A Calorie is Not A Calorie - A Discussion of Thermodynamics

(Bunny) #177

And we think counting calories is a match for all this?

Only way to deal with that is not give it so much food? The timing and what your putting into it?

As Carol points out “…you won’t find any calorie sensors?..”

…in that mess…lol

(Ideom) #178

If you do, that’s on you. Do you see anybody else saying that?

I’ve seen some threads full of illogic before, but this one just may take the cake.

(Bunny) #179

Are you sane?

Do you really think you can bully people into silence especially because they might be right?

Same-thing the sugar industry did to scientist back in the day!

Who needs science when you can disregard anything you want ‘just because?’ Your science does not work and you have lots of money? In this case shattered Id’s and Egos?

“…I will personally attack people ’‘just because’’ I don’t want any kind of academic science or scholastic learning to be known?..”

Cognitive Dissonance?

Double Think?

The perfect recipe for the Dystopian Orwellian Nightmare?

“…You could not possibly do a ketogenic diet without eating only meat and fat and you cannot disagree with me or I will bully you to death?..”

Sounds more like Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451?

(Elmo) #180

Bunny, you’re the one that asked the question, and you already know it wasn’t the right question, you were just going for another strawman.

Everybody is aware that human metabolism “is complicated.” If you want to consider “all this,” as you said, then you can skip right to the end result and look at the energy balance.

Or, feel free to ‘reinvent the wheel,’ so to speak, as it pertains to biochemistry, but that’s a far different thing, and overly simplistic questions will not get you far (just take a look at that picture…:smile:). If you want “complicated,” then you’ve got it right there.

But if you want “simple,” then ask a credible question.

Be credible. It wasn’t even a week ago that you were telling us

You’ve got the fat outside of the fat cell, there. Same thing, you already know that’s not the way it works.

(Bunny) #181

How can fat or lipid droplets be outside the fat cells? I’m not sure what your talking about? But maybe your thinking is fat droplets just defy gravity and suspend themselves in mid-air, no organelle required?

You must talking about this?

And I respond:

So, what happened?

Telling a person this or that is illogical without explaining why or what was illogical, is basically an effortless endeavor to play tit for tat emotional games to hide any negative information.

If not, then it is just a way of trying to silence a person by bulling them with make believe propaganda, word smithery and make everything senseless and illogical because their feelings got hurt?

So please educate me with this superior knowledge I must not be privy too on what exactly this illogic is, so we can make it logical together?

These kind of games are just a waste of hard drive space!

(Elmo) #182

:smile: Dude, you just made a mistake, that’s all. You weren’t correct in saying, “universal failure” - why not accept it and move on? If you want to talk about a specific group of people, like the ‘Biggest Losers,’ for example, then we can, but that’s a different thing, and ‘moving the goalposts’ is a logical fallacy.

You’re acting like the teacher said, “That’s wrong,” and then you want to change the question or the answer.

All through this thread people have been mentioning taking a more complete view of things, thinking critically, and really just being logical (not presenting opinion as fact, generalizing from the particular, qualifying our statements/assertions so they’re always true rather than just sometimes true, etc.).

So, how about us all making sure that our statements are true.

It really is like you’re on a “crusade” against something that you’ve personified, like an imaginary evil dragon. CICO is just a consideration of quantities. The question is if it’s being considered correctly or not. This person, that person, this group, that group - some will be right and some will be wrong.

You’ve already been wrong about it. There are ~7.8 billion people on earth, so it’s not exactly big news that you can find others making similar mistakes.

There’s another case of you being wrong about it. In your mythic ‘quest’ you are willing to skirt around the truth, or outright deny it. Again, opinions, attitudes, impressions - these can and will vary - but if we’re going to assert things then let’s have them be correct.

And there is a ‘more complete view of things.’ Going back to your original post here, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the teacher analogy: one day, you say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that “a calorie is not a calorie.” The next day you say that the 1st law of thermodynamics proves that “a calorie is a calorie.” In that context, both times the teacher can pat you on the head and say, “Yes, Michael, that’s right.” Is that what you really want?

(Bunny) #183

All Sideshow Bob emotional rants and critiques to the side what do you believe to be true or has the most efficacy?

(Elmo) #184

Ha ha, very funny. :slightly_smiling_face: You said it, post #77:

What happened is that your question implied a false thing - you were going for a strawman argument. It’s certainly sane to point that out.

You appear to both want to put words in other people’s mouths, and then direct arguments against your imaginary constructions, AND to want to deny your own words, things you actually did say.

Just to be clear - nobody said that “counting calories” explains everything about human metabolism, but you want to pretend otherwise, and that’s wrong.

Then you also want to pretend you didn’t say what you did (about the fat cells) and that’s wrong too.

As I said to Michael, how about us all making sure that our statements are true.

(Bunny) #185

Whatever let’s get back to the science?

Let’s hear your expert opinion so we can proceed forward, I really need you to educate me?

“…I believe this or that because this person, study, research, book, academic training says this or that?..”

So much easier than the Sideshow Bob emotional rants?

(Elmo) #186

It’s hardly an “emotional rant” to mention the importance of logic and truth. Okay, if your question is a serious one, then what do you mean by “the most efficacy”? What are you really asking? The most efficacy for what?

(Bunny) #187

“Efficacy” meaning long-term sustainability? Or Generally Accepted Common Practice?

