Three reasons why calories probably don't count



"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> GaryG wrote:
> :: "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> :: news:[email protected]...
> :::
> ::: Roger Zoul wrote:
> :::: TC wrote:
> :::::: 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
> ::::::
> ::::
> :::: [snipped the useless stuff]
> :::
> ::: You snipped the most important stuff. How am I to view your input
> ::: when you fail to grasp the importance of what you snipped? I
> ::: suggest you read it again carefully and fully appreciate what is
> ::: being said.
> :::
> ::::
> ::::::
> :::::: ************************
> ::::::
> :::::: 2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight
> :::::: loss in humans fails 95% of the time.
> ::::
> :::: Now, had your subject reflected this statement, TC, then I'd have
> :::: no issue with you. This statement suggests that as a practical
> :::: matter, people refuse to restrict calories 95% of the time to
> :::: achieve or maintain weight loss. Agreed. In times of cheap but
> :::: good tasting junk foods, people would rather stuff their faces
> :::: than go hungry or do without something that makes them feel good.
> :::: Understandable, really. But, you're saying calories don't count.
> :::: That, I'm not so sure about....
> ::::
> :::: Less calories = less nutrient-containing food = less usable matter
> :::: = less energy for the body = less body
> ::::
> ::::::
> :::::: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/309/6955/655
> ::::::
> :::::: "Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
> :::::: ineffective
> :::::: C S Wooley, D M Garner
> ::::::
> :::::: University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
> :::::: 45267, USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research,
> :::::: Bala Cynwood, Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr
> :::::: Wooley.
> ::::::
> :::::: It is surprising that debate continues about the effectiveness of
> :::::: dietary treatments for obesity. Perhaps this is partly related to
> :::::: ambiguity in the term effectiveness. It is well known that most
> :::::: treatments produce temporary weight loss. But it is equally well
> :::::: known that 90% to 95% of those who lose weight regain it within
> :::::: several years.1 This poor outcome has led to charges that
> :::::: traditional treatments for obesity should be abandoned and
> :::::: countercharges that it is irresponsible to withhold treatment
> :::::: for such a serious problem. The failure of reducing diets to
> :::::: produce lasting improvement was recently reiterated at a
> :::::: National Institutes of Health consensus conference, which also
> :::::: warned about the adverse effects of treatment.2 "
> ::::
> :::: I have no problem with that statement as it stands.
> ::::
> ::::::
> :::::: If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
> :::::: exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of
> :::::: effort would lose at least weight over time and they would
> :::::: successfully keep it off.
> ::::
> :::: The vast majority of people who try, do lose weight. The vast
> :::: majorit of people who lose weight using mere calorie restriction,
> :::: fail at maintaining calorie restriction.
> ::::
> ::::
> :::: There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local
> :::::: grocer. And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine
> :::::: effort and succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the
> :::::: expected and desired results.
> ::::
> :::: This is where you aren't seeing clearly. "If you do what you've
> :::: always done, you'll get what you've always got."
> ::::
> :::::: Applying the low calorie diet and the
> :::::: very low calorie diet in the real world does not result in the
> :::::: desired weight loss in 90 to 95% of cases.
> ::::::
> ::::
> :::: It does not result in maintaining the weight loss because people
> :::: get bored with 1) counting, 2) eating boring foods, 3) being
> :::: without stuff they like, 4) etc.
> ::::
> :::::: *******************
> ::::::
> :::::: 3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors
> :::::: or is triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage
> :::::: and weight loss or fat loss.
> ::::::
> :::::: Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients
> :::::: that we consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals,
> :::::: water, air and light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that
> :::::: handles and metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good
> :::::: bio-chemistry textbook will give you the whole story of how our
> :::::: bodies use and process these various nutrients.
> ::::::
> :::::: Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels
> :::::: which in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn
> :::::: triggers our body to create and store fat.
> ::::::
> :::::: There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is
> :::::: triggered by calories specifically. It is a black box concept
> :::::: that has never gone further than the mysterious black box. And
> :::::: it does not fit into any bio-chemical explanation of the various
> :::::: bio-chemical and metabolic processes of the human body. In light
> :::::: of the entire metabolic systems bio-chemical processes and
> :::::: various chemical cascades involved in fat storage and fat
> :::::: breakdown, calories become the red-headed step-child with no
> :::::: role to play whatsoever.
> ::::
> :::: Where is your reference for this? Are these your statements?
> :::
> ::: Can you describe the metabolic process or the biological mechanism
> ::: that is triggered by caloric balance that, in turn, triggers fat
> ::: storage or loss? If I am wrong then you will be able to give em
> ::: simple and concise description. Go for it.
> :::
> ::: I can give you references that explain the effects of carbs, fats
> ::: and proteins on our physiology. But that is easy. Just read any
> ::: bio-chem textbook available.
> :::
> ::::
> :::: Maybe we should hold a contest where people just eat 6000 calories
> :::: / day steak or the fatty meats for a week and see if there is no
> :::: weight gain. I'd enjoy that. Zero carb for one week at a fix
> :::: calorie level that would produced weight gain. One of us would
> :::: have to shut the hell up at the end of that week, TC. Would you
> :::: enjoy that? :)
> ::::
> ::::::
> :::::: ********
> ::::::
> :::::: I am sure that calories mean something somewhere.
> ::::
> :::: More calories from food = more bio-usable mass entering the body =
> :::: more weight stored on body
> :::
> ::: How exactly? By what explicit mechanism? You keep saying it but you
> ::: fail to show the exact biological processes that do this in direct
> ::: response to calories consumed.
> :::
> ::::
> :::: Possibly at the
> :::::: extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
> :::::: calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at
> :::::: the other extreme, way too many calories will cause some
> :::::: problems. But in the middle area where we are eating within
> :::::: normal ranges of food, the actual number of calories consumed
> :::::: and the amounts expended cannot be used to reliably predict
> :::::: weight gain or loss. The basic and simple math of the calorie
> :::::: deficit concept simply does not work in the real world.
> ::::::
> :::::: It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
> :::::: Except it fails in the real world.
> ::::
> :::: No, for thoses who do it, it works.
> :::
> ::: 90 to 95% failure rates.
> :::
> :::: The problem is, most can't sustain it
> :::: for various reasons.
> :::
> ::: Because it does not work.
> :::
> :::: Think about it. A lot of people get fat over time.
> :::
> ::: Every one who gets fat gets fat over time.
> :::
> :::: They get used to eating a certain way and having the foods they
> :::: enjoy. They get used to a lifestyle. Then, they become unsightly
> :::: or unhealthy. To address it requires a major lifestyle change
> :::: which has been developed over a period of time. But most would
> :::: apparently rather live with the consequences than do the work to
> :::: make the major change in lifestyle.
> :::
> ::: They get used to eating a high-grain high-sugar high-carb diet. Then
> ::: they try to lose weight by restricting high-fat high-calorie foods
> ::: and eating more low calorie grains starches. They eat less calories
> ::: but still fail to lose weight, esoecially long term.
> :::
> ::::
> :::: TC, you're a good LCer for sure. But I think the reason you don't
> :::: really get this is because you were only ever 20 lbs overweight.
> :::: You found LC and it diminshed your appetite without any discomfort
> :::: and you got your weight under control. And you continue that
> :::: without any major lifestyle change since you eat foods you like
> :::: (cause LC food is good). Good deal, really. However, you, to your
> :::: benefit, have never been a true fat person like me. Hence, you
> :::: don't have the 'monkey on your back' as people like me do. We have
> :::: to work harder to maintain. That's just how it is. Most don't
> :::: want to do they work. I do, because if I don't, my future will
> :::: indeed not be a good one.
> :::
> ::: I will agree with you. Once you pack on that much weight, it becomes
> ::: nearly impossible to take it off. You really have your work cut out
> ::: for you.
> :::
> ::: But it wasn't the fat that packed it on and it wasn't the calories
> ::: that packed it on in the first place. That is the fallacy that we
> ::: much recognise and understand.
> :::
> ::: When you eat primarily animal fats and proteins, and fresh whole
> ::: (non-starchy) produce in your diet with little or no refined and
> ::: highly manufactured carbs, it is actually difficult to eat enough
> ::: to gain excess fat. the calories seem to not make any difference
> ::: either way. And when most of your diet is refined and high GI
> ::: carbs, grains specifically, with little animal fats and proteins,
> ::: it is virtually impossible to not gain weight. Calories seem to not
> ::: matter either way, yet again. And studies have shown that low
> ::: carbers can eat up to 300 calories more than low-cal dieters and
> ::: still lose as much or more weight. That study was well controlled
> ::: and showed this clearly.
> :::
> ::: That was approximately 15 or more percent variance. Were they wrong
> ::: in their calorie counts by 15% in a controlled study with
> ::: professionals doing the counting? If pros are that far off in a
> ::: controlled study then of what use are calories to us laymen. So
> ::: which is wrong: the calorie counts on the food labels? the people
> ::: doing the counting at every meal? The initial calorie valuations
> ::: that pegged it at 4 cal per gram of proteins and carbs and 9 per
> ::: gram of fat? Or the concept that this all is directly applicable to
> ::: animals and their weights?
> :::
> ::: Where is it wrong? Just the dieters? I don't think so.
> :::
> ::: And this takes us back to the most important part of the equation.
> ::: There is no science that specifically found that calories are
> ::: applicable to animals as far as fat management is concerned.
> ::
> :: LOL - tell that to a rancher. They feed their animals just enough
> :: excess calories to "marble" the beef.
> ::
>
> Oh no! You proved this point - they feed them CARBS (grain) to marble the
> beef! :)


