Diabetes Talking

Question:

Yes, I believe in conservation of energy. If the body uses less energy than it takes in it gains weight. If the body uses more energy than it takes in it loses weight. What has always confused me is "what does this have to do with food calories" – the 4 cal per gm of protein, 9 for fat and 4 for carbohydrates? Both Ornish – the low fat guy and Atkins – the high fat guy – quote contradictory research. Ornish says that two sets of rats on equivalent caloric diets didn’t have the same results. He says the low-fat high-carb rats lost more. Atkins says the complete opposite – that the low-carb high-fat rats lost more. A rat is a rat, right? This seems like the sort of experiment a high school class could do to see who is right. (At least with rats.) But the point both are making is that all calories are not equal, as far as the body is concerned. Another thing that bothers me is the method used to determine calories. This is done by calorimeter, which is basically a container surrounded by water. The food is flash burned and the surrounding water temperature change is measured to see how much heat (calories) were in the food. That is very scientific – for water. But how can we say this relates directly to how the same food is "burned" in our bodies? There is too much evidence (albeit it contradictory evidence) to indicate that it is isn’t true. Again – I believe in conservation of energy. But we need "biological calorimeters" based on how bodies actually *use* these nutrients. doug

Response:

What has always confused me is "what does this have to do with food calories" – the 4 cal per gm of protein, 9 for fat and 4 for carbohydrates?

Everything.  Dietary calories are the same as calories used elsewhere in science … except that dietary contexts usually speak of kilocalories, or Calories (note the capital C), which are equal to 1000 normal calories.  This is done just to keep the numbers a little more convenient, as an ordinary calorie is a relatively small amount of energy.  So a glass of milk contains 210,000 calories, or 210 kcal (or Calories). The numbers for different types of food reflect the calorie deficit you must create in order to burn them off (and conversely, the calories you use for them when you are adding up what you eat).  Protein yields a net of about 4 kcal per gram when burned in your body; fat yields about 7 kcal (the figure of 9 is correct if you burn fat in isolation, but since the body expends a certain amount of energy just converting fat to and from something usable for power, the _net_ value of fat is about 7 kcal–there are 2 kcal of overhead in the conversions). Another factor built into these figures is the ability of the body to assimilate nutrients.  Cellulose produces quite a bit of energy when you burn it, but the human body does not digest cellulose, so the net calorie value for cellulose within the context of human nutrition is zero.  The same is true of gasoline or hydrogen gas.  The figures for protein, fat, sugar, etc., already have this adjustment built in.  Note that cellulose _does_ have dietary calories if you are a cow, since cows can digest cellulose. Ornish says that two sets of rats on equivalent caloric diets didn’t have the same results. He says the low-fat high-carb rats lost more. Atkins says the complete opposite – that the low-carb high-fat rats lost more.

Both of them are omitting something.  Whether the rats gain or lose depends on how many calories they consume overall, not the form of the calories. In diets like this, the part they leave out is that the diet encourages one to eat less, so the total number of calories drops.  It is the "eating less" part that causes weight loss, not the type of food chosen. If you go on one of these diets and you eat exactly the same number of calories as before, you will not lose weight. A rat is a rat, right?

Yes.  Lab rats are heavily standardized. This seems like the sort of experiment a high school class could do to see who is right.

I sometimes think that the controls used by diet promoters for their experiments aren’t any better than what high-school students might come up with. But the point both are making is that all calories are not equal, as far as the body is concerned.

Then they are misrepresenting human nutrition.  All dietary calories are equal. Another thing that bothers me is the method used to determine calories. This is done by calorimeter, which is basically a container surrounded by water.  The food is flash burned and the surrounding water temperature change is measured to see how much heat (calories) were in the food.

It is done that way in theory, but not in practice, because this method does not account for conversion overhead or the utility of a substance as a human nutrient (see above). That is very scientific – for water. But how can we say this relates directly to how the same food is "burned" in our bodies?

We can’t.  That’s why that method isn’t really used for nutritional figures. Again – I believe in conservation of energy. But we need "biological calorimeters" based on how bodies actually *use* these nutrients.

It has already been done.  That’s why you have different figures for fat, sugar, and protein.  Most of the figures have been determined empirically, as far as I know.  Once you have the figures for all the basic macronutrients, you can compute the figures for specific foods by adding up the proportions of each macronutrient and doing the appropriate calculation.

