physics of atkins: Discover Magazine, Jan. 2005

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by bob, Dec 6, 2004.

  1. bob

    bob Guest

    OK, if I remember this group correctly, this is going to generate some
    hostile reaction, so let me say from the outset that I make no comment, only
    pass along the article. On page 14 of Discover Magazine, Jan. 2005,
    delivered to my home today is a blurb in the R&D section entitled "The
    Physics of Atkins"

    "A calorie is a calorie, no matter the source-right? Wrong, "
    They site biochemist Richard Feinman and Eugene Fin of SUNY Downstate
    Medical Center in New York. "critics of low carb diets always invoke the
    laws of thermodynamics, but they are not understanding them properly"
    Feinman "argues that two laws not one are involved. Detractors of the Atkins
    Diet often emphasize the first law of thermodynamics, that the total energy
    in a system is always conserved. Deinman considers the secon law-that energy
    tends to dissipateat over time-just as important. It determines what happens
    to the energy in food when it is broken down in the body. 'We know ton a
    molecular level that the body's pathways are less efficient at turning
    protiein caleries into glucose,' he says 'That means that more energy is
    lost as heat.'

    Note that "Feinman emphasizes that his arguement is solely rooted in
    physics." and does not consider any other health effects.

    let the yelling begin.....

    Bob
     
    Tags:


  2. DJ Delorie

    DJ Delorie Guest

    My usual reaction to this is that the laws of thermodynamics are
    inappropriate laws to use to try to model human biology. Yes, they
    hold - at the molecular interaction level. So what? They hold for
    computers as well, but thermo won't make you understand a computer
    program.

    The reality is, human metabolism is a complex thing, and there's a lot
    we can do to influence it in various ways, and yet still not
    understand it fully. What works for one doesn't always work for
    others, which wouldn't be the case if thermo was all that mattered.

    I did see one simplification that made sense, though. Organic food
    has carbon atoms in it. When you eat, you add carbon atoms to your
    body. To lose weight, you have to get rid of those carbon atoms. The
    body only has a few ways of doing this, but only exhaling carbon
    dioxide deals with nontrivial amounts, so it's up to metabolism to
    reduce body mass.

    Yeah, oxygen and hydrogen too, but those become water and other things
    and make the example much more complex.
     
  3. MU

    MU Guest

    On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 23:25:25 GMT, bob wrote:

    > OK, if I remember this group correctly, this is going to generate some
    > hostile reaction, so let me say from the outset that I make no comment, only
    > pass along the article. On page 14 of Discover Magazine, Jan. 2005,
    > delivered to my home today is a blurb in the R&D section entitled "The
    > Physics of Atkins"
    >
    > "A calorie is a calorie, no matter the source-right? Wrong, "
    > They site biochemist Richard Feinman and Eugene Fin of SUNY Downstate
    > Medical Center in New York. "critics of low carb diets always invoke the
    > laws of thermodynamics, but they are not understanding them properly"
    > Feinman "argues that two laws not one are involved. Detractors of the Atkins
    > Diet often emphasize the first law of thermodynamics, that the total energy
    > in a system is always conserved. Deinman considers the secon law-that energy
    > tends to dissipateat over time-just as important. It determines what happens
    > to the energy in food when it is broken down in the body. 'We know ton a
    > molecular level that the body's pathways are less efficient at turning
    > protiein caleries into glucose,' he says 'That means that more energy is
    > lost as heat.'
    >
    > Note that "Feinman emphasizes that his arguement is solely rooted in
    > physics." and does not consider any other health effects.
    >
    > let the yelling begin.....
    >
    > Bob


    No need to yell. Only the most shortsighted and blinded by loyalty folks
    know Atkins sux when it comes to his (lack) of science.
     
  4. bob

    bob Guest

    I don't think you read the quote carefully, it is in scientific (albeit
    narrowly focused) support of atkins.....

