Looks reasonable but is just nonsense
Indeed. If you burn grass you get quite a bit of heat, if a cow eats it it gets a fair bit of that energy; if a rabbit eats it it gets less, and if we eat it we get nothing at all. How is this possible if a calorie is just a calorie and first law of thermodynamics?!
I thought that the second law of thermodynamics was best summarized as ‘things **** up’ - and that applies universally.
Indeed. If you burn grass you get quite a bit of heat, if a cow eats it it gets a fair bit of that energy; if a rabbit eats it it gets less, and if we eat it we get nothing at all. How is this possible if a calorie is just a calorie and first law of thermodynamics?!
Because you're choosing to ignore one of the body's energy outputs?
Your energy input is what you eat and drink. Your output energy is what you burn (CO2 in your breath and heat) PLUS what you excrete. if your total output is greater than your input you lose weight otherwise you gain weight and the laws of thermodynamics are preserved either way.
I thought the second law of thermodynamics was ‘things **** up’ - and it has universal application.
I love a good calories/metabolism/weight loss/exercise intensity thread. Just disappointed nobody's tried the "drink green tea to speed up your metabolism" one yet.
I love a good calories/metabolism/weight loss/exercise intensity thread.
Me too! <pulls up chair and opens a pack of biscuits />
Your energy input is what you eat and drink. Your output energy is what you burn (CO2 in your breath and heat) PLUS what you excrete. if your total output is greater than your input you lose weight otherwise you gain weight and the laws of thermodynamics are preserved either way.
Quite. Your energy output is not just your exercise output. In the case of grass, it'll come out of your mouth as you puke it back up. So yes, you have highlighted my point that the TOTAL energy output in all forms follows the first law, but this is not in any way practical information in the case of exercise for weight loss.
Well at least I've learned I can't eat grass to support my intervals, everyday a school day...
Last time I wnet keto I ate in excess of 2400 calories most days. Lots of cheese, cream and fatty meat, I lost a stone a month for 4 months.
Then beer and chips came back into my life..
Hmm yes.. when I was doing the low carb thing well (first time around) I hit a plateau, then I started eating more Twixes and I lost more weight. Clearly that enabled me to burn more calories, but it enabled me to burn MORE than the extra consumed. But I was already eating an absolute ton of low GI food.
And when I tried to get back onto the same diet, it was far harder and less effective on subsequent times. It's almost as if there are a lot of complex mechanisms and adaptations going on...
I think you’re missing the point AA, eliminating carbs in the keto diet stabilises your blood sugar/insulin levels so when you restrict calories you don’t get the severe hunger pangs so it is a lot easier to maintain reduced calories and therefore lose weight.
fat is digested slower thus keeping your stomach "full" for longer. Sugar speeds up digestion making your feel hungry in a quicker time.
fill up on sweets and sugary drinks you'll feel hungry again a lot quicker than if you have a fry up. A good fry up will keep you going till dinner time.
I can easily eat a packet of chocolate biscuits, but I cannot eat a pack of butter. Why?
because you'd be sick from eating all that butter.
fat is digested slower thus keeping your stomach “full” for longer. Sugar speeds up digestion making your feel hungry in a quicker time.
fill up on sweets and sugary drinks you’ll feel hungry again a lot quicker than if you have a fry up. A good fry up will keep you going till dinner time.
Not true. Fat and protein ingestion release more of the hormones PYY and grehlin which make you feel full.
I'm calling bullshit on 16g of carbs in a day. Whats your diet - pure lard?
If you burn grass you get quite a bit of heat, if a cow eats it it gets a fair bit of that energy; if a rabbit eats it it gets less, and if we eat it we get nothing at all. How is this possible if a calorie is just a calorie and first law of thermodynamics?!
Its only possible if you dont understand the concept.
A good fry up will keep you going till dinner time.
Is that southern poncy dinner or proper midlands dinner?
I’m calling bullshit on 16g of carbs in a day. Whats your diet – pure lard?
I dont think many people understand that veg other than potato has carbs in.
And I don't think that some people understand that's possible to eat very low carb.
so did you eat pure lard or only lean meats or did you have some veg to make the diet slightly healthier? a pure meat diet is very unhealthy
Edit - i'd be fascinated to know what you ate in a day to only have 16g of carbs and how unhealthy that diet would be
And I don’t think that some people understand that’s possible to eat very low carb.
I'm sure it is possible, I just dont want to do it!
Can i ask a slightly simpler but similar question to the OP?
I ride my bike hard for an hour or I ride my bike at a lower aerobic pace for an hour
Which one is better for fat loss???
I just dont want to do it!
Then don't, but stop attacking people who do.
All I know is I'm getting heavier and my fat% according to our scales is on the rise after being unwise to do sweaty exercise while my drained abscess heals from the inside out since last Tuesday. 🙁
Might put some of you off food and reduce Calorie intake! 😆
because you’d be sick from eating all that butter.
Exactly. Why? Is it that your body handles different forms of food differently?
