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.
Does calories in vs calories out really matter?
Replies
-
I think it comes down to CICO but there are factors that adjust CI or CO which can make it seem like it doesn't work.
I can lose 2-3lbs per week on 1500 kcal for one way of eating but gain weight at 1800kcal if I eat another way. It doesn't appear to make sense but I have found that the foods I eat affect my CI and CO quite a bit. I have insulin resistance and some autoimmune issues that may affect those values too.
different ways of eating don't change math and physics....you are either in a deficit or not ..
and yes a medical condition would affect CICO; however, one would need medication to regulate the out side, and it still boils down to CICO..
Yes. That`s what I said. Weight loss comes down to CICO but health and foods will affect that CI or CO in unexpected ways which can make it appear that CICO is not working. Like in my case.
Sadly, only in the perfect world can one take a medication and suddenly be all better. Medication is often not enough, or available, or even works, for an individual to regulate CO.
1 -
Calories in vