A Calorie is a Calorie?

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/wheat-gluten-newly-confirmed-promote-weight-gain

Remarkably, they found that, relative to the gluten-fed mice, the gluten-free animals showed a reduction in body weight gain and adiposity, without changes in food intake or lipid excretion.

Two groups of mice are given the same amount of calories, but one group shows a reduction in body weight? If a calorie is a calorie, then how can this be true?

My explanation is that the body is a fuel consuming machine. Let the machine consume energy at a higher rate, then the machine will burn more energy and store less energy. In other words, some foods can lower a person's metabolism. How does the metabolism get lowered? You screw with a person's hormonal system.

Epigenetics might come into play here too. Epigenetics is a new field when it comes to how the body works. It is basically all about gene expression and what turns on or off certain genes.

Originally posted by Eladar
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/wheat-gluten-newly-confirmed-promote-weight-gain

[b]Remarkably, they found that, relative to the gluten-fed mice, the gluten-free animals showed a reduction in body weight gain and adiposity, without changes in food intake or lipid excretion.

Two groups of mice are given the same amount of calories, but one group sho ...[text shortened]... e body works. It is basically all about gene expression and what turns on or off certain genes.[/b]

This is not terrifically new. Many diet regimens, such as Weight Watchers, assign more "points" for X calories of simple carbohydrates than for X calories of protein. Thus, you blow your daily allotment of points faster if you eat more sugary foods versus foods high in protein. Fiber content, meanwhile, has the effect of reducing the point value of a portion.

The body can convert sugar into fat without expending much energy. Proteins, or even fats, take more energy to convert.

Originally posted by Soothfast
This is not terrifically new. Many diet regimens, such as Weight Watchers, assign more "points" for X calories of simple carbohydrates than for X calories of protein. Thus, you blow your daily allotment of points faster if you eat more sugary foods versus foods high in protein. Fiber content, meanwhile, has the effect of reducing the point value of a po ...[text shortened]... ar into fat without expending much energy. Proteins, or even fats, take more energy to convert.

I don't think you really understood what the link was saying.

Originally posted by Eladar
I don't think you really understood what the link was saying.

I don't think it's realistic to expect people to follow links.

Bear in mind with these things that the way they measure calorific content is by burning the food and measuring how much heat is released. This is not the same as what one's body does with food. Interesting that the gluten content is important.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't think it's realistic to expect people to follow links.

Bear in mind with these things that the way they measure calorific content is by burning the food and measuring how much heat is released. This is not the same as what one's body does with food. Interesting that the gluten content is important.

How about reading a quote that I put in bold?

Do you find the specific mention of gluten interesting or the fact that what food contains can effect weight gain?

Originally posted by Eladar
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/wheat-gluten-newly-confirmed-promote-weight-gain

[b]Remarkably, they found that, relative to the gluten-fed mice, the gluten-free animals showed a reduction in body weight gain and adiposity, without changes in food intake or lipid excretion.

Two groups of mice are given the same amount of calories, but one group sho ...[text shortened]... e body works. It is basically all about gene expression and what turns on or off certain genes.[/b]

From this article the following paragraph is extracted:

"Sometimes we forget that food is not simply a source of energy, or the material building blocks for the body, but a source of information as well. The way in which food directly interacts with the genes, gene expression, or gene product structure and function, is the object of study of the burgeoning new field of nutrigenomics. Wheat, like anything we attempt to use as food, contains both energy/matter and information that the body will use to maintain its genetic integrity or that may interfere with it."

They seem to know that food is a source of information, but seem to ignore how information could get into food. It obviously gets in there from the information in the DNA, but how could information get into the DNA unless something or someone with intelligence put it there. For it is known from experience that information only originates from an intelligent mind like that of man.

Originally posted by RJHinds
From this article the following paragraph is extracted:

"Sometimes we forget that [b]food is not simply a source of energy, or the material building blocks for the body, but a source of information as well. The way in which food directly interacts with the genes, gene expression, or gene product structure and function, is the object of study of the bu ...[text shortened]... nown from experience that information only originates from an intelligent mind like that of man.[/b]

There is a term for people like you: Confirmation bias. You are so addled with your belief you cannot accept anything that refutes your mythologies like your love of ancient Egyptian mythology.

The same goes for so-called scientists who start with an agenda and try to prove their really stupid arguments that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

That is not science no matter how many degrees the dudes have. Science goes like this: I wonder how X happened? So they come up with a hypothesis. Then look for evidence of it. Oops, that's no good. Go to hypothesis #2. Look for evidence. A bit better, go with hypothesis #3, look at evidence, AHA, that fits the evidence really well, and a new discovery is born,.

Your dudes on the other hand, have no #2, no #3 and so forth, only the one really stupid one, that the Earth is 6000 years old and they fully believe the ancient Egyptian tale about the 6 day creation.

Then they distort, lie, bully, try legislation, change any scientific fact to their ends not to learn any new truth but to bend the will of the population to their sick POV. As I have said before that is not even CLOSE to real science, it is weaponizing science for political ends, doing whatever it takes to kill evolution and the old Earth history which has been proven time and time again but your buddies use outdated and well refuted techniques to try to win over converts.

Like I said, that is not science in action, that is politics and sick politics at that.

You are all TCM in the 21st century where none of you belong.

Originally posted by sonhouse
There is a term for people like you: Confirmation bias. You are so addled with your belief you cannot accept anything that refutes your mythologies like your love of ancient Egyptian mythology.

The same goes for so-called scientists who start with an agenda and try to prove their really stupid arguments that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

That is ...[text shortened]... ics and sick politics at that.

You are all TCM in the 21st century where none of you belong.

You remain willingly ignorant and ignore the fact that information only originates from an intelligent mind. You refuse to use your mind to use reason and logic to come to the only logical conclusion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You remain willingly ignorant and ignore the fact that information only originates from an intelligent mind. You refuse to use your mind to use reason and logic to come to the only logical conclusion.

Isn't it a fact that you are an evilutionist, Jonah? And the only source of evilutionism is from creational sources? And that you are proud of never have read anything about evolution?

Isn't that a clear sign that you are indeed a willingly ignorant?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Isn't it a fact that you are an evilutionist, Jonah? And the only source of evilutionism is from creational sources? And that you are proud of never have read anything about evolution?

Isn't that a clear sign that you are indeed a willingly ignorant?

No.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No.

And still you say you are a near genius? A near ignorant would be a better name for you.

Well I guess this is one way to keep a thread like this alive.

Something that goes against what people in here like to believe was simply being ignored.

Originally posted by Eladar
Well I guess this is one way to keep a thread like this alive.

Something that goes against what people in here like to believe was simply being ignored.

or censored.