"Eating fat makes you fat"

Status
Not open for further replies.
<div>
(stevejones @ Apr. 27 2008,2:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">All pro bicyclists consume a huge amount of calories (up to 7k and over during events like the tour of de france), and most of those calories are from carbohydrates. They need the glycogen to use as energy. All pro bicyclists have three things in common---they're thin as rails, have small torsos, and big legs. Their body composiiton is that way because they expend so much energy working their legs very hard, bit their upper bodies much less. How does this not show that your carbohydrate intake does not matter if you burn the calories off? How does it not show that your body composition has a lot to do with how you exercise....just because many of them use steroids? I don't get it.


Also, doesn't the brain use glucose as fuel? What happens when you stop providing that fuel for a long period of time? I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed even when my brain is getting plenty of glucose. I hate to imagine what I'd be like without it. Many professional bbers go on low to zero carb diets during the final stages of their preparation for a show. They report being sluggish, light headed, weak, etc. etc. Would they not stay this way if they were on their low carb diets for an extended period of time?

Thanks for the info</div>
Pro cyclists don't represent the norm. They represent an extreme. The other extreme is represented by morbidly obese people. Or perhaps diabetes type 1.

Only few organs and tissues require glucose as fuel. For instance, the retina and lens of the eye. The brain can use ketones (ketone bodies) as fuel and does so with much more efficiency than it does glucose. Incidentally, that the retina and lens require glucose could explain why diabetics become either blind or develop cataracts as those tissues become more and more insulin resistant and thus unable to use glucose.

It takes a bit of time to adapt to a zero carb diet. From 4 to 20 weeks. During the first few weeks, it's entirely possible to feel sluggish. It can be explained by the lack of glucose because there isn't any carb coming in. And by the lack of fat coming in as well. And by the high intake of protein. So instead of using either glucose or fat as fuel, they break down protein to convert it to glucose. This is very costly and not a whole lot efficient.

While those bodybuilders report, as you say, being sluggish, many others report the contrary. The most common report from people who cut carbs out of their diet is that they have more energy. This can be explained by the increased fuel availability from the fat that is released from adipose tissue because of lower insulin levels. This is true because before they cut carbs, their lean tissue was too insulin resistant to be able to use the glucose and so were starving for fuel all along while adipose tissue was growing ever fatter.

You're welcome.
 
<div>
(lcars @ Apr. 27 2008,2:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 27 2008,1:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(lcars @ Apr. 27 2008,1:31)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">dont get me wrong i understand that carbohydrates cause insulin spikes.and this leads to uptake in adipose tissue . but thats not the sole reason for obesity.</div>
Actually, it is. Once we cut out carbohydrate entirely from our diet, insulin levels drop and nutrients including fat stored in adipose tissue are released in the bloodstream.</div>
so what your saying is that if we cut carbs out of our diets the obesity problem will be solved?

and im not being facetious here.</div>
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. There is a multitude of other problems that would be solved with this but they don't belong in this thread.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 28 2008,6:44)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Let's use your figures.

Spurlock gained 25lbs. Chaz lost 8lbs. That's a total difference of 33lbs. Translated, this comes up to 132,000 calories of fat or 4400 calories per day on average. There's a difference of 600 calories of food intake. That leaves us with 3800 calories. Let's say Chaz spent 1000 calories per day with his 64 minutes of exercise in the gym. That leaves us with 2800 calories not accounted for every single day.

If you have better math, please be my guest.</div>
33lbs of adipose is approximate 15500kcals of total energy, you seem to assume fat is pure lipid... which it is not, to achieve the 132000kcals would require another few pounds of weight loss/gain.

Thats without looking at the differences in body compostiion changes between the two (gaining fat also increases lean tissue) that requires a different caloric measure.

Spurlock gained 24.5lbs of weight, which will include some muscle, fat and water. if we take it at pure adipode tissue - approximately 85700kcals.

On average he would require 2856 kcals extra per day to achieve this.


