More proof debunking the "calorie is a calorie" BS.

[mistertrickster]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Germs in the gut may help drive appetite, says new research into the link between obesity and bacteria.

. . . .

Emory University researchers noticed that mice with an altered immune system were fatter than regular mice, and had a collection of disorders — high blood pressure, and cholesterol and insulin problems — called metabolic syndrome, often a precursor of heart disease and diabetes.

Everyone is born with a sterile digestive tract that within days is flooded with bacteria from first foods and the environment. Altered immunity in these mice meant somewhat different bacteria grew in their intestines than in normal rodents — driving bigger appetites, metabolic syndrome and a low-grade inflammation believed key to obesity's illnesses, Emory associate pathology professor Andrew Gewirtz reported Thursday in the journal Science.

To prove it, Gewirtz transferred bacteria from the fat mice directly into the germ-free intestines of normal newborn mice — and those mice began eating more and developed inflammation and insulin problems.

"People are getting obese because they're eating more, but it suggests the reason they're eating more may not simply be that calories are cheap and available," Gewirtz said. "The reason they're eating more may be an increased appetite resulting from changes in intestinal bacteria."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/health/sns-ap-us-med-germs-appetite,0,1587045.story

******

I knew that "a calorie is a calorie" theory was BS. My very active jogging/bicycling Bro-in-law said he was eating nothing and gaining weight.

He finally went to the MD and it turned out he had a slow thyroid. He started taking the correct dosage of steroid and he dropped fifteen pounds in six weeks.

[FreeState]

1. A calorie is still a calorie, sorry

It a unit of energy - weather one burns it off slower or not does not change that. It doesn't change that you gain weight from excess callorIes.

[mistertrickster]

3. But "whether one burns it off slower or not" makes all the difference, does it not?

I read about a dude who ran across the United States, about 35 miles a day.

He dropped fifty pounds, from 210 to 160. Then guess what?

He stopped losing weight.

Was he eating more? Nope.

Was he exercising less? Nope.

Obviously, his body was adapting by using calories more efficiently.

[sense]

10. A unit of energy that you're

putting into an extremely complicated environment, not an empty box. It's been proved time and again that you're wrong. Read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. He's studied the research for the last couple hundred years and pulls it all together and shows you what science tells us, which is not the same as what we're being told by so many groups and organizations that are supposed to be providing us with the latest research on health.

[vadawg]

13. yup the math is still less calories in than are used equals weight loss

regardless of how fast you burn them...

[Go2Peace]

19. Not necessarily. If you eat too little you can gain weight too. Metabolism is more complex than that

What time you eat also has a large affect. How often you eat as well.

[vadawg]

37. still dosent change the basic math, that less calories than you use equals weight loss

dosent matter about other factors ie metabolism, its just the basic math..

[Scout]

103. no, you are wrong ... when you cut calories, your metabolism shifts

to protect your body, it burns less.

i was working out regularly and dieting ... i did NOT lose weight until i STOPPED dieting ... once i was consuming enough calories that my body knew it wasn't a famine, then i started to lose weight.

you can decrease calories a LOT and not lose weight ... sorry to burst your little bubble.

[caraher]

123. And what does it *mean* to have your metabolism shift?

You two are actually saying the same thing, but because you use different words you think you disagree.

[sense]

152. Saying it over and over

will not make it true! Just basic math.........ignore what everyone and all the research says... put your head in the sand....yep, yep, that's the ticket!

[treestar]

162. That is not true

The body adapts to the fewer calories, that is why in weight loss you reach a plateau.

[XemaSab]

14. Cows get protein from their stomach bacteria, in part

Why should human bacteria not also influence the nutrients that get into the blood stream?

[cliffordu]

2. Your last paragraph describes a slow metabolism, not

the defiance of physics.

A calorie is a calorie is a calorie.

If your body could manufacture bodyweight from nothing, you'd never need to eat, and never starve to death.

[mistertrickster]

4. It's like saying that "a dollar is just a dollar" whether it's spent in London or Bangledesh.

Yeah, it's still a dollar.

In London, it won't buy a stick of gum and in Bangledesh it'll buy lunch for four, but by damn, it's still just a dollar.

[cliffordu]

11. Sorry - your argument has absolutely no scientific merit.

You cannot make something from nothing, you cannot gain weight if you burn more calories than you take in.


PERIOD.

[REP]

21. Not exactly true; edema can cause massive weight gain in days even with reduced caloric intake

I know personal anecdotes are not hard data, even though it's well-documented on my medical records, but the edema associated with chronic kidney disease and other conditions can cause massive fluid weight gains in days and proper administration of diuretics can reverse it nearly as quickly, while caloric intake remains stable or even reduced. I say 'personal anecdotes' because I've experienced this first hand, most recently in reaction to a NSAID I was being tried on that turned out that I could no longer tolerate.

[cliffordu]

25. And edema is.......

WATER. Water retention.


Jesus.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[REP]

31. Edema is FLUID retention

Jesus wept.

Do you even know how it works? I can explain if you need me to. It's pretty complex, but I can break it down to your level.

[Betsy Ross]

7. Reality-based science, indeed! n/t

[Go2Peace]

24. How dare they! That is not what I learned! ;)

[wickerwoman]

12. A calorie is a calorie,

but not every human body responds to calories in exactly the same way.

Which is why comments like "just stop stuffing cheetohs in your mouth and get off your fat ass" are particularly offensive and clueless remarks to make to someone who is struggling with losing weight.

I know people who have spent *years* eating 1100 calories and spending an hour in the gym every day and who still can't budge that last fifteen or twenty extra pounds. The math says they should be grossly underweight but they aren't.

My dad has been eating well under 1500 calories a day for 10 years but because of the combination of his diabetes and blood pressure meds he's only lost a few pounds.

If a "calorie is a calorie" meant anything in the weight-loss context he would be a skeleton at this point.

A calorie is a calorie until it enters your mouth and then depending on your age, gender, activity level, general health, medications, metabolism, muscle mass, and now apparently gut flora, it may or may not end up keeping you out of your skinny jeans.

In any case, it's reductionist and insensitive to imply that if someone is overweight it must be because they are taking in too many calories. A minimum number of calories is necessary for basic nutrition. And it seems clear that that minimum is above the threshold that allows some people to lose weight. And since malnutrition and starvation are not acceptable alternatives to being obese, it seems that we must look at alternatives to "reduce calories" in order to help some obese people have positive weight-loss outcomes.

[cliffordu]

15. ......So what you are saying is that

once a calorie enters your system it can become three or five or nine.

What you describe is physically impossible.

Let me say this again:

IF you burn more calories than you take in, you will lose weight. It is physics, not physiques.

The multi-billion dollar industry created and maintained to perpetuate the illusion of an easier softer way of maintaining or losing weight is the tragedy here - the arguments all sound exact and right and logical..... They are criminal in my opinion.

