Harvard Low-Carb Study (Crazy Results)

[brownpaperbag04]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031013/ap_on_he_me/low_carb_mystery_1

This is a very intersting read. Supposedly people on a low carb diet can eat more calories than those on a low fat diet and still lose the same or more weight.

In the study the low-carb people ate 25,000 more calories. This should've added 7 extra lbs, but it didn't. They're now saying maybe calories aren't always equal...weird.

 

[LitttleBig]

Huh, no offense bro, but I dont need a harvard study to tell me that. Ive proven this with my own body time and time again. Anyone who is into this sport and watches their diet should have found this out by trial and error. And now some scientist will try to take the credit for unlocking the wholly grail to weight loss, lol!

LB--

 

[drveejay11]

Nice post cm.........thanks

 

[brownpaperbag04]

littlebig, did you read the entire article? Yes most people already know that low-carb diets usually work...and I could tell you that too since i'm on CKD...but the amazing thing about this study is they're saying that maybe it's possible that some calories act differently (metabolize faster or slower) than other calories. By scientific standards that's impossible though...since 1 calorie should be the same amount of energy as another calorie.

I'm sure there will be a ton of spinoff research from this study. It'll be really interesting to see what they find.

drveejay11, thanks.

 

[JP@Ironology]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031013/ap_on_he_me/low_carb_mystery_1

This is a very intersting read. Supposedly people on a low carb diet can eat more calories than those on a low fat diet and still lose the same or more weight.

In the study the low-carb people ate 25,000 more calories. This should've added 7 extra lbs, but it didn't. They're now saying maybe calories aren't always equal...weird.

Nice Read.

Atkins states in his book that low carb diets give you a metabolic advantage. Also, A lot of bodybuilders have used low carb diets for years with success.

 

[DeepZenPill]

I read the article earlier today and I thought that this was pretty much already known. Isn't this ability to lose weight at higher calorie count a result of the inefficiency of ketones as fuel? If your body is running more inefficiently, of course you're going to need more energy to get the same performance.

 

[Silent Method]

All calories not being equal is old news. Hell, do you know how calorie counts of macronutrients and foods are determined? They are simply burned in a bomb calorimeter!

The human body is a bit more dynamic than that.

 

[LitttleBig]

Yes I did read it all. I should have expounded more like Silent did. I just have always figured this ever since I played with carbs and calories.

LB--

 

[Silent Method]

Yes I did read it all. I should have expounded more like Silent did. I just have always figured this ever since I played with carbs and calories.

LB--

I missed cmtuggl's response to you.

cmtuggl states: "...but the amazing thing about this study is they're saying that maybe it's possible that some calories act differently (metabolize faster or slower) than other calories. By scientific standards that's impossible though...since 1 calorie should be the same amount of energy as another calorie."

What you write seems logical enough. The truth is that the measure we use for food energy is simply a poor one. As I said, to get that measure we simply stick the nutrient in question into a can and light it on fire, measuring the heat produced. Thus, the measure we get in only good in terms of energy relesed via heat energy activation.

Things react a little differently in the body. We use all manner of chemical reactions to harvest the energy stored in food. Heat plays only a minute role in the equation in regard to harvesting stored food energy.


Add to that the dynamics of the inumerable macronutrient and particle combonations the actual meals we consume as well as the inumerable variables involved in human phsyiology and it becomes easy to see that the 3 very differently composed chemical macronutrients yield differing amounts of energy during metabolization.




In addition, net energy yield is only one factor involved in "weight loss" or gain. Hormonal factors are certainly involved. The dynamic effects of given macronutirent ratios vary. Many factors play into this. Protein is a natural diuretic - up protein while lowering the other macronutrients and you will carry less water. The list of contributing variables goes on and on and on.

 

[Sigmund Roid]

wow, what's next?
protein rich diets preserve muscle mass????
LOL

 

[brownpaperbag04]

crazy how all you guys knew the calorie thing as fact yet the science world hasn't changed it's law of thermodynamics (1 calorie = 1 calorie).

I understand what you guys are saying...but this IS news because no one has ever proved the law of thermodynamics wrong. Silent Method made some since out of the article...but that still doesn't explain WHERE the calories go...they don't just disappear. ...I'm sure some scientist will have a sure fire answer for us within the next year or so.

 

[Silent Method]

crazy how all you guys knew the calorie thing as fact yet the science world hasn't changed it's law of thermodynamics (1 calorie = 1 calorie).

I understand what you guys are saying...but this IS news because no one has ever proved the law of thermodynamics wrong. Silent Method made some since out of the article...but that still doesn't explain WHERE the calories go...they don't just disappear. ...I'm sure some scientist will have a sure fire answer for us within the next year or so.

I think you are looking at this wrongly. No law of thermodynamics is being broken. Rather, the series of transfer of states of energy involved in burning the food in a can versus metabolism in a human body differ.

Burn wood chips and cotton in a bomb calorimeter and you will get a fairly high energy measure. The calories are there, stored in the fuel. However, eat wood chips on cotton and your body will not be able to free that same energy and utilize it.

Think of it this way. Lets say kerosene is the stored energy source. Light it on fire inside of a can and you will get a given energy figure. Fill up a brand new car with kerosene, try to start the car and you may get it to sputter a bit. The chemical energy stored in the fuel is the same as it was in the can. However, the energy that can be harnessed by the car is different. The dynamics of the car in the processing of that kerosene simply cannot take efficient advantage of the stored energy.

Take a look at another chemical fuel source - ATP. We know it has a given energy level and behaves in accordance with the law of thermodynamics. What if you could fill up your car with ATP? The energy would be there, but it would not run your car.

Burning food in a can and measuring the heat is one thing. Eating it, processing it, and running the innumerable functions of human metabolism, of which heat is only a small part, is a different animal.


So in food, where do the calories go? Well, you shit a great deal of calories into the toilet everyday. Some is used for heat (a good deal of heat is simply waste - energy that was never harnessed), some is used for locomotion, some is used for neuro function, the list goes on and on.

The different macronutrients are different in structure. The body is very, very, very dynamic. It processes these thre chemicals differently. The actual energy is will FREE and then HARNESS from the different chemicals is different.

 

[TxLonghorn]

I'd file this under the 'No Shit, Sherlock' category. I knew this more than a decade ago, and bodybuilders knew this decades ago.

One of the big problems when discussing dieting, is that it seems like there can be no discussion. It's like talking about abortion or religion, and that attitude is evident if you read some of the doctors opinions of this study saying that it can't be true, etc., etc.