The supposed intake was 5000, which is a tad precise for a food intake, so that is taken with a grain of salt.
His intake before hand, maintaining weight was supposedly 2500kcals. So he had approximately doubled his intake, and decreased his activity somewhat, so the amount he used to require to maintain weight would have decreased from this.

So, the difference between an estimated expenditure, 2500 and his intake was 2500kcals. a difference of 350kcals from what would be required gain 25lbs of 100% adipose. Plus he decreased his activity over the period. So that difference is smaller, never mind that he would not have gained only adipose.

Chaz doesnt provide prior intake figures.

But the amount of calories he would have had to burn to drop 8lbs of adipose, compard to his intake, would be ~5300. Estimating his RMR with the cunningham equation would put him around 25-2700kcals per day, plus general activity (being a personal trainer generally sets up a reasonably high activity level) plus some rather large training sessions, sometimes twice per day, potentially racking up 1000-1200kcals. It would require a activity multiplier of 1.5-1.6, which is entirely within reason.

I have no idea where you are getting 2800kcals from, but I guess you are trying to compare the differences between individuals without any control for their differences in rmr, activity, muscle mass or anything.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 28 2008,7:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(lcars @ Apr. 27 2008,1:31)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">dont get me wrong i understand that carbohydrates cause insulin spikes.and this leads to uptake in adipose tissue . but thats not the sole reason for obesity.</div>
Actually, it is. Once we cut out carbohydrate entirely from our diet, insulin levels drop and nutrients including fat stored in adipose tissue are released in the bloodstream.</div>
Except its not, which we have already gone over. Taubes is relying on nearly 40year old research.

it would be fantastic if dropping carbohydrates magically cured everything, but it hasnt, it didnt cure obesity the first few rounds, it didnt cure obesity the last atkins round, it wont cure obesity this time around either (taubes is a few years too late to hit the low carb wave).

Jeff Volek is one of the leading researchers in the area now. This is a presentation from one of his phd students. The interesting thing is that it mirrors some of the work on low carb in the 1970s

volekrq5.jpg


Low carb is magic. its a magic way to remove a food group that has been massively overconsumed for 30years, resulting in reduced caloric intake. Plus it tends to increase protein, which is one nutrient where the Atwater factors do not adequately represent what is happening.
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Apr. 27 2008,7:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 28 2008,6:44)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Let's use your figures.

Spurlock gained 25lbs. Chaz lost 8lbs. That's a total difference of 33lbs. Translated, this comes up to 132,000 calories of fat or 4400 calories per day on average. There's a difference of 600 calories of food intake. That leaves us with 3800 calories. Let's say Chaz spent 1000 calories per day with his 64 minutes of exercise in the gym. That leaves us with 2800 calories not accounted for every single day.

If you have better math, please be my guest.</div>
33lbs of adipose is approximate 15500kcals of total energy, you seem to assume fat is pure lipid... which it is not, to achieve the 132000kcals would require another few pounds of weight loss/gain.

Thats without looking at the differences in body compostiion changes between the two (gaining fat also increases lean tissue) that requires a different caloric measure.

Spurlock gained 24.5lbs of weight, which will include some muscle, fat and water. if we take it at pure adipode tissue - approximately 85700kcals.

On average he would require 2856 kcals extra per day to achieve this.


The supposed intake was 5000, which is a tad precise for a food intake, so that is taken with a grain of salt.
His intake before hand, maintaining weight was supposedly 2500kcals. So he had approximately doubled his intake, and decreased his activity somewhat, so the amount he used to require to maintain weight would have decreased from this.

So, the difference between an estimated expenditure, 2500 and his intake was 2500kcals. a difference of 350kcals from what would be required gain 25lbs of 100% adipose. Plus he decreased his activity over the period. So that difference is smaller, never mind that he would not have gained only adipose.

Chaz doesnt provide prior intake figures.

