matter differences in
>typical diets that would make a substantual difference?
>

Let me tell you a very simple physical fact. You don't
lose weight by emitting infrared radiation; you lose
weight by excreting matter. Any model that doesn't
consider this simple physical fact is a flawed one.

You lose weight when stored calories (i.e. glycogen,
fatty acids) are oxidized (combusted with oxygen) and
generate energy and heat. I suppose if you want to
consider water loss (zero calories but is excreted) or
waste products as part of that you can. But
quantiatively, it is minor. Water contains zero calories
regardless of how much is lost and urea and the rest is
also a small contributor.

Lyle

It is a waste of time, he is convinced thee is some kind
of metabolic hocus pocus going on.

Seems to be a common malady. But I've said my peice, he can
wallow in his own ignorance. He mgiht wish to read the paper
below if he desires to get out of that bog.

Lyle

***
1: Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 May;79(5):899S-906S.

Is a calorie a calorie?

Buchholz AC, Schoeller DA.

Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-
Madison.

The aim of this review was to evaluate data regarding
potential thermodynamic mechanisms for increased rates of
weight loss in subjects consuming diets high in protein
and/or low in carbohydrate. Studies that compared weight
loss and energy expenditure in adults consuming diets high
in protein and/or low in carbohydrate with those in adults
consuming diets low in fat were reviewed. In addition,
studies that measured the metabolizable energy of proteins,
fats, and carbohydrates were reviewed. Diets high in protein
and/or low in carbohydrate produced an approximately 2.5-kg
greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-
specific differences in the availability of dietary energy
nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these
differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a
calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient
composition of the diet. Further research on differences in
the composition of weight loss and on the influence of
satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed
to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets
high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.

Havirrion said:

Lyle McDonald said:

Socialism is a Mental Disease said:

On 05 May 2004 19:05:09 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:

>If we are doing matter in and matter out balances, a
>diet of hay would provide max carbs, max out and max
>weight loss; and would be a "bomb" of a kind. Thus far,
>the energy balance model accounts for weight status
>well, what have you in support of matter differences in
>typical diets that would make a substantual difference?
>

Let me tell you a very simple physical fact. You don't
lose weight by emitting infrared radiation; you lose
weight by excreting matter. Any model that doesn't
consider this simple physical fact is a flawed one.

You lose weight when stored calories (i.e. glycogen,
fatty acids) are oxidized (combusted with oxygen) and
generate energy and heat. I suppose if you want to
consider water loss (zero calories but is excreted) or
waste products as part of that you can. But
quantiatively, it is minor. Water contains zero calories
regardless of how much is lost and urea and the rest is
also a small contributor.

Lyle

It is a waste of time, he is convinced thee is some kind of
metabolic hocus pocus going on.

No, you just don't understand what he's getting at. If
you lose exacly 1lb of fat, then exactly one pound of
mass is going to leave your body, somehow, some way.
Some of that mass is going to leave your lungs as carbon
that was oxidized to CO2. Also some mass leaves the
lungs as water. Some mass will be excreted through your
skin as oil, keratin, water. Some mass will go into the
growth of hair and nails that you either cut or get worn
away. Some is other dead cells that get shed, such as
the skin. And of course mass will leave your ass and
kidneys in various forms.

Of course, all those chemicals that leave your body will
have an average chemical potential energy that is lower than
the chemicals you ingested and inspired. But still, if a
person is losing a pound of mass per week, then you can be
sure that there is one less pound of mass going in them
every week than is going out.

-----------
Proton Soup

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an
endless series of hobgoblins."
- - H.L. Mencken

Havirrion said:

It is a waste of time, he is convinced thee is some kind of
metabolic hocus pocus going on.

For some reason, you think Nutrition tramples de Laws of
Physics. What

--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

Crispy Fish said:

What percentage of weight loss would you estimate comes
from waste products
(i.e., urine and excrement only)?

Pretty close to 100%, ignoring perspiration.

--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

Havirrion said:

Quoted message said:

So, if you pee half a pound of water (zero calories), you
don't lose any weight?

This has to be a troll, surely nobody can be this dumb.
C'mon, serious now, this is a joke, right?

If you think this is a joke, I suggest you weigh yourself
before and after peeing and see whether your weight has
changed or not.

--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

Lyle McDonald said:

Seems to be a common malady. But I've said my peice, he can
wallow in his own ignorance. He mgiht wish to read the
paper below if he desires to get out of that bog.

You don't even acknowledge the basic law of the conservation
of mass and you call me an ignorant?

--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

Proton Soup said:

Havirrion said:

Lyle McDonald said:

Socialism is a Mental Disease wrote:

>On 05 May 2004 19:05:09 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:
>
>
>>If we are doing matter in and matter out balances, a
>>diet of hay would provide max carbs, max out and max
>>weight loss; and would be a "bomb" of a kind. Thus far,
>>the energy balance model accounts for weight status
>>well, what have you in support of matter differences in
>>typical diets that would make a substantual difference?
>>
>
>Let me tell you a very simple physical fact. You don't
>lose weight by emitting infrared radiation; you lose
>weight by excreting matter. Any model that doesn't
>consider this simple physical fact is a flawed one.

