So I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent...most of the time but I know I'm not alone in being "confusuled" in all the varying opinions/contradictory research about nutrition.

Like most of you, I've combed through the Dr. Eades and Calories thread as well as his blog post and the subsequent replies. So just as I'm wrapping my head around the theory that calories count, Jimmy interviews a man with impressive credentials on the face of things and he makes a reasonable argument that calories do not count.

Dr. Carlson maintains that a calorie is a unit of combustion, not a unit of digestion. The two are diametrically opposed in his opinion. So let's add the latest excellent podcast of Jimmy's onto the table for discussion. What do you think about the points Dr. Carlson makes?

I just listened to the entire podcast. This was great. Thank you Dr. Carlson and thanks Jimmy.

Here's how I understood what Dr. Carlson was saying about calories. He's a smart guy; he's obviously not denying that food is the source of energy for your body.

But I believe the point he was making is that the calorie content of a particular food that you find in a calorie table is pretty useless as far as being a measure of how much energy your body can get out of that food. (I'd say the calorie content is a measure of the maximum your body could get.)

So if you focus on calories rather than on macronutrient composition and the many other factors the readers of this forum are aware of, you aren't going to gain much understanding of what causes overweight and other food-related health problems.

By the way, here's the direct link to that interview for those who missed it:

http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/are-w...isode-145/

Great interview. I'm looking forward to part two.

It's about time people are actually paying attention to science as opposed to old fables and wives' tales. This isn't all that new and shouldn't be so controversial. Go find some senior citizens and ask them how they were told to lose weight during their younger years. They'll tell you it was always about the carbohydrates. Women especially knew that pasta and bread went straight to their thighs!

That's true it isn't new Charles...unfortunately we have short memories as a society. If we ever get past the fat-phobia then we should hammer the message hard forevermore!

Great interview. Is the second part available?

I like the calorie explanation and that made sense to me.

Additionally, the part of the interview that hit home for me, was related to the fact about obesity and saving lives is to educate people to educate themselves. Too many people jump on the bandwagons of their doctors or the latest diet fad. I sometimes wish low-carb had not gotten the bad rap it did. Because of that bad reputation that it the low carb diet experienced a couple years ago, I succumbed to peer pressure and after coming within 20 pounds of my goal, I thought I could return to a "normal" dietary lifestyle. I did so because everyone kept examining every morsel of food I consumed. Medically I was not under any type of restrictions, so I had the choice of going back to that "normal" eating; watching others eat what I felt I was being deprived of and listening to the ridicule of how I was eating led me to a poor decision. A very poor decision. One that has cost me to be obese and dealing with high blood pressure issues.

An aspect that is not covered in the interview but I would like to address is the psychological one. I truly believe if low carb was accepted as the vegetarian or when someone is allergic to a certain food, it wouldn't have the social pressure that people experience. I wonder how many people remember this: "Well, you can't eat that much bacon." They associated the eating style with eating pounds of bacon and where did they get that idea? Our media. Our current media seems to now be the bible that dictates our society. Somehow, people to embrace the idea of educating themselves what's right for them. A daunting task for sure. The overweight public has witnessed various failed "diets" and has trouble sustaining a good thing when the "doom and gloom" naysayers are out there to foil the best efforts of those who are at the least...trying.

I am not in the medical field and for good reason, but I have taken on the responsibility of learning more about my own body, exercise, and living life to the fullest. I'm back to researching, questioning, and trying to figure out what will work for me. So far? I have determined sugar is not my friend.

Thanks for the link. Thanks for the inspiration.

I really liked the point Dr. Carlson made about sugar making the bad cholesterol!

Art, Part 2 is coming up on Thursday. My podcast shows are on Mondays and Thursdays. THANKS for listening everyone!

Jimmy Moore Wrote:Art, Part 2 is coming up on Thursday. My podcast shows are on Mondays and Thursdays. THANKS for listening everyone!

Great! I'll have to check it out.

Quote:It's about time people are actually paying attention to science as opposed to old fables and wives' tales.

I still have friends that think you get colds by going outside with wet hair. ::sigh::

You mean that doesn't cause colds?! Hee hee!

::sneezes on Jimmy so he will learn the real cause of colds:::

:::ACHOOO!:::

Fabulous interview, Jimmy. You ended it in such a sneaky place, with the man eating 10,000 calories a day and still losing weight. Talk about a cliffhanger! Boy, I really want to read this guy's book.

I'm on pins and needles to hear Part II!

pooti Wrote:Dr. Carlson maintains that a calorie is a unit of combustion, not a unit of digestion. The two are diametrically opposed in his opinion.

I'm confused about one statement he made. He said that a calorie is "a combustion term" and "combustion and digestion are two different processes... you always hear 'you burn fat, you burn fat.' You don't burn fat. You utilize fat for fuel."

Here's my dictionary's definition of fuel:
"Material such as coal, gas, or oil that is burned to produce heat or power."

Isn't that combustion?

That 10,000 calorie story is AMAZING! You'll want to hear about that one...it'll blow your mind if you buy into the calories count hypothesis. I'm happy to share your comments about "combustion" with Dr. Carlson for a response, Vesna. Stay tuned...

Vesna Wrote:

pooti Wrote:Dr. Carlson maintains that a calorie is a unit of combustion, not a unit of digestion. The two are diametrically opposed in his opinion.

I'm confused about one statement he made. He said that a calorie is "a combustion term" and "combustion and digestion are two different processes... you always hear 'you burn fat, you burn fat.' You don't burn fat. You utilize fat for fuel."

Here's my dictionary's definition of fuel:
"Material such as coal, gas, or oil that is burned to produce heat or power."

Isn't that combustion?

Yes. What he is talking about here is how they test to determine number of calories using what is called a 'bomb calorimeter'. That is how they determine values for 'unit of combustion' you find in the calorie charts. He says that when you ingest food to get energy that the digestion energy has no correlation to the charts necessarily for the 'unit of combustion'.

Well, I'm already in love with Dr. Carlson so I can't wait to learn more!

You'll enjoy tomorrow's conclusion at http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com.

Dr. Carlson provided the following response to the question about the term he used "combustion":

That is an excellent question, so let's analyze the statement and dictionary definition some more. Combustion and digestion are still two very different processes, even though we may use similar (or the same) words to describe each process.

First, we really do not 'burn' fat, we 'utilize' fat for energy, not truly for fuel. When we utilize fat for energy, distinct biochemical processes occur, with the end result of something called ATP being formed, and this is our ultimate energy source, which helps run our bodies. Our bodies do not run solely on heat, even though our bodies need to be at a certain temperature to perform properly. The ATP molecule works its magic by interacting on a submolecular level to allow our body to function.

Now analyzing the dictionary definition for fuel, which is a standard definition; the substance that is being burned to produce heat or power, is indeed being burned. The process is a simple combustion or burning process, not a complex set of biochemical processes. The heat or power which is produced when one combusts, will provide the driving force behind a steam engine or automobile engine. It is the heat which causes the mechanisms of the machinery to behave a certain way and this is how your car (or other machine) moves or operates.

I am being very specific in my selection of words to describe fat utilization and combustion processes. The terms fuel and burn and energy have become so widely used, they have become a part of the language we use to describe human bodies and machines. In fact, it is this wide misuse and crossing over of language that has lead almost everyone, especially physicians, to think that a calorie actually means something in human nutrition.

Remember, a calorie is a quantitative heat chemist's tool to determine how much heat is being given off when something is burned. This heat that is generated is not what makes the human body run, and that's why a calorie is not relevant in human nutrition, despite what the vast majority of scientists and medical doctor's believe.

Remember too, that what one believes, is not always true. Hope this helps a little.

Dr. Jim