But the amount of calories he would have had to burn to drop 8lbs of adipose, compard to his intake, would be ~5300. Estimating his RMR with the cunningham equation would put him around 25-2700kcals per day, plus general activity (being a personal trainer generally sets up a reasonably high activity level) plus some rather large training sessions, sometimes twice per day, potentially racking up 1000-1200kcals. It would require a activity multiplier of 1.5-1.6, which is entirely within reason.

I have no idea where you are getting 2800kcals from, but I guess you are trying to compare the differences between individuals without any control for their differences in rmr, activity, muscle mass or anything.</div>
I can barely understand what you wrote. For instance, you wrote that &quot;...33lbs of adipose is approximate 15500kcals of total energy...&quot;

Is this a mistake?


You wrote: &quot;...to achieve the 132000kcals would require another few pounds of weight loss/gain.?

How many more pounds does it take for 33lbs of fat to make up 132,000 calories?


You wrote: &quot;(gaining fat also increases lean tissue)&quot;

How much fat results in how much concomitant lean tissue increase?


You wrote: &quot;24.5lbs...approximately 85700kcals.&quot;

This means you assign a value of ~3500kcals per pound of fat. I assign 9 kcals per gram of fat. This comes up to 4096kcals per pound. Our math is different. Would you explain how you use the value of 3500kcals per pound of fat while the rest of the world assigns a value of 9kcals/g of fat?


The &quot;supposed intake&quot; is Dan Moore's figures. I said I was using his figures. I too take it with a grain of salt. Not because it's Dan's figures but because it makes no sense when I put the math to it.


You wrote: &quot;...8lbs of adipose, compard to his intake, would be ~5300.&quot;

What do you mean by ~5300? Is it per day or over the whole month or is it a mistake? ((8x3,500=28,000 28,000/30=933...or using my math of 9kcals per gram 8x4000=32,000 32,000/30=1066)) Nowhere does the figure of 5300 even appear to be possible. It must be a mistake.


You wrote: &quot;I have no idea where you are getting 2800kcals from...&quot;

Well, I have no idea what you tried to do with your post. That makes us even I guess.
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Apr. 27 2008,8:01)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 28 2008,7:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(lcars @ Apr. 27 2008,1:31)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">dont get me wrong i understand that carbohydrates cause insulin spikes.and this leads to uptake in adipose tissue . but thats not the sole reason for obesity.</div>
Actually, it is. Once we cut out carbohydrate entirely from our diet, insulin levels drop and nutrients including fat stored in adipose tissue are released in the bloodstream.</div>
Except its not, which we have already gone over. Taubes is relying on nearly 40year old research.

it would be fantastic if dropping carbohydrates magically cured everything, but it hasnt, it didnt cure obesity the first few rounds, it didnt cure obesity the last atkins round, it wont cure obesity this time around either (taubes is a few years too late to hit the low carb wave).

Jeff Volek is one of the leading researchers in the area now. This is a presentation from one of his phd students. The interesting thing is that it mirrors some of the work on low carb in the 1970s

volekrq5.jpg


Low carb is magic. its a magic way to remove a food group that has been massively overconsumed for 30years, resulting in reduced caloric intake. Plus it tends to increase protein, which is one nutrient where the Atwater factors do not adequately represent what is happening.</div>
That's ironic. You just explained how adding carbs causes us to overeat. And you thought that it was the overeating that was the cause all along.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 28 2008,3:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">That's ironic. You just explained how adding carbs causes us to overeat. And you thought that it was the overeating that was the cause all along.</div>
Show me exactly where I said that carbs cause us to overeat.

and how did I think overeating was the cause of overeating&gt;?
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 28 2008,3:07)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I can barely understand what you wrote. For instance, you wrote that &quot;...33lbs of adipose is approximate 15500kcals of total energy...&quot;

Is this a mistake?</div>
it should be 115500


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You wrote: &quot;...to achieve the 132000kcals would require another few pounds of weight loss/gain.?

How many more pounds does it take for 33lbs of fat to make up 132,000 calories?</div>
I never said that.  

