But it doesn’t work.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But it doesn’t work.[/quote]
Prove it.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
His beef is with the “calories in, calories out” bullshit science.[/quote]
What is “bullshit” about calories in, calories out?[/quote]
I would also like to know the answer to this. The law of conservation of energy applies to everything, I do not understand why people think that caloric intake and expenditure for humans would somehow be exempt from it.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Easy, conservation of energy applies to closed systems. [/quote]
Wrong, conservation of energy applies to EVERYTHING, but when applied to a closed system, the total energy of that closed system is zero. When applied to an open system, such as a human being, then any energy that is not equivalent to the energy required to maintain the system in equilibrium will result in a change in that system. Calculating the change in the system based on the energy added or removed from that system requires finding a solution to Schrodinger’s Equation, but for energy being added to a system, the change in energy of that system will usually be in the form of a change in temperature or a change in mass. Since our body maintain’s a roughly constant temperature and assuming one is not overeating to the point of one’s body needing to violently expel the excess energy (i.e. vomiting and other excretory actions), most of the change in energy will be in the form of a change in mass. Almost all other changes in energy will be secondary, with notable exceptions being people training at a high level (i.e. athletes not an average gym rat who trains for 3-5 hours a week) and extremely malnourished or extremely obese. For the vast majority of the population, even the ones who go to the gym regularly, calories in/ calories out is a perfectly good way to plan a diet around.
[quote]anonym wrote:
What is “bullshit” about calories in, calories out?[/quote]
You are not a caloric engine.
You are a system of feedback loops upon feedback loops upon feedback loops.
If you shift the balance, you change your behavior.
Oil stoves usually do not tend to do that.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
His beef is with the “calories in, calories out” bullshit science.[/quote]
What is “bullshit” about calories in, calories out?[/quote]
I would also like to know the answer to this. The law of conservation of energy applies to everything, I do not understand why people think that caloric intake and expenditure for humans would somehow be exempt from it.
[/quote]
Because if that were true you could chug down a gallon of gasoline and be done for the day.
I would expect a different result.
The whole unmentioned premise is that we can absorb any kind of energy, in any amounts and as long as we burn it we will be fine.
Try to put gasoline in a diesel engine and see how that works.
Energy in, energy out, right?
Admittedly, the two would match, also, you would have to foot a very hefty repair bill.
[quote]orion wrote:
The whole unmentioned premise is that we can absorb any kind of energy, in any amounts and as long as we burn it we will be fine. [/quote]
I am finding it EXTREMELY surprising that, when discussing human nutrition, it needs to be explicitly stated that we are talking about the nutrients people rely on for sustenance in order to avoid confusion.
This thread has had 692 views as of this reply. Were any of you lurkers out there under the impression that CICO asserts one can live off of deep-throating gas pump nozzles every morning?
Quit being dense. Rather than wasting my time with another bizarre, groundless interpretation of the argument being put forth, why not instead post some actual research that debunks the scientific consensus?
[quote]orion wrote:
Because if that were true you could chug down a gallon of gasoline and be done for the day.
I would expect a different result.
The whole unmentioned premise is that we can absorb any kind of energy, in any amounts and as long as we burn it we will be fine.
Try to put gasoline in a diesel engine and see how that works.
Energy in, energy out, right?
Admittedly, the two would match, also, you would have to foot a very hefty repair bill.
[/quote]
You are looking at that situation all wrong. Gasoline will not add energy to a human since we cannot metabolize or otherwise use gasoline in any useful way to add energy to our system, in fact it is poisonous and so ingesting it would either result in an energy loss due to a human body needing to expend energy to remove the gasoline from it or it can die. The only addition of energy from ingesting gasoline will be from the added mass of the gasoline contributing to the potential and kinetic energy of the system, which will be negligible unless you can actually drink and keep more then 1 kg of gasoline for every 20 kg of body mass and will be lost once the gasoline is expelled or we die. Either way, energy is conserved.
When it comes to human metabolism, we can use carbs, protein, and fats in order to add to our total energy, and for the vast majority of people calories in/calories out is just as good a system as any for determining the amounts needed. Anonym has already evidence from a biological perspective. If you are aware of any actual peer-reviewed studies that show otherwise, then by all means provide them instead of misunderstanding basic physics principles and using that misunderstanding to try and develop an argument. Anything else that we add to our system, even things like iron and zinc that are useful to us, require the use of energy derived from either the ingestion of those sources of energy or from energy stored in our bodies. Either way, the result is a loss of total energy and energy is conserved.