(Elmo) #188

No. :roll_eyes:

Final offer: the most efficacy for what?

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #189

@ElmosUzi Tell Jason Fung that in your opinion his 99% failure rate for CICO diets is wrong.

(Leroy) #190

It’s similar now. We’ve got this thread.
Also A Calorie Is Still A Calorie - Why Keto Does Not Work 😖
Stokies and CICO die/blow hards
Check out my comment I made at KetoCon2019
"Spoon-Fed" by Tim Spector

(Ideom) #191

I guess that remains to be seen, eh? :wink: Let’s see who can stick to logic and sense.

You show a big complicated chart of metabolic pathways. So what’s the thesis, there? That somehow the energy balance, CICO, etc., don’t matter? And the fact remains that nobody told you that ‘counting calories’ was “a match” for all of human metabolism. As with so much of this thread, we should make an effort to understand the larger picture, to explore deeper, keep the context in mind and respond to what people actually say, not what we pretend they say.

Here you seem to be saying the opposite. So which is it? (Speaking of “explore deeper” :grin:). I do tend to agree with your last statement there. (Or that they make incorrect assumptions about the quantitites.)

There’s no bullying. But there is logic and sticking to what people actually say (and it’s good to quote them), and it’s senseless to deny what we do say.

This goes to the question about your statement - the same question that more than one person has raised:

This is definitely disregarding science, i.e. we all know that’s not the way things really are, and you should too. This is something that you actually did say.

It’s a false statement.

I agree - at the very least let’s do that, before we go on to other things. Let’s not put words in other people’s mouths, and let’s not deny the ones that come from ours.

(Ideom) #192

Elmos didn’t say that, and you never asked about opinions on Jason Fung. This is you trying to move the goalposts. This is just floundering around and grasping at illogical straws. There’s also a serious confirmation bias at work that often prevents seeing the proper context.

Same as for ASB - at the very least let’s make sure that our statements are true, before we go on to other things. Let’s not put words in other people’s mouths, and let’s not deny the ones that come from ours.

(Janus) #193

‘Hard’ science (physical fact), logic, mathematics, physical laws… There’s not much else that’s “objectively true,” is there? Things beyond those quickly get more inconstant and alterable. I do agree that the least we can do is make our assertions true, and correctly address the assertions and questions of others.

(Art) #194

So much of all this revolves around the energy balance and what it affects and what affects it.

We begin with matter/energy. If the statement is that then there is metabolism, storage or excretion, is that true and is it true that there’s really nothing else that’s significant?

Are there any reputable studies that dispute this?

(Bunny) #195

As rule of thumb any study or research can refute another study or research.

Problem is, paradox and that mysterious placebo effect you get with variability.

That is why when looking at this from the Bariatric angle it gives me more of a solid foundation that looks at volume of food eaten and they eat more times a day (why they don’t hold onto body fat and go into starvation mode) rather than counting calories, so that tells me human beings are trained from birth to eat more than they need at one time especially with the accessibility to processed foods.

It is like an electrical current or water going through a hose, the longer the hose, the weaker the current will be because of the resistance and impedance of conductance through out its mass.

Take a gauge of wire for example, the bigger the wire, the more electrical current you can send through it, but it has limitations, if you send too many watts through it at once it will create an electrical balloon that envelopes the wire and burns it up as it travels breaking it in half.

That’s what we do with food, the system gets hit with all this food at once and starts tripping the circuit breakers.

But when you look at dietary fat, It has very little mass to it and it just takes a little tiny bit to power the system.

You do not go into ketosis because of the type of calories eaten, you go into ketosis because of the amount of food eaten.

If insulin can clear both ketones and glucose from the blood stream, a little bit of food is not going to do no harm even if you ate six meals a day you are still going to burn body fat because the amount coming in at a certain volume, if you break the volume, you break the chain reaction and the excessive amount going into it will make insulin stay high.

(Ideom) #196

Okay, so we have to be able to weigh them. They’re not all created equal. A good RCT versus Ernie’s Big Real Good Study About Some Damn Thing Or Another (as seen on YouTube) might make one question Ernie a bit.

I do think it’s a good question about the energy balance. Do we see all that’s there or are we somehow missing decent-sized chunks?

The sheer volume reduction of food that bariatric patients eat certainly makes a big difference, if that’s what you mean. I don’t think most of us are trained to eat more than we need, however - if anything I’d say we’re trained not to “take more than our share.” Dogs are like wolves - they gulp away pretty much as fast as they can go, like other competing species might be coming to take the food, or other pack members won’t leave any for the individual. Are humans like that? (Not that some of us don’t act like it…) :smile:

This is one of those things that isn’t reflective of the bigger picture. While it can be true, it’s not always or necessarily true. Yeah, we can eat little enough to go into ketosis. But we can also eat no carbs, and eat a LOT, and go into ketosis.

Looks like in general you’re saying that the body can adapt and maintain homeostasis (as with weight) pretty well as long as we don’t push things too much, and I agree. Not everybody will have the same “tipping point” with insulin resistance, the effect of constantly having full glycogen, similar things with the liver outside of glycogen… I forget what all can happen, but there is a sequence of different things over time in an “out of balance” state.

Lots of ‘old’ pictures from the 1960s and 1970s show crowds of pretty ‘thin’ people in various parts of the world, even the most developed world. Way different from now.