Can we trust science research?

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

Quoted message said:

One of the frequent themes here from those with a nutritional theology
bent is that following a guru with which one agrees compared to science
from faceless people is to be trusted. Unknown researchers recieve grant
support to do the research, this means the results are most likely false
because the research was made to show what is not reality on purpose.
This always brings a smile to my face. The way to answer as to to the
quality of the research is what was done and the analysis done to the
data. If one can find a flaw in either of these then the research can be
done again, that is the way science does it. There are no researchers who
don't do their work based on grants they recieve from someone. If fraud
and other such is found in specific individuals, it will be the scientific
community to yell loudest and longest about it. When instances of such
are found it is always almost the case that some flaw in the research was
found to tip others to consider problems of fraud. When someone shows
that a researcher gets grant money, big surprise, the only way to comment
on the quality of the research is the research itself. Doing a guilt by
association game is meaningless, except to guruism and anti science and
conspiracy notions that infest almost all nutritional theoly schemes.

so so very naive.

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

Quoted message said:

One of the frequent themes here from those with a nutritional theology
bent is that following a guru with which one agrees compared to science
from faceless people is to be trusted. Unknown researchers recieve grant
support to do the research, this means the results are most likely false
because the research was made to show what is not reality on purpose.
This always brings a smile to my face. The way to answer as to to the
quality of the research is what was done and the analysis done to the
data. If one can find a flaw in either of these then the research can be
done again, that is the way science does it. There are no researchers who
don't do their work based on grants they recieve from someone. If fraud
and other such is found in specific individuals, it will be the scientific
community to yell loudest and longest about it. When instances of such
are found it is always almost the case that some flaw in the research was
found to tip others to consider problems of fraud. When someone shows
that a researcher gets grant money, big surprise, the only way to comment
on the quality of the research is the research itself. Doing a guilt by
association game is meaningless, except to guruism and anti science and
conspiracy notions that infest almost all nutritional theoly schemes.

When a theory fails like the calorie has, one must seek another truth.

The low-carb diet works. And is healthier than a low-calorie or
low-fat diet.

The food industry does everything it can to keep selling its [censored].

The pharma industry will do the same to sell their [censored]. And their
success requires us to be sick. It is counter productive to their
bottom line for us to be healthy and have a thorough understanding of
the importance of good nutrition, as well what a healthy diet really
is.

More than 70% of all science being done today is paid for by industry.
It is essentially all part of their marketing. It most definitively is
not good science.

Get them the [censored] out of science and we will be able to discuss this
topic in a more scientific manner. Until then we will be stuck arguing
about the various industry ties that each researcher and their
respective studies have.

TC

Wolfbrother said:

so so very naive.

Indeed. The bulk of research goes into studying the effects of
artificial chemicals upon sick people. In this paradigm, becoming sick
is akin to joining the military, if you put your faith in a doctor who
has put his faith in such research. Once you take this first step down
the "primrose path", you might as well kiss your immune system
goodbye... ;^]

--
_o Kristofer Dale,
_ \<,_ ragged individualist,
_____( )/ ( )_____ statistic at large...

p.s. Learn and live, http://www.vitaletherapeutics.org

"Indeed. The bulk of research goes into studying the effects of
artificial chemicals upon sick people. In this paradigm, becoming sick
is akin to joining the military, if you put your faith in a doctor who
has put his faith in such research. Once you take this first step down
the "primrose path", you might as well kiss your immune system goodbye."

And the alternative to science is?

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

Quoted message said:

"Indeed. The bulk of research goes into studying the effects of
artificial chemicals upon sick people. In this paradigm, becoming sick
is akin to joining the military, if you put your faith in a doctor who
has put his faith in such research. Once you take this first step down
the "primrose path", you might as well kiss your immune system goodbye."

And the alternative to science is?

uhh science? There is no science there. It is nothing more than
marketing and advertising. The alternative IS real science. Get your
freakin head out of the sand.

tcomeau said:

When a theory fails like the calorie has, one must seek another truth.

