Three reasons why calories probably don't count



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pweb...Y)&PID=20807&SEQ=20060221112712&CNT=25&HIST=1

Memoir on heat / read to the Royal Academy of Sciences, 28 June 1783, by...

LC Control Number: 81011521
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Brief Description: Lavoisier, Antoine Laurent, 1743-1794.

Memoir on heat / read to the Royal Academy of Sciences, 28 June 1783,
by Messrs. Lavoisier & De La Place ; translated with an introduction and
notes by Henry Guerlac.

Mémoire sur la chaleur. English & French
New York : N. Watson Academic Publications, 1982.
xviii, 117 p., [2] leaves of plates : ill. ; 23 cm.
ISBN: 0882021958



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.

--
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:
>>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.

http://www.shpusa.com/books/heat.html

Evidently, you can order it by fax.

Information on this page.
http://www.shpusa.com/order2.html



Fax Order Form

Books may be ordered from your local bookseller, library supplier,
internet resource, or direct from the publisher. Prepayment from
individuals is required. MasterCard-Visa-Eurocard are accepted as are
checks payable in US Dollars and drawn on an American bank.

For convenience and security it is suggested that you download and
printout the following PDF Order Form and fax it along with credit card
information to customer service (USA + 508 888-3733). If you experience
trouble downloading our order form, please advise us by e-mail to
customer service (see contact page) and we will fax you the appropriate
form. You may also place your order by phone to (508) 888-9113.

Institutional orders may be faxed to the number given above or mailed to
PO Box 1240, Sagamore Beach, MA 02562-1240, USA. Kindly include P.O.
number and delivery requirements.
>
>
>>
>>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
>


--
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)
 
Should be able to get it by inter-library loan.

TC

jbuch wrote:
> TC wrote:
> >>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.
>
> http://www.shpusa.com/books/heat.html
>
> Evidently, you can order it by fax.
>
> Information on this page.
> http://www.shpusa.com/order2.html
>
>
>
> Fax Order Form
>
> Books may be ordered from your local bookseller, library supplier,
> internet resource, or direct from the publisher. Prepayment from
> individuals is required. MasterCard-Visa-Eurocard are accepted as are
> checks payable in US Dollars and drawn on an American bank.
>
> For convenience and security it is suggested that you download and
> printout the following PDF Order Form and fax it along with credit card
> information to customer service (USA + 508 888-3733). If you experience
> trouble downloading our order form, please advise us by e-mail to
> customer service (see contact page) and we will fax you the appropriate
> form. You may also place your order by phone to (508) 888-9113.
>
> Institutional orders may be faxed to the number given above or mailed to
> PO Box 1240, Sagamore Beach, MA 02562-1240, USA. Kindly include P.O.
> number and delivery requirements.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>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
> >
>
>
> --
> 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:

> It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
> Except it fails in the real world.

You mean fail in the real world, just like TC does?

Can you please keep your B/S **** off of smn. This is a science ng,
after all.

Please move your **** to where you belong: alt.support.diet.low-carb
home of the abnormals. There among all the Dim-Wits you will find
words of encouragement befitting all failures in life.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
 
"TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.

Actually, extreme scenarios can illustrate the point, as in this case.

> 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.

Extreme starvation also shows that calorie restriction (often with lots of
manual labor added on) works.

> Idiot.
>
> TC

Mr. Frank is not an idiot. He is right on.

Jeff
 
"TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.

In what universe are you? The laws of themodynamics work in this one.

> 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?

Yes, very well.

> 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 ****.

There is clearly more to weight loss and gain than the laws of
thermodynamics. But the laws of thermodynamics still apply.

>
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> > 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.

Tell that to the 5% of the people for whom it does work.

> In
> scientific studies 95% failure rate is as good as 100% failure rate. It
> is statistically the same thing.

Actually, you are incorrect. Something like 95% of all attempts to quit
smoking fail. Yet, the number of exsmokers is going up every day.

Likewise, people who follow a diet that is low in calories will lose weight.

It is not that 95% of the people who follow a low-calorie diet don't lose
weight, but rather, 95% of the people can't stick to the low-calorie diet.
They are very different things.


(...)