I'm not making any reductionist or insensitive argument about anything.


If you BURN more than you take in, you will not gain weight. It is impossible to create something from nothing.

[vadawg]

16. +1000 it stuns me that people will argue against the simple math you just stated

its simple really as you said.. burn more than you take in no matter how you do it and you will lose weight..

[cliffordu]

17. And folks immediately go to the

"Stop calling people fat asses for eating too much"

I'm not now and I never will judge people for their weight. If a sedentary person gains weight at 1100 calories a day, they are not BURNING enough calories. If they cannot exercise due to age or infirmity, then there's nothing to be done, you cannot starve people just to make them thin.

If I don't ride my mountain bike to exhaustion in two or three hours a day I can gain loads of weight in no time.

When I tour on my bike - and it weighs about 125 lbs loaded - riding 8 hours a day, I cannot get enough calories into my system to maintain my bodyweight. Seriously.

I have to take a day off once a week or so to pack calories into myself so I don't start scavanging my own muscle.

But this is an incredible amount of work, too, more than I could do all the time.

I'm going to ride down the west coast starting next week - I weigh about 208 or 210 right now, and I'll weigh 180....Maybe 185 when I hit Sandy Eggo in five or six weeks.

And then I get to go back to eating less than I want or believe I need.

When I'm NOT on tour, I cannot eat three times a day or I blimp up like there's never going to be another meal.

IT was easier when I drank all the time. I just never ate, living off the calories in beer and Vodka. I sure was svelte....

:rofl:

[sense]

153. Have you considered posting

only on things you have some knowledge of? Simple.... you appear to be embracing that.

[wickerwoman]

18. No, what I am saying is

once a calorie enters your body, *how your body uses it* depends on your unique physiology.

Some people will burn it, some people will store it, some people will excrete it unused, some people will feed their tapeworms with it. Some people will feel satiated by it and some people will still feel ravenously hungry.

And for some people, if they burn more than they take in, they will become malnourished and ultimately starve to death. Because, for the third time, not every body uses calories in the same way and telling someone who is already eating a borderline malnourishing diet, exercising for hours a day and still not losing weight that all they need to do is eat less! burn more! *is* insensitive and dangerous.

There is a limit beyond which it is not healthy to take in less and burn more. And that limit exists above the limit at which some people are capable of losing weight. So in that sense it is not helpful to throw reductionist definitions like "a calorie is a calorie" at people who cannot safely eat fewer calories than they already are and who are still not losing weight in clear defiance of your insistence that they must be able to if only they spent a few more hours in spin class.

[cliffordu]

I never said a fucking thing about spin class, and your

argument is anectdote, not science.

If you are gaining weight while BURNING more calories than you take in, then you defy the laws of physics.

There is no moral value or value judgement in that statement, it is simply what it is.

I am not responsible for your interpretation of this FACT:

You can ONLY get ONE CALORIE Of energy out of ONE CALORIE of energy.

[wickerwoman]

28. I'm not disputing that fact.

I'm saying that once that one calorie enters your body, what happens to it depends on who you are and the context surrounding the consumption of that calorie.

Are you ill? Your body will probably deal with that calorie differently from a person who isn't.

Are you sleep-deprived? What meds are you on? Are you diabetic? How much fiber are you consuming? Are you stressed out at work?

There are studies that show that our perception of how much we are burning affects how much we actually do. They looked at housekeepers who do physical labor all day and asked them how much exercise they thought they were getting. When they told one group that they were already meeting the criteria for heavy physical activity, that group lost weight... on the mere change in perception of themselves as inactive vs. heavily active.

I really don't have anything else to say on the matter unless you are willing to finally address the scientific fact, stated four times already, that individual body chemistry influences the absorption rate of calories *after they are consumed* and that this fact is more relevant to the issue of weight loss than the scientific definition of a calorie in the abstract.

[mistertrickster]

117. Well said, thanks. nt

[REP]

30. Muscle weighs more than fat

HTH HAND

[SimonPhoenix]

93. that is NOT TRUE

Muscle is DENSER than fat. It does not weigh more.

[Scout]

102. hahahahahahaha n/t

[SimonPhoenix]

130. Laugh all you want, but it's the truth

nt

[Scout]

131. prove it

i have two containers that hold identical volume

fill one with fat

fill one with "more dense" muscle

which one weighs more?

[SimonPhoenix]

133. WOWWWW

Concentrate. It's not that difficult.

If two containers hold identical volume, then yes, the muscle weighs more than the fat. But that means your statement that "muscle weighs more than fat" is factually INcorrect. If you stated that "muscle weighs more BY VOLUME than fat" then you would be making a factually correct statement. One pound of muscle weighs the same as one pound of fat. Remember the old riddle about which weighs more: the pound of bricks or the pound of feathers? They both weigh exactly one pound.

How do you get density? You divide mass by volume.

It's really not that difficult.

[dustbunnie]

134. The poster was talking about weight, not volume.

S/he specifically said "muscle weighs more than fat." There was no mention of a container or volume. That's your invention.

A pound of muscle does not weigh more than a pound of fat. :eyes:

[Scout]

136. you are confusing weight with volume

i'm not the one confused.

no one said a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat.

that's your invention.

[dustbunnie]

137. Go read post 32 again. Or maybe for the first time since you're posting nonsense. n/t

[Scout]

138. "Muscle weighs more than fat "

content of post 32 above.

now where does someone say that "a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat."

no one is saying that.

you can't compare weights unless you are comparing equal volumes ... a volume of muscle weighs more than the same volume of fat. it's really not that difficult.

:eyes:

[dustbunnie]

140. You are hilarious tonight. And projecting so much into the content of that person's post.

Maybe you should be educating the poster instead of posting at me, since it's pretty clear that the person thinks muscle weighs more than fat. Otherwise s/he would've mentioned volume. Anyone who doesn't and makes a comment about one weighing more than the other, sound pretty damn dumb.

[Scout]

142. anyone who thinks that when someone says "muscle weighs more than

fat" that what they MEAN is that "a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat" is a fucking idiot.

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT A POUND OF ONE THING WEIGHS MORE THAN A POUND OF SOMETHING ELSE.

The volume comparison is assumed, because if you don't assume that you are an idiot.

"Muscle weighs more than fat" does not have the same meaning as "a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat."

http://www.onemorebite-weightloss.com/muscle-to-fat.html

The correct way to state the muscle weighs more than fat scenario is, "Muscle is heavier by volume than fat."
==========================

http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/45893/bodybuilding/myth_busted_does_muscle_weigh_more_than_fat.html

But it is true that muscle is more dense than fat. If you have a block of muscle and an equal size block of fat the muscle will weigh more.

I guess that easiest way to picture all of this weight issue is that if you take a 6 in. X 6 in. X 6 in. cube of fat and take a same size cube of muscle the muscle will weigh more due to its density and compactness.
------------------------

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_fat_weigh_more_than_muscle

Fat actually weighs less than muscle per square inch because muscle is so much denser. That is one of the reasons why BMI numbers can't be trusted. And we arent talking about 5 pounds of fat vs 5 pounds of muscle, were talking about the weight of n amount of muscle vs n amount of fat. Muscle would be much heavier.

========================

"Argue with a fool, she does the same."

I'm outta here.

[dustbunnie]

147. You're a laugh a minute Scout... always good for a few moments of entertainment.

Except not this time. You seem to forget that I work in a gym and have competed in bodybuilding contests over the last ten years. People come in almost every day making that exact same error about the weight of muscle versus fat, and every day it has to be patiently explained to them. i won't tell you what I think of your comments, but hope there's a tiny smidgen of imagination in that arrogant body of yours to guess.

You wasted your time with that long diatribe, because again, I've been training for ten years and there's not a single thing I can learn from you. You don't remotely resemble what I want to look or feel like so why would I even listen to you. I'm not the one who is so ignorant about my own physical self that I'm still astounded (after posting the same thing a thousand times) that the body goes into starve mode when it's put into too great a caloric deficit. That would be you. Amazing how people with no clue about their own bodies want to tell everyone else about theirs.

Fool indeed. I'm pretty much done with you too. For good.

[mistertrickster]

150. Saying that "muscle weighs more than fat" is no different than saying that

lead weighs more than feathers.

Who would have a problem with that statement?

[Scout]

151. apparently dustbunnie does....n/t

[REP]

145. I wasn't specific enough for the slow students

I see you understood what I meant; I keep forgetting that majority of posters to these threads are slow. Yes, a cubic foot of fat weighs less than a cubic foot of muscle.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

38. Scientists are tinkering with the idea of dark calories.... they cannot

be seen or detected but they know they must be out there... it's a technical thing.

[vadawg]

39. rofl, do they happen to reside in chocolate :)

[HysteryDiagnosis]

55. With the dark chocolate I prefer over the sweet stuff.... yes, I imagine

they could be hiding in plain sight... mmmmmm Mars barz..... dark and mysterious, holding the caloric universe together.

[cliffordu]

82. Well...

:rofl:

[JoeyT]

40. While your math is correct.

There's a minor problem with the "One calorie in = one calorie of energy out". It's mostly based on the efficiency of the system it's going into. Someone with a really efficient metabolism might use the full calorie, while someone with a really inefficient metabolism may not even use half of it. (I have the sneaking suspicion I'm garbling the hell out of this.)

I'm not disputing what you're saying, since what you're saying is correct: Your body cannot manufacture energy or mass out of thin air. Otherwise within the first three or four famines humanity would have evolved to do exactly that. The difference comes in how much of it your body tries to use.

[CTyankee]

58. In my case, I lost a section of my small intestine due to surgery and was told I would never be fat

as a result. That is because the small intestine is where your calories are metabolized and if you don't have sufficient digestive matter to do so effectively, you are in essence not metabolizing those calories. My surgery, btw, was NOT intentional but necessary after experiencing complications from some elective surgery I had to cure my severe and chronic diverticulitis...

[cliffordu]

83. Yep - exactly.

[Chemisse]

35. Some people just don't understand nuance

It has to be very concrete for them - 'a calorie is a calorie'. The fate of those calories taken in is not quite so simple.

[Threedifferentones]

53. Right

Some people burn calories slower than others due to their "unique physiology." So, they can eat less and still gain weight. It may even be impossible for them to lose all excess fat without suffering from malnutrition.

That, however, is still in line with the obvious FACT that weight is calories burnt vs. calories taken in, it just means some people don't burn very many calories, and so they gain weight easily.

[Go2Peace]

27. Um... yes, but your burn rate may depend on the efficiency of your

body at burning those calories? You can actually gain weight by lowering your consumption of calories and I can prove it. If you alter between starvation and overeating but net fewer calories you will gain weight on less caloric intake. There are many other ways in which "a calorie" does not simply equate to a simple factor with your weight.

I get what you are saying, but I think you are making an argument out of a different point than people are talking about.

[mistertrickster]

113. Of course you are right. But the number of calories that someone may require

to lose weight might be so low that it is unsustainable for long-term health.

There were no fat people at Auschwitz. But a shocking number died well AFTER they were liberated and eating normally.

[Go2Peace]

29. You aren't going to get anywhere.

They are too invested in arguing to listen to what you are saying. It must be too late to think on more than two dimensions.

[cliffordu]

32. I used to parse my arguments about my acoholism

in somewhat the same fashon - beer is not as bad as vodka and that fucking tequila, fugeddaboutit.....

We all maintain astonishing fictions to stay sane.

[Go2Peace]

33. so you feel it is your job to keep strangers who are alcoholics (or heavy, whatever) in line?

do you think that someone telling you that you are full of shit would have helped you?

[cliffordu]

67. The ONLY way I finally sobered up is when my system of denial was completely

crushed.

It took dozens of people years of telling me I was full of shit before I finally understood:

I cannot SUCCESSFULLY drink like other people.

I can drink, but the consequences are dull and ugly and very predictable.


I'm not keeping anyone in line. I take exception to the idea that calories can be created from nothing.

How they are used within a metabolism is the most salient point after that, and that is different with all of us.

[Pholus]

45. Astonishing fictions indeed!!!!!

Yes we do, cliffordu. No two people have the same version of reality. And yet, here again, I find you bashing a fat issue again (years after our first interaction) which seems to be a pet cause of yours. What fictions work for you cliffordu? What issues are you getting out of your system by REVISITING this topic time after time with your "calorie is a calorie" argument.

You keep tossing "it's just physics" out there. Well pal, I'm a physicist and for a FACT you were not paying attention if you ever actually took this subject. All MY thermo textbooks always characterize heat engines by efficiency. The theory is always about MAXIMUM efficiency, and all REAL systems are guaranteed to perform WORSE than the maximum efficiency. Two different engines will give different output for the same input. And those are simple, mechanical engines that we understand quite well and not the biomechanical ones that we don't understand a bit -- except for you of course.

To simplify it for you: Yes, cliffordu, a calorie is a calorie but the engines use them in different ways. By all means get out there and do everything you can to lose weight, but where does your magic threshold number that applies to all people come from? What is the actual threshold that will work for ALL people, instead of just you?

I read your post about mountain biking 8 hours a day and having problems NOT losing weight. Yes, cliffordu, your bragging is impressive like you intended it to be. We should all spend 8 hours a day on body improvement. But it says that as a person, cliffordu, that you really have no responsibilities for other people around you. I cannot remember the last time I had 8 solid hours to do anything for myself. Being a member of the human race and caring for other people accounts for the bulk of my time, my job the rest.

