calories - true or false

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

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:43:57 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Well, while your post is excellent, I am afraid you
> share the same opinion with tcomeau 😉

Well it is often argued that calories have no
influence. This of

course is

Well, actually I never heard anybody, including tcomeau,
arguing about no influence of calories.

Yet he's claimed many times here that a hypercaloric diet
can result in fat storage loss. Maybe you haven't read
enough if his drivel 🙂

The two statements are not mutually-exclusive. Unless you
are arguing about the semantic surrounding the term
hypercaloric, which I've never used.

TC

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even Atkins admits that caloric restriction has a large
influence on

weight

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

loss. He comments that while in ketosis if you limit
the total daily

caloric

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

intake while staying ont the same percentages of
nutrition (fats/protein/carbs) the rate of weight loss
will increase. He also

notes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there is an upper limit to the ketogenic advantage, you
can't gorge

yourself

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and expect to lose weight, but simply argues that if
you listen to the satiety response you can. You can not
make the same statement if you

eat a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lot of simple sugars.

Exactly.

The word "weight" is interesting. What does it consist of?

Usually inplies mostly fat when used in the context of
weight loss. Again, more semantics.

TC

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

Quoted message said:

On 17 Mar 2004 07:04:08 -0800, [email hidden]
(tcomeau) wrote:

TC,

The reason this is evoking such a strong response is that
you are challenging the common mythos of our age. The
calorie has replaced the diety.

A brief trip down history alley will show that the
concept of using calories as a basis of human nutritional
needs originated from an unknown graduate student in the
early 1900's.

From that point forward, there has never been any
scientific corroboration of this theory, however, it has
taken on the perception of being scientifically proven
based on its common acceptance.

In short, a myth has become reality.

So, do calories count?

To me, yes and no.

Think about it: I eat a piece of cake that has been burned
to determine it's caloric content. Only problem is that
I'm not going to burn all of that cake for energy. Some of
it will pass through undigested, some will be absorbed,
then excreted.

Since this cake was made with whole wheat flour, it has
Wheat Germ Agglutinin (WGA) a lectin which mimicks the
effects of insulin. Hence, my body will be programmed to
store some of this energy as fat.

Now, if I eat a vegetable or a meat that does not have any
insulin mimicking lectins, my body will not store the
enery as fat.

Of course reality is a bit more complex than this simple
example, but it does serve to illustrate that our bodies
are much more than thermodynamic balancing systems.

We also know that health is a lot more than calories.
While a person may eat adequate calories, they may be
foods that cause him or her to become ill with diseases
like autoimmune disease or cancer.

That was the case with me. I was eating foods that caused
me to develope a life-threatening autoimmune disease
called pemphigus. When I understood that food was much
more than calories, and learned how to feed myself
correctly, I healed. That of course, is the bottom line,
the reason we are all here - a desire to be healthy.

best wishes,

Steve

darkwing.uoregon.eduPemphigusOpen ↗

Good post.

TC

On 19 Mar 2004 18:28:04 -0800, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

tcomeau said:

This, of course, means that there is no other factor
other than the sheer number of calories to the
exclusion of all other bio-chemical influences in the
body.

Correct.

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

They didn't lose fat stores.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From day one I've been called all kinds of names,
villified if you will, because I have the nerve,
stupidity, or some other strange affliction that causes
me to question the very basis of the modern science of
nutrition.

That is inevitable when one crusades against accepted and
proven scientific knowledge.

Accepted maybe. Proven? Prove it. I haven't seen any
scientific proof, hence this thread.

You go around with your head in a bag. You have been told
many, many times over the years here. You don't even
understand the most basic body functions. Do some basic
reading before you return here, please.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yet, in all this time, no-one has actually shown where
the science of the calorie theory came from.

Yes, they have. It's based on the laws of thermodynamics.
Conservation of energy.

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

Huh? WTF does this mumbo-jumbo mean?

Quoted message said:

It is a tad more complex than basic pure energy values.

And this makes laws of physics inapplicable?

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.

It applies to EVERYTHING. No exceptions.

Quoted message said:

I am not attempting to break any laws here, just trying
point out that we are applying them in an physically
invalid and mathematically unsound manner and a
scientifically unproven way.

They apply EVERYWHERE to EVERYTHING. If you have any
evidence to the contrary....

