flaws in calorie theory



T

Tcomeau

Guest
The calorie theory says that weight management in humans is a simple matter of calories-consumed vs
calories-expended. It is suggested that this is a matter of the second Law of Thermodynamics which
states essentially that energy is conserved in a closed system, in other words, all calories have to
be accounted for, none is *created* and none is *lost*.

The flaws in this theory:

1) The human body is not a closed system. Duh!

2) The theory assumes that *all* food that is consumed is broken down *completely* into energy, in
its *entirety*, in *all* circumstances, at *all* times. This is an incredibly absurd assumption.

This theory ignores the fact that each of the three macro-nutrients, fats, proteins and
carbohydrates, are metabolized differently and used to various degrees for tissue rebuilding and
energy needs in different ways at different times depending of the state of the body.

Each nutrient breaks down differently and each nutrient affects various hormones and in turn may
affect how the body uses the nutrients in various states of hunger or satiety. The amount and
quality of the food itself changes the metabolism on an on-going minute by minute basis.

The second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to weight management in humans.

I challenge anyone to provide us with the name(s) of the researcher(s) or scientist(s) who showed
beyond a doubt that the 2nd Law of Thermo applies to the human body and give us the names of the
study or study that first proved it.

This is the very foundation of our nutritional beliefs. Something as fundamental and as crucial as
this is to the nutritional sciences should be well documented and easy to find.

TC
 
Well, you should come up with some evidence supporting your challenge.

not the other way around.

For example, if you find someone who did a study and found people who consumed more calories than
they spent, and lost weight, that would support your challenge.

The notion of calories is based on a supposition that the body can derive a certain amount of energy
from certain foods, and that it can also convert glucose to fat and vice versa. It is also further
stated that energy can be either stored or spent, and due to the law of conservation of energy

energy in new food = increase in stored energy - energy expenditure.

It has nothing to do with the argument that a body is a closed system. It is not a closed system as
energy is consumed as well as spent externally.

Second law of thermodynamics states that entropy of a system can only increase. It has nothing to do
with energy. You have little understanding of physics and should not invoke arguments based on a
science of which you have no understanding.

i

In article <[email protected]>, tcomeau wrote:
> The calorie theory says that weight management in humans is a simple matter of calories-consumed
> vs calories-expended. It is suggested that this is a matter of the second Law of Thermodynamics
> which states essentially that energy is conserved in a closed system, in other words, all calories
> have to be accounted for, none is *created* and none is *lost*.
>
> The flaws in this theory:
>
> 1) The human body is not a closed system. Duh!
>
> 2) The theory assumes that *all* food that is consumed is broken down *completely* into energy, in
> its *entirety*, in *all* circumstances, at *all* times. This is an incredibly absurd
> assumption.
>
> This theory ignores the fact that each of the three macro-nutrients, fats, proteins and
> carbohydrates, are metabolized differently and used to various degrees for tissue rebuilding and
> energy needs in different ways at different times depending of the state of the body.
>
> Each nutrient breaks down differently and each nutrient affects various hormones and in turn may
> affect how the body uses the nutrients in various states of hunger or satiety. The amount and
> quality of the food itself changes the metabolism on an on-going minute by minute basis.
>
> The second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to weight management in humans.
>
> I challenge anyone to provide us with the name(s) of the researcher(s) or scientist(s) who showed
> beyond a doubt that the 2nd Law of Thermo applies to the human body and give us the names of the
> study or study that first proved it.
>
> This is the very foundation of our nutritional beliefs. Something as fundamental and as crucial as
> this is to the nutritional sciences should be well documented and easy to find.
>
> TC
 
To consider your spectulation seriously you would have to provide support for it. No one says that
the conversion of food differently happens or that the different energy pathways might come out with
slightly different storage of energy. The laws about energy in systems is firmly established, with
no known exceptions, except for the one you are about to provide us with support... In the old days
a lumberjack consumed 10000 caleries per day, we relative sedintary folk more likely about 1800, and
both can have the same bmi, to what do you attribute that in light of your spectulations?

