@PaulL @MattWisti, Paul and Michael - I watched the video.
Keyes, ‘metabolic advantage’ of low carb, metabolic chamber, Kevin Hall, CICO model - does include storage - same for CIM. All good so far.
The example of the water cooling without weight change is silly - the human body expends energy/mass to maintain a fairly constant temperature.
Meerman video - definitely, as I’ve said, each subatomic particle has mass.
Mass balance equation: change in weight (mass) = ‘mass in’ minus ‘mass out.’ Well of course, nothing new there.
The Einstein stuff is silly. Human bodies don’t mess with atomic nucleii.
Water content of foods - really doesn’t matter here.
Eades notes that fats are more energy dense than carbs. - No question about it, but he neglects what happens on the ‘out’ side. If we’re burning fat for a given amount of energy, we burn much less (in mass) than if we’re burning carbs. The energy density thing does apply on intake, but it also applies for metabolism and the ‘out’ side.
Bikman’s part - no debate, IMO, but nothing is changed.
48 minutes - guy asks about the higher oxygen content of carbs vs. fats (fat oxidation is not as efficient). Eades says “when you take food in, you extract the energy from the food… Make CO2 and H2O…” Certainly, and the higher energy density of fats on intake applies, but Eades again neglects that the lower energy density of carbs means that a greater mass will be lost from metabolizing carbs vs. fats.
52:50 Guy questions how “mass balance is useful for people.” - It isn’t, really. That weight change is ‘mass in’ minus ‘mass out’ is a given, and always has been. Nothing new here, and there isn’t even a meaningful theoretical difference vs. energy balance.
54:10 Westman: “Calories don’t weigh anything.” - So what? The body does expend mass (going out as CO2 and H2O) for energy, however. It does not matter that ‘calories don’t weigh anything,’ and it’s not like “massy calories” would be required for the energy balance.
That water can maintain mass while changing energy state doesn’t matter, either, as before. That is a body giving up heat to the environnment. The same often happens to a dead human body. Living humans, on the other hand, give up mass to maintain energy state.
So, at the end I don’t see anything of significance here. Of course mass change for a body is “mass in minus mass out;” changes nothing. The way Eades presents things, and the way the article he refers to is written, it might sound plausibly meaningful, because of the higher energy density of fats. But that vanishes when one realizes that it works in reverse on the ‘out’ side - the lower energy density of carbs means that a greater mass of them will be used, versus fats.