calories - true or false

No thanks, this most recent restatement of your unsupported
claims isn't improvement on all the failed versions before.
You asked for even one example, one was given, showing that
calorie balance changes weight status. Now the ball is in
your court, where it was all along. To establish your new
theory it is up to you to provide the supporting evidence.
Showing the obvious that people who don't continue on a diet
plan regain weight doesn't even come close. Just show us the
evidence that the energy balance answer doesn't account for
the ultimate weight status and spare us more reassertions of
that for which you provide no evidence. In large part, you
should be the one that finds original studies related to the
question as a basis for establing your new theory. So far,
you have absolutely nothing, just nothing but reassertions,
please spare us.

tcomeau said:

... the calorie theory as applied to weight loss/gain

This usually argued as basic physics, if you burn more
calories than you consume you will lose weight because
energy doesn't come from nothing, and thus you lose weight
because it is being turned to energy, QED. This is true in
an absolute sense, but you can't apply it as simply as most
people do.

Your body reacts differently to different nutrients and thus
the calorie isn't a 100% indicator of what happens because
your body processes some types of foods more efficiently
than others and some don't even get burned for energy. Thus
you can eat the same amount of calories and have different
rates of fat storage/loss.

Assume for example that after a heavy workout you eat 25
grams of protein, or 25 grams of carbohydrates, or 25 grams
of fat. Would anyone argue that you body uses these for the
same thing. It is trivial to find studies that the protein
generates the largest anabolic response and thus promotes
muscle building. So it doesn't simply get burnt as energy
and thus the "calories" it contain don't well represent what
happens to it.

Note various foods also interfer with each other. For
example if you eat a large amount of slow digesting fat
followed by large amount of fat binding fibre, the fibre
will drastically reduce the amount of fat digested as it
quickens the movement through the bowels where fat digestion
takes place. Thus the feces produced will be full of fat
(this is why they tend to float).

You also have to look at other factors such as the effect of
foods on metabolic rates (short and medium chain fats
increase it for example), as well as satiety and even stress
and general well being. Your mental activities burn a lot of
calories and thus eating in a way which leaves you depressed
as opposed to one in which you are happy and engaged will
have a large effect even if the "calories" taken in are
exactly the same in both.

You also have to consider people with metabolic imbalances,
if you have low insulin sensitivity you will be prone to
gaining weight with carbohydrates even if the caloric intake
is low because your body no longer reacts well and
overproduces insulin.

So in short, the arguement is true absolutely when applied
to exactly how many calories your body obtains from various
foods and the effect on basal metabolic rates, however the
calories listed for foods don't represent this, they assume
a 100% transformation to energy and no effect on metabolic
rate is even considered. They should thus be used as a rough
guide because your body does other things with the foods,
and even when it burns them for energy it doesn't have the
same efficiency for each.

A simple arguement to show the innaccuracy of the basic
arguement would be to have one imaginary population eat 2500
calories of white sugar in one sitting per day and another
population eat 6 balanced meals throughout the day of the
same net calories (split between various
fats/protein/complex carbs). Would any sane individual argue
that there would be no significant difference in the two
populations in terms of obesity.

A more complete version of the general arguement would be :

To lose weight, reduce the amount of calories your body
obtains from the foods eaten while promoting ketogenic
pathways, and maximizing anabolic and minimizing catabolic
pathways and compensate (or exceed) any drop in basal
metabolic rate with increased activity.

Note this can't be implemented by simply reducing calories
with no regards to what they come from.

--
Cliff Stamp
[email hidden] physics.mun.ca~sstampOpen ↗

The one unforgivable sin, the offence against one's own integrity,
is to accept anything at all simply on authority -- Maureen Johnson Long

Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm. -- Publilius Syrus

Remember that kilocalories (kcals) are a measure of heat. 1
kcal = the heat required to raise the temperature of 1 kg of
water 1 degree centigrade. 1 g PRO = 5.65 kcal, 1 g FAT =
9.45 kcal, 1 g CHO = 4.1 kcal. Many prefer the joule as a
more acurate measure. I don't bother because you don't have
to be 100% acurate, you just need an approximation. Anyone
saying otherwise is nit-picking and irrelevant.

