A Calorie Is Still A Calorie - Why Keto Does Not Work 😖

[PaulL]

Yes.

As Taubes mentions, he got into writing about nutrition science because several of his physicist friends told him that if he thought there was a lot of bad physics going on, he should see just how much worse nutrition science was in comparison.

Taubes does also point out, however, that nutrition science is extremely difficult to do rigorously and well. The experimental subjects (human beings) live too long and are hard to control, double-blind studies are almost impossible to conduct (in almost every case), and the costs involved are astronomical. (Not to mention that studying nutrition isn’t nearly as sexy as running a cyclotron.)

Also, it doesn’t help that the field of medicine, while scientific in many ways, is basically a hierarchically-run enterprise, in which acknowledged experts are held in reverence, whereas any snotty young physicist knows that a sure path to the Nobel Prize would be to do for Einstein as Einstein did for Newton.

[atomicspacebunny]

Is this just due to bias or cherry-picking data because ‘the sugar industry’ funds x and the ‘Metabolic Truth Foundation’ funds y?

We know there has been peer-censorship, threats against credentials, deception, corruption and hush money in the research about refined sugar but that does not mean sugar is entirely “bad?”

I wish my doctor would get up on the table throw a fit and scream at me as loud as he can “don’t eat so much of it?“ and slap me on back of the head…lol

[DodgeBoys]

I suspect the body tries to use everything it gets, waste nothing (I wonder what the body does with amino acids from digestion it can’t convert to new proteins or repairs).

The body doesn’t store much protein at all - a tiny bit in circulation? Excess can be used for energy, but most of the time doesn’t need to be. It can be made into fat or excreted; doesn’t high nitrogen in urine often indicate that excretion’s going on? I don’t know what else - good question.

Yeah, we are definitely usually efficient and try and use it all. I look at my stomach in the mirror and say, “Well aren’t you a bloody efficient little (big) bugger…”

[DodgeBoys]

The Harvard Department of Public Health was established with money from the sugar industry, for the purposes of training researchers to work for the sugar industry. Its ties to the nutritional establishment ( i.e., Ancel Keys and his friends) are legendary and numerous.

Gaah! Great answer but it’s kind of enraging, isn’t it? :: pounds head against wall ::

There are things like The Nurses’ Health Study, often mentioned as the “Harvard Nurses’ Study.” In the third iteration now and with almost 300,000 women involved, valuable stuff. Associated are ‘Harvard Medical School’ and ‘Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.’

So then we see “The Harvard Department of Public Health.” Most people are going to think it’s all the same. The SUGAR INDUSTRY!

[DodgeBoys]

We’re still missing something. We have the hormone hypothesis researchers finding significant ‘metabolic advantage’ from macronutrient sources of calories (fat vs carb) and the CICO/anti-hormone researchers finding insignificance for same. This is like Bizarro World.

It’s like in the other thread you began - you have to have the dietary/metabolic context and a complete picture.

The paper includes 36 references. Can you point out that all, many, some or even any of these have been cited incorrectly or irrelevantly? This paper has been cited 9 times by others. Do you have evidence that these citations are incorrect or misguided?

Well indeed. Yes, sometimes it does work like that. So, what’s the complete picture and the dietary/metabolic context there? Sometimes calories in and out is a determinant of weight. You don’t think all that’s referenced was outright faked, do you?

But it does not HAVE to be that way. Somebody from the ‘Tudor Bompa Institute’ writes something - that doesn’t mean it’s the final word, period. This is why I was talking about “pay-to-publish.” It’s not uncommon to see BS via that method.

The Tudor Bompa stuff is clearly biased and focused on cherry-picked information. They are trying to imply that it’s always that way.

We’re still missing something. We have the hormone hypothesis researchers finding significant ‘metabolic advantage’ from macronutrient sources of calories (fat vs carb)

Tudor Bompa is NOT saying that. If anything they are saying the exact opposite.

and the CICO/anti-hormone researchers finding insignificance for same. This is like Bizarro World.

That also is not true. CICO doesn’t rule out hormonal effects. By definition, “calories out” can change. Nobody’s position is that energy expenditure has to remain constant.

Again, let’s look at the dietary/metabolic context and the complete picture. Let’s see what is happening, let’s see what the situation really is, to begin with.

The truth about what Tudor Bompa says is that sometimes it’s valid. The obvious point is that it’s not always so.

