On 16 Mar 2004 07:08:49 -0800, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:
Quoted message said:[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]-
net.com>...
Quoted message said:I don't want you to go away, just provide the scientific
evidence on which you base your new theory of weight
status without reference to calorie status. I don't want
to quibble about the existence of past research which
manipulates calories for various research ends and
illustrate the relationship to weight status, they exist.
Here is but one, the easiest to recall and put my hands
on, as requested, one time free subscription required:
medscape.com469768 3Open ↗
There is much evidence to, at the very least, question the
validity of directly applying the math of calories to
weight management.
You keep saying this but never come up with any.
Quoted message said:There was the one study that showed that low-carbers can
eat as much as 300 cals more than low-fat doeters and still
lose the same or more weight.
As this was an atrocious study that was unreplicable and
didn't even know what the insignificant weight loss was
composed of -- fat, muscle, water -- and was
counterproductive even mentioning it....
Quoted message said:If you contend that the laws of thermo are *directly*
applicable to the human body in terms of direct
mathematical weight management then this is the example
that disproves it.
If that's all you have, your reputation as an idiot is
confirmed.
Quoted message said:The simple matter is that if restricting calories were all
that mattered, then anyone, and I mean ANYONE could easily
lose weight any time they wanted to.
And they can, you goose! Trouble is it is difficult to
restrict calories for some. This isn't too difficult for
you, is it?
Quoted message said:It is so easy to go a few days or weeks and simply
moderately restrict all food intake that virtually anyone
could do it. But it remains that 60% or so of the american
public is obese, including a huge number of people who
genuinely attempt to restrict calories and actually
succeed in restricting calories but always seem to fail in
actually losing weight in the end.
And you know that they eat hypocalorically how?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:It says in short that there are many factors as to the
specific effect of amount of calories in and metabolism
of same and the final weight loss. There is no surprise
here, all human biological activities exibit themselves
in a bell curve.
The bell curve. Glad you brought that up. A number of
studies have indicated that as many as 95% to 98% of those
who restrict fat and calories fail to lose weight.
So they should try eating hypocalorically. It always works,
never failed.
Quoted message said:Statistically that means that restricting calories fails to
the third standard deviation.
And two plus two is not four to the third standard
deviation? Who said a little knowledge is dangerous, Sarge?
Quoted message said:The curve is upside down. At first glance one could almost
argue that restricting calories actually causes weight gain
and vice versa.
Well YOU could! And do!!! The Don Quixote of Sci Med
Nutrition 🙂
Quoted message said:But if you look a bit closer and beyond just the numbers of
calories you will see that the method employed to lose
weight involves restricting fats and proteins and
increasing the consumption of carbs, and more often than
not refined carbs.
Where do you get this total [censored] from. NO-ONE that I know of
recommends substituting fat and protein calories for refined
carbs. Refined foods are to be avoided. That's a given, stop
trying to sidetrack with irrelevancies.
Quoted message said:Hence my argument that macro-nutrient intake impacts
hormones(insulin/glucagon) which impacts weight gain and
fat storage.
Without a shred of evidence! Have you seen how various
proteins have a large effect on insulin secretion? How do
you explain this? Or do you just ignore inconvenient
facts, as usual?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:But, if you read the article, in a controlled
situation where input is measured in a controlled in
hospital situation, all lost weight with lower calories.
Because of the range of variation to x amount of calories
in/out and weight status, we cann't conclude that the
in/out notion fails, just that there are real limits to
the in/out and the final result in all people is a
change in weight status. Knowing this biological
reality doesn't disprove the calorie in/out approach
to creating a plan to lose or gain weight, it just
says what the most usual result is for the great
majority of folk who fall in the wide middle of the
curve;ie. 500 cal/day/week = 1 lb lost. I suggest you
read the entire series, parts 1 and 2:
medscape.com470747Open ↗
medscape.com469768Open ↗
I suggest you read the "current concensus" link on the
first url above as the basis by which you frame the
extraordinary evidence which displases that concensus.
The current consensus has been wrong for generations.