And for your example of gasoline in a diesel engine, combustion engines use the explosion of combustible gas in order to add energy to a system, which only occurs under specific circumstances. The gasoline itself adds no energy to any system outside of it’s mass adding to potential and kinetic energy unless that system has a means to convert it in some way to a form that adds energy to the system. Humans and diesel engines do not have the ability to convert gasoline into a useful source of energy that can meaningfully add to the total energy of their systems. A gasoline engine can. That is why gasoline can add energy to one system and not another. In all of the cases that I outlined, energy was conserved.
Oh, and your “Energy in, energy out, right?” comment is completely wrong for all of the situations we are discussing. If this was before 1905, then it would have been considered correct. Now that is only a special case of conservation of energy that only applies to isolated systems, and none of the situations we are describing are isolated systems.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Because if that were true you could chug down a gallon of gasoline and be done for the day.
I would expect a different result.
The whole unmentioned premise is that we can absorb any kind of energy, in any amounts and as long as we burn it we will be fine.
Try to put gasoline in a diesel engine and see how that works.
Energy in, energy out, right?
Admittedly, the two would match, also, you would have to foot a very hefty repair bill.
[/quote]
You are looking at that situation all wrong. Gasoline will not add energy to a human since we cannot metabolize or otherwise use gasoline in any useful way to add energy to our system, in fact it is poisonous and so ingesting it would either result in an energy loss due to a human body needing to expend energy to remove the gasoline from it or it can die. The only addition of energy from ingesting gasoline will be from the added mass of the gasoline contributing to the potential and kinetic energy of the system, which will be negligible unless you can actually drink and keep more then 1 kg of gasoline for every 20 kg of body mass and will be lost once the gasoline is expelled or we die. Either way, energy is conserved.
When it comes to human metabolism, we can use carbs, protein, and fats in order to add to our total energy, and for the vast majority of people calories in/calories out is just as good a system as any for determining the amounts needed. Anonym has already evidence from a biological perspective. If you are aware of any actual peer-reviewed studies that show otherwise, then by all means provide them instead of misunderstanding basic physics principles and using that misunderstanding to try and develop an argument. Anything else that we add to our system, even things like iron and zinc that are useful to us, require the use of energy derived from either the ingestion of those sources of energy or from energy stored in our bodies. Either way, the result is a loss of total energy and energy is conserved.
And for your example of gasoline in a diesel engine, combustion engines use the explosion of combustible gas in order to add energy to a system, which only occurs under specific circumstances. The gasoline itself adds no energy to any system outside of it’s mass adding to potential and kinetic energy unless that system has a means to convert it in some way to a form that adds energy to the system. Humans and diesel engines do not have the ability to convert gasoline into a useful source of energy that can meaningfully add to the total energy of their systems. A gasoline engine can. That is why gasoline can add energy to one system and not another. In all of the cases that I outlined, energy was conserved.
Oh, and your “Energy in, energy out, right?” comment is completely wrong for all of the situations we are discussing. If this was before 1905, then it would have been considered correct. Now that is only a special case of conservation of energy that only applies to isolated systems, and none of the situations we are describing are isolated systems.[/quote]
You restating my point and telling me that I am wrong because you have restated it?
I am intrigued.
Yes, indeed, we handle some kinds of energy better than others.
As do combustion engines.
If you put gas into a diesel engine it blows up.
That was a very nice metaphor for yes, energy in equals energy out, but if you are the engine, you prefer one kind of energy to the other.
Whether you want to self destruct or not, depends on your goals I guess, either way you prefer one or the other.
[quote]orion wrote:
You restating my point and telling me that I am wrong because you have restated it?
I am intrigued. [/quote]
You: Conservation of energy doesn’t apply to humans ingesting food because if you ingest gasoline, it is the same as eating food because it has energy. Energy in, energy out, right?
Me: In order to add energy to a system, the system must be able to or in some way have the ability to convert the material added into some kind of useful form of energy in order to actually add to the total energy. Since we cannot do that with gasoline it adds no appreciable amount to the total energy of a human but rather results in a loss of energy and thus is not the same as eating food. I went on to say what can result in a net addition of energy to a person and explained the phenomenon in terms of the law of conservation of energy. We said two very different things.