Well, I'm agnostic on the issue of low-carb. From what I've read, it can be
a good diet strategy for some folks. Not because it allows your body to
violate the laws of thermodynamics, but because it allows for "satiety". By
feeling "satisifed" one eats less...less *calories*. I think this can be a
prticularly effective strategy if : a) one's "problem foods" are carbs
(e.g., bread, rice, etc.), and b) one is not engaged in endurance sports.

As for the ranchers...they fatten up their beef by feeding grains because
they're cheaper, on a per-calorie basis, than other alternatives. It's the
caloric excess that fatten the cows (bovine and otherwise).

GG

>
> :: GG
> ::
> ::: We base
> ::: our beliefs in this system on what? Because they said so? There is
> ::: no study that supports the "establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace
> ::: in 1785 of the law of conservation of energy in its application of
> ::: animals"
> :::
> ::: It does not exist.
> :::
> ::: TC
>
>
>
 
GaryG wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
:::
::: Oh no! You proved this point - they feed them CARBS (grain) to
::: marble the beef! :)
::
:: Well, I'm agnostic on the issue of low-carb. From what I've read,
:: it can be a good diet strategy for some folks.

Make that many folks in the US who are sedentary.

Not because it
:: allows your body to violate the laws of thermodynamics, but because
:: it allows for "satiety". By feeling "satisifed" one eats
:: less...less *calories*.

Of course....

:: I think this can be a prticularly effective
:: strategy if : a) one's "problem foods" are carbs (e.g., bread, rice,
:: etc.), and b) one is not engaged in endurance sports.

Well, if I need to ride a century I eat lots of carbs before and during. If
I'm not, I don't. You do one thing (carbwise) for weight loss and another
for maintenance. Also, most realistic plans match carb intake with physical
activity level. The problem with carbs is that most people overconsume then
in relation to their activity level. It's not they they are purely evil
(well, those from grains are! :)

:: As for the ranchers...they fatten up their beef by feeding grains
:: because they're cheaper, on a per-calorie basis, than other
:: alternatives. It's the caloric excess that fatten the cows (bovine
:: and otherwise).
::

Yeah, grains are cheap and tasty and that's why we as a whole eat so many of
them. And, we as a whole don't get appetite suppression and hence want to
eat every 20 minutes (ie, after chinese). That ensure we get plenty of
calories. Imagine the poor cows....they're hungry again 20 minutes after the
last feeding....great way to force feed more calories. Make 'em want it by
dicking with their BG levels....yep.
 
GaryG wrote:
> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > jt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:51:52 -0800, "GaryG" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >It fails in the real world precisely because people consume more

> calories
> > > >than they burn. With the ready availability of high calorie foods, and

> the
> > > >decreasing requirement for movement in modern life, it's no wonder

> people
> > > >are getting fatter and fatter. This also explains why we're getting

> fatter
> > > >over time - years ago, high fat food was less plentiful (you couldn't

> buy 64
> > > >oz sodas), and there were very few jobs that required sitting down for

> 8
> > > >hours per day. Years ago people also weren't sitting on their butts
> > > >watching television for 6 hours per day.
> > >
> > > Which also explains why as people grow older and become more sedentary
> > > they become fatter. It also explains why this generation of children
> > > who don't have pysical education, backyard swing sets, playgrounds,
> > > empty lots to play but instead watch tv, play video games, sit in
> > > front of a computer are fatter all while consuming more unhealthy high
> > > (trans) fat (HFCS) foods.
> > > >
> > > >Study after study has demonstrated that overweight people consistently
> > > >underestimate how many calories they consume, and consistently

> overestimate
> > > >how many calories they burn through exercise. The results are quite
> > > >predictable.
> > > >
> > > True

> >
> > It is all useless navel gazing.
> >
> > There are millions that do put in the effort needed and they still
> > fail.

>
> So, why were we not fat back in the 1940's? Have our genetics or
> metabolisms changed since then? Or, are we sitting more, and eating less?
> I think the more likely answer is the latter.
>
> GG


In the 1940's there was no fear of fat. And we did not have High
fructose corn syrup in all our food. Most food was real food. Not
highly processed, manufactured, packaged and chock full of sugars as is
the case today and since the 1970's.

TC
 
I have never seen a topic stir up so much hostility as this one. To
what extent do calories matter in weight loss and does the type of
calorie matter. I also don't understand why the "whole grain" and "A
calorie is a calorie" bible thumpers are so damned emphatic about
attempting to convince everyone else by cramming that **** down
everyones throat!

For many of us here, LC works and it works well and all the thumping
and preaching in the world isn't going to convice any of us otherwise.
Yet they continue to attempt to site half witted half assed examples
time after time and when you aren't conviced they result to name
calling (like Mr Natural Foods does or whatever the hell his name is).


