6 ms·
I never understand the thermodynamics argument in terms of weight gain. Surely you acknowledge that some solar cells and mechanical engines are more efficient t
by ericb 10y ago
I never understand the thermodynamics argument in terms of weight gain. Surely you acknowledge that some solar cells and mechanical engines are more efficient than others?
Additionally, do you acknowledge that some drives are more irresistible than others? Can you hold your breath until you pass out?
Is it so hard to imagine these drives might differ from person to person? I fully acknowledge that, irrespective of your body's efficiency, if you could ignore your drive magically, you would lose weight with no problem, but that is far from a useful endpoint because the drive matters.
- baudehlo 10y agoSome people's bodies just burn more calories in resting than others. Or their resting isn't as resting as they think - look at people who sit but their leg twitches up and down. Ultimately it's still calories in vs out. But the out isn't just burning 500 calories running. It's what you burn doing your day to day too.
- tomp 10y agoMy point is exactly that it's drive that differs, not metabolism. For the latter, see e.g.: https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-peo... Metabolic rate does vary, and technically there could be large variance. However, statistically speaking it is unlikely the variance would apply to you. The majority of the population exists in a range of 200-300kcal from each other and do not possess hugely different metabolic rates.