I'd look darned good if all I did was exercise all the time, but I probably end up having to try to justify my self worth by picking on people with body image issues in an online forum JUST LIKE YOU.

[Raster]

54. !

:toast:

[Bunny]

62. Excellent response.

:applause: Not that it will actually mean anything to the same old people who always show up in the fat threads, but it really helps to capture the flaws in their thinking. And while using physics, too! :thumbsup:

[dustbunnie]

63. No it isn't. It's full of crap. But I guess you and the poster must have a big argument --

with the article the OP has linked to. Because the scientist leading the study basically agrees that a calorie is a calorie (duh, it's a measurement tool) and claims that restricting calories results in weight loss or the absence of weight gain.

Tell me, is a pound on you different than a pound on me? Is it less or more? I'm sure the science haters have extraordinary theories about how a pound is really not a pound. When you go to the butcher do you have to specify which kind of pound you're referring to when you ask for a pound of cow flesh?

:rofl:

[Bunny]

64. Your little rofl smilie shows that you are easily and deeply amused.

That's so cute.

[dustbunnie]

65. Isn't it?

Tell me, if we both run a fifty yard dash and I win, does that mean your yards were longer? If we both get one pound rib steaks from our butcher and I don't gain weight but you do, does that mean your pounds are bigger and heavier? My God! Just think of it! You might be getting a much better deal on meat, or produce for that matter than I am. Are your gallons bigger than mine too? It's unfair I tell you! Someone needs to look into this corruption, pronto!

[Richardo]

66. You didn't read any of Pholus' post did you?

Because you're getting further and further off the track.

For example, a gallon of gasoline IS a gallon of gasoline - and by your logic that means every single vehicle in the world - from a moped to a HumVee - should travel the exact same distance on that gallon because you're not taking into account the EFFICIENCY with which the engine uses the gasoline.

[Bunny]

68. Don't try to stop her, Richardo. She's on a roll.

And it's so cute to watch her amusing herself. Sometimes you just have to let them run their course, right?

[Richardo]

70. I hate it when logic doesn't work.

Which makes you wonder why I'm on DU, huh?

:hi: (nondust)Bunny! :loveya:

[Bunny]

74. Yes, it's awful but then again, it's good to have someone providing the amusement.

:hi: from the Original DU Bunny! :loveya:

[dustbunnie]

77. I'm as amused by you as you are by me.

I wonder how people get through their days without understanding the basics of measurement, but I'm sure you have other qualities that make up for it. :)

[dustbunnie]

71. No, I read it all. From the part about the feud with Cliffordu to the nonsense --

that a calorie, which is a measurement tool, does not follow the rules like other measurement tools i.e. pounds, grams, kilos, yards, feet, inches, centimeters, etc...

That. Is. Total horse hooey. The measurement of a calorie does not fluctuate, only the way people burn them. If I run a mile and you do, and I win, it doesn't mean your yards were longer. They were the same. The difference is in my body's ability to navigate the yard faster. Capice?

I'm not off the track at all. I'm point blank on it. Pholus on the other hand, doesn't know a calorie from his petunia.

And in case you're another person who didn't bother to read the OP, apparently the scientists involved in the study also understand that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.

[cliffordu]

81. What you said.

Well done.

[dustbunnie]

86. A better analogy would have been comparing fahrenheit and celcius to calories --

since they're all measurements of heat.

Despite different boil and smoke points for various items we still know 180 degrees is what it is.

At least I thought we did until this thread. People either find the measurement of heat wwwayyyy too nebulous and difficult to understand, or they're just so deluded and/or upset about their weight they can't stand to hear about the science of energy measurement units.

[Maru Kitteh]

84. I was about to ask you why you are being so obtuse but irrational seems

more appropriate since no person on this thread has claimed what you say they have.

[dustbunnie]

89. A measurement tool is a measurement tool. The same rules apply to each one.

And people are most certainly claiming that the calorie is the one measurement tool that refutes and defies all rules. Maybe you just haven't read closely enough. As for being obtuse, if there's a mirror in your home, I suggest you get up and go look into it.

[Maru Kitteh]

94. The fact remains - you are the one making false statements about what has been said on this thread

And you cannot point to any person who has denied that the physical properties of the unit called a calorie is variable.

[cliffordu]

97. Apparently the title of the OP is not relevant then?

something about "Debunking the 'calorie is just a calorie' myth........"

OF course the OP didn't do that at all, so.......

[dustbunnie]

98. Go read the OP for starters.

The poster claims that "a calorie is not a calorie." Then goes on to quote from an article which completely refutes that claim, but I digress.

What everyone on this thread has been advocating is that indeed the measure of a calorie differs. Not that two different bodies might metabolize a calorie differently or even that carbs will increase water retention which is not the case with protein. Nope. It's straight up 'a calorie is not a calorie.' So what is it then if it's "not a calorie?'

[cliffordu]

99. A calorie's evil twin??

[dustbunnie]

104. Heh, heh, it must be. It's the calorie doppleganger. :-D

Hey, since believing the measurement of a calorie is always static apparently earns one the title of bigot, what do you think would happen if we started a thread claiming that a pound is always a pound. Do you think it would be even worse... like we'd be labeled racists or something? :rofl:

[cliffordu]

105. War criminal.

Gotta be the war criminals.

[Maru Kitteh]

127. Oh look!

Both of you deliberately miss the point of the post and the article - but I guess if your own self-worth is so grotesquely stunted that you need to dump on the health challenges of others - deliberately missing the meaning of a post is the least of your personal failings.

[dustbunnie]

129. Oh LOOK who's super-sensitive when your error is corrected.

I wonder from where that sensitivity comes from. Because not anything that has been said even remotely dumps on the health challenges of others. What a fracking delusional thing to say!

[Maru Kitteh]

143. ego have haud erroris

vos have rabies

[cliffordu]

79. I would imagine that the pound becomes two by the time it gets to the car....

[wickerwoman]

101. I love these appeals to "science"...

Find me a reputable scientist anywhere in the world who claims to be able to predict with any kind of accuracy exactly how much weight a person will lose in any given week looking at only their calorie intake and exercise level and knowing nothing else about the person.

Such a scientist does not exist, because the truism "a calorie is a calorie" is not nutritional science nor, as pointed out so eloquently above, is it a relevant aspect of physics.

[dustbunnie]

106. And your post has absolutely no relevance to the energy measurement of a calorie.

You're talking about metabolism not the measuring of a calorie. Two totally different things.

If you and I eat a pound of cow flesh, you might gain weight and I won't. That's metabolism. But we both still ate the same pound of cow flesh. That fact doesn't change no matter how much weight you gain and I don't. The pound is a measurement tool. Same with calories. A chicken leg will contain the same amount of calories whether a fat person eats it or skinny person does. Same with pizza. Same with a glass of milk. Same with all foods.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend, but apparently it's extremely hard. Just like Barbie said.

