3 ms·
By saying Second law of thermodynamics still in effect I assume you mean "calories in calories out" still in effect, and that's actually not what the article sa
by wdewind 14y ago
By saying Second law of thermodynamics still in effect I assume you mean "calories in calories out" still in effect, and that's actually not what the article said at all (though the law is still in effect of course).
Consuming the same number of calories with different consumptions led to different amounts of calories being burned, and different amounts of weight being gained.
TLDR: what you eat matters, it's not just how much.
- Retric 14y agoNo, they are still saying "calories in calories out" These subjects expended, on average, only 100 fewer calories a day than they did at their full weights. They where also saying that types of calories in changes calories out.
- wdewind 14y agoSorry yes you're correct, I meant they are not saying that in the colloquial way it is used, which is that it doesn't matter what you eat assuming all else is constant (activity level etc). They are saying it in the technical sense that the people did in fact burn more calories on different diets. But those calories being burned were caused by the change in diet (assuming the hypothesis is correct). That is a massive change in American nutrition theory.