The low-carb diet works. And is healthier than a low-calorie or
low-fat diet.

Low-carb diets that work, do so because they are low-calorie diets, you idiot.

-Jay

Billions of dollars are often spent chasing obviously ludicrous
"theories," while simple experiments that may be costing millions of
lives are not done - this the the worst aspect of it. For example,
ask some "expert" what the evidence is for the "essentiality" of
dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids. If they know, they'll cite Burr
and Burr (1930!). These scientists fed rats a fat free diet, assumed
that saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids were essential, and
when the rats began to look bad, declared that polyunsaturates were
"essential." Some B vitamins were still not known at the time, so the
rats were B deficient, not polyunsaturate deficient. Why hasn't this
experiment been done again, only this time giving the rats an ample
supply of necessary calories, vitamins, and minerals? It would cost a
couple of hundred dollars, at most, though rats are different than
humans, so it would be better to do this on chimps - still a pretty
cheap proposition. Instead, day after day, after about 60 years of
not telling us about this, the "experts" are now telling us to take
large amounts of PUFAs, which have been demonstrated in experiment
after experiment, to damage human bodies through different kinds of
oxidative stress.

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

Quoted message said:

tcomeau said:

When a theory fails like the calorie has, one must seek another truth.

The low-carb diet works. And is healthier than a low-calorie or
low-fat diet.

Low-carb diets that work, do so because they are low-calorie diets, you idiot.

-Jay

Most literature I have read states about $250,000- $500,000 to do a placebo
controlled study with modern scientific techniques. They ain't done that
much for that reason.

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

Quoted message said:

Billions of dollars are often spent chasing obviously ludicrous
"theories," while simple experiments that may be costing millions of
lives are not done - this the the worst aspect of it. For example,
ask some "expert" what the evidence is for the "essentiality" of
dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids. If they know, they'll cite Burr
and Burr (1930!). These scientists fed rats a fat free diet, assumed
that saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids were essential, and
when the rats began to look bad, declared that polyunsaturates were
"essential." Some B vitamins were still not known at the time, so the
rats were B deficient, not polyunsaturate deficient. Why hasn't this
experiment been done again, only this time giving the rats an ample
supply of necessary calories, vitamins, and minerals? It would cost a
couple of hundred dollars, at most, though rats are different than
humans, so it would be better to do this on chimps - still a pretty
cheap proposition. Instead, day after day, after about 60 years of
not telling us about this, the "experts" are now telling us to take
large amounts of PUFAs, which have been demonstrated in experiment
after experiment, to damage human bodies through different kinds of
oxidative stress.

Jay Tanzman <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

tcomeau said:

When a theory fails like the calorie has, one must seek another truth.

The low-carb diet works. And is healthier than a low-calorie or
low-fat diet.

Low-carb diets that work, do so because they are low-calorie diets, you

idiot.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

-Jay

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

One of the frequent themes here from those with a nutritional theology
bent is that following a guru with which one agrees compared to science
from faceless people is to be trusted. Unknown researchers recieve grant
support to do the research, this means the results are most likely false
because the research was made to show what is not reality on purpose.
This always brings a smile to my face. The way to answer as to to the
quality of the research is what was done and the analysis done to the
data. If one can find a flaw in either of these then the research can be
done again, that is the way science does it. There are no researchers who
don't do their work based on grants they recieve from someone. If fraud
and other such is found in specific individuals, it will be the scientific
community to yell loudest and longest about it. When instances of such
are found it is always almost the case that some flaw in the research was
found to tip others to consider problems of fraud. When someone shows
that a researcher gets grant money, big surprise, the only way to comment
on the quality of the research is the research itself. Doing a guilt by
association game is meaningless, except to guruism and anti science and
conspiracy notions that infest almost all nutritional theoly schemes.

When a theory fails like the calorie has, one must seek another truth.

The low-carb diet works. And is healthier than a low-calorie or
low-fat diet.

