 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / October 2005One for TC... ;)
http://www.theomnivore.com/calories_do_count_baby.html Mirek > http://www.theomnivore.com/calories_do_count_baby.html > > Mirek Of course calories count. That is why every single person that tried to lose weight by counting calories succeeded in losing all the weight they wanted to and succeeded in keeping it off. And that is also why the US has no obesity problems whatsoever and no diabetes problems and no heart disease problems and no need for stomach stapling surgery and no need for liposuction procedures. The American Paradox. TC A quick look at the empty USENET group alt.support.diet.low-calorie reveals the extraordinary rejection of caloric restriction. Thus, the ambiguity, that the key to weightloss can be clearly known, specifically calorie reduction, yet people fail to do it. The conditions in American society you describe are the result. Some people begin a low calorie program, but then, very soon, they start cheating. Often they estimate their calories with a distorted mindset. The result is a proclamation that reducing calories does not work. This is a false proclamation based on a very natural delusion. Compliance is the key. > > http://www.theomnivore.com/calories_do_count_baby.html > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > TC > A quick look at the empty USENET group alt.support.diet.low-calorie reveals > the extraordinary rejection of caloric restriction. Thus, the ambiguity, > that the key to weightloss can be clearly known, specifically calorie > reduction, yet people fail to do it. The conditions in American society you > describe are the result. So the reason that caloric restriction fails is because people really don't believe in it they fail to give it enough of an effort. > Some people begin a low calorie program, but then, very soon, they start > cheating. So they fail because they are dishonest. > Often they estimate their calories with a distorted mindset. Or they are mentally incapable. > The > result is a proclamation that reducing calories does not work. Or they are quick to judgement after they are unable to make it work. > This is a > false proclamation based on a very natural delusion. But they are deluded. > Compliance is the key. They should get their sh.t together and make it work. So 95% of the people who fail to lose weight by caloric restriction are just a bunch of whiny, stupid, mentally incapable, deluded, non-believers who simple can't keep their sh.t together long enough to ensure compliance long enough to succeed. Yet many of these same people seem to be able to easily succeed by carb restriction. Yep, you've convinced me that caloric restriction is the key in spite of its 95%+ failure rate. TC Actually, I agree with most of your comments, which you intended as sarcasm! Carb restriction favorably influences the innate caloric regulatory system, which is what is responsible for the typical failures at conscious efforts at caloric restriction. > > A quick look at the empty USENET group alt.support.diet.low-calorie reveals > > the extraordinary rejection of caloric restriction. Thus, the ambiguity, [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > TC > Actually, I agree with most of your comments, which you intended as sarcasm! > > Carb restriction favorably influences the innate caloric regulatory system, > which is what is responsible for the typical failures at conscious efforts > at caloric restriction. I think there is room for calorie restriction/counting in a low carb lifestyle. You simply cannot 'eat all you want' on a low carb diet. I am sorry, if you eat 4500 calories a day of low carb food, you will remain fat. Now, some people may naturally down-regulate their apetite eating low carb, to the point that they naturally restrict calories to a level where they lose weight. Awesome for them. Doesn't work for me. I have to be conscious of what I am eating, and if not strictly counting calories, make sure I am eating meals for which I have a rough idea of the calorie count. Low carb definitely does help curb my apetite. Calorie restrictions is *much* easier for me when I follow a low carb lifestyle. I don't get light headed when hungry, I don't get headaches, and in general hunger is much easier to simply ignore. Bingo! > > Actually, I agree with most of your comments, which you intended as sarcasm! > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > light headed when hungry, I don't get headaches, and in general hunger > is much easier to simply ignore. > Actually, I agree with most of your comments, which you intended as sarcasm! > > Carb restriction favorably influences the innate caloric regulatory system, > which is what is responsible for the typical failures at conscious efforts > at caloric restriction. Could you please provide me with a clear, concise description of this "innate caloric regulatory system" that you refer to? How exactly does the body regulate fat storage based solely on caloric intake and expenditure? Please, give us the precise bio-chemical mechanisms that do this. How does the body know that it is low in calories and how does it trigger fat-loss in this case. Conversely, how exactly does the body detect an excess of calories and how exactly does this specific factor trigger fat storage. Connect the dots for us. Your "innate caloric regulatory system" is a mythical beast that only exists in the minds of the modern-day alchemists who pretend to be scientists. TC >>Actually, I agree with most of your comments, which you intended as sarcasm! >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > exactly does the body detect an excess of calories and how exactly does > this specific factor trigger fat storage. Connect the dots for us. Nobody knows exact mechanism. All you can depend on here is empirical data. And they strongly support idea that calories do count. > Your "innate caloric regulatory system" is a mythical beast that only > exists in the minds of the modern-day alchemists who pretend to be > scientists. Hm, kind of funny when 4 low-carbers argue about this