calorie measure

Burn it and measure heat produced, a calorie is defined
as to the amount of temperature rise in a standard
amount of water.

Quoted message said:

How are calories measured? Let's say I have a donut and
want to measure the calories. What do I do

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

Quoted message said:

How are calories measured? Let's say I have a donut and
want to measure the calories. What do I do

Either follow the methods as outlined in this document:

nal.usda.govah74.pdfOpen ↗

Energy Value of Foods .....Basis and Derivation

Or just look it up in a table.

TC

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:20:22 GMT, [email hidden] posted:

Quoted message said:

How are calories measured? Let's say I have a donut and
want to measure the calories. What do I do

Look up some tables and estimate from them. Or use a bomb
calorimeter with some adjustments, or analyse the
constituents and add up all the calorie contents of these.
Every "formation or breaking" of every chemical bond has an
exact amount of energy involved.

On 16 Apr 2004 10:29:07 -0700, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

How are calories measured? Let's say I have a donut and
want to measure the calories. What do I do

Either follow the methods as outlined in this document:

nal.usda.govah74.pOpen ↗
df

Energy Value of Foods .....Basis and Derivation

Or just look it up in a table.

TC

So you don't really know? Nice historic document though
which you obviously can't follow, or don't want to.

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

Quoted message said:

On 16 Apr 2004 10:29:07 -0700, [email hidden]
(tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<af47d154-
[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

How are calories measured? Let's say I have a donut and
want to measure the calories. What do I do

Either follow the methods as outlined in this document:

nal.usda.govaOpen ↗
h74.pdf

Energy Value of Foods .....Basis and Derivation

Or just look it up in a table.

TC

So you don't really know? Nice historic document though
which you obviously can't follow, or don't want to.

I know how the caloric valuations are/were calculated
(guessed at, factored, approximated, guesstimated, hoped
for, etc, call it what you will). Oh sure, you can easily
calculate the number (of calories) in a food item, but then
try to apply that number for weight gain or loss in the real
world and you enter a huge grey zone. It is a virtually
useless number when used to predict weight loss or gain. 98%
failure rate. If it was that easy we would all easily
control our weight, but many, many people, who genuinely
restrict calories, still fail to lose weight.

And that is my point. We've expended huge amounts of energy
(no pun intended) to calculate and guess at the caloric
values of food, but no energy has been expended to confirm
that it is, in fact, a useful number in the real world in
all physiological states and circumstances. And there is the
achilles heel of the nutritional sciences.

My understanding of the history and methodology of how
calories were initially calculated, and not verified in the
real world, is the reason why I question its applicability
to weight gain and/or loss. I am not asking these questions
out of ignorance. I am asking these questions because I know
how ignorant todays scientists are about the very
fundamental basis and history of their science. The calorie
methodology has failed on virtually every level, from its
very flawed inception and initial calculation(
guesstimation), to its questionable initial application to
weight loss and thru to its 98% failure rate in the real
world. It is a fundamentally flawed concept that has not
stood up to the scrutiny in the real world. It is a dead
concept. The only problem is that most people still
erroneously believe it actually works.

TC

On 20 Apr 2004 18:58:14 -0700, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"98 percent fail | eat less fail to lose weight"

Folk trying the lc diet fail for eating too much, just
like the non lc folk, after one year, and weight is
regained. When calories are accounted for by measurment,
weight is lost. Those folk with good intentions and/or
who really don't know how many calories are passing their
lips will not lose. When you finally read the articles to
which you have been directed, the research used in
reference shows examples of how consuming less calories
then are needed to maintain current weight status result
in weight loss. To provide info to the contrary, for
which you are conspicuous for not doing, would have to
show how similar fewer amounts of calories didn't result
in weight loss.

I have made my points in past discussions with regards to
showing evidence to show the efficacy of LCing and the
failure of low calorie diets. Feel free to review those
posts if you want to examine the evidence I presented.

I remember. None.

Quoted message said:

This discussion is not about me proving anything about low-
carbing. It is about the mainstream supporters simply being
asked to prove their assertions about the use of calories
to predict weight gain or loss, and their failure to show
any proof to support what they consider to be the very
foundation of their science. For something so fundamental
to the nutritional sciences, I would have assumed that the
science behind it would be readily available and known to
anyone trained in the field or anyone interested in
pursuing it. Why is the proof of the calorie theory so hard
to find? Does it even exist?

With regards to your contention about LCers regaining all
their weight back after one year, the study that supposedly
showed that result did not show it in the actual numbers in
the study. The authors gave it that spin in subsequent
interviews and the headlines reflected that false
assertion. I haven't seen too many studies with such
blatant false spin placed on the numbers found. Of course,
it was paid for by industry and the authors were clearly
biased. Your repetition of that nonsense is a continuation
of a clear falsehood. In the future, you may want to go
further than the headlines and actually read the study.

Unbelievable! Thud!

On 20 Apr 2004 07:14:25 -0700, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On 16 Apr 2004 10:29:07 -0700, [email hidden]
(tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<af47d15-
[email hidden]>...
> How are calories measured? Let's say I have a donut
> and want to measure the calories. What do I do

Either follow the methods as outlined in this document:

nal.usda.govahOpen ↗
74.pdf

Energy Value of Foods .....Basis and Derivation

Or just look it up in a table.

TC

So you don't really know? Nice historic document though
which you obviously can't follow, or don't want to.

I know how the caloric valuations are/were calculated
(guessed at, factored, approximated, guesstimated, hoped
for, etc, call it what you will).

From what you say, you have't grasped the basic physics of
chemical change and energy transactions.

Quoted message said:

Oh sure, you can easily calculate the number (of calories)
in a food item, but then try to apply that number for
weight gain or loss in the real world and you enter a huge
grey zone.

Not at all. You can get a rough enough estimate of the
calories in your food (with care) and this works perfectly
well for weight loss/gain strategies.

Quoted message said:

It is a virtually useless number when used to predict
weight loss or gain.

Maybe because of your basic misunderstanding, you don't make
reasonable estimates? I mean, if you think it is useless,
perhaps you neglect sufficient care?

Quoted message said:

98% failure rate.

Yes, compliance is usually the most difficult hurdle in
losing weight.

Quoted message said:

If it was that easy we would all easily control our weight,
but many, many people, who genuinely restrict calories,
still fail to lose weight.

Umm, no they don't. Or you would be able to find at least
ONE metabolic lab study that showed this. It never has,
despite perhaps millions of met lab observations.

Quoted message said:

And that is my point. We've expended huge amounts of energy
(no pun intended) to calculate and guess at the caloric
values of food, but no energy has been expended to confirm
that it is, in fact, a useful number in the real world in
all physiological states and circumstances.

Of course we have, and every observation ever made confirms
it. You and your cockeyed theory are the odd man out without
a shred of evidence for what you claim

Quoted message said:

And there is the achilles heel of the nutritional sciences.

In you vivid and pathological imagination.

You equate compliance failure with calorie diappearance.
Sorry, come back with evidence and we'll look at it.

Quoted message said:

My understanding of the history and methodology of how
calories were initially calculated, and not verified in the
real world, is the reason why I question its applicability
to weight gain and/or loss.

You have read an interesting old book about some early
measurements of energy contents of some common foods and
constituents. What you fail to realise is that as
biochemistry became more understood (pathways) heat energy
transactions could more easily be calculated from known
exact tables of molecules than by empirical means usually
used today for finding the gross energy in complex mixtures.

Quoted message said:

I am not asking these questions out of ignorance.

Well I'm certain that you don't think so, but that's what
worries me.

Quoted message said:

I am asking these questions because I know how ignorant
todays scientists are about the very fundamental basis and
history of their science.

You only think this because of your basic ignorance of
thermochemistry. The basics were done on ALL molecules,
not just foodstuffs. Foods are but a few molecules in the
immense tables of all molecules. They won't stand out in
the literature coz they are but one of many millions of
molecules in tables. There is nothing new to publish
except the accurately known energy contents of these
different bonds.

Quoted message said:

The calorie methodology has failed on virtually every
level, from its very flawed inception and initial
calculation( guesstimation),

And you have't got a clue what happened since that, have
you.

Quoted message said:

to its questionable initial application to weight loss and
thru to its 98% failure rate in the real world.

Compliance and calorie disappearance confusion noted.

Quoted message said:

It is a fundamentally flawed concept that has not stood up
to the scrutiny in the real world.

Then you should be able to show one accurate experiment
where it has failed.

Quoted message said:

It is a dead concept.

No, your discriminatory brain cells are 🙂

Quoted message said:

The only problem is that most people still erroneously
believe it actually works.

Perhaps because all observations show it does, and not one
shows the contrary? Seems reasonable to me.

I have no interest in your lc posts, they do not bear on the
calorie balance and weight status question. If the quality
of that info is of the kind you have provided on the
question, zero, little would be gained. You asked for just
one example, it was provided, you didn't read it, and you
continue to assert in other variations a silly notion for
which you can provide no support. That is the current status
of the question, the current "read my old posts" only being
the latest red herring dodge to avoid an embarassing corner
into which you have backed yourself. I have shown research
which shows eat x amount of calories and weight was lost in
a controlled lab setting. To counter you need to show
similar info where similar calories were consumed and weight
was not lost.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There has been no evidence, only variations on a
rhetorical tap dance, opfacasion and assertion as fact.
You asked for even one bit of evidence, you were directed
to the articles and didn't read them. One wonders about
good faith in such situations. You have nothing but
unsupported claims and different deckchair patterns on a
pie in the sky titanic concept. After one year most folk
have regained weight regardless of "diet" used, including
lc, because they resumed eating calories in excess
ofneed.

I've been posting on this group for about 3 years. In that
time I have posted a great deal of information including
citations and references. You may want to go back further
than a couple of weeks worth of my postings to find the
information that you claim I never provided. Your ignorance
of that information is due to you coming in in the middle
of a discussion or, in this case, a series of discussions,
where I ask for information instead of providing it.

I have read EVERYTHING that you have posted or referenced.
If I missed some specific bit of information that you
intended me to read then I would suggest that you give me a
direct quote or a specific link to a specific page that you
feel directly answers my question. Just pointing out a vast
collection of general information on metabolism does not
suffice as an answer to the specific question that I posed.

The fact is that you have failed to answer the question. I
can only conclude that the answer does not exist or that
you are ignorant of the answer. Either way you are unable
to add to the discussion so the question becomes: Why are
you wasting your time and mine? FOAD, troll.

TC

You did not give me one example of anything even remotely
related to my question. You failed. End of story. The
calorie theory has no scientific proof.

TC

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

Quoted message said:

I have no interest in your lc posts, they do not bear on
the calorie balance and weight status question. If the
quality of that info is of the kind you have provided on
the question, zero, little would be gained. You asked for
just one example, it was provided, you didn't read it, and
you continue to assert in other variations a silly notion
for which you can provide no support. That is the current
status of the question, the current "read my old posts"
only being the latest red herring dodge to avoid an
embarassing corner into which you have backed yourself. I
have shown research which shows eat x amount of calories
and weight was lost in a controlled lab setting. To
counter you need to show similar info where similar
calories were consumed and weight was not lost.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There has been no evidence, only variations on a
rhetorical tap dance, opfacasion and assertion as fact.
You asked for even one bit of evidence, you were
directed to the articles and didn't read them. One
wonders about good faith in such situations. You have
nothing but unsupported claims and different deckchair
patterns on a pie in the sky titanic concept. After one
year most folk have regained weight regardless of
"diet" used, including lc, because they resumed eating
calories in excess ofneed.

I've been posting on this group for about 3 years. In
that time I have posted a great deal of information
including citations and references. You may want to go
back further than a couple of weeks worth of my postings
to find the information that you claim I never provided.
Your ignorance of that information is due to you coming
in in the middle of a discussion or, in this case, a
series of discussions, where I ask for information
instead of providing it.

I have read EVERYTHING that you have posted or
referenced. If I missed some specific bit of information
that you intended me to read then I would suggest that
you give me a direct quote or a specific link to a
specific page that you feel directly answers my question.
Just pointing out a vast collection of general
information on metabolism does not suffice as an answer
to the specific question that I posed.

The fact is that you have failed to answer the question.
I can only conclude that the answer does not exist or
that you are ignorant of the answer. Either way you are
unable to add to the discussion so the question becomes:
Why are you wasting your time and mine? FOAD, troll.

TC

Ah, now we finally come to the question, ok , i'll play, let's pretend the
info wasn't provided before or you missed it somehow. Instead of
pretneding to have read all to which you were directed , why not just
aknowledge you didn't read it before and ask again. You asked for justone
example where research shows that using calories can demonstrate a change
in weight status. I posted 2 or more thime the specific web address for a
recent web artcle, one on a series about weight loss approaches. Here it
is for you once again:

medscape.com469768 3Open ↗

As more then once before, I suggest that you provide any
opposing information, not your thoughts or opinions or
reactions, based on the info presented there and the further
references on which the content was based, they are given in
a reference section. The article deals with the variation in
weight status change when calories are changed. This address
specificlly the idea of the bell curve reactions when all
the sums of all the pathways for energy use are measured in
an indivudual or group. If you are to sustain your model
that calories don't account for weight stutus, then you must
show similar research showing that similar calorie balance
doesn't produce weight status change. You have been given
one, more actually in the one article, example of the
calorie balance model and weight status change; that is what
you asked for and now you have it at last. At last not
because it was not provided before but because face
prevented you reading it.

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

Quoted message said:

Ah, now we finally come to the question, ok , i'll play,
let's pretend the info wasn't provided before or you
missed it somehow. Instead of pretneding to have read all
to which you were directed , why not just aknowledge you
didn't read it before and ask again. You asked for justone
example where research shows that using calories can
demonstrate a change in weight status. I posted 2 or more
thime the specific web address for a recent web artcle,
one on a series about weight loss approaches. Here it is
for you once again:

medscape.com469768 3Open ↗

As more then once before, I suggest that you provide any
opposing information, not your thoughts or opinions or
reactions, based on the info presented there and the
further references on which the content was based, they
are given in a reference section. The article deals with
the variation in weight status change when calories are
changed. This address specificlly the idea of the bell
curve reactions when all the sums of all the pathways for
energy use are measured in an indivudual or group. If you
are to sustain your model that calories don't account for
weight stutus, then you must show similar research showing
that similar calorie balance doesn't produce weight status
change. You have been given one, more actually in the one
article, example of the calorie balance model and weight
status change; that is what you asked for and now you have
it at last. At last not because it was not provided before
but because face prevented you reading it.

Well you finally got the balls to actually try to answer the
question instead of just blowing smoke up my ass. Good for
you. At least you tried. Took you long enough too.

I, thoroughly and with bated breath, read the vague and
general explanation on the page that you referenced. And I
went a step further and checked and read the "science" that
the vague and general explanation referenced. I also went a
further step and checked the integrity of the authors of the
studies cited. Here is a bit of information about the
"science" that you chose to put forward as scientific proof
of the validity of the calorie theory.

Quote from the page referenced:
*****
Studies suggest considerable interindividual variation in
response to standardized obesity treatments. For example, in
middle-aged women, a 16-week, 1200 kcal/day diet resulted in
an average weight loss of 9.6 ± 3.0 kg (10.7% of initial
body weight), with a wide range of weight loss from 6.5% to
16.7% of initial body weight.[11] Controlled energy deficit
interventions showed similar heterogeneity. For example, the
amount of fat lost, measured by dual energy x-ray
absorptiometry
(DXA), ranged from 3.1-12.4 kg in young women fed a very low-
calorie diet (382 kcal/day) for 28 days on an inpatient
unit.[12,13] In young men, the mean loss of body weight
after a total energy deficit of 58,317 kcal induced by
exercise training was 5 kg, with a range of 1-8 kg.[14]

Experimental as well as clinical data support these
outcomes. Among 9 different strains of mice subjected to a
high-fat diet for 7 weeks, there was a 6-fold difference in
adiposity gain between the most sensitive and the most
resistant strains.[15] In young men, overfeeding by 1000
kcal/day for 100 days resulted in a mean weight gain of 8.1
kg, but also a 3-fold difference between the highest and
lowest gainers.[16] Similarly, overfeeding men and women by
1000 kcal/day for 8 weeks resulted in a range of weight gain
from 1.4-7.2 kg, along with a 10-fold difference (58-687
kcal/day) in fat storage.[17]
*******

the studies cited to back up the above vague explanation:

**********
Gallagher D, Kovera AJ, Clay-Williams G, et al. Weight loss
in postmenopausal obesity: no adverse alterations in body
composition and protein metabolism. Am J Physiol Endocrinol
Metab. 2000;279:E124-131.