    "MU" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    > No need to yell. Only the most shortsighted and blinded by loyalty folks
    > know Atkins sux when it comes to his (lack) of science.



    news:[email protected]
    > On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 23:25:25 GMT, bob wrote:
    >
    >> OK, if I remember this group correctly, this is going to generate some
    >> hostile reaction, so let me say from the outset that I make no comment,
    >> only
    >> pass along the article. On page 14 of Discover Magazine, Jan. 2005,
    >> delivered to my home today is a blurb in the R&D section entitled "The
    >> Physics of Atkins"
    >>
    >> "A calorie is a calorie, no matter the source-right? Wrong, "
    >> They site biochemist Richard Feinman and Eugene Fin of SUNY Downstate
    >> Medical Center in New York. "critics of low carb diets always invoke the
    >> laws of thermodynamics, but they are not understanding them properly"
    >> Feinman "argues that two laws not one are involved. Detractors of the
    >> Atkins
    >> Diet often emphasize the first law of thermodynamics, that the total
    >> energy
    >> in a system is always conserved. Deinman considers the secon law-that
    >> energy
    >> tends to dissipateat over time-just as important. It determines what
    >> happens
    >> to the energy in food when it is broken down in the body. 'We know ton a
    >> molecular level that the body's pathways are less efficient at turning
    >> protiein caleries into glucose,' he says 'That means that more energy is
    >> lost as heat.'
    >>
    >> Note that "Feinman emphasizes that his arguement is solely rooted in
    >> physics." and does not consider any other health effects.
    >>
    >> let the yelling begin.....
    >>
    >> Bob

    >
     
  5. bob wrote:
    > OK, if I remember this group correctly, this is going to generate some
    > hostile reaction, so let me say from the outset that I make no comment, only
    > pass along the article. On page 14 of Discover Magazine, Jan. 2005,
    > delivered to my home today is a blurb in the R&D section entitled "The
    > Physics of Atkins"
    >
    > "A calorie is a calorie, no matter the source-right? Wrong, "
    > They site biochemist Richard Feinman and Eugene Fin of SUNY Downstate
    > Medical Center in New York. "critics of low carb diets always invoke the
    > laws of thermodynamics, but they are not understanding them properly"
    > Feinman "argues that two laws not one are involved. Detractors of the Atkins
    > Diet often emphasize the first law of thermodynamics, that the total energy
    > in a system is always conserved. Deinman considers the secon law-that energy
    > tends to dissipateat over time-just as important. It determines what happens
    > to the energy in food when it is broken down in the body. 'We know ton a
    > molecular level that the body's pathways are less efficient at turning
    > protiein caleries into glucose,' he says 'That means that more energy is
    > lost as heat.'


    I fully accept this but I don't see how it makes any real difference. It
    isn't as though the energy consumed when processing protein is hugely
    different to that consumed when processing simple carbohydrates. It
    might make a difference of a few calories, not of a few hundred.

    The reason that I accept this is that I have often noticed a rise in
    body temperature after eating less easily digestible foods, also that a
    feeling of fullness lasts longer. It has never made a difference to my
    weight, or energy levels overall, although after eating unprocessed
    protein, it takes longer before I feel "re-energised". This is why,
    prior to exercise, I eat carbs, not protein. I eat protein afterward to
    allow muscle to rebuild.

    By the same token, although probably not following the same logic, the
    times when you feel a "real" rise in body temperature after eating is
    after eating curries and chillies. I have found that if I eat hot foods
    as a lifestyle thing, i.e., when living in parts of Asia, my weight does
    drop even when I am eating, as normal, to satisfy an unchanged appetite.
    I don't believe that it is the difference in protein/carb balance in
    these cases, but the fact that for some reason hot foods seem to both
    boost metabolism, and reduce appetite; to sate more easily.

    As far back as the early Adelle Davis books, ('60s) she notes that
    adding hot spices to food increases BMR.

    Before the onset of my diabetes my weight was very stable, the only time
    it ever changed was when eating nothing but Asian foods; it always
    dropped. This included Japanese (very high carb) as well as the more
    spicy Asian styles. It did not include Vietnamese foods, they were too
    French (sauce) oriented to make much difference. In the end it still
    all comes back to total calorie intake, the difference in metabolic
    processing, while measurable, isn't sufficient to make a difference long
    term, just an interesting bit of metabolic trivia.