Jeff
 
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
>
> 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"?
>
> ************************

Did you read the Wikipedia article on Lavoisier?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier

It says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lavoisier also made introductory research on physical chemistry and
thermodynamics in joint experiment with Laplace, when he used a
calorimeter to estimate the heat evolved per unit of carbon dioxide
produced, eventually they found the same ratio for a flame and animals,
indicating that animals produced energy by a type of combustion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

This is reasonably close to what you quoted from the textbook.
"Conservation of Energy".... Wikipedia may not be the best source of
all for exact intrepretation. They say that the ratio of the heat
evolved per unit of CO2 is the same for a flame and animals. The energy
ratio is conserved? Is that another way to torture this factoid?

On the other hand, the textbook authors may have put a little shading on
the exact impact of the Lavoisier and Laplace work. Stuff like that
happens, as you remarked in another thread on college biology teachers
talking about diet (Atkins) and regurgitating what they heard without
ever checking the source themselves.


And by now, we all know that Lovoisier and Laplace did publish a lengthy
paper in 1783 .... and you can buy it from
http://www.shpusa.com/books/heat.html
or you can try to get it from the Library of Congress or other place.

I was a professional researcher for nearly 40 years. I know how sloppy
most research actually is. Too much of my career was involved in fixing
sloppy and some frankly stupid research. It is plentiful.


Jim Buch PhD

--
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 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.
>
> Actually, extreme scenarios can illustrate the point, as in this case.

Sure, when the point is who's being honest and who isn't.

When given no choice whatsoever, 100% of folks fed a 700
calorie diet lose weight. When given free choice, 5% of folks
who attempt to lose weight keep it off. The value of the
example? To show who's distracting from the subject.

The real subject was supposed to be about why eating
excess calories shouldn't be a problem. The reasoning
behind that stance is a bit extreme, but it's more
interesting the reaction it draws than what happens
when it's actually attempted.

Since the subject is excess calories, drawing examples
of lowered calories demonstrates poor understanding of
the topic. Move into *forced* caloric restriction and it
shows either utter lack of comprehension or dishonesty.

Independent of whether you agree with the original
thesis (I don't but I understnad the pieces it is assembled
from), those examples are off-point.
 
On 21 Feb 2006 17:54:18 -0800, "Doug Freyburger" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Jeff wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> Actually, extreme scenarios can illustrate the point, as in this case.
>
>Sure, when the point is who's being honest and who isn't.
>
>When given no choice whatsoever, 100% of folks fed a 700
>calorie diet lose weight. When given free choice, 5% of folks
>who attempt to lose weight keep it off. The value of the
>example? To show who's distracting from the subject.
>
>The real subject was supposed to be about why eating
>excess calories shouldn't be a problem. The reasoning
>behind that stance is a bit extreme, but it's more
>interesting the reaction it draws than what happens
>when it's actually attempted.
>
>Since the subject is excess calories, drawing examples
>of lowered calories demonstrates poor understanding of
>the topic. Move into *forced* caloric restriction and it
>shows either utter lack of comprehension or dishonesty.
>
>Independent of whether you agree with the original
>thesis (I don't but I understnad the pieces it is assembled
>from), those examples are off-point.

It shows that a 2200-2500 calorie diet and moderate exercise which is
perfectly resonable and sustainable is better than a 3500 calorie a
day couch potato.
 
On 20 Feb 2006 11:50:53 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:

>There are millions that do put in the effort needed and they still
>fail.

Because they refuse to count the chocolat bars, candies etc. which
state it is sugar free (but not calorie free)

And, when interviewed, they tell good stories about the food they did
ate.

I remember once I made a data entry scheme program for a database on
what people did eat. I got lots of test material and was almost
screaming of laughter.

One lady weighing about 140 kg (280 pound) insisted to have eaten
daily for breakfast one slice of bread with gudbrandsdalsost (a brown
cheese made of around 90% cow milk whey and 10% goat milk), for lunch
she did eat about the same. For dinner just a few gram of food and
that's all. And still she gained 2 kg weight in the observation
period. She just wouldn't tell us the reality, as one of my colleagues
did once the new nutrition students should make their first
observation of what people had for food that day. For dinner she
confessed to have eaten 1/2 kg King Haakon confect chocolate :) (No,
she is not thick at all). She confessed about the episode the day
after in the lunch. We had all a jolly good laughter. (All of us
trying to imagine the faces of the two students who never did expect
such a dinner from a teacher in nutrition sciene)
 
Jeff wrote:
> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > 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.
>
> Actually, extreme scenarios can illustrate the point, as in this case.
>
> > 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.
>
> Extreme starvation also shows that calorie restriction (often with lots of
> manual labor added on) works.
>
> > Idiot.
> >
> > TC
>
> Mr. Frank is not an idiot. He is right on.
>
> Jeff

You don't seem to grasp it either.