Response:

Ornish says that two sets of rats on equivalent caloric diets didn’t have the same results. He says the low-fat high-carb rats lost more. Atkins says the complete opposite – that the low-carb high-fat rats lost more. Both of them are omitting something.

Not necessarily.  Because… A rat is a rat, right? Yes.  Lab rats are heavily standardized.

No they are not all the same.  There are hundreds of different strains of mice and rats that react differently to different things.  Yes, each strain is heavily standardized.  But if Ornish uses strain A and Atkins uses strain B, then the two studies should not be compared to each other. Doubtless that’s how they such conflicting results; assuming they didn’t flat out make up their results.  You do some preliminary studies on several strains of mice, see which strain looks like it’s going to lose weight the best on your diet and use that one in your main study. Shawn

Response:

Yes, I believe in conservation of energy.

Good thing.  If it weren’t true there’d be a sh*tload of physicists with a whole HEAP of ’splainin’ to do… Blue skies! Skip btw…  I believe it’s a insulin thing.  carbs cause it, and any excess energy (carbs) get stored as fat. — 86 V65 Magna

Response:

Both Ornish – the low fat guy and Atkins – the high fat guy – quote contradictory research. Ornish says that two sets of rats on equivalent caloric diets didn’t have the same results. He says the low-fat high-carb rats lost more. Atkins says the complete opposite – that the low-carb high-fat rats lost more. A rat is a rat, right? This seems like the sort of experiment a high school class could do to see who is right. (At least with rats.)

Actually no.  There are dozens of different strains of lab rats. Zucker rats for instance, are genetically predisposed to obesity and diabetes.  There are Sprague Dawley rats and heaps of others that I can’t think of at the moment. All lab rats are Rattus norvegicus btw. Lyss

Response:

Dude… I"m not wasting my typing skills on you.  I eat more than I ever have,…. enough said…lost 20 so far…

Show me the numbers.

Response:

Dude… I"m not wasting my typing skills on you.  I eat more than I ever have,…. enough said…lost 20 so far… Mark troll, troll, troll your boat…. " I DISAGREE totally with that statement. Your disagreement is irrelevant.  That’s how it actually works. This is the total opposite of what Dr. Atkins diet is all about.

You will not lose weight on the Dr. Atkins diet unless you eat fewer calories. I am NOT eating less that I did before (calories, or total quantity), and I have lost 20 pounds in the 6 weeks.

Yes, you have.  Show me your daily logs of what you’ve eaten and what you’ve burned, and we’ll see. I totally disagree with that, Mxsmanic.

You can disagree all you want, but reality will not

Response:

But if Ornish uses strain A and Atkins uses strain B, then the two studies should not be compared to each other.

Rats resemble other rats much more than they resemble people.  So the inaccuracy caused by using an entirely different species is likely to be far more significant than any disparities caused by different strains of rats.

Response:

Because they both swear the caloric contents were held the same. Swearing and proving are two different things.

I swear a lot if I get into an argument where I cannot prove what I’m saying ;o) Lars P.S. Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

Response:

Yes, I believe in conservation of energy. If the body uses less energy than it takes in it gains weight. If the body uses more energy than it takes in it loses weight.

You’re probably right. But don’t make the mistake of thinking all the potential calories in our diet are burned or stored.  They ain’t. Red blood cells use an appreciable amount of energy and for the most obvious of reasons cannot use energy from oxidation. Athletes who build up lactose in their muscles are using lots of energy but not by oxidation. So much for calories of combustion. How about keytosis?  Here potential calories are expelled from the body. How about overhead?  Some foods (carbs) are easily converted to glucose. But some foods require the expenditure of energy to package, convert and distribute energy in usable forms.  A thousand calories of sugar will give you more energy to use for fuel than a thousand calories of steak. I believe in the conservation of energy:  I believe I’ll take a nap now.

Response:

A thousand calories of sugar will give you more energy to use for fuel than a thousand calories of steak.

True for real calories, not true for dietary calories, the latter being computed to take into account the energy required for conversion.