    Regards

    David


    --

    To email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line.

    All other mail is automatically deleted.
     
  6. jbuch

    jbuch Guest

    Hi Bob,

    I suspect that nobody understands.

    Nobody needs to understand.

    This is DIET stuff, and that is remarkably like religion.

    FAITH.

    I look forward to reading the whole article. Did you fully understand
    it, or did you pass along what you felt you gathered?

    In other words, have you ever taken several classes in thermodynamics?

    Jim



    bob wrote:

    > OK, if I remember this group correctly, this is going to generate some
    > hostile reaction, so let me say from the outset that I make no comment, only
    > pass along the article. On page 14 of Discover Magazine, Jan. 2005,
    > delivered to my home today is a blurb in the R&D section entitled "The
    > Physics of Atkins"
    >
    > "A calorie is a calorie, no matter the source-right? Wrong, "
    > They site biochemist Richard Feinman and Eugene Fin of SUNY Downstate
    > Medical Center in New York. "critics of low carb diets always invoke the
    > laws of thermodynamics, but they are not understanding them properly"
    > Feinman "argues that two laws not one are involved. Detractors of the Atkins
    > Diet often emphasize the first law of thermodynamics, that the total energy
    > in a system is always conserved. Deinman considers the secon law-that energy
    > tends to dissipateat over time-just as important. It determines what happens
    > to the energy in food when it is broken down in the body. 'We know ton a
    > molecular level that the body's pathways are less efficient at turning
    > protiein caleries into glucose,' he says 'That means that more energy is
    > lost as heat.'
    >
    > Note that "Feinman emphasizes that his arguement is solely rooted in
    > physics." and does not consider any other health effects.
    >
    > let the yelling begin.....
    >
    > Bob
    >
    >
    >



    --
    ................................


    Keepsake gift for young girls.
    Unique and personal one-of-a-kind.
    Builds strong minds 12 ways.
    Guaranteed satisfaction
    - courteous money back
    - keep bonus gifts

    http://www.alicebook.com
     
  7. Cubit

    Cubit Guest

    Thanks for the post. It sounds like a good enough summary that I don't need
    to buy the magazine. "Discover" is my favorite magazine.

    This sounds like logical support for Atkins' claim of a metabolic advantage.

    IMHO: The body has what I call a "calorie thermostat" that regulates
    calorie consumption. I believe that a low carb high fat diet alters this
    calorie thermostat to a lower level. Thus, sustained weightloss becomes
    possible.

    I have not tried high protein.


    "bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > OK, if I remember this group correctly, this is going to generate some
    > hostile reaction, so let me say from the outset that I make no comment,

    only
    > pass along the article. On page 14 of Discover Magazine, Jan. 2005,
    > delivered to my home today is a blurb in the R&D section entitled "The
    > Physics of Atkins"
    >
    > "A calorie is a calorie, no matter the source-right? Wrong, "
    > They site biochemist Richard Feinman and Eugene Fin of SUNY Downstate
    > Medical Center in New York. "critics of low carb diets always invoke the
    > laws of thermodynamics, but they are not understanding them properly"
    > Feinman "argues that two laws not one are involved. Detractors of the

    Atkins
    > Diet often emphasize the first law of thermodynamics, that the total

    energy
    > in a system is always conserved. Deinman considers the secon law-that

    energy
    > tends to dissipateat over time-just as important. It determines what

    happens
    > to the energy in food when it is broken down in the body. 'We know ton a
    > molecular level that the body's pathways are less efficient at turning
    > protiein caleries into glucose,' he says 'That means that more energy is
    > lost as heat.'
    >
    > Note that "Feinman emphasizes that his arguement is solely rooted in
    > physics." and does not consider any other health effects.
    >
    > let the yelling begin.....
    >
    > Bob
    >
    >
    >
     
  8. MU

    MU Guest

    On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:33:51 GMT, Cubit wrote:

    > IMHO: The body has what I call a "calorie thermostat" that regulates
    > calorie consumption. I believe that a low carb high fat diet alters this
    > calorie thermostat to a lower level.


