Re: calories calories... or maybe not

[Guest guest]

Looks like our hated friend Atkins was right after all.

-

--- In , " john roberts " <johnhrob@n...>

wrote:

> In today's WSJ report of Harvard School of public health study that

people

> could eat an extra 300 (k)cal on very low carbohydrate regimen and

lose the

> same amount as those on standard low fat diet, in 12 week study.

>

> JR

>

>

>

> ________________________________________________________

> This email has been scanned by Internet Pathway's Email

> Gateway scanning system for potentially harmful content,

> such as viruses or spam. Nothing out of the ordinary was

> detected in this email. For more information, call

> 601-776-3355 or email emailscanner@n...

> ________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

: can you post relevant portions of the article (or the study) so we

can understand this better?

on 10/14/2003 10:36 AM, john roberts at johnhrob@... wrote:

> In today's WSJ report of Harvard School of public health study that people

> could eat an extra 300 (k)cal on very low carbohydrate regimen and lose the

> same amount as those on standard low fat diet, in 12 week study.

>

> JR

>

>

>

> ________________________________________________________

> This email has been scanned by Internet Pathway's Email

> Gateway scanning system for potentially harmful content,

> such as viruses or spam. Nothing out of the ordinary was

> detected in this email. For more information, call

> 601-776-3355 or email emailscanner@...

> ________________________________________________________

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

21 overweight volunteers were split into 3 groups. Two groups randomly

assigned low carb or low fat diets (1500kCal-women/1800 kCal-men). Third

group got low carb, but extra 300 kCal.

Admittedly this is a small study, but it seems to reinforce the personal

experience of many with " Sugar Busters " , Atkins, et al. I doubt this one

provocative study will change the establishment position, but it should

reinforce the need for more rigorous study.

IMO there may be other variables with individuals having different

efficiencies at metabolizing foods, and that efficiency may even change with

experience.

Count your calories but watch the scale... the scale is the more reliable

metric of your energy balance.

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@...]

Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 10:20 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] calories calories... or maybe not

: can you post relevant portions of the article (or the study) so we

can understand this better?

on 10/14/2003 10:36 AM, john roberts at johnhrob@... wrote:

> In today's WSJ report of Harvard School of public health study that people

> could eat an extra 300 (k)cal on very low carbohydrate regimen and lose

the

> same amount as those on standard low fat diet, in 12 week study.

>

> JR

>

>

>

> ________________________________________________________

> This email has been scanned by Internet Pathway's Email

> Gateway scanning system for potentially harmful content,

> such as viruses or spam. Nothing out of the ordinary was

> detected in this email. For more information, call

> 601-776-3355 or email emailscanner@...

> ________________________________________________________

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

If one's objective is to lose weight, it's been established that Atkins is

the way to go. But long term studies of what this does to one's health are

not in yet.

If one's objective is to be healthier, then it's all about calories and the

healthiest foods. Remember CRON is NOT a weight-loss diet. Most people do

lose weight, but that's just a side effect and not the goal.

The goal is Calorie Restriction with Optimum Nutrition.

on 10/14/2003 11:58 AM, john roberts at johnhrob@... wrote:

> 21 overweight volunteers were split into 3 groups. Two groups randomly

> assigned low carb or low fat diets (1500kCal-women/1800 kCal-men). Third

> group got low carb, but extra 300 kCal.

[Guest guest]

Where has it been 'established' that Atkins is not the way to go? I

must have missed that discovery. BTW, what long term studies are there

of CRON on humans? None as well, so it seems a moot complaint.

Interestingly, I also saw a study that showed that high fat breakfasts

induced people to consume LESS calories as opposed to high carb

breakfasts.

-

>

> > 21 overweight volunteers were split into 3 groups. Two groups randomly

> > assigned low carb or low fat diets (1500kCal-women/1800 kCal-men).

Third

> > group got low carb, but extra 300 kCal.

[Guest guest]

Yes, but CR is based on energy restriction. These studies suggest that all

calories may not be equal in that respect. We use calories because that's

the best tool we have, hopefully more research into this will allow those

who are so inclined to micro-manage with more precision.

I still stand by my opinion that body weight is a more reliable indicia of

energy balance than counting calories. YMMV

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@...]

Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 11:17 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] calories calories... or maybe not

If one's objective is to lose weight, it's been established that Atkins is

the way to go. But long term studies of what this does to one's health are

not in yet.

If one's objective is to be healthier, then it's all about calories and the

healthiest foods. Remember CRON is NOT a weight-loss diet. Most people do

lose weight, but that's just a side effect and not the goal.

The goal is Calorie Restriction with Optimum Nutrition.

on 10/14/2003 11:58 AM, john roberts at johnhrob@... wrote:

> 21 overweight volunteers were split into 3 groups. Two groups randomly

> assigned low carb or low fat diets (1500kCal-women/1800 kCal-men). Third

> group got low carb, but extra 300 kCal.

[Guest guest]

It's been established in the lab that CRON is the way to go for optimum

health and longevity. As we've said to you many times: read Walford.

on 10/14/2003 12:20 PM, paultheo2000 at paultheo2000@... wrote:

> Where has it been 'established' that Atkins is not the way to go? I

> must have missed that discovery. BTW, what long term studies are there

> of CRON on humans? None as well, so it seems a moot complaint.

>

> Interestingly, I also saw a study that showed that high fat breakfasts

> induced people to consume LESS calories as opposed to high carb

> breakfasts.

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Your criticism of Atkins was that his diet was not tested for long

term health effects. Neither is CRON, lab tests or not. I'm not

agreeing or disagreeing with you, I'm simply mentioning that you're

using a double standard when judging various diet protocols. BTW, have

you read Atkins?

-

>

> > Where has it been 'established' that Atkins is not the way to go? I

> > must have missed that discovery. BTW, what long term studies are there

> > of CRON on humans? None as well, so it seems a moot complaint.

> >

> > Interestingly, I also saw a study that showed that high fat breakfasts

> > induced people to consume LESS calories as opposed to high carb

> > breakfasts.

> >

> > -

[Guest guest]

CRON has been " tested " via Okinawans and via animal studies.

Of course I've read Atkins.

Just a reminder: this is a board about CRON, not Atkins or others. IOW,

most of us have read Walford and are in agreement with him. It's

interesting to discuss others, but when you go about trying to gather

converts, you're over the line.

on 10/14/2003 1:46 PM, paultheo2000 at paultheo2000@... wrote:

> Your criticism of Atkins was that his diet was not tested for long

> term health effects. Neither is CRON, lab tests or not. I'm not

> agreeing or disagreeing with you, I'm simply mentioning that you're

> using a double standard when judging various diet protocols. BTW, have

> you read Atkins?

>

> -

[Guest guest]

I wouldn't consider CRON, or any diet, to be ideological in nature and

require 'conversion' instead of logical interpretation of the

available facts.

As for the Atkins being unproven long term...we know it's been used

successfully by millions of people over the last 25 years. We know

that it lowers cholesterol levels (for those who think it's relevant),

triglycerides and insulin levels. We know it doesn't increase risks of

CVD. We know it helps people lose weight (something healthy).

Actually, I think Atkins is relevant to the group because it brings up

another way to tackle CRON. CRON, strictly speaking, makes no mention

of what ON consists of. Unless we're bound by Walford's requirements

(if such is the case...the board should be retitled " CRON as espoused

by Roy Walford " ). I do not think Atkins and CRON are mutually

exclusive. In fact, I think they might be the perfect combination when

we consider the benefits of Atkins and the increased satiety on such a

diet.

Let the good discussion continue

-

>

> > Your criticism of Atkins was that his diet was not tested for long

> > term health effects. Neither is CRON, lab tests or not. I'm not

> > agreeing or disagreeing with you, I'm simply mentioning that you're

> > using a double standard when judging various diet protocols. BTW, have

> > you read Atkins?

> >

> > -

[Guest guest]

Regarding the effects of dietary restriction on fruit flies in

the " Demography of ...... " study that I have referred to

previously: Those flies that were fully fed until human equivalent

age ~65 and then switched to 35% less calories, by human age ~70 had

a mortality rate about (I am reading this off a 'natural log' scale

chart!) 80% less than those that continued to be fully fed - about 3%

of the restricted flies dying per day, compared with 15% of those

continuing to be fully fed. I am hoping this can be extrapolated to

60 year old humans : )

>

> > Where has it been 'established' that Atkins is not the way to go?

I

> > must have missed that discovery. BTW, what long term studies are

there

> > of CRON on humans? None as well, so it seems a moot complaint.

> >

> > Interestingly, I also saw a study that showed that high fat

breakfasts

> > induced people to consume LESS calories as opposed to high carb

> > breakfasts.

> >

> > -

[Guest guest]

I'll the others expand on this, but isn't 35% CR a bit extreme

starting at age 60?

-

> >

> > > Where has it been 'established' that Atkins is not the way to go?

> I

> > > must have missed that discovery. BTW, what long term studies are

> there

> > > of CRON on humans? None as well, so it seems a moot complaint.

> > >

> > > Interestingly, I also saw a study that showed that high fat

> breakfasts

> > > induced people to consume LESS calories as opposed to high carb

> > > breakfasts.

> > >

> > > -

[Guest guest]

I am just reporting what the study did/said.

> > >

> > > > Where has it been 'established' that Atkins is not the way to

go?

> > I

> > > > must have missed that discovery. BTW, what long term studies

are

> > there

> > > > of CRON on humans? None as well, so it seems a moot complaint.

> > > >

> > > > Interestingly, I also saw a study that showed that high fat

> > breakfasts

> > > > induced people to consume LESS calories as opposed to high

carb

> > > > breakfasts.

> > > >

> > > > -

[Guest guest]

I know very little about Atkins, but I can say the following.

Something weird is going on and someone needs to find the

explanation. This is the issue (approximately):

Over a ten day period some Atkins dieters seem to be eating about

20,000 calories, burning off about 20,000 calories and losing five

pounds of weight. Either the law of physics that matter and energy

can neither be created nor destroyed needs to be consigned to the

scrap heap, or there is a simple, logical explanation. The latter

seems more likely : ) (Huge increase in metabolic rate? Huge loss

of water? Severe diminution of intestines ability to absorb

nutrients? ................ There is only a very limited number of

possibilities, and it should not be beyond the wit of man to figure

it out.)

> >

> > > Your criticism of Atkins was that his diet was not tested for

long

> > > term health effects. Neither is CRON, lab tests or not. I'm not

> > > agreeing or disagreeing with you, I'm simply mentioning that

you're

> > > using a double standard when judging various diet protocols.

BTW, have

> > > you read Atkins?

> > >

> > > -

[Guest guest]

I've heard this thermodynamics argument quite often...but I fail to

understand its persistence. I've yet to do any advanced physics, but

clearly the human body is NOT a closed system; so how can

thermodynamics apply?

The caloric measurement of foods is done using bomb calorimetry. Who's

to say the body will use those calories (ie: units of energy) in a

given way (like storing fat)?

My suspicion is that ketogenic diets lend themselves to greater heat

production instead of creating stored body fat (as in high

carbohydrate diets) because of minimal insulin production.

Loss of water is associated with ketogenic diets (which act as

diuretic) but fat loss is a great part of it. I've never heard of lack

of absorption being caused by low-carb diets.

I'm as puzzled as you are that the riddle isn't yet solved...but as

the study says, we should keep an open mind about this.

-

> > >

> > > > Your criticism of Atkins was that his diet was not tested for

> long

> > > > term health effects. Neither is CRON, lab tests or not. I'm not

> > > > agreeing or disagreeing with you, I'm simply mentioning that

> you're

> > > > using a double standard when judging various diet protocols.

> BTW, have

> > > > you read Atkins?

> > > >

> > > > -

[Guest guest]

There are many riddles not yet solved in the medical world and you should get used to that. The "system" does not necessarily include the digestive tract. We can exclude some of the nutrients and absorb varying amounts of each. The common assumption is that all are absorbed - obviously not true. The system can absorb that many calories as it can convert with enzymes. Imagine trying to absorb a quart of olive oil. We know that excess carbos or protein not digested will be acted on by bacteria in the gut. So if we say I'll drop my caloric intake first to avoid indigestion, we see not weight loss just less discomfort. Next we drop it some more and we see less gas being developed by bacteria and still no weight loss. We drop it some more and we see probably, less activity - we slow down a bit and conserve calories and still don't drop weight. If we force the activity then we begin to see some weight loss.

If we continue at that level we will taper off and "balance" at that caloric intake. So maybe we lose 15#. Then we need to lower intake more if we aren't at our desired weight. In my case I had to lower intake from 3500 kcals to 1800 kcals to see any weight loss. Almost a 50% reduction - I didn't do it all at once. I think those 1700 kcals were wasted calories contributing to shorter lifespan.

As simple as I can explain it and probably fraught with errors. I'm not an expert but I haven't found any experts yet.

I doubt there are basic differences in thermodynamics between Atkins and ornish.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: paultheo2000

Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 2:35 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: calories calories... or maybe not

I've heard this thermodynamics argument quite often...but I fail tounderstand its persistence. I've yet to do any advanced physics, butclearly the human body is NOT a closed system; so how canthermodynamics apply?The caloric measurement of foods is done using bomb calorimetry. Who'sto say the body will use those calories (ie: units of energy) in agiven way (like storing fat)? My suspicion is that ketogenic diets lend themselves to greater heatproduction instead of creating stored body fat (as in highcarbohydrate diets) because of minimal insulin production. Loss of water is associated with ketogenic diets (which act asdiuretic) but fat loss is a great part of it. I've never heard of lackof absorption being caused by low-carb diets. I'm as puzzled as you are that the riddle isn't yet solved...but asthe study says, we should keep an open mind about this. -