3 ms·

OK... that is news to me... do you have a link to a paper that proves this demonstrably false? Disproving a law of thermodynamics sounds like a big deal. How d

OK... that is news to me... do you have a link to a paper that proves this demonstrably false? Disproving a law of thermodynamics sounds like a big deal. How does the new model explain people losing weight in adverse conditions? I'm watching someone steadily lose weight via calories-in-calories-out model in front of me right now.

_bxg1 8y ago
Obviously calories matter, but there's just so much more going on than that. For example, your body's shifting metabolism. Eating certain things causes this to shift. Some people eat healthy constantly and remain overweight; others can't put on pounds no matter what they take in. That's a difference in their natural metabolisms. This is also why exercise matters beyond just the calories you burn over the course of a workout.
- projektir 8y ago
  > Obviously calories matter, but there's just so much more going on than that. The purpose of black box perspective is to not worry about the "so much more going on". Regardless of what happens in the box the rules of energy must stay put. As for the human body, the science there is young, it's extremely complex, there's a lot of misinformation, a lot of it was grabbed by governments ("don't eat fat!") to ill effect. Let's not. Just take it easy with the portions. Metabolism shifts are not that large. If you are following CICO, you're counting calories, and that is already an error prone process. There's not a big difference between "my metabolism shifted because of this odd food", "I drank some alcohol", and "I miscounted how much beans I actually had". It's fine, if you have a good enough weekly target and you stick to it, you will have a baseline. If you are not losing weight, reduce the target. It will work. If you are saying it won't I want to see a straight up study that says it put 500 men on a 1500 cal/day diet and they didn't lose weight. Note that I am only talking about the physical angle, not the sociological one. "Juice is not healthy" is, to me, a non-sociological claim, but a scientific one, and I would prefer that "x is unhealthy" means "x is mildly poisonous", not "x is calorie-dense", because there's nothing actually wrong with calorie-density.
m_mueller 8y ago
Calories in - calories out. However, what goes out (urine, stool) depends on the type of nutrition and in what combination it is eaten. carbohydrates are the easiest to absorb, followed by fats and last protein.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  I'd say accounting for hunger is also important since few people are going to be able to stick to a diet where they're hungry all the time.
  - m_mueller 8y ago
    Sure, though I think that’s already covered in the ‚calories in‘ part, it just shows that it‘s a non-linear system (which is generally hard to reason about outside of science & engineering contexts).

_bxg1 8y ago

Obviously calories matter, but there's just so much more going on than that. For example, your body's shifting metabolism. Eating certain things causes this to shift. Some people eat healthy constantly and remain overweight; others can't put on pounds no matter what they take in. That's a difference in their natural metabolisms. This is also why exercise matters beyond just the calories you burn over the course of a workout.

projektir 8y ago
> Obviously calories matter, but there's just so much more going on than that. The purpose of black box perspective is to not worry about the "so much more going on". Regardless of what happens in the box the rules of energy must stay put. As for the human body, the science there is young, it's extremely complex, there's a lot of misinformation, a lot of it was grabbed by governments ("don't eat fat!") to ill effect. Let's not. Just take it easy with the portions. Metabolism shifts are not that large. If you are following CICO, you're counting calories, and that is already an error prone process. There's not a big difference between "my metabolism shifted because of this odd food", "I drank some alcohol", and "I miscounted how much beans I actually had". It's fine, if you have a good enough weekly target and you stick to it, you will have a baseline. If you are not losing weight, reduce the target. It will work. If you are saying it won't I want to see a straight up study that says it put 500 men on a 1500 cal/day diet and they didn't lose weight. Note that I am only talking about the physical angle, not the sociological one. "Juice is not healthy" is, to me, a non-sociological claim, but a scientific one, and I would prefer that "x is unhealthy" means "x is mildly poisonous", not "x is calorie-dense", because there's nothing actually wrong with calorie-density.

m_mueller 8y ago

Calories in - calories out. However, what goes out (urine, stool) depends on the type of nutrition and in what combination it is eaten. carbohydrates are the easiest to absorb, followed by fats and last protein.

emodendroket 8y ago
I'd say accounting for hunger is also important since few people are going to be able to stick to a diet where they're hungry all the time.
- m_mueller 8y ago
  Sure, though I think that’s already covered in the ‚calories in‘ part, it just shows that it‘s a non-linear system (which is generally hard to reason about outside of science & engineering contexts).