Board index » nutrition » Calories: Where do they Go?

2004-05-04 10:28:18 PM
I believe this article from Vanderbilt provides a good explanation.
Prediction: Terry Comeau will still not understand the fundamental science
behind it.
Note:
In case I have not made it clear, I also happen to accept that the mix of
macro nutrients does affect short to medium term thermogenesis, and that
excessive pure available carbohydrates (excluding associated fiber and many
other associated desirable nutrients) have many negative health effects.
I am also certain that when the body is in, (or perhaps, more importantly
*perceives* itself to be in 'starvation' mode the
sympathetic/adrenergic/thyroid system ultimately minimizes calorie
expenditure by overriding 'wasteful' heat generation in tissues, and from
futile nutrient cycling.
Constructive inputs welcomed. :-)
HTH, MikeV
Celebrated Non-expert, in a broad range of subjects.
-

* tinyurl.com/2bofy *
Sorry, folks, left out the URL
M
"Mike V" <mvidler@inameNOSPAM.com>wrote in message

"Mike V" <mvidler@inameNOSPAM.com>wrote in message
medschool1.mc.vanderbilt.edu/mpb/medphysiology/week13/energymetabolism.pdf
-

med nutrition
Physiological impacts of diet

Thank you for finding this, I was too lazy to search for the obvious, your
prediction will be true, the prof. gets his money from grants no doubt. I
had pointed our mutual friend to a web site with a metabolism course of
class notes from it's prof, he found himself too busy to read it, if I
interpreted his comments correctly; your pdf file might suffer the same
fate - if he don't read it it don't exist.

<markd@toad-net.com>wrote in message
Too much rhetoric and table pounding invested to let it go in our life-time,
whatever he reads. :-}
-

"Mike V" <mvidler@inameNOSPAM.com>wrote in message news:<_bRlc.7027$V97.6844@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
I figure that somehow the calorie theory, in theory, is correct and if
applied correctly can be used to predict weight gain or loss in
humans.
I just think that there is either something wrong with the calculated
caloric values (ie fats supposedly equals 9 and protein & carbs
supposedly equals 4) or there might be a problem with refined carbs in
that they may actually release more than the assumed 4 calories. Maybe
once we remove refined carbs from the diet, the body then normalizes
and the calorie theory then kicks in and becomes a practical way to
predict weight gain or loss.
Maybe the refined carbs in combination with restricting fats simply
causes carbs to be absorbed too quickly thus creating an abnormal
insulin spike that causes any available energy to be stored as body
fat regardless of the needs of the rest of the system ie. muscles,
organs, bones, etc. The massive refined carb induced insulin spike
being so out of the ordinary that the body just cannot deal with it.
Something in the last thirty years has fucked up our attempts to
control weight in spite of the millions of people attempting to lose
weight by restricting fats and eating more carbs, or maybe because of
our attempts to lose weight by restricting fats and eating more carbs.
The reality is that the american diabetes association style low-fat
high-carb diet has only made people fatter and sicker. And we have
never consumed more refined carbohydrates than in the last thirty
years, especially high fructose corn syrup.
TC
-

Did you read the info? As I recall, your questions are answered in it.
With all those thousands of hours spent researching over the past 3 years,
a few minutes more shouldn't hurt much.
medschool1.mc.vanderbilt.edu/mpb/medphysiology/week13/energymetabolism.pdf

Calories, in food, are measured by burning in a bomb calorimeter, and
measuring the amount of heat evolved.
This is a rough approximation of the amount of energy available in the food.
Obviously the body's utilization of food is much different.
j.
tcomeau wrote:

"tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com>wrote in message
I'll try to respect your personal *confidence* about your caloric, nay
historic 'conversion'. Were you on the road to Damascus? ;-}
Just in case you are still wavering, a review from a researcher who may have
been reading your posts, and still feels that there are unanswered
questions, is presented at the end.
I present this in the interests of intellectual integrity. :-))
In my opinion, there are plenty of science based reasons why modern
nutrition (esp. refined carbs) and lifestyle are messing up our ability to
balance intake and outgo. Ditto that carbs and insulin are closely related
to modern ills.
The energy content of foods are relatively accurately known. Calories are a
lot better score keeping system than for example dollars, which are prone to
inflation.
Accurately knowing (and admitting to one's self as an addict :-)) how many
of the little devils are getting in, and accurately accounting for where
they go is a quite different proposition for the average person without a
personal calorimetry lab.
Did you read my Vanderbilt post, by the way? Please comment, just for a
change!
In the long haul, 'calorimetry' is the messenger. IMHO it is a mistake to
shoot him because the message seems disagreeable.
Some personal notes:
Following some 10 years of attempted fat controlled eating, and latterly
some 5 years of imperfect carb control, *all* of my own personal statistics
and have improved from poor to excellent. I know which works for me.
At 68, I take no prescribed or otc medications (well, maybe a baby aspirin),
and see my doctor once per year.
In my experience, significantly lowering carbs, and improving whole food
nutrition:
1 Probably has at least a short to medium term caloric advantage.
(thermogenesis, +?)
2 Improves satiation, resulting in easier calorie control.
3 Finally provided me with a workable mechanism to control body fat.
4 Significantly increases HDL
5 Significantly reduced triglycerides.
6 (Probably) improved my immune system. a) eliminated slight
tendency to joint tenderness with exercise;
b) eliminated several minor allergies c) maybe the reason why I now rarely
have colds.
7 Improved my disposition, except when dealing with God-like dogmatic
posters. :-}
8 Does not relieve me of the ultimate responsibility to limit calorie
intake, (preferably hi GI carbs!)
and be sufficiently physically active.
I realize all the above is all merely anecdotal coincidence, and I do not
guarantee that it applies to others. :-}
FWIW, my last health problem was gall bladder surgery at the end of *low
fat* period.
****************
FYI:
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 79, No. 5, 899S-906S, May 2004
?2004 American Society for Clinical Nutrition tinyurl.com/3bdbf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Supplement:
IS A CALORIE A CALORIE?1,2,3,4
Andrea C Buchholz and Dale A Schoeller
1 From the Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of
Wisconsin-Madison
The aim of this review was to evaluate data regarding potential
thermodynamic mechanisms for increased rates of weight loss in subjects
consuming diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate. Studies that
compared weight loss and energy expenditure in adults consuming diets high
in protein and/or low in carbohydrate with those in adults consuming diets
low in fat were reviewed. In addition, studies that measured the
metabolizable energy of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates were reviewed.
Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an 2.5-kg greater
weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific
differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy
expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics
dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient
composition of the diet. Further research on differences in the composition
of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with
energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight
loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.
Does anyone have access to the full text?
M
-

things....
6c is the most surprising for me. I work at home and my wife and small
children are around all the time. They got colds several times during
that 5 months, but not me. This is really amazing. Must be all these
vitamins from veggies raising my LDL (as posted in another thread :).
Mirek
-

I read the below before also, interesting. I think the "satiety" point is
one possible clue, however when doing studies in producing a satiety
index, potatoes where among the highest. Regarding your several points
bout your diet program, You and I apparently share several of them. I
have learned which and how many of what carbs to limit etc. and find
maintaining my current weight rather easy.

It is interesting info... but there is no reference to the study or
studies that proved that the information presented is correct and
accurate. It is simply a re-iteration of the concept, it is not the
proof. Proof is what I am looking for.
When one discusses Newtons laws of motion, one knows that it was first
proposed in its current form by Newton. One can read about the
experiments that demonstrated the concept. One can also perform a
myriad of experiments that clearly mathematically demonstrates,
confirms and proves the concept(s). This is the proof or evidence to
support the concept. Without the proof, the concept remains a concept
and fails to become fact.
Where is the proof or evidence that clearly demonstrates and supports
the validity of the concept that calories can be directly and
mathematically applied in weight management in humans? Is it a mere
concept or is it fact? And if it is a fact, where is the proof?
TC
markd@toad-net.com wrote in message news:<4098f442$0$249$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>...

All your "requirements" have been met on this very ng. 1. the summary
article using several emperical research examples, 2. the article under
discussion showing the theory and math of the energy pathways, 3. a
specific example in the horizon research which put twins in a box, as per
the opening paragraph of the article under question, for different macro
sources. To date, your reasons for rejecting one above are
unsubstantuated. In order to show your requirements have not been met, 1.
emperical research showing no change in weight status with change in
calory balance, 2. that the math and theory in the article under
discussion have flaws, 3. that for the same calorie intake differences in
energy balance occur with different macro sources. The time for
reiteration of unsupported opinion has long since passed. For your macro
source makes a difference theory, fill your own requirements.

<markd@toad-net.com>wrote in message
here:
dandini.ingentaselect.com/vl=6431894/cl=39/nw=1/rpsv/cw/mal/15404196/v1n3/s7/p209
In your latter set of three points, the first is not yet provable (chance of
type 2 error has not been adequately minimized), and the latter two are
fairly challenged.
Lar
-

"In order to show your requirements have not been met, 1.
"Mark, did you read the thought-provoking article (full-text link on
page),
here:
dandini.ingentaselect.com/vl=6431894/cl=39/nw=1/rpsv/cw/mal/15404196/v1n
3/s7/p209
In your latter set of three points, the first is not yet provable (chance
of
type 2 error has not been adequately minimized), and the latter two are
fairly challenged."
For whatever reason, I think I know but it is not relevant, I can only see
the abstract, but do get the gist from it, I did read the abstract before.
I'm not sure my 3 points apply but to the 3rd., the others a rebuff of our
mutual friends's standard rip on the energy balance model. I have always
been open to different macro sources having different energy costs for
metabolism, it remains to be demonstrated, except to make a theoretical
case for it as the abstract does. In fact months ago I offered that as
one reason for the bell curve responce to diet that has been demonstrated.
I haven't yet seen any tests done in a energy/macro source controlled
manner. Lyle in the other thread mentioned some and I requested web
sources but got no reply. The horizon study, with all it's shortcomings
of size time etc., showed no difference based on macro source. Even if
demonstrated, if it is a small cost it can be ignored as just some
identified noise in the model. In the end, the energy balance model will
prevail, with a potential that different pathways have different energy
costs as one of the sums of all costs; but in the end consuming fewer
calories below the sums of all costs will result in weight reduction.
Which is exactly what I have been saying all along.
-

<markd@toad-net.com>wrote in message
Adobe Acrobat for the pdf version, of course.
-