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:10:43 +0100, "Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think you would not argue there are people with very
high BMR that never get

fat

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and others with extremly low BMR that never get thin.

Nope, BMR doesn't vary very much from individual to
individual. Ten percent seems to ring a bell.

OK, but it varies. Even 10% difference means that energy
balance is not a whole story.

That's the extreme variation. Most people are pretty much
the same. You are wasting your time trying to explain weight
loss by BMR variation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now the question is whether you can influence BMR by
nutrition

(either

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

macro or micro).

Nope, a single individual's BMR varies even less than
between individuals. IIRC. It changes slowly with age.

So it is less, but it varies.

Again, not enough to explain weight loss. Weight gain is
caused by eating too much and/or doing too little.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Some protein intake and basal fat intake is likely to be
consumed by building tissues and other body components.

They still weigh, last time I looked 🙂

But they need not to be fat.

But folks are talking about weight loss, remember? That
includes all bodily constituents.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you replace it with sugar, some of that fat/protein
will likely be synthetised by body, but probably less
than would be used otherwise.

And the point? A gram of fat weighs the same as a gram of
fat, or a gram of protein....

Yes, and the same is true for gram of skin or gram of
nails.

What are skin and nails made of?

Quoted message said:

Still, I would prefere lossing fat to lossing hair 🙂

So, eat less and/or exercisre more. Simple.

On 19 Mar 2004 18:15:24 -0800, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

Cool. One person, other than myself, who gets it.

And that doesn't tell you something?

On 19 Mar 2004 18:19:25 -0800, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:43:57 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

> > Well, while your post is excellent, I am afraid you
> > share the same opinion with tcomeau 😉
>
> Well it is often argued that calories have no
> influence. This of
course is

Well, actually I never heard anybody, including tcomeau,
arguing about no influence of calories.

Yet he's claimed many times here that a hypercaloric diet
can result in fat storage loss. Maybe you haven't read
enough if his drivel 🙂

The two statements are not mutually-exclusive.

Well please show one metabolic lab study where it is
demonstrated. You keep claiming it happens, yet show
NO evidence.

Quoted message said:

Unless you are arguing about the semantic surrounding the
term hypercaloric, which I've never used.

Try a Google search. You have used it many times over the
years. You just quibble when you are cornered.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Even Atkins admits that caloric restriction has a
> large influence on

weight

Quoted message said:

> loss. He comments that while in ketosis if you limit
> the total daily

caloric

Quoted message said:

> intake while staying ont the same percentages of
> nutrition (fats/protein/carbs) the rate of weight loss
> will increase. He also

notes

Quoted message said:

> there is an upper limit to the ketogenic advantage,
> you can't gorge

yourself

Quoted message said:

> and expect to lose weight, but simply argues that if
> you listen to the satiety response you can. You can
> not make the same statement if you

eat a

Quoted message said:

> lot of simple sugars.

Exactly.

The word "weight" is interesting. What does it
consist of?

Usually inplies mostly fat when used in the context of
weight loss. Again, more semantics.

No, that pathetic study you hang all your credibility on
hasn't a clue what the tiny weight loss observed actually
consists of.

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.

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.

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.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So it is less, but it varies.

Again, not enough to explain weight loss. Weight gain is
caused by eating too much and/or doing too little.

Ok, let us try something simple - water.

Water has zero calories, but still negative energy balance
of about 80kcal per gallon (AFAIK).

Another example is fiber - it has a lot of energy in it, but
is not digested.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But they need not to be fat.

But folks are talking about weight loss, remember? That
includes all bodily constituents.

Well, speaking about weight loss, calorie balance arguments
are absolutely void - because weight loss includes water
loss and I hope even you would not argue rapid initial water
loss of ketogenic diet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, and the same is true for gram of skin or gram
of nails.

What are skin and nails made of?

Protein and calcium?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Still, I would prefere lossing fat to lossing hair 🙂

So, eat less and/or exercisre more. Simple.

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.

Mirek

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 10:42:43 +0100, "Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So it is less, but it varies.

Again, not enough to explain weight loss. Weight gain is
caused by eating too much and/or doing too little.

Ok, let us try something simple - water.

Water has zero calories, but still negative energy balance
of about 80kcal per gallon (AFAIK).