topic... Anyway, I believe that it is you here coming with extraordinary claims, so it is again you to prove things (like Montygram, whose grandparents lived for 100 years without eating PUFA3). Mirek > >>Actually, I agree with most of your comments, which you intended as sarcasm! > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > exactly does the body detect an excess of calories and how exactly does > > this specific factor trigger fat storage. Connect the dots for us. > Nobody knows exact mechanism. All you can depend on here is empirical > data. And they strongly support idea that calories do count. Nobody knows the exact mechanism. Read that again. After over a hundred years of calorie counting and billions spent on nutrition research, nobody knows the exact mechanism. And the empirical data shows that calorie counting fails in 95%+ of the cases. Nobody knows the exact mechanism. Why do they not know the exact mechanism? How can they support the concpet that fails in 95% of cases and after 100 years they cannot explain the exact mechanism. > > Your "innate caloric regulatory system" is a mythical beast that only > > exists in the minds of the modern-day alchemists who pretend to be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Mirek After a hundred years of calorie counting failures, it is time to look a bit closer at the calorie concept. And the first question to ask is how does the "innate caloric regulatory system" actually work. That is the nature of science, ask the hard questions and study the subject until you understand not only what works but you also understand exactly how it works. But you say that nobody knows. Then how can you be so certain that it does work. If it did work, anyone who puts in even a modicum of effort to restrict high calorie foods, even a little bit, would easily succeed in losing some weight. And it would not be that difficult to maintain the weight loss, just eat less and exercise more, right? There are hundreds of products that were engineered to be low calorie, so the availability of low calorie foods is not an issue. It is easy to eat less and onlu just a bit harder to exercise more. And it isn't just the lazy gluttons that have trouble maintaining their weights, many people work very hard at eating less and exercising more and still cannot achieve any weight loss of any note. You would think that those really putting in the effort would succeed, but the failure rate is in the 90th percentile. Surely more than 5 or 10 percent of the population can learn to count calories correctly. For a hundred years calorie counting it has been preached from the pulpit of science as the very essence of weight control. Yet, America and the world has never been fatter. And no-one cannot explain how the "innate caloric regulatory system" actually works. Maybe, just maybe, it doesn't. TC Someone posted a study that was supposed to support the "essential fatty acid" claim (they are unable to state it as a scientific hypothesis), and it made the point that I have made on this NG for years, that is, when you feed animals lots of omega 6 PUFA, their "feeding efficiency" goes way up. What that means is the animals put on a lot of weight with mimimal food consumed. If you want to lose weight, first thing you should do is to avoid any major source of PUFAs (and unsaturated fatty acids in general). All the "chronic disease" "epidemics" conincide with the increasing consumption of oils high in omega 6 PUFAs. Feeding soy and corn to fatten up animals has been known by farmers for decades now. Give it a chance if you are serious about losing weight (assuming you are now overweight by a substantial degree). nutrients? It's like you eat and part of it goes out without processing, so actually it's like you eat less. but the effort of digestion does put oxidative stress on the body. >>Nobody knows exact mechanism. All you can depend on here is empirical >>data. And they strongly support idea that calories do count. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Read that again. After over a hundred years of calorie counting and > billions spent on nutrition research, nobody knows the exact mechanism. Dear TC, there is subtle but very improtant difference between "calorie counting" as dieting method and "calories do count" claim. > Nobody knows the exact mechanism. Why do they not know the exact > mechanism? Because it is way too complicated? Actually, *EXACT* mechanism is not known in many other cases - e.g. nobody knows *EXACT* mechanisms that are involved in cumbustion engines - but we still can build them and measure their fuel consumption. > After a hundred years of calorie counting failures, it is time to look The problem is, there were NONE. Each time calorie restriction is performed in controlled environment, it works. > But you say that nobody knows. > > Then how can you be so certain that it does work. If it did work, > anyone who puts in even a modicum of effort to restrict high calorie > foods, even a little bit, would easily succeed in losing some weight. That is the problem. Restricting high calorie foods is not the same thing as restricting calories. > And it would not be that difficult to maintain the weight loss, just > eat less and exercise more, right? There are hundreds of products that > were engineered to be low calorie, so the availability of low calorie > foods is not an issue. You keep to be absolutely wrong. Low calorie products have NOTHING to do with caloric restriction. And, just for the mark, you are absolutely right that eating low-calorie food ad libitum does not work in 95% cases. People just eat more of it. Mirek > >>Nobody knows exact mechanism. All you can depend on here is empirical > >>data. And they strongly support idea that calories do count. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Dear TC, there is subtle but very improtant difference between "calorie > counting" as dieting method and "calories do count" claim. Calorie counting does not work. And until someone can explain how exactly calories count, and to exactly what extent they do count, and why counting them seems to fail 95%+ of the time, I see no practicality in the phrase "calories do count". That is like saying that the location of the stars count, and as far as I can see the only practical use for the stars is the location of the northern star for navigation, otherwise they are of no use. They exist and can be seen, our forefathers revered them, but they are of no practical use whatsoever. > > Nobody knows the exact mechanism. Why do they not know the exact > > mechanism? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are involved in cumbustion engines - but we still can build them and > measure their fuel consumption. How about a general description of the process? You know the cells, enzymes, hormones, bio-chemical cascades involved? We know virtually everything about the inner workings of every organ and cell in the human body, but we do not know even the rudiments of how our body is triggered to store or lose fat from its excess or deficiency of calories. We do not know how it works because we are talking about a feedback regulatory system that does not exist. We know the exact mechanism of how internal combustion engines work. We can create hundreds of variant designs of various sizes and efficiencies using various types of fuels anytime we want. There is abolutely no mystery as to how engines work. It is not a black box and neither is our metabolic system. > > After a hundred years of calorie counting failures, it is time to look > > The problem is, there were NONE. Each time calorie restriction is > performed in controlled environment, it works. Bullsh*t. Every time we starve we will lose weight but that is not exactly what we are looking for. What we are looking for is to restrict calorie consumption by just enough to start losing weight progressively. It does not take a huge restriction, just enough to ensutre that energy expenditure exceeds energy intake, and then to maintain that level of intake for an extended period of time. But even people on very low calorie diets still find it nearly impossible to lose weight, and then keeping it off is virtually impossible. The formula is simple, eat less and exercise more. Yet, 95%+ of people find this impossible to do. The reason why it is impossible is not because people are stupid, or dishonest, or lazy, or mentally unbalanced. It is because it does not work. Period. > > But you say that nobody knows. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That is the problem. Restricting high calorie foods is not the same > thing as restricting calories. But the strategy has always been to cut back high-calorie foods (ie.fats) and consume low-calorie foods (ie, carbs). In fact studies have shown that since the 1970's people are eating about 10% less fat and about 10 or 12% more carbs, on average, and they are fatter than ever. Obesity has more than tripled. Low carb has been attacked as being silly simply because it encouraged the consumption of high calorie fats and discouraged the consumption of low-calorie carbs. Scientists were publicly condemning the diet because it was supposed to go against the very basic laws of thermodynamics. Atkins was a quack because he was purported to be pushing a diet that was scientifically impossible. Restricting fats is absolutely synonymous with restricting calories. They are one and the same. > > And it would not be that difficult to maintain the weight loss, just > > eat less and exercise more, right? There are hundreds of products that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You keep to be absolutely wrong. Low calorie products have NOTHING to do > with caloric restriction. Restricting fat, restricting calories, eating low-calorie foods, eating low-fat foods. These are all part of the same concept of eating less calories and expending more calories. And that simple concept is all that is supposed to be required to lose weight and maintain the weight loss. You cannot separate them. > And, just for the mark, you are absolutely right that eating low-calorie > food ad libitum does not work in 95% cases. People just eat more of it. > > Mirek Not all. Many succeed in eating less calories and expending more calories and still fail to lose weight. Studies have shown clearly that low-carbers were able to eat up to 300 calories more than low-fatters and still either lose weight, lose more weight than low-fatters, and/or maintain their weight loss. If that doesn't bring the whole calorie-is-all concept to its knees, then we are really basing our beliefs on blind faith. And since we cannot explain the exact mechanism, or even a give generally accepted theory on the mechanism for the calorie-based fat regulatory system, we might as well come up with some low-calorie based religious icons and start genuflecting in their presence, because we aren't talking about science anymore. TC [snip] > > The problem is, there were NONE. Each time calorie restriction is > > performed in controlled environment, it works. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > because people are stupid, or dishonest, or lazy, or mentally > unbalanced. It is because it does not work. Period. [snip] Like the man said, calorie restriction does work in the lab. The subjects need to be prisoners and the food portions need to be measured by a third party. There are many "normal" human delusions about the world. It may be that if humans had to rationally think through how much is correct to eat the species would be at risk. Thus, a subconscious mechanism evolved, which manipulates the conscious mind to achieve caloric intake regulation. It works slowly. Day to day calories vary, but if you look at a monthly average you will find remarkable consistency. Some aspect of the modern diet imbalances the regulatory mechanism. My guess is that it is the intake of grains and starches that confuse the regulator. I would not call people "stupid, or dishonest, or lazy, or mentally unbalanced" for being unable to maintain conscious control of a process the body is designed to do subconsciously. If you were trying to consciously control the number of hours of sleep (without using an alarm) it would be