I ride my bike hard for an hour or I ride my bike at a lower aerobic pace for an hour
Which one is better for fat loss???
Depends. If you smash it for an hour you will deplete your glycogen stores and get hungry, and if you deny that urge you may just end up feeling shit and jack it in after a few days.
If you ride slowly for an hour this isn't ideal (slow rides need to be 2-3hrs or more), but if you do it every day you will find it much easier to restrict your calories, so you might well lose more weight, as long as you don't just eat to compensate. But not doing this is far easier when you're not smashing it.
I’m calling bullshit on 16g of carbs in a day?
Eh? Thats low to the extremes, yesterday I had 304g of carbs with my recent daily averages around 300. Lowest was last Tuesday - a non workout day, which was 194g carbs.
Then don’t, but stop attacking people who do.
I havent attacked anyone, you seem to be the one getting angry because others have questioned what you wrote
That's not even low carb, never mind Keto!
Be aware, I stay under 22g of net carbs daily. That doesn't include fibre or low/zero GI sugar alcohols like Erythritol. I avoid maltitol where possible as it has a GI of 36.
I do a lot of baking and have come up with a recipe for a mean choc chip and pecan cookie that's under 1g of net carbs per cookie.
I ride my bike hard for an hour or I ride my bike at a lower aerobic pace for an hour
Which one is better for fat loss???
Depends. If you smash it for an hour you will deplete your glycogen stores and get hungry, and if you deny that urge you may just end up feeling shit and jack it in after a few days.
If you ride slowly for an hour this isn’t ideal (slow rides need to be 2-3hrs or more), but if you do it every day you will find it much easier to restrict your calories, so you might well lose more weight, as long as you don’t just eat to compensate. But not doing this is far easier when you’re not smashing it.
Bravo you wrote a lot and failed to answer the question.
The simple answer is, the first one ride hard for a hour. Your proportion of fat burnt might be lower but the total amount will be greater.
I havent attacked anyone, you seem to be the one getting angry because others have questioned what you wrote
More exasperated than angry at your pig headed inability to look at other evidence.
You may not consider what you are doing as an attack, but I've been called a liar by @tjagain and then had that quoted by you.
If I post up what I ate yesterday, or any other day, I already know it'll be attacked because you, and others, are too blinkered to accept that your way isn't the only way. The pictures speak for themselves; I have lost more weight by following the Keto diet than any other method I've tried. Once I reach my target weight I'll start adjusting my diet to allow me to sustain that weight.
I eat low GI fruit and veg pretty much every day, but I also eat eggs, bacon, cheese, olives, steak, chicken, sausages, pork chops, fish. I don't eat sweets, cakes, bread, cereal, pasta, potatoes or rice.
I read the first few posts but then tuned out when it got all closed minded.
Some of you might find this interesting.
https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/science-of-ultra/id1042673386?l=en&i=1000485802972
Plenty of examples of studies where eating more calories resulted in weight loss so shouting 1st law of thermodynamics isn’t particularly useful when it comes to the complexity of the human body.
All Calories are not equal but even with the depth of study done so far we don’t really understand all the effects. n=1 studies on the most important subject you can think of are more valuable than woo, thank you very much.
So, maybe I'm missing something but what exactly are "net carbs" vs "just carbs"?
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/net-carbs
The term "net carbs" simply refers to carbs that are absorbed by the body. To calculate the net carbs in whole foods, subtract the fiber from the total number of carbs. To calculate the net carbs in processed foods, subtract the fiber and a portion of the sugar alcohols.
EU nutrition panels already show net carbs.
Plenty of examples of studies where eating more calories resulted in weight loss so shouting 1st law of thermodynamics isn’t particularly useful when it comes to the complexity of the human body.
That only looks at half the issue.
All Calories are not equal
What about all cm or all °C
https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/science-of-ultra/id1042673386?l=en&i=1000485802972
Will have a listen later, got to walk the dog now!
...
EU nutrition panels already show net carbs.
Ah, thanks for that.
All Calories are not equal
What about all cm or all °C
You're right of course, all cal are the same much as all kg are, though that's not whats being argued and you know that. What's being suggested is its easier to carry a 5kg steel ball than 5kg of loose 4mm steel ball bearings. Yes they're both the same mass but you handle them very differently.
maintain a small caloric restriction over time.
There are some fascinating studies on calories burnt per unit exercise done and the body adapts based on whether you're in a calorie deficit or surpless.
If you are in a surpless then you are less efficient eg say you burn 10 calories with as single deadlift. Go into deficit and you only burn 8 calories per deadlift (made up numbers as I can't recall what they were). So you have to do more work to burn the same number of calories when in a deficit.
I suspect the ratio varies person to person but just shows how complex the whole calories in / calories out thing is and measuring it as if you change one thing, everything else changes as well....
