Low Carb High Fat

[400bhp]

Theres bad carbs and good carbs. The less processed carp the better.

 

[srw]

Carp's no good unless it's processed - far too many bones.

 

[theclaud]

Carp's no good unless it's processed - far too many bones.

You can keep your quenelles de brochet as far as I am concerned.

 

[Fab Foodie]

You can keep your quenelles de brochet as far as I am concerned.

If he's giving some away, I'll try some ....

 

[yello]

But the point about physical laws is that they always apply.

This is exactly the point I'd question! I've often read it as an argument underpinning 'calories in, calories out'. I think it's applied too simplistically. Sure, at a high level, it holds true and is a useful rule of thumb - just as '5 a day' fruit and veg is. But I think the truth is more complex.

I have several questions on the subject (and I won't bore people here with them!) but I think a more complex model will be developed in the future; one that acknowledges biochemical feedbacks within our system and says that the notion of a calorie, as it is currently understood in physics, is not an overly useful one - without significant caveat - in describing the human digestive system.

In short, we'll be less dismissive over the causes of obesity.

 

[Dogtrousers]

You can keep your quenelles de brochet as far as I am concerned.

Four quenelles

 

[srw]

I have several questions on the subject (and I won't bore people here with them!) but I think a more complex model will be developed in the future; one that acknowledges biochemical feedbacks within our system and says that the notion of a calorie, as it is currently understood in physics, is not an overly useful one - without significant caveat - in describing the human digestive system..

I think I have already acknowledged the biochemical feedbacks - I've been very careful to talk about food digested rather than food eaten, and did also mention some of what the body can do to regulate itself. But in the absence of a calorimeter able to take readings from the gut and bowel, or the willingess to measure the calorific value of food excreted or egested, or indeed the ability to measure accurately energy converted from stored-in-food to kinetic or heat, the crude estimates of food eaten and exercise taken will have to do.

You simply can't ignore the laws of physics. You can acknowledge that psychology, biology and biochemistry are important (and I think I have) in determining weight gain and weight loss, but physics is always at the heart.

 

[yello]

the crude estimates of food eaten and exercise taken will have to do.

Indeed. This is my point. It is crude, albeit useful at a high level. You touch on some of the very issues I have questions about, and you clearly share similar questions. However, this level of awareness is not, ime, common and over simplification has given rise to the dismissiveness I referred to.

but physics is always at the heart.

Maybe so, though I personally have reservations. I feel the model it presents over simplifies the reality. I don't think it's helpful (in fact, I feel it's the cause of demoralisation for some) in it's popularly understood form.

 

[Rob3rt]

What I find most interesting about this thread is the propensity in which certain members of this forum are drawn in by "alternative" diets. It's always the same people, so may I ask, what is it that drives such people to seek out these diets?

 

[Fab Foodie]

What I find most interesting about this thread is the propensity in which certain members of this forum are drawn in by "alternative" diets. It's always the same people, so may I ask, what is it that drives such people to seek out these diets?

I think it's usually the promise of a 'quick fix' or a means of achieving ones aims in a more appealing manner.

 

[Fab Foodie]

I think I have already acknowledged the biochemical feedbacks - I've been very careful to talk about food digested rather than food eaten, and did also mention some of what the body can do to regulate itself. But in the absence of a calorimeter able to take readings from the gut and bowel, or the willingess to measure the calorific value of food excreted or egested, or indeed the ability to measure accurately energy converted from stored-in-food to kinetic or heat, the crude estimates of food eaten and exercise taken will have to do.

You simply can't ignore the laws of physics. You can acknowledge that psychology, biology and biochemistry are important (and I think I have) in determining weight gain and weight loss, but physics is always at the heart.

I think in the broad scheme of things you're correct. You certainly can't change the laws of physics, something IIRC Atkins tried to do. And it's important to talk about food that's digested rather than eaten as under different circumstances our digestion will absorb nutrients differently. However it's still a calories in/out at the end of the day, I can't see there is any other way around this.

I think it get's fuzzier when we take into account our bodies response to certain foods or eating patterns - the feeling of satiety for example can have a profound effect on our desire to eat - our food choices however can influence this and certain 'diets' possibly work in that way.
There is also the effect of constantly being surrounded by foods(one of my biggest issues!) or the smell of foods which trigger hunger cravings. Add-in the food choices we make, the increased role of eating in social situations and a bizziliion other lifestyle factors it's no surprise that intake control is difficult.

The key to losing weight unfortunately is more a mental challenge than simply a physical one. It's about adjusting lifestyles, eating habits, refusal,self control. Fad/Diets are simply a prop for exerting some kind of control in an acceptable way.

 

[yello]

To be clear, I'm neither a believer nor proponent for any particular diet. I eat moderately and across the range, avoiding processed foods and over indulgence in any one thing. I do love a pastry or two though!

I am however interested in the subject of nutrition and aware of differing opinions. I am also very interested in the projection of ideas (scientific or otherwise) to the general public. I understand the need to simplify at times, and I am also aware of agendas behind the promotion of any idea.

 

[yello]

And it's important to talk about food that's digested rather than eaten as under different circumstances our digestion will absorb nutrients differently.

Exactly my thinking. Further, I think a 'calorie' is variable. Our systems do not always use/store the full value; because of bio feedback, digestive process and excrement. Indeed, srw touched on this.

An issue for me is not with the science per se, but the simplification and presentation of it.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Exactly my thinking. Further, I think a 'calorie' is variable. Our systems do not always use/store the full value; because of bio feedback, digestive process and excrement. Indeed, srw touched on this.

An issue for me is not with the science per se, but the simplification and presentation of it.

As far as the body is concerned a calorie INGESTED is a calorie. However in terms of food this is not exactly the case. The calorific value of a food is a simple chemical measurement which does not mean that your body will extract that many when you eat the product ... however in most real-world cases it's a damn close approximation.

 

[yello]

As far as the body is concerned a calorie INGESTED is a calorie.

With the caveat mentioned upstream that the measurement of that calorie is not accurate.

I recall reading, maybe even on here, that the calorific content displayed on the packing of most foodstuffs is an estimate based on the previously measured values of the foodstuff's components.

Not that I'd expect otherwise in truth.