[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]waldo21212 wrote:
If sources don’t matter than have someone eat a diet consisting only of: protein from collagen, carbs from high fructose corn syrup, and fat from partially hydrogonated oils - cuz you know it’s only about the macros right?[/quote]
Extreme examples being used to justify a position on the opposite extreme end of the spectrum. No one is debating that the body handles SUGARS differently than STARCHES and that various proteins have different levels of bioavailability.
[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:
However the hormonal effects of carbs on those with high insulin sensitivity, especially the obese, is well referenced and explained.
[/quote]
The obese are actually less insulin sensitive. Lean people are more likely to put on fat than fat people for this reason.
[quote]honkie wrote:
No one eats calories; calories are just a measurement (as is an inch) and have no substance. A calorie is a unit of heat equal to the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree at one atmosphere pressure (does this sound like a human body?).
The calorie theory is based on the heat engine analogy also known as thermodynamics by engineers. The human body is not a heat engine, as they would like you to believe. The human body is more like a complex chemical factory than it is a heat engine.
Food is converted in to complex substances and structures and not as a machine designed for heat production, which the measurement of a calorie is.
A scientist named Adolph Fick proved in 1893 that living cells cannot be heat engines. Biological systems like humans are isothermal (equal temperature) systems. Cells cannot act as heat engines, for they have no means of permitting heat to flow from a warmer to a cooler body.
Nobel Prize-winner, Hans Krebs, mentioned in his book about another Nobel Prize-winner, Otto Warburg, M.D., Ph.D. �??�??�??�?�¢??Fick made it clear in 1893 that living cells cannot be heat engines�??�??�??�?�¢?�??�??�??�?�¦�??�??�??�?�¢??
Herman Taller, M.D, author of Calories Don�??�??�??�?�¢??t Count stated, �??�??�??�?�¢??One could assert with absolute certainty that the calorie theory has no scientific basis whatsoever�??�??�??�?�¢??
In 2003, Harvard University study found people on a low carbohydrate diet could eat 25,000 more calories than those on a high carbohydrate diet over a 12-week period and they gained no additional weight. If the calorie theory was correct then the low carbohydrate group should have gained a little over 7lbs of fat.
In another study conducted at Harvard University, some participants ate only carbohydrates, while other participants ate twice as many calories of only protein. Although the protein eaters ate twice as many calories as the carbohydrates eaters, they didn’t gain any weight, whereas the carbohydrates eaters gained weight despite eating fewer calories.
In yet another semi-related study shows that a low-carb diet is more successful than a low-fat diet. In the two-year study, 322 moderately obese people were given one of three diets: a low-fat, calorie-restricted diet; a Mediterranean calorie-restricted diet; or a low-carbohydrate diet with the fewest carbohydrates, highest fat, protein, and dietary cholesterol. The low-carb dieters had no caloric restrictions. At the end of the study the low-fat, calorie-restricted dieters lost 6.5 lbs, the Mediterranean dieters lost 10 lbs, and the low-carb dieters lost 10.3 lbs. Not only that, but dieters on the low-fat, calorie-restricted diet cholesterol levels dropped 12 percent. The low-carb dieters cholesterol dropped 20 percent.
Even though studies coupled with real life experience have repeatedly disproven the calorie theory, so-called �??�??�??�?�¢??experts�??�??�??�?�¢?? haven�??�??�??�?�¢??t caught up.
�??�??�??�?�¢??It does not matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is �??�??�??�?�¢?? if it disagrees with real-life results, it is wrong. That is all there is to It.�??�??�??�?�¢?? �??�??�??�?�¢?? Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize-winning physicist.[/quote]
Oh god, you again? Still stumped by our discussion of GMO? I noticed you never got back to me on my previous questions.
So chemical factories don’t abide by the laws of thermodynamics? News to me.
HEAT is simply a form of ENERGY. A calorie is a measure of heat and therefore a measure of energy. Energy entering a system will be equal to the energy leaving a system. The OUTPUT need not be entirely in the form of energy used for activity, as no system is perfect efficient and all systems experience entropy to some degree. The human body is no different.
Your studies are highly suspect and I suggest you link them. I’m doubting you will though because you know there is something wrong with the information you are presenting.
I’ll go through them individually.
- Define “low carbohydrate”. Of course people eating a diet consisting predominantly of protein with minimal fat or carbohydrates could be considered “low carbohydrate”, and a diet of such sort plays some neat thermodynamic tricks that conspiracists like yourself are likely to think are magic.
Assuming an average intake of 2,000 kcal/day, 70% of which is protein, you come up with 1,400 calories per day from protein. Protein has a TEF of roughly 25%, meaning that each day you would burn 350 calories more simply from the higher protein intake. Spread over 12 weeks, this equates to just under 30,000 kcal. Nice try.
-
The design is questionable. Post an abstract.
-
Once again, design is questionable since the low carb dieters were allowed to eat ad libitum and low carb diets are easy to eat less on due to increased satiety. If you notice, the low carb diet also had the highest protein of the three. The low fat dieters still lost a comparatively significant amount of weight (6.5 lbs or 60%), and the remainder can be fairly explained through the TEF that occurs over the course of a TWO YEAR study and the inherent lack of control over test subjects during such a long-term study. Of course, this study does nothing to support any sort of superiority in regards to low carbohydrate diets since the test subjects lost an average of 10 lbs over the course of TWO YEARS, or a calorie restriction of about 50 calories per day. Nevermind the fact that if the researchers failed to adjust for loses in body water, the entire weight lost by the low-cho group could be explained simply by fluid and glycogen loss, a significant amount of weight especially in the moderately obese. If such is the case, then it is arguable that the low-cho group actually GAINED weight during this time period.
Go back to trying to figure out who killed JFK. Science isn’t your thing.[/quote]
You’re right, I meant low insulin sensitvity. Those who do not tolerate carbs well.