This is not about “different kinds of energy” because energy is defined as a force that acts through a distance. It doesn’t matter where the energy came from. Energy is energy. What matters is a system’s ability to transform matter into energy. Mass is transformed into energy through the gravitational field of the earth acting on an object. It doesn’t matter if we are talking about uranium or a cow. The type of matter does not mean anything. A human can only convert protein, fats, and carbs into energy and thus these are the only things that can actually add to the total energy of the system. If you put a person in 120 degree weather, their body will still maintain an average temperature of 98.6 F. If you eat enough protein, fats or carbs beyond what is needed to maintain the bodies current needs, it will do a number of things, but most of that added energy will be in the form of added mass, fat or muscle or other tissue depending a number of factors. This is why calories in/calories out is a perfectly good system for the majority of the population and why conservation of energy does apply to eating food.
[quote] As do combustion engines.
If you put gas into a diesel engine it blows up. [/quote]
No, it doesn’t. When you put gasoline in a diesel engine, it will either not start or it will start for a brief time and stall, then you have to flush the entire fuel system and maybe a few components in the engine.
It is not a matter of “preferring one kind of energy to the other one” because energy is energy is energy. Combustion engines are designed to handle a certain AMOUNT of energy UNDER THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES. If you add too much, it will break. If you add too little, it will not work properly or not at all. If you add too much energy to a person in the form of eating too mush food, that person will gain mass, if you add too little, that person will lose mass. For the vast majority of people it is that simple. High level athletes, people with metabolic disorders, and extremely over or underweight people are notable exceptions, but only represent a small percentage of the population. No matter how you look at it, you will never be able to show that conservation of energy does not apply to people eating food. If you can provide a single reputable, peer-reviewed study done on an average population that shows that a significant portion of that population either gained weight on a long term caloric deficit or lost weight while on a long term caloric surplus, you will have found the next Nobel Prize winner.
Dude, conservation of energy ALWAYS applies. You’re missing the point.
Fat eaten in excess without carbohydrate cannot store itself as fat. It has to either be burned right away or rejected by the body. Energy in is equal to energy out.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Dude, conservation of energy ALWAYS applies. You’re missing the point.
Fat eaten in excess without carbohydrate cannot store itself as fat. It has to either be burned right away or rejected by the body. Energy in is equal to energy out.
[/quote]
Source, i.e. peer reviewed article or an advanced degree in some kind of biological science that deals with human metabolism?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Fat eaten in excess without carbohydrate cannot store itself as fat.[/quote]
Yes, it can be stored.
Taubes was wrong when he wrote it can’t and you are wrong for parroting it in a discussion without thinking critically about it.
Seriously – read a book before commenting further. Search academic journals for “Acylation Stimulating Protein” (ASP). Educate yourself rather than playing the bobblehead to every inane comment Taubes writes.
What a silly, ignorant statement to make.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Dude, conservation of energy ALWAYS applies. You’re missing the point.
Fat eaten in excess without carbohydrate cannot store itself as fat. It has to either be burned right away or rejected by the body. Energy in is equal to energy out.
[/quote]
Source, i.e. peer reviewed article or an advanced degree in some kind of biological science that deals with human metabolism?[/quote]
Why? are you too lazy to do your own research?
This isn’t MIT, buddy.
- “Obese patients confined to the hospital, allowed the freedom of the ward and receiving diets of from basal minus 30 per cent to basal minus 48 per cent calories lose weight equally well when these diets contain 90 or 13 Gm. of protein.”
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/INTEMED/14192/archinte_55_2_006.pdf
- "…we found that subjects lost weight more rapidly during the low-calorie ketogenic diet period than during the mixed diet period (Fig. 1). However, the increment in weight loss exhibited during the ketogenic diet period was due solely to excretion of excess water.
- “…it appears obvious that under conditions of precise consistency of caloric intake, and essentially constant physical activity, qualitative modification of the diet with respect to the amount or kind of fat, amount of carbohydrate, and amount of protein, makes little or no difference in the rate of weight loss.”
- “After this initial loss of [salt and water] weight as measured by the scales, continued and sustained loss of adipose tissue depends in the final analysis on prolonged restriction of calories, regardless of whether these are derived from fat, carbohydrate, or protein.”
- “The higher protein content of tlmis study did not affect the prior conclusion that any difference in time rate of weight loss between fat and carbohydrate containing diets was due to the sodium and fluid-retaining capacity of dietary carbohydrate.”
- “The present work confirms earlier reports, however, that the only metabolic advantage offered by a low-carbohydrate diet is its dehydrating potential.”
- “The diet which consisted almost entirely of protein did not spare body protein better or induce a greater rate of weight loss than did the mixture of protein and carbohydrate.”
- “The results of this study show that similar weight losses can be achieved by obese subjects on VLCD of either mixed nutrients (CD) or pure protein (PP).”