    Where did you come up with this?
     
  9. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    Ignoramus20242 wrote:
    || On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:33:51 GMT, Cubit <[email protected]> wrote:
    ||| Thanks for the post. It sounds like a good enough summary that I
    ||| don't need to buy the magazine. "Discover" is my favorite magazine.
    |||
    ||| This sounds like logical support for Atkins' claim of a metabolic
    ||| advantage.
    |||
    ||| IMHO: The body has what I call a "calorie thermostat" that
    ||| regulates calorie consumption. I believe that a low carb high fat
    ||| diet alters this calorie thermostat to a lower level. Thus,
    ||| sustained weightloss becomes possible.
    |||
    ||| I have not tried high protein.
    ||
    || Low carb enables my hunger thermostat to work. I eat all I want,
    || literally, and do not gain. Life is now nice and free of hunger. I
    || can
    || now apply my "willpower" elsewhere.
    ||
    || I thought that LC enabled me to eat more calories. To my great
    || surprise, when I entered my day's food into fitday, the total count
    || of calories turned out to be pretty similar to what I ate pre-LC.

    You mean pre-LC, post weight loss, right?
     
  10. Cubit

    Cubit Guest

    I combined info from a study where subjects ate only a shake from a spout,
    claims in Dr. Herman Taller's 1961 diet book, "Calories Don't Count," and my
    personal experience.

    In the study, they found that it took about two weeks for subjects to
    unconsciously adjust their volume of shake consumption after the scientists
    covertly changed the caloric density of the shake. I read about it years
    ago, and I do not have the citation.

    The study also led me to suspect that there might be an advantage to eating
    only caloricly dense foods, if one does it for the several weeks needed for
    the body to adjust. I suspect that alternating between caloricly dense and
    caloricly sparse foods may screw things up and exacerbate weight gain, but I
    have no evidence yet.

    "MU" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:33:51 GMT, Cubit wrote:
    >
    > > IMHO: The body has what I call a "calorie thermostat" that regulates
    > > calorie consumption. I believe that a low carb high fat diet alters

    this
    > > calorie thermostat to a lower level.

    >
    > Where did you come up with this?
     
  11. PJx

    PJx Guest

    On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 23:25:25 GMT, "bob"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >OK, if I remember this group correctly, this is going to generate some
    >hostile reaction, so let me say from the outset that I make no comment, only
    >pass along the article. On page 14 of Discover Magazine, Jan. 2005,
    >delivered to my home today is a blurb in the R&D section entitled "The
    >Physics of Atkins"
    >
    >"A calorie is a calorie, no matter the source-right? Wrong, "
    >They site biochemist Richard Feinman and Eugene Fin of SUNY Downstate
    >Medical Center in New York. "critics of low carb diets always invoke the
    >laws of thermodynamics, but they are not understanding them properly"
    >Feinman "argues that two laws not one are involved. Detractors of the Atkins
    >Diet often emphasize the first law of thermodynamics, that the total energy
    >in a system is always conserved. Deinman considers the secon law-that energy
    >tends to dissipateat over time-just as important. It determines what happens
    >to the energy in food when it is broken down in the body. 'We know ton a
    >molecular level that the body's pathways are less efficient at turning
    >protiein caleries into glucose,' he says 'That means that more energy is
    >lost as heat.'
    >
    >Note that "Feinman emphasizes that his arguement is solely rooted in
    >physics." and does not consider any other health effects.
    >
    >let the yelling begin.....
    >
    >Bob


    I've read it AND the empirical studies that support the argument
    that the phrase is no longer thought to be valid: "A calorie in is a
    a calorie out".

    It's no big deal. About 30 million people now know that Atkin's low
    carb diet works. That's all we need to know.
     
  12. MU

    MU Guest

    On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:41:01 -0600, PJx wrote:

    > About 30 million people now know that Atkin's low
    > carb diet works. That's all we need to know.


    According to the NIH, 29,700,000 of those will know what they know. That
    within 2 years, they will have regained their weight and, the majority of
    those, will have gained more back in turn.
     
  13. Cubit

    Cubit Guest

    Is there a study that shows the regain rate for low carb?