Doomaniac - you do really seem very defensive
I am fascinated by what you claim to eat and 16g of carb is ridiculously unhealthy and many of your statements are on the surface nonsense - how can you have a brownie with 1 g of carbs - and wTF are "net carbs"
And yes - a calorie is a measure of energy. Its a unit that is not a variable
What about all cm or all °C
In nutritional terms calories don't have identical effects in the body so they aren't equal simply because different pathways are involved and many of these processes are inefficient (2nd law of thermodynamics)
The calories assigned to food represent the energy for complete combustion of that food in oxygen. Calories refer to a chemical reaction, not the food itself.
So if i eat 1 pound of sugar vs 1 pound of butter my body will react in different ways and affect difference hormones. That isn't disputed. Insulin is a hormone that controls fat absorption. That is also not disputed. It stands to reason that if i lower circulating insulin in my body i will have have a tendency to utilise more fat as a source and not store as much fat.
Why this is so hard to understand i do not know
All Calories are not equal
Well equal in a calorimiter but not in the human body.
Eg take 500 calories of rice, cook with a teaspoon of coconut oil then refrigerating it for 12 hours more than halves the number of calories absorbed by the body...
Loads of similar studies on how different gut enzymes cope with different food starch types.
Thermodynamics of weight loss diets
Summary of thermodynamics in living organism
1. The second law of thermodynamics dictates that there is an inevitable metabolic inefficiency in all biological and biochemical processes with heat and high entropy molecules (carbon dioxide, water, urea) as the most common products.2. The first law of thermodynamics is satisfied in living (open) systems by properly accounting for the mass excreted and the heat radiated and exported in high entropy molecules.
It is commonly held that "a calorie is a calorie", i.e. that diets of equal caloric content will result in identical weight change independent of macronutrient composition, and appeal is frequently made to the laws of thermodynamics. We have previously shown that thermodynamics does not support such a view and that diets of different macronutrient content may be expected to induce different changes in body mass. Low carbohydrate diets in particular have claimed a "metabolic advantage" meaning more weight loss than in isocaloric diets of higher carbohydrate content. In this review, for pedagogic clarity, we reframe the theoretical discussion to directly link thermodynamic inefficiency to weight change. The problem in outline: Is metabolic advantage theoretically possible? If so, what biochemical mechanisms might plausibly explain it? Finally, what experimental evidence exists to determine whether it does or does not occur?
The misunderstanding that continues to be repeated in the expression "a calorie is a calorie" appears to be exclusive reference to the first law of thermodynamics. The difficulty with this theoretical approach is that it is only part of the relevant physics and its relationship to biologic systems. The first law says that in any transformation the total energy in the system can be accounted for by the heat added to the system, the work done by the system on its environment and the change in energy content of all the components of the system. It is important to understand, however, that the <b>first law does not say what the relative distribution between these effects will be for any process..</b> In fact, the first law does not even allow us to say whether the process will occur at all. To understand the progress of a physical change it is necessary to <b>understand the second law which introduces an entity known as the entropy,</b> S, a measure of disorder in all processes. In all real (irreversible) processes, entropy increases, usually written ΔS > 0. The most common marker of increasing entropy is heat, although it is by no means the only evidence for increased entropy.
Why this is so hard to understand i do not know
Its not, its just this obsession with saying not all calories are equal that is pure utter bobbins anyone who says this clearly doesnt understand some very basic things.
Well equal in a calorimiter but not in the human body.
No they really are the same.
@tjagain you call me a liar and seem surprised that I'm defensive. You're still questioning my carb intake, pm me your phone number and I'll whatsapp you screen shots.
It's a cookie, not a brownie (they are about 2.5g net carb), and it's made from almond flour, erythritol, coconut oil, choc chips, pecans and baking powder. They are slightly smaller than a digestive.
If you did any actual research into Keto you'd understand what net carbs are. You could even read the link I provided.
No they really are the same.
Well the overall energy content is the same but the ratio absorbed vs excreted varies depending on the specific food type, gut biome and wether or not the indiviudal is in a calorie deficit or not. Since the latter is all that really matters from a diet POV, it really doesn't matter that the unit of energy, of 1 calorie, is constant..
The misunderstanding that continues to be repeated in the expression “a calorie is a calorie” appears to be exclusive reference to the first law of thermodynamics. The difficulty with this theoretical approach is that it is only part of the relevant physics and its relationship to biologic systems. The first law says that in any transformation the total energy in the system can be accounted for by the heat added to the system, the work done by the system on its environment and the change in energy content of all the components of the system. It is important to understand, however, that the <b>first law does not say what the relative distribution between these effects will be for any process..</b> In fact, the first law does not even allow us to say whether the process will occur at all. To understand the progress of a physical change it is necessary to <b>understand the second law which introduces an entity known as the entropy,</b> S, a measure of disorder in all processes. In all real (irreversible) processes, entropy increases, usually written ΔS > 0. The most common marker of increasing entropy is heat, although it is by no means the only evidence for increased entropy.
This just reads like bobbins to me. A calorie is certainly a calorie and the first law of thermodynamics stands, the question is simply where does the energy go, is it stored, shat out, used in respiration or lost as heat or other options.
