Comments on: Thermodynamics and weight loss

By: Weight Loss | Health Care Solutions | The Healthy Omnivore

Weight Loss | Health Care Solutions | The Healthy Omnivore — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:01:02 +0000

[...] at the same speed as 1200 calories of Protein is just plain ludicrous. There is such a thing as a metabolic advantage (carbohydrates vs. protein) and even something being isocaloric but not isometabolic [...]

By: Mike Rodriguez

Mike Rodriguez — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:45:48 +0000

I’ve invoked the thermodynamics argument against my mom concerning weight gain/loss before. I said that if people exercise, they won’t have weight problems, though they may gain muscle, but if they don’t exercise, then of course they may start having weight problems (more energy being used up as opposed to not, when sedentary). She’s of the school of thought that there are people that cannot do anything about their weight regardless of anything (Nutty Professor movie logic), and I know better due to my own experiences with working out and being sedentary. This is a good article; good enough that I had to comment on it years later. I would have loved to have it handy when I argued weight problems with my mother however.

By: Calories In, Calories Out: Fact or Fiction … Redux | bodybuildinghowto247.com

Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:49:46 +0000

[...] Protein Power on the issue: How does this apply to weight [...]

By: Calories In, Calories Out: Fact or Fiction … Redux | The Iron Samurai

Calories In, Calories Out: Fact or Fiction … Redux | The Iron Samurai — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:36:37 +0000

[...] Protein Power on the [...]

By: j

Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:16:08 +0000

you are out of your minds if you think an extra 200 calories a day won’t help. If you train modestly hard for an hour a day, including warm up, with the extra 200, any human would lose a pound of weight per week. That is not only tremendous, as losing more than 2-3 pounds per week isnt healthy, for weightloss, but think of how easy that is to maintain.

PS if you think 30% protien is high i would disagree. That percentage is not dangerous longterm and if you follow 1 gram per pound a day that is not a high number to achieve.

By: Danny Albers

Danny Albers — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 19:54:25 +0000

God bless you for addressing the most misquoted issue by the most misguided of fools across the internet.

They cling to the first law like bible but do not even understand it, nor can they explain it in simple terms. They fail to see that calories stored = calories in – calories spent could actually look more like calories stored = calories in – calories spent – “any number of other uses the body may have for that food resource besides energy”

In their small minded and narrow view, the assume that every ounce of every meal is used solely for energy. They ignore that fact that sometimes useable energy is literally excreted away such as ketones in the urine, or even sugar in the urine. Obviously, if energy left the body, the only way possible is to burn it up with exercise, or it gets stored right? I am no physics expert, but to state that we do not sometimes pass useable fuel in our excrement flies in the face of facts as well.

I know enough to know I know next to nothing. I have noticed that the truly competent people are the ones that are open to learning and admitting they may not have all the answers. I never find those people supporting the current “Heart healthy balanced approach to nutrition”. The more we learn, the more we should be realizing we need to learn and that we know very little. Constant certainty is the mindset of a fool, and clinging to dogma the mindset of a blind fanatic.

Thanks for expanding my knowledge. Sadly, I will not get a chance to use it to convince believers that a calorie is a calorie is incorrect. They would rather listen to Jillien Micheals than Einstein in physics circles.

Cheers!

By: Fighting Chaos to Maintain Health : The Blogsite for Penrith Chiropractic

Fighting Chaos to Maintain Health : The Blogsite for Penrith Chiropractic — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:35:56 +0000

[...] #split {}#single {}#splitalign {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;}#singlealign {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;}.linkboxtext {line-height: 1.4em;}.linkboxcontainer {padding: 7px 7px 7px 7px;background-color:#eeeeee;border-color:#000000;border-width:0px; border-style:solid;}.linkboxdisplay {padding: 7px 7px 7px 7px;}.linkboxdisplay td {text-align: center;}.linkboxdisplay a:link {text-decoration: none;}.linkboxdisplay a:hover {text-decoration: underline;} function opensingledropdown() { document.getElementById('singletablelinks').style.display = ''; document.getElementById('singlemouse').style.display = 'none'; } function closesingledropdown() { document.getElementById('singletablelinks').style.display = 'none'; document.getElementById('singlemouse').style.display = ''; } The second law of thermodynamics and the history of the universeThe loophole in the second law of thermodynamicsSecond law of thermodynamics and humpty dumptySecond law of thermodynamics and humpty dumptyEvolution and the second law of thermodynamicsProject Management and the Second Law of ThermodynamicsThe Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D. [...]

By: A Calorie is A Calorie – Part II | Gatenscscs

A Calorie is A Calorie – Part II | Gatenscscs — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 23:54:22 +0000

[...] in – calories out equation. This makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is that the second law of thermodynamics is ignored. This law states that in any reaction that is irreversible, such as the first law, [...]

By: mreades

mreades — Mon, 09 May 2011 16:38:22 +0000

You wrote:

You’ve conjured up a gaggle of old women/witches chanting spells with malevolent glee as they stir the putrid cauldron of their outdated ideas.

To my unenlightened mind, you’ve hit on the perfect description of Kolata, Brody, Burros et al. Do you have a better word to describe them?

By: lastdeadmouse

lastdeadmouse — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:57:32 +0000

I did enjoy your article, but I need to point out that your gasoline analogy is wrong. The difference in gasoline grades comes down to the percentage of octane molecules vs. heptane molecules. 91 octane gas contains 91% octane molecules. Their isn’t anything actually over 100, but some racing fuels are labled as such to indicate proprietary blends more resistant to detonantion. The fact is that the higher the octane percentage, the more resistant the fuel is to detonation. Premium fuel actually burns less efficiently, but this is precicely why its required for high performance engines running more advanced timings and higher compression ratios. Where a lower octane fuel would detonate before spark (a big problem) the higher octane fuel will resist this. More than you ever wanted to know about gas i’m sure, but had to explain. Otherwise, great article.