For all their talk about biochemistry or even regular chemistry for
that matter, they sure seem to understand none of it. Doesn't even
make a modest amount of sense that different "chemical compounds" will
have different reactions and that in order to relase the POTENTIAL
engergy, which is what the calorie is, potential, that there will be
different pathways that this can be accomplished. According to much of
their diatribe I hear, it would seem that a piece of wood has
"calories". As a matter of fact according to the 1950's definition for
calculating calories and the strict scientific defintionit, it does but
I was always taught that it isn't digestible by humans because they
don't posses a necessary pathway to extract the "calories" from it.

All of these simpleton's preaching doesn't even begin to take into
account the effect that these different chemical compounds have on the
function of brain and body chemistry. Maybe that is because they don't
have a god damned clue!

Thank You folks, go ahead and consume your 1/4 cup of white rice - I'm
going to go have a nice steak.
 
jt wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2006 07:39:23 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
> >

>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Do you honestly believe all overweight people in the world have
> the same dietary patterns? High Carb etc?


Probably. We are all **** sapiens and we all have the same metabolic
system. Check any bio-chem textbook.

>
> 2. If the answer to number 1 is no then would it not mean that it
> relates to the quantity of food being eaten?


Not quantity but quality. That is the essence of the argument. The
calorie theory rests all its laurels on sheer quantity and
conveniently, especially for the food industry, completely ignores
quality.

>
> 3. Do you accept the fact that if someone starves to death they have
> expended more energy than consumed?


Hardly applicable to the discussion. We aren'y discussing extremes, we
are discussing the effects of calories, or lack thereof, on people
eating apparently adequate amounts of food give or take a several
percent in macro-nutrient ratios.

>
> 4. Has it ever occurred to you that the body's natural inclination is
> to store extra energy for times of famine?


Nope, the body does not store for general times of famine. eneral
famines cannot be predicted and nature cannot possibly build into us
protection from widespread general famine.

But seasonal shortages, that is another question.

Yep, in the summer, when they have access to more carbs, they fatten up
for the long winters when they lose weight due to having little or no
access to any large amounts of carbs. Interesting how that works eh?
Lots of carbs - we fatten up, no carbs - we lose fat.

Now, would you be recommending that we eat lots of carbs year round?
huh? You know, just in case of a widespread general famine? I didn't
think so. So maybe the food industry and the grain industry is just
fattening us up in preparation for famine. Geez, and I thought they
were just greedy bastards who wanted to make billions at the expense of
our civilisations health. Boy, was I wrong, eh?

>
> 5. Do you really believe that or ancestors tens of thousands of years
> ago ate 3 meals a day every 6 hours?


If they could get it they would and who's to say that they couldn't in
most times. What relevance this question has, I don't know.

>
> 6. Do you really believe or ancestors would have survived if when a
> big meal was had that only enough energy was stored to get to the next
> meal 6 hours later?


You know, people back in those days would have had, for the most part,
access to a regular source of food. Just like we did a couple of
hundred years ago, or a couple of thousand years ago. Or a couple of
hundred thousand years ago. That is how we evolved. That is how we
survived. That is what made us what we are today. The reality is that
we need food every few (5 to 6) hours. Go figure.

So what?

>
> 7. Does it not make sense that the body is going to store energy
> because it does not know when more will become available?


Seasonally, yes. Summer = carbs = fats. Winter = less carbs = less fat.

>
> 8. In relation to number 7 does it not make sense that the degree to
> which it occurs varies among individuals?


Sure, but to what degree? I can see that there would be a difference
between Inuits and Hawianns because one survives in the arctic and the
other survived in the south pacific in totlly different environments
with totally different approaches to survival, but when we first laid
eyes on them they were both perfectly healthy populations.

But should there be any difference between you and your sibling. Nope.
It isn't the differences in the people as much as the differences in
the diets.

>
> 9. Does 6 & 7 not explain why extreme dieters always fail because
> they slow down their metabolism because it is the body's natural
> defense against famine?


Nope. It proves my point.

Extreme dieters fail because they fail to use a methodology that takes
advantage of how the body really operates. Restricting fats and
increasing carbs is what people and animals do regularly on a seasonal
basis to gain weight. To do that to try to lose weight is silly. But
you've accepted it as "scientific" fact. How silly is that?

>
> 10. Do you really believe the body's natural tendency to store excess
> energy can be shut down completely just because someone is completely
> sedentary and consuming 5000 calories and 6 meals a day?


The body does not have a natural tendency to store excess energy. It
has historically done it seasonally in response to available carbs.
What it does have is a natural tendency to store excess carbs as fat.
Check your bio-chemistry textbook. That is scientific fact and is
expleined in detail in any bio-chem textbook.

A sedentary person can eat surprisingly large amounts of meats and fats
(as in *BBQ*) and still not gain a great deal if at all. But add to it
copious amounts of sweet soft drinks, potato chips, refined wheat buns,
etc and he will gain weight. You can do an experiment yourself. Next
time you have a BBQ avoid all meats and eat only carbs, any carbs,
whole food or refined, whatever you would normally eat except no meat.
Do that for a weekend. Weigh yourself before and after the weekend and
measure your girth, arms, waist etc. The next weekend eat nothing but
meat, avoid the bread, the soda, chips etc.Eat only beef patties,
wieners, ribs, chicken, etc. Measure yourself before and after. The
meat weekend you will gain very little if anything. The carb weekend
you will gain at least five lbs. I've done it myself.

>
> 11. Are you saying in times of famine people should eat high carb
> diets because they will put on more weight?


Nope. they should eat anything that gives them nutrition. And how,
again, is an extreme example like this proof of something in the normal
range?

>
> Just wondering since you are so intelligent....


I hope I've answered your questions. Now you are intelligent too.

TC
 
TC, I hope you know there are a few of us out here that love reading
your posts. I like your common sense approach to nutrition. It's
refreshing. As I have discovered over the years, all you really need
is a little history lesson and the science of nutrition becomes
unnecessary.

I thought this post that was written on a message board I frequent
would be applicable to your topic. It was written in response to
someone asking how one could *increase* caloric intake and expect to
lose weight. Here it is.

"It's pretty simple. When you eat very low calories, your metabolism
is very low. Thyroid hormone is lowered. Testosterone levels in men are
lowered. Muscle mass is reduced to make up for protein and to help
reduce metabolic rate. You can't maintain muscle mass on very low
calories since muscle is very metabolically demanding.

You start eating more, what happens? Your metabolism increases, thyroid
hormone increases, testosterone levels increase, you can now gain
muscle, leptin levels increase. It's not a simple thermodynamics theory
on caloric balance. Hormones play a huge role.

Muscle mass is very important here. The more muscle you carry, the
easier it is to lose weight. Now when you've been starving and you have
little muscle tissue, your metabolism is naturally much lower. Start
eating and adding muscle mass and your resting metabolic rate starts
climbing at 50 calories for every pound of muscle added. Someone
gaining 10 pounds of muscle is burning 500 extra calories PER day. This
should be a pound of fat loss per week by not doing anything. Good luck
adding muscle eating 1000 calories. You need more food to do that.