TC
 
Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > Actually, extreme scenarios can illustrate the point, as in this case.
>
> Sure, when the point is who's being honest and who isn't.
>
> When given no choice whatsoever, 100% of folks fed a 700
> calorie diet lose weight. When given free choice, 5% of folks
> who attempt to lose weight keep it off. The value of the
> example? To show who's distracting from the subject.
>
> The real subject was supposed to be about why eating
> excess calories shouldn't be a problem. The reasoning
> behind that stance is a bit extreme, but it's more
> interesting the reaction it draws than what happens
> when it's actually attempted.
>
> Since the subject is excess calories, drawing examples
> of lowered calories demonstrates poor understanding of
> the topic. Move into *forced* caloric restriction and it
> shows either utter lack of comprehension or dishonesty.
>
> Independent of whether you agree with the original
> thesis (I don't but I understnad the pieces it is assembled
> from), those examples are off-point.

The subject is not excess calories alone.

It is whether or not a mathematically calculated caloric deficit can be
used in the real world to accurately predict a specific amount of fat
loss and, conversely, whether a mathematically calculated caloric
excess can accurately predict a specific amount of fat gain....... in
all damned circumstances regardless of any other factors.

And there is no science that supports it thru actual real life data.

TC
 
I think that we can say that Lavoisier and Laplace created a new
measuring device, the ice calorimeter. They then were able to do some
simple measurements of a small animal's heat production in the
calorimeter.

Later they examined the air being expelled by animals and found some
similarity with the gases created from typical burning processes and
thus suggested that metabolic process appeared to be similar to
combustion.

I think that that is all that they came up with that was relevant to
the caloric theory that Rudner came up with near the turn of the 20th
century.

Now to examine Rudner. He is a strange individual with some strange
ideas. I think he may be the crux of this whole thing. I'll have to do
some research and come back to this in a bit.

TC

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
> >
> > 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"?
> >
> > ************************
>
> Did you read the Wikipedia article on Lavoisier?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier
>
> It says:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lavoisier also made introductory research on physical chemistry and
> thermodynamics in joint experiment with Laplace, when he used a
> calorimeter to estimate the heat evolved per unit of carbon dioxide
> produced, eventually they found the same ratio for a flame and animals,
> indicating that animals produced energy by a type of combustion.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is reasonably close to what you quoted from the textbook.
> "Conservation of Energy".... Wikipedia may not be the best source of
> all for exact intrepretation. They say that the ratio of the heat
> evolved per unit of CO2 is the same for a flame and animals. The energy
> ratio is conserved? Is that another way to torture this factoid?
>
> On the other hand, the textbook authors may have put a little shading on
> the exact impact of the Lavoisier and Laplace work. Stuff like that
> happens, as you remarked in another thread on college biology teachers
> talking about diet (Atkins) and regurgitating what they heard without
> ever checking the source themselves.
>
>
> And by now, we all know that Lovoisier and Laplace did publish a lengthy
> paper in 1783 .... and you can buy it from
> http://www.shpusa.com/books/heat.html
> or you can try to get it from the Library of Congress or other place.
>
> I was a professional researcher for nearly 40 years. I know how sloppy
> most research actually is. Too much of my career was involved in fixing
> sloppy and some frankly stupid research. It is plentiful.
>
>
> Jim Buch PhD
>
> --
> 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: TC is a chronic complainer.

#2: TC's comments are basically dumb.

#3: TC doesn't stand for anything. That is why he is a chronic
complainer.

Just thought that TC's Droogies might want to know.
 
I think you are doing an average job of pretending to be a scientific
researcher.

Your research skills are poor.

In a brief time, I found the Lavoisier-Laplace reference that you
claimed "COULDN"T EXIST".

So very very sloppy in technique.

Your knowledge of scientific history is really second rate.

Your original argument mixed an opinion article by behavioral
psychologists in as if this were new information, and then you followed
it by your own "opinion" as if it were of equivalent status. as well as
the claim that this Lavoisier-Laplace article didn't exist.

You are headed to the JC "Kill Filter" status for me.