[mistertrickster]

116. Actually, it's not that hard to understand. But usually people who say "a calorie

is a calorie" are reducing a very complex process to an oversimplification.

What if someone lived with constant, horrible, unbearable pain and could only get temporary relief from eating?

What effect would that have on their weight?

The pain is called "hunger." A germ that increases hunger will clearly increase eating and weight gain.

[dustbunnie]

122. You've mixed and conflated so much in your OP it's hard to know what you mean.

A calorie is a calorie no matter what. Unless if you believe that evil faeries magically increase the calories in a slice of pizza or a boiled chicken breast when these are about to be ingested by overweight people. That's too weird to even contemplate.

Your brother-in-law appears to have had a metabolic mishap caused by his slow thyroid which doesn't alter the fact that a calorie is a calorie.

That hungry feeling has nothing to do with the calories in the food we eat. If I haven't eaten for a week that doesn't mean that the calories in my burger will suddenly festoon by the thousands just because I was ravenous. That burger has the same amount of calories as when I'm stuffed and eating just to eat.

You should've made your post about metabolism -- which is the real topic you're commenting on.

[mistertrickster]

148. Your insistence on literalism is breath-taking. "A calorie is a calorie" is

shorthand, code if you will, for the simple-minded belief that weight loss just a matter of taking in more calories than you burn.

It ignores the complexities of metabolic rate, triggers of hunger, the intensity with which hunger is perceived, how different foods are processed, how chemicals and GM affect feelings of hunger or satiation, etc.

You seem to be willfully ignoring the point just so you can attack your mis-perceived version of it.

[dustbunnie]

158. No, I work in the health industry and have intimate knowledge of the games --

people play with themselves. They sabotage their diets and training routines with bizarro rationalizations, then feel guilty and repentant, and start the wacko cycle all over again. I hope I'm doing some a service because I never like to see people yoyoing.

Every day people come in and say things like "muscle weighs more than fat so I don't want any exercise that'll give me muscle cause I'll weigh too much." These are people who have graduated high school, own homes, and go to work every day.

If you tell such a person that their metabolism may be screwed up and so they need less food than someone else, they can deal with that. If you tell someone a calorie is a calorie is bullshit, they will take that to mean that all the calories they ingest are double what they are to a "normal" person. And that's enough to make a lot of people say "screw it" I'm going to the Chinese all-you-can-eat because it's hopeless anyway. Wording, I have learned, is everything.

But I'm tired of it now and it's Friday night, so carry on. :)

[wickerwoman]

125. And you're arguing a semantic distinction with no relevance to the topic at hand.

The article is about obesity, not the textbook definition of a calorie. Nobody in this thread is disputing the scientific definition of a calorie.

In the context of obesity and weight loss, metabolism is a greater determining factor than calories consumed. And yet again and again in these discussions indicators that something more complicated than "calories in, calories out" might be going on for some people are dismissed out of hand by the "a calorie is a calorie" crew and their slightly more honest, if ruder, "get off your ass and exercise" cousins.

[dustbunnie]

126. Nope. People, including the OP are conflating metabolism with the definition of a calorie.

Starting from the very top, people are confusing "a calorie is a calorie" with "calories in, calories out" which are not the same thing AT ALL. That's much more than just "semantics."

And the people who've pointed it out have been painted with all kinds of vile labels. I mean really... bigoted? ROFLMAO.

[REP]

144. Do you ask for a pound of meat (muscle) or a pound of fat at the butcher?

If you did, you might see which takes up more space. Just as a pound of feathers and a pound of lead weigh the same, the volumes are different.

[Maru Kitteh]

73. Wow. I'm bookmarking your EXCELLENT post. Well done.

[cliffordu]

75. Yawn. You like to misread and misrepresent what I write

I cannot help it if you insist on claiming you can make calories from nothing. That has been the only issue I have spoken to and yet in your sensitive world I am bashing fat.

Which means it's YOUR problem, not mine.

My comments about 8 hours on the bike concerns the number of calories it takes to ride a bicycle that weighs about 125 lbs across the country - the point was that there aren't enough calories available in my diet to maintain body weight at that level of output - the effort is more than I have ever endured for that many hours a day.

In my day to day life there are ample calories to make sure I am constantly NOT eating a whole litany of things that add to my abdominal blubber, But that's just the way my metabolism shakes out.

Too bad you have to apply everything I say to the most pejorative definition possible. You think I'm talking about you and nothing could be further from the truth, and all your histrionic attacks won't change this.

You should read my other posts. If I were attacking you there wouldn't be a fucking doubt in anyone's mind.



And this is a general discussion forum. And just like you, I am entitled to my own opinion.

Mine are based in science, yours, not so much.

[Odin2005]

111. This post is full of WIN!

[mistertrickster]

118. Oooh, smack down. I think the "I'm a physicist" line was the knock out punch. nt

[Go2Peace]

139. I agree, this is not about "accuracy" or worry for others. It's about exercising his own

demons and attempting to unleash them on others.

[Maru Kitteh]

69. So now we get down to it. You DO make moral judgements about the overweight

You just compared them to your alcoholism and alcoholics. You equated your weak rationalizations concerning alcohol with the very real and infinitely more complex issues surrounding human metabolism. That's an incredibly lame comparison by the way if you have any education whatsoever on either subject, and no ending up flat on your back in an ambulance and going to alcohol reeducation camp doesn't count. Neither does watching FitTV and reading the health articles in Adventure Cyclist.

So everything you said in this thread about how you don't judge the overweight was just a bunch of shit.

[cliffordu]

76. Bzzzt. Thanks for playing, but speaking of my own fictions as a reference to

the mindset that believes you can invent calories from air is hardly attacking the overweight.

But it can be if you want it to.

[Maru Kitteh]

85. You have shown yourself here.

And you can point to no person on this thread who has claimed that calories may be made of air.

[cliffordu]

90. Heh. I always like it when people say that "You have finally shown yourself here"

Kinda meaningless.

Go upstream and read for a while. The claims are tantamount to stating that calories multiply like bunnies.

Or not.

:shrug:

[Maru Kitteh]

95. You and the bigoted echo chamber of cohorts are the only ones who have made that assertion.

[cliffordu]

96. Bigoted.....

Question precious denial and become a bigot.

:rofl:


Your anger belies your confidence.

[Richardo]

72. In your alcoholism, did every ounce of alcohol affect every person the same?

After all, an ounce is an ounce.

[cliffordu]

78. You just PRECISELY stated my point.

An ounce is just an ounce, and I cannot take EVEN ONE if I want to stay out of jail, stay married, keep my drivers license, know where all my teeth are and stay out of the mental institution.

The fucking stuff is used safely by millions, but for me it's NEVER happy hour.

I get that. I am completely OK with that. It's just fact.

I cannot SUCCESSFULLY drink.


An ounce is still an ounce. A simple measurement. By itself it means nothing. In context, everything.

[Maru Kitteh]

87. And that is just one of the many reasons why it is an idiotic comparrison.

One can make a choice to abstain from booze.


I must say though, you don't seem happy about it at all, as you say your are. You seem very angry.

[cliffordu]

91. LOL. Thanks for your concern......

And a calorie is still just a calorie. Unfortunate that your psychological insight cannot refute or administer to that as well.....Ah well, such is life.

[FarCenter]

59. Depending on his age, weight, and activity, his basic metabolic rate may be well under 1500 calories

People actually require a lot less food than many think.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

88. The metabolic floor for an adult human is 1100-1200 calories.

It limits what you can eat if you don't want to gain weight, but this is a worst case scenario and not that common. I know people that intentionally live at the metabolic floor even though they have otherwise normal metabolisms. If you only eat 1100 calories per day, you aren't going to gain weight.

There is no malnutrition excuse either, you just have to avoid junk food. You can easily get everything a body needs in 1100 calories.

[Hekate]

5. Want some air-popped popcorn with that? It's very interesting, and makes me wonder if HFCS...

... being inserted into just about every food product has changed the intestinal environment to encourage these kinds of bacteria. It certainly is worth a look, don't you think? Then there's GMOs, i.e. Frankenfoods; those may also change the intestinal environment.

As to the popcorn, your topic has already attracted posters who can't get past the chem-lab definition of calorie, and can't wrap their heads around the complex biological system that is a human body (or mammalian body, since mice were used in the experiment).

I'll have some garlic salt on mine. :popcorn:

Hekate

[mistertrickster]

6. Interesting idea. I heard an MD on tv saying that the lack of satiation from fat free food

may actually be causing people to eat more.

Both my grandfathers ate fried bacon and eggs like there was no tomorrow and they were both rail-thin.

Doesn't make sense according to the food gurus.

[gmoney]

8. They were pre-Atkins?

Probably didn't eat a lot of HFCS either.

[laughingliberal]

23. That's what they told us in nutrition class in nursing school

Course it was almost 100 years ago (okay 27 years). But one of the reasons people need fat in the diet is the satiety factor. Takes longer to leave the stomach and helps you feel full longer.

[JoeyT]

42. People from that generation must've been made of stronger stuff.

Both my grandfathers (And all four Great Grandfathers) ate bacon and eggs fried in lard on biscuits that were made with lard and all of them were fit and lived into their 80s and 90s. With one exception they all also smoked more than 4 packs of cigarettes a day. And the exception drank moonshine on a daily basis that was capable of stripping paint. It was probably the exercise that made a lot of the difference. Back then "Garden" didn't mean "Organic tomatoes taste better", it meant "Take a machete and chop sugar cane for twelve hours."

If we have to pick between a sensible diet and exercise, the exercise is probably the better of the two choices. Within reason, of course.

[dustbunnie]

48. If you look deeper at your grandfathers' lifestyles, beyond the bacon and eggs --

it's more than 99% certain their habits differed greatly from ours. They more than likely ate three solid meals a day and didn't snack incessantly. They probably had dinner at six and then didn't eat again until morning when they "broke fast." We no longer have any idea what night time fasting is all about and pretty much scoff from the time we get up till we go to sleep. Grocery stores are open 24/7 and fast food joints line every block. Your grandfathers would've been shocked by the concept.

And it isn't only the lack of satiation from fat free food. Total lack of fat in the diet prohibits important nutrients from being absorbed, which can also lead to constant hunger. You need at least a tablespoon of fat, maybe a little more, to maintain the body's health over the long term.

[Odin2005]

112. Good point.

fat is much better at inducing the feeling of fullness then carbs or protein, essentially meaning that the "low-fat" food fetish has dome more harm than good.

[nosmokes]

9. It can be a nutritionally and flavorfully rich calorie or it can just be crap...

;)

[ChoppinBroccoli]

20. And A Gallon Of Gas Is Still A Gallon Of Gas

Maybe you pump that gallon into a compact car and drive 30 miles on it or you pump it into an SUV and get 15. Either way, it's still a gallon of gas. Certain cars just burn it faster than others. And at the end of the day, that's what a calorie is: a unit of energy that your body burns in order to go. Some bodies just burn it faster than others.

[Hekate]

22. The human gut is not a glass test tube, for sure. nt

[Greyhound]

34. This whole "debate" boils down to a lack of common language.

A calorie (kilocalorie actually) is a measure of E (4184 joules) but is also commonly used in nutrition as a rather amorphous unit of food quantity/energy.

Further, the nutritional version does not consider the myriad variables in conversion of potential energy and assimilation of specific components in specific individuals.

The nutrition field really should look into some more specific terminology.

[DevonRex]

92. You have certainly hit on an important issue.

Plus, food is not just calories. Different foods cause the body to respond differently. Nobody can say that the body responds equally to 1000 calories obtained from sugar as it does to 1000 calories obtained from broccoli, for example.

[varelse]

141. You're right

Every DU thread I've seen on obesity seems to suffer from this lack.

[old mark]

36. Re: Low calorie diets - I had tried them for years to lose weight, relying

on the "food Pyramid" - carbs good, fats bad approach. I had NO success despite at one point going as low as 1100 calories/ day.
Last month, my cardiologist ORDERED me to go on Atkins, which I started Feb 5th. Within a week, my blood glucose level was in the low normal range and I cut back on my insulin...some days later, I stopped using insulin completely and have not used any for a month. I have been losing weight steadily for 5 weeks now, although I won't have a reliable number till next week when I see my GP again...I believe I have lost around 20 pounds.

Low calorie weight loss diets don't work for many people, and the idea that one approach is good for everyone is nonsense.

mark

[Jennicut]

43. I wish I could stop taking insulin!

But I am a type 1. I also cut my calories down to 1000 a day and was told by my endocrinologist that it is too low. Too few calories can make your metabolism slow she told me. So I went back up to 1400 to 1600 a day. And I lost 5 pounds in the last two weeks, so I am happy. Before that, nothing.

[Dorian Gray]

46. 1000 calories a day is way too low.

My nutritionist (who helped me lose 95 lbs) had me between 1500-1800 a day. (Depending on how active I was.) Now, I'm in the 2000-2200 a day range, and I've been holding my weight steady. (I exercise 5 days a week.) My nutritionist really said that reducing your caloric intake too much would affect your metabolism negatively, and your body would react as though it were famine, holding on to the weight.

[lukasahero]

52. Caloric needs are individual

And depends on, as you say, how active you are as well as your size and weight loss/gain/maintain goal.

[Jennicut]

60. Yeah, it was low. I guess I was desperate. I was eating about 1800 a day and exercising

and nothing was happening. The metabolism in a diabetic can be all out of wack. I think where I am now is good. Occasionally, if I go out to eat I have more for the day. But those days are few and far between.

[Scout]

107. your nutritionist is correct n/t

[Overseas]

119. Here's a link to a lecture and article by Gary Taube, author of Good Calories, Bad Calories

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4362041487661765149#

And here's a link to his NYT article "What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=1&pagewanted=print

Atkins was by no means the first to get rich pushing a high-fat diet that restricted carbohydrates, but he popularized it to an extent that the American Medical Association considered it a potential threat to our health. The A.M.A. attacked Atkins's diet as a ''bizarre regimen'' that advocated ''an unlimited intake of saturated fats and cholesterol-rich foods,'' and Atkins even had to defend his diet in Congressional hearings.

........Over the past five years, however, there has been a subtle shift in the scientific consensus. It used to be that even considering the possibility of the alternative hypothesis, let alone researching it, was tantamount to quackery by association. Now a small but growing minority of establishment researchers have come to take seriously what the low-carb-diet doctors have been saying all along. Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, may be the most visible proponent of testing this heretic hypothesis. Willett is the de facto spokesman of the longest-running, most comprehensive diet and health studies ever performed, which have already cost upward of $100 million and include data on nearly 300,000 individuals. Those data, says Willett, clearly contradict the low-fat-is-good-health message ''and the idea that all fat is bad for you; the exclusive focus on adverse effects of fat may have contributed to the obesity epidemic.''

These researchers point out that there are plenty of reasons to suggest that the low-fat-is-good-health hypothesis has now effectively failed the test of time. In particular, that we are in the midst of an obesity epidemic that started around the early 1980's, and that this was coincident with the rise of the low-fat dogma. (Type 2 diabetes, the most common form of the disease, also rose significantly through this period.) They say that low-fat weight-loss diets have proved in clinical trials and real life to be dismal failures, and that on top of it all, the percentage of fat in the American diet has been decreasing for two decades. Our cholesterol levels have been declining, and we have been smoking less, and yet the incidence of heart disease has not declined as would be expected. ''That is very disconcerting,'' Willett says. ''It suggests that something else bad is happening.''

........The alternative hypothesis also comes with an implication that is worth considering for a moment, because it's a whopper, and it may indeed be an obstacle to its acceptance. If the alternative hypothesis is right -- still a big ''if'' -- then it strongly suggests that the ongoing epidemic of obesity in America and elsewhere is not, as we are constantly told, due simply to a collective lack of will power and a failure to exercise. Rather it occurred, as Atkins has been saying (along with Barry Sears, author of ''The Zone''), because the public health authorities told us unwittingly, but with the best of intentions, to eat precisely those foods that would make us fat, and we did. We ate more fat-free carbohydrates, which, in turn, made us hungrier and then heavier. Put simply, if the alternative hypothesis is right, then a low-fat diet is not by definition a healthy diet. In practice, such a diet cannot help being high in carbohydrates, and that can lead to obesity, and perhaps even heart disease. ''For a large percentage of the population, perhaps 30 to 40 percent, low-fat diets are counterproductive,'' says Eleftheria Maratos-Flier, director of obesity research at Harvard's prestigious Joslin Diabetes Center. ''They have the paradoxical effect of making people gain weight.''

[Stephanie]

128. Read up on gluten intolerance

Many people discover they're gluten intolerant (gluten is in wheat, barley, rye and many prepared foods) after they go on a low carb diet. It also ties into this bacteria story - celiacs and the gluten intolerant often develop SIBO, bacterial overgrowth in the intestines.

http://www.celiac.com/

[Fumesucker]

41. This sentence, which you yourself quoted, denies what you put in your OP title..

"People are getting obese because they're eating more, but it suggests the reason they're eating more may not simply be that calories are cheap and available," Gewirtz said. "The reason they're eating more may be an increased appetite resulting from changes in intestinal bacteria."

Yes, some people's metabolisms are faster than others and people handle calories differently but a calorie is still a calorie.

[Johonny]

100. yeah I read the link and agree

lines like : Restrict access to food and the altered mice don't gain weight

People are getting obese because they're eating more, but it suggests the reason they're eating more may not simply be that calories are cheap and available

Don't exactly echo much that is written in this thread. The article itself doesn't argue for the title of the thread. Which often happens in popular writing of science results.

[mistertrickster]

120. I was arguing against the implication of the "calorie is a calorie" mantra.

Not that a "calorie isn't a calorie."

The implication is that to lose weight, one simply must reduce the number of calories consumed or increase the number of calories burned.

As many posters have testified from personal experience, they weren't successful at losing weight until they INCREASED their calorie intake (because of how the body responds to starvation).

[Jennicut]

44. The calorie stays the same, it is how the body uses it. I am a Type 1 diabetic. My body

processes calories in a different way because I am on insulin. It is damn hard for me to lose weight, but I can do it. I just have to work harder. I guess it is a bad break but your are dealt the hand you are born with and instead of fighting it, I have accepted it. I have to work out twice as much as my friend to lose weight who is the same age and near the same weight as me. I have to eat less calories.

[dustbunnie]

47. What does the article have to do with "a calorie is a calorie"?

Right... not a single thing. A pound is a pound, a gram is a gram and a calorie is a calorie. It's a kind of measurement.

The ignorance in this thread is astounding. I actually read that muscle weighs more than fat. :D It doesn't. A pound of muscle weighs EXACTLY the same as a pound of fat. A pound of blueberries weighs EXACTLY the same as a pound of cheesecake. A pound of cheesecake provides the EXACT same calories today as it will tomorrow.

What the body does with the calorie or the pound of cheesecake may differ from person to person, but the measurement remains the same. A gram of carbohydrates retains about three times its weight in water which is why those who overdo the carbs usually wind up overweight. And it's why the people who go on high protein diets are shocked and amazed when the pounds fly off in the first weeks. They're shedding all the water weight.

[progressoid]

49. Bad title

And bad conclusion. Unrec.


Calories =/= metabolism

[Zywiec]

50. From the OP: "People are getting obese because they're eating more"

Does that mean more calories??

:crazy:

[dustbunnie]

51. Yes, of COURSE.

:)

[mistertrickster]

114. Yes. But is there any more unpleasant feeling in the world than hunger?

That's why germs that make you hungry would also make you fat.

And why blaming the victim is not helpful.

[Zoeisright]

159. Well, yes. Thirst is worse.

Of course, hunger is an awful feeling too.

And blaming the victim is something only selfish, stupid people do. So thank you.

[Fleshdancer]

56. what are people who have this suppose to do?

Is this why I'm seeing a lot of probiotics on the market now? :shrug:

[retread]

57. Sorry. A calorie IS a calorie. Though metabolism plays a part, it's intake and physical

activity that ultimately determine your weight. The most common cause of weight gain is taking in more calories than you burn.

[Progressive_In_NC]

61. I'm 6'5" and wiegh 350 lbs..I ate 1500 calories a day

for two years and could not lose weight. I did a food journal and walked 30 minutes a day. I saw two nutritionists and a physician monthly.

Finally I upped my exercise intensity slightly (yoga and jogging) and moved my calorie intake up to 3000 a day and the pounds started to melt off. I have lost 50 so far, and I'm still eating 3000 healthy calories a day. When I ate half that my body was in starvation mode but when I went up to 3000 a day my body is in the sweet spot for weight loss and I am dropping 3 lbs a week.

I never thought that your body had a starvation mode. I'm glad I found that out and can do what it takes to get back down in the 200-210 range. At that point 1500-1800 calories will be sufficient for me.

[upi402]

108. Grats

Thanks for sharing that.
:fistbump:

[Zoeisright]

160. That's oversimplified.

Life and living beings are a lot more complex than that. Did you read any of the OP? At all?

[berni_mccoy]

80. When you reduce caloric intake, your metabolism slows down. If you don't do anything

to compensate, your body goes into fat storage mode. To ensure your body doesn't put on weight while reducing calories, you should never reduce your caloric intake below 80% of what you burn.

Oh, and a calorie *is* a calorie.

[Trillo]

109. This is something that needs to be studied in relation to GMO foods.

Do they cause changes in intestinal flora?

Oh, I see the thought has occurred to a few scientists:

Study of gene transfer in vitro and in the digestive tract of gnotobiotic mice from Lactococcus lactis strains to various strains belonging to human intestinal flora.

Gruzza M, Fons M, Ouriet MF, Duval-Iflah Y, Ducluzeau R.

Unité d'Ecologie et Physiologie du Système Digestif, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Centre de Recherche de Jouy-en-Josas, France.

The use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in dairy products requires evaluation of the DNA transfer capacity from such organisms among the human intestinal microflora. Thus, both in vitro and in vivo transfer from Lactococcus lactis donor strains of the conjugative plasmid pIL205 (CmR) and the non-conjugative plasmid pIL253 (EmR) to: (1) recipient strains isolated from human faecal flora Bacteroides sp., Bifidobacterium sp., Peptostreptococcus sp. (strictly anaerobic bacterial strains) and Enterococcus faecalis, (2) a whole human faecal flora, was studied. In both cases, no gene transfer was observed to strictly anaerobic bacterial strains. DNA transfer was only observed to the E. faecalis strain: in vivo CmR E. faecalis transconjugants were isolated from sequentially multi-associated mice and when the recipient strains associated with the mice, they were a defined mixture of Bacteroides sp., Bifidobacterium sp., Peptostreptococcus sp. and E. faecalis strains. When mice were associated with the whole human faecal flora, the plasmid pIL205 was transferred into some facultative anaerobic streptococci. It was also shown that DNA transfer occurred even when the lactococcal donor strain was transient in the DT of the gnotobiotic host animals.

PMID: 7921350

[Odin2005]

110. K&R

[apples and oranges]

115. Forgive my ignorance, but are thyroid problems related to intestinal bacteria?

[mistertrickster]

121. I know I DON'T know. But it does show that something that slowes

metabolism would have the same effect of something that increases hunger.

[Mike 03]

124. This topic is fascinating, and I believe there is more to the story than energy in, energy out. NT

[scrinmaster]

132. A calorie is still a calorie

But some people can sit around the house and burn 2500 calories per day while others can exercise an hour a day and still burn the same amount.

[JerseygirlCT]

135. So I wonder - probiotics? Good news with this? Bad?

I take a fair amount daily - it's helped with my Crohn's. A couple of years ago I was in the midst of a year-long flare - so I was really, really pounding them. I also lost a good amount of weight - though when eating makes you sick, you tend not to eat much, so I think that was the biggest part.

I've heard things about them helping digestion, which can put weight on, as you're absorbing more from what you eat...

This isn't making much sense, I'm sure. I just wish we had a bit more info than the article offers!

[anonymous171]

146. Yeah, fuck the law of energy conservation! nbt

[Critters2]

149. The article isn't relevant to your story about hypothyroidism.

The OP says the fat mice WERE eating more than the thin mice. The difference is in what was driving them to eat. They were eating more because of the bacteria in their gut. But they were still eating more, taking in more calories, and gaining weight. A calorie is a calorie. Causes of hunger may differ, but not the way you satisfy it.

[aikoaiko]

154. The article doesn't suggest a calories is not just a calorie - only processed differently

sometimes.

[yawnmaster]

155. I've heard people say that just by smelling food they gain weight...

I know its anecdotal, but if this is true, then how are they gaining weight if they aren't taking in calories???
Do smells have calories?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

156. They're lying.

Well, they're probably just exaggerating. But if they really mean it, they're lying.

[yawnmaster]

157. Okay, maybe they are exagerating about how much weight they gained...

but even if they gained a little it shows that you can gain weight without taking in calories.
How much weight you gain probably depends upon how hungry you are when you smell something good,
but that's just a guess and should not be taken as a fact.

From what I understand, chocolate is one of the worst for gaining weight without taking in calories.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

165. Gaining weight has to do with what you eat.

Not with what you smell. And chocolate's loaded with with calories.

[yawnmaster]

166. We know that one way to gain weight is by eating...

but this would be another way, through the sense of smell instead of through the sense of taste.
And because chocolate is full of calories, perhaps its odor has a higher tendency to cause weight gain.
At least some might say that there is a correlation.

[treestar]

161. Calories don't matter, carbs do

Once upon a time it was calories. Then it was "fat." Now it's "carbs." All depends on the fad of the day.

:rofl:

[yawnmaster]

167. I believe most use fuel injection now. eom

[Manifestor_of_Light]

163. A super low calorie medically supervised diet did NOT work for me.

I was on 500 calories per day, supervised by an M.D./Ph.D. I took vitamins and supplements, gave myself B-12 shots and Human Growth Hormone shots and was on a program that was so complex I had to write it all down as to when to do what.

I did this for six months, spent thousands of dollars at a "bariatric physicians" office, and lost about eight pounds. I need to lose forty or fifty. I also have a dead thyroid and take several grains every day. I have taken thyroid for over forty years.

I should have taken that money and gotten liposuction because it would have been cheaper, easier and faster.

:banghead:


The only diet I lose weight on is South Beach, which is all protein and fat. NO carbs NO starch NO sugar. I lost weight but I was always hungry, I wasn't satisfied without any carbs.

:banghead:

BTW, I do not sit around and stuff Cheetos and Twinkies in my face all day long.

[RedCappedBandit]

164. Quite the misleading thread title. nt

[Manifestor_of_Light]

168. People burn calories at different rates.

The fat bashers here do not understand why some people exercise and eat very little, and are still fat. It's about metabolic problems. Like adrenal and thyroid deficiencies. And the chemicals in our food.