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS,
Again, all of these studies meet the requirement I outlined earlier – the same standard I am holding you to. I can TRIPLE this list before I am through, all with the same conclusions.
Now – put up, or shut up. I don’t care about your half-baked, spit-balling theories about what SHOULD happen because a JOURNALIST said so; I care about what ACTUALLY happens when people are tested under the strictest conditions possible.
I don’t care about your “theories” – I care about the results.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Dude, conservation of energy ALWAYS applies. You’re missing the point.
Fat eaten in excess without carbohydrate cannot store itself as fat. It has to either be burned right away or rejected by the body. Energy in is equal to energy out.
[/quote]
Source, i.e. peer reviewed article or an advanced degree in some kind of biological science that deals with human metabolism?[/quote]
Why? are you too lazy to do your own research?
This isn’t MIT, buddy.
[/quote]
I research the claims that I make, and when discussing matters not related to my field, physics, I always provide the source of my information. When discussing physics, my source is a PhD and well over a decade of experience so I do not feel the need to look up sources all the time.
What I am not going to do is research YOUR claims. If you make a statement, then you better be able to back it up with some kind of credentials, i.e. peer reviewed studies or demonstrated knowledge of the field, otherwise your claim is meaningless.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Dude, conservation of energy ALWAYS applies. You’re missing the point.
Fat eaten in excess without carbohydrate cannot store itself as fat. It has to either be burned right away or rejected by the body. Energy in is equal to energy out.
[/quote]
Apparently it can.
Whether that happens as efficiently as with carbohydrates remains to be seen.
Personally, I doubt it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why? are you too lazy to do your own research?[/quote]
You’re a clown.
We are debating a subject that revolves around facts, not opinions.
In these types of discussions, you are not allowed to peddle bullshit as FACT and tell your opponent to “do his own research” when he asks where you are getting your information from.
If that doesn’t work for you – GTFO. I have provided more than enough material to support my position and both Matt’s credentials and participation in past threads speak for themselves as far as the physics goes.
No one cares what your opinion is. We care about what the research shows.
And we’re still waiting.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Dude, conservation of energy ALWAYS applies. You’re missing the point.
Fat eaten in excess without carbohydrate cannot store itself as fat. It has to either be burned right away or rejected by the body. Energy in is equal to energy out.
[/quote]
Source, i.e. peer reviewed article or an advanced degree in some kind of biological science that deals with human metabolism?[/quote]
Why? are you too lazy to do your own research?
This isn’t MIT, buddy.
[/quote]
I research the claims that I make, and when discussing matters not related to my field, physics, I always provide the source of my information. When discussing physics, my source is a PhD and well over a decade of experience so I do not feel the need to look up sources all the time.
What I am not going to do is research YOUR claims. If you make a statement, then you better be able to back it up with some kind of credentials, i.e. peer reviewed studies or demonstrated knowledge of the field, otherwise your claim is meaningless. [/quote]
I would like to say that that would lead you to throw every epidemiological study into the dustbin, but they are of course totally peer reviewed.
Garbage, nonetheless.
Because, correlation does not mean causation, never has, never will, and for next to insignificant correlation in nutritional studies that is twice as true as it would otherwise be.
It works for overwhelming correlations, as in cholera is related to polluted water, but in the case of macronutritients and all kinds of diseases, not so much.
A hypothetical: If people who digest more fiber are healthier, does that mean that fiber is good for you?
If you answer is not a resounding “No! Not necessarily!” you are part of the problem.
That would be, at best, the basis of a clinical study, specifically a ward study, where you substitute with fiber and do nothing else.
Then you would have a point, but that is not how it is done.
What is done is that 90% of the money for such studies is granted by organizations that totally buy into the lipid hypothesis and you either swallow it or you become a cab driver.
You deal with these people on a daily basis, what are they going to choose?
In response to the “Calories in-Calories out” discussion:
1- law of conservation always applies, to everything, always
2- If the amount of energy your body consumes is greater than the amount of energy your body uses, your body will store the remaining energy
3- If the amount of energy your body consumes is less than the amount of energy your body uses, your body will use stored energy to make up the difference
4- Your body will adjust the amount of energy it uses to come closer to the level of energy it is consuming
5- The thing most people fail to realize with the “Calories in-Calories out” is that “Calories in” does not equal the amount of calories you eat. “Calories in” is the amount of calories your body absorbs. These are not the same thing. If you were to eat 3000 calories a day, your body will most likely absorb and use the vast majority of those calories. If you go out the next day and eat 10,000 calories, a much lower percentage will be absorbed (point number 4)