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You wrote: &quot;(gaining fat also increases lean tissue)&quot;

How much fat results in how much concomitant lean tissue increase?</div>
Genetically based, but around 50:50 - 25:75 lean body: fat mass has been shown.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You wrote: &quot;24.5lbs...approximately 85700kcals.&quot;

This means you assign a value of ~3500kcals per pound of fat. I assign 9 kcals per gram of fat. This comes up to 4096kcals per pound. Our math is different. Would you explain how you use the value of 3500kcals per pound of fat while the rest of the world assigns a value of 9kcals/g of fat?</div>

Adipose is not 100% fat.


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The &quot;supposed intake&quot; is Dan Moore's figures. I said I was using his figures. I too take it with a grain of salt. Not because it's Dan's figures but because it makes no sense when I put the math to it.</div>
The supposed intake is what Morgan himself put out.


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You wrote: &quot;...8lbs of adipose, compard to his intake, would be ~5300.&quot;

What do you mean by ~5300? Is it per day or over the whole month or is it a mistake? ((8x3,500=28,000  28,000/30=933...or using my math of 9kcals per gram 8x4000=32,000  32,000/30=1066))  Nowhere does the figure of 5300 even appear to be possible. It must be a mistake.</div>

he ate ~4400 kcals per day, he lost approximately 900kcals per day of weight.  Leaves us 5300kcals per day caloric balance.
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Apr. 27 2008,10:44)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 28 2008,3:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">That's ironic. You just explained how adding carbs causes us to overeat. And you thought that it was the overeating that was the cause all along.</div>
Show me exactly where I said that carbs cause us to overeat.

and how did I think overeating was the cause of overeating&gt;?</div>
You stated that carbs make us overeat by posting a graphic that says, and I quote:

=====
&quot;What happens when you restrict CHO?&quot;

Caption says:

&quot;- Under ad libitum conditions, energy intake is spontaneously reduced, in this case ~700 kcal/d&quot;
=====

Translation: Cutting out carbohydrate causes us to eat less by ~700 kcal/d.

De facto, this makes the opposite statement equally true: Adding carbohydrate to the diet under ad libitum conditions, energy intake is spontaneously increased, in this case ~700kcal/d.



Previously, you stated that overeating was the cause of obesity by arguing in favor of the Positive Caloric Balance hypothesis. The PCB hypothesis says that the cause of obesity is our behavior: Either we eat too much or we exercise too little. The graph you posted says that the cause of overeating is eating carbohydrate.

The two propositions are in direct contradiction to each other. You can't simultaneously state that our behavior causes us to overeat and that carbohydrate causes us to overeat. It's either or. Not both. If eating carbohydrate causes us to overeat, then something contained in carbs or something that carbs do when we eat it triggers some mechanism that causes us to eat more. This eliminates outright the possibility that our behavior is the cause of overeating.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 28 2008,5:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You stated that carbs make us overeat by posting a graphic that says, and I quote:</div>
I didnt state that.  

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">De facto, this makes the opposite statement equally true: Adding carbohydrate to the diet under ad libitum conditions, energy intake is spontaneously increased, in this case ~700kcal/d.</div>

If I go back to some of the work on low fat diets, removing fat from the diets lowers energy intake in a similar amount.

Therefore the opposite is true, adding fat to the diet under ad libitum conditions causes spontaenously increased energy intake.

but wait...

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Previously, you stated that overeating was the cause of obesity by arguing in favor of the Positive Caloric Balance hypothesis. The PCB hypothesis says that the cause of obesity is our behavior: Either we eat too much or we exercise too little. The graph you posted says that the cause of overeating is eating carbohydrate.</div>

Except that one can eat carbohydrates and not overeat.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The two propositions are in direct contradiction to each other. You can't simultaneously state that our behavior causes us to overeat and that carbohydrate causes us to overeat. </div>

Except they are not in contradiction.