You have to consider the Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR), kcals
consumed and the kcals expended through daily living and
exercise (ie: non-internal biofunction expenditure). This
method has been used successfully by dieticeans for over 30
years, therefore proven, and is as acurate (if not more so)
as any other method. Since there is a wide range when
considering weight gain/loss, no calculation can be 100%
acurate; there are too many variables (ie: medical
coditions, medicines, body fat composition, lifestyle,
smoke?, drink?, etc). Be wary of those claiming to have the
right answer and lead you toward alternative nutrition:
there are a lot of claims which lead to the filling of
hospital emergency rooms and dialysis centres!

In genreal you can use this formula:

Total kcal req for BMR men = body mass (kg >> IBW) /
height (m) x 24 women = body mass (kg >> IBW) / height (m)
x 24 x 0.8

for total energy requirement multiply this figure depending
on activity level: Sedentary >> 1.3 Light Activity >> 1.5
Moderate Activity >> 1.8 Heavily Active >> 2 Athletic >>
upto 3 (assess on a per case basis)

Increasing total expenditure and decreasing total intake
will result in weight loss. However, the basal metabolic
rate will be affected as muscle mass increases and the CV
system becomes more efficient. You can have somewhat acurate
figure by this calculation:

(Total Energy Requirement - Total Intake - Expenditure) *
7 / 3500 = expected loss per week or, more easily: Current
Requirement (with increased activity) - Requirement for
IBW * 7/3500
= expected loss per week

Example: A 5' 11" man weighing 240 lb (IBW 180 lb) and has
become heavily active: 5' 11" = 1.8 m (approx.) 240 = 109 kg
(approx) 180 = 82 kg (approx)

Current Daily Requirement:
109 / 1.8 x 24 = 1453 (BMR) 1453 x 2 = 2906 (Total Req.)

IBW Daily Requirement:
109/1.8 x 24 = 1093 (BMR) 1093 x 2 = 2168 (Total Req.)

Expected Loss per Week: 2906 - 2168 = 738 738 x 7 = 5166
5166 / 3500 = 1.476

Therefore, this gentleman can reaslistically expect to lose
about 1.5 lb per week, if he is taking in his IBW
requirement, which is a healthy way. However, if he
decreases his intake by 250 kcal per day, he can expect to
reduce by a further 0.5 lb per week. The loss will obviously
be greater if the intake is reduced and the expenditure
increased. Loss will be most apparent if the diet is
balanced (55-60% CHO, 25-30% FAT with less than 10% from sat
fats, 15% PRO). I still suggest using Canada's Food Guide.
Do NOT attemt to loss via a low-carb diet. Long term, this
can cause renal problems (and eventually lead to failure)
due to the increased nitrogen imbalance from heavy PRO
metabolism, nutritional deficiencies, especially in B-
complex vitamins and other adverse effects. CFG has been
researched for about 40 years and has come up as being an
excellent guide to daily eating habits.

This method has been tested and proven effective. If you
don't believe it: DO YOUR HOMEWORK and learn about clinical
nutrition as I have. I studied Human Nutrition with focus
on Clinical Nutrition studied at the post-sendary level
through the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I am
also a Chef du Cuisine with over 14 years experience in the
Food Industry and currently own my own consulting firm in
Ottawa, Canada.

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

Quoted message said:

I've been on this group probably going on three years or
so and I've questioned the calorie theory as applied to
weight loss/gain since day one. I've heard all kinds or
rhetoric as to how it is a fact of nature, a physical law
of nature, etc. that calories can be directly applicable
to calculate and predict weight loss or gain strictly on
calories consumed vs calories expended. This, of course,
means that there is no other factor other than the sheer
number of calories to the exclusion of all other bio-
chemical influences in the body.

From day one I've been called all kinds of names,
villified if you will, because I have the nerve,
stupidity, or some other strange affliction that causes me
to question the very basis of the modern science of
nutrition.

Yet, in all this time, no-one has actually shown where the
science of the calorie theory came from. The following
questions have never been adequately addressed in this
forum. Just a bunch of accusations, derogatory and
negative comments, etc. No real answers.

Once again I will ask the holier-than-thou crowd to
actually step up to the plate and deliver. One more crack
at the 64 thousand dollar question. These questions should
be easy to answer. The information that I ask for is the
very fundamental foundation of the modern science of
nutrition. Either this info is readily available and the
calorie theory is valid or this information does not exist
and the entire calorie theory is a completely and assumed
fabrication.

Someone please provide this information:

1) The name(s) of the seminal study or series of studies
that established once and for all that calories are
directly applicable to the typical human in terms of
weight gain or loss.

2) The names(s) of the ground breaking researcher(s) that
came up with this breakthrough finding.

or

3) The definitive proof to support the calorie concept in
any form whatsoever.

or

4) A clear and precise explanation of the exact biological
process that occurs in the human body that triggers fat
storage or fat usage in direct response to calorie
intake. How does the body respond to a low-calorie diet
to cause it to burn fat and how does it respond to a
high-calorie diet that causes the body to store fat and
how does it know what state it is in. I want the basic
metabolic pathways, the specific bio-chemical responses
and the trigger mechanism that causes the fat cells to
store or burn fat.

Again, this should be easy. It is the foundation of the
science of nutition.

TC

FAT digestion doen not take place in the bowels, but rather
in it starts in the mouth, then continues in the stomach and
finished in the begining the small intestine (duodenum).

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

Quoted message said:

tcomeau said:

... the calorie theory as applied to weight loss/gain

This usually argued as basic physics, if you burn more
calories than you consume you will lose weight because
energy doesn't come from nothing, and thus you lose weight
because it is being turned to energy, QED. This is

true

Quoted message said:

in an absolute sense, but you can't apply it as simply as
most people do.

Your body reacts differently to different nutrients and
thus the calorie isn't a 100% indicator of what happens
because your body processes some types of foods more
efficiently than others and some don't even get burned
for energy. Thus you can eat the same amount of calories
and have

different

Quoted message said:

rates of fat storage/loss.

Assume for example that after a heavy workout you eat 25
grams of protein, or 25 grams of carbohydrates, or 25
grams of fat. Would anyone argue that you body uses these
for the same thing. It is trivial to find studies that the
protein generates the largest anabolic response and thus
promotes

muscle

Quoted message said:

building. So it doesn't simply get burnt as energy and
thus the "calories" it contain don't well represent what
happens to it.

Note various foods also interfer with each other. For
example if you eat a large amount of slow digesting fat
followed by large amount of fat binding fibre, the fibre
will drastically reduce the amount of fat digested as it
quickens the movement through the bowels where fat
digestion takes place. Thus the feces produced will be
full of fat (this is why they tend to float).

You also have to look at other factors such as the effect
of foods on metabolic rates (short and medium chain fats
increase it for example), as well as satiety and even
stress and general well being. Your mental activities burn
a lot of calories and thus eating in a way which leaves

you

Quoted message said:

depressed as opposed to one in which you are happy and
engaged will have a large effect even if the "calories"
taken in are exactly the same in

both.

Quoted message said:

You also have to consider people with metabolic
imbalances, if you have

low

Quoted message said:

insulin sensitivity you will be prone to gaining weight
with carbohydrates even if the caloric intake is low
because your body no longer reacts well and overproduces
insulin.

So in short, the arguement is true absolutely when applied
to exactly how many calories your body obtains from
various foods and the effect on basal metabolic rates,
however the calories listed for foods don't represent

this,

Quoted message said:

they assume a 100% transformation to energy and no effect
on metabolic

rate

Quoted message said:

is even considered. They should thus be used as a rough
guide because your body does other things with the foods,
and even when it burns them for energy it doesn't have the
same efficiency for each.

A simple arguement to show the innaccuracy of the basic
arguement would be to have one imaginary population eat
2500 calories of white sugar in one sitting per day and
another population eat 6 balanced meals throughout the day
of the same net calories (split between various
fats/protein/complex carbs). Would any sane individual
argue that there would be no

significant

Quoted message said:

difference in the two populations in terms of obesity.