>The calorie theory says that weight management in humans is a simple matter of calories-consumed vs
>calories-expended. It is suggested that this is a matter of the second Law of Thermodynamics which
>states essentially that energy is conserved in a closed system, in other words, all calories have
>to be accounted for, none is *created* and none is *lost*.
>
>The flaws in this theory:
>
>1) The human body is not a closed system. Duh!
>
>2) The theory assumes that *all* food that is consumed is broken down *completely* into energy, in
> its *entirety*, in *all* circumstances, at *all* times. This is an incredibly absurd assumption.
>
>This theory ignores the fact that each of the three macro-nutrients, fats, proteins and
>carbohydrates, are metabolized differently and used to various degrees for tissue rebuilding and
>energy needs in different ways at different times depending of the state of the body.
>
>Each nutrient breaks down differently and each nutrient affects various hormones and in turn may
>affect how the body uses the nutrients in various states of hunger or satiety. The amount and
>quality of the food itself changes the metabolism on an on-going minute by minute basis.
>
>The second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to weight management in humans.
>
>I challenge anyone to provide us with the name(s) of the researcher(s) or scientist(s) who showed
>beyond a doubt that the 2nd Law of Thermo applies to the human body and give us the names of the
>study or study that first proved it.
>
>This is the very foundation of our nutritional beliefs. Something as fundamental and as crucial as
>this is to the nutritional sciences should be well documented and easy to find.
>
>TC
 
tcomeau <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:

> The calorie theory says that weight management in humans is a simple matter of calories-consumed
> vs calories-expended. It is suggested that this is a matter of the second Law of Thermodynamics
> which states essentially that energy is conserved in a closed system, in other words, all calories
> have to be accounted for, none is *created* and none is *lost*.
>
> The flaws in this theory:
>
> 1) The human body is not a closed system. Duh!
>
> 2) The theory assumes that *all* food that is consumed is broken down *completely* into energy, in
> its *entirety*, in *all* circumstances, at *all* times. This is an incredibly absurd
> assumption.
>
> This theory ignores the fact that each of the three macro-nutrients, fats, proteins and
> carbohydrates, are metabolized differently and used to various degrees for tissue rebuilding and
> energy needs in different ways at different times depending of the state of the body.
>
> Each nutrient breaks down differently and each nutrient affects various hormones and in turn may
> affect how the body uses the nutrients in various states of hunger or satiety. The amount and
> quality of the food itself changes the metabolism on an on-going minute by minute basis.
>
> The second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to weight management in humans.
>
> I challenge anyone to provide us with the name(s) of the researcher(s) or scientist(s) who showed
> beyond a doubt that the 2nd Law of Thermo applies to the human body and give us the names of the
> study or study that first proved it.
>
> This is the very foundation of our nutritional beliefs. Something as fundamental and as crucial as
> this is to the nutritional sciences should be well documented and easy to find.

I'd like to see a pointer to this theory as well - so I can see what you are criticising.

For example, who asserted that all food that is consumed is broken down completely into
available energy?

I've never heard of this before. It seems unlikely that a human body exactly matches a bomb
calorimeter in its ability to utilise energy - it is more likely that some small quantites of energy
will remain undigested - and be excreted - especially if you don't chew your food up very well.

Incidentally, it /is/ possible to apply thermodynamic laws to open systems - /provided/ you keep
track of the flux through the boundary.

For example the law of conservation of energy can still be usefully applied to open systems - once
energy entering and leaving the system is accounted for.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
 
Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... <snip>

>
> For example, who asserted that all food that is consumed is broken down completely into
> available energy?
>

To be more precise, the calorie theory implies that all proteins are broken down to 4 cal per gram,
and fat to 9 cal/g and carbs to 4 cals/g .... in every single instance regardless of the nutritional
state of the body. Whether you are starved, overfed, protein deficient, obese, etc. etc. And
completely independent of any hormonal or other systemic balances or imbalances.