About the authors:

Gallagher D, Kovera AJ, Clay-Williams G, Agin D, Leone P,
Albu J, Matthews DE, Heymsfield SB

Dwight E. Matthews, Ph.D., Department of Medicine,
University of Vermont, Burlington. Research on epinephrine
and amino acids supported by Leopold Pharma. (Am. J. Clin.
Nutr. 1997;65:1765-73)

Steven Heymsfield, St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital, New
York. Led Roche-funded study of Xenical (orlistat) on weight-
loss (Wall Street Journal 1/20/99). Did research sponsored
in part by Thompson Medical Company concerning hydroxycitric
acid and weight loss (J. Am. Med. Asso. 1998;280:1596-600).
Study on leptin/obesity supported in part by Amgen, Inc. (J.
Am. Med. Asso. 1999; 82:1568-75). According to the
Washington Post, “. . . in 1997 he participated in a
Metabolife-financed study to test Metabolife 356, the most
popular ephedra-based weight-loss product on the
market.”; “...granted an interview to the ABC
television show “20/20” in which he said his own
research did not prove that Metabolife 356 was safe.”;
Heymsfield is listed on the Slim-Fast Web site . . . as a
trustee of the Slim-Fast Nutrition Institute.”
(Washington Post, 7/23/00; p.A16)

A weight drug salesman.... imagine that.

********

Hainer V, Stunkard AJ, Kunesova M, Parizkova J, Stich V,
Allison DB. Intrapair resemblance in very low calorie diet-
induced weight loss in female obese identical twins. Int J
Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000;24:1051-1057.

Hainer V, Stunkard A, Kunesova M, Parizkova J, Stich V,
Allison DB. A twin study of weight loss and metabolic
efficiency. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001;25:533-537.

The infamous DB Allison, one of the most prolific garbage
science writers of the century:

His CV:

cpmcnet.columbia.eduDACVframe.hOpen ↗
tml

from his CV:

INDUSTRY  Consultant to Millenium Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated on issues related to the genetic influences on
obesity.  Consultant to AMGEN on issues related to
the clinical study of leptin as an anti-obesity
therapeutic, 1999.  Consultant to Regeneron
Pharmaceuticals on issues related to the treatment of human
obesity, 1999.  Consultant to Wilentz, Goldman, &
Spitzer, Attorneys at Law regarding OTC weight-loss product
claims litigation, 1999.  Consultant to McKenna &
Cuneo, L.L.P., Attorneys at Law regarding anti-obesity drug
litigation, 1998 to present.  Consultant to Fisons
Corporation & Mediva Pharmaceuticals regarding anti-obesity
drug litigation, 1998.  Consultant to Spadoro &
Hilson, Attorneys at Law regarding actuarial lifetable
estimation for obese decedents, 1998.  Consultant
to Eli Lilly Pharmaceuticals on weight gain with
neuroleptic medication, 1997-Present.  Consultant
to Pfizer Central Research, Inc. on obesity related issues,
1997-Present.  Consultant to Proctor & Gamble
regarding olestra (Olean); 1998.  Consultant to
Decision Resources on the pharmacological treatment of
obesity, October, 1999.  Member of "Panel of
Evaluators" for Current Drugs Ltd, a company that provides
expert information on drugs under research and development,
1998.  Consultant to Research Testing Laboratories,
Inc. regarding clinical trial of weight loss preparation
for Slim America, 1996.  Member of the Nutritional
Advisory Board for Nabisco, Inc., 1994 - Present. 
Member of the United Soybean Panel's Nutrition Advisory
Board, 1996 - Present.  Member of the Wheat
Council's panel of experts, 1998 - Present. 
Consulted with Knoll Pharmaceuticals regarding issues in
the pharmacological treatment of obesity - Sept, 1996.
 Consulted with Knoll Pharmaceuticals regarding
issues in the treatment of obesity - April, 1997. 
Consultant to Corning HTA (for a project sponsored by Wyeth
Ayerst) regarding the economic benefits of obesity
treatment, 1996-1997.  Consultant to the journal
Patient Care on an article regarding the pharmacological
treatment of obesity, 1997.  Consulted with Glaxo
Pharmaceuticals regarding issues in the pharmacological
treatment of obesity - Sept, 1996.