Yep and you are the only one in step without a shred of
evidence. But you can't see it.... Snarfffff!
Quoted message said:Is that
possible?
Not without a shred of evidence.
Quoted message said:Many of us believe so. Why? Because the consensus
has failed.
Many? You and TC? Who else?
Quoted message said:If the consensus were correct, then obesity would not be a
problem for those willing to apply a modicum of effort to
lose weight, but we know that even those who work hard at
losing weight by restricting calories are more likely to
fail then they are to succeed.
Can you honestly not see the difference between TRYING to
restrict calories and actually doing it? Or are you a bit
soft in the head?
Quoted message said:Studies are showing, consistently I may add, that low-carb
works significantly better than low-fat.
At what? Being able to restrict calories for the many
syndrome X folk around these days? I don't wonder about that
at all. Still doesn't change the fact that ALL folk who eat
hypocalorically will lose fat storage, and all folk who eat
hypercalorically will gain fat store.
Quoted message said:That is now an acknowledged fact.
See above. I don't think you understand what you are stating
is a fact.
Quoted message said:The low-fat ideologist must now explain what the science is
behind their failed program.
Calories are the only measure of whether you gain or
lose body fat stores, and fat has two-and-a-half times
the calories as an equal weight of carb or protein.
Which unnecessary excess nutrient would a sensible
person restrict?
Quoted message said:We are beyond the stage where the low-carb group needs to
explain anything.
No, it is a fine trick to reduce syndrome X sufferers'
caloric intake, so long as there don't turn out to be
harmful long-term effects. Trouble is you think it is a
magic bullet that somehow suspends the laws of
thermodynamics. Please visit your library for a few weeks.
Quoted message said:So, show us one or more of the following:
1) The seminal study or series of studies that established
once and for all that calories are directly applicable
to the typical human in terms of weight gain or loss.
Conservation of calories applies universally. It has NEVER
been shown to be invalid anywhere. If you can show it has,
please do so and stop waving your arms.
Quoted message said:2) The names(s) of the ground breaking researcher(s) that
came up with this breakthrough finding.
Conservation of energy? That doesn't matter. Don't you know
how science works? No-one has ever demonstrated the
breaching of these centuries old principles. If you consider
it is false somewhere, then the onus is on you to show
where, with evidence. I won't hold my breathe coz you have
been unable to show any evidence for several years that I'm
aware or your silly ravings on this group.
Quoted message said:or
3) The definitive proof to support the calorie concept in
any form whatsoever.
As it has never been faulted in centuries EVER! The onus is
on you to show just one tiny aberration.
Quoted message said:or
4) A clear and precise explanation of the exact biological
process that occurs in the human body that triggers fat
storage or fat usage in direct response to calorie
intake.
Pulllleeeeese visit your library!!!
Quoted message said:How does the body respond to a low-calorie diet to cause it
to burn fat
Energy needs, you idiot. What else?
Quoted message said:and how does it respond to a high-calorie diet that
causes the body to store fat and how does it know what
state it is in.
It burns the energy it needs and stores the energy that it
has in excess. What else did you have in mind?
Quoted message said:I want the basic metabolic pathways, the specific bio-
chemical responses and the trigger mechanism that causes
the fat cells to stor or burn fat.
Read a book, ferchrissake!
Quoted message said:The ball is in the court of the low-calorie camp.
Try an even more elementary book on the scientific method.
You have to show something you claim to go against the
universally held scientific knowledge of centuries.
Quoted message said:It is time put your money where your mouth is.
EVERYTHING shows that energy is conserved. You want to claim
otherwise, then you have to demonstrate it.
Quoted message said:Low-carbers, including myself, have done what they can to
make their argument.
So when are you going to try science and stop waving
your arms?
Quoted message said:And all the low-fatters have done is a bunch of high-handed
arrogant derision and name-calling. Put up or shut up.
You put up and shut up. I've asked you for years for your
claimed metabolic lab study that shows a hypercaloric diet
can result in the loss of body fat storage. ALL metabolic
lab studies to date show this can't happen, yet you claim it
can with ZERO evidence.
Mooosh🙂
