calorie theory

Once upon a time, our fellow tcomeau rambled on about "calorie theory." Our champion De-Medicalizing
in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

they object to it being reffered to as a theory, ie. they believe it to be fact.

Here is one for TC.

FatSo's are Fat. And, that is a fact.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

"tcomeau" <[email hidden]> ha scritto nel messaggio
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Except that 98% of people who try to lose weight by restricting calories and fat end up failing.
And recent studies hint that restricting carbs is more effective than restricting higher calorie
fats. And one study even found that low-carbers can eat up to 300 calories per day more than
low-fat dieters and still maintain simliar weight loss.

Again, it's an isocaloric diet study It shows that carbohydrates force-feeding is detrimental to
health There's no such a thing as ad libitum study show a low-carb diet is better than a low-fat
diet Expecially the study on the excess of calories resulting in more way loss doesn't specify if
the weight loss is lean body mass or fat so it's USELESS and shouldn't be referenced anymore The
problem of the flaw of a isocaloric diet versus a libitum diet has been exposed many times and we
hope in the future there will be no more isocaloric studies comparing two different diet J Am Diet
Assoc 1997 Aug;97(8):840

There's no such a thing as a ad libitum low-carb diet that show better blood profile, micronutrients
intake and long term weight loss than a "healthy" high-carb low-fat diet For healthy I mean that
refined carbohydrates and sweets are not allowed and that the diet is comprised of: fruits,
vegetables, whole cereals, green leafy vegetables, nuts, seeds, legumes, sprouts and lean fish

The best low fat diet is the Pritikin one, expecially because there are 90 controlled studies on the
effect of this diet in weight loss, cancer risk, triglycerides level, insulin level, cholesterol
level, cardiac resistance, fasting glycemia and micronutrients intake The 73% carbohydrates Pritikin
has been reported many times to lower insulin level to 40% whereas both zone diet and atkins failed
to lower insulin level Remember than according to Brand-Miller studies a steak raises insulin level
more than pasta

Find an ad libitum studies diet where people are not force-fed and you'll see that low-fat (healthy
low-fat) are superior for weight loss compared to low-carb and that any excess of calories in the
low-carb will result in an excess of weight

We all agree that low-carbs are better than diets high in refined carbs and sweets Yet, healthy
low-fat are superior always than low-carb and when seriously controlled on ad libitum studies they
show to really improve health and blood profile were low-carb diets fails Just at the extensive
controlled literature of studies on the Pritikin diets and you'll see that an healthy low-fat diet
is the only one that is showed via lot of studies to lower: insulin level, triglycerides level, LDL
levels, blood pressure level, lactiscence index level, lipidemia level, cancer risk, lower fatty
deposits in coronary arterieries, arthritis and osteoarthritis diseases, platelets aggregation;
while raising: sideremia and ferritin levels, cardiac resistance, minerals and vitamins intake up to
100% of RDA, insulin sensivity, glucose tollerance, bone density and allergies tollerance All this
has been studied, controlled and reported buy lot of researchers in more than 70 studies showing
that what is promised to happen on this diet, really happens

On 22 Oct 2003 17:01:19 -0700, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

Some individuals seem to get rankled whenever some other people refer to the so-called "calorie
theory". I guess because no scientist has labeled the phenomenon as such and/or they object to it
being reffered to as a theory, ie. they believe it to be fact.

The problem is, Terry, that the laws of thermodynamics have NEVER been shown to have been breached.
Your theories that try to claim that they don't apply to the human body are ridiculous, not to put
too fine a point on ot.

No matter what strategy you use to try to reduce your energy consumption, it MUST be underpinned by
the fact that calories MUST be accounted for, scrupulously. Otherwise you will fail.

Quoted message said:

I am the one who refers to it as a theory, 1) to simplify my references to it and 2) because I
believe it to *be* a theory that has been proven to be false.

Yet you have NO evidence. To quote the classics, "Stop being so bloody stupid". Or come up with a
shred of evidence.

Quoted message said:

So for clarification, I will re-state my position.

Before the turn of the 20th century some scientists sought to quantify the energy value of foods.
It was always possible that a link may be found between food energy values and weight management in
humans. By the 1920s it was firmly believed by most people that excess calories meant weight/fat
gain and conversely calorie restriction would lead to weight/fat loss. It is also belived that fat
gives up 9 kcals of energy every time, all the time, in all circumstances and that proteins and
carbs give up 4 kcal per gram every time, all the time regardless of other dietary or bio-chemical
influences or states of the body.

Your misunderstanding is manifest!

Fat "contains" 9 cal per g. Whether it gives it all up depends on what happens to it. If nothing, it
remains fat and weighs ONE GRAM!

The human bod, when it burns fat for its energy, turns it into carbon dioxide and water. That gram
of fat also gives up NINE CALORIES!