The food industry does everything it can to keep selling its [censored].

The pharma industry will do the same to sell their [censored]. And their
success requires us to be sick. It is counter productive to their
bottom line for us to be healthy and have a thorough understanding of
the importance of good nutrition, as well what a healthy diet really
is.

More than 70% of all science being done today is paid for by industry.
It is essentially all part of their marketing. It most definitively is
not good science.

Get them the [censored] out of science and we will be able to discuss this
topic in a more scientific manner. Until then we will be stuck arguing
about the various industry ties that each researcher and their
respective studies have.

TC

People are such fools it is sickening. These corporations control
medical research to increase their profit by promoting their toxic
fake foods while covering up their dangers and demonizing healthy non
profitable foods. Anyone who does not comprehend or accept these
simple facts are either ignorant fools or dupes. Anyone who does not
believe that people would poison an entire population for profit
simply do not understand human nature and have no understanding of the
facts and of the behavior of such industries and corporations
throughout history. All one has to do is investigate the facts and
examine the history of the corporate world. We are talking about
immorality and evil of the highest order. The same evil that
collaborated with Nazi Germany up to and even DURING world war 2.
Several hundred immoral US corporations like Ford and General Motors
had dealings with Germany including the grand father of our freakin
president. His family fortune was made by arming [censored] and
exploiting slave labor. This is the man running the United States.
There is NO LIMIT to what these corporate villains will do to satisfy
their greed. They are in possitions of immense power all the way up
to president of the USA. They count on the disbelief and gullibility
of the masses to operate unopposed. Does anyone really think people
who were more than willing to collaborate with [censored] for profit would
not be willing to do something as simple as poison the public and
cover it up? They are able to do this easily with the amount of
control they have over our society through government and media. They
have done a wonderful job of covering up their evil behavior during
world war 2 and beyond by keeping their corruption out of the media.
Why do you think almost no Americans know about these things. Where
do you think the TV networks and news media get their money? The same
place the medical research establishment does. Do you think they are
going to educate the public about the unimaginable evil and corruption
of so many American corporations? 99% of Americans probably hold the
delusional idea that Ford and General Motors are wholesome American
companies and that the Bush family are godly moral people. This is
the brain washing of the masses. These are the lies and cover up of
reality successfully dispensed upon an entire population. This
country is in the hands and under the control of an elite immoral and
evil few with immense wealth and power. That is the simple truth and
it is the unwillingness of the ignorant uncaring public that allows
them to remain in power and continue poisoning killing and controlling
the masses. This is accomplished easily with there near complete
control over the government and its many agencies as well as the few
major media outlets to dispense their lies and propaganda to the
public.

It comes down to this, the fabrication and manipulation of medical
research and the widespread lies and deception about health and food
pales in comparison to other, even more sinister actions taken by
multi billion dollar industries and corporations for the single goal
of increasing profit. People just need to wake up.

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

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Indeed. The bulk of research goes into studying the effects of
artificial chemicals upon sick people. In this paradigm, becoming sick
is akin to joining the military, if you put your faith in a doctor who
has put his faith in such research. Once you take this first step down
the "primrose path", you might as well kiss your immune system goodbye."

And the alternative to science is?

uhh science? There is no science there. It is nothing more than
marketing and advertising. The alternative IS real science. Get your
freakin head out of the sand.

Useless ranting as always by weirdoes. It would be a joke to have you guys
actually treating sick people. Rant, rant, rant..........
I like to get people like you guys in the hospital and shove a rectal
thermometer up your butt as high as it can goes.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Indeed. The bulk of research goes into studying the effects of
artificial chemicals upon sick people. In this paradigm, becoming sick
is akin to joining the military, if you put your faith in a doctor who
has put his faith in such research. Once you take this first step down
the "primrose path", you might as well kiss your immune system goodbye."

And the alternative to science is?

uhh science? There is no science there. It is nothing more than
marketing and advertising. The alternative IS real science. Get your
freakin head out of the sand.

