"tcomeau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:"Mike V" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>-
...
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:<[email hidden]> wrote in message
Quoted message said:> TC is not an unsmart fellow, but "calories" is his
> Iraq/Vietnam.
Too much rhetoric and table pounding invested to let it
go in our
life-time,
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:whatever he reads. :-}
I'll let you in to a little secret. Just between you and
me.
I figure that somehow the calorie theory, in theory, is
correct and if applied correctly can be used to predict
weight gain or loss in humans.
, especially high fructose corn syrup.
Quoted message said:
TC
TC:
I'll try to respect your personal *confidence* about your
caloric, nay historic 'conversion'. Were you on the road to
Damascus? ;-} Just in case you are still wavering, a review
from a researcher who may have been reading your posts, and
still feels that there are unanswered questions, is
presented at the end. I present this in the interests of
intellectual integrity. :-))
In my opinion, there are plenty of science based reasons why
modern nutrition (esp. refined carbs) and lifestyle are
messing up our ability to balance intake and outgo. Ditto
that carbs and insulin are closely related to modern ills.
The energy content of foods are relatively accurately known.
Calories are a lot better score keeping system than for
example dollars, which are prone to inflation. Accurately
knowing (and admitting to one's self as an addict :-)) how
many of the little devils are getting in, and accurately
accounting for where they go is a quite different
proposition for the average person without a personal
calorimetry lab. Did you read my Vanderbilt post, by the
way? Please comment, just for a change!
In the long haul, 'calorimetry' is the messenger. IMHO it is
a mistake to shoot him because the message seems
disagreeable.
Some personal notes: Following some 10 years of attempted
fat controlled eating, and latterly some 5 years of
imperfect carb control, *all* of my own personal statistics
and have improved from poor to excellent. I know which
works for me. At 68, I take no prescribed or otc
medications (well, maybe a baby aspirin), and see my doctor
once per year.
In my experience, significantly lowering carbs, and
improving whole food nutrition: 1 Probably has at least a
short to medium term caloric advantage. (thermogenesis, +?)
2 Improves satiation, resulting in easier calorie control. 3
Finally provided me with a workable mechanism to control
body fat. 4 Significantly increases HDL 5 Significantly
reduced triglycerides. 6 (Probably) improved my immune
system. a) eliminated slight tendency to joint tenderness
with exercise;
b) eliminated several minor allergies c) maybe the reason
why I now rarely have colds. 7 Improved my disposition,
except when dealing with God-like dogmatic posters. :-} 8
Does not relieve me of the ultimate responsibility to
limit calorie intake, (preferably hi GI carbs!) and be
sufficiently physically active. I realize all the above
is all merely anecdotal coincidence, and I do not
guarantee that it applies to others. :-} FWIW, my last
health problem was gall bladder surgery at the end of
*low fat* period.
****************
FYI: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 79, No. 5,
899S-906S, May 2004 © 2004 American Society for Clinical
Nutrition tinyurl.com3bdbfOpen ↗
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
----
Supplement:
IS A CALORIE A CALORIE?1,2,3,4
Andrea C Buchholz and Dale A Schoeller 1 From the Department
of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison
The aim of this review was to evaluate data regarding
potential thermodynamic mechanisms for increased rates of
weight loss in subjects consuming diets high in protein
and/or low in carbohydrate. Studies that compared weight
loss and energy expenditure in adults consuming diets high
in protein and/or low in carbohydrate with those in adults
consuming diets low in fat were reviewed. In addition,
studies that measured the metabolizable energy of proteins,
fats, and carbohydrates were reviewed. Diets high in protein
and/or low in carbohydrate produced an 2.5-kg greater weight
loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-
specific differences in the availability of dietary energy
nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these
differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a
calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient
composition of the diet. Further research on differences in
the composition of weight loss and on the influence of
satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed
to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets
high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.
Does anyone have access to the full text? M