It has NEVER varied, and has been corroborated constantly ever since energy measurements were done.

Quoted message said:

It is believed that the Law of Conservation of energy is directly and mathematically applicable to
weight management in humans.

Of course it is. You haven't any evidence otherwise.

Quoted message said:

It is stated repeatedly in these discussions that no other factors other that calories consumed vs
calories expended. That simple.

No, that's your misunderstanding. There are MANY factors in weight control. All of them, however,
are based on the indestructibility of the calorie. Calories "IN" _ALWAYS EQUAL_ calories "OUT".

Quoted message said:

Except that 98% of people who try to lose weight by restricting calories and fat end up failing.

As do 98% of folks who try to change their lifestyle in any way that reduces perceived pleasure and
comfort. Where do you think this breaches the conservation of energy principle?

Quoted message said:

And recent studies hint that restricting carbs is more effective than restricting higher
calorie fats.

More effective at what? It's always unclear. For some folk, frigging around with macronutrients in
some way helps them eat less. This is IRRELEVANT to the "calorie theory"

Quoted message said:

And one study even found that low-carbers can eat up to 300 calories per day more than low-fat
dieters and still maintain simliar weight loss.

But that's not necessarily fat loss. And "eat" is not always the same as "IN". Funny you can't quote
this study?

Quoted message said:

It is just not as simple as calories in versus calories out!

It's not as simple, but you are the only one constructing this straw man that negates the
conservation of energy in humans. The point is that calories "IN" versus calories "OUT" MUST
underpin all weight control strategies. If not, then you are just guessing and doomed to failure.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 03:54:45 +0200, "Nicholas" <[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

"tcomeau" <[email hidden]> ha scritto nel messaggio
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Except that 98% of people who try to lose weight by restricting calories and fat end up failing.
And recent studies hint that restricting carbs is more effective than restricting higher calorie
fats. And one study even found that low-carbers can eat up to 300 calories per day more than
low-fat dieters and still maintain simliar weight loss.

Again, it's an isocaloric diet study It shows that carbohydrates force-feeding is detrimental to
health There's no such a thing as ad libitum study show a low-carb diet is better than a low-fat
diet Expecially the study on the excess of calories resulting in more way loss doesn't specify if
the weight loss is lean body mass or fat so it's USELESS and shouldn't be referenced anymore The
problem of the flaw of a isocaloric diet versus a libitum diet has been exposed many times and we
hope in the future there will be no more isocaloric studies comparing two different diet J Am Diet
Assoc 1997 Aug;97(8):840

There's no such a thing as a ad libitum low-carb diet that show better blood profile,
micronutrients intake and long term weight loss than a "healthy" high-carb low-fat diet For
healthy I mean that refined carbohydrates and sweets are not allowed and that the diet is
comprised of: fruits, vegetables, whole cereals, green leafy vegetables, nuts, seeds, legumes,
sprouts and lean fish

The best low fat diet is the Pritikin one, expecially because there are 90 controlled studies on
the effect of this diet in weight loss, cancer risk, triglycerides level, insulin level,
cholesterol level, cardiac resistance, fasting glycemia and micronutrients intake The 73%
carbohydrates Pritikin has been reported many times to lower insulin level to 40% whereas both zone
diet and atkins failed to lower insulin level Remember than according to Brand-Miller studies a
steak raises insulin level more than pasta

Find an ad libitum studies diet where people are not force-fed and you'll see that low-fat (healthy
low-fat) are superior for weight loss compared to low-carb and that any excess of calories in the
low-carb will result in an excess of weight

We all agree that low-carbs are better than diets high in refined carbs and sweets Yet, healthy
low-fat are superior always than low-carb and when seriously controlled on ad libitum studies they
show to really improve health and blood profile were low-carb diets fails Just at the extensive
controlled literature of studies on the Pritikin diets and you'll see that an healthy low-fat diet
is the only one that is showed via lot of studies to lower: insulin level, triglycerides level, LDL
levels, blood pressure level, lactiscence index level, lipidemia level, cancer risk, lower fatty
deposits in coronary arterieries, arthritis and osteoarthritis diseases, platelets aggregation;
while raising: sideremia and ferritin levels, cardiac resistance, minerals and vitamins intake up
to 100% of RDA, insulin sensivity, glucose tollerance, bone density and allergies tollerance All
this has been studied, controlled and reported buy lot of researchers in more than 70 studies
showing that what is promised to happen on this diet, really happens

What is lactiscence?

