I agree 100% -- science bears out the benefits of low-carb/high-fat diets, but I have not seen the laws of thermodynamics negated yet. I'm open-minded but skepticle, which I think makes for a good analytical mind

(Laws of Thermodynamics) - (Cell Biology) = Calories In, Calories Out Theory

I have not seen anybody claim that they do this: "...they can eat consistently excessive calories over a period of time (excess of what they burn off over that same period of time) and LOSE weight." I have only seen people claim that when you are low-carbing, you can eat 'consistently excessive calories over a period of time' and NOT gain. Which is not the same thing.

So... are you you referring to a few people on internet forums? Or is this some official claim you're referring to? Just curious, thinking I must have missed that somewhere.



Historically and with careful tracking, I can not-lose on 1000 calories a day, not-lose on 3000 calories a day (on the VERY rare times I've been able to eat that, thanks to bacon mayo cheese avocado mostly!), but lose on 2300 calories a day, *assuming carbs are low*, WHEN I can actually get carbs-protein-calories at the right place on the same day (which is just surreally uncommon for some stupid reason). If carbs are up, I gain weight even when barely eating (and then when calories go high even briefly, gain a whole lot).

It seems clear in my own body that lowcarb vs. highcarb makes all the metabolic difference to begin with; calories do apparently matter to weight LOSS (too low being just as bad as too high for me) but carbs come first in priority, and calories do not seem to bring about weight GAIN as long as I'm on lowcarb (but even low calories can when I'm not LC).

Of course the problem with low calories and highcarb is that I can only eat that way for awhile (even by accident/convenience/laziness) before I eventually just freak out and eat every carb in sight for a day. Or ten. So any evaluation of the highcarb lowcal effect on me would have to be done quickly before my predictable freakout result. Which I tend to figure is because my body's driving much internal hunger and it's hardwired to aim for maximum 'energy food' at that point. Thank God I never actually 'dieted' besides one just after I gained weight in my early 20s, or I probably would have weighed 1000# instead of just over 500.

I have yet to totally get 100% rid of foods I know have a degree of intolerant/allergenic/inflammatory effect in me though (grains, which I eat little of but some gluten, and dairy, which I eat a decent amount of). I'm starting to think that maybe until that variable is controlled for, all our studies on calories and carbs have an intrusive variable we're not accounting for. If you figure it's possible that a very big chunk of the population has some similar intolerances that could explain a confounding effect in other studies.

A few pages back it was discussed (and I asked if it was ever officially put forth by anyone like Atkins, Eades, Taubes, whomever).....so these are anecdotal accounts.

We can all make claims about what works for us, what we observe in our experiences, but this is anecdotal and not scientific, which is my only point. I'm certainly not debating anyone's experiences or beliefs, just making sure we hold those ideas to the same standards we demand from our detractors.

Yes, I see your point, which is valid. :-)

People, it's not a question of whether thermodynamics applies or not to the human body! Of course it does!

It's a question of arrow of causality. The laws of thermodynamics does not give information about how "Etotal = Ein - Eout" applies to a system like the human body.

The fact is that we cannot consciously control the Eout part over a long period. Our bodies tries to maintain a state of homeostasis. Our bodies uses hormones, which all interacts, to maintain this homeostasis. We do not consciously decide where the energy is going to go. The body manages this by itself. Whether our body decide to store the energy or make it available to our muscles is not a conscious decision. When it robs you of your energy by storing it, thus making you lethargic, your homeostasis is deregulated and you must act to correct it. All long term obesity is caused in this manner and will not respond (in the long term) to simple calorie restriction and/or expenditure via exercise.

That is why true lasting weight loss has to be achieved by adjusting how your body manages it's energy output. Low-carbing is one way of doing this. There are others too. We must find the one that fits us.

Patrick

Everybody's accusing everybody else of ignoring the facts. As far as I know, that's just your opinion. You know what they say.

Ah, but faith is the foundation of science. Faith in one's own observation, that is. You understand how we test ideas by trying them several times? Well, we would have to test them forever if we didn't stop at some point to decide that what we saw was true. Without this belief in our own two eyes, there is no science.

Earlier in this thread, I provided three examples of people who either overate a boatload of fat yet lost weight or maintained it, or ate at maintenance level yet lost weight.

Well, all I've ever heard about attempts at refuting those papers was "it's bogus" or "it goes against the Laws..." or "they must be lying". Look, either the attempt to refute is genuine and not merely some mindless bashing, or I'll just have to accept the results of the papers in question as is.

Remember George Bray? He tried to refute Taubes with ad hominems. Everybody I know who disagree with Taubes will invariably say "Taubes is an idiot" or some such. There's nothing else on the other side.

Science is not complicated. We start with an idea, then devise a method to test it and go ahead and test it all the while recording our observation. The people I linked to started with an idea, devised a method to test it and went ahead and tested it all the while recording their observation. Are you saying it's invalid because the tests only included a single subject? But look, they are all saying the same thing: We overate but either maintained weight or lost weight. Repeating results is one step in the scientific method. If one of results disagreed with the others, then I'd look for a flaw.

There is nothing on the other side because Taubes uses the 'bad science' that contributed to the high-carb/low-fat dogma as proof that it is, indeed, bad science. In those cases, Taubes shows how they have not applied the scientific method correctly to their studies, so he blows them full of holes. This is why I 'believe' Taubes -- I can see the bad science.

You just made all of science a farce by that statement...

You actually just said that whatever a person believes, becomes science...

I think you're lost in your own thoughts on that one...

That is what I believe, so that makes it a scientific fact....

No it isn't invalid but I am saying it does not meet my standards for burden of proof

I will quote Taubes again here because he succinctly states what I am trying to say as well:

Anecdotally, I personally know 6 runners who were once overweight or obese who are now very lean with good lean muscle mass and very clinically healthy (if we want to go just off of lipid profile/blood pressure/resting heart rate)...and guess what they all eat? Low-fat/high-carb. They are also maintaining their weight losses long term (some 5+ years) through eating low-fat/high-carb. So I could point to them and say that their WOE is optimal for health and weight loss based on those observations, and it would not be invalid, but not scientific either.

I'm sorry you don't see what I see. Should I explain further or you'll just laugh it off?