    Are you using statistics for dieters in general?

    Is it fair to include those who abandon low carb and then regain weight in
    the statistics?

    "MU" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:41:01 -0600, PJx wrote:
    >
    > > About 30 million people now know that Atkin's low
    > > carb diet works. That's all we need to know.

    >
    > According to the NIH, 29,700,000 of those will know what they know. That
    > within 2 years, they will have regained their weight and, the majority of
    > those, will have gained more back in turn.
     
  14. MU

    MU Guest

    On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 22:49:55 GMT, Cubit wrote:

    > Is there a study that shows the regain rate for low carb?


    Yes.

    > Are you using statistics for dieters in general?


    Not my stats.

    > Is it fair to include those who abandon low carb and then regain weight in
    > the statistics?


    Yes.
     
  15. Tom

    Tom Guest

    "MU" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:41:01 -0600, PJx wrote:
    >
    > > About 30 million people now know that Atkin's low
    > > carb diet works. That's all we need to know.

    >
    > According to the NIH, 29,700,000 of those will know what they know. That
    > within 2 years, they will have regained their weight and, the majority of
    > those, will have gained more back in turn.


    Yes. Unfortunately many people are unwilling to change their lifestyle
    and eating habits for the long term. It wouldn't make any difference what
    diet they followed to lose the weight.
    Tom
    210/180/180
     
  16. DigitalVinyl

    DigitalVinyl Guest

    "bob" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I don't think you read the quote carefully, it is in scientific (albeit
    >narrowly focused) support of atkins.....


    I don't think anyone every accused MU of being accurate or informed.

    And he isn't the only one who sees this article as a slam against
    Atkins, when it actually show the scientific defense.

    >"MU" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    >> No need to yell. Only the most shortsighted and blinded by loyalty folks
    >> know Atkins sux when it comes to his (lack) of science.


    DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
    350/267/Dec-264/225
    Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
    Maint. not counting (CCLL=50-60)
     
  17. Jim Bard

    Jim Bard Guest

    Dammit, I don't care if anyone believes in low carb or not. I know it has
    worked for me for some time how. Here's the synopsis, I think... the human
    body is a carb burning machine. If the body gets more carbs than it needs,
    the extra carbs get stored away as fat. Just stored for a rainy day, so to
    speak.

    Those of us on low-carb ways of eating are losing weight. Meanwhile, the
    high-carb advocates in the US and other countries are lamenting that people
    everwhere are getting fat.

    Either they are missing something, or I am. Since I'm losing weight, I
    don't think it's me.
     
  18. Jim Bard

    Jim Bard Guest

    It doesn't matter about physics about nothing.

    If people want it, they will buy it. If they don't, they won't buy it.

    Don't blame people for trying to make a little money from others. If you
    work for someone else, your boss is paying you to make money for him (or
    her). If you don't make that money, sooner or later you are gone. People
    need to get a grip on how the market and free enterpise works..
     
  19. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    "Jim Bard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Dammit, I don't care if anyone believes in low carb or not. I know it has
    > worked for me for some time how. Here's the synopsis, I think... the

    human
    > body is a carb burning machine. If the body gets more carbs than it

    needs,
    > the extra carbs get stored away as fat. Just stored for a rainy day, so

    to
    > speak.


    Not just the carbs, but other stuff as well, get stored as fat.

    >
    > Those of us on low-carb ways of eating are losing weight. Meanwhile, the
    > high-carb advocates in the US and other countries are lamenting that

    people
    > everwhere are getting fat.
    >
    > Either they are missing something, or I am. Since I'm losing weight, I
    > don't think it's me.
    >
    >
     
  20. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    "Jim Bard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > It doesn't matter about physics about nothing.


    It does too.

    >
    > If people want it, they will buy it. If they don't, they won't buy it.
    >


    What are you talking about?

    > Don't blame people for trying to make a little money from others. If you
    > work for someone else, your boss is paying you to make money for him (or
    > her). If you don't make that money, sooner or later you are gone. People
    > need to get a grip on how the market and free enterpise works..


    So.
     
Loading...