Response:

Max is correct on this. Unless you have dietary logs to prove this you can’t say for sure. Atkins diet and any diet still has to consume less calories then before. What you could be seeing is your metabolism speeding up especially if you were eating very low before you did the Atkins thing, but you still have to be burning less calories over all then your body can use. Your body may be burning more calories since your metabolism is higher now. Roxan

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I DISAGREE totally with that statement. Your disagreement is irrelevant.  That’s how it actually works. This is the total opposite of what Dr. Atkins diet is all about. You will not lose weight on the Dr. Atkins diet unless you eat fewer calories. I am NOT eating less that I did before (calories, or total quantity), and I have lost 20 pounds in the 6 weeks. Yes, you have.  Show me your daily logs of what you’ve eaten and what you’ve burned, and we’ll see. I totally disagree with that, Mxsmanic. You can disagree all you want, but reality will not change.

Response:

But if Ornish uses strain A and Atkins uses strain B, then the two studies should not be compared to each other. Rats resemble other rats much more than they resemble people.  So the inaccuracy caused by using an entirely different species is likely to be far more significant than any disparities caused by different strains of rats.

I never said the studies shouldn’t be done in humans.  I said that different strains of rats might account for different weight loss results even if the 2 studies were feeding the rats exactly the same amount of calories. Shawn

Response:

What you could be seeing is your metabolism speeding up especially if you were eating very low before you did the Atkins thing, but you still have to be burning less calories over all then your body can use.

I agree with you. And if MX were saying this, I’d agree with MX too. But MX is flat out refusing to accept the idea that certain conditions might cause humans to use food differently. It’s not as simple as calories in equals calories out. I can show with my food logs. But if I went through all that aggravation, then I’d be told I were lying, or wrong, or too stupid to know where the top of the measuring cup is, or something else that amounts to a denial of what I and many others have personally experienced as true. Because the fact that I gain weight on 1000 calories of slimfast and lean cuisine and running 2 miles a day, but lose weight on 3000 calories of steak and olive oil, eventually adding in 15 minutes of weight training with 10 pound weights, doesn’t fit inside the little box that many people are programmed to believe. Which begs the question, why would someone not want to believe something that for many people is absolutely wonderful and exactly what they have experienced? Some of us go with the motto "no pain, no pain". .. Bridget M. CAD 2/94 LC 7/01

Response:

"If you go on one of these diets and you eat exactly the same number of calories as before, you will not lose weight."     I DISAGREE totally with that statement.  This is the total opposite of what Dr. Atkins diet is all about.  I am NOT eating less that I did before (calories, or total quantity), and I have lost 20 pounds in the 6 weeks.  I totally disagree with that, Mxsmanic. 250/230/180 since Jan 7 Mark

Mark, this is a stupid flamer, posting with one fake nick and answering his posts back and forth with another; it has nothing to to with low-carb except to flame.  He has another thread going also.  Use of more than one flame nick and answering his own posts has been done before here. Honestly, these people must think we’re all idiots nott to know what they’re doing! Just killfile both of his names. — Peter http://www.angelfire.com/nc3/marengo/weightlosspix.html

Response:

Then they are misrepresenting human nutrition.  All dietary calories are equal.

This is such an inane, meaningless statement fvrom someone who purports to be knowlegeable in body chemistry that it’s obviously meant to just flame. Every LC’er knows that the whole point of low carb is to prevent the fat from being transported to, and stored in the body by insulin.  If the fat is not stored in the body it doesn’t matter if it’s 10 clories worth or 1000 calories worth — fat that is not stored has nothing to do with calories, doesn’t contribute to weight and can’t be burned. What stupid sophistry! *PLONK* — another flamer bites the dust! Peter http://www.angelfire.com/nc3/marengo/weightlosspix.html

Response:

This is being cross posted by the first person who posted this thread. We are not flaming anyone. I didn’t realize it was being crossposted until I looked to see where it was going. So Doug it would be best that you didn’t cross post in other groups when wanting to respond to alt.support.diet. Roxan