Also, on low calories having the testosterone levels of a pre-pubescent
girl isn't going to help you lose fat. High testosterone levels which
need ample calories and fat to exist is great for losing fat AND
building muscle. So when you start eating more, your testosterone
levels get jacked up and that supports fat loss and muscle gain, which
also supports fat loss."
 
On 20 Feb 2006 14:37:04 -0800, "Max C." <[email protected]> wrote:

>TC, I hope you know there are a few of us out here that love reading
>your posts. I like your common sense approach to nutrition. It's
>refreshing. As I have discovered over the years, all you really need
>is a little history lesson and the science of nutrition becomes
>unnecessary.
>
>I thought this post that was written on a message board I frequent
>would be applicable to your topic. It was written in response to
>someone asking how one could *increase* caloric intake and expect to
>lose weight. Here it is.
>
>"It's pretty simple. When you eat very low calories, your metabolism
>is very low. Thyroid hormone is lowered. Testosterone levels in men are
>lowered. Muscle mass is reduced to make up for protein and to help
>reduce metabolic rate. You can't maintain muscle mass on very low
>calories since muscle is very metabolically demanding.
>
>You start eating more, what happens? Your metabolism increases, thyroid
>hormone increases, testosterone levels increase, you can now gain
>muscle, leptin levels increase. It's not a simple thermodynamics theory
>on caloric balance. Hormones play a huge role.
>
>Muscle mass is very important here. The more muscle you carry, the
>easier it is to lose weight. Now when you've been starving and you have
>little muscle tissue, your metabolism is naturally much lower. Start
>eating and adding muscle mass and your resting metabolic rate starts
>climbing at 50 calories for every pound of muscle added. Someone
>gaining 10 pounds of muscle is burning 500 extra calories PER day. This
>should be a pound of fat loss per week by not doing anything. Good luck
>adding muscle eating 1000 calories. You need more food to do that.
>
>Also, on low calories having the testosterone levels of a pre-pubescent
>girl isn't going to help you lose fat. High testosterone levels which
>need ample calories and fat to exist is great for losing fat AND
>building muscle. So when you start eating more, your testosterone
>levels get jacked up and that supports fat loss and muscle gain, which
>also supports fat loss."


Ya know just eating excess calories is not going to add muscle mass to
a couch potato it is only going to add fat. I am an ectomorph and
could lift weights all day long and not gain much more than a little
lean muscle mass. Fat on the other hand is another story.
 
On 20 Feb 2006 14:37:04 -0800, "Max C." <[email protected]> wrote:

>TC, I hope you know there are a few of us out here that love reading
>your posts. I like your common sense approach to nutrition. It's
>refreshing. As I have discovered over the years, all you really need
>is a little history lesson and the science of nutrition becomes
>unnecessary.
>
>I thought this post that was written on a message board I frequent
>would be applicable to your topic. It was written in response to
>someone asking how one could *increase* caloric intake and expect to
>lose weight. Here it is.
>
>"It's pretty simple. When you eat very low calories, your metabolism
>is very low. Thyroid hormone is lowered. Testosterone levels in men are
>lowered. Muscle mass is reduced to make up for protein and to help
>reduce metabolic rate. You can't maintain muscle mass on very low
>calories since muscle is very metabolically demanding.
>
>You start eating more, what happens? Your metabolism increases, thyroid
>hormone increases, testosterone levels increase, you can now gain
>muscle, leptin levels increase. It's not a simple thermodynamics theory
>on caloric balance. Hormones play a huge role.
>
>Muscle mass is very important here. The more muscle you carry, the
>easier it is to lose weight. Now when you've been starving and you have
>little muscle tissue, your metabolism is naturally much lower. Start
>eating and adding muscle mass and your resting metabolic rate starts
>climbing at 50 calories for every pound of muscle added. Someone
>gaining 10 pounds of muscle is burning 500 extra calories PER day. This
>should be a pound of fat loss per week by not doing anything. Good luck
>adding muscle eating 1000 calories. You need more food to do that.
>
>Also, on low calories having the testosterone levels of a pre-pubescent
>girl isn't going to help you lose fat. High testosterone levels which
>need ample calories and fat to exist is great for losing fat AND
>building muscle. So when you start eating more, your testosterone
>levels get jacked up and that supports fat loss and muscle gain, which
>also supports fat loss."



Eating a healthy diet of 2000-3000 calories a day and being physically
active is more than enough to prevent one from becoming overwieght.
This strawman argument about low calories is not going to work.
 
TC wrote:
> jbuch wrote:
>
>>"Probably don't count" is not the same as "Actually don't count"
>>
>>Your argument is quite weak and deceptive.... See below.
>>
>>
>>
>>TC wrote:
>>
>>"A Very Highly Regarded...." begins to sound like an advertising claim
>>without substantiation.
>>
>>
>>>*
>>>
>>>A very highly regarded bio-chemistry textbook references "the
>>>establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
>>>conservation of energy in its application of animals"
>>>
>>>Except that the study or the paper by Lavoisier and Laplace does not
>>>exist.
>>>
>>>http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lavoisier_Chronology2.asp?anno=1785
>>>
>>>Any studies by these two together occurred much later than 1785 and
>>>none specifically established "the law of conservation of energy in its
>>>application of animals". They never did any such study or paper.
>>>
>>>This textbook is used to educate all medical people. They are being
>>>told that science has established "the law of conservation of energy in
>>>its application of animals" and then fails to provide a correct or
>>>relevant reference.
>>>
>>>Is this acceptable scientific "proof"? Can you find the study or the
>>>paper that originally established "the law of conservation of energy in
>>>its application of animals"?

>>
>>
>>This is crappy textbook writing, if it in fact exists, of the form of
>>retelling yet again of an unfounded urban legend as fact.
>>
>>Happens often, unfortunately.
>>
>>Not the big deal you make of it. And it does sound like you are
>>repeating, or could be repeating, another urban myth.



It is evident that since the text appears to be giving a non-existant
"scientific reference", it is in the class of crappy textbook writing.


Nothing has changed.


People believe false things all the time..




>
>
>
> second ed. of White, Handler and Smith "Principles of Biochemistry"
> Chaper 1 and
> Chapter 15 (metabolism) plus the citations and references therin. It
> states: (pp8) "Three historic discoveries led to the concept that the
> fundamental laws of phsics and chemistry, which apply to nonliving
> systems, also apply to living structures. These discoveries are (1)
> the establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
> conservation of energy in its application of animals"-- (the others
> have to do with (2) synthesis of urea and (3) fermentation). (pp9) "In
> living, as in nonliving, systems therefore, these laws of physical
> chemistry require that energy must be supplied in orderto accomplish
> the reversal of a spontaneous process or for the synthesis of a new
> compound from precursors of lower energy content".
> *
>
> This textbook is used in most, if not all, universities in North
> America. Go to your nearest medical library at your nearest medical
> university and read it for yourself.
>


It is the type of urban legend reference that would generally not get
checked.



> My guess is that you did not even do that before you chose to rag on
> the very textbook that most medical people are taught from in North
> America.


Why would I do that? You identified the reference as non-existant.

Texts with crappy parts sometimes become "Standards" and go on for a
long time.