Corrupt to the bone. This guy is not a scientist, he is
a salesman.

*****

West DB, Boozer CN, Moody DL, Atkinson RL. Dietary obesity
in nine inbred mouse strains. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab.
1992;262(6 Pt
2):R1025-1032.

Mice? How is this relevant to humans? Also about the
main author:

Richard Atkinson, M.D., Professor of medicine and
nutritional sciences, University of Wisconsin. Director, Beers-
Murphy Clinical Nutrition Center. Co-founder and president,
American Obesity Association. Consultant to Best Foods (CPC
International), Boots Pharmaceuticals, Cambridge Plan
International, Eli Lilly, Gates Pharmaceuticals, Glaxo, Glaxo-
Wellcome, Interneuron, Just Help Yourself, Knoll
Pharmaceutical, Lederle, Pfizer, Ross Laboratories, Slim
Fast, Thompson Medical, Wyeth-Ayerst. Industry- sponsored
lecturer: Boots Pharmaceuticals, Hoffman-LaRoche,
Interneuron, Knoll Pharmaceuticals, Ross Laboratories, Slim
Fast, Wyeth Ayerst. Research Support: AH Robins, Cambridge
Plan International, DuPont Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Gates
Pharmaceuticals, Mead Johnson, Natural Nutrition, Thompson
Medical, Weight Watchers Foundation, Natural Nutrition, LTD
(Norway). (resumé). Scientific advisor, Dannon Institute,
1998 (Dannon Institute ad, J. Am. Diet. Assoc., 11/98)

Gee... another salesman...

******

None of these studies contain even a grain of scientific
integrity or validity. This is nothing but a bunch of
marketing nonsense. The epitome of garbage science. When I
asked for proof I expected some real science to be put
forward, not this kind of [censored]. Try again buddy.

TC

The exact url was posted at least 2 times, maybe more, so
don't pretend now that you have finaly provoked me to come
up with something at last. Nay, you could no longer stand
the loss of face and couldn't stand the heat and finaly
came on bended knee to ask me for what was given before but
you ignored.

Quoted message said:

Well you finally got the balls to actually try to answer

the question

Quoted message said:

instead of just blowing smoke up my ass. Good for you. At
least you tried. Took you long enough too.

Thank you for posting the exact kind of info for which you
had asked only one single example be given, you will note
several examples are discussed, all with no counter info to
show that similar levels of calories involved didn't result
in change in weight status. Your now familiar and very tired
strawman tactic to see if authors recieve research support
from commercial intrests is totally beside the point and
irrelevant. It is the numbers son, the numbers. You have to
show numbers to the contrary. If you persist in your miss
aimed tactic to divert attention, show there was fraud in
the research. You didn't consult the research, most of it is
not available on line. Unless you spent sevral hours in a
library you didn't read the material, especially the
national institute of health stuff. Your reaction to the
article is irrelevant, it is the numbers son, it's the
numbers you must counter with research showing the contrary.
You lost and you lost big.

Quoted message said:

I, thoroughly and with bated breath, read the vague and
general explanation on the page that you referenced. And I
went a step further and checked and read the "science" that
the vague and general explanation referenced. I also went a
further step and checked the integrity of the authors of
the studies cited. Here is a bit of information about the
"science" that you chose to put forward as scientific proof
of the validity of the calorie theory.

