Let me also give a comparative example. Since I am a layman who, being very fat, am widely assumed to be pathologically untruthful about my food intake, then I will provide a better argumentative source.

Lyle writes:


Here's a quote from Dr. Jeffrey Friedman, Head of his group at Rockefeller University, who does molecular genetics. He is talking about people who have had weight loss surgery and lost a lot of weight. And are still obese or worse. Then just stop losing weight. I'm quoting this from a former blog post of mine that had more of his comments, here:
http://thedivinelowcarb.blogspot.co...-being-fat.html


He is talking about people in a METABOLIC WARD in some cases. They can't lie. Or who are physically *incapable* of eating more than that. There is no argument here that this is really what they are eating. There is no argument that they are not losing weight. There is no argument that they are quite fat and, by the calories hypothesis, should.

There is no explanation. Even the best experts in the world don't have an explanation. But at least they are not being bozos and acting like it's a religious doctrine they have ALL the answers to, it's just that "everyone else in the world" is so crazy/slothful/gluttonous/stupid/lying/etc.

Most excellently stated! thank you.

Exactly.

Hmm...if you are right about that...I do not know much about type-1 diabetes...then you just might have OLE Lyle on that one. You might even cause me to have a paradigm shift.

Maybe.

But then why are so many keto-dieters still 30 lbs overweight...with their insulin levels so low and all?

Why did the very public debate between Anthony Colpo and Dr. Eades, regarding "metabolic advantage," end with most objective observers agreeing that Colpo won. And after that...all the sudden Eades starts talking about how calories really do count...as if he's been saying that all along.

And why do metabolic-ward studies show NO significant difference in weight loss between LC diets and high-carb diets, as long as calories are equal? Only a SMALL trend toward the weight-loss being from fat, rather than lean body mass?

Not talking about useless free-living studies that rely on self-reporting of food intake. I'm talking about studies were there is absolutely no doubt about who ate what, and what exactly they ate.

The case of diabetes type 1 is in the books. It doesn't serve to argue against it.

As for metabolic ward studies showing a small trend toward weight loss, I'll simply use it to counter the argument that obesity is merely a small trend toward weight gain.

Huh? I don't think anyone is saying low insulin fixes things all by itself.

Where do you get that? I heard the opposite.

Because calories are so few. Starvation level calories drives different partitioning than higher levels. Have you seen metabolic ward studies with higher calories? I haven't yet.

What do you make of PJ's reporting of post-bypass obese people? Because they are free living their data is useless?

In this thread , we argue the same subject from a different perspective. Here is one post I made outlining an idea I just had:

Let's poke holes in it, shall we?

Interesting thread. Thanks for posting.

Poking holes...

I asked, so what's the agent? I could just say it's the carbohydrate but that would only confuse us even more because of carbohydrate's caloric content (oh, but it's the calories, stupid!). No, let's use other substances that contain no calories so that the idea is unaffected by either hypotheses. Let's establish a neutral zone of sort.

How about caffeine or nicotine, would that fit the bill? What about drugs used to stimulate insulin or to increase insulin uptake by cells, or even insulin itself, those would fit the bill as well, wouldn't they? Or other drugs that affect not insulin but other hormones and have the secondary effect of causing weight gain, or weight loss as the case may be. They would cause the system to grow bigger, or smaller accordingly.

Wouldn't these agents, through their actions on system size, subsequently cause a change in Ein and Eout down the chain of events? And wouldn't we, in our ever wise wisdom, conclude that the association between system size and changes in Ein-Eout, is actually a causality, i.e. Ein increases, system size increases, therefore Ein causes system to increase?

Hey Jeff. You might find this post interesting (the last section): http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost...3&postcount=146

EDIT: Oh I'll just quote the part here.


Patrick

Trivia from an article I was just reading:

I must admit several of you have given me some thoughts to chew on. I did read RightNow's post....normally I would be very dismissive of anyone claiming to maintain obesity on 1200 calories per day. Because when they actually measure obese people's BMR it is HIGHER than skinny people's.

But I sensed nothing but sincerity in that post, and you do indeed appear to be smart enough to correctly weigh food, and have a pretty darn good idea of your calorie intake.

The stuff you wrote in that post about Dr. Feiniman (Spelling?)...saying that those who have had gastric bypass surgery are only able to eat about 700 calories per day, yet remain obese on that few calories (Though certainly less obese) is also compelling food for thought.

But I'm still a bit skpetical. How does he know they are only eating that much. I mean heck..there's 500 to 600 calories in a lot of those freaking Starbucks coffees.

He was also wrong when he said in the study on twins that some did not gain any weight, in spite of massive overfeeding. I read an interview with the guy that actually did that experiment, and he made it very clear that EVERYONE gained weight.

However, there was a threefold difference in weight gain. So yeah...some clearly were more predisposed to gain weight it would seem.

Then as happenstance would have it, I got a new email newsletter from Mike Stone at 180 degree health.

He did a book review of Gina Kolata's "Rethinking Thin." Apparently her research has led her to also believe that some folks simply do not seem to fit into the "calories in/calories out" equations.

This is all very, very intriguing to me. I still don't have the "big buy in" here...but will be digging deeper into this issue.

And yet... if Anthony Colpo and Dr. Gregory Ellis are wrong about calories being the ONLY thing that counts...then why has nobody been able to put them in thier place? Are they unaware of Twins studies, overfeeding prisoners study, etc.? I doubt they're unaware, and would be interested in how those guys would reply to some of this.

If the "calories in/calories out" equations cannot explain ALL observations, then it is automatically falsified. This is how science work. Other hypotheses most be proposed which explains ALL observations with the same rules every time.

Patrick

I think one possible explanation for the difference, in some cases, is food intolerance (See false fat diet). The culprit is likely milk and milk products, eggs or wheat, though it could be anything. The body often reacts to these foods, which are often eaten chronically, by trying to dilute them, and one way to do that is to get bigger. On an elimination diet, if there is a problem food, one common result is rapid and profound loss of weight.

Tomsey, your arguments are just putting more nails into the calorie balance hypothesis' coffin. Can't you see that? There are no exceptions in science. Your hypothesis must explain all observations or it is invalid.

If there is one thing we must take from the 7 years research Taubes has put into his book, it's that there are a lot of observations not explained by the calorie balance hypothesis. So it's not even wrong!

Patrick

Thanks, CoachJeff, for your consideration of these other experiences. Some of us have felt "victimized" by the calorie-abuse accusation, so we might be a little defensive.

As for this, I don't know about this particular case, but your statement reminds me of those who accuse Gary Taubes of ignoring studies that didn't suit his purpose--that is, debunking the "conventional wisdom" about obesity. At least Taubes didn't start out with a bias--just a curiosity. His intriguing review of scientific history, and 65 pages (in my edition) of Bibliography suggest a rather thorough pursuit of information.

It's a matter of asking the right questions, as well as compiling supportive data from well-designed trials. Not much of that has been done in the area of obesity research until recently.