What you use as "theory" seems more like "unsupported speculation". Theory as in the theory of
gravity or of relativity or the germ theory of disease etc. all speak to it's more usual
understanding. Theory is a body of knowledge which content is buttressed by considerable support
over time and with little examples to the contrary. In this usage it is not some unsupported idea
not supported by observation/research etc. but by the lack of disproof for it's content over time.
The possible factors you mention are the very same, and many more not mentioned, which produces a
bell curve responce to energy input and output and storage in living systems. In a physical/chemical
system the range of responce is very much more narrow. For you to have reinvented the wheel about
living systems neither uncionfirms the calorie theory as it applies to human storage nor does it
indicate that the energy laws don't apply to humans as living systems. All your observations say is
that we will get a bell curve if we were to do an experiment where energy input was carefully
measured as inputs and storage in the form of body mass was likewise recorded. In fact this kind of
expirment is done every time a lab rat is prepared where it's body mass is an important starting
point for an experiment, such as in behavior conditioning research. Food at a known level of
calories is given and weight measured until a given weight is achieved, exactly the calorie diet you
presume does not work. The current ongoing research over what ratios of the macro nutrients provides
best weight or other outcome only is tinkering with the variables which produce the bell curve, it
will not negate the laws of energetic systems, including it's application to humans as living
systems. If any of us consumes a low carb diet but increases intake by 100 percent we will gain
weight and just be moving our data point around on the bell curve.

Quoted message said:

Some individuals seem to get rankled whenever some other people refer to the so-called "calorie
theory". I guess because no scientist has labeled the phenomenon as such and/or they object to it
being reffered to as a theory, ie. they believe it to be fact.

I am the one who refers to it as a theory, 1) to simplify my references to it and 2) because I
believe it to *be* a theory that has been proven to be false.

So for clarification, I will re-state my position.

Before the turn of the 20th century some scientists sought to quantify the energy value of foods.
It was always possible that a link may be found between food energy values and weight management in
humans. By the 1920s it was firmly believed by most people that excess calories meant weight/fat
gain and conversely calorie restriction would lead to weight/fat loss. It is also belived that fat
gives up 9 kcals of energy every time, all the time, in all circumstances and that proteins and
carbs give up 4 kcal per gram every time, all the time regardless of other dietary or bio-chemical
influences or states of the body.

It is believed that the Law of Conservation of energy is directly and mathematically applicable to
weight management in humans. It is stated repeatedly in these discussions that no other factors
other that calories consumed vs calories expended. That simple.

Except that 98% of people who try to lose weight by restricting calories and fat end up failing.
And recent studies hint that restricting carbs is more effective than restricting higher calorie
fats. And one study even found that low-carbers can eat up to 300 calories per day more than
low-fat dieters and still maintain simliar weight loss.

It is just not as simple as calories in versus calories out!

TC

"tcomeau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Some individuals seem to get rankled whenever some other people refer to the so-called "calorie
theory". I guess because no scientist has labeled the phenomenon as such and/or they object to it
being reffered to as a theory, ie. they believe it to be fact.

I am the one who refers to it as a theory, 1) to simplify my references to it and 2) because I
believe it to *be* a theory that has been proven to be false.

So for clarification, I will re-state my position.

Before the turn of the 20th century some scientists sought to quantify the energy value of foods.
It was always possible that a link may be found between food energy values and weight management
in humans. By the 1920s it was firmly believed by most people that excess calories meant
weight/fat gain and conversely calorie restriction would lead to weight/fat loss. It is also
belived that fat gives up 9 kcals of energy every time, all the time, in all circumstances and
that proteins and carbs give up 4 kcal per gram every time, all the time regardless of other
dietary or bio-chemical influences or states of the body.

It is believed that the Law of Conservation of energy is directly and mathematically applicable to
weight management in humans. It is stated repeatedly in these discussions that no other factors
other that calories consumed vs calories expended. That simple.

Except that 98% of people who try to lose weight by restricting calories and fat end up failing.
And recent studies hint that restricting carbs is more effective than restricting higher calorie
fats. And one study even found that low-carbers can eat up to 300 calories per day more than
low-fat dieters and still maintain simliar weight loss.

It is just not as simple as calories in versus calories out!

TC

Would you like to try to explain without using the "calorie theory" why my wife and I, and most
of the people living around me here in Japan, can eat white bread, white rice, white noodles
three times a day--and mashed rice balls filled with white sugar and beans for dessert--without
getting fat?

Once upon a time, our fellow Paulp rambled on about "Re: calorie theory." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

Would you like to try to explain without using the "calorie theory" why my wife and I, and most
of the people living around me here in Japan, can eat white bread, white rice, white noodles
three times a day--and mashed rice balls filled with white sugar and beans for dessert--without
getting fat?

Normal people don't suffer from Syndrome-X.

This is the fact,that our very own Susan 'the Fiend', likes to ignore.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.comtutorials.naturalhealthperspective.comOpen ↗ Offering easy to understand lessons that will
change your life.