[ExI] Good Calories, Bad Calories

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:

Instead, it has strengthened my resolve that this is the most
> unscientific book since "The Bell Curve".  It is pseudo-science wrapped up
> in scientific sounding words.

### Comparison to "The Bell Curve" is an accolade, implying devotion
to truth-seeking against herd-mentality.

------------------

>
> In conclusion, I still believe that total calories in minus total calories
> expended equals remaining calories stored as fat.  These calories can be fat
> or carb, it does not matter.  Eating more calories than expended will cause
> weight gain.  Exercise will expend more calories and reduce weight gain.
> Eating less will reduce calorie input and reduce weight gain.

### I agree with this. However, there is a strong possibility that the
exact composition of our diet has an impact on our satiety and basic
metabolism, independently of the total calories ingested. This would
mean that some diets make it more difficult to maintain a proper
caloric balance under conditions of food abundance.

 High fat is
> just as dangerous as high carbs.

### People on Atkins diet have a lower total caloric intake, despite
lack of any limitations on the amounts of food. This would contradict
your statement.

  There are good fats and good carbs that
> should replace bad fat and bad carbs.

### Yes, there are tantalizing but not definite indications that
sucrose and fructose are more likely to cause liver steatosis than
equivalent amounts of glucose and complex carbohydrates.

 He explains
> that Orientals on a traditional diet of rice are healthier than when they
> come to America and eat an Western diet.

### But this is the case only with persons living in rural areas or
otherwise under relative caloric scarcity - and even an otherwise
unhealthy diet is good if done under mild caloric restriction. The
epidemic of metabolic syndrome in Japan and in Chinese cities, and its
absence in rural areas, are compatible with this interpretation. For
Americans living under conditions of extreme food abundance it is
important to look primarily at overfed Orientals rather than at thin
ones.

----------------
 Similar claims are made for
> statins, which lower cholesterol.  Why do they also seem to reduce
> heart-attack rates if cholesterol doesn't cause heart-attacks?  Maybe there
> is another unknown/undiscovered protective mechanism the statins use instead
> of the direct obvious one (lowering cholesterol) that was predicted and
> observed.

### It is a well-known observation that lowering cholesterol for the
most part is completely useless in preventing heart disease or other
problems. There are only two cholesterol-lowering interventions proven
to improve survival - statins and exercise/caloric restriction. Niacin
seems to work but not as well. All other cholesterol-lowering drugs
are either useless or even harmful, as shown by large placebo
controlled studies. If you don't believe, look up fenofibrate,
gemfibrozil, ezetimibe, you name it.

This implies that cholesterol most likely is not the problem, except
perhaps in some rare inherited dyslipidemias. And whenever I see a
patient on fenofibrate or another of these quack cures, I always
strongly advise them to stop taking it, even if they have statin
intolerance.


 When science determined that there were
> different types of cholesterol and started distinguishing between them in
> studies, it became obvious that increasing good cholesterol was good and
> decreasing bad cholesterol was good.

### As noted above, there is no conclusive evidence of that claim. All
drugs designed to increase HDL ended in humongous losses for pharma,
despite initial hype, because they increased all-cause mortality.

Rafal