"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?

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.

Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:33:09 -0700 in article <2r943pF17m9q7U1@uni-berlin.de>

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/v1n
3/s7/p209>
(abstract)
<URL:http://taddeo.ingentaselect.com/vl=5598164/cl=39/nw=1/fm=docpdf/rpsv/cw/mal/1540
4196/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>

"Low-carb diets that work, do so because..."

Or die, the more likely outcome...

To what point? The entire treatment paradigm of "conventional" medicine
is focused upon data obtained from sick people. What does this have to
do with health? Some pervert near the beginning of this thread made a
comment about "getting me into a hospital", a prime location for
contracting a fatal infection if one is suffering from a compromised
immune system. Since I have not been sick for seven years now, I doubt a
stay in the hospital wold present much of a challange to my bolstered
immunity, but woe to those who do not possess this vital component of a
healthy and active lifestyle. As I pointed out to "Orac" awhile ago, a
fuckhead is a fuckhead no matter where they are ensconced, on the bench,
in the boardroom, in a hospital, under a rock, where have you. Such a
person will always be convinced that they are smarter or better or
superior to anyone else around them based upon the fact that others,
some of them fuckheads too, have bestowed upon them the power of life
and death over the masses. When those masses fail to see the wisdom or
necessity of such arbitrary and capricious conceit, the sh.t hits the
fan and general mayhem ensues. Thus the pages of human history are
filled, to what avail, who knows... ;^]