Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

wrote in message ...

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)

High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com

25 Jan 2004 14:46:32 -0800 in article
(Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:

wrote in message ...

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)

High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground.

Not true for people with healthy kidneys.


--
Matti Narkia

In response to Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD's post:


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?
--
Stephen S.
331 / 286 / 220 - as of 21 Jan. 04
LC since 28 Sept. 03
http://dragonfen.com/diet
--------------------------------

In response to 's post:


In rec.org.mensa (and almost any other newsgroup), I've learned to
filter any posts cross-posted to alt.atheism or talk.origins; they're
always trolls. Apparently I need to kill cross-posts to ASDLCal now as
well.


I get suspicious of *any* cross posted thread. More than 3 groups it's
pretty much a given that trolls are involved.
--
Stephen S.
331 / 286 / 220 - as of 21 Jan. 04
LC since 28 Sept. 03
--------------------------------

Try an SSRI medication to help you with that feeling.

"Stephen S" wrote in message
news:qEYQb.57970$Xq2.56019@fed1read07...

I get suspicious of *any* cross posted thread. More than 3 groups it's
pretty much a given that trolls are involved.
--
Stephen S.
331 / 286 / 220 - as of 21 Jan. 04
LC since 28 Sept. 03
--------------------------------

Stephen S wrote:

In response to Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD's post:


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?
--
Stephen S.
331 / 286 / 220 - as of 21 Jan. 04
LC since 28 Sept. 03
http://dragonfen.com/diet
--------------------------------

Oh my! You would argue with the great Dr. (cough) Ching?? Or was that
Chong?

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:28:14 -0500, Myway wrote
(in message m):

Stephen S wrote:

In response to Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD's post:


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?
--
Stephen S.
331 / 286 / 220 - as of 21 Jan. 04
LC since 28 Sept. 03
http://dragonfen.com/diet
--------------------------------

Oh my! You would argue with the great Dr. (cough) Ching?? Or was that
Chong?

Careful... you are headed for a very unpleasant encounter with the
business end of the Truth Discernment Ray :-)

--
Steve

Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003

"Stephen S" wrote in message
news:4yYQb.57939$Xq2.30132@fed1read07...
In response to Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD's post:


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?
--
Stephen S.
331 / 286 / 220 - as of 21 Jan. 04
LC since 28 Sept. 03
http://dragonfen.com/diet
--------------------------------


Because the medical district is in another part of town?

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:48:11 GMT, posted:

"Moosh" writes:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:58:02 GMT, posted:

Energy is conserved whatever. Over what arbitrary boundaries energy
transfers are measured, determines what a "closed system" is.

Never said otherwise.

OK, I thought you said conservation of energy only occurred in a
"closed system" (whatever that arbitrary system means exactly).

In a non-closed system, energy appears (from "sources") and disappers
(through "sinks"),

And this obvious point is supposed to shed light on what?

which means that energy equations must add terms
for the sources and sinks.

Of course. That's what I'm advocating

As traditionally stated, the first law of
thermodynamics applies to systems having no sources and no sinks.

Since when? Can you quote this? Conservation of energy is UNIVERSAL.

BTW, that's the first law, I believe, although whatever number you
give to the principle of conservation of energy, energy is still
conserved. The law about entropy is the second, I believe, and is
irrelevant here.

I'm not sure what you mean by "hypercaloric". Nobody has ever
disputed that a normal person eating 5000 cal/day will not lose
weight. What is claimed, and some of us have measured in practice,
is that changing the source of calories WITHOUT changing the number
of calories has changed us from gaining or maintaining to losing.

So show us the metabolic lab studies to back this assetion up.
"Hypercaloric" means taking more calories into the body than are
expended by that same body...

For some definition of "expended", your statement is a tautology.

How a tautology?

The
real issue is the definition of "expended", where one expenditure
includes the inefficiency of metabolizing various energy sources.

Expended simply means leaving the body in whatever form.
Sorry, I thought this would be obvious.

Here the SECOND law of thermodynamics is relevant: no conversion is
100% efficient. Therefore, an easy corollary states that two
different conversion methods are a priori unlikely to exhibit the
same efficiency.

The general principle of conservation of energy means that a calorie
can neither be created nor destroyed. All must be accounted for.
Efficiency is irrelevant...

