Laws of Thermodynamics

TrailRunnermn

Do the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to weight loss?? Are you sure??

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/thermodynamics-and-weight-loss/

Chief_Rocka

Yeah, there is a thermic effect of food. Not exactly breaking news.

TrailRunnermn

Never said there wasn't.

usmcmp

TDEE=BMR+NEAT+EAT+TEF

Most of us remove the Thermic Effect of Food from the equation for simplification. Also, if your macros stay constant then it doesn't really matter.

daynerz

Cool post, thanks

bwogilvie

Yep, there is one. Pretty small, too, in most cases.

gmallan

usmcmp wrote: »

TDEE=BMR+NEAT+EAT+TEF

Most of us remove the Thermic Effect of Food from the equation for simplification. Also, if your macros stay constant then it doesn't really matter.

Yep that's IF your macros are consistent but there is a decent enough difference in the TEF between the different macros that if you were comparing a super high carb diet with a high protein one it could mean you'd be able to lose on more.

I was reading something about this area the other day. It's interesting if you're the kind of person who enjoys a bit of physics/biochem type stuff

gmallan

Oh and just to add, the laws of physics definitely do apply they just often get over-simplified

chrisdavey

yeah, pretty sure

Unknown

This content has been removed.

LumberJacck

Thanks for posting this, I'll read it when I'm not tired, it looks heavy going, but I did 1st year Chem, and we did the laws of thermodynamics and entropy.

defauIt

Author is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and demonstrates his lack of knowledge extremely well with his moronic statement about premium gasoline being more efficient. No. Octane rating is a rating which tells you what relative pressure the fuel can withstand before combustion. The most efficient fuel is the one which has an octane rating which matches the octane rating your engine is designed for, as that reduces engine knock.

That aside, the thermic effect of food is a typically negligible factor. You're looking at a difference of less than 75 calories a day even when going from a 50/40/10 C/F/P macro split on 1800 cals/day to a 40/25/35 macro split. That's a difference of 1 lb per 2 months. And that's going from an extremely low protein diet to an extremely high protein diet. Actual results will probably be even less than that.

FunkyTobias

.

Kalikel

FunkyTobias wrote: »

.

Oh, my gosh. That's so funny! I don't know if it's real (what would the laws of thermodynamics be doing in a basic, introductory, cell A&P kind of quiz?)...but it's funny as heck.

stealthq

Kalikel wrote: »

FunkyTobias wrote: »

.

Oh, my gosh. That's so funny! I don't know if it's real (what would the laws of thermodynamics be doing in a basic, introductory, cell A&P kind of quiz?)...but it's funny as heck.

We went over the laws of thermodynamics to explain enzyme reaction kinetics, thermodynamic calculations, and the role of catalysts. That was in biochemistry 101.

And I bet it's real. I've read plenty of comical answers on exams I graded as a TA.

yarwell

defauIt wrote: »

That aside, the thermic effect of food is a typically negligible factor.

Isn't it about 10% ?

http://www.caloriesperhour.com/tutorial_thermic.php
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9683329

yarwell

Fair enough, but leaving stuff out is the road to hell. 5% or less than 5% isn't clinically insignificant as it might be 20% or more of what people think of as their deficit.

eric_sg61

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2014/10/thermodenyics-in-incestral-health.html
http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-in.html

WalkingAlong

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897733/

That study made it sound like TEF and food choices could be a pretty big factor.