>
> I am sure that the professors that use this textbook will probably
> disagree with your glib comments about this textbook.
>
> The text you see quoted was written by a professor: pbeyer
> <[email protected]>
> He was trying to provide me with definitive scientific proof that
> calories do count. Except that the study that was referenced in the
> textbook did not exist. I've not heard from him since. That was in
> 2002. I gather that he was quite embarassed that the textbook was
> fraudulent on this reference.
>
> If you have a better textbook that you want to quote and reference, go
> for it. Most textbooks use real references to support their teachings.
>


It isn't my interest to produce better textbooks for you or anybody else.

We agree that textbooks that repeat urban myths as fact are undesirable.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


A textbook author created, from whole cloth, the false urban myth about
George Washington chopping down the cherry tree.

He did it because it added interest and some morality to the history
text. It has been endlessly repeated in textbooks that follow, teachings
that follow, and in the popular press articles that follow.

The same principle works here.

"Good sounding things sometimes never get checked for accuracy"

>



--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)
 
Max C. wrote:
> TC, I hope you know there are a few of us out here that love reading
> your posts. I like your common sense approach to nutrition. It's
> refreshing. As I have discovered over the years, all you really need
> is a little history lesson and the science of nutrition becomes
> unnecessary.
>
> I thought this post that was written on a message board I frequent
> would be applicable to your topic. It was written in response to
> someone asking how one could *increase* caloric intake and expect to
> lose weight. Here it is.
>
> "It's pretty simple. When you eat very low calories, your metabolism
> is very low. Thyroid hormone is lowered. Testosterone levels in men are
> lowered. Muscle mass is reduced to make up for protein and to help
> reduce metabolic rate. You can't maintain muscle mass on very low
> calories since muscle is very metabolically demanding.
>
> You start eating more, what happens? Your metabolism increases, thyroid
> hormone increases, testosterone levels increase, you can now gain
> muscle, leptin levels increase. It's not a simple thermodynamics theory
> on caloric balance. Hormones play a huge role.
>
> Muscle mass is very important here. The more muscle you carry, the
> easier it is to lose weight. Now when you've been starving and you have
> little muscle tissue, your metabolism is naturally much lower. Start
> eating and adding muscle mass and your resting metabolic rate starts
> climbing at 50 calories for every pound of muscle added. Someone
> gaining 10 pounds of muscle is burning 500 extra calories PER day. This
> should be a pound of fat loss per week by not doing anything. Good luck
> adding muscle eating 1000 calories. You need more food to do that.
>
> Also, on low calories having the testosterone levels of a pre-pubescent
> girl isn't going to help you lose fat. High testosterone levels which
> need ample calories and fat to exist is great for losing fat AND
> building muscle. So when you start eating more, your testosterone
> levels get jacked up and that supports fat loss and muscle gain, which
> also supports fat loss."


That is a good post. And I agree. The more muscle mass the more you
will be able to eat without gaining fat or conversely, lose weight. One
should exercise to remain limber and mobile and build up a good solid
toned muscle mass.

As an extension to this topic, I have to disagree with the concept that
so many minutes of such and such an activity will "burn" exactly this
many calories which translates directly to this many grams or ounces or
pounds of fat. Nonsense. Too many variables including muscle mass.

TC
 
You yap a lot, but you don't add much to the discussion except for
useless ad hominem.

TC


jbuch wrote:
> TC wrote:
> > jbuch wrote:
> >
> >>"Probably don't count" is not the same as "Actually don't count"
> >>
> >>Your argument is quite weak and deceptive.... See below.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>TC wrote:
> >>
> >>"A Very Highly Regarded...." begins to sound like an advertising claim
> >>without substantiation.
> >>
> >>
> >>>*
> >>>
> >>>A very highly regarded bio-chemistry textbook references "the
> >>>establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
> >>>conservation of energy in its application of animals"
> >>>
> >>>Except that the study or the paper by Lavoisier and Laplace does not
> >>>exist.
> >>>
> >>>http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lavoisier_Chronology2.asp?anno=1785
> >>>
> >>>Any studies by these two together occurred much later than 1785 and
> >>>none specifically established "the law of conservation of energy in its
> >>>application of animals". They never did any such study or paper.
> >>>
> >>>This textbook is used to educate all medical people. They are being
> >>>told that science has established "the law of conservation of energy in
> >>>its application of animals" and then fails to provide a correct or
> >>>relevant reference.
> >>>
> >>>Is this acceptable scientific "proof"? Can you find the study or the
> >>>paper that originally established "the law of conservation of energy in
> >>>its application of animals"?
> >>
> >>
> >>This is crappy textbook writing, if it in fact exists, of the form of
> >>retelling yet again of an unfounded urban legend as fact.
> >>
> >>Happens often, unfortunately.
> >>
> >>Not the big deal you make of it. And it does sound like you are
> >>repeating, or could be repeating, another urban myth.

>
>
> It is evident that since the text appears to be giving a non-existant
> "scientific reference", it is in the class of crappy textbook writing.
>
>
> Nothing has changed.
>
>
> People believe false things all the time..
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > second ed. of White, Handler and Smith "Principles of Biochemistry"
> > Chaper 1 and
> > Chapter 15 (metabolism) plus the citations and references therin. It
> > states: (pp8) "Three historic discoveries led to the concept that the
> > fundamental laws of phsics and chemistry, which apply to nonliving
> > systems, also apply to living structures. These discoveries are (1)
> > the establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
> > conservation of energy in its application of animals"-- (the others
> > have to do with (2) synthesis of urea and (3) fermentation). (pp9) "In
> > living, as in nonliving, systems therefore, these laws of physical
> > chemistry require that energy must be supplied in orderto accomplish
> > the reversal of a spontaneous process or for the synthesis of a new
> > compound from precursors of lower energy content".
> > *
> >
> > This textbook is used in most, if not all, universities in North
> > America. Go to your nearest medical library at your nearest medical
> > university and read it for yourself.
> >

>
> It is the type of urban legend reference that would generally not get
> checked.
>
>
>
> > My guess is that you did not even do that before you chose to rag on
> > the very textbook that most medical people are taught from in North
> > America.

>
> Why would I do that? You identified the reference as non-existant.
>
> Texts with crappy parts sometimes become "Standards" and go on for a
> long time.
>
>
> >
> > I am sure that the professors that use this textbook will probably
> > disagree with your glib comments about this textbook.
> >
> > The text you see quoted was written by a professor: pbeyer
> > <[email protected]>
> > He was trying to provide me with definitive scientific proof that
> > calories do count. Except that the study that was referenced in the
> > textbook did not exist. I've not heard from him since. That was in
> > 2002. I gather that he was quite embarassed that the textbook was
> > fraudulent on this reference.
> >
> > If you have a better textbook that you want to quote and reference, go
> > for it. Most textbooks use real references to support their teachings.
> >

>
> It isn't my interest to produce better textbooks for you or anybody else.
>
> We agree that textbooks that repeat urban myths as fact are undesirable.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> A textbook author created, from whole cloth, the false urban myth about
> George Washington chopping down the cherry tree.
>
> He did it because it added interest and some morality to the history
> text. It has been endlessly repeated in textbooks that follow, teachings
> that follow, and in the popular press articles that follow.
>
> The same principle works here.
>
> "Good sounding things sometimes never get checked for accuracy"
>
> >

>
>
> --
> 1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
> 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
> 3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
> book
> 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)
 
"TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.


Yeah, there is. The fundamental science includes the laws of thermodynamics.

(...)

> 2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight loss
> in humans fails 95% of the time.


And succeeds 5% of the time.

(...)

> 3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors or is
> triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage and weight
> loss or fat loss.


Actually, there are. Various hormones are involved, include leptin. In
addition, the liver and other organs are involved in fat metabolism.

Get yourself a good physiology book.

Jeff

(...)
 

> Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight loss
>in humans fails 95% of the time.



Those who survived World War II as a POW or concentration camp inmate
would argue it succeeds 100% of the time...
 
TC wrote:
> You yap a lot, but you don't add much to the discussion except for
> useless ad hominem.



Your yapping volume is obvious.


See below and your prior posts.


>
> TC
>
>
> jbuch wrote:
>
>>TC wrote:
>>
>>>jbuch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Probably don't count" is not the same as "Actually don't count"
>>>>
>>>>Your argument is quite weak and deceptive.... See below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>TC wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"A Very Highly Regarded...." begins to sound like an advertising claim
>>>>without substantiation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>*
>>>>>
>>>>>A very highly regarded bio-chemistry textbook references "the
>>>>>establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
>>>>>conservation of energy in its application of animals"
>>>>>
>>>>>Except that the study or the paper by Lavoisier and Laplace does not
>>>>>exist.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lavoisier_Chronology2.asp?anno=1785
>>>>>
>>>>>Any studies by these two together occurred much later than 1785 and
>>>>>none specifically established "the law of conservation of energy in its
>>>>>application of animals". They never did any such study or paper.
>>>>>
>>>>>This textbook is used to educate all medical people. They are being
>>>>>told that science has established "the law of conservation of energy in
>>>>>its application of animals" and then fails to provide a correct or
>>>>>relevant reference.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is this acceptable scientific "proof"? Can you find the study or the
>>>>>paper that originally established "the law of conservation of energy in
>>>>>its application of animals"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is crappy textbook writing, if it in fact exists, of the form of
>>>>retelling yet again of an unfounded urban legend as fact.
>>>>
>>>>Happens often, unfortunately.
>>>>
>>>>Not the big deal you make of it. And it does sound like you are
>>>>repeating, or could be repeating, another urban myth.

>>
>>
>>It is evident that since the text appears to be giving a non-existant
>>"scientific reference", it is in the class of crappy textbook writing.
>>
>>
>>Nothing has changed.
>>
>>
>>People believe false things all the time..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>second ed. of White, Handler and Smith "Principles of Biochemistry"
>>>Chaper 1 and
>>>Chapter 15 (metabolism) plus the citations and references therin. It
>>>states: (pp8) "Three historic discoveries led to the concept that the
>>>fundamental laws of phsics and chemistry, which apply to nonliving
>>>systems, also apply to living structures. These discoveries are (1)
>>>the establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
>>>conservation of energy in its application of animals"-- (the others
>>>have to do with (2) synthesis of urea and (3) fermentation). (pp9) "In
>>>living, as in nonliving, systems therefore, these laws of physical
>>>chemistry require that energy must be supplied in orderto accomplish
>>>the reversal of a spontaneous process or for the synthesis of a new
>>>compound from precursors of lower energy content".
>>>*
>>>
>>>This textbook is used in most, if not all, universities in North
>>>America. Go to your nearest medical library at your nearest medical
>>>university and read it for yourself.
>>>

>>
>>It is the type of urban legend reference that would generally not get
>>checked.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>My guess is that you did not even do that before you chose to rag on
>>>the very textbook that most medical people are taught from in North
>>>America.

>>
>>Why would I do that? You identified the reference as non-existant.
>>
>>Texts with crappy parts sometimes become "Standards" and go on for a
>>long time.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I am sure that the professors that use this textbook will probably
>>>disagree with your glib comments about this textbook.
>>>
>>>The text you see quoted was written by a professor: pbeyer
>>><[email protected]>
>>>He was trying to provide me with definitive scientific proof that
>>>calories do count. Except that the study that was referenced in the
>>>textbook did not exist. I've not heard from him since. That was in
>>>2002. I gather that he was quite embarassed that the textbook was
>>>fraudulent on this reference.
>>>
>>>If you have a better textbook that you want to quote and reference, go
>>>for it. Most textbooks use real references to support their teachings.
>>>

>>
>>It isn't my interest to produce better textbooks for you or anybody else.
>>
>>We agree that textbooks that repeat urban myths as fact are undesirable.
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>A textbook author created, from whole cloth, the false urban myth about
>>George Washington chopping down the cherry tree.
>>
>> He did it because it added interest and some morality to the history
>>text. It has been endlessly repeated in textbooks that follow, teachings
>>that follow, and in the popular press articles that follow.
>>
>>The same principle works here.
>>
>>"Good sounding things sometimes never get checked for accuracy"
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
>>2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
>>3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
>>book
>>4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

>
>



--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)
 
Jeff wrote:
> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.

>
> Yeah, there is. The fundamental science includes the laws of thermodynamics.


How many times must I hear this stupid argument?

The laws of thermodynamics are not invalid.

The question is whether or not it cannot be *directly applied to
predict weight gain or weight loss in animals*. Do you understand that
little detail?

OK. Now, go read what I wrote. There is no study or papers that found
definitively that the laws of thermo can be directly applied to predict
weight gain or loss in animals. I showed where a major textbook used a
reference to a non-existant piece of scientific work to back up it's
claim that the laws of thermo can be aplied to predict weight in
animals.

And you saying that it applies, does not simply make it so. Here is
what you do: Read a few textbooks, read all the seminal studies
referenced by those textbooks, when you find one that definitively
proves or finds specifically that the laws of thermo can be applied
directly to mathematically predict weight gain or weight loss in
animals, come back and give us the name of the study, the names of the
researchers who made these findings and where it was published.

Until then, your cryptic little pronouncement that the laws of thermo
make it so, is ****.

>
> (...)
>
> > 2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight loss
> > in humans fails 95% of the time.

>
> And succeeds 5% of the time.


Do you know anything about statistics. Do you know anything about the
bell curve? Standard deviations? The bell curve is upside down, which
means the results are opposite of the expected result. It fails
statistically and in the real world enough of the time (95%+) for us to
declare that it does not work in any practical way whatsoever. In
scientific studies 95% failure rate is as good as 100% failure rate. It
is statistically the same thing.

>
> (...)
>
> > 3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors or is
> > triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage and weight
> > loss or fat loss.

>
> Actually, there are. Various hormones are involved, include leptin. In
> addition, the liver and other organs are involved in fat metabolism.
>
> Get yourself a good physiology book.
>
> Jeff


Oh, that is such a complete and definitive description of the complex
multiple processes involved. Thus it must be true. You've just proved
it beyond a doubt. You win.

Except..... I do have a good physiology book, in fact, several. And
several bio-chem books too. And I don't see anything about how calories
trigger anything. I see how carbs impact blood glusose levels and how
that impacts the pancreas to produce insulin and how that hormone
causes the body to covert the excess glucose into lipids and stores it
in fat cells. And I see how the dietary proteins and fats triggers its
own vaious cascades of hormones and its own series of biological events
to metabolize them properly.

But I see *no* mention about how calories are actually involved in any
of these bio-chemical processes. All I see is a passing reference in
one of the first few chapters about how calories are applicable to
weight management in animals with a reference to science that does not
exist.

Please tell us more about exactly how calories triggers weight gain or
loss. Tell us more about leptin. How are calories and leptin connected
exactly? How are the liver and other organs involved in combination
with calories to cause fat storage or fat loss. Tell us, please. What
are the specific metabolic processes between the ingestion of claories
and the storage of fat or the loss of fat. Please explain them in
excruciating scientific detail, or give us the name of a book that does
that, or give us a url to a website that does.

TC
 
David Frank wrote:
> > Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight loss
> >in humans fails 95% of the time.

>
>
> Those who survived World War II as a POW or concentration camp inmate
> would argue it succeeds 100% of the time...


Buzzzzz. Wrong answer.

The use of extreme scenarios only prove that you fail to grasp simple
concepts of scientific reasoning.

Examples of extreme starvation only proves is that extreme starvation
makes you thin. It proves nothing about appplying normal ranges of
caloric restriction to lose or gain weight in normal circumstances.

Idiot.

TC
 
TC wrote:
> 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
>
> The following is supposed to be the scientific basis of the concept of
> calories being applicable to animals and weigt control:
>
> *
> second ed. of White, Handler and Smith "Principles of Biochemistry"
> Chaper 1 and
> Chapter 15 (metabolism) plus the citations and references therin. It
> states: (pp8) "Three historic discoveries led to the concept that the
> fundamental laws of phsics and chemistry, which apply to nonliving
> systems, also apply to living structures. These discoveries are (1)
> the establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
> conservation of energy in its application of animals"-- (the others
> have to do with (2) synthesis of urea and (3) fermentation). (pp9) "In
> living, as in nonliving, systems therefore, these laws of physical
> chemistry require that energy must be supplied in orderto accomplish
> the reversal of a spontaneous process or for the synthesis of a new
> compound from precursors of lower energy content".
> *
>
> A very highly regarded bio-chemistry textbook references "the
> establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
> conservation of energy in its application of animals"
>
> Except that the study or the paper by Lavoisier and Laplace does not
> exist.
>
> http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lavoisier_Chronology2.asp?anno=1785


http://www.answers.com/topic/conservation-of-energy

# ^ Lavoisier, A.L. & Laplace, P.S. (1780) "Memoir on Heat", Académie
Royal des Sciences pp4-355

Also:

http://www.coretexts.org/downloads/Bridging the Gap Syllabus Year2.pdf
references student reading of the document on the second page.

and you can buy a copy of the book:

Lavoisier & Laplace,
Memoir on Heat-1783
Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Henry Guerlac
Facsimile and translation
1982, ISBN 0-88135-195-8, $19.95


Of Biological Significance
RESPIRATIOM = A FORM OF COMBUSTION

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Search/historysearch.cgi?SUGGESTION=Laplace&CONTEXT=1
# Applying quantitative methods to a comparison of living and nonliving
systems, Laplace and the chemist Antoine Lavoisier in 1780, with the aid
of an ice calorimeter that they had invented, showed respiration to be a
form of combustion.
# Although Laplace soon returned to his study of mathematical astronomy,
this work with Lavoisier marked the beginning of a third important area
of research for Laplace, namely his work in physics particularly on the
theory of heat which he worked on towards the end of his career.



Sloppy scholarship on the claim of Lavoisier and Laplace not writing on
thermodynamics in the 1780 time period.

>
> Any studies by these two together occurred much later than 1785 and
> none specifically established "the law of conservation of energy in its
> application of animals". They never did any such study or paper.
>


They claimed the link between respiration and chemical combustion.

It is likely that in 1785 they could not experimentally verify the
conservation of energy in application to animals, because of the crude
nature of scientific instruments at the time, and the poor state of
chemistry at that time.




Faulty scholarship?
By White, Handler and Smith "Principles of Biochemistry"
By yourself


--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)
 
TC wrote:
::
:: The laws of thermodynamics are not invalid.
::

At the very least, you need to qualify this statement, even in this thread.

:: The question is whether or not it cannot be *directly applied to
:: predict weight gain or weight loss in animals*. Do you understand
:: that little detail?
::
:: OK. Now, go read what I wrote. There is no study or papers that found
:: definitively that the laws of thermo can be directly applied to
:: predict weight gain or loss in animals.

That doesn't mean that they don't apply. Are there any papers or studies
that prove they don't?

I showed where a major
:: textbook used a reference to a non-existant piece of scientific work
:: to back up it's claim that the laws of thermo can be aplied to
:: predict weight in animals.

How do you know that the citation wasn't just bad? Mistakes in citing the
work of others does happen, you know.

::
:: And you saying that it applies, does not simply make it so. Here is
:: what you do: Read a few textbooks, read all the seminal studies
:: referenced by those textbooks, when you find one that definitively
:: proves or finds specifically that the laws of thermo can be applied
:: directly to mathematically predict weight gain or weight loss in
:: animals, come back and give us the name of the study, the names of
:: the researchers who made these findings and where it was published.

The real question is, then, why would they not? The anwser likely is, they
do, but one has to clearly define in what sense they do.

::
:: Until then, your cryptic little pronouncement that the laws of thermo
:: make it so, is ****.

Are your comments any better?

::
:::
::: (...)
:::
:::: 2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight
:::: loss in humans fails 95% of the time.
:::
::: And succeeds 5% of the time.
::
:: Do you know anything about statistics. Do you know anything about the
:: bell curve? Standard deviations? The bell curve is upside down, which
:: means the results are opposite of the expected result. It fails
:: statistically and in the real world enough of the time (95%+) for us
:: to declare that it does not work in any practical way whatsoever. In
:: scientific studies 95% failure rate is as good as 100% failure rate.
:: It is statistically the same thing.

But, it doesn't say that calories don't count, just that calorie counting is
not a practical means of weight control for most people. This cannot be
denied.

::
:::
::: (...)
:::
:::: 3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors
:::: or is triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage
:::: and weight loss or fat loss.
:::
::: Actually, there are. Various hormones are involved, include leptin.
::: In addition, the liver and other organs are involved in fat
::: metabolism.
:::
::: Get yourself a good physiology book.
:::
::: Jeff
::
:: Oh, that is such a complete and definitive description of the complex
:: multiple processes involved. Thus it must be true. You've just proved
:: it beyond a doubt. You win.
::
:: Except..... I do have a good physiology book, in fact, several. And
:: several bio-chem books too. And I don't see anything about how
:: calories trigger anything. I see how carbs impact blood glusose
:: levels and how that impacts the pancreas to produce insulin and how
:: that hormone causes the body to covert the excess glucose into
:: lipids and stores it in fat cells. And I see how the dietary
:: proteins and fats triggers its own vaious cascades of hormones and
:: its own series of biological events to metabolize them properly.

So how does the body determine "excess"?

::
:: But I see *no* mention about how calories are actually involved in
:: any of these bio-chemical processes. All I see is a passing
:: reference in one of the first few chapters about how calories are
:: applicable to weight management in animals with a reference to
:: science that does not exist.