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "If you go on one of these diets and you eat exactly the same number of calories as before, you will not lose weight."     I DISAGREE totally with that statement.  This is the total opposite of what Dr. Atkins diet is all about.  I am NOT eating less that I did before (calories, or total quantity), and I have lost 20 pounds in the 6 weeks.  I totally disagree with that, Mxsmanic. 250/230/180 since Jan 7 Mark Mark, this is a stupid flamer, posting with one fake nick and answering his posts back and forth with another; it has nothing to to with low-carb except to flame.  He has another thread going also.  Use of more than one flame nick and answering his own posts has been done before here. Honestly, these people must think we’re all idiots nott to know what they’re doing! Just killfile both of his names. — Peter http://www.angelfire.com/nc3/marengo/weightlosspix.html

Response:

Calories:  And 7 for Alcohol.  There’s about 3500 calories in a pound, last time I read up on it.  The theory goes that if you take in 3500 more than you burn (over some time period), you gain a pound.  Conversely, use 3500 more than you take in, you lose a pound. Rats:  Is a rat a rat?  For the two studies, if different, a particular trait may have been bred for as a starting point.  Then were the rats allowed to be active or sedentary or some combinations.  If sedentary was bred for, how do you get them to be active without stimulus? What about Dr. Roy Walford’s rats (or mice)?  I don’t remember the starting traits, but his study was on restricted calories – don’t remember what ratios – but human equivalent of 1200-1500 a day.  They lost weight and lived longer too.  After that study was published, I remember the first public health broadcasts to warn people about NOT restricting calories in children under a certain age or you could stunt their growth… Water:  because we’re mostly water.  But we’re all different too, which means different foods have different reactions for some people.  All in the chemicals.  Some ‘classes’ of action have been defined, like simple carbs vs. complex and diabetics. And still lots of variations.  So not only do we need "biological calorimeters", but we may need them tuned to our individual bodies. Burning:  Compare heavy, sedentary ol’ me to a Tour de France racer.  Atkins works for me because I have very little or no carbs to burn, so I have to burn fat (slowly), as the theory goes.  Total calories may be an issue since I still have to burn more than I take in.  (Am I burning 9 where I would otherwise burn 4?)  The racer can’t eat enough to really get through a day’s race and has no real fat for backup.  Those guys can start to eat their bodies, i.e. muscle tissue, etc. if they’re not careful. HTH, Steve

Yes, I believe in conservation of energy. If the body uses less energy than it takes in it gains weight. If the body uses more energy than it takes in it loses weight. What has always confused me is "what does this have to do with food calories" – the 4 cal per gm of protein, 9 for fat and 4 for carbohydrates? # and 7 for alcohol. Both Ornish – the low fat guy and Atkins – the high fat guy – quote contradictory research. Ornish says that two sets of rats on equivalent caloric diets didn’t have the same results. He says the low-fat high-carb rats lost more. Atkins says the complete opposite – that the low-carb high-fat rats lost more. A rat is a rat, right? This seems like the sort of experiment a high school class could do to see who is right. (At least with rats.) But the point both are making is that all calories are not equal, as far as the body is concerned. Another thing that bothers me is the method used to determine calories. This is done by calorimeter, which is basically a container surrounded by water. The food is flash burned and the surrounding water temperature change is measured to see how much heat (calories) were in the food. That is very scientific – for water. But how can we say this relates directly to how the same food is "burned" in our bodies? There is too much evidence (albeit it contradictory evidence) to indicate that it is isn’t true. Again – I believe in conservation of energy. But we need "biological calorimeters" based on how bodies actually *use* these nutrients. doug

Response:

I DISAGREE totally with that statement.

Your disagreement is irrelevant.  That’s how it actually works. This is the total opposite of what Dr. Atkins diet is all about.

You will not lose weight on the Dr. Atkins diet unless you eat fewer calories. I am NOT eating less that I did before (calories, or total quantity), and I have lost 20 pounds in the 6 weeks.

Yes, you have.  Show me your daily logs of what you’ve eaten and what you’ve burned, and we’ll see. I totally disagree with that, Mxsmanic.

You can disagree all you want, but reality will not change.

Response:

Then they are both deliberately lying?

Possibly, but it is more likely that they are making mistakes in their experiments, through deliberate or accidental carelessness.  There’s no way to get around the laws of physics. Because they both swear the caloric contents were held the same.

Swearing and proving are two different things.

Response:

Ornish says that two sets of rats on equivalent caloric diets didn’t have the same results. He says the low-fat high-carb rats lost more. Atkins says the complete opposite – that the low-carb high-fat rats lost more. Both of them are omitting something.  Whether the rats gain or lose depends on how many calories they consume overall, not the form of the calories.