Our behaviour drives us to consume foods.  Palatable foods can drive food intake (sensory specific satiety or hedonistic aspects of hunger)

The majority of highly palatable foods currently available are carbohydrate dense food sources (and also typically fat dense).  When creating low fat foods, the desire is to keep the flavour, texture etc pretty similar.  Even the idea that a food is low fat can icnrease food intake over what would be eaten of the normal fat product.  
The ready source of palatable, energy dense foods creates increased food intakes.

Unfortunately, within the world of low carbohydrate diets, it is entirely possible to consume highly palatable, highly energy dense foods as well.  There are whole product ranges of low carbohydrate products that are hugely fat dense, allowing massive energy intakes with little effort.  Just like the carbohydrate sourced foods.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It's either or. Not both. </div> you mean like denying any caloric balance importance, and all the time using it to try and support your hypothesis?

Its not either or.  its energy.  Either source can supply it, and ultimately can lead to excess fat when overconsumed. if it tastes good, people will eat it to excess.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If eating carbohydrate causes us to overeat, then something contained in carbs or something that carbs do when we eat it triggers some mechanism that causes us to eat more.</div>

Ya, highly palatable, energy dense foods are great like that.  Hedonism, its not just for the greeks.

See what happens when people who are successful losing weight on low carb start to add in some of the low carb 'desserts', even home made.  High fat, low sugar, highyl energy dense.  Weight loss stalls, calories count.  

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> This eliminates outright the possibility that our behavior is the cause of overeating.</div>

Except it doesn't.
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Apr. 27 2008,11:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 28 2008,5:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You stated that carbs make us overeat by posting a graphic that says, and I quote:</div>
I didnt state that.
...</div>
You said what you said and no amount of posturing will change that.
 
The point is that a calorie is a measurement of energy, and no amount of carbohydrate/insulin voodoo can change the laws of physics. Why do you persist arguing about beliefs that sound irrational and even 'religious' at times?
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 28 2008,5:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Aaron_F @ Apr. 27 2008,11:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 28 2008,5:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You stated that carbs make us overeat by posting a graphic that says, and I quote:</div>
I didnt state that.
...</div>
You said what you said and no amount of posturing will change that.</div>
Once again, you show your complete inability to read, or critically process any information.


Place the exact quote where I said that.

Not the slide that I didnt write and that I said I didnt write.
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Apr. 28 2008,12:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 28 2008,5:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Aaron_F @ Apr. 27 2008,11:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 28 2008,5:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You stated that carbs make us overeat by posting a graphic that says, and I quote:</div>
I didnt state that.
...</div>
You said what you said and no amount of posturing will change that.</div>
Once again, you show your complete inability to read, or critically process any information.


Place the exact quote where I said that.

Not the slide that I didnt write and that I said I didnt write.</div>
Right. Read the graph. It shows causality. As with any causality arrows, it can be reversed.

This is what the graph says in its totality:

As carbs go down, protein and fat go up.
As protein goes up, fat goes up and carbs go down.
As fat goes up, protein goes up and carbs go down.

The reverse.

As carbs go up, protein and fat go down.
As protein goes down, fat goes down and carbs go up.
As fat goes down, protein goes down and carbs go up.


You posted the graph with clear intent to borrow its meaning for your own use. You also paraphrased it with this statement:

&quot;Low carb is magic. its a magic way to remove a food group that has been massively overconsumed for 30years, resulting in reduced caloric intake. Plus it tends to increase protein, which is one nutrient where the Atwater factors do not adequately represent what is happening.&quot;

Own your words or don't write them. If you can't read a graph properly, don't use it. If there's anybody showing any failure to process information, it's certainly not me.


What was your point anyway?
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Apr. 27 2008,11:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
Therefore the opposite is true, adding fat to the diet under ad libitum conditions causes spontaenously increased energy intake.
...</div>
You made that up. The graph does not say that. It says the opposite.
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Apr. 28 2008,12:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The point is that a calorie is a measurement of energy, and no amount of carbohydrate/insulin voodoo can change the laws of physics. Why do you persist arguing about beliefs that sound irrational and even 'religious' at times?</div>
In this thread:

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.info/cgi-bin....t=14909

You wrote, and I quote:

Post #2
&quot;Low carb diets work excellently at fat loss. I don't think anyone here has argued against that. But calories count too.
What I find great about low-carb diets is that what you can eat is fairly limited (almost everything has carbs) so calorie restriction while maintaining high protein intake is pretty easy.
...&quot;


You wrote, and I quote:

Post #8
&quot;...low-carbs generally work well because its hard to eat an excess of calories that way,...&quot;



I can only conclude that you are making progress in your understanding of how it all works.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">&quot;...low-carbs generally work well [for losing bodyfat] because its hard to eat an excess of calories that way,...&quot;</div>

Yes, that is my quote and I stand behind that EXACTLY.
cool.gif
 
Also...
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">&quot;...low-fat can work well [for losing bodyfat] if an excess of calories isn't eaten!&quot;</div> Imagine that!
wow.gif
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 28 2008,6:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Right.</div>
So, you dont have hte quote where I stated that...
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Read the graph. It shows causality. As with any causality arrows, it can be reversed.</div>
Causality does not have to be unidirectional. Adding calories back in from anything will increase calories.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You posted the graph with clear intent to borrow its meaning for your own use.</div>

No, I posted it with the intent to show that removal of a food group REDUCES CALORIES. This is the reason low carb diets result in weight loss. Caloric Restriction

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">&quot;Low carb is magic. its a magic way to remove a food group that has been massively overconsumed for 30years, resulting in reduced caloric intake. Plus it tends to increase protein, which is one nutrient where the Atwater factors do not adequately represent what is happening.&quot;</div>

Nowhere in there do I state that &quot;carbs make us over eat&quot; I do say that carbs have been massively overconsumed, which is not the same thing, but you have already shown that reading comprehension is not your best skill.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Own your words or don't write them. If you can't read a graph properly, don't use it. If there's anybody showing any failure to process information, it's certainly not me.
</div>

Except you were claiming that I said &quot;You stated that carbs make us overeat by posting a graphic that &quot;

which I did not. Own your words, or dont write them.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What was your point anyway?</div>that, like normal, you are creating strawmen to suit your arguement.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You made that up. The graph does not say that. It says the opposite.</div>

Have you ever read anything posted, or do you just ramble on? I never claimed that graph said that.

I said

&quot;If I go back to some of the work on low fat diets, removing fat from the diets lowers energy intake in a similar amount.

Therefore the opposite is true, adding fat to the diet under ad libitum conditions causes spontaenously increased energy intake.

but wait.. &quot;

As shown, I said from the low fat research that removing fat from the diet is assocatied with DECREASED energy intake.

and by your own concept above, the reversal must also true, adding fat increases calories.
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Apr. 28 2008,2:00)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
No, I posted it with the intent to show that removal of a food group REDUCES CALORIES. This is the reason low carb diets result in weight loss. Caloric Restriction
...</div>
Do you know what ad libitum means? Do you understand what restriction means? The graph specifically asks and then concludes with:

&quot;What happens when you restrict CHO?&quot;

Caption says:

&quot;- Under ad libitum conditions, energy intake is spontaneously reduced, in this case ~700 kcal/d&quot;


It is clear that the graph says that as we restrict carb intake, energy intake is spontaneously reduced [independently from the carb restriction]. That's the meaning of the graph because ad libitum means &quot;at your own discretion&quot;. In other words, aside from the imposed carb restriction of the test, there was no other restriction and each could eat as much as they desired. This particular set of conditions is intended to test the theory that overeating is caused by behavior or a psychological problem. If the theory is true, then they'd have eaten just as many calories despite the carb restriction. That's not what happened. Instead, they ate less calories. The theory is refuted.

The graph shows that something contained in carbs or something that carbs do when eaten affects energy intake independently of carbs' inherent caloric content.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top