A more complete version of the general arguement
would be :

To lose weight, reduce the amount of calories your body
obtains from the foods eaten while promoting ketogenic
pathways, and maximizing anabolic

and

Quoted message said:

minimizing catabolic pathways and compensate (or exceed)
any drop in basal metabolic rate with increased activity.

Note this can't be implemented by simply reducing calories
with no regards to what they come from.

--
Cliff Stamp [email hidden]
physics.mun.ca~sstampOpen ↗

The one unforgivable sin, the offence against one's own
integrity, is to accept anything at all simply on
authority -- Maureen Johnson Long

Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm. --
Publilius Syrus

Quoted message said:

So in short, the arguement is true absolutely when applied
to exactly

how

Quoted message said:

many calories your body obtains from various foods and the
effect on

basal

Quoted message said:

metabolic rates, however the calories listed for foods
don't represent

this,

Quoted message said:

they assume a 100% transformation to energy and no effect
on metabolic

rate

Quoted message said:

is even considered. They should thus be used as a rough
guide because

your

Quoted message said:

body does other things with the foods, and even when it
burns them for energy it doesn't have the same efficiency
for each.

Well, while your post is excellent, I am afraid you share
the same opinion with tcomeau 😉 Above is what he says
all the time.

Mirek

Quoted message said:

Loss will be most apparent if the diet is balanced (55-60%
CHO, 25-30% FAT with less

than 10%

Quoted message said:

from sat fats, 15% PRO).

Loss of muscle, you mean... No way you could preserve muscle
mass with _absolute_ values protein so low. 15% PRO when
practicing calorie restriction is stupid. You either end
with calories too high or protein too low.

Mirek

All of the below is fine, complex biological systems always
exibit a process as a bell curve for some of the reasons you
mention. But this is not different from an example in
physics on energy balance either. Temperature, resistence of
materials, etc. will cause differences in the input and
output of energy in a battery too. When asking questions so
as to isolate fundimental principles, the assumption of
"other things being equal" is made. But no matter how many
factors are included, there are always the brick wall of the
limits a system can exibit. There were no obese people in
the camps in WW II.

Quoted message said:

This usually argued as basic physics, if you burn more
calories than you consume you will lose weight because
energy doesn't come from nothing, and thus you lose weight
because it is being turned to energy, QED. This is true in
an absolute sense, but you can't apply it as simply as most
people do.

Your body reacts differently to different nutrients and
thus the calorie isn't a 100% indicator of what happens
because your body processes some types of foods more
efficiently than others and some don't even get burned for
energy. Thus you can eat the same amount of calories and
have different rates of fat storage/loss.

Assume for example that after a heavy workout you eat 25
grams of protein, or 25 grams of carbohydrates, or 25 grams
of fat. Would anyone argue that you body uses these for the
same thing. It is trivial to find studies that the protein
generates the largest anabolic response and thus promotes
muscle building. So it doesn't simply get burnt as energy
and thus the "calories" it contain don't well represent
what happens to it.

Note various foods also interfer with each other. For
example if you eat a large amount of slow digesting fat
followed by large amount of fat binding fibre, the fibre
will drastically reduce the amount of fat digested as it
quickens the movement through the bowels where fat
digestion takes place. Thus the feces produced will be full
of fat (this is why they tend to float).

You also have to look at other factors such as the effect
of foods on metabolic rates (short and medium chain fats
increase it for example), as well as satiety and even
stress and general well being. Your mental activities burn
a lot of calories and thus eating in a way which leaves you
depressed as opposed to one in which you are happy and
engaged will have a large effect even if the "calories"
taken in are exactly the same in both.

You also have to consider people with metabolic imbalances,
if you have low insulin sensitivity you will be prone to
gaining weight with carbohydrates even if the caloric
intake is low because your body no longer reacts well and
overproduces insulin.

So in short, the arguement is true absolutely when applied
to exactly how many calories your body obtains from various
foods and the effect on basal metabolic rates, however the
calories listed for foods don't represent this, they assume
a 100% transformation to energy and no effect on metabolic
rate is even considered. They should thus be used as a
rough guide because your body does other things with the
foods, and even when it burns them for energy it doesn't
have the same efficiency for each.

