Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Calories vs. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
ClosetBayesian
Posts: 836 Member
Replies
-
Well, I like it. LOL
For some, a calorie may not be a calorie because of low carb magic... sounds right.
0 -
I see a whole lot of majoring in the minors.0
-
So catabolism of fat and protein has a higher delta S, more energy lost to entropy, than catabolism of calorically equivalent carbohydrates?0
-
I think the jump from abstract to the review body gave me whiplash it was such a sudden lurch.
Essentially the literature is saying a calorie a calorie must be trying to say composition differences don't exist in weight loss via various macros. Not what a calorie is a calorie means, so no need to strawman the position. Might as well say calories don't matter, we can put someone on a vitamin deficient diet and force them to have odd results too. Or that we can simply dehydrate someone.0 -
There are also studies that illustrate that in the long run, it doesn't matter and everything pretty much evens out. You also have to consider that someone dropping carbs is also going to dump a lot of water in the short run which I don't think is any kind of big secret...and yes, certain foods have a higher TEF which I also don't think is a big secret, but that's also getting into a bit of majoring in the minors.0
-
-
I see a distinct lack of mathematical proof for a mathematical argument. How on earth did this pass review?
This looks like an incomplete thought experiment, not a thorough argument about entropy. More later.. like, probably unfortunately for everyone waiting for analysis, in two weeks or so because life is crazy atm.
I'm not saying there's no validity here. I'm saying it looks at a cursory read like a great deal of hand-waving with some very narrowly defined examples thrown.0 -
The change in Gibbs free energy =the change in enthalpy - (temperature*the change in entropy).
Gibbs would be the energy you have left to do work with (or store as fat). Enthalpy would be the total calories that were in the food you ate. Entropy would vary depending on how you had to process the calories because they were in the form of carbs, protein, or fat (or alcohol).
0 -
lithezebra wrote: »So catabolism of fat and protein has a higher delta S, more energy lost to entropy, than catabolism of calorically equivalent carbohydrates?
I think that's what they're saying but they really don't demonstrate it at all.0 -
lithezebra wrote: »So catabolism of fat and protein has a higher delta S, more energy lost to entropy, than catabolism of calorically equivalent carbohydrates?
I think that's what they're saying but they really don't demonstrate it at all.
That would be the thermic effect of feeding, which is most marked for protein. The heat that is generated is calories that you ate, that you can't use for work or fat storage. You're just going to transfer the wasted energy to your surroundings. The thermic effect of feeding is different for fat, carbs and protein: "... thermic effects of nutrients is approximately 2–3 % for lipids, 6–8 % for carbohydrates, and 25–30% for proteins."
0 -
lithezebra wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »So catabolism of fat and protein has a higher delta S, more energy lost to entropy, than catabolism of calorically equivalent carbohydrates?
I think that's what they're saying but they really don't demonstrate it at all.
That would be the thermic effect of feeding, which is most marked for protein. The heat that is generated is calories that you ate, that you can't use for work or fat storage. You're just going to transfer the wasted energy to your surroundings. The thermic effect of feeding is different for fat, carbs and protein: "... thermic effects of nutrients is approximately 2–3 % for lipids, 6–8 % for carbohydrates, and 25–30% for proteins."
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
A better article than the one in OP, at the least because they're not purposely trying to be obtuse as to the meaning of the phrase.
"On the basis of a meta-analysis, it was concluded that the thermic effect of food increases ≈7 kcal/1000 kcal of ingested food for each increase of 10 percentage points in the percentage of energy from protein. Thus, if a subject is instructed to consume a 1500-kcal/d energy-restricted diet with 35% of energy from protein, then the thermic effect of food will be 21 kcal/d higher than if protein contributes only 15% of the dietary energy."
That's the difference between an absolute minimum amount of protein for a grown man at normal weight and about the optimum for muscle gains. Worthless to waste a second thought on it.
0 -
Related to that, obviously there are more significant reasons governing the amount of protein you consume besides TEF, which is why pretending it is significant (even apart from the small numbers) is puzzling. 5% protein isn't bad because it means you can't eat as many stated calories without gaining weight, but because it's likely too little protein for optimal health. 80% isn't good because more TEF! It's probably not consistent with a particularly healthy diet. There's a range of sensible protein intake that is not going to make much difference as to calorie value of the TEF. Also, there's 0 benefit to simply being able to consume more stated calories, as that in and of itself is not more satiating.
All of the points about protein and TEF were covered in the calorie is a calorie thread, so I guess whoever started this one did not read that one?0 -
I did read that one; however, if you Google (I know...) "calories thermodynamics", this paper is one of the first results. My educational background and current occupation are in statistics (I have managed to successfully avoid formal instruction in physics, although that has taken some active effort on my part); I was hoping for a more hard science-esque discussion here as opposed to the Calorie is a Calorie thread. I figured this was TEF, but admittedly Feinman's name on it got my attention (argumentum ad verecundiam argumentum ab auctoritate? One of those.).0
-
I've seen this "study" linked before and discussed on these boards, and that's pretty much the case.I see a distinct lack of mathematical proof for a mathematical argument. How on earth did this pass review?
