 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2004The Science of Dieting
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6980/full/ 428252a_fs.html "Other experts argue that the debate over the relative merits of various diets is a sideshow to the main message for those wanting to lose weight and keep it off: consume fewer calories and exercise more. "Thinking that a specific diet should eliminate people's weight problems is totally unrealistic," asserts Arne Astrup, a nutritionist at the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University in Frederiksberg, Denmark, and president-elect of the International Association for the Study of Obesity. "There is no getting round the laws of thermodynamics." In other words, if your energy intake exceeds your energy output, you will get fat whatever the proportions of fat, carbohydrate and protein in your diet."  SignatureMost of us probably aren't in danger of eating too little. :) Becky P. Excellent point. Most people I talk to look at exercise as something they would go to any length to avoid and use any excuse to do so. Their loss. Mertz http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6980/full/ 428252a_fs.html > "Other experts argue that the debate over the relative merits of various > diets is a sideshow to the main message for those wanting to lose weight and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > intake exceeds your energy output, you will get fat whatever the proportions > of fat, carbohydrate and protein in your diet." > http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6980/full/ 428252a_fs.html > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > intake exceeds your energy output, you will get fat whatever the > proportions of fat, carbohydrate and protein in your diet." heh. i was hoping someone would post that over here. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6980 > /full/428252a_fs.html > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > heh. i was hoping someone would post that over here. You know me: just trying to be helpful. >http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6980/full/ 428252a_fs.html > >of the International Association for the Study of Obesity. "There is no >getting round the laws of thermodynamics." In other words, if your energy >intake exceeds your energy output, you will get fat whatever the proportions >of fat, carbohydrate and protein in your diet." That's true. However, if I were to eat a high-carb diet, my thermo would stop being as "dynamic" as it is on a low carb diet :) CM >http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6980/full/ 428252a_fs.html > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's true. However, if I were to eat a high-carb diet, my thermo would > stop being as "dynamic" as it is on a low carb diet :) Possibly, and you might be more hungry also. That in no way detracts from the general message though. >>http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6980/full/ 428252a_fs.html >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's true. However, if I were to eat a high-carb diet, my thermo would > stop being as "dynamic" as it is on a low carb diet :) And that whole business of thermodynamics doesn't apply quite as purely as the physicists would have you believe. To be sure, you can't take in more *available* calories than you expend. But that word *available* is a big sticking point. The USDA counts fiber calories as though they were *available* to us. They behave as though metabolic functions don't use calories, they merely take them from foods. So of those 4 calories per gram of carbs or 9 per gram of fat aren't really what we're getting from them. It's what they contain if completely "burned." The reality is that the laws of thermodynamics do apply, but humans aren't bomb calorimeters that use 100% of all available energy in foods. And humans aren't identical in efficiency of utilization. It's not as simple, empirically, as calories in vs calories out. Pastorio >>http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6980/full/ 428252a_fs.html > >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > foods. And humans aren't identical in efficiency of utilization. It's > not as simple, empirically, as calories in vs calories out. Of course. But by equivocating, you give all the fat, lazy people a chance to claim that they can't lose weight because of their "special" metabolisms. In truth, the differences between us are not that large. By large, I mean in the way that we metabolize calories. I don't mean that there's not large difference in how large we are. HTH >"Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >that we metabolize calories. I don't mean that there's not >large difference in how large we are. HTH I do agree. I think people need to find out their own personal calorie threshold and stick to it. I found it more difficult to accomplish on a high carb diet, because the cravings drove me nuts. However, on a low-carbohydrate diet, I can get away with a few extra calories here and there, AND, I actually feel like I've eaten. This is a sustainable diet with real food, that I actually believe I can use for the long term and not "go off" later. With a high carb diet, it almost defeated the purpose of eating. What was the point of food if I felt *more* hungry *after* eating than before eating? It just did not make sense. Now I get to say "No thanks, I'm not hungry", and actually be telling the truth, rather than a polite lie. I cannot describe what a good feeling it is. CM > >"Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > actually be telling the truth, rather than a polite lie. I > cannot describe what a good feeling it is. And that's the whole point. But as usual, people will twist the point and stuff themselves with anything and everything that is labeled low carb. Are they really that stupid, or are they just really that good at deluding themselves? It's a good thing I don't really care if they stay fat or if anybody believes that a low carb diet is useful. JC Der Koenig burbled across the ether: > It's a good thing I don't really care if they stay fat or if anybody > believes that a low carb diet is useful. Your actions say different. You do care. Enough to be angry about it. Why, I don't know. And don't care. But don't delude yourself. ;) Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please "The effects of randomly inserted humour, even pointless humour, tends to have a positive effect on Usenet discussions. This aptly applied interrupted counter-phobic defence mechanism, can reduce tensions & and lead to creative discussions, which might otherwise turn argumentative, or even violent." Professor Emile Sycedricks. Harvock & Potemkin's "Completely Made Up Quotes". > JC Der Koenig burbled across the ether: > > It's a good thing I don't really care if they stay fat or if anybody > > believes that a low carb diet is useful. > > Your actions say different. You do care. Enough to be angry about it. > Why, I don't know. And don't care. But don't delude yourself. ;) If you didn't care, you wouldn't bring it up. ;-) JC Der Koenig burbled across the ether: >> JC Der Koenig burbled across the ether: >>> It's a good thing I don't really care if they stay fat or if anybody [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If you didn't care, you wouldn't bring it up. ;-) LOL. Only on odd days. <g> Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please By the time they had diminished from 50 to eight, the other dwarves began to suspect "Hungry". > JC Der Koenig burbled across the ether: > > It's a good thing I don't really care if they stay fat or if anybody > > believes that a low carb diet is useful. > > Your actions say different. You do care. Enough to be angry about it. > Why, I don't know. And don't care. But don't delude yourself. ;) People keep accusing JC of being angry, but I don't see much anger in his posts - only in much of the response he gets. I think his personal attitude is more one of arch amusement than anything else. But I do agree that he cares. Otherwise he wouldn't be here trying to show the WFFID's the ways in which they'd benefit by changing their thinking. carla > But I do agree that he cares. Otherwise he wouldn't be here trying to show > the WFFID's the ways in which they'd benefit by changing their thinking. I should have said, "changing *our* thinking." carla >But I do agree that he cares. Otherwise he wouldn't be here trying to show >the WFFID's the ways in which they'd benefit by changing their thinking. And I agree. I think the reason some people (note the qualifier: "some") are offended is because he touches on things near and dear to their hearts. They generally don't enjoy being told that their favorite foods are not part of a healthy diet or a sign of a true change of lifestyle. I've had to give my own WFFID a stern lecture recently, as I was sliding back, and I have now told it to go where the sun don't shine. I want to be alive to see my grandchildren, and to see what my children spend their first paycheck on, etc... CM > I've had to give my own WFFID a stern lecture recently, as I was sliding > back, and I have now told it to go where the sun don't shine. I want to > be alive to see my grandchildren, and to see what my children spend > their first paycheck on, etc... I hear you, CM. I lecture my inner WFFID all the time. Especially walking past the stupid candy dish that a certain secretary keeps on her stupid desk! My motivations aren't the same as yours, but you have some pretty good reasons to get healthy there. Good luck to you. carla >>>http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6980 > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Of course. But by equivocating, you give all the fat, lazy people a chance > to claim that they can't lose weight because of their "special" metabolisms. I don't see it as equivocating. I see it as representing reality. But "all the fat, lazy people" will be what they are irrespective of the laws of physics. Whether they lose weight or not is completely up to them. If they choose not to, so it goes. > In truth, the differences between us are not that large. By large, I mean in > the way that we metabolize calories. Two different things in two sentences. The differences between us, regarding how we function, can indeed be rather large, relatively speaking. Picture any NFL player and a skinny great-grandmother. Resting caloric needs and active caloric needs will be enormously different for them. How *efficiently* we metabolize calories will vary rather widely, as well. Some people don't metabolize sugar alcohols at all. Others do a rather complete job of it. Likewise lactose. I'm sure we can all name various conditions where certain foods cause problems because of their unavailability to some folks. But it's all beside the point which is if you want to lose weight enough you will. If not, you won't. Paraphrasing Henry Ford, " If you think you can't lose weight or if you think you can lose weight, you're right." Pastorio > I don't mean that there's not large > difference in how large we are. HTH <waffling deleted> > But it's all beside the point which is if you want to lose weight > enough you will. If not, you won't. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pastorio That's about it. Bob (this one) burbled across the ether: > But it's all beside the point which is if you want to lose weight > enough you will. If not, you won't. Exactly. As with all things. Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please Every now and then when your life gets complicated and the weasels start closing in, the only cure is to load up on heinous chemicals and then drive like a bastard from Hollywood to Las Vegas ... with the music at top volume and at least a pint of ether." - Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas > From: JC Der Koenig (Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:43:04 GMT) > MsgId: <cEZ6c.786$OS5.70@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > president-elect of the International Association for the > Study of Obesity. My God, this guy's title takes up several lines. He must be important. I think for many people, specific diets work better than others. But as I said in my other thread, I'm not seeing anything that takes away from eat less, exercise more. I just happen to believe LC'ing makes it easier to do that. > "There is no getting round the laws of thermodynamics." In > other words, if your energy intake exceeds your energy > output, you will get fat whatever the proportions of fat, > carbohydrate and protein in your diet." True, but. > http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6980/full/ 428252a_fs.html > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and Agricultural University in Frederiksberg, Denmark, and president-elect > of the International Association for the Study of Obesity. Nutritionists aren't scientists. According to Astrup my weight loss is impossible since weight gain is completely unrelated to diet. Does Astrup think that guzzling 2000 calories of sugar per day is the same as consuming 2000 calories of protein and fat? Appears so, then he has just demonstrated his complete ignorance of metabolic biochemistry. > "There is no > getting round the laws of thermodynamics." In other words, if your energy > intake exceeds your energy output, you will get fat whatever the proportions > of fat, carbohydrate and protein in your diet." Only if one is ignorant enough to assume that the same energy-balance model applies to all individuals. In the real world some individuals have physical differences in their cell structure that are sufficient to lead to a completely different response to starch intake compared to "normal" individuals. Perhaps Astrup and other clowns like him could read up on insulin resistance. You're very good at rationalizing your obesity. Kudos. SignatureMost of us probably aren't in danger of eating too little. :) Becky P. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6980/full/ 428252a_fs.html > > "Other experts argue that the debate over the relative merits of various > > diets is a sideshow to the main message for those wanting to lose weight and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > to "normal" individuals. Perhaps Astrup and other clowns like him > could read up on insulin resistance. > http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6980/full/ 428252a_fs.html > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > president-elect > of the International Association for the Study of Obesity. I find this to be false. For me, it's much easier to be thin on a low carb diet than on a low fat diet, where insulin response makes me want to eat more than I should. > "There is no > getting round the laws of thermodynamics." In other words, if your energy > intake exceeds your energy output, you will get fat whatever the > proportions > of fat, carbohydrate and protein in your diet." This is true. SignatureBob M in CT remove 'x.' to reply http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6980/full/ 428252a_fs.html > > "Other experts argue that the debate over the relative merits of various > > diets is a sideshow to the main message for those wanting to lose weight [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > carb diet than on a low fat diet, where insulin response makes me want to > eat more than I should. Some people find low fat easier to follow. The bottom line is still the same though: eat less and exercise more. :: On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:43:04 GMT, JC Der Koenig <jcderkoenig@ibm.com> :: wrote: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6980/full/ 428252a_fs.html ::: "Other experts argue that the debate over the relative merits of ::: various [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] :: want to :: eat more than I should. I think that statement is written from the POV that to maintain weight (or not have a weight problem), all diets must achieve the same end. I don't think it addresses one's ability to follow a particular diet. So in that sense, I agree with the statement. And I also agree with you. ::: "There is no ::: getting round the laws of thermodynamics." In other words, if your [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :: -- :: Bob M in CT remove 'x.' to reply Bob M burbled across the ether: > I find this to be false. Well yeah. "Arne Astrup, a nutritionist" pretty much sums it up for me. Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please A little wisdom never hurt anyone. Tell that to socrates - Harvey Danger, Pitty and Fear |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.