Useless ranting as always by weirdoes. It would be a joke to have you guys
actually treating sick people. Rant, rant, rant..........
I like to get people like you guys in the hospital and shove a rectal
thermometer up your butt as high as it can goes.

Hey moron. The discussion is not about anyones qualifications as a
physician, it is about the lack of science and the preponderence of
marketing and advertising in the field of science. Keep to the topic
or shut the [censored] up, before one of us goes down to the redneck south,
finds you, and shoves a medical journal up your [censored].

TC

"Piezzo Guru" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<1095737804.aYZ07V+3bNZt+9UcnWcwxA@teranews>...

Quoted message said:

Most literature I have read states about $250,000- $500,000 to do a placebo
controlled study with modern scientific techniques. They ain't done that
much for that reason.

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

Quoted message said:

Billions of dollars are often spent chasing obviously ludicrous
"theories," while simple experiments that may be costing millions of
lives are not done - this the the worst aspect of it. For example,
ask some "expert" what the evidence is for the "essentiality" of
dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids. If they know, they'll cite Burr
and Burr (1930!). These scientists fed rats a fat free diet, assumed
that saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids were essential, and
when the rats began to look bad, declared that polyunsaturates were
"essential." Some B vitamins were still not known at the time, so the
rats were B deficient, not polyunsaturate deficient. Why hasn't this
experiment been done again, only this time giving the rats an ample
supply of necessary calories, vitamins, and minerals? It would cost a
couple of hundred dollars, at most, though rats are different than
humans, so it would be better to do this on chimps - still a pretty
cheap proposition. Instead, day after day, after about 60 years of
not telling us about this, the "experts" are now telling us to take
large amounts of PUFAs, which have been demonstrated in experiment
after experiment, to damage human bodies through different kinds of
oxidative stress.

Jay Tanzman <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

tcomeau wrote:

> When a theory fails like the calorie has, one must seek another truth.
>
> The low-carb diet works. And is healthier than a low-calorie or
> low-fat diet.

Low-carb diets that work, do so because they are low-calorie diets, you

idiot.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

-Jay

If it is to support a flawed mainstream theory that supports the food
industry then there is no limit to the amount of money they will spend
and indeed billions have been spent over the decades already.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Indeed. The bulk of research goes into studying the effects of
artificial chemicals upon sick people. In this paradigm, becoming sick
is akin to joining the military, if you put your faith in a doctor who
has put his faith in such research. Once you take this first step down
the "primrose path", you might as well kiss your immune system goodbye."

And the alternative to science is?

uhh science? There is no science there. It is nothing more than
marketing and advertising. The alternative IS real science. Get your
freakin head out of the sand.

Useless ranting as always by weirdoes. It would be a joke to have you guys
actually treating sick people. Rant, rant, rant..........
I like to get people like you guys in the hospital and shove a rectal
thermometer up your butt as high as it can goes.

god you are such a dumb ass its pathetic. What the [censored] is wrong with
you anyway. How the hell can anyone be so damn stupid. Im sure
shoving things up peoples asses is your idea of medical treatment.
You will never have a concept of what real health is. What a [censored]
up moron. At least I take comfort in knowing your stupidity and
ignorance will cut your life short and spare others of having to deal
with it. It must be sad thinking you are powerless to affect your own
health and not having the confidence and knowledge that by taking care
of yourself and eating the right foods you will INSURE that you will
have a long healthy life. People like you are just not capable of
accepting reality and your willful ignorance will eventualy send you
into an early grave.

