If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On the one hand it is suggested that calories are calories, and that
low carb diets work simply because they result in less calorie intake. Note the difference in terminology. "Calories are calories" is actually used to mean "intake calores are intake calories." It is commonly also alleged, though not clearly stated, that output calories are NOT all equal. For example, it is often stated that dieting without exercise will result in muscle loss while dieting with exercise will result in fat loss, which is more desirable. I am not sure that is proven either. But if true, then clearly output calories are not all equal. Output through work is not equal to output through excretion, e.g. And to the extent that input calorie choice may affect output calories, the equality of input calories begins to be questionable. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:55:48 +0100, "Mirek Fidler" posted: Are you equating a Zone diet, (40% carbs), with Atkins? Just for your information, maintainance Atkins is hardly distinguishable from Zone... OK, it's apparently changed. I read the book back in 1970 or thereabouts. So Atkins is 40% carb calories nowadays? Not a low carb diet then. One wonders what all the fuss is. Stick to the good old, tried and true, varied, wholefood, eucaloric diet with regular exercise and you won't likely go wong, unless you habitually wrestle with busses Moosh See there is your main problem. You do not even know what a low-carb diet is. The mainstream recommends a 55 to 65% carb diet. Anything less than this is a low-carb diet. 40% carbs is a low carb diet. Now this is a major misconception on your part. Here you are arguing with everybody and coming across as if you know more than everybody, showing nothing but arrogance, making your high-handed assertations and you do not even understand what ow-carb is and why it is low-carb. Maybe you ought to get to understand the parameters and the context of the discussion before you open your mouth and make nonsensical arguments that end up embarassing you yet again. TC |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
OK Moosh. There is your study that shows or at least indicates the real possibility that calories are not a valid and practical approach to weight management. In your gullible little eyes, apparently. How sad! That report shows to me much confusion and NO science. I challenge you to find me *one* study that wasn't put out by industry researchers that proves definitively that calories are directly applicable to control weight in humans. I want any study that wasn't paid for by industry that makes it crystal clear that weight can be managed by restricting calories. Restricting calories is the ONLY way to reduce fat storage loss. No other way has ever been demonstrated. And calorie restriction ALWAYS results in fat storage loss. Of course the way you achieve this calorie restriction is of very little interest to me here (smn). Try a dieting group for the most effective schemes. Better yet, find me the seminal study that first made this assertion. Find me the one or the series of studies that *first* concluded that calories are it. Such a ground breaking and historical document must be easy to find. The researchers must be world reknown for their brilliant discovery. Give me the study(s) and the names. This is the study(s) that your whole world of nutritional science hangs its hat on. Should be easy. That's the whole body of science. Open your eyes. You are contradicting this huge body of science, so the onus is on you to show just one anomaly, and it will turn the whole scentific corpus on its head Good luck! Moosh Well show the one piece of that whole body of science that specifically concluded that calories are the only factor in weight management in humans. If someone were to ask what was the seminal work in nuclear science, the instant response is Einstein, relativity and E=mc2. Ask about rocket science and you get Von Braun. Ask about the planets and you get Copernicus and Galileo. Ask about modern electricity and you get Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla. Ask about gravity and you get Newton. Ask about flight and you get the Wright Brothers. Ask about nutrition and you get ?????????. Nothing. Vague references to a large body of work. Put your money where your mouth is. Who made and proved this concept? What specific study or set of studies specifically showed that calories could be applied directly in weight management in humans. Put up or shut up. TC |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
What a bunch of clowns ( Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh)
"Moosh" wrote in message
Diets which involve higher insulin output will involve more fat storage than those that do not. Surely it depends on how many calories are absorbed and how many are needed. If you eat 2000 calories of glucose, and expend 3000 calories running a marathon, you won't store any fat. Doesn't matter what your insulin level is. In addition, insulin resistance differentiates individuals in terms of fat storage rate. Fat storage occurs when there are excess calories about. Without these, no fat storage occurs. To get fat, you have to eat too much. End of story. Unless you want to get into why folks eat too much. I don't. Here is an interesting question for you. What is the precise mechanism that allows the body to know that there is an overabundance of calories and to start storing it as fat? What mechanism is there for the individual cells to register that it has its maximum intake of calories? Are all nutrients broken down to their basic energy values at all times in every circumstance? How does the body gauge that it has consumed more energy than needed and how does it then know to store the excess? Conversely, when intake of calories is less than needed, how exactly does the individual cells make it known to the system in general that it is deficient of energy and that fat needs to be broken down into calories for the cell to use? There must be a feedback mechanism between the individual non-fat cells and the fat cells for energy to be stored as fat or used as energy. What is this mysterious mechanism that knows whether to store fat or break down fat based on the number of calories consumed? TC |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:39:30 +0200, Matti Narkia
wrote: Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti? Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread. In fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread. Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected. Answer the question, Matti. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031122.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:33:42 -0600, "Stephen S" wrote:
High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground. Humbly, Andrew So why isn't there a dialysis center next door to every Gold's Gym? -- Oooh, let me think about that. rolling eyes http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031122.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - interesting connections
I checked a few of the "scientists" mentioned in this study and found
a couple of interesting things. Read on. Here is one study that shows that calories are not the last word on weight mangement in humans. ********************* http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896 Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight By DANIEL Q. HANEY AP Medical Editor 10/14/2003 FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight. Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the contention -- long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without paying a price on the scales. Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many experts' surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at least in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard American Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels, as many feared would happen. Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not get so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot. Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually can eat more. The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet. Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories. That should have added up to about seven pounds. But for some reason, it did not. "There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said. That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in just the same way. Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting found her report fascinating. "A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to be open-minded." Schwartz appears open minded. I found no conflicts of interest or connections with industry. I also found no industry connections or conflicts of interests for the author of the study Penelope Greene. Keep reading. Others, though, found the data hard to swallow. "It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects." A sceptic, Barbara Rolls. Aheres to the calorie-is-all concept. Who is Barbara Rolls: Barbara J. Rolls, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (1992); Professor of Nutrition, Penn State University. Consultant for Knoll Pharmaceuticals and has received research support from, among others, Knoll, P&G, and ILSI. Coauthored (with James O. Hill) a 1998 report for ILSI on "Carbohydrates and Weight Management." (phone conversation w/ R. Collins, CSPI, December 6, 2000) (Newark Star-Ledger, 2/17/97)Research on lipid and lipoprotein responses to different diets partially supported by Abbott Laboratories. (Am. J. Clin. Nurt. 2000;70:839-46) Research on age related impairments in the regulation of food intake supported in part by the Campbell Soup Company. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1995;62:923-31) Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, owned by none other than Mayor Bloomberg of New York who was recently lambasted publicly for criticizing Dr Atkins personally. Hummmm... interesting connection. In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day. The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with diet plans to follow as best they could. Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of lots of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and unsaturated oils. "This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins diet," Greene said. Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to pay for the research, though it had no input into the study's design, conduct or analysis. Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes. The low-carb meals were 5 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 30 percent fat. In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb regimen took off 23 pounds, while people who got the same calories on the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was that volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food lost 20 pounds. "It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it answers," said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots of data to suggest this shouldn't be true." Another sceptic. Raises more questions eh? Who is Gary Foster? Gary D. Foster, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia. Consultant for Abbott Laboratories and HealtheTech. Receives speakers fees from Abbott Laboratories and Roche Laboratories. (N. Engl. J. Med. 2003;348:2082-90) An industry shill. Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting their food. Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less apt to cheat because they were less hungry. Another sceptic. Making up possible scenarios to minimize and explain away the fidings. Who is Dr. Samuel Klein? Samuel Klein, M.D., Washington University School of Medicine. Participated in a 9/96 meeting of gastroenterologists sponsored by Procter & Gamble that resulted in a paper, Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 26:210-218 (1997). Research support from ILSI (1988-89; $30,000); Ross Laboratories (1991-94; $86,000); Sandias (1992-93; $12,000); Alimentarics, Inc. (1996-97; $100,000) (from 1997 resumé) Another industry shill. It seems that the only ones criticizing low-carb are industry shills and the only ones who are open minded about low-carb are independent scientists interested in the truth. TC |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:31:33 -0500 in article
Sun & Mun_ wrote: On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:39:30 +0200, Matti Narkia wrote: Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti? Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread. In fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread. Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected. Answer the question, Matti. Between 30 and 50 % of people with diabetes are at risk of kidney disease, but that was not an issue here. Chung's comment about protein and kidneys was general and as such also and mostly aimed at the large majority of general population with no kidney disease and no diabetes. Chung's attempts to change the subject (the next twist would probably be totally off-topic religious mantras) when caught answering inaccurately (or otherwise challenged) should be resisted. A citation from the recently posted "Dr. Chung FAQ, Issue 1" (URL:http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=chungfaq-8E35A7.05173026012004%40library.airnews.net): "o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs, dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible, religious mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem arguments, and other such disreputable, unethical, and unprofessional tactics. See also the chapters dealing with Mu. ;-) -- Matti Narkia |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
Matti Narkia wrote:
25 Jan 2004 19:52:32 -0800 in article (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote: Matti Narkia wrote in message . .. 25 Jan 2004 14:46:32 -0800 in article (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote: High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground. Not true for people with healthy kidneys. Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti? Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread. Correct. In fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread. Correct. Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected. My comment remains accurate. would suggest you be careful in your answer LOL. Looks like you took care not to answer the question. See above. If _anyone needs to be more careful with his/her answers it's you. Does BMI 21-25 still define "mild obesity" as one of your recent answers claimed? :-):-). Yes. Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-). Yes. Humbly, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
"Moosh" wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:39:30 +0200, Matti Narkia posted: 25 Jan 2004 19:52:32 -0800 in article m (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote: Matti Narkia wrote in message . .. 25 Jan 2004 14:46:32 -0800 in article (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote: High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground. Not true for people with healthy kidneys. Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti? Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread. In fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread. Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected. would suggest you be careful in your answer LOL. See above. If _anyone needs to be more careful with his/her answers it's you. Does BMI 21-25 still define "mild obesity" as one of your recent answers claimed? :-):-). Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-). Hey, Andy, you blew it there mate You meant 2# of *powdered* spud, didn't you? Easy arithmetic error in my book. Geez, Matti is an anal retentive from way back Hey, I've just had 2# of white wine. That OK? Doesn't BMI depend on your racial height? Height is not racial. You're a short ass, No? No. Hey, a fit fatty is much better off than an unfit anything. Yours in admiration, Moosh Not sure if I should thank you for your comments. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Moosh (2) Report Moosh to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s). However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 135 | February 14th, 2004 04:56 PM |
NYT Atkins Article Untrue - Per Atkins | J Costello | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 11 | January 22nd, 2004 03:27 AM |
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 23 | December 14th, 2003 11:39 AM |
Was Atkins Right After All? | Ken Kubos | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | November 22nd, 2003 11:01 PM |
Atkins diet fires up the beef industry | poohbear | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 4 | September 30th, 2003 12:42 AM |