Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Food and Nutrition
Low-carb Diet Forum
How many calories on a low carb diet?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="andrewk" data-source="post: 331797" data-attributes="member: 37453"><p>Let's try again ......... apologies for not replying earlier, I've been more than a tad busy.</p><p></p><p>You say that losing weight is straightforward, just eat less. You then cite the First Law of Thermodynamics as justification for the assertion. I hope that I do not misrepresent your position on this.</p><p></p><p>My position is simple:</p><p></p><p>* I have no issues with the First Law of Thermodynamics. All it says is that (Wikipedia definition): The change in the internal energy of a closed system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work done by the system on its surroundings. It is simply a restatement of the law of conservation of energy.</p><p></p><p>* It does follow from the FIrst Law of Thermodynamics that if the (chemical) energy in food ingested is different from the sum of "heat given off by the body" + "mechanical work undertaken by the body" + "the heat content of breath expired, perspiration, unrine, faeces (and anything else I've forgotten)" then there will have been a change in the energy content of the body.</p><p></p><p>* I have issues with assertions that are claimed to follow from the First Law of Thermodynamics where steps in the logic are asserted rather than proven.</p><p></p><p>* I know of no controlled study into calorie controlled dieting that has captured the breath expired, perspiration, urine and faeces of subjects to identify the change in their energy content. If you do, please let me know which one did that and I'll investigate it. If you do not, then you cannot possibly know what proportion of the energy in any additional food ingested is stored as fat (or muscle tissue or bone or .......... ). </p><p></p><p>* There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that some folks do not lose weight if they eat less and others do not gain weight if they eat more. If memory serves, there are also controlled studies referenced in the Gary Taubes book showing that the results of calorie controlled diets are inconsistent at best. This would not be so if your assertions did logically follow from thermodynamic laws.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Andrew</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="andrewk, post: 331797, member: 37453"] Let's try again ......... apologies for not replying earlier, I've been more than a tad busy. You say that losing weight is straightforward, just eat less. You then cite the First Law of Thermodynamics as justification for the assertion. I hope that I do not misrepresent your position on this. My position is simple: * I have no issues with the First Law of Thermodynamics. All it says is that (Wikipedia definition): The change in the internal energy of a closed system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work done by the system on its surroundings. It is simply a restatement of the law of conservation of energy. * It does follow from the FIrst Law of Thermodynamics that if the (chemical) energy in food ingested is different from the sum of "heat given off by the body" + "mechanical work undertaken by the body" + "the heat content of breath expired, perspiration, unrine, faeces (and anything else I've forgotten)" then there will have been a change in the energy content of the body. * I have issues with assertions that are claimed to follow from the First Law of Thermodynamics where steps in the logic are asserted rather than proven. * I know of no controlled study into calorie controlled dieting that has captured the breath expired, perspiration, urine and faeces of subjects to identify the change in their energy content. If you do, please let me know which one did that and I'll investigate it. If you do not, then you cannot possibly know what proportion of the energy in any additional food ingested is stored as fat (or muscle tissue or bone or .......... ). * There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that some folks do not lose weight if they eat less and others do not gain weight if they eat more. If memory serves, there are also controlled studies referenced in the Gary Taubes book showing that the results of calorie controlled diets are inconsistent at best. This would not be so if your assertions did logically follow from thermodynamic laws. Andrew [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Food and Nutrition
Low-carb Diet Forum
How many calories on a low carb diet?
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…