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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
Are you equating a Zone diet, (40% carbs), with Atkins?
Just for your information, maintainance Atkins is hardly distinguishable from Zone... Mirek |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:07:13 GMT, posted: writes: On 23 Jan 2004 12:07:49 -0800, (tcomeau) posted: It has nothing to do with the Laws of Thermo. They apply to a closed system. The human body is not a closed system. Where does it state that the "conservation of energy principle" applies only to a closed system? In any text that covers thermodynamics. However, some conclusions can be drawn anyway; the previous poster is incorrect. Energy is conserved whatever. Over what arbitrary boundaries energy transfers are measured, determines what a "closed system" is. And what do you understand by a closed system? A closed system is any system which has no energy sources or sinks. The body is not "closed" because food provides an external source of energy, and the toilet provides an external sink (!). However, a locked room containing food for a month and a chemical toilet IS a closed system. Exactly! Draw the boundaries and measure the energy transfers. The human body can be studied as a closed system. It depends what you measure and how rigorously. Right. I've been waiting many months for TC to point out ANY metabolic lab study to show that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss. No show, but he still persists. Moosh And I've been waiting just as long for you to show us the one seminal metabolic lab study, or any metabolic lab study that conclusively proves otherwise. I'm still waiting. I may not have the study to disprove the calorie fallacy, but you do not have the study or studies that proved it in the first place. You are placing your trust in a theory that has never been proven scientifically, it has only been assumed. TC |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
On 22 Jan 2004 18:02:47 -0800, (tcomeau) posted: snip Maybe the lesson to be learned is that calories really have little bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans. TC snip The only thing complicating this simple concept is peoples unreasonable adherence to the calories fallacy. The calories math doesn't, hasn't and will never be a valid predictor of weight loss or gain in humans. So show us the study. You've claimed this nonsense for years with not a shred of evidence. Make with the evidence please. Metabolic lab study showing hypercaloric diet results in fat storage loss. Moosh OK. You claim that the Laws of Thermo is directly applicable to weight management in the human body, and you further insist that there is no other factors involved other than the calories-in/calories-out factor. If that is the case then it applies in *every* circumstance with no exceptions. No Exceptions. That is the nature of a *Law* of physics. No Exceptions. In this case we are not restricted to metabolic lab studies to disprove the applicability of the Law of Thermo to weight management in the human body. One exception, and only one exceprion, is enough to disprove the idea that the Law of Thermo applies to weight management in the human body. 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." 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." 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." 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. ------ EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special correspondent for The Associated Press. ****************** |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:37:56 +0000, tcomeau wrote:
"Moosh" I've been waiting many months for TC to point out ANY metabolic lab study to show that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss. No show, but he still persists. In less time that it took you to type out your response, I google: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=126794 47&dopt=Abstract Fifty-three healthy, obese female volunteers (mean body mass index, 33.6 +/- 0.3 kg/m(2)) were randomized; 42 (79%) completed the trial. Women on both diets reduced calorie consumption by comparable amounts at 3 and 6 months. The very low carbohydrate diet group lost more weight (8.5 +/- 1.0 vs. 3.9 +/- 1.0 kg; P 0.001) and more body fat (4.8 +/- 0.67 vs. 2.0 +/- 0.75 kg; P 0.01) than the low fat diet group. Mean levels of blood pressure, lipids, fasting glucose, and insulin were within normal ranges in both groups at baseline. Although all of these parameters improved over the course of the study, there were no differences observed between the two diet groups at 3 or 6 months. beta- Hydroxybutyrate increased significantly in the very low carbohydrate group at 3 months (P = 0.001). *** Based on these data, a very low carbohydrate diet is more effective than a low fat diet for short-term weight loss and, over 6 months, is not associated with deleterious effects on important cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women. *** (emphasis mine.) Your 'interest' in the facts appears to be feigned. You are placing your trust in a theory that has never been proven scientifically, it has only been assumed. I don't even think it's been assumed. In fact, I challenge you, mooshie one! Find a _technical_ reference that even _assumes_ your (now disproven) "theory". Go, thou soft one! Flit thee to the Primary Sources! Seek to sip the sweet knectar of knowledge! Come back when you've read something. It's just common sense. Martin -- Martin Golding | Western philosophy: All that we can see is the illusion. DoD 236 0354 EC | Eastern religion: All that we can see is illusion. | Zen: THWACK! Shut up and watch. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896
Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight I guess that that 3lb difference was very likely caused by LC waterloss... Mirek |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000620.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. sigh.... you poor idiot.... Extremes do not prove or disprove anything other than the extreme. So would you please point out any metabolic lab study that shows that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss as you keep claiming? Moosh Great programme on BBC last week. Scientists have been puzzled by the success of Atkins diet but conclusion is that protein food makes you feel full but they still maintain it is dangerous. Diana (a non dieter) |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
(tcomeau) wrote in message
snip OK. You claim that the Laws of Thermo is directly applicable to weight management in the human body, and you further insist that there is no other factors involved other than the calories-in/calories-out factor. If that is the case then it applies in *every* circumstance with no exceptions. No Exceptions. That is the nature of a *Law* of physics. No Exceptions. In this case we are not restricted to metabolic lab studies to disprove the applicability of the Law of Thermo to weight management in the human body. One exception, and only one exceprion, is enough to disprove the idea that the Law of Thermo applies to weight management in the human body. 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. snip 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." 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." 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. snip 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. 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. 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. TC |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
"Mirek Fidler" wrote in message ...
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896 Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight I guess that that 3lb difference was very likely caused by LC waterloss... Mirek You guess? Well that settles it then. You *guess* then it must be true. What an amazing scientific mind you have. TC |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
I guess that that 3lb difference was very likely caused by LC
waterloss... Mirek You guess? Well that settles it then. You *guess* then it must be true. What an amazing scientific mind you have. What is wrong with guessing ? Do not get me wrong, I am on LC WOE. That is how I know how easily you loose water during the induction, depleting glycogen stores. Now the question is whether you will loose the same amount of water on low-fat regime... I think that there simply will be more water bound with glycogen when on low-fat/high-carb A study I would like to see would compare weight loss starting _after_ first two weeks of regime. Mirek |
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 |