A simple arguement to show the innaccuracy of the basic
arguement would be to have one imaginary population eat
2500 calories of white sugar in one sitting per day and
another population eat 6 balanced meals throughout the day
of the same net calories (split between various
fats/protein/complex carbs). Would any sane individual
argue that there would be no significant difference in the
two populations in terms of obesity.

A more complete version of the general arguement would be :

To lose weight, reduce the amount of calories your body
obtains from the foods eaten while promoting ketogenic
pathways, and maximizing anabolic and minimizing catabolic
pathways and compensate (or exceed) any drop in basal
metabolic rate with increased activity.

Note this can't be implemented by simply reducing calories
with no regards to what they come from.

--
Cliff Stamp [email hidden]
physics.mun.ca~sstampOpen ↗

The one unforgivable sin, the offence against one's own
integrity, is to accept anything at all simply on
authority -- Maureen Johnson Long

Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm. --
Publilius Syrus

In the absense of any response to the question(s) posed, I
will accept that you are unable to answer the question(s).
You have no credible proof that the calorie theory was ever
scientifically verified. That is what I expected.

TC

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]-
net.com>...

Quoted message said:

No thanks, this most recent restatement of your
unsupported claims isn't improvement on all the failed
versions before. You asked for even one example, one was
given, showing that calorie balance changes weight status.
Now the ball is in your court, where it was all along. To
establish your new theory it is up to you to provide the
supporting evidence. Showing the obvious that people who
don't continue on a diet plan regain weight doesn't even
come close. Just show us the evidence that the energy
balance answer doesn't account for the ultimate weight
status and spare us more reassertions of that for which
you provide no evidence. In large part, you should be the
one that finds original studies related to the question as
a basis for establing your new theory. So far, you have
absolutely nothing, just nothing but reassertions, please
spare us.

tcomeau said:

In the absense of any response to the question(s) posed, I
will accept that you are unable to answer the question(s).
You have no credible proof that the calorie theory was
ever scientifically verified. That is what I expected.

TC

Then again, maybe everyone is just ignoring you!

--
jmk in NC

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

Quoted message said:

No thanks, this most recent restatement of your
unsupported claims isn't improvement on all the failed
versions before. You asked for even one example, one was
given, showing that calorie balance changes weight status.

You did not give me what I asked for. Totally inadequate
drivel. You failed to answer the question(s).

Now the ball is in your court, where it was all along. To

Quoted message said:

establish your new theory it is up to you to provide the
supporting evidence. Showing the obvious that people who
don't continue on a diet plan regain weight doesn't even
come close. Just show us the evidence that the energy
balance answer doesn't account for the ultimate weight
status and spare us more reassertions of that for which
you provide no evidence. In large part, you should be the
one that finds original studies related to the question as
a basis for establing your new theory. So far, you have
absolutely nothing, just nothing but reassertions, please
spare us.

What I ask of you is infinitely easier than what you ask of
me. Show me the basic science behind what you claim is an
long established and proven concept.

Infinitely easier for you, unless of course, it has never
been actually scientifically proven. In that case you do
have your work cut out for you.

TC

There was plenty of responce, not just the one you were
trying to direct. Ok, I'll play, the current idea is a folk
tale. Now, you are free to do the science to show that
energy balance doesn't relate to weight status. Please do
use links to web pages as the supporting evidence. We await
your credible science on the question. Your ploy has been
all along to place a continuing line of strawmen and demand
they all be knocked down and that you have no obligation to
provide any support for your new theory. Just now that whole
line of defence has been yanked from your bag of rhetorical
dance steps. You are right, there is no science, and you are
about to give us the true scoop in place of a destroyed
theory by which to demonstrate your credibility.

Quoted message said:

In the absense of any response to the question(s) posed, I
will accept that you are unable to answer the question(s).
You have no credible proof that the calorie theory was ever
scientifically verified. That is what I expected.

TC

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]-
n et.com>...

