wuzzy

The following study found that vegans lost 2 times more weight than conventional low calorie diet and they offer reasons as to why calories could not explain the difference in their conclusion.++So this problem is not unusual in clinical trials..++It was VEGAN vs. LCEP low calorie diet. 2 * more weight loss in vegan.. Prev Med. 1999 Aug;29(2):87-91.


-------------- ÀÎÅÍ³Ý Ä«¸®½º¸¶ KORNET -------------

moosh!

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 07:40:26 +0900 (KST), wuzzy <mypcos@hotmail.com>
posted:


1999 Aug;29(2):87-91.

Calories MUST explain any energy balance phenomenon.
If they appear not to, then the observations are wrong, and should be
remeasured. Conservation of energy has NEVER been observed to be
breached. Start believing it does, now, and you go down the slippery
slope to another "Dark Ages" or, the Nobel Prize is for you, my Lad

larry hoover

There are blessed few Laws. I do agree that the Law of Conservation of
Energy deserves the distinction.

However, asserting that "Calories MUST explain any energy balance
phenomenon." is fallacious. There are a host of assumptions that go into the
entire premise that we know how much bioavailable energy is contained in
food. The problem isn't the Law. The problem is our faulty application of
it.

The very fact that you could believe "If they appear not to, then the
observations are wrong, and should be remeasured." demonstrates your bias.
Observations are the only facts there are now, and ever were. (I'm
excluding, of course, falsified "observations".) Some observations may be of
higher quality than others, based on refinements in our ability to make
observations at all, but all observations are factual. Statistical analysis
helps us to choose between observations, but we cannot know with certainty
what is valid and what is not.

You have substituted theory for fact, hypothesis for empiricism. You are
full of hot air, and totally unaware of it.

larry hoover

Mooshie, dear heart, can you not see that you have it quite backwards?

Observations are never wrong. Never. They are the only truth we have. What
you are proposing is to collect data until you find a set that confirms your
dogma, at which point you would (probably) stop looking. Unfortunately, you
would have stopped thinking before you collected any data at all.

If observations appear incorrect, there is something wrong with the
assumptions/hypothesis. Even methodology is an assumption.

Reality simply is. We think we see patterns in it. You have mistaken the
pattern for reality.You're not thinking. You're reciting.

tunderbar

Moosh is the queen of data mining. That is going thru studies and
picking out the ones that support her position while ignoring all
others.

TC

jay tanzman

On the contrary, observations are always wrong. More precisely, all
observations are made with error, both systematic and random. You can't
blindly accept data at face value. You must consider its quality. If a
dataset appears to violate the Law of Conservation of Energy, I'm going to
throw out the data a lot sooner than I'm going to say that it disproves the
Law. Similarly, I'm not going to accept cold fusion or homeopathy on the
basis of a single study supporting such implausible phenomena.

Some cases, though, are less clear. There is a large body of research showing
that saturated fat increases serum LDL-cholesterol, and a large body of
research showing that elevated serum LDL-cholesterol increases the risk of
CHD. Together, these two observations would seem to establish that high
intake of saturated fat leads to increased risk of CHD. Yet the majority of
studies have found no relationship between saturated fat intake and risk of
CHD. Blind belief in the infalability of data would lead to the conclusion
that there is no actual relationship between saturated fat intake and risk of
CHD. However, a more informed look at how saturated fat intake is measured
shows that it is measured with substantial error that would be expected to
bias the observed relationship between saturated fat and CHD toward the null.
Most nutritional epidemiologists blame error in the measurement of saturated
fat intake for the lack of observed relation with CHD risk, not the underlying
diet-heart hypothesis.

-Jay

larry hoover

Semantics. I do not hold imprecise as an equivalent statement to being wrong.


I don't.

As I said, "If observations appear incorrect, there is something wrong with
the
assumptions/hypothesis. Even methodology is an assumption." Incorrectness
is an assumption. Appearance is an assumption.