I am sorry I wasted my time dealing with you.

And, you get to be a nasty SOB in dealing with others at times. So dumb,
and so arrogant.


TC wrote:
> I think that we can say that Lavoisier and Laplace created a new
> measuring device, the ice calorimeter. They then were able to do some
> simple measurements of a small animal's heat production in the
> calorimeter.
>
> Later they examined the air being expelled by animals and found some
> similarity with the gases created from typical burning processes and
> thus suggested that metabolic process appeared to be similar to
> combustion.
>
> I think that that is all that they came up with that was relevant to
> the caloric theory that Rudner came up with near the turn of the 20th
> century.
>
> Now to examine Rudner. He is a strange individual with some strange
> ideas. I think he may be the crux of this whole thing. I'll have to do
> some research and come back to this in a bit.
>
> TC



>
> 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
>>>
>>>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"?
>>>
>>>************************
>>
>>Did you read the Wikipedia article on Lavoisier?
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier
>>
>>It says:
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Lavoisier also made introductory research on physical chemistry and
>>thermodynamics in joint experiment with Laplace, when he used a
>>calorimeter to estimate the heat evolved per unit of carbon dioxide
>>produced, eventually they found the same ratio for a flame and animals,
>>indicating that animals produced energy by a type of combustion.
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>This is reasonably close to what you quoted from the textbook.
>>"Conservation of Energy".... Wikipedia may not be the best source of
>>all for exact intrepretation. They say that the ratio of the heat
>>evolved per unit of CO2 is the same for a flame and animals. The energy
>>ratio is conserved? Is that another way to torture this factoid?
>>
>>On the other hand, the textbook authors may have put a little shading on
>>the exact impact of the Lavoisier and Laplace work. Stuff like that
>>happens, as you remarked in another thread on college biology teachers
>>talking about diet (Atkins) and regurgitating what they heard without
>>ever checking the source themselves.
>>
>>
>>And by now, we all know that Lovoisier and Laplace did publish a lengthy
>>paper in 1783 .... and you can buy it from
>>http://www.shpusa.com/books/heat.html
>>or you can try to get it from the Library of Congress or other place.
>>
>>I was a professional researcher for nearly 40 years. I know how sloppy
>>most research actually is. Too much of my career was involved in fixing
>>sloppy and some frankly stupid research. It is plentiful.
>>
>>
>>Jim Buch PhD
>>
>>--
>>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)
 
jbuch wrote:
> I think you are doing an average job of pretending to be a scientific
> researcher.

I am not a scientific researcher, I'm just a poor schlub trying to make
sense of **** that doesn't seem to make sense. Just like the rest of us
laypeople.

>
> Your research skills are poor.

They're better than many and as good as most. I never claimed to have
accesss to all research resources, though. Which is why I bring up
these things for discussion in this supposedle learned group. And it
worked. We brought some enlightenment to a subject that was unclear.

>
> In a brief time, I found the Lavoisier-Laplace reference that you
> claimed "COULDN"T EXIST".

The reference as presented in the textbook did not exist. It was in a
different year entirely. And the actual topic covered by L & L were not
clear at all.

>
> So very very sloppy in technique.
>
> Your knowledge of scientific history is really second rate.

I never claimed to be an expert in scientific history. I'm just a
student of the world.

>
> Your original argument mixed an opinion article by behavioral
> psychologists in as if this were new information, and then you followed
> it by your own "opinion" as if it were of equivalent status. as well as
> the claim that this Lavoisier-Laplace article didn't exist.

The original argument was an erroneous and apparently fraudulent
reference in a university bio-chem textbook. And it was at least
partially wrong.

>
> You are headed to the JC "Kill Filter" status for me.

Knock yourself out.

>
> I am sorry I wasted my time dealing with you.

I'm not done, we still have to examine Rubner. That is going to be
interesting. I can tell by just glancing at some of his "theories". He
sounds like a bit of an over-reacher in the theories that he proposes.
Which, I think, will enlighten us even more on this topic.

>
> And, you get to be a nasty SOB in dealing with others at times. So dumb,
> and so arrogant.

If you can't stand the heat.......and sticks and stones.......