TC
 
see below

tcomeau wrote:

> The calorie theory says that weight management in humans is a simple matter of calories-consumed
> vs calories-expended. It is suggested that this is a matter of the second Law of Thermodynamics
> which states essentially that energy is conserved in a closed system, in other words, all calories
> have to be accounted for, none is *created* and none is *lost*.
>
> The flaws in this theory:
>
> 1) The human body is not a closed system. Duh!
>
> 2) The theory assumes that *all* food that is consumed is broken down *completely* into energy, in
> its *entirety*, in *all* circumstances, at *all* times. This is an incredibly absurd
> assumption.
>
> This theory ignores the fact that each of the three macro-nutrients, fats, proteins and
> carbohydrates, are metabolized differently and used to various degrees for tissue rebuilding and
> energy needs in different ways at different times depending of the state of the body.
>
> Each nutrient breaks down differently and each nutrient affects various hormones and in turn may
> affect how the body uses the nutrients in various states of hunger or satiety. The amount and
> quality of the food itself changes the metabolism on an on-going minute by minute basis.
>
> The second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to weight management in humans.
>
> I challenge anyone to provide us with the name(s) of the researcher(s) or scientist(s) who showed
> beyond a doubt that the 2nd Law of Thermo applies to the human body and give us the names of the
> study or study that first proved it.
>
> This is the very foundation of our nutritional beliefs. Something as fundamental and as crucial as
> this is to the nutritional sciences should be well documented and easy to find.
>
> TC

SCIENCE has little or nothing to do with it!

COMMON SENSE does. B-0b1
 
se below

[email protected] wrote:

> To consider your spectulation seriously you would have to provide support for it. No one says that
> the conversion of food differently happens or that the different energy pathways might come out
> with slightly different storage of energy. The laws about energy in systems is firmly established,
> with no known exceptions, except for the one you are about to provide us with support... In the
> old days a lumberjack consumed 10000 caleries per day, we relative sedintary folk more likely
> about 1800, and both can have the same bmi, to what do you attribute that in light of your
> spectulations?
>
> >The calorie theory says that weight management in humans is a simple matter of calories-consumed
> >vs calories-expended. It is suggested that this is a matter of the second Law of Thermodynamics
> >which states essentially that energy is conserved in a closed system, in other words, all
> >calories have to be accounted for, none is *created* and none is *lost*.
> >
> >The flaws in this theory:
> >
> >1) The human body is not a closed system. Duh!
> >
> >2) The theory assumes that *all* food that is consumed is broken down *completely* into energy,
> > in its *entirety*, in *all* circumstances, at *all* times. This is an incredibly absurd
> > assumption.
> >
> >This theory ignores the fact that each of the three macro-nutrients, fats, proteins and
> >carbohydrates, are metabolized differently and used to various degrees for tissue rebuilding and
> >energy needs in different ways at different times depending of the state of the body.
> >
> >Each nutrient breaks down differently and each nutrient affects various hormones and in turn may
> >affect how the body uses the nutrients in various states of hunger or satiety. The amount and
> >quality of the food itself changes the metabolism on an on-going minute by minute basis.
> >
> >The second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to weight management in humans.
> >
> >I challenge anyone to provide us with the name(s) of the researcher(s) or scientist(s) who showed
> >beyond a doubt that the 2nd Law of Thermo applies to the human body and give us the names of the
> >study or study that first proved it.
> >
> >This is the very foundation of our nutritional beliefs. Something as fundamental and as crucial
> >as this is to the nutritional sciences should be well documented and easy to find.
> >
> >TC

Havae ya'll ever heard the WORD: "BALANCE"..B-0b1
 
Ignoramus17103 wrote:

> Well, you should come up with some evidence supporting your challenge.
>
> not the other way around.
>
> For example, if you find someone who did a study and found people who consumed more calories than
> they spent, and lost weight, that would support your challenge.
>
> The notion of calories is based on a supposition that the body can derive a certain amount of
> energy from certain foods, and that it can also convert glucose to fat and vice versa. It is
> also further stated that energy can be either stored or spent, and due to the law of
> conservation of energy
>
> energy in new food = increase in stored energy - energy expenditure.
>
> It has nothing to do with the argument that a body is a closed system. It is not a closed system
> as energy is consumed as well as spent externally.
>
> Second law of thermodynamics states that entropy of a system can only increase. It has nothing to
> do with energy. You have little understanding of physics and should not invoke arguments based on
> a science of which you have no understanding.
>
> i
>
> In article <[email protected]>, tcomeau wrote:
> > The calorie theory says that weight management in humans is a simple matter of calories-consumed
> > vs calories-expended. It is suggested that this is a matter of the second Law of Thermodynamics
> > which states essentially that energy is conserved in a closed system, in other words, all
> > calories have to be accounted for, none is *created* and none is *lost*.
> >
> > The flaws in this theory:
> >
> > 1) The human body is not a closed system. Duh!
> >
> > 2) The theory assumes that *all* food that is consumed is broken down *completely* into energy,
> > in its *entirety*, in *all* circumstances, at *all* times. This is an incredibly absurd
> > assumption.
> >
> > This theory ignores the fact that each of the three macro-nutrients, fats, proteins and
> > carbohydrates, are metabolized differently and used to various degrees for tissue rebuilding and
> > energy needs in different ways at different times depending of the state of the body.
> >
> > Each nutrient breaks down differently and each nutrient affects various hormones and in turn may
> > affect how the body uses the nutrients in various states of hunger or satiety. The amount and
> > quality of the food itself changes the metabolism on an on-going minute by minute basis.
> >
> > The second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to weight management in humans.
> >
> > I challenge anyone to provide us with the name(s) of the researcher(s) or scientist(s) who
> > showed beyond a doubt that the 2nd Law of Thermo applies to the human body and give us the names
> > of the study or study that first proved it.
> >
> > This is the very foundation of our nutritional beliefs. Something as fundamental and as crucial
> > as this is to the nutritional sciences should be well documented and easy to find.
> >
> > TC

> Ya'll can eat carbs till ya bust...and you will still will lose weight!
B-0b1
 
B-Ob1 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> se below

<snip>

>
> Havae ya'll ever heard the WORD: "BALANCE"..B-0b1

You are sooooo smart! You love to throw around the word *balance* as if it is the most wonderful and
sure-fire solution to all our nutritional problems, except that you never quite get down to
explaining exactly what you mean by *balance*.

You may not have noticed this, but basically we have been discussing what exactly is a proper
balance for the human diet. The mainstream says it should be 60 or so % carbs, 30% or less fat and
10% protein. Then they throw in all kinds of garbage about four (or more) food groups and try to put
a number on the calories needed for weight maintenance.

I contend that this very diet has led to record levels of obesity and diabetes.

The other side of the argument says that the proper balance is less than 40% carbs, (and no
refined carbs at all), about 30% protein and 30% fats. Several studies have shown better weight
control using low-carb diets and surprisingly positive changes in blood lipids. One other study
that has been recently duscussed (but not published yet) shows that low-carbers can apparently eat
up to 300 cals a day more than low-fat dieters while still losing equivalent (or more) amounts of
weight. Thus, the use of calories are suspect, in terms of using them to predict weight gain or
loss in humans.

TC
 
On 20 Oct 2003 08:00:33 -0700, [email protected] (tcomeau) posted:

>B-Ob1 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> se below
>
><snip>
>
>>
>> Havae ya'll ever heard the WORD: "BALANCE"..B-0b1
>
>You are sooooo smart! You love to throw around the word *balance* as if it is the most wonderful
>and sure-fire solution to all our nutritional problems, except that you never quite get down to
>explaining exactly what you mean by *balance*.
>
>You may not have noticed this, but basically we have been discussing what exactly is a proper
>balance for the human diet.

No, every thinking person here agrees that a balanced diet is essential to good health. If you cared
to look up "balanced" in this sense in the dictionary as has been suggested to you and quoted to you
in the past, you should realise that it merely means a diet that supplies all the necessary
nutrients.