Are you suggesting that the authors had committed fraud, TC? If so, why
don't you call them on it. Which book are you referring to?

::
:: Please tell us more about exactly how calories triggers weight gain
:: or loss. Tell us more about leptin. How are calories and leptin
:: connected exactly? How are the liver and other organs involved in
:: combination with calories to cause fat storage or fat loss. Tell us,
:: please. What are the specific metabolic processes between the
:: ingestion of claories and the storage of fat or the loss of fat.
:: Please explain them in excruciating scientific detail, or give us
:: the name of a book that does that, or give us a url to a website
:: that does.

Calories = food energy usable in the body. The various macronutrients
provide different functions in the body. Protein sources provide building
blocks, fat and carbs provide different types of energy. However, all of
them provide energy that they body converts from one form (food) to another
(something that is derived from food and used or stored within the body).

"Calorie" is just a description of the bio-energy derivable from food.
Thus, the language used in a textbook need not involve the explicit word
"calorie" in describing metabolic function. It doesn't make sense to do so.

TC, if you're such the expert on all this, start publishing and change the
world.

In the meantime, if calories don't count, please explain to me how one can
lose 100 lbs eating a carb-heavy diet and lean meats while doing exercise.
 
TC wrote:
:: David Frank wrote:
:::: Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight loss
::: >in humans fails 95% of the time.
:::
:::
::: Those who survived World War II as a POW or concentration camp
::: inmate would argue it succeeds 100% of the time...
::
:: Buzzzzz. Wrong answer.
::
:: The use of extreme scenarios only prove that you fail to grasp simple
:: concepts of scientific reasoning.
::
:: Examples of extreme starvation only proves is that extreme starvation
:: makes you thin. It proves nothing about appplying normal ranges of
:: caloric restriction to lose or gain weight in normal circumstances.

If calories don't count, please explain to me how one can lose 100 lbs
eating a carb-heavy diet with lean meats while doing exercise.
 
jbuch wrote:
> TC wrote:
> > 1) There is no fundamental science to support it.
> >
> > The following is supposed to be the scientific basis of the concept of
> > calories being applicable to animals and weigt control:
> >
> > *
> > second ed. of White, Handler and Smith "Principles of Biochemistry"
> > Chaper 1 and
> > Chapter 15 (metabolism) plus the citations and references therin. It
> > states: (pp8) "Three historic discoveries led to the concept that the
> > fundamental laws of phsics and chemistry, which apply to nonliving
> > systems, also apply to living structures. These discoveries are (1)
> > the establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
> > conservation of energy in its application of animals"-- (the others
> > have to do with (2) synthesis of urea and (3) fermentation). (pp9) "In
> > living, as in nonliving, systems therefore, these laws of physical
> > chemistry require that energy must be supplied in orderto accomplish
> > the reversal of a spontaneous process or for the synthesis of a new
> > compound from precursors of lower energy content".
> > *
> >
> > A very highly regarded bio-chemistry textbook references "the
> > establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
> > conservation of energy in its application of animals"
> >
> > Except that the study or the paper by Lavoisier and Laplace does not
> > exist.
> >
> > http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lavoisier_Chronology2.asp?anno=1785

>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/conservation-of-energy
>
> # ^ Lavoisier, A.L. & Laplace, P.S. (1780) "Memoir on Heat", Académie
> Royal des Sciences pp4-355



Nothing in 1780. except: "(1780): Lavoisier begins his study on
calorimetry with a newly designed apparatus "

http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lavoisier_Chronology2.asp?anno=1780

In 1783:

http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lavoisier_Chronology2.asp?anno=1783

1783-06-18): At the Académie "M. Delaplace a lu un mémoire fait
conjointement avec M. Lavoisier sur une nouvelle méthode de mesurer la
chaleur." P-V, 1783, fol. 144.

translation: "M Delaplace read a memoir written jointly with M.
Lavoiseur on a new method to measure heat"

also in 1783:

(1783-01-02) (1783-03-28): Continues calorimetric studies with Laplace.
Specific heats and heats of a few reactions: quicklime and water,
quicklime and nitric acid, dilution of sulphuric acid, solution of
salts and water, attack of steel by sulphuric acid

(1783-06-24): Experiments on the production of water by detonating
oxygen and hydrogen under a bell jar, carried out in the presence of
Blagden, Laplace, Vadermonde, Fourcroy, Meusnier, Legendre and Le Roy.

(1783-06-25): At the Académie Lavoisier and Laplace announce the
experimental results obtained the previous day. Water formed from
combining some sixty pints of oxygen and hydrogen; producing only very
pure water. They conclude: "l'eau n'est pas une subst

(1783-09): Laplace communicates to Lavoisier the idea that hydrogen
released by the action of acids results from decomposition of water.

Says nothing about applying the laws of thermo to animals.


>
> Also:
>
> http://www.coretexts.org/downloads/Bridging the Gap Syllabus Year2.pdf
> references student reading of the document on the second page.
>
> and you can buy a copy of the book:
>
> Lavoisier & Laplace,
> Memoir on Heat-1783
> Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Henry Guerlac
> Facsimile and translation
> 1982, ISBN 0-88135-195-8, $19.95


I'll have to get a copy.

>
>
> Of Biological Significance
> RESPIRATIOM = A FORM OF COMBUSTION
>
> http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Search/historysearch.cgi?SUGGESTION=Laplace&CONTEXT=1
> # Applying quantitative methods to a comparison of living and nonliving
> systems, Laplace and the chemist Antoine Lavoisier in 1780, with the aid
> of an ice calorimeter that they had invented, showed respiration to be a
> form of combustion.



Did they show respiration to be a form of combustion? And if they did
does that mean that you can mathematically and accurately predict
weight loss and gain in animals? And did they actually suggest that?

Possibly, not likely and I don't think so.


> # Although Laplace soon returned to his study of mathematical astronomy,
> this work with Lavoisier marked the beginning of a third important area
> of research for Laplace, namely his work in physics particularly on the
> theory of heat which he worked on towards the end of his career.
>
> Sloppy scholarship on the claim of Lavoisier and Laplace not writing on
> thermodynamics in the 1780 time period.


I think that the sloppy scholarship is in attributing way more to
Lavoisier and Laplace than they actually did.

> > Any studies by these two together occurred much later than 1785 and
> > none specifically established "the law of conservation of energy in its
> > application of animals". They never did any such study or paper.
> >

>
> They claimed the link between respiration and chemical combustion.
>
> It is likely that in 1785 they could not experimentally verify the
> conservation of energy in application to animals, because of the crude
> nature of scientific instruments at the time, and the poor state of
> chemistry at that time.



I most definitively agree. They were just figuring out accurate and
consistent ways to measure heat. How the hell they would be referenced
in terms of *proving* the applicability of the laws of thermo to weight
control in animals is beyond me.


> Faulty scholarship?
> By White, Handler and Smith "Principles of Biochemistry"
> By yourself



My "scholarship" is what found this *little* discrepancy. Maybe I
should've written the textbook, or at least proofed it.

Nice to see someone at least try to address the real issue. Thanks for
the breath of fresh air in this discussion.

TC