4 ms·

BS. The human body obeys the laws of physics

d0mine 6y ago
It is not helpful. There are too many variables in practice. Trivial example: milk -- different effect depending on genes.
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  I dont even know how this is a rebuttal. The body does not have the capability to create mass out of nothing. If you consume fewer calories than the body uses, you will lose weight. It literally doesn't matter what you eat as long as Calories In < Calories Out Losing weight on the Fast Food Diet https://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/05/teacher-loses-37-pounds-after-three-month-mcdonalds-diet/ https://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/05/teacher-loses-37-pounds... Twinkie Diet https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor... Beer Diet https://www.menshealth.com/weight-loss/a19532411/the-beer-diet/ https://www.menshealth.com/weight-loss/a19532411/the-beer-di...
  - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
    > The body does not have the capability to create mass out of nothing. A human body is not an antimatter reactor. It expels mass constantly. It's obviously thermodynamically possible to get less energy out of a piece of food simply by shitting out slightly more of it.
TheCoelacanth 6y ago
Yes, but a human body is not a bomb calorimeter. It doesn't perfectly combust everything that goes into the mouth.
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  "A battery will discharge if the outgoing current is less than the incoming current" "Yeah, but the current controller won't perfectly convert the incoming electricity to a state usable by the battery" Okay, so? What is the actual argument here?
  - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
    There are far more variables that affect how much energy a human body can get out of a piece of food than affect how much energy you will get out of a battery. If you define "calories in" as "how much the person actually metabolized from the food they ate", then "calories in - calories out" will obviously determine their weight, but you can't actually measure calories in using that definition, so it's a useless definition. For dietary purposes, the definition people are using is the number on the packet of food they ate, which there is obviously no law of thermodynamics requiring that it perfectly match their change in weight.
Volundr 6y ago
Yeah, hence why this is an oversimplification, not false. Yes weight loss/gain is by definition the difference between calories in vs calories out, yet this simple definition makes it seem like losing weight should be as simple as a) reducing calories in, or b) increasing calories out, when in actuality reducing calories in may reduce calories out by the same or even greater amounts. It turns out these two variables are not independent, but instead connected by an extremely complex network of factors. So yes, for many people, framing weight-loss as calories in vs calories out is a dramatic oversimplification.

It is not helpful. There are too many variables in practice. Trivial example: milk -- different effect depending on genes.

NikolaeVarius 6y ago
I dont even know how this is a rebuttal. The body does not have the capability to create mass out of nothing. If you consume fewer calories than the body uses, you will lose weight. It literally doesn't matter what you eat as long as Calories In < Calories Out Losing weight on the Fast Food Diet https://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/05/teacher-loses-37-pounds-after-three-month-mcdonalds-diet/ https://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/05/teacher-loses-37-pounds... Twinkie Diet https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor... Beer Diet https://www.menshealth.com/weight-loss/a19532411/the-beer-diet/ https://www.menshealth.com/weight-loss/a19532411/the-beer-di...
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  > The body does not have the capability to create mass out of nothing. A human body is not an antimatter reactor. It expels mass constantly. It's obviously thermodynamically possible to get less energy out of a piece of food simply by shitting out slightly more of it.

TheCoelacanth 6y ago

Yes, but a human body is not a bomb calorimeter. It doesn't perfectly combust everything that goes into the mouth.

NikolaeVarius 6y ago
"A battery will discharge if the outgoing current is less than the incoming current" "Yeah, but the current controller won't perfectly convert the incoming electricity to a state usable by the battery" Okay, so? What is the actual argument here?
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  There are far more variables that affect how much energy a human body can get out of a piece of food than affect how much energy you will get out of a battery. If you define "calories in" as "how much the person actually metabolized from the food they ate", then "calories in - calories out" will obviously determine their weight, but you can't actually measure calories in using that definition, so it's a useless definition. For dietary purposes, the definition people are using is the number on the packet of food they ate, which there is obviously no law of thermodynamics requiring that it perfectly match their change in weight.

Volundr 6y ago

Yeah, hence why this is an oversimplification, not false. Yes weight loss/gain is by definition the difference between calories in vs calories out, yet this simple definition makes it seem like losing weight should be as simple as a) reducing calories in, or b) increasing calories out, when in actuality reducing calories in may reduce calories out by the same or even greater amounts. It turns out these two variables are not independent, but instead connected by an extremely complex network of factors. So yes, for many people, framing weight-loss as calories in vs calories out is a dramatic oversimplification.