>The mainstream says it should be 60 or so % carbs, 30% or less fat and 10% protein. Then they throw
>in all kinds of garbage about four (or more) food groups and try to put a number on the calories
>needed for weight maintenance.
>
>I contend that this very diet has led to record levels of obesity and diabetes.

With absolutely NO evidence.

>The other side of the argument says that the proper balance is less than 40% carbs, (and no refined
>carbs at all), about 30% protein and 30% fats.

So long as this supplies a balanced diet, it is fine. Why do you keep putting up these straw men?

> Several studies have shown better weight control using low-carb diets and surprisingly positive
> changes in blood lipids.

And equally there are studies that have found the same with most balanced diets.

>One other study that has been recently duscussed (but not published yet) shows that low-carbers can
>apparently eat up to 300 cals a day more than low-fat dieters while still losing equivalent (or
>more) amounts of weight. Thus, the use of calories are suspect, in terms of using them to predict
>weight gain or loss in humans.

And you conveniently dismiss all the solid science down the ages that does not show this, in favour
of this second-hand report that can't even add up.

Where is that metabolic lab study that shows that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage
reduction as you claim?
 
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:28:38 GMT, Tim Tyler <[email protected]> posted:

>tcomeau <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
>
>> The calorie theory says that weight management in humans is a simple matter of calories-consumed
>> vs calories-expended. It is suggested that this is a matter of the second Law of Thermodynamics
>> which states essentially that energy is conserved in a closed system, in other words, all
>> calories have to be accounted for, none is *created* and none is *lost*.
>>
>> The flaws in this theory:
>>
>> 1) The human body is not a closed system. Duh!
>>
>> 2) The theory assumes that *all* food that is consumed is broken down *completely* into energy,
>> in its *entirety*, in *all* circumstances, at *all* times. This is an incredibly absurd
>> assumption.
>>
>> This theory ignores the fact that each of the three macro-nutrients, fats, proteins and
>> carbohydrates, are metabolized differently and used to various degrees for tissue rebuilding and
>> energy needs in different ways at different times depending of the state of the body.
>>
>> Each nutrient breaks down differently and each nutrient affects various hormones and in turn may
>> affect how the body uses the nutrients in various states of hunger or satiety. The amount and
>> quality of the food itself changes the metabolism on an on-going minute by minute basis.
>>
>> The second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to weight management in humans.
>>
>> I challenge anyone to provide us with the name(s) of the researcher(s) or scientist(s) who showed
>> beyond a doubt that the 2nd Law of Thermo applies to the human body and give us the names of the
>> study or study that first proved it.
>>
>> This is the very foundation of our nutritional beliefs. Something as fundamental and as crucial
>> as this is to the nutritional sciences should be well documented and easy to find.
>
>I'd like to see a pointer to this theory as well - so I can see what you are criticising.

He doesn't know. He is so clueless about basic science that he thinks because someone hasn't done
an exhaustive experiment to test that the Sun gets up every morning that he concludes that it
sometimes doesn't.

>For example, who asserted that all food that is consumed is broken down completely into
>available energy?

Well if it doesn't, it stays as fat, carb, or protein, and increases weight.

>I've never heard of this before. It seems unlikely that a human body exactly matches a bomb
>calorimeter in its ability to utilise energy -

Why? A chemical bond is a chemical bond.

>it is more likely that some small quantites of energy will remain undigested - and be excreted -
>especially if you don't chew your food up very well.

But "excreted" isn't "consumed". As "calories IN".

>Incidentally, it /is/ possible to apply thermodynamic laws to open systems - /provided/ you keep
>track of the flux through the boundary.

Of course, but even though TC has been told this a dozen times to my knowledge, he still keeps
parrotting it like his silly mantra that 98% of hypocaloric diets result in no fat store loss or
even fat store gain. You can't win, sorry.

>For example the law of conservation of energy can still be usefully applied to open systems - once
>energy entering and leaving the system is accounted for.

But TC thinks the human body is somehow outside the need for energy balancing. Despite my telling
him several times that it is like accounting. Every calorie must be accounted for.
 