TC
 
"Doug Freyburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jeff wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> Actually, extreme scenarios can illustrate the point, as in this case.
>
> Sure, when the point is who's being honest and who isn't.
>
> When given no choice whatsoever, 100% of folks fed a 700
> calorie diet lose weight. When given free choice, 5% of folks
> who attempt to lose weight keep it off. The value of the
> example? To show who's distracting from the subject.
>
> The real subject was supposed to be about why eating
> excess calories shouldn't be a problem. The reasoning
> behind that stance is a bit extreme, but it's more
> interesting the reaction it draws than what happens
> when it's actually attempted.
>
> Since the subject is excess calories, drawing examples
> of lowered calories demonstrates poor understanding of
> the topic. Move into *forced* caloric restriction and it
> shows either utter lack of comprehension or dishonesty.
>
> Independent of whether you agree with the original
> thesis (I don't but I understnad the pieces it is assembled
> from), those examples are off-point.
>

Yeah, calories count, but only 5% can effective lose and keep weight off
with calorie restriction. Mere CR is NOT a proven effective means for the
greatest majority of people to control weight. End of story! :)

Now, when you bring LC into the story, CR effectively becomes more effective
(ie, easier and less painful) for a greater % of the population, IMO.
However, given how unfocused people can be in daily life, it's not hard to
see why even LC isn't going to work for the greatest majority of people -
even if you could somehow reprogram them to try it as a long-term approach.
 
"TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > Actually, extreme scenarios can illustrate the point, as in this case.
>>
>> Sure, when the point is who's being honest and who isn't.
>>
>> When given no choice whatsoever, 100% of folks fed a 700
>> calorie diet lose weight. When given free choice, 5% of folks
>> who attempt to lose weight keep it off. The value of the
>> example? To show who's distracting from the subject.
>>
>> The real subject was supposed to be about why eating
>> excess calories shouldn't be a problem. The reasoning
>> behind that stance is a bit extreme, but it's more
>> interesting the reaction it draws than what happens
>> when it's actually attempted.
>>
>> Since the subject is excess calories, drawing examples
>> of lowered calories demonstrates poor understanding of
>> the topic. Move into *forced* caloric restriction and it
>> shows either utter lack of comprehension or dishonesty.
>>
>> Independent of whether you agree with the original
>> thesis (I don't but I understnad the pieces it is assembled
>> from), those examples are off-point.
>
> The subject is not excess calories alone.
>
> It is whether or not a mathematically calculated caloric deficit can be
> used in the real world to accurately predict a specific amount of fat
> loss and, conversely, whether a mathematically calculated caloric
> excess can accurately predict a specific amount of fat gain....... in
> all damned circumstances regardless of any other factors.

That wasn't at all the subject.

It doesn't matter *if* you can accurately (as in mathematically) determine
caloric deficit or not when talking about the *real world* (in the lab might
be another story). What matters in the *real world* is whether or not you
can create a deficit and maintain it long enough to produce weight loss.
This is why, even though inaccurate to a large measure, people can count
calories and activity and produce weight loss. It's just a matter of
balancing one against another long enough until results are obtained

>
> And there is no science that supports it thru actual real life data.
>

So? Even if that's true doesn't mean it doesn't work.
 
"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> 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.
>
> In what universe are you? The laws of themodynamics work in this one.
>
>> 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?
>
> Yes, very well.
>
>> 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 ****.
>
> There is clearly more to weight loss and gain than the laws of
> thermodynamics. But the laws of thermodynamics still apply.
>
>>
>>>
>>> (...)
>>>
>>> > 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.
>
> Tell that to the 5% of the people for whom it does work.
>
>> In
>> scientific studies 95% failure rate is as good as 100% failure rate. It
>> is statistically the same thing.
>
> Actually, you are incorrect. Something like 95% of all attempts to quit
> smoking fail. Yet, the number of exsmokers is going up every day.
>
> Likewise, people who follow a diet that is low in calories will lose
> weight.
>
> It is not that 95% of the people who follow a low-calorie diet don't lose
> weight, but rather, 95% of the people can't stick to the low-calorie
> diet. They are very different things.

I've told him this over and over but he refuses to hear.
 
"jbuch" <jbuch@CUT_HERE.revealed.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I was a professional researcher for nearly 40 years. I know how sloppy
> most research actually is. Too much of my career was involved in fixing
> sloppy and some frankly stupid research. It is plentiful.

Very true. It saddens me at how sloppy researchers have become. I see it
all the time as an editor/reviewer of technical journals/articles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back