[amwassil]

That also is not true. CICO doesn’t rule out hormonal effects.

Maybe not in your definition…

A Calorie is Not A Calorie - A Discussion of Thermodynamics

“Calories in, calories out,” sometimes also expressed as “a calorie is a calorie,” is shorthand for the notion that calories are fungible; i.e., that weight change is independent of macronutrient composition. Another shorthand phrase is “eat less, move more.” You are right that the notion is false, but to say that “that’s not what CICO means” is also wrong, because the passages you quote are the very definition of CICO. I suspect that you are confusing CICO, the ideology, with the notion of …

[PaulL]

The body doesn’t store much protein at all - a tiny bit in circulation? Excess can be used for energy, but most of the time doesn’t need to be. It can be made into fat or excreted; doesn’t high nitrogen in urine often indicate that excretion’s going on? I don’t know what else - good question.

There is a labile pool of amino acids, but you are right; it is not very large. The body has no way to store amino acids in bulk, as it has for fatty acids. I once read an article that claimed there was some simple reaction amino acids can undergo that allows the result to be stored, but again, the quantity that could be stored was small, if I read and remember the article correctly. Nor does the body seem to “store” amino acids by turning them into lean tissue (I suppose it could in theory, but it doesn’t seem to do so in practice).

Deaminated amino acids aren’t all automatically made into fat, I don’t believe. If I recall rightly, some amino acids lend themselves to be converted more readily into glucose, while others can more easily be converted to a fatty acid, and still others can easily be converted into either. The body can handle the ammonia resulting from deamination without too much trouble, unless the quantity of amino acids to be disposed of is too large for the uric acid pathway to be able to cope. That way lies ammonia toxicity, and I believe Richard once calculated that ammonia toxicity becomes a real risk when dietary protein reaches 3 g/kg LBM or so.

[LeroyJenkins]

@amwassil Mike, you and that Tudor Bompa Institute…

[amwassil]

@LeroyJenkins Leroy, I never heard about the Tudor Bompa Institute before and know absolutely nothing about it. But I’d like to see an argument contra the OP article based on something other than ad hominem fallacy. The article actually presents the common arguments contra the insulin/hormone hypothesis which is the basis of keto. It doesn’t matter if the article is research or an opinion piece on research cited, 36 citations. It doesn’t matter if the authors are experts or not or even shills for Tudor Bompa. If the article is hogwash then it sould not be difficult to demolish it on substance. I posted it in the hopes that someone could demolish it on substance.

[anon81060937]

Does the hormone hypothesis take into account that calories are recycled and that they’re more efficiently recycled during OMAD?

[amwassil]

Does the hormone hypothesis take into account that calories are recycled and that they’re more efficiently recycled during OMAD?

You may find this of interest:

[LeroyJenkins]

I posted it in the hopes that someone could demolish it on substance.

It’s cherry-picking, erroneously selective, pay to publish stuff. It’s deliberately slanted and nobody here is defending it. It doesn’t need demolition, it needs a comments section.

Leroy, I never heard about the Tudor Bompa Institute before and know absolutely nothing about it.

I meant no disrespect on this thing - it’s just funny to see that ‘Institute’ come up multiple times. “Tudor Bompa” sounds funny in English, to me anyway, and I have visions of a couple wild-looking blokes coming and knocking on my door.

“Hello, we’re collecting money for the Tudor Bompa Institute, to support opening a portal to another dimension…”

[amwassil]

@LeroyJenkins There’s a big difference between stating one’s opinions and citing relevant evidence in support of those opinions. As I stated previously, I’d like to see some contra evidence to discredit the OP article. I also mean no disrespect. You are entitled to your opinions, but your opinions mean nothing. Without supporting evidence/citations your opinion that the article expresses cherry picked and agenda slanted data does nothing to descredit the OP.

[LeroyJenkins]

There’s a big difference between stating one’s opinions and citing relevant evidence in support of those opinions.

Hey, it’s just funny, that’s all.

As I stated previously, I’d like to see some contra evidence to discredit the OP article.

You shouldn’t need it. It’s immediately evident what’s going on, i.e.

This is one of those pay-to-publish articles. It’s not a study, it’s an opinion piece (probably being kind, there) from two flunkies at the ‘Tudor Bompa Institute.’ Tudor Bompa - smart guy, great athletic coach, but he’s in his late 80s now and the "Institute’ is just trying to sell stuff.

And:

If you want to find “stupid stuff,” you will find it at such websites.

And:

Yes, sometimes it does work like that. So, what’s the complete picture and the dietary/metabolic context there? Sometimes calories in and out is a determinant of weight. You don’t think all that’s referenced was outright faked, do you?

The Tudor Bompa stuff is clearly biased and focused on cherry-picked information. They are trying to imply that it’s always that way.

I also mean no disrespect. You are entitled to your opinions, but your opinions mean nothing.

You should know better, that’s all. We mostly all do know better. That’s why you’re not getting the “response” here that you seem to want. Can you find something, somewhere, that’s deliberately slanted, uses cherry-picked information, is not peer-reviewed, is pretty much just ‘dumb’ and which misses the bigger, more complete picture, as on the other thread?

Well of course you can, but so what? If all the members of this forum did was post half-arsed stuff all the time, then not much at all would be achieved. We need to have better scientific understanding, to get that ‘bigger, more complete picture,’ and be able to quickly see BS for what it is. Paying attention to a smaller thing, versus the larger reality, isn’t really what we should do.

A Calorie is Not A Calorie - A Discussion of Thermodynamics

Are we able to think critically? Can we be independent and contemplative? Can we get the ‘bigger picture,’ rather than what somebody might want us to think?

Critical thinkers rigorously question ideas and assumptions rather than accepting them at face value. They will always seek to determine whether the ideas, arguments and findings represent the entire picture and are open to finding that they do not.

Critical thinking means being aware of what stuff like that Tudor Bompa article is. Might as well just have a laugh about it.

[amwassil]

Critical thinking means being aware of what stuff like that Tudor Bompa article is. Might as well just have a laugh about it.

No, critical thinking means doing your homework to cite evidence. DodgeBoys are not evidence of anything other than DodgeBoys’ opinions.

Your opinions, DodgeBoys’ opinions and my opinions count for naught. Here’s evidence:

The Biggest Loser FAIL and that ketogenic study success - Diet Doctor

The calorie theory of obesity falsified - Diet Doctor

[atomicspacebunny]

Your opinions, DodgeBoys’ opinions and my opinions count for naught. Here’s evidence:

This is a nice over-view:

Where it says “1. …cutting calories puts you into starvation mode…” is the key to the entire mystery?

So what do you do?

The top of the size of the thumb (or your personal thumb) is how much fat I eat that’s how I keep from going into starvation mode. If I eat more than that I’m over eating fat!

[LeroyJenkins]

No, critical thinking means doing your homework to cite evidence. DodgeBoys are not evidence of anything other than DodgeBoys’ opinions.

Nah, man, that ain’t it. Critical thinking means one should be able to see BS right away.

Your opinions, DodgeBoys’ opinions and my opinions count for naught. Here’s evidence:

You’ve already missed the boat, though. You’re assuming that everybody sees things as you do, and that’s wrong. There is a ‘larger picture’ and that you’re unaware of it doesn’t mean that everybody else is. The Tudor Bompa thing is BS, and DodgeBoys saw it right away. On this forum, most people probably would.

The larger picture is that it doesn’t matter. Whether it’s one report or 36 reports, it’s still BS if it’s deliberately slanted, uses cherry-picked information, is not peer-reviewed, is pretty much just ‘dumb,’ etc.

[PaulL]

I believe it was Peter Hyperlipid who made a comment once that he could predict, with a high degree of reliability, what a study’s conclusion would be, simply from the names of the authors. And that certain authors were known for reaching conclusions unrelated to their actual data. He had some snarky remark about how many studies he needed to chuck into the wastepaper bin each day.

[LeroyJenkins]

Amen!

I believe it was Peter Hyperlipid

I had to pause, there, and feel the universe wobbling. "Wait a minute - this dude’s name is actually ‘Hyperlipid’?" Okay, so Peter Dobromylskyj – Hyperlipid - this came up right away when I searched, and looks like a righteous bloke, but I did have to laugh.

[PaulL]

He is (or was) a veterinary anaesthetist by profession, but he’s one sharp cookie. He knows how to read a study and has an excellent grasp of statistics. I don’t always understand his posts, but I trust his objectivity and commitment to following the data wherever they lead.