On 17 Oct 2003 07:56:02 -0700, [email protected] (tcomeau) posted:

>Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... <snip>
>
>>
>> For example, who asserted that all food that is consumed is broken down completely into available
>> energy?
>>
>
>To be more precise, the calorie theory implies that all proteins are broken down to 4 cal per gram,
>and fat to 9 cal/g and carbs to 4 cals/g .... in every single instance regardless of the
>nutritional state of the body.

Well show some evidence for otherwise.

>Whether you are starved, overfed, protein deficient, obese, etc. etc. And completely independent of
>any hormonal or other systemic balances or imbalances.

Where has nine calories stored ever been other than one gram of fat? Where has the metabolism to
carbon dioxide and water of one gram of fat ever resulted in anything other than nine calories?
 
Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:06:52 GMT in article <[email protected]> Moosh!
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 20 Oct 2003 08:00:33 -0700, [email protected] (tcomeau) posted:
>
>>The mainstream says it should be 60 or so % carbs, 30% or less fat and 10% protein. Then they
>>throw in all kinds of garbage about four (or more) food groups and try to put a number on the
>>calories needed for weight maintenance.
>>
>>I contend that this very diet has led to record levels of obesity and diabetes.
>
>With absolutely NO evidence.
>
Interestingly there is a recent study, which found that in a subpopulation of women (women carrying
the Gln27Glu beta2-adrenoceptor polymorphism, about 40% of obese and 37% of lean women) the obesity
risk is associated with percentage of carbohydrate intake from total energy intake:

Martinez JA, Corbalan MS, Sanchez-Villegas A, Forga L, Marti A, Martinez-Gonzalez MA. Obesity risk
is associated with carbohydrate intake in women carrying the Gln27Glu beta2-adrenoceptor
polymorphism. J Nutr. 2003 Aug;133(8):2549-54. PMID: 12888635 [PubMed - in process]
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/133/8/2549 <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.-
fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12888635&dopt=Abstract>

Abstract:

"Interindividual differences in the response to dietary intake are, in some cases, genotype
dependent. Moreover, genotype-environment interactions may appear when the impact of lifestyle
factors (e.g., diet) on a phenotype (e.g., BMI > 30 kg/m(2)) differs by genotype. A
case-control study (obese subjects vs. normal weight controls) was conducted to assess a
possible effect modification on obesity risk of the Gln27Glu polymorphism for the
beta(2)-adrenoceptor gene depending on dietary intake. The sample included 159 subjects with
BMI > 30 kg/m(2) and 154 controls with BMI < 25 kg/m(2). The allele frequency for the Glu27
polymorphism, as assessed by the polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length
polymorphism methodology, was 0.40 in cases (obese) and 0.37 in controls (lean), which was
similar to that of other Caucasian populations. The dietary intake was estimated by using a
previously validated food frequency questionnaire. Obesity incidence was not directly affected
by the polymorphism [odds ratio (OR) = 1.40; P = 0.246]. However, a significant interaction
(effect modification) between carbohydrate (CHO) intake and the presence of the Glu27 variant
in the probability of obesity was apparent. Thus, females with the polymorphism and a higher
CHO intake [>49% energy (E)] had a higher obesity risk (OR = 2.56, P = 0.051). The product-term
introduced in the logistic model to assess effect modification revealed a marginally
significant interaction (P = 0.058) between both factors. Furthermore, a high intake of CHO (E
> 49%) was associated with higher insulin levels among women carrying the Gln27Glu polymorphism
(P < 0.01). This gene-nutrient interaction emphasizes the importance of examining the outcome
of some obesity-related mutations depending on lifestyle (including diet) and may explain the
heterogeneity of findings from previous studies."

--
Matti Narkia
 
On 16 Oct 2003 07:25:26 -0700, [email protected] (tcomeau) posted:

>The calorie theory says that weight management in humans is a simple matter of calories-consumed vs
>calories-expended.

So long as you mean calories "IN" when you say consumed. Celulose has lots of calories, can be
consumed, but doesn't go "IN" but then you've been told this many times before.

