Three reasons why calories probably don't count

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

TC - 20 Feb 2006 15:39 GMT

1) There is no fundamental science to support it.

The following is supposed to be the scientific basis of the concept of
calories being applicable to animals and weigt control:

*
second ed. of White, Handler and Smith "Principles of Biochemistry"
Chaper 1 and
Chapter 15 (metabolism) plus the citations and references therin. It
states: (pp8) "Three historic discoveries led to the concept that the
fundamental laws of phsics and chemistry, which apply to nonliving
systems, also apply to living structures. These discoveries are (1)
the establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
conservation of energy in its application of animals"-- (the others
have to do with (2) synthesis of urea and (3) fermentation). (pp9) "In
living, as in nonliving, systems therefore, these laws of physical
chemistry require that energy must be supplied in orderto accomplish
the reversal of a spontaneous process or for the synthesis of a new
compound from precursors of lower energy content".
*

A very highly regarded bio-chemistry textbook references "the
establishment by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1785 of the law of
conservation of energy in its application of animals"

Except that the study or the paper by Lavoisier and Laplace does not
exist.

http://moro.imss.fi.it/lavoisier/Lavoisier_Chronology2.asp?anno=1785

Any studies by these two together occurred much later than 1785 and
none specifically established "the law of conservation of energy in its
application of animals". They never did any such study or paper.

This textbook is used to educate all medical people. They are being
told that science has established "the law of conservation of energy in
its application of animals" and then fails to provide a correct or
relevant reference.

Is this acceptable scientific "proof"? Can you find the study or the
paper that originally established "the law of conservation of energy in
its application of animals"?

************************

2) Practical application of calorie restriction to achieve weight loss
in humans fails 95% of the time.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/309/6955/655

"Controversies in Management: Dietary treatments for obesity are
ineffective
C S Wooley, D M Garner

University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio 45267,
USA Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research, Bala Cynwood,
Pennsylvania 19001, USA Correspondence to: Dr Wooley.

It is surprising that debate continues about the effectiveness of
dietary treatments for obesity. Perhaps this is partly related to
ambiguity in the term effectiveness. It is well known that most
treatments produce temporary weight loss. But it is equally well known
that 90% to 95% of those who lose weight regain it within several
years.1 This poor outcome has led to charges that traditional
treatments for obesity should be abandoned and countercharges that it
is irresponsible to withhold treatment for such a serious problem. The
failure of reducing diets to produce lasting improvement was recently
reiterated at a National Institutes of Health consensus conference,
which also warned about the adverse effects of treatment.2 "

If it were as simple as restricting caloric intake and increasing
exercise, the vast majority of people of put in a modicum of effort
would lose at least weight over time and they would successfully keep
it off. There is plenty of low-cal food available at the local grocer.
And there are millions of people that do put in a genuine effort and
succeed in cutting caloric intake but without the expected and desired
results. Applying the low calorie diet and the very low calorie diet in
the real world does not result in the desired weight loss in 90 to 95%
of cases.

*******************

3) There exists no specific bio-chemical mechanism that monitors or is
triggered by calories to affect weight gain or fat storage and weight
loss or fat loss.

Our metabolism deals with and reacts to the different nutrients that we
consume. carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals, water, air and
light. We have various bio-chemical cascades that handles and
metabolizes each of these nutrients. Any good bio-chemistry textbook
will give you the whole story of how our bodies use and process these
various nutrients.

Fat storage is primarily triggered by high blood glucose levels which
in turn triggers high insulin levels which in turn triggers our body to
create and store fat.

There is nothing that explains how fat storage or fat loss is triggered
by calories specifically. It is a black box concept that has never gone
further than the mysterious black box. And it does not fit into any
bio-chemical explanation of the various bio-chemical and metabolic
processes of the human body. In light of the entire metabolic systems
bio-chemical processes and various chemical cascades involved in fat
storage and fat breakdown, calories become the red-headed step-child
with no role to play whatsoever.

********

I am sure that calories mean something somewhere. Possibly at the
extremes of the scales, we may need a certain minimum amount of
calories for our bodies to be able to function properly, and at the
other extreme, way too many calories will cause some problems. But in
the middle area where we are eating within normal ranges of food, the
actual number of calories consumed and the amounts expended cannot be
used to reliably predict weight gain or loss. The basic and simple math
of the calorie deficit concept simply does not work in the real world.

It is a very simple concept. Burn more calories than you consume.
Except it fails in the real world.

TC