This looks like an incomplete thought experiment, not a thorough argument about entropy.
0 -
Now that I'm thinking of it, he's trying to make an argument about where you keep track of the ledgers. His argument only holds if we assume TEF needs to be considered part of calories in, but it isn't.
Might as well say GU packs are the most thermogenic foods out there. Almost every time someone is eating a GU pack, their calories out is going through the roof compared to BMR.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »I did read that one; however, if you Google (I know...) "calories thermodynamics", this paper is one of the first results. My educational background and current occupation are in statistics (I have managed to successfully avoid formal instruction in physics, although that has taken some active effort on my part); I was hoping for a more hard science-esque discussion here as opposed to the Calorie is a Calorie thread. I figured this was TEF, but admittedly Feinman's name on it got my attention (argumentum ad verecundiam argumentum ab auctoritate? One of those.).
I actually forgot you were the OP and was directing that elsewhere. Mea maxima culpa and all that!0 -
Now that I'm thinking of it, he's trying to make an argument about where you keep track of the ledgers. His argument only holds if we assume TEF needs to be considered part of calories in, but it isn't.
Might as well say GU packs are the most thermogenic foods out there. Almost every time someone is eating a GU pack, their calories out is going through the roof compared to BMR.
LOL! And they are basically pure sugar and ultra processed. Imagine.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »I did read that one; however, if you Google (I know...) "calories thermodynamics", this paper is one of the first results. My educational background and current occupation are in statistics (I have managed to successfully avoid formal instruction in physics, although that has taken some active effort on my part); I was hoping for a more hard science-esque discussion here as opposed to the Calorie is a Calorie thread. I figured this was TEF, but admittedly Feinman's name on it got my attention (argumentum ad verecundiam argumentum ab auctoritate? One of those.).
I actually forgot you were the OP and was directing that elsewhere. Mea maxima culpa and all that!
All good
Now that I'm thinking of it, he's trying to make an argument about where you keep track of the ledgers. His argument only holds if we assume TEF needs to be considered part of calories in, but it isn't.
Might as well say GU packs are the most thermogenic foods out there. Almost every time someone is eating a GU pack, their calories out is going through the roof compared to BMR.
I'm still held up on the physics (I fully admit I may be majoring in the minors - this is not the first thread where that's been suggested, and I am sure it will not be the last - , but I'm going to do it anyway).
From what I gather, TEF has relatively little effect on weight loss, especially in the long-term (no, I'm not going to cite that); the fact that TEF has little effect long-term doesn't appear to counter Feinman & Fine's position in their review; rather, that comes across as more of a "yes-but" statement. In other words, if TEF has a miniscule effect in terms of overall weight loss, are Feinman and Fine technically correct in that TEF indicates the "calorie is a calorie" statement does violate the second law of thermodynamics? Why/why not?0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »I did read that one; however, if you Google (I know...) "calories thermodynamics", this paper is one of the first results. My educational background and current occupation are in statistics (I have managed to successfully avoid formal instruction in physics, although that has taken some active effort on my part); I was hoping for a more hard science-esque discussion here as opposed to the Calorie is a Calorie thread. I figured this was TEF, but admittedly Feinman's name on it got my attention (argumentum ad verecundiam argumentum ab auctoritate? One of those.).
Of course it would be one of the first with a lurid headline like this. Gets linked more.
Also thanks to making this post I learned a new English word, lurid.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »I did read that one; however, if you Google (I know...) "calories thermodynamics", this paper is one of the first results. My educational background and current occupation are in statistics (I have managed to successfully avoid formal instruction in physics, although that has taken some active effort on my part); I was hoping for a more hard science-esque discussion here as opposed to the Calorie is a Calorie thread. I figured this was TEF, but admittedly Feinman's name on it got my attention (argumentum ad verecundiam argumentum ab auctoritate? One of those.).
I actually forgot you were the OP and was directing that elsewhere. Mea maxima culpa and all that!
All goodNow that I'm thinking of it, he's trying to make an argument about where you keep track of the ledgers. His argument only holds if we assume TEF needs to be considered part of calories in, but it isn't.
Might as well say GU packs are the most thermogenic foods out there. Almost every time someone is eating a GU pack, their calories out is going through the roof compared to BMR.
I'm still held up on the physics (I fully admit I may be majoring in the minors - this is not the first thread where that's been suggested, and I am sure it will not be the last - , but I'm going to do it anyway).
From what I gather, TEF has relatively little effect on weight loss, especially in the long-term (no, I'm not going to cite that); the fact that TEF has little effect long-term doesn't appear to counter Feinman & Fine's position in their review; rather, that comes across as more of a "yes-but" statement. In other words, if TEF has a miniscule effect in terms of overall weight loss, are Feinman and Fine technically correct in that TEF indicates the "calorie is a calorie" statement does violate the second law of thermodynamics? Why/why not?