> It is suggested that this is a matter of the second Law of Thermodynamics which states essentially
> that energy is conserved in a closed system, in other words, all calories have to be accounted
> for, none is *created* and none is *lost*.

I think you should read up on the thermo laws. The closed system is irrelevant here.

>The flaws in this theory:
>
>1) The human body is not a closed system. Duh!

Irrelevant.

>2) The theory assumes that *all* food that is consumed is broken down *completely* into energy, in
> its *entirety*, in *all* circumstances, at *all* times. This is an incredibly absurd assumption.

See "cellulose" above. You have always been told that the calories "IN" are what counts, not the
calories "put in the mouth"

>This theory ignores the fact that each of the three macro-nutrients, fats, proteins and
>carbohydrates, are metabolized differently and used to various degrees for tissue rebuilding and
>energy needs in different ways at different times depending of the state of the body.

And your point?

>Each nutrient breaks down differently and each nutrient affects various hormones and in turn may
>affect how the body uses the nutrients in various states of hunger or satiety. The amount and
>quality of the food itself changes the metabolism on an on-going minute by minute basis.

Still can't see a point. What you are saying is well-known and obvious. It still doesn't breach the
conservation-of-energy principle. Do you not understand that energy balance from one chemical bond
converted to another is constant. Glucose to carbon dioxide and water gives so many calories per
gram (~4) and this never varies, no matter what chemical pathway is followed. Same with fat and
protein. If protein is incorporated into new muscles, then each gram will also need about 4
calories. If these calories were expended as muscular effort and converted eventually to heat, then
those calories can't be stored and are lost. (This means they don't get stored as "weight")

>The second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to weight management in humans.

Conservation of energy applies everywhere, as far as we have ever discovered. Have you evidence that
it doesn't apply somewhere? Please read up on some elementary thermodynamics.

>I challenge anyone to provide us with the name(s) of the researcher(s) or scientist(s) who showed
>beyond a doubt that the 2nd Law of Thermo applies to the human body and give us the names of the
>study or study that first proved it.

Read up on Faraday for starters.

You need to provide a metabolic lab study that shows that a hypercaloric diet produces fat storage
loss. ALL the evidence so far says that this just doesn't happen. Sorry, but second hand reports by
idiots who can't add up don't count.

>This is the very foundation of our nutritional beliefs. Something as fundamental and as crucial as
>this is to the nutritional sciences should be well documented and easy to find.

It is, by everyone except you.
 
Moosh! <[email protected]> wrote in message

<snip>

>
> >This is the very foundation of our nutritional beliefs. Something as fundamental and as crucial
> >as this is to the nutritional sciences should be well documented and easy to find.
>
> It is, by everyone except you.

You know, I keep posting references to all kinds of useful and interesting studies that back my
points. You just sit there and say "I disagree because I'm smarter than everybody". How about
providing us with references to back up your ideas? No proof presented means you have no proof
period, just bad, outdated and misleading "science". You lose the argument unless you provide us
with something, anything with credence to support your point of view.

TC
 
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:17:42 GMT, Matti Narkia <[email protected]> posted:

>Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:06:52 GMT in article <[email protected]> Moosh!
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 20 Oct 2003 08:00:33 -0700, [email protected] (tcomeau) posted:
>>
>>>The mainstream says it should be 60 or so % carbs, 30% or less fat and 10% protein. Then they
>>>throw in all kinds of garbage about four (or more) food groups and try to put a number on the
>>>calories needed for weight maintenance.
>>>
>>>I contend that this very diet has led to record levels of obesity and diabetes.
>>
>>With absolutely NO evidence.
>>
>Interestingly there is a recent study, which found that in a subpopulation of women (women carrying
>the Gln27Glu beta2-adrenoceptor polymorphism, about 40% of obese and 37% of lean women) the obesity
>risk is associated with percentage of carbohydrate intake from total energy intake:

So more than one in three women carry this defect? Can you explain how this carbohydrate intake
seems to have a variable energy content? Or are you saying that these women have differing hunger
responses. Hunger doesn't contain calories, sorry :)