silly to call a person "stupid, or dishonest, or lazy, or mentally unbalanced" because they sleep a different number of hours than they decided to sleep ahead of going to bed. You ask for proof. The evidence is in the studies where subjects were prisoners and have the third party measuring. The studies that use personal journals are just plain wrong. The Atkins metabolic advantage may or may not be true. If true, it is a limited percentage change in the balance. >>Because it is way too complicated? Actually, *EXACT* mechanism is not >>known in many other cases - e.g. nobody knows *EXACT* mechanisms that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > everything about the inner workings of every organ and cell in the > human body, Actually, this claim is false. What you perhaps do not understand is that we just barely start to know how our bodies work. > We know the exact mechanism of how internal combustion engines work. Well, general principle maybe, but not exact mechanism. > We > can create hundreds of variant designs of various sizes and > efficiencies using various types of fuels anytime we want. But we can only estimate their real-world behaviour, based on previous designs and emprical data and never really know the exact parameters before we build them. > There is > abolutely no mystery as to how engines work. It is not a black box and > neither is our metabolic system. Well, try to describe them using quantum mechanics. Even at this level, which is not final, you will not be able to solve shrodinger's equations and really demonstrate what makes the piston move. All of our "knowing" is just estimates. We have quite precise estimates about engines, less precise about bodies. >>That is the problem. Restricting high calorie foods is not the same >>thing as restricting calories. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and about 10 or 12% more carbs, on average, and they are fatter than > ever. Obesity has more than tripled. Well, but that is not the same thing as "calories do count" claim, you know? We both agree that increasing carbs to fats is the worst thing you can do to lose weight. > Low carb has been attacked as being silly simply because it encouraged > the consumption of high calorie fats and discouraged the consumption of > low-calorie carbs. Scientists were publicly condemning the diet because > it was supposed to go against the very basic laws of thermodynamics. > Atkins was a quack because he was purported to be pushing a diet that > was scientifically impossible. > Restricting fats is absolutely synonymous with restricting calories. > They are one and the same. OK, if this is what is "calorie counting" for you, I can agree, but be aware that the rest of the world shares completely different definition. Perhaps this could explain to you why everybody is arguing you when you start your "calories do not count" claims. Next time please rather claim that "fat % do not count". Mirek > >>Because it is way too complicated? Actually, *EXACT* mechanism is not > >>known in many other cases - e.g. nobody knows *EXACT* mechanisms that [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Well, general principle maybe, but not exact mechanism. You are kidding, right? I am no mechanical engineer but I can describe to you exactly how an gasoline internal engine works, with every part and every aspect of the process. An engineer can give you specific number in terms of compression, bore, stroke, horse power, torque etc. > > We > > can create hundreds of variant designs of various sizes and [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Mirek >>Well, general principle maybe, but not exact mechanism. > > You are kidding, right? I am no mechanical engineer but I can describe > to you exactly how an gasoline internal engine works, with every part > and every aspect of the process. An engineer can give you specific > number in terms of compression, bore, stroke, horse power, torque etc. Yes, but all those numbers are estimates based on approximate models. Mirek > >>Well, general principle maybe, but not exact mechanism. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Mirek That have been confirmed to be accurate and correct and to actually work in the real world, and which is successfully applied constantly and repeatedly in millions of instances daily. Which is infinitely more than can be be said for the calorie concept which fails in 95%+ of cases. TC >>http://www.theomnivore.com/calories_do_count_baby.html >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > no heart disease problems and no need for stomach stapling surgery and > no need for liposuction procedures. Actually, I think that "they" want you to believe that only fat makes you fat :) Do not make the same mistake. Mirek Question of the day: What do George Bush and TC have in common? Answer: Neither of them will ever change his mind on his false war. In my experience both calories and (especially hi GI) carbs count. The negative health effects of excess in either one are quite clear, separately or together. As in Enron, and Republican budgeting, the only remaining debate is about the accuracy of the accounting system used, and who performs the spin. Like "W", TCs main value is in the entertainment of idle minds! (Mirek excluded, of course). MikeV >>>http://www.theomnivore.com/calories_do_count_baby.html >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Mirek How about answering the question put forward? Or are you just interested in spin. You appear to have that in common with Bush. TC > Question of the day: > What do George Bush and TC have in common? [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > > > Mirek Why? We should probably get the evolution versus intelligent design thing settled first. Thanks for the opportunity tho' MikeV > How about answering the question put forward? Or are you just > interested in spin. You appear to have that in common with Bush. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >> > >> > Mirek |
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
|
©2008 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.