You lose weight when stored calories (i.e. glycogen,
fatty acids) are oxidized (combusted with oxygen) and
generate energy and heat. I suppose if you want to
consider water loss (zero calories but is excreted) or
waste products as part of that you can. But
quantiatively, it is minor. Water contains zero calories
regardless of how much is lost and urea and the rest is
also a small contributor.

Lyle

It is a waste of time, he is convinced thee is some kind
of metabolic hocus pocus going on.

No, you just don't understand what he's getting at. If
you lose exacly 1lb of fat, then exactly one pound of
mass is going to leave your body, somehow, some way.
Some of that mass is going to leave your lungs as carbon
that was oxidized to CO2. Also some mass leaves the
lungs as water. Some mass will be excreted through your
skin as oil, keratin, water. Some mass will go into the
growth of hair and nails that you either cut or get worn
away. Some is other dead cells that get shed, such as
the skin. And of course mass will leave your ass and
kidneys in various forms.

Of course, all those chemicals that leave your body will
have an average chemical potential energy that is lower
than the chemicals you ingested and inspired. But still,
if a person is losing a pound of mass per week, then you
can be sure that there is one less pound of mass going in
them every week than is going out.

-----------
Proton Soup

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the
populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by an endless series of hobgoblins."
- - H.L. Mencken

You are a moron.

Lyle McDonald said:

Quoted message said:

Ok, how many pounds are 2kcals?

Generated from the oxidation of which nutrient? 1 gram FFA
generates 9 kcal when oxidized 1 gram glucose generates 4
when oxidized

So 2 calories from glucose would be .5 grams. 2 calories
from FFA would be 1/9th of a gram.

The conversion of one pound of bodyfat (containing ~454
grams of triglcyerides although the actual number is
alittle less since 10% or so of fat is water) will generate
3,500 calories (a measure of heat energy). Basic conversion
of mass to energy.

Convert it to metric yourself.

Ok, so by losing 3500 calories through heat, one's weight
drops by roughly 400 grams. Is that what you are saying?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suppose if you want to consider water loss (zero
calories but is excreted) or waste products as part of
that you can.

What do you mean, I can? If I don't do it, I'm ignoring
the principle of conservation of mass. Of course I, and
every knowledgeable person, needs to take into
consideration the quantity of matter you exchange with
the environment.

Except that the majority of relevant (read: non-water)
weight loss is NOT from excretion of anything.

No!? Where the heck does all that mass go, then?

--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

Havirrion said:

Socialism is a Mental Disease wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Water contains zero calories regardless of how much is
lost and urea and the rest is also a small contributor.

So, if you pee half a pound of water (zero calories), you
don't lose any weight?

This has to be a troll, surely nobody can be this dumb.
C'mon, serious now, this is a joke, right?

He is a neo-con. As Utne Reader, and a few other orgs have
already made comments, their purpose is to enrage and
distract, not to actually say anything purposeful. They
know they can't win an argument, so they distract away
from it and tire you out. You are falling for it hook,
line and sinker.

Quoted message said:

It's conversion of mass (of a stored fuel) to energy
(ATP, heat).

With all respect, for conversion of mass to energy there is
a nice formula

E = mc^2

but I believe that it

a) yields energy regardless of kind of mass (like
protein / fat)
b) yields significantly more energy than 9cal/g

So as long as biochemistry goes, mass can be converted to
another mass yielding ATP and heat, but that another mass
will weight exactly the same.

Mirek

I haven't read the full paper, but FWIW, this seems to make
the opposite point than was intended. This seems to support
the idea that a calorie is NOT a calorie, i.e. the
unexplained effect of high protein and/or low carb diets,
and the need for further research to try to explain it.

Lyle McDonald said:

Quoted message said:

It is a waste of time, he is convinced thee is some kind
of metabolic

Quoted message said:

hocus pocus going on.

Seems to be a common malady. But I've said my peice, he
can wallow in his own ignorance. He mgiht wish to read the
paper below if he desires to get out of that bog.

Lyle

***
1: Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 May;79(5):899S-906S.

Is a calorie a calorie?

Buchholz AC, Schoeller DA.

Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-
Madison.

The aim of this review was to evaluate data regarding
potential thermodynamic mechanisms for increased rates of
weight loss in subjects consuming diets high in protein
and/or low in carbohydrate. Studies that compared weight
loss and energy expenditure in adults consuming diets high
in protein and/or low in carbohydrate with those in adults
consuming diets low in fat were reviewed. In addition,
studies that measured the metabolizable energy of
proteins, fats, and carbohydrates were reviewed. Diets
high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an
approximately 2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of
treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in
the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy
expenditure could explain these differences in weight
loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie
regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet.
Further research on differences in the composition of
weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance
with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the
observed increase in weight loss with diets high in
protein and/or low in carbohydrate.

Havirrion said:

Quoted message said:

Proton Soup

You are a moron.

What did I just tell you?

--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

Havirrion said:

Proton Soup said:

Havirrion said:

Lyle McDonald wrote:

>Socialism is a Mental Disease wrote:
>
>
>>On 05 May 2004 19:05:09 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If we are doing matter in and matter out balances, a
>>>diet of hay would provide max carbs, max out and max
>>>weight loss; and would be a "bomb" of a kind. Thus
>>>far, the energy balance model accounts for weight
>>>status well, what have you in support of matter
>>>differences in typical diets that would make a
>>>substantual difference?
>>>
>>
>>Let me tell you a very simple physical fact. You don't
>>lose weight by emitting infrared radiation; you lose
>>weight by excreting matter. Any model that doesn't
>>consider this simple physical fact is a flawed one.
>
>
>You lose weight when stored calories (i.e. glycogen,
>fatty acids) are oxidized (combusted with oxygen) and
>generate energy and heat. I suppose if you want to
>consider water loss (zero calories but is excreted) or
>waste products as part of that you can. But
>quantiatively, it is minor. Water contains zero
>calories regardless of how much is lost and urea and
>the rest is also a small contributor.
>
>Lyle

It is a waste of time, he is convinced thee is some kind
of metabolic hocus pocus going on.

No, you just don't understand what he's getting at. If
you lose exacly 1lb of fat, then exactly one pound of
mass is going to leave your body, somehow, some way.
Some of that mass is going to leave your lungs as carbon
that was oxidized to CO2. Also some mass leaves the
lungs as water. Some mass will be excreted through your
skin as oil, keratin, water. Some mass will go into the
growth of hair and nails that you either cut or get worn
away. Some is other dead cells that get shed, such as
the skin. And of course mass will leave your ass and
kidneys in various forms.

Of course, all those chemicals that leave your body will
have an average chemical potential energy that is lower
than the chemicals you ingested and inspired. But still,
if a person is losing a pound of mass per week, then you
can be sure that there is one less pound of mass going
in them every week than is going out.

Quoted message said:

You are a moron.

No, Soup is right and I can see the 'logic' as he
described it.

If you lose 1 lb of mass, you have lost 1 lb of mass. By
definition, it means one less lb of mass went into you than
out of you. Which is a way

It still doesn't change the fact that said loss of bodymass
is mainly an energetic conversion causing it but you're
still 1 lb of mass lighter at the end of the day.

Lyle

On Wed, 05 May 2004 21:45:12 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease

root@localhost. said:

Proton Soup said:

No, you just don't understand what he's getting at. If
you lose exacly 1lb of fat, then exactly one pound of
mass is going to leave your body, somehow, some way.
Some of that mass is going to leave your lungs as carbon
that was oxidized to CO2. Also some mass leaves the
lungs as water. Some mass will be excreted through your
skin as oil, keratin, water. Some mass will go into the
growth of hair and nails that you either cut or get worn
away. Some is other dead cells that get shed, such as
the skin. And of course mass will leave your ass and
kidneys in various forms.

Of course, all those chemicals that leave your body will
have an average chemical potential energy that is lower
than the chemicals you ingested and inspired. But still,
if a person is losing a pound of mass per week, then you
can be sure that there is one less pound of mass going in
them every week than is going out.

Nice to meet you, Proton Soup! It's always nice to find
other intelligent creatures in the Universe. Be prepared to
be called ignorant, though. As it happens with all [censored],
the ones I've been talking to think they are geniuses.

Well, he didn't appreciate the explanation, so I guess I
failed. I really don't mind the abuse though. If he wants to
call me a moron, then it's pretty much up to him to set me
straight and explain where I've gone wrong.

-----------
Proton Soup

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an
endless series of hobgoblins."
- - H.L. Mencken

"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Crispy Fish said:

What percentage of weight loss would you estimate comes
from waste

products

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(i.e., urine and excrement only)?

Pretty close to 100%, ignoring perspiration.

--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-
one percent of the people may take away the rights of the
other forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

So if I stop eating food, I can expect to maintain my
current weight indefinitely?

-CF

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

Quoted message said:

Havirrion said:

Socialism is a Mental Disease wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Water contains zero calories regardless of how much is
>lost and urea and the rest is also a small contributor.
>

So, if you pee half a pound of water (zero calories),
you don't lose any weight?

This has to be a troll, surely nobody can be this dumb.
C'mon, serious now, this is a joke, right?

He is a neo-con. As Utne Reader, and a few other orgs have
already made comments, their purpose is to enrage and
distract, not to actually say anything purposeful. They
know they can't win an argument, so they distract away
from it and tire you out. You are falling for it hook,
line and sinker.

your ridiculous partisan polictical ideas know no-end.

whether somebody is or isn't a neocon has little relevance
on this discussin.

furthermore, of course this is what Utne reader will say
about cons. so what? if you only read one POV, you only
get one POV.

try some variety. open your mind.

whit