>Martinez JA, Corbalan MS, Sanchez-Villegas A, Forga L, Marti A, Martinez-Gonzalez MA. Obesity risk
>is associated with carbohydrate intake in women carrying the Gln27Glu beta2-adrenoceptor
>polymorphism. J Nutr. 2003 Aug;133(8):2549-54. PMID: 12888635 [PubMed - in process]
>http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/133/8/2549 <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query-
>.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12888635&dopt=Abstract>
>
>Abstract:
>
> "Interindividual differences in the response to dietary intake are, in some cases, genotype
> dependent. Moreover, genotype-environment interactions may appear when the impact of lifestyle
> factors (e.g., diet) on a phenotype (e.g., BMI > 30 kg/m(2)) differs by genotype. A
> case-control study (obese subjects vs. normal weight controls) was conducted to assess a
> possible effect modification on obesity risk of the Gln27Glu polymorphism for the
> beta(2)-adrenoceptor gene depending on dietary intake. The sample included 159 subjects with
> BMI > 30 kg/m(2) and 154 controls with BMI < 25 kg/m(2). The allele frequency for the Glu27
> polymorphism, as assessed by the polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length
> polymorphism methodology, was 0.40 in cases (obese) and 0.37 in controls (lean), which was
> similar to that of other Caucasian populations. The dietary intake was estimated by using a
> previously validated food frequency questionnaire. Obesity incidence was not directly affected
> by the polymorphism [odds ratio (OR) = 1.40; P = 0.246]. However, a significant interaction
> (effect modification) between carbohydrate (CHO) intake and the presence of the Glu27 variant
> in the probability of obesity was apparent. Thus, females with the polymorphism and a higher
> CHO intake [>49% energy (E)] had a higher obesity risk (OR = 2.56, P = 0.051). The product-term
> introduced in the logistic model to assess effect modification revealed a marginally
> significant interaction (P = 0.058) between both factors. Furthermore, a high intake of CHO (E
> > 49%) was associated with higher insulin levels among women carrying the Gln27Glu polymorphism
> (P < 0.01). This gene-nutrient interaction emphasizes the importance of examining the outcome
> of some obesity-related mutations depending on lifestyle (including diet) and may explain the
> heterogeneity of findings from previous studies."

A eucaloric diet involves zero risk of obesity.
 
On 21 Oct 2003 18:11:33 -0700, [email protected] (tcomeau) posted:

>Moosh! <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
><snip>
>
>>
>> >This is the very foundation of our nutritional beliefs. Something as fundamental and as crucial
>> >as this is to the nutritional sciences should be well documented and easy to find.
>>
>> It is, by everyone except you.
>
>You know, I keep posting references to all kinds of useful and interesting studies that back
>my points.

Sorry, but I've not seen any. Can you pick the best and repost it? You know, a metabolic lab study
that shows that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat store loss as you claim.

>You just sit there and say "I disagree because I'm smarter than everybody".

Now where have I ever said this? Your imagination is telling us more about you than you
probably realise.

>How about providing us with references to back up your ideas?

YOU are the one claiming that all science (the body of information, not the method) is wrong here
and that a hypercaloric diet can result in weight loss, apparently coz the conservation of energy is
suspended in humans. Seems YOU need to show this contrary evidence that no-one can find.

>No proof presented means you have no proof period, just bad, outdated and misleading "science".

Proof of what? The laws lof thermodynamics? Where to start....?

>You lose the argument unless you provide us with something, anything with credence to support your
>point of view.

That the laws of thermo are upheld EVERYEHERE?

Shirley you jest?

Remember, just one metabolic lab study, that is replicated by others, that shows that a hypercaloric
diet can result in fat store loss, will change my mind instantly.
 
"Moosh!" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> No, every thinking person here agrees that a balanced diet is essential to good health. If you
> cared to look up "balanced" in this sense in the dictionary as has been suggested to you and
> quoted to you in the past, you should realise that it merely means a diet that supplies all the
> necessary nutrients.

There is no such diet, Mooshie dear. Or were you asleep when the subject was discussed a few
weeks ago?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back