The data points, as measured, whether subject to systematic or random error,
are
the only evidence there is. If they're truthfully measured and recorded,
they can
not be wrong.

Notwithstanding the degree of confidence you or anyone else wishes to assign
to
observations, it is those observations, and those observations only, which
underly
all "knowledge". I use the term loosely, as it is my belief that a sign of
intelligence
is to recognize how little we know about anything.

Lar

jay tanzman

Yes, but they are never "truthfully" measureed. We can't measure truthfully,
and in some sciences, notably nutritional epidemiology, the difference between
observed values and their truthful conterparts can be substantial.

I agree, but scientific "facts" are based on a body of observations, so how
should one react to new observations that seem to contradict "fact"? If you
accept the new observations as "true," then you've rejected the entire old
body of data. My point is that you must weigh contradictory evidence and make
judgments about what is closer to the truth based on the relative weights of
the evidence. As an extreme example, no scientist would reject the First Law
of Thermodynamics based on an inability to account for all the calories in an
energy balance study. Instead, they would assume there were errors in the
measurement of the energy inputs or outputs, and they would almost certainly
be correct.

-Jay

larry hoover

Accidentally hit the wrong button, and sent this to Jay's email address........


With more questions.


Not in the least. It forces you to consider the conditions under which those
observations were recorded, for example. The questions go back to
the assumptions, not the data.


It's not about right or wrong, then is it? You're assessing probabilities,
and making judgments. In simple terms, making more assumptions.


I disagree. Rejecting the First Law would be an improbable explanation. And
rejecting the data as erroneous would itself be an error. The data
accurately
reflected *something*, but the error lies in our presumption of exactly what
that something is. To refer back to your example, the error would lie in the
presumption that you have "account(ed) for all the calories in an energy
balance study". The proper question might be "What did we miss?"

Lar

mike v

Well stated, Larry!

Let us presume (for the moment, anyway, sorry TC ) that the First Law
holds, and that most people are concerned about what happens between mouth
and love handles.

Presuming that calories and physical activity are carefully controlled, and
that minor wear and tear losses such as hair, finger nails, respiration are
trivial, the remaining possible variables are absorption, thermogenesis and
excretion energy losses.

While studies have shown a larger short term increase in body temperature
after meals for low carb, my reading of Mitchell Lewis's Intermed.
Metabolism lecture handouts suggests to me that if BG and BI are
sufficiently low (simulating starvation), the body switches rapidly from
'deposit' mode to 'withdrawal' mode to supply brain and tissue needs.
Ketones are made from fat (either ingested or adipose) and glucose is made
(gluconeogenesis) from fatty acids derived from protein. (ingested, or
muscular tissue). Both of these processes incur additional thermal losses.

Coarse regulation of blood ketone levels is provided by removal of excess
via the kidneys, but since this is 'a waste of good calories' other
regulatory processes probably (eventually) come into play; for example
adrenergic lowering of the entire metabolism via the thyroid gland.
In that case, it seems to me that only some kind of cycling or added
exercise process would permit the initial advantage to be maintained over
time.

Another factor which may be involved, is that lean muscle wastage on a VL
carb with adequate protein diet, is probably, over time less than that on a
low calorie normal carb diet, thus tending to maintain a higher basal
metabolic rate.

Obvious afterthought:
Use of a scale is too simplistic for this investigation, since we must
account for water loss, and lean muscle loss in order to arrive at
'love-handle' fat lost. maybe we should specify immersion weighing?

No dogma here folks. All wonderment and speculation.
If you care to try to get to the heart of the matter, I suggest you look at
the following Mitchell Lewis lecture handouts:
Note: They do not address diets directly, and are each about a book chapter
in length. A lot of good stuff here, but probably not for beginners :}

Glucose Homeostasis 1 & 11
Gluconeogenesis
Keto Acids
Amino Acids Turnover Metabolism


http://snowwhite.med.upenn.edu/lewis/metabolism.htm

Thoughtful responses welcomed.
Regards

Mike V