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

Quoted message said:

Billions of dollars are often spent chasing obviously ludicrous
"theories," while simple experiments that may be costing millions of
lives are not done - this the the worst aspect of it. For example,
ask some "expert" what the evidence is for the "essentiality" of
dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids. If they know, they'll cite Burr
and Burr (1930!). These scientists fed rats a fat free diet, assumed
that saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids were essential, and
when the rats began to look bad, declared that polyunsaturates were
"essential." Some B vitamins were still not known at the time, so the
rats were B deficient, not polyunsaturate deficient. Why hasn't this
experiment been done again, only this time giving the rats an ample
supply of necessary calories, vitamins, and minerals? It would cost a
couple of hundred dollars, at most, though rats are different than
humans, so it would be better to do this on chimps - still a pretty
cheap proposition. Instead, day after day, after about 60 years of
not telling us about this, the "experts" are now telling us to take
large amounts of PUFAs, which have been demonstrated in experiment
after experiment, to damage human bodies through different kinds of
oxidative stress.

It really is sad that people simply can not examine history and look
at the facts rationally and objectively and see the truth of what is
going on in this world. It really is right there for anyone who
chooses to investigate.

Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:33:09 -0700 in article <[email hidden]>

Jay Tanzman said:

tcomeau said:

When a theory fails like the calorie has, one must seek another truth.

The low-carb diet works. And is healthier than a low-calorie or
low-fat diet.

Low-carb diets that work, do so because they are low-calorie diets, you idiot.

Perhaps not entirely so. Have a look at the articles

Feinman RD, Fine EJ.
Thermodynamics and Metabolic Advantage of Weight Loss Diets.
Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders 2003, 1:209-219.
<URL:http://miranda.ingentaselect.com/vl=3620192/cl=204/nw=1/rpsv/cw/mal/15404196/v1n3/s7/p209>
(abstract)
<URL:http://taddeo.ingentaselect.com/vl=5598164/cl=39/nw=1/fm=docpdf/rpsv/cw/mal/15404196/v1n3/s7/p209>
(full text, PDF)

"Abstract: Published reports show that low carbohydrate
weight loss diets provide a metabolic advantage, a greater
weight loss per calorie consumed compared to isocaloric high
carbohydrate diets. These reports have not been refuted but
rather largely ignored, presumably because of the apparent
violation of the laws of thermodynamics ("a calorie is a
calorie"😉. In this review, we show that there is no such
violation of thermodynamic laws. Energy utilization of
different diets depends on the chemical pathway taken and a
metabolic analysis of the efficiency of different pathways
reveals large differences. Likewise, thermogenesis produced
by diets of different macronutrient composition varies
widely. We present a plausible mechanism that depends on the
inefficiency of metabolic cycles and, in particular, protein
turnover. A low carbohydrate diet makes demands on protein
turnover for gluconeogenesis. From a theoretical point of
view,energy balance between two diets is to be expected only
if the subjects have the same final physiologic state, and
only if all of the changes contributing to the energy, heat,
work and chemical effects are known. Most diet experiments
do not conform to this ideal. There is no theoretical
contradiction in metabolic advantage and no theoretical
barrier to accepting reports describing this effect."

An excerpt from the end of the full text article:

"The review presented here indicates that reported metabolic
advantage of low carbohydrate diets has a plausible
mechanism and is consistent with physical laws. Thus, in the
absence of criticism of experimental methodology, there is
no reason to disbelieve the published data. Although the
decline in body mass on weight loss diets is frequently
proportional to caloric intake, a diet that offered the
possibility of metabolic advantage would be of great
practical value. Such a diet would sensibly provide a
psychological benefit in addition to the physiologic
advantage, with a higher likelihood of compliance. The need
for better strategies for weight loss is accentuated by
concern about the current epidemic of obesity. In addition
to treatment, an effective long range approach may depend on
attacking the causes of this epidemic. These are not
completely understood, or at least not generally agreed on.
Proponents of controlled carbohydrate strategies point to
the correlation between increased total consumption and the
decreased percentage of fat and increased percentage of
carbohydrate consumption in the population. Another factor
that is cited, not necessarily mutually exclusive, is the
increased availability of high volume, high calorie meals.
In either case, a low carbohydrate diet that can demonstrate
a metabolic advantage would provide a correction— indeed
would test the relative importance of the increase in
carbohydrate consumption versus the increase in food
availability (since food availability is unlikely to
change).

There is, of course, more to a reducing diet than its
efficiency. There is always some concern about high protein
diets and renal function. As discussed by Layman,21 there is
no upper limit (UL) for protein intake, and this problem is
still a matter of controversy. For patients with normal
renal and liver function, the risks are conjectural and must
be balanced against the real and established risk of
continued obesity. Other factors, particularly individual
responses are also important. In the end, the best diet is
the one that a subject can stay on.

What would it take to firmly establish the metabolic
advantage? Two aspects of the problem have been presented
here: the experimental demonstration of the phenomenon and
the role of gluconeogenesis as a likely underlying
mechanism. To understand energy balance experimentally will
require the study of weight loss diets, and LCKD in
particular, with precise measures of food intake, energy
expenditure and thermogenesis. Metabolic studies,20,21,47,48
under the same conditions can be expected to provide
evidence on underlying mechanism.

Note added in proof. Since the submission of the manuscript,
a well-designed pilot study has been presented providing
further evidence for the metabolic advantage (Green P,
Willett W, Devescus J, Skaf A. Pilot 12-week feeding weight-
loss comparison: Low-fat vs. low-carbohydrate (ketogenic)
diets. Obesity Res 2003; 11:A23)."

and

Feinman RD, Fine EJ.
"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics.
Nutr J. 2004 Jul 28;3(1):9.
PMID: 15282028 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
<URL:http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9>

Abstract:

"The principle of "a calorie is a calorie," that weight change
in hypocaloric diets is independent of macronutrient
composition, is widely held in the popular and technical
literature, and is frequently justified by appeal to the laws
of thermodynamics. We review here some aspects of
thermodynamics that bear on weight loss and the effect of
macronutrient composition. The focus is the so-called metabolic
advantage in low-carbohydrate diets – greater weight loss
compared to isocaloric diets of different composition. Two laws
of thermodynamics are relevant to the systems considered in
nutrition and, whereas the first law is a conservation (of
energy) law, the second is a dissipation law: something
(negative entropy) is lost and therefore balance is not to be
expected in diet interventions. Here, we propose that a
misunderstanding of the second law accounts for the controversy
about the role of macronutrient effect on weight loss and we
review some aspects of elementary thermodynamics. We use data
in the literature to show that thermogenesis is sufficient to
predict metabolic advantage. Whereas homeostasis ensures
balance under many conditions, as a general principle, "a
calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of
thermodynamics."

A couple of excerpts from the full text article:

"We recently reviewed the literature on metabolic advantage
[4]. We showed that there is a sufficient number of reports
in the literature to establish the existence of metabolic
advantage and we tabulated results from ten or so studies
demonstrating that low carbohydrate diets can lead to
greater weight loss than isocaloric low fat diets. The
reports we cited have frequently been met with the criticism
that the data could not be right because they would violate
the laws of thermodynamics ([5,6]). An example is the recent
demonstration of metabolic advantage in a small, pilot study
[7] which, despite its preliminary status, was extremely
well controlled. Three groups were studied: A low
carbohydrate group (LoCHO = 1800 kcal for men; 1500 kcal for
women), a low fat group (LoFat, 1800 and 1500); a third
group also consumed a low carbohydrate diet but an
additional 300 kcalories were provided (LoCHO+300, 2100 and
1800). The order of average amount of weight lost was LoCHO
= 23 lbs, LoCHO+300 = 20 lbs LoFat = 17 lbs. This work
received a good deal of attention in the popular press.
Media reports, however, included comments of experts that
"It doesn't make sense, does it?" "It violates the laws of
thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous
metabolic effects." ([5]). If this is an accurate quotation,
it is odd indeed. Miraculous, or otherwise, a metabolic
effect was found. In the absence of an identifiable
methodological error, experimental data has to be accepted
and numerous investigations, in fact, serve as precedents
for Greene et al.'s findings (Reviews: [4,8]).