I don't follow. What has it to do with energy balance?
Whatever, 20 cal/l seems immaterial.

Quoted message said:

Another example is fiber - it has a lot of energy in it,
but is not digested.

Therefore it is irrelevant to the energy balance of the
human body. It doesn't normally enter the body AFAIK.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But they need not to be fat.

But folks are talking about weight loss, remember? That
includes all bodily constituents.

Well, speaking about weight loss, calorie balance arguments
are absolutely void - because weight loss includes water
loss and I hope even you would not argue rapid initial
water loss of ketogenic diet.

No, TC actually laughs at this. Thinks it's [censored]. I've
tried to tell him many times. I'm interested in fat store
loss. This is a central part of energy balance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, and the same is true for gram of skin or gram of
nails.

What are skin and nails made of?

Protein and calcium?

Protein, mostly, I thought.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Still, I would prefere lossing fat to lossing hair 🙂

So, eat less and/or exercisre more. Simple.

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.

I don't think I've discussed how to achieve it. There are
many tricks used. It is arguably the hardest part of losing
weight (fat). But denying that calories (energy balance) is
central to weight control is dooming one to failure IMHO.

Mirek Fidler said:

Water has zero calories, but still negative energy balance
of about 80kcal per gallon (AFAIK).

Water does not have a "negative energy balance."

Quoted message said:

Another example is fiber - it has a lot of energy in it,
but is not digested.

See above.

Quoted message said:

Well, speaking about weight loss, calorie balance
arguments are absolutely void - because weight loss
includes water loss and I hope even you would not argue
rapid initial water loss of ketogenic diet.

The weight loss that is important in weight control is
loss of fat.

Quoted message 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.

All you have to do is eat less and exercise more.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Water has zero calories, but still negative energy
balance of about 80kcal per gallon (AFAIK).

Water does not have a "negative energy balance."

Term is bad choosen, agree. But in overal energy balance,
water has negative impact.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, speaking about weight loss, calorie balance
arguments are absolutely void - because weight loss
includes water loss and I

hope

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

even you would not argue rapid initial water loss of
ketogenic diet.

The weight loss that is important in weight control is
loss of fat.

See the thread. Moosh was speaking about weight loss.

Mirek

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?

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email hidden]

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

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

More rhetorical tap dancing, more lining up of strawmen,
more obfascation, you have nothing but the desire to support
a current diet fad with no supporting evidence to support
it. Even the folk selling the books don't say anything even
coming close to this non-scientific hogwash, one only
wonders why you do. The new theory is your's to support by
evidence, it is not a burden of those holding other ideas.
It is only an admission as to why people even attempt to
interact with you. This is about a dozen times now we have
gone full circle. Not long ago you wanted only one study, I
gave it you, leading the question below, we awit your "real"
answer when you have finished tap dancing. You have proven
nothing, you have presented no evidence, you have only re-
asserted a now very tired half baked notion time and again
and you are fully exposed in your complete inability to do
otherwise but tap dancing.

Quoted message said:

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

This may be a more realistic application of the laws of
thermo in humans. This does not diminish the laws of thermo
nor does it argue that they are generally invalid.

TC

WRONG! It occurs in several places, beginning in the mouth.
Yes, a large portion of the digestion actually takes place
in the small bowel (not bowels), 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.

"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.

Mirek Fidler said:

But in overal energy balance, water has negative impact.

How?

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

On 20 Mar 2004 17:11:33 GMT, [email hidden] posted:

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.

Well you will need infinite patience. There are others who
have been waiting years. He tends to go to ground when I
appear, BTW . I bring the best out in him... 🙂

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 22:13:07 +0100, "Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Water has zero calories, but still negative energy
balance of about 80kcal per gallon (AFAIK).

Water does not have a "negative energy balance."

Term is bad choosen, agree. But in overal energy balance,
water has negative impact.

Because it's usually drunk cold? Or some endothermic
solution/hydration of something?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, speaking about weight loss, calorie balance
arguments are absolutely void - because weight loss
includes water loss and I

hope

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

even you would not argue rapid initial water loss of
ketogenic diet.

The weight loss that is important in weight control is
loss of fat.

See the thread. Moosh was speaking about weight loss.

Well I was referring to others who mentioned weight loss
without specifying what exactly was lost. I agree that
"weight" loss should mean fat loss in this context.