It doesn't violate the calorie is a calorie because they're demanding which side the book keeping has to be on. A calorie in is a calorie in, that getting it in might require more calories out doesn't mean the calorie is less. One could similarly say then that caffeine is a negative calorie food based on the stimulatory effect it has. 0 calories in, calories out.
We could also ask get into a discussion about heating up blueberries as suddenly now the digestion calories out changes when they're warm, as the body won't have to produce as much heat. Or cold water taking energy out because the kidneys have to work and the body loses heat more quickly. These all technically alter the weight loss equation, but I put them on the Calories out side of the equation. It all really depends on where you want to draw your system's edge when making your free body diagram.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »I did read that one; however, if you Google (I know...) "calories thermodynamics", this paper is one of the first results. My educational background and current occupation are in statistics (I have managed to successfully avoid formal instruction in physics, although that has taken some active effort on my part); I was hoping for a more hard science-esque discussion here as opposed to the Calorie is a Calorie thread. I figured this was TEF, but admittedly Feinman's name on it got my attention (argumentum ad verecundiam argumentum ab auctoritate? One of those.).
I actually forgot you were the OP and was directing that elsewhere. Mea maxima culpa and all that!
All goodNow that I'm thinking of it, he's trying to make an argument about where you keep track of the ledgers. His argument only holds if we assume TEF needs to be considered part of calories in, but it isn't.
Might as well say GU packs are the most thermogenic foods out there. Almost every time someone is eating a GU pack, their calories out is going through the roof compared to BMR.
I'm still held up on the physics (I fully admit I may be majoring in the minors - this is not the first thread where that's been suggested, and I am sure it will not be the last - , but I'm going to do it anyway).
From what I gather, TEF has relatively little effect on weight loss, especially in the long-term (no, I'm not going to cite that); the fact that TEF has little effect long-term doesn't appear to counter Feinman & Fine's position in their review; rather, that comes across as more of a "yes-but" statement. In other words, if TEF has a miniscule effect in terms of overall weight loss, are Feinman and Fine technically correct in that TEF indicates the "calorie is a calorie" statement does violate the second law of thermodynamics? Why/why not?
It doesn't violate a calorie is a calorie because it pretends that bodily processes required to access the calories in a food are somehow indicative of the calories being different.
It's silly, as senecarr stated since that's simply part of your calorie expenditure. In the same sense you could say 100 calories of wild boar meat are different than 100 calories of boar meat you buy at the store because you had to hunt to get the wild boar, which expended extra calories.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »I did read that one; however, if you Google (I know...) "calories thermodynamics", this paper is one of the first results. My educational background and current occupation are in statistics (I have managed to successfully avoid formal instruction in physics, although that has taken some active effort on my part); I was hoping for a more hard science-esque discussion here as opposed to the Calorie is a Calorie thread. I figured this was TEF, but admittedly Feinman's name on it got my attention (argumentum ad verecundiam argumentum ab auctoritate? One of those.).
I actually forgot you were the OP and was directing that elsewhere. Mea maxima culpa and all that!
All goodNow that I'm thinking of it, he's trying to make an argument about where you keep track of the ledgers. His argument only holds if we assume TEF needs to be considered part of calories in, but it isn't.
Might as well say GU packs are the most thermogenic foods out there. Almost every time someone is eating a GU pack, their calories out is going through the roof compared to BMR.
I'm still held up on the physics (I fully admit I may be majoring in the minors - this is not the first thread where that's been suggested, and I am sure it will not be the last - , but I'm going to do it anyway).
From what I gather, TEF has relatively little effect on weight loss, especially in the long-term (no, I'm not going to cite that); the fact that TEF has little effect long-term doesn't appear to counter Feinman & Fine's position in their review; rather, that comes across as more of a "yes-but" statement. In other words, if TEF has a miniscule effect in terms of overall weight loss, are Feinman and Fine technically correct in that TEF indicates the "calorie is a calorie" statement does violate the second law of thermodynamics? Why/why not?
It doesn't violate a calorie is a calorie because it pretends that bodily processes required to access the calories in a food are somehow indicative of the calories being different.
It's silly, as senecarr stated since that's simply part of your calorie expenditure. In the same sense you could say 100 calories of wild boar meat are different than 100 calories of boar meat you buy at the store because you had to hunt to get the wild boar, which expended extra calories.
Or the walk-in freezer version versus the regular frozen section, because the walk-in freezer is taking body heat out faster.0 -
So in the figure below they're saying that the calorimeter value for protein and carbs is the same, so routes 1&2 liberate the same amount of energy, therefore the conversion route 3 has to be zero energy in order to get to the same state regardless of route. But we know GNG requires ATP therefore there's a problem. Did I read that right ?
0 -
Here's a related conundrum.
Which has more calories, 342g of sucrose or 360g of glucose & fructose in a 50/50 mix.C12H22O11 + H2O --> 2 x C6H12O6
144 + 22 + 176 = 342 72 + 12 + 96 = 180 * 2 = 3600
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions