Replies

I suggest you first go to the dictionary and look up calorie.

LOL! Instead, why don't you go look up how most food companies "measure" the calories in their food that they list on the label? The answer is that, most of the time, they don't bother. They just use the standard 4-4-9 classification and a calculator. However, eat a can of corn, and then put the resultant crap in a bomb calorimeter and you'll find the answer is decidedly non-zero.

Interestingly enough, animal agriculture is pretty diligent about studying the difference between Gross Energy and Digestible Energy, because the raising of livestock has already become so politically incorrect that they don't care about offending the nutritionist lobby. All they care about is the economics; pumping in the least expensive amount feed with the most digestibility. It's a shame human nutrition research is still shackled by "deeply held convictions" which often don't trace to rigorous science.

You see, part of the problem relevant to THIS discussion is that the few studies done comparing food intake on traditional and low-carb diets haven't done the fecal analysis necessary to determine if this is one possible explanation of how the extra calories were "lost". I can't fathom why they haven't done this, when many other studies show differences in the intestinal absorption of different foods.

Remind me to tell you about the time I was a test subject in a low-carb/low-fat (human) metabolic study. I (along with most other subjects) gained weight on the low-fat portion, lost weight on the low-carb portion, and yet the researcher concluded that the low-fat portion was more conducive to weight loss...it's all about how you set up the strawman. Oh, and it was peer reviewed and published, to boot.