Mirek Fidler said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Because it is way too complicated? Actually, *EXACT* mechanism is not
known in many other cases - e.g. nobody knows *EXACT* mechanisms that
are involved in cumbustion engines - but we still can build them and
measure their fuel consumption.How about a general description of the process? You know the cells,
enzymes, hormones, bio-chemical cascades involved? We know virtually
everything about the inner workings of every organ and cell in the
human body,Actually, this claim is false. What you perhaps do not understand is
that we just barely start to know how our bodies work.Quoted message said:We know the exact mechanism of how internal combustion engines work.
Well, general principle maybe, but not exact mechanism.
You are kidding, right? I am no mechanical engineer but I can describe
to you exactly how an gasoline internal engine works, with every part
and every aspect of the process. An engineer can give you specific
number in terms of compression, bore, stroke, horse power, torque etc.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:We
can create hundreds of variant designs of various sizes and
efficiencies using various types of fuels anytime we want.But we can only estimate their real-world behaviour, based on previous
designs and emprical data and never really know the exact parameters
before we build them.Quoted message said:There is
abolutely no mystery as to how engines work. It is not a black box and
neither is our metabolic system.Well, try to describe them using quantum mechanics. Even at this level,
which is not final, you will not be able to solve shrodinger's equations
and really demonstrate what makes the piston move.All of our "knowing" is just estimates. We have quite precise estimates
about engines, less precise about bodies.Quoted message said:Quoted message said:That is the problem. Restricting high calorie foods is not the same
thing as restricting calories.But the strategy has always been to cut back high-calorie foods
(ie.fats) and consume low-calorie foods (ie, carbs). In fact studies
have shown that since the 1970's people are eating about 10% less fat
and about 10 or 12% more carbs, on average, and they are fatter than
ever. Obesity has more than tripled.Well, but that is not the same thing as "calories do count" claim, you
know? We both agree that increasing carbs to fats is the worst thing you
can do to lose weight.Quoted message said:Low carb has been attacked as being silly simply because it encouraged
the consumption of high calorie fats and discouraged the consumption of
low-calorie carbs. Scientists were publicly condemning the diet because
it was supposed to go against the very basic laws of thermodynamics.
Atkins was a quack because he was purported to be pushing a diet that
was scientifically impossible.Quoted message said:Restricting fats is absolutely synonymous with restricting calories.
They are one and the same.OK, if this is what is "calorie counting" for you, I can agree, but be
aware that the rest of the world shares completely different definition.
Perhaps this could explain to you why everybody is arguing you when you
start your "calories do not count" claims.Next time please rather claim that "fat % do not count".
Mirek