On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Namaste, Liz wrote:

> In a message dated 9/9/02 1:42:57 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > Some people do not lose
> >weight when they eat less, instead their metabolism compensates
> >in other ways, e.g., lowering of body temperature, etc.  This
> >doesn't show that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to
> >complex systems,
>
> It just makes the counting of calories relatively useless with regard to
> weight loss -- if the machine/body can constantly change/adapt/accomadate to
> differing caloric intake, the laws of thermodynamics don't apply in a
> practical way -- theoretically, if we understood all the permutations of the
> body's responses, then perhaps this bit from physics would actually be
> relevant.

I don't agree.  If one is trying to lose weight and not
succeeding, then one of the first questions to ask is still
whether one is eating too much -- and if so, why?  The
relationship between caloric intake and weight may not be linear,
but that doesn't mean that there is no practical or relevant
relationship at all.


> There are actually low carb studies that do seem to indicate that
> one can lose more weight on more high fat/protein calories that fewer low
> fat/high carb calories. Several studies presently in progress reporting those
> results.

Yes, but "more" in this context does not mean "more calories than
one burns."  Studies of this sort show that equivalent caloric
reduction produces different rates of weight loss (and especially
fat loss), depending on the macronutrient composition.  This is
important, I agree, but it doesn't show that caloric reduction is
unnecessary.  In particular, no study that I have ever heard
about has shown that if one eats the "right foods" one will lose
weight regardless of caloric intake.

Moreover, the supposition that body weight and caloric intake are
not related doesn't make physiological sense.  What is body fat
for?  It's a way of storing energy.  Why do our bodies store
energy?  So that we have it when we need it.  Why would we need
it?  We need it when we can't get enough food.  What is "not
enough food"?  It's when we get less energy in our food than we
are expending in a day (or week, etc.).  It's caloric deficit.
The physiological purpose of stored body fat is to be reduced in
times of caloric deficit.  If caloric deficit didn't do that,
this would make no sense.


> Also, Willett reported on epidemiological work (Europe) that found
> zero correlation between weight and fat intake for men and an inverse
> relationship between weight and fat intake for women. The interplay of
> metabolism and calories is right out of Alice and Wonderland. Catch-22
> anyone.

Well sure, but that's another matter entirely.  Fat intake is not
the same thing as caloric intake.  There are studies that show
that people on lowcarb diets consume fewer calories without even
realizing that they are doing so.  This is a good thing.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]