Quote from the page referenced:
*****
Studies suggest considerable interindividual variation in
response to standardized obesity treatments. For example,
in middle-aged women, a 16-week, 1200 kcal/day diet
resulted in an average weight loss of 9.6 ± 3.0 kg (10.7%
of initial body weight), with a wide range of weight loss
from 6.5% to 16.7% of initial body weight.[11] Controlled
energy deficit interventions showed similar heterogeneity.
For example, the amount of fat lost, measured by dual
energy x-ray absorptiometry
(DXA), ranged from 3.1-12.4 kg in young women fed a very
low-calorie diet (382 kcal/day) for 28 days on an
inpatient unit.[12,13] In young men, the mean loss of
body weight after a total energy deficit of 58,317
kcal induced by exercise training was 5 kg, with a
range of 1-8 kg.[14]

Experimental as well as clinical data support these
outcomes. Among 9 different strains of mice subjected to a
high-fat diet for 7 weeks, there was a 6-fold difference in
adiposity gain between the most sensitive and the most
resistant strains.[15] In young men, overfeeding by 1000
kcal/day for 100 days resulted in a mean weight gain of 8.1
kg, but also a 3-fold difference between the highest and
lowest gainers.[16] Similarly, overfeeding men and women by
1000 kcal/day for 8 weeks resulted in a range of weight
gain from 1.4-7.2 kg, along with a 10-fold difference (58-
687 kcal/day) in fat storage.[17]
*******

the studies cited to back up the above vague explanation:

My ISP can beat up your ISP.

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

Quoted message said:

The exact url was posted at least 2 times, maybe more, so
don't pretend now that you have finaly provoked me to come
up with something at last. Nay, you could no longer stand
the loss of face and couldn't stand the heat and finaly
came on bended knee to ask me for what was given before
but you ignored.

Quoted message said:

Well you finally got the balls to actually try to answer

the question

Quoted message said:

instead of just blowing smoke up my ass. Good for you. At
least you tried. Took you long enough too.

Thank you for posting the exact kind of info for which you
had asked only one single example be given, you will note
several examples are discussed, all with no counter info
to show that similar levels of calories involved didn't
result in change in weight status. Your now familiar and
very tired strawman tactic to see if authors recieve
research support from commercial intrests is totally
beside the point and irrelevant. It is the numbers son,
the numbers. You have to show numbers to the contrary. If
you persist in your miss aimed tactic to divert attention,
show there was fraud in the research. You didn't consult
the research, most of it is not available on line. Unless
you spent sevral hours in a library you didn't read the
material, especially the national institute of health
stuff. Your reaction to the article is irrelevant, it is
the numbers son, it's the numbers you must counter with
research showing the contrary. You lost and you lost big.

Quoted message said:

I, thoroughly and with bated breath, read the vague and
general explanation on the page that you referenced. And
I went a step further and checked and read the "science"
that the vague and general explanation referenced. I also
went a further step and checked the integrity of the
authors of the studies cited. Here is a bit of
information about the "science" that you chose to put
forward as scientific proof of the validity of the
calorie theory.

Quote from the page referenced:
*****
Studies suggest considerable interindividual variation in
response to standardized obesity treatments. For example,
in middle-aged women, a 16-week, 1200 kcal/day diet
resulted in an average weight loss of 9.6 ± 3.0 kg (10.7%
of initial body weight), with a wide range of weight loss
from 6.5% to 16.7% of initial body weight.[11] Controlled
energy deficit interventions showed similar
heterogeneity. For example, the amount of fat lost,
measured by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry
(DXA), ranged from 3.1-12.4 kg in young women fed a very
low-calorie diet (382 kcal/day) for 28 days on an
inpatient unit.[12,13] In young men, the mean loss
of body weight after a total energy deficit of
58,317 kcal induced by exercise training was 5 kg,
with a range of 1-8 kg.[14]

Experimental as well as clinical data support these
outcomes. Among 9 different strains of mice subjected to
a high-fat diet for 7 weeks, there was a 6-fold
difference in adiposity gain between the most sensitive
and the most resistant strains.[15] In young men,
overfeeding by 1000 kcal/day for 100 days resulted in a
mean weight gain of 8.1 kg, but also a 3-fold difference
between the highest and lowest gainers.[16] Similarly,
overfeeding men and women by 1000 kcal/day for 8 weeks
resulted in a range of weight gain from 1.4-7.2 kg, along
with a 10-fold difference (58-687 kcal/day) in fat
storage.[17]
*******

the studies cited to back up the above vague explanation:

"My ISP can beat up your ISP."

Only on a low carb diet, while balanced on one calorie,
suspended over his weight status, and holding an autographed
picture of atkins behind his back.