Then they are both deliberately lying? Because they both swear the caloric contents were held the same. doug

Response:

"If you go on one of these diets and you eat exactly the same number of calories as before, you will not lose weight."     I DISAGREE totally with that statement.  This is the total opposite of what Dr. Atkins diet is all about.  I am NOT eating less that I did before (calories, or total quantity), and I have lost 20 pounds in the 6 weeks.  I totally disagree with that, Mxsmanic. 250/230/180 since Jan 7 Mark

Response:

This is such an inane, meaningless statement fvrom someone who purports to be knowlegeable in body chemistry that it’s obviously meant to just flame.

In other words, you disagree. Every LC’er knows that the whole point of low carb is to prevent the fat from being transported to, and stored in the body by insulin.

Sounds like "LC’ers" have something to learn about body chemistry themselves. If the fat is not stored in the body it doesn’t matter if it’s 10 clories worth or 1000 calories worth — fat that is not stored has nothing to do with calories, doesn’t contribute to weight and can’t be burned.

So tell me:  Where does this "fat that is not stored" go, exactly?  If you eat 500 kcal more than you burn, where does the excess go, if it is not turned to fat?

Response:

But MX is flat out refusing to accept the idea that certain conditions might cause humans to use food differently.

No, I am pointing out that none of these conditions can affect the way food is used so dramatically that they’d have anywhere near the effects on weight loss that many dieters claim.  A few pathological states can dramatically affect the way food is used or not used by the body, but they have a constellation of spectacular symptoms beyond mere changes in weight.  For example, anyone who is truly not digesting fat (as some dieters seem to believe is possible) will have abdominal cramps, flatulence, and very fatty, greasy, smelly stools (because that’s where the undigested fat has to go).  Anyone who is not digesting sugars will have severe diarrhea–because sugars are hydrophilic, and if they are not absorbed, they flush the GI tract. At the same time, internal organs are very consistent in the number of calories they require.  So is muscle and fat tissue on a by-weight basis.  Nobody is burning twice as much or half as much energy as someone else. It’s not as simple as calories in equals calories out.

Try it and see. I can show with my food logs.

Give us some examples. Because the fact that I gain weight on 1000 calories of slimfast and lean cuisine and running 2 miles a day, but lose weight on 3000 calories of steak and olive oil, eventually adding in 15 minutes of weight training with 10 pound weights, doesn’t fit inside the little box that many people are programmed to believe.

It’s not a little box; it’s physics.  You can no more gain weight on 1000 kcal a day than drive a car across country on one tank of gas. It’s a physical impossibility. Consider this:  Why do people in comas over long periods always converge on a relatively constant weight, even if they started out fat?  Answer: Because their attending physicians measure every calorie going in and coming out, and feed them intravenously with just enough calories to maintain them at an optimal weight.  And they _never_ fail to reach that optimal weight.  Of course, they are not awake to come up with fanciful stories about how they can gain weight at 200 kcal a day or watch the fat melt away at 5000 kcal a day, so physicians don’t have to argue with them, and don’t have to worry about them cheating or simply not paying attention. Which begs the question, why would someone not want to believe something that for many people is absolutely wonderful and exactly what they have experienced?

Because there is no evidence for it.  It’s just a claim they make. Rather like alien abductions.

Response:

Your body may be burning more calories since your metabolism is higher now.

Changes in normal metabolism are very small and should not be overestimated.  Only pathological states induce large swings in metabolism, and even then, there are firm limits on how far it can vary in either direction. For example, doubling the metabolism doubles the amount of heat generated by metabolism.  That translates to quite a hefty fever. Similarly, cutting metabolism in half cuts generated heat in half, too. Sounds almost like hypothermia.  There just aren’t any huge swings like that–and in the absence of huge swings, base rates of metabolism are largely irrelevant to weight loss. It is interesting to note that, in my own calculations, the Harris-Benedict equations have proven extraordinarily accurate in estimating my resting energy requirement.  They wouldn’t be that accurate if metabolism varied as much as you seem to wish to imply. The reality is that a person who thinks he is losing much more weight while eating the same number of calories is simply not counting the calories correctly.  Very few people make a concerted effort to count every calorie.

Response: