weight loss

[Guest guest]

, Tom Venuto's " Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle " in my opinion is

better than Colpo's, but it costs money. Venuto comes from a calorie-

equivalence point of view but he's the only one I know from that

(outdated) theory who acknowledges that some people do much better on

lower carbs.

That's if you want the super-scientifical long book instead of Byron

s' little " Leptin Diet " which I think is pretty good.

Connie

[Guest guest]

--- tb " downwardog7 " <illneverbecool@...> wrote:

> I have a second copy of The Fat Loss Bible waiting somewhere on the

> interweb to be downloaded. I can send the link to either you or

> and you can have it. Actually, given your clout,

> oughta send you a comp. I can pm him and make an inquiry on

> your behalf, if you like, or better you can do it yourself.

, thanks for the book offer. I defer to who I suspect

has a much tighter budget than I

He also would be able to spot any short-comings much better than I.

My problem with books is that I'm a slow reader with poor reading

comprehension and I almost never read books completely. I tend to

skim and to read only the more interesting parts. I usually have to

read detailed stuff several times for it to soak in.

I have about 10 health and diet books on my wish list at Amazon to

tackle one of these days. For now I'll stick to reading free bits and

pieces on the internet

[Guest guest]

Berardi has a better explanation than " calories in calories out " for

the relationship between energy, food in, and food out, including the

fact that the variables are interdependent, some incoming calories are

not all burned, metabolic locks prevent the use of stored fat, and so

on and so on.

That super simple one is bogus, Colpo and metabolic wards

notwithstanding.

Connie

> But I assure you, you are not exceptions to the laws of

thermodynamics.

> tb

>

[Guest guest]

,

> That's terrific, but it doesn't contradict what I'm saying in any way.

> Unless you kept a meticulous and accurate food log of your pre and

> peri weight loss food intake, no one knows how many calories you both ate.

To put it more accurately, her perception of the data does conflict

with what you are saying, but she doesn't have sufficiently meticulous

records to convince you that her perception is correct. In other

words, if in fact she is eating more calories now and losing weight,

as she believes to be the case, it conflicts with what you are saying.

> But I assure you, you are not exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics.

There is no conflict between what is saying and the laws of

thermodynamics. The caloric input has to be equal to the sum of the

caloric output and the caloric increase in stored energy, but the

composition of the caloric input can affect the balance between

caloric output and stored energy and also alter the form of storage,

by increasing or decreasing storage capacity, by shifting between

adipose storage and building of other tissues, by evolving energy as

heat, by providing a greater energy level that inadvertently increases

caloric output, etc.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Feb 19, 2008 12:35 PM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> The nice thing about this type of fasting is that after a

> certain point you are craving or fighting food or anything like that.

The above should read " you **are not** craving or fighting food or

anything like that. "

--

" Don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine

messianic force, to be a sort of policeman of the whole world... "

- Luther King Jr.

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

On Feb 19, 2008 12:35 PM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> The full Milk Cure is

> pretty daunting, given the huge amount of milk that is drunk...

Oops, another grammatical no-no, but I'm sure you get the point :-)

--

" Don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine

messianic force, to be a sort of policeman of the whole world... "

- Luther King Jr.

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

--- Connie " cbrown2008 " <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

> Berardi has a better explanation than " calories in calories out " for

> the relationship between energy, food in, and food out, including

> the fact that the variables are interdependent, some incoming

> calories are not all burned, metabolic locks prevent the use of

> stored fat, and so on and so on.

Connie,

I suspect Colpo would argue that metabolic-related variables affect

the amount of calories burned, so that you still have calories burned

versus calories absorbed. I'm not sure how well he or anyone can

predict how many calories are actually burned in a given day or even

over a week. My guess is that the metabolic ward studies

intentionally focused on people with stable and fairly normal

metabolic status and these people do have fairly predictable amounts

of calories burned - mainly affected by their activity levels. But

that of course doesn't tell us about all the people who don't have

stable or normal metabolic status

I'm also not sure how many calories are absorbed versus how many are

ingested and I suspect this relationship would depend on digestive

status of the individual - which could be somewhat variable as well.

I would guess that would need to be factored into the equation as

well. Some people may not be digesting near as many calories from a

given amount of food and the percentage digested might vary by the

type of macronutrient and by the type of food. I would assume that

metabolic ward studies would measure the amount of calories in what is

excreted and subtract that from the calories ingested to estimate the

calories absorbed, but I don't know if they do that.

If the uncertainty in estimating how many calories are burned is as

little as five percent, that would mean an uncertainty of 100 calories

per day for someone burning around 2,000 calories per day. If the

estimate is consistently biased in one direction (low or high) then

the amount would be additive and in just 36 days would correspond to

about a pound of body weight. That would be about 10 pounds of

uncertainty per year.

[Guest guest]

> If the uncertainty in estimating how many calories are burned is as

> little as five percent, that would mean an uncertainty of 100 calories

> per day for someone burning around 2,000 calories per day. If the

> estimate is consistently biased in one direction (low or high) then

> the amount would be additive and in just 36 days would correspond to

> about a pound of body weight. That would be about 10 pounds of

> uncertainty per year.

>

>

I would guess, as you note above, there is a measurable amount of

uncertainty not only in how many calories are burned, but the actual

number being ingested. I'm sure it is variable and probably extremely

difficult to determine exactly but is a good reason to use charts as

guides and not gospel, paying particular attention to how your own

body/lifestyle reacts to a given amount and composition of food.

--

" Don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine

messianic force, to be a sort of policeman of the whole world... "

- Luther King Jr.

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

Maybe, , I haven't even read the guy's book. So I'm guilty of

just as much prejudice when I hear of someone preaching " calories in

calories out " - I assume they ignorant and tune em out.

As to how much the burn rate varies: how about 90% vs 15%? You might

be interested in this little bit of research... where they studied

ATP in normal vs insulin-resistant people.

" ... Normal mitochondria react to insulin by boosting production of

an energy-carrying molecule, ATP, by 90 percent. But the mitochondria

from the insulin-resistant people they tested only boosted ATP

production by 5 percent. "

http://www.hhmi.org/news/shulman3.html

In my experience, the rabid " calories in calories out " people just

don't listen when the numbers aren't adding up. Like with Patty's

story of the gaining fat on 1 sandwich a day.

Whereas, the " Delta E " theory described by Taubes, says if there is a

hormonal lock on releasing stored fat, and a stuck hormonal switch to

store fat, that's what will happen. but the " calories " people would

say... she's underestimating portions or has a tapeworm or is a

secret sloth and glutton.

Also, even the estimates of " calories needed " , TDEE and all that, can

be off by 30% even in the population baseline to get the numbers.

What is that about.

So " calories in/calories out " - if you can't trust the underlying

equations, it is not helpful.

Connie

> Connie,

>

> I suspect Colpo would argue that metabolic-related variables affect

> the amount of calories burned, so that you still have calories

burned

> versus calories absorbed. I'm not sure how well he or anyone can

> predict how many calories are actually burned in a given day or even

> over a week. My guess is that the metabolic ward studies

> intentionally focused on people with stable and fairly normal

> metabolic status and these people do have fairly predictable amounts

> of calories burned - mainly affected by their activity levels. But

> that of course doesn't tell us about all the people who don't have

> stable or normal metabolic status

[Guest guest]

--- <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> I would guess, as you note above, there is a measurable amount of

> uncertainty not only in how many calories are burned, but the actual

> number being ingested. I'm sure it is variable and probably

> extremely difficult to determine exactly but is a good reason to use

> charts as guides and not gospel, paying particular attention to how

> your own body/lifestyle reacts to a given amount and composition of

> food.

, that's a good point too. My guess is that in metabolic ward

studies uncertainty associated with ingested calories is smaller and

more likely to be random, as compared to uncertainties in digestive

absorption and in energy expended and energy stored.

I would expect that in metabolic ward studies, they would choose foods

that are easy to measure and are consistent in calories per weight to

improve accuracy. I hate to think what they feed the people being

studied

When I use food nutrient data in my Excel calculator or in

NutritionData, I expect a substantial uncertainty, probably around 10

percent or more, because I don't measure the weight of the items I

eat. I also don't measure how much is excreted

[Guest guest]

Thanks to Taubes, I no longer believe so whole-heartedly in the " calories

in, calories out " theory. He totally turns this concept on it's head and it's

wonderfully compelling.

See Carolyn's post w/link to another lecture of his.

[Guest guest]

,

> > I would guess, as you note above, there is a measurable amount of

> > uncertainty not only in how many calories are burned, but the actual

> > number being ingested. I'm sure it is variable and probably

> > extremely difficult to determine exactly but is a good reason to use

> > charts as guides and not gospel, paying particular attention to how

> > your own body/lifestyle reacts to a given amount and composition of

> > food.

>

> , that's a good point too. My guess is that in metabolic ward

> studies uncertainty associated with ingested calories is smaller and

> more likely to be random, as compared to uncertainties in digestive

> absorption and in energy expended and energy stored.

I'm not sure how reliable the whole caloric measurement thing is in

the first place. Perhaps the randomness could be quite significant

over a given period of time. I don't know. I seem to recall someone

posting about the history and process of caloric measurement and the

amount of guesswork involved.

> I would expect that in metabolic ward studies, they would choose foods

> that are easy to measure and are consistent in calories per weight to

> improve accuracy. I hate to think what they feed the people being

> studied

If it is anything like the studies that I ran across a few years ago

when I first questioned the EFA hypothesis, then it may not even be

real food.

> When I use food nutrient data in my Excel calculator or in

> NutritionData, I expect a substantial uncertainty, probably around 10

> percent or more, because I don't measure the weight of the items I

> eat. I also don't measure how much is excreted

Not that I know personally, but a little scatological experimentation

never hurt anyone :-)

--

" Don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine

messianic force, to be a sort of policeman of the whole world... "

- Luther King Jr.

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

--- <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> I'm not sure how reliable the whole caloric measurement thing is in

> the first place.

, yes, all the uncertainties involved cast a lot of doubt in my

mind, though I haven't taken the trouble to look up any metabolic ward

studies.

> If it is anything like the studies that I ran across a few years ago

> when I first questioned the EFA hypothesis, then it may not even be

> real food.

Do you believe there are no essential fatty acids?

> Not that I know personally, but a little scatological

> experimentation never hurt anyone :-)

Wait'll you get a little older - you may have the privilege to enjoy

fecal occult exams

[Guest guest]

> I'm not sure how reliable the whole caloric measurement thing is in

> the first place. Perhaps the randomness could be quite significant

> over a given period of time. I don't know. I seem to recall someone

> posting about the history and process of caloric measurement and the

> amount of guesswork involved.

The scientist who figured out food calories said the whole idea

probably wouldn't be useful in real peoples' bodies, only in the lab,

Taubes says in the book, Good Calories, Bad Calories.

Connie

[Guest guest]

Ray Peat says that essential fatty acids are toxic.

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturatedfats.shtml

> > I'm not sure how reliable the whole caloric measurement thing is in

> > the first place.

>

> , yes, all the uncertainties involved cast a lot of doubt in my

> mind, though I haven't taken the trouble to look up any metabolic ward

> studies.

>

> > If it is anything like the studies that I ran across a few years ago

> > when I first questioned the EFA hypothesis, then it may not even be

> > real food.

>

> Do you believe there are no essential fatty acids?

>

> > Not that I know personally, but a little scatological

> > experimentation never hurt anyone :-)

>

> Wait'll you get a little older - you may have the privilege to enjoy

> fecal occult exams

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Ray Peat says that essential fatty acids are toxic.

> http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturatedfats.shtml

>

Ray Peat is one voice among many who would disagree. There is a mountain of

evidence

suggesting that AA is essential, as points out, and indicating that

omega-3 fatty acids

have anti-inflammatory properties that are beneficial in many conditions.

I've read through Ray Peat's articles, and did not find them sufficiently

compelling to

overshadow the large body of evidence that suggests otherwise.

K.

[Guest guest]

> Ray Peat is one voice among many who would disagree. There is a mountain of

> evidence

> suggesting that AA is essential, as points out, and indicating that

> omega-3 fatty acids

> have anti-inflammatory properties that are beneficial in many conditions.

>

> I've read through Ray Peat's articles, and did not find them sufficiently

> compelling to

> overshadow the large body of evidence that suggests otherwise.

It is essentially inconsequential, because Peat is right that if PUFA

are essential the requirement is less than 0.5% of calories. So, even

if you avoid them strictly but eat whole foods rather than purified

lab diets, you can't develop a deficiency, in which case it is a moot

point whether they are essential.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

> Do you believe there are no essential fatty acids?

I came to the conclusion that it is a moot point because outside of a

lab with a non-real world diet being administered, it is almost

impossible to avoid EFA's.

I also concluded that most of the science regarding EFA's is pretty

weak. I was so disgusted with my preliminary research I just walked

away from the whole issue.

Recently, based on an informative interchange between and Bruce

on BeyondPrice, I had confirmed my suspicions that we need very little

PUFA, probably less than 1%, although the 4% range that WAPF

recommends is not harmful and may be needful in some cases.

--

" Don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine

messianic force, to be a sort of policeman of the whole world... "

- Luther King Jr.

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

,

> Wait'll you get a little older - you may have the privilege to enjoy

> fecal occult exams

Hmmmm...I not sure I should even touch this <weg>

--

" Don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine

messianic force, to be a sort of policeman of the whole world... "

- Luther King Jr.

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

-

> What I'm not sure about is whether these studies,

> probably using only people with normal metabolisms, are representative

> of what happens with people who have abnormal metabolisms, including

> many people with hypothyroid conditions. Maybe can shed some

> light on this.

Not only that, Colpo is being very selective about which studies he

reports and which he ignores.

-

[Guest guest]

-

> I have a second copy of The Fat Loss Bible waiting somewhere on the

> interweb to be downloaded. I can send the link to either you or

> and you can have it. Actually, given your clout,

> oughta send you a comp. I can pm him and make an inquiry on your

> behalf, if you like, or better you can do it yourself.

Knowing what I know of Colpo's personality, I have a hard time

imagining that he'd comp a copy if he knows Chris's extant

positions on the issue at hand...

-

[Guest guest]

-

> But I assure you, you are not exceptions to the laws of

> thermodynamics.

This is exactly the problem with Colpo's position: it assumes a

simplistic metabolic mechanism wherein all " calories " are equal, but

even the very definition of a " calorie " is something of a fiction, as

it's determined by burning food in a reactor vessel, which obviously

bears precious little resemblance to the actual manifold and complex

processes of human metabolism. No reasonable and adequately educated

proponent of low-carb diets would suggest that changing macronutrient

ratios somehow magically violates the laws of physics. That would be

absurd. What they do say is that macronutrient ratios affect the

processes of metabolism and thus somewhat alter the net impact of

" calories " on the body.

Look at it in another way. If a low-carb diet increases basal

metabolism, it's providing an effective metabolic advantage. If a

high-carb diet _decreases_ basal metabolism, a low-carb diet is

providing an effective metabolic advantage relative to high-carb

diets. Etc. There are no violations of the laws of physics involved

or imputed... except by opponents of the idea.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> There is no conflict between what is saying and the laws of

> thermodynamics. The caloric input has to be equal to the sum of the

> caloric output and the caloric increase in stored energy, but the

> composition of the caloric input can affect the balance between

> caloric output and stored energy and also alter the form of storage,

> by increasing or decreasing storage capacity, by shifting between

> adipose storage and building of other tissues, by evolving energy as

> heat, by providing a greater energy level that inadvertently increases

> caloric output, etc.

Excretion is also a variable, but otherwise, exactly.

-

[Guest guest]

On 2/26/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Knowing what I know of Colpo's personality, I have a hard time

> imagining that he'd comp a copy if he knows Chris's extant

> positions on the issue at hand...

I doubt he would for two reasons, one being that I have still yet to

write my review of his book, which is partly because he sent me it on

CD instead of as a book, and having borrowed a copy from someone else

I'll be getting around to it soon (after a year or so), and second, he

seemed pretty insulted that I politely criticized him in the footnote

to a footnote (yes, really, it was not the footnote but the footnote

of that footnote) of my one-meal--of-saturated-fat-a-day article,

despite giving him props in the main text, and I'm not quite sure he

ever got over that.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

> Excretion is also a variable, but otherwise, exactly.

Probably the least contributor. What proportion of ketones are

excreted compared to utilized? I would think it would be quite low.

Chris