T
TC
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> One of the first questions you asked some years ago was how do calories
> factor in weight loss, give us the studies you demanded. I then being the
> kind to take folks as they appear as posing ernest questions provided a
> study where in a lab setting calories were strictly measured and
> controlled and the resulting weight loss range that occurred reported.
> Here all that time later, with periodic outbreaks aside and curative
> booster shots to help you understand, here we are all this time hence; it
> is truely a chronic disorder. Or is it a fixed dellusion?
You provided nothing. Please give us a link to your response to this
question in this or any other ng that actually answered the question.
It, like the mystical study that you claim to have provided, does not
exist.
>
> The answer has become after time, "do your own homework". But it was
> offered knowing full well you would not because you fail even to read the
> information provided you when it is only a mouse click away, as was the
> report mentioned above.
I have done my homework. That is why I have no problem telling you that
the seminal and ground-breaking study that found that calories can be
directly applied in the real world to weight management in humans DOES
NOT EXIST and never has existed and will never exist. It is a mirage.
And the stuff you put forward as scientific evidence did not show THE
FINDING that calories are the only game in town. Not by a long shot.
>
> Let's go back to the amount of weight change based on the calories
> involved in raising the ambient temperature you asserted in one thread,
> that was at least entertaining and very instructive in revealing the lack
> of information about basic science that you show proudly in thread after
> thread.
Hey, if a calorie is a calorie is a calorie and all revolves around a
calorie, why would heat calories be any different than food calories.
Theoretically speaking, if a calorie is applicable to weight
management, it would not matter where the calorie comes from. Whether
it is from a carb, fat, protein, water, air or sun.
>
> As said before, ignorance allows a kind of freedom to think and say
> anything. The second one knows some facts it becomes binding in a way.
> Your way of dealing with this discomfort is to ignore the facts, as here
> we are all this time since and you are still demanding information be
> spoon fed you about the relationship between calorie intake and weight
> status. Have a merry christmas and the best of new years.
Some people call it thinking outside the box. Not being tied to any
particular belief. That is what science is supposed to be about. You
can't believe everything you read just because someone wrote it down.
Sometimes you have to believe your own observations, even and
especially when they don't jibe with other peoples book learning.
In any science other than nutrition and medicine, scientists get
excited when an anomaly is found or an observation goes against the
current theories. It means that there is something new and exciting to
learn and a better understanding is at hand. Knowledge is about to be
expanded and built upon.
When Einstein put forward his Theory of Relativity, scientists were
excited because it essentially re-wrote the physics textbooks and
actually undermined and changed their views on the validity of Newton's
observations. Earth shattering stuff. Some old foggy establishment
scientists fought it with ridicule and refused to even consider it. The
younger, more open minded scientists jumped on it and used it to expand
their knowledge and understanding. Today no one would argue against
Einsteins Theory of Relativity. That is how real science works.
Any halfway intelligent person in the world should be able to see that
the calorie theory has failed. LCDs do not work. Restricting fats is
unhealthy and does not lead to weigh loss. Traditional methods of
weight control fails in 90 to 95% of cases.
Low carbing is not within that definition of traditional weight control
methods.
There is no calorie balance feedback mechanism. If that is not reason
to doubt the direct applicability of calories to weight management,
then nothing is.
We are now in the realm of religious fanaticism. Your only response is
"We must believe, because others tell us to believe" or "It is, because
it has always been". If that is the whole of your argument, then you
have no argument.
I ask for scientifc proof, and you say you gave me proof. Then give me
a link to what you consider proof. What you provided was not evidence.
It was rote repetition of what was supposed discovered sometime in the
fog of history. Give me a reference to the seminal and ground breaking
research that found that calories can be successfully applied directly
to weight management in humans. It would have happened sometime between
the 1880s and the 1920s. Who is the discoverer of record? What was the
study about?
If a concept fails in 90 to 95% of cases in the real world, you cannot
argue that the world is wrong, you have to accept that the concept is
wrong. And that concept is the traditional wieght loss method, low
calorie diets, restricting high calorie fats. PERIOD.
I can give you a description of the carb intake feedback loop that
triggers fat storage and/or fat loss. In fact, any first year bio-chem
textbook will describe it in detail.
Can you show me a bio-chemical feedback loop that has calories alone as
a start point and fat storage and/or fat loss as an end point, and can
you describe it in detail?
TC
> One of the first questions you asked some years ago was how do calories
> factor in weight loss, give us the studies you demanded. I then being the
> kind to take folks as they appear as posing ernest questions provided a
> study where in a lab setting calories were strictly measured and
> controlled and the resulting weight loss range that occurred reported.
> Here all that time later, with periodic outbreaks aside and curative
> booster shots to help you understand, here we are all this time hence; it
> is truely a chronic disorder. Or is it a fixed dellusion?
You provided nothing. Please give us a link to your response to this
question in this or any other ng that actually answered the question.
It, like the mystical study that you claim to have provided, does not
exist.
>
> The answer has become after time, "do your own homework". But it was
> offered knowing full well you would not because you fail even to read the
> information provided you when it is only a mouse click away, as was the
> report mentioned above.
I have done my homework. That is why I have no problem telling you that
the seminal and ground-breaking study that found that calories can be
directly applied in the real world to weight management in humans DOES
NOT EXIST and never has existed and will never exist. It is a mirage.
And the stuff you put forward as scientific evidence did not show THE
FINDING that calories are the only game in town. Not by a long shot.
>
> Let's go back to the amount of weight change based on the calories
> involved in raising the ambient temperature you asserted in one thread,
> that was at least entertaining and very instructive in revealing the lack
> of information about basic science that you show proudly in thread after
> thread.
Hey, if a calorie is a calorie is a calorie and all revolves around a
calorie, why would heat calories be any different than food calories.
Theoretically speaking, if a calorie is applicable to weight
management, it would not matter where the calorie comes from. Whether
it is from a carb, fat, protein, water, air or sun.
>
> As said before, ignorance allows a kind of freedom to think and say
> anything. The second one knows some facts it becomes binding in a way.
> Your way of dealing with this discomfort is to ignore the facts, as here
> we are all this time since and you are still demanding information be
> spoon fed you about the relationship between calorie intake and weight
> status. Have a merry christmas and the best of new years.
Some people call it thinking outside the box. Not being tied to any
particular belief. That is what science is supposed to be about. You
can't believe everything you read just because someone wrote it down.
Sometimes you have to believe your own observations, even and
especially when they don't jibe with other peoples book learning.
In any science other than nutrition and medicine, scientists get
excited when an anomaly is found or an observation goes against the
current theories. It means that there is something new and exciting to
learn and a better understanding is at hand. Knowledge is about to be
expanded and built upon.
When Einstein put forward his Theory of Relativity, scientists were
excited because it essentially re-wrote the physics textbooks and
actually undermined and changed their views on the validity of Newton's
observations. Earth shattering stuff. Some old foggy establishment
scientists fought it with ridicule and refused to even consider it. The
younger, more open minded scientists jumped on it and used it to expand
their knowledge and understanding. Today no one would argue against
Einsteins Theory of Relativity. That is how real science works.
Any halfway intelligent person in the world should be able to see that
the calorie theory has failed. LCDs do not work. Restricting fats is
unhealthy and does not lead to weigh loss. Traditional methods of
weight control fails in 90 to 95% of cases.
Low carbing is not within that definition of traditional weight control
methods.
There is no calorie balance feedback mechanism. If that is not reason
to doubt the direct applicability of calories to weight management,
then nothing is.
We are now in the realm of religious fanaticism. Your only response is
"We must believe, because others tell us to believe" or "It is, because
it has always been". If that is the whole of your argument, then you
have no argument.
I ask for scientifc proof, and you say you gave me proof. Then give me
a link to what you consider proof. What you provided was not evidence.
It was rote repetition of what was supposed discovered sometime in the
fog of history. Give me a reference to the seminal and ground breaking
research that found that calories can be successfully applied directly
to weight management in humans. It would have happened sometime between
the 1880s and the 1920s. Who is the discoverer of record? What was the
study about?
If a concept fails in 90 to 95% of cases in the real world, you cannot
argue that the world is wrong, you have to accept that the concept is
wrong. And that concept is the traditional wieght loss method, low
calorie diets, restricting high calorie fats. PERIOD.
I can give you a description of the carb intake feedback loop that
triggers fat storage and/or fat loss. In fact, any first year bio-chem
textbook will describe it in detail.
Can you show me a bio-chemical feedback loop that has calories alone as
a start point and fat storage and/or fat loss as an end point, and can
you describe it in detail?
TC