4 ms·

I like to stick with the first law of thermodynamics. It's worked very well my entire life.

by gragas 9y ago

grzm 9y ago
Do you have something specific to the article to contribute? While as far as we know the laws of physics apply to human respiration, a general statement like this ignores at least endocrinology and amounts to trolling.
starchild3001 9y ago
Human biology is complex. Reducing it to simple thermodynamics completely ignores factors like metabolism, psychology and microbiome. Eating nutrient deficient/extremely tasty sweets (or junk food) has very different effects than eating nutrient dense/bland red meat or vegetables with the same calories. Reductionism is counterproductive in this case. You should re-read the article. It describes a number of ways where human metabolism responds to calories and/or body weight in unexpected ways (hence the biology is 'complex').
- Double_a_92 9y ago
  The difference between junkfood and healthy food is the "calorie density". A big mac is 500kcal, but you are still hungry after eating one.
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    Again, an oversimplification. Different flavors, salt intake, even psychology can come into play in how your appetite is affected and how your body may react to what you just ate.
  - beagle3 9y ago
    That's not the whole story. Do this experiment: drink/eat fat, 38% sweet cream is probably the friendliest to the uninitiated, but butter, olive oil, coconut oil would also work. It doesn't get more dense than pure fat (and only about 2.5 as much as 38%fat sweet cream), and you will NOT be hungry afterwards.
jjeaff 9y ago
Dunnings Krueger much? We have calories in down to a pretty good science (although more and more studies are finding very incorrect measuring going on). Good luck counting calories out. That's a rabbit hole of extreme complexity.
- beagle3 9y ago
  I agree with the DK reference, but I disagree that we have the "calories in" nailed down (and of course, calories out is completely out of the question). For example, food temperature must (calorically) make some difference - e.g., if I drink a liter of 3 deg(celsius) water every day, and remain at 36 dec(celsius) myself, vs. if I drink a 43 deg(celsius) tea (and remain at same temp), the "in" is significantly difference (to the tune of 40kcal/liter between the extremes), whether you count it on in or out. Furthermore, we don't even have carbs properly - depending on microbiome, undigestable fiber to you might be digestable to me, e.g. [0], and whether you eat digest papaya or carbon at the same time as other things can significantly change how much "calories in" the represent. [0] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/04/japanese-guts-are-made-sushi http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/04/japanese-guts-are-mad...
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    Yes, I left that part out of my answer just to keep from muddying the water even further.

I like to stick with the first law of thermodynamics. It's worked very well my entire life.

by gragas 9y ago

I like to stick with the first law of thermodynamics. It's worked very well my entire life.

grzm 9y ago

Do you have something specific to the article to contribute? While as far as we know the laws of physics apply to human respiration, a general statement like this ignores at least endocrinology and amounts to trolling.

starchild3001 9y ago

Human biology is complex. Reducing it to simple thermodynamics completely ignores factors like metabolism, psychology and microbiome. Eating nutrient deficient/extremely tasty sweets (or junk food) has very different effects than eating nutrient dense/bland red meat or vegetables with the same calories. Reductionism is counterproductive in this case. You should re-read the article. It describes a number of ways where human metabolism responds to calories and/or body weight in unexpected ways (hence the biology is 'complex').

Double_a_92 9y ago
The difference between junkfood and healthy food is the "calorie density". A big mac is 500kcal, but you are still hungry after eating one.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  Again, an oversimplification. Different flavors, salt intake, even psychology can come into play in how your appetite is affected and how your body may react to what you just ate.
- beagle3 9y ago
  That's not the whole story. Do this experiment: drink/eat fat, 38% sweet cream is probably the friendliest to the uninitiated, but butter, olive oil, coconut oil would also work. It doesn't get more dense than pure fat (and only about 2.5 as much as 38%fat sweet cream), and you will NOT be hungry afterwards.

jjeaff 9y ago

Dunnings Krueger much? We have calories in down to a pretty good science (although more and more studies are finding very incorrect measuring going on). Good luck counting calories out. That's a rabbit hole of extreme complexity.

beagle3 9y ago
I agree with the DK reference, but I disagree that we have the "calories in" nailed down (and of course, calories out is completely out of the question). For example, food temperature must (calorically) make some difference - e.g., if I drink a liter of 3 deg(celsius) water every day, and remain at 36 dec(celsius) myself, vs. if I drink a 43 deg(celsius) tea (and remain at same temp), the "in" is significantly difference (to the tune of 40kcal/liter between the extremes), whether you count it on in or out. Furthermore, we don't even have carbs properly - depending on microbiome, undigestable fiber to you might be digestable to me, e.g. [0], and whether you eat digest papaya or carbon at the same time as other things can significantly change how much "calories in" the represent. [0] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/04/japanese-guts-are-made-sushi http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/04/japanese-guts-are-mad...
- jjeaff 9y ago
  Yes, I left that part out of my answer just to keep from muddying the water even further.