In our previous review of metabolic advantage [4] we showed
that there is, in fact, no theoretical violation of the laws
of thermodynamics, and we provided a plausible mechanism. In
general the pathways for gluconeogenesis that are required
in order to supply obligate glucose (e.g. to brain and CNS),
in combination with increased protein turnover, could
account for the missing energy. Here, we simplify the
thermodynamic argument and review some of the relevant
principles. We show, moreover, that well-established data in
the traditional nutritional literature predict metabolic
advantage and no one should be surprised. The ironic
conclusion is that the principle that weight gain on
isocaloric diets must always be independent of macronutrient
composition would violate the second law of thermodynamics."

[...]

A review of simple thermodynamic principles shows that weight
change on isocaloric diets is not expected to be independent of
path (metabolism of macronutrients) and indeed such a general
principle would be a violation of the second law. Homeostatic
mechanisms are able to insure that, a good deal of the time,
weight does not fluctuate much with changes in diet – this might
be said to be the true "miraculous metabolic effect" – but it is
subject to many exceptions. The idea that this is theoretically
required in all cases is mistakenly based on equilibrium,
reversible conditions that do not hold for living organisms and
an insufficient appreciation of the second law. The second law
of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for
different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically
the dictum that a "calorie is a calorie" violates the second law
of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.

The analysis above might be said to be over-kill although it is
important, intellectually, not to invoke the laws of
thermodynamics inappropriately. There are also, however,
practical consequences. The seriousness of the obesity epidemic
suggests that we attack it with all the means at our disposal.
Metabolic advantage with low carbohydrate diets is well
established in the literature. It does not always occur but the
important point is that it can occur. To ignore its
possibilities and to not investigate the precise conditions
under which it appears would be cutting ourselves off from
potential benefit. The extent to which metabolic advantage will
have significant impact in treating obesity is unknown and it is
widely said in studies of low carbohydrate diets that "more work
needs to be done." However, if the misconception is perpetuated
that there is a violation of physical laws, that work will not
be done, and if done, will go unpublished due to editorial
resistance. Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving
up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a
calorie" might be a good place to start."

Additional reading:

Buchholz AC, Schoeller DA.
Is a calorie a calorie?
Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 May;79(5):899S-906S. Review.
PMID: 15113737 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<URL:http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/79/5/899S>

--
Matti Narkia

Careful there. That is a threat of physical violence and/or intimidation and
can land you in jail. I will not repeat it here as it could become a legal
issue. Before you get your shorts in a knot and spout [censored], I've been
there and done that.

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

Quoted message said:

Hey moron. The discussion is not about anyones qualifications as a
physician, it is about the lack of science and the preponderence of
marketing and advertising in the field of science. Keep to the topic
or shut the [censored] up, before ...
TC

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

Quoted message said:

"Robert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

> "Indeed. The bulk of research goes into studying the effects of
> artificial chemicals upon sick people. In this paradigm, becoming

sick

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> is akin to joining the military, if you put your faith in a doctor

who

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> has put his faith in such research. Once you take this first step

down

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> the "primrose path", you might as well kiss your immune system

goodbye."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
> And the alternative to science is?

uhh science? There is no science there. It is nothing more than
marketing and advertising. The alternative IS real science. Get your
freakin head out of the sand.

Useless ranting as always by weirdoes. It would be a joke to have you

guys

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

actually treating sick people. Rant, rant, rant..........
I like to get people like you guys in the hospital and shove a rectal
thermometer up your butt as high as it can goes.

Hey moron. The discussion is not about anyones qualifications as a
physician, it is about the lack of science and the preponderence of
marketing and advertising in the field of science. Keep to the topic
or shut the [censored] up, before one of us goes down to the redneck south,
finds you, and shoves a medical journal up your [censored].

TC

"put your faith in a doctor who has put his faith in such research. Once you
take this first step down the "primrose path", you might as well kiss your
immune system goodbye."

You are the moron as millions and I don't know anybody WHO DOES NOT put
faith in their doctor that they will do the right thing. You and your
condescending statements to portray somehow you guys know better is
laughable. Keep on dreaming that you know more than any doctor.

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

Quoted message said:

"Robert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

> "Indeed. The bulk of research goes into studying the effects of
> artificial chemicals upon sick people. In this paradigm, becoming

sick

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> is akin to joining the military, if you put your faith in a doctor

who

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> has put his faith in such research. Once you take this first step

down

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> the "primrose path", you might as well kiss your immune system

goodbye."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
> And the alternative to science is?

uhh science? There is no science there. It is nothing more than
marketing and advertising. The alternative IS real science. Get your
freakin head out of the sand.

Useless ranting as always by weirdoes. It would be a joke to have you

guys

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

actually treating sick people. Rant, rant, rant..........
I like to get people like you guys in the hospital and shove a rectal
thermometer up your butt as high as it can goes.

god you are such a dumb ass its pathetic. What the [censored] is wrong with
you anyway. How the hell can anyone be so damn stupid. Im sure
shoving things up peoples asses is your idea of medical treatment.
You will never have a concept of what real health is. What a [censored]
up moron. At least I take comfort in knowing your stupidity and
ignorance will cut your life short and spare others of having to deal
with it. It must be sad thinking you are powerless to affect your own
health and not having the confidence and knowledge that by taking care
of yourself and eating the right foods you will INSURE that you will
have a long healthy life. People like you are just not capable of
accepting reality and your willful ignorance will eventualy send you
into an early grave.

Nice way to back track from your moronic statements above.

""Indeed. The bulk of research goes into studying the effects of
artificial chemicals upon sick people. In this paradigm, becoming sick is
akin to joining the military, if you put your faith in a doctor who has put
his faith in such research. Once you take this first step down the "primrose
path", you might as well kiss your immune system goodbye."
And the alternative to science is?

uhh science? There is no science there. It is nothing more than
marketing and advertising. The alternative IS real science. Get your
freakin head out of the sand.

Let me repeat this with pleasure. You guys are so stupid and only try to
dream that you know more than any regular GP in medicine. Keep on making
your moronic statements like there is no science in medicine. You forgot to
say mainstream medicine like you normally do as you are way, way, NOT
mainstream medicine. NO MEDICINE AT ALL.

Usually health aficionados do know more about nutrition than doctors.

Ask your doctor how many minutes, or perhaps seconds he studied nutrition in
his education.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Robert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Wolfbrother" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> [email hidden] wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> > "Indeed. The bulk of research goes into studying the effects of
> > artificial chemicals upon sick people. In this paradigm, becoming

sick

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > is akin to joining the military, if you put your faith in a doctor

who

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > has put his faith in such research. Once you take this first step

down

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > the "primrose path", you might as well kiss your immune system

goodbye."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >
> > And the alternative to science is?
>
> uhh science? There is no science there. It is nothing more than
> marketing and advertising. The alternative IS real science. Get

your

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> freakin head out of the sand.

Useless ranting as always by weirdoes. It would be a joke to have you

guys

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

actually treating sick people. Rant, rant, rant..........
I like to get people like you guys in the hospital and shove a rectal
thermometer up your butt as high as it can goes.

Hey moron. The discussion is not about anyones qualifications as a
physician, it is about the lack of science and the preponderence of
marketing and advertising in the field of science. Keep to the topic
or shut the [censored] up, before one of us goes down to the redneck south,
finds you, and shoves a medical journal up your [censored].

TC

"put your faith in a doctor who has put his faith in such research. Once

you

Quoted message said:

take this first step down the "primrose path", you might as well kiss your
immune system goodbye."

You are the moron as millions and I don't know anybody WHO DOES NOT put
faith in their doctor that they will do the right thing. You and your
condescending statements to portray somehow you guys know better is
laughable. Keep on dreaming that you know more than any doctor.