We have not yet established which set of "empirical evidence" we should use in this instance. I could very well choose one set which their reports completely agree with. Maybe they are extraordinary claims to you. But to me, they're normally feasible (I eat a boatload, maybe one kilo, of fat meat every single day) therefore plausible.

so many words, so little meaning... (throws bag of popcorn in the trashcan and heads for the bed).... movie wasn't as good as I thought it would be, maybe the ending might be good, I'll tune in later...

I think this guy knows a little about the subject of weightloss and the laws of thermodynamics . . . http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/...nd-weight-loss/

/shrug. There haven't been years of empirical evidence showing that calories in = calories out. If it turns out not to be true, that doesn't invalidate the laws of thermodynamics -- it just shows a poor understanding of how our bodies use the fuel that we take in.

Edit to add: It is pretty obvious that our bodies process different calories in different ways. And it also is pretty obvious that different people process those same calories in different ways. So there is a lot more to the story than "calories in = calories out" but either no one wants to admit their ignorance on this or most are afraid to step away from the party line (sorry about mixing my metaphors but it's late).

I have a feeling I'm going to regret stepping into this one

Entropy.

So for us scientific philistines unworthy of taking up this discussion, we can just look at it as using sugar for fuel wastes less through entropy. Using ketone bodies wastes a lot.

For me the metabolic advantage is much less important to me than the effect of certain foods on our calorie regulation systems. in people who don't gain weight, this regulation would require a margin of error that would be impossible to calculate consciously (a margin of error of less than 100 calories a day to not gain or lose 10 pounds over the course of a year). But this bit about entropy makes sense when you think about the seasonal nature (even in the equatorial regions to some extent) of sugary foods and what putting on a layer of fat during the seasons it was available would mean to survival.

Gotta agree with flex. Every single study i've ever seen just supports the calories in calories out notion. It really just comes down to preference if you want to low carb or high carb.

I sure as hell didn't get fat back in my teenage years eating oatmeal, fruits, vegs and wholegrains. And neither did you.

a whole bunch of low carbers are all focused on insulin, insulin, insulin and insulin totally ignoring the fact leptin, ghrelin, and peptide YY plays just as important roles in fat storage. Leptin drops dramatically if you go below 100g of carbs daily, and plays a huge role in fat loss. argueably even more so than insulin.

Do i gain weight if i eat carbohydrates if i stay within my caloric maintenance limit? Yes, I do. Water Weight. The key word being Water Weight. It's really one of the huge reasons why alot of people enjoy low carb. Can't argue with a 5-10lb "weight loss" while starting out, it's motivational and makes people having issues with carb rich diets stick to it.

I did however, manage to find STRONG scientific evidence carbs makes you fat: http://www.xxlimg.com/images/23303947463058094114.jpg

Anyone have links to these studies? I found an interesting article on some of the comparative studies. I am not saying it proves anything, but it's interesting:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...i?artid=2129158

I am sure my Google-fu is not as strong as some in this argument.

I did. Well, we didn't eat wholemeal bread (but I gravitated towards rye). We had oatmeal and ate cereal like Raisin Bran and Cheerios. We never ate butter. We lived 35 miles from the nearest fast food place. Yohgurt was a treat to us. We were shocked and stunned when my mother bought Cinnamon Toast Crunch for breakfast and she only bought it a few times. We drank semi-skimmed milk at home, and I switched to skimmed milk at school (because that is what the girls drank). We had desert once a week. Our dinners were meat, veg, potatoes with usually something like pasta or pizza once a week. My favourite "treat" meals were stuffed peppers and eggplant parmigiana. Maybe not exactly low calorie, but not the stereotypical fat person's favourite food. Oh, soda? A treat. So was juice for that matter.

I was more than 5-7 pounds overweight. For some of us, a calorie isn't a calorie because of what certain calories do to how much we decide to eat. If you haven't gotten fat on carbs (yet) great.

ETA: I am not just blaming carbs. My mother's portion sizes were way out of wack (and we had to eat what was put in front of us), but the fact I never felt satisfied (and still don't when eating too many carbs despite knowing more about portion sizes) had its role as well.

Study indicating a calorie is a calorie: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/83/5/1055

Study indicating low carb (among other things) gimps your leptin levels: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15531540 (yes, leptin plays a large role in so called starvation mode, even more so than calories)

Actually there's one thing we are totally ignoring in this discussion: Insulin resistance. If you're clinically insulin resistant a calorie from a carb certainly dosen't equal a calorie from fats.

also, as you said, if eating carbs makes you binge eat, then low carb is the better way of eating. I'm one of them. If i eat one cookie i eat the entire box, if i eat zero of them I can live without them forever. Could just aswell be additives to processed carbs though, I don't seem to have this issue with potatoes, oatmeal, fruits etc.

Carbs made me fat in my teens, or rather, excess calories did. i peaked at 308lbs, currently at about 165. Looking back a daily intake would probably be something like: 1½-3L of non-diet Coke, 4 pieces of white bread with butter and tuna morning, another 4 pieces for lunch and whatever my mum cooked for dinner. Usually high fat, high carb, low protein. I love low carb, Don't get me wrong. I lost the majority of my weight low carbing. Just saying now when i have my eating habbits under control and not eating 3000~ calories daily while sitting on my popo all day long I could just aswell lose weight on a high carb diet as a low carb diet, the end result would be the same as long as calories are in check.

another thing to consider is the amount of time this was going on, it was probably from age 12-13 to 19 - That's a whole lot of years to overeat by what? 500 calories daily.

Anyway, people are doing what's working for them, and that's what matters. to me anyway.

Oh, you can use any evidence you want. In case you are confused, I am not limiting it to food intake in human beings. Find any empirical evidence you like that shows energy being created or destroyed. That's the issue. I am not talking about macronutrients.

Even insulin does not have magical powers that allows the creation or destruction of energy.

No, it doesn't. Entropy does not mean that the calories fall into a black hole called "waste".

For those who might not be familiar with the term, could you please explain what entropy is?

So where in Dr. Eades blog did he say that it fell into a black hole called waste?

Are you saying you don't know what entropy is or are you making a funny?

Probably true, unless you're in a caloric surplus.

Anyway, High GI vs Low GI carbs study: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abs...pe2=tf_ipsecsha