In other words, you don't really know anything about thermodynamics,

Well I do know that energy is always conserved, a basic fact which
seems to have escaped you.

and don't understand the second law. The second law states that all
energy conversions involve some energy changing to an unusable form.

Which is not what I'm talking about. You may be. Try "conservation of
energy", the first law, I believe. You can't gain sustenance from the
heat ouput of muscular effort, but it is accounted for in the energy
balance statement.

Energy in equals energy out PLUS the change in entropy resulting from
wasted energy.

So put some numbers to this. You are saying that 1000 calories into
the body will be equal to 1000 calories out of the body plus this
"change in entropy resulting from wasted energy". Care to put a
ballpark figure on the number of calories in this PLUS bit?

All systems produce TWO things: the thing you wanted
them to produce, and waste energy.

Whoa! We are measuring ALL energy.
My poin't is that energy can neither be created or destroyed.
Any energy (waste or useful) must be accounted for.
Energy *in* MUST equal energy *out*.

All calories into this system (the human body) must exactly equal
all calories out of this system...

Where "energy out", for type I diabetics receiving no insulin,
includes lots of sugar energy wasted in their ****. You don't seem to
understand what the "energy out" comprises.

Of course I do. What part of "energy out" do you not understand?
The abnormal situation you cite is why diabetics lose a lot of weight
Doh! The sugar energy is counted. Why on Earth would you not count it?

I'm saying ALL calories MUST be accounted for. You seem to be trying
to find ones that don't.

Why?

I am unaware of any study measuring the exact conversion efficiency
of the conversion process for various fats and simple or complex
carbs.

Conversion to what? All chemical reaction pathways have been studied
rigorously. There are reference books that can tell you the exact
thermal equations for every known chemical reaction.

Then share your great wisdom by posting the exact conversion
efficiency for a given fat of your choice, and for glucose.

Well I don't know what "conversion efficiency" means other than
percentage yield of product perhaps, but you still haven't said what
the conversion is to. Then we can talk turkey, so to speak.

Your basic fallacy is that you do not account for all of the system's
energy outputs.

I do, but you seem to be trying to excuse some and invent others.
My point is that energy into a system MUST equal energy OUT of a
system. ANNOUNCEMENT: I COUNT ALL ENERGY!!!

You appear to be considering only metabolism plus work
done in the form of physical activity.

Not at all.

What do you mean here by "metabolism"?

That is your strange interpretation, and I'm not sure why you came to
this misunderstanding. I thought I'd been clear.

Moosh

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:52:46 GMT, posted:

"Moosh" writes:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:18:36 GMT, posted:

I'm curious--when was ASDLC invaded by this crowd? I've been
reading here on-and-off for four years or more, and have never
encountered this before.

ASDLC? OK, I looked above I'm posting on smn.

Ah, gotcha. So let me rephrase the question. Is there a troll on
ASDLCarb cross-posting to ASDLCal et al, or is there a troll on one of
those other newsgroups crossposting to ASDLCarb?

No idea.
I comment on what I see.
If tracking this down fascinates you, try looking at the OP.

In rec.org.mensa (and almost any other newsgroup), I've learned to
filter any posts cross-posted to alt.atheism or talk.origins; they're
always trolls. Apparently I need to kill cross-posts to ASDLCal now as
well.

Whatever floats your boat.

In the past, it was well recognized that calories are not
irrelevant--that eating 5,000 cal/day will not result in weight
loss...

It will if you burn 5,001 cal/day.

As indicated in another post, the issue here is the definition of
"burn". If you include energy converted into unusable (or unused)
forms, then your statement is a tautology.

In what way a tautology?

My statement is a truism, perhaps?

In what way could the opposite of what I said pertain?

The only outcome of this
clarification is to rephrase the question: "Does a change in caloric
composition, all other things being equal, result in a change in
calories burned?"

Very minimally. Some foods may make the BMR rise marginally.
The general principle is that if energy IN is at all less than energy
OUT (and ALL forms of energy are accounted for) then the body will
lose tissue mass.

Since you have access to the chemical equations for fat metabolism and
for glucose metabolism, go ahead and post an answer in one specific case.

Metabolism to what? Fat or glucose may be stored or partially
interconverted, or metabolised to carbon dioxide and water. If you
mean the latter, the fat will yield approx 9 cal/gram, and glucose
approximately 4cal/g. This can be mechanical energy or heat, although
they all eventually relsove to heat

HTH

Moosh