Quoted message said:

No thanks, this most recent restatement of your
unsupported claims isn't improvement on all the failed
versions before. You asked for even one example, one was
given, showing that calorie balance changes weight
status. Now the ball is in your court, where it was all
along. To establish your new theory it is up to you to
provide the supporting evidence. Showing the obvious that
people who don't continue on a diet plan regain weight
doesn't even come close. Just show us the evidence that
the energy balance answer doesn't account for the
ultimate weight status and spare us more reassertions of
that for which you provide no evidence. In large part,
you should be the one that finds original studies related
to the question as a basis for establing your new theory.
So far, you have absolutely nothing, just nothing but
reassertions, please spare us.

tcomeau said:

This, of course, means that there is no other factor other
than the sheer number of calories to the exclusion of all
other bio-chemical influences in the body.

Correct.

Quoted message said:

From day one I've been called all kinds of names,
villified if you will, because I have the nerve,
stupidity, or some other strange affliction that causes me
to question the very basis of the modern science of
nutrition.

That is inevitable when one crusades against accepted and
proven scientific knowledge.

Quoted message said:

Yet, in all this time, no-one has actually shown where the
science of the calorie theory came from.

Yes, they have. It's based on the laws of thermodynamics.
Conservation of energy.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach
me directly.

Quoted message said:

Thus you can eat the same amount of calories and have
different rates of fat storage/loss.

With anything approaching a balanced diet, this is not true,
over the long term. Only the number of calories counts.

Quoted message said:

A simple arguement to show the innaccuracy of the basic
arguement would be to have one imaginary population eat
2500 calories of white sugar in one sitting per day and
another population eat 6 balanced meals throughout the day
of the same net calories (split between various
fats/protein/complex carbs). Would any sane individual
argue that there would be no significant difference in the
two populations in terms of obesity.

Studies similar to this have actually been done. The results
demonstrated that only total calories count.

Quoted message said:

To lose weight, reduce the amount of calories your body
obtains from the foods eaten while promoting ketogenic
pathways, and maximizing anabolic and minimizing catabolic
pathways and compensate (or exceed) any drop in basal
metabolic rate with increased activity.

Put more simply: Eat less than you burn. You don't have to
worry about the sources of the calories as long as your diet
is even remotely close to any semblance of normal balance.

Quoted message said:

Note this can't be implemented by simply reducing calories
with no regards to what they come from.

Actually it can, to within very broad limits.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach
me directly.

tcomeau said:

In the absense of any response to the question(s) posed, I
will accept that you are unable to answer the question(s).

You will presume. There is nothing to accept, since
the hypothesis has not been offered by anyone other
than yourself.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach
me directly.

Mirek Fidler said:

Loss of muscle, you mean... No way you could preserve
muscle mass with _absolute_ values protein so low.

If you are losing weight, you'll lose muscle--not simply
because protein is being consumed, but mainly because you
don't have as much weight to move anymore.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach
me directly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Loss of muscle, you mean... No way you could preserve
muscle mass

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

_absolute_ values protein so low.

If you are losing weight, you'll lose muscle--not
simply because

protein

Quoted message said:

is being consumed, but mainly because you don't have as
much weight to move anymore.

So body-builders are all stupid when supplying adequate
protein when losing fat to preserve their muscle mass?

Mirek

Okay... You will be fine if you eat in moderation... you
will be fine if you get plenty of exercise... It is as easy
as that... The different arguments you espouse are arbitrary
to a certain extent... If you feel like you want a bagel,
have a freaking bagel and go for a walk later that day...
Please, stop with the meaningles logistics...

Mirek Fidler said:

So body-builders are all stupid when supplying adequate
protein when losing fat to preserve their muscle mass?

They need both adequate protein and continuing exercise. If
they do not exercise, they will lose muscle mass whether
they are losing fat or not.

As for them being all stupid, I don't believe they are
all stupid, but many of them may be. Athletes in general
tend to depend more on myth and superstitution than on
science at times.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach
me directly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So body-builders are all stupid when supplying adequate
protein when losing fat to preserve their muscle mass?

They need both adequate protein and continuing exercise.
If they do

not

Quoted message said:

exercise, they will lose muscle mass whether they are
losing fat or

not.

I would underline your word "both". Nobody doing LC is
arguing need of excersise. But, with 15% of protein as
stated in "balanced" diet, you simply end with either
calories too hight for wight loss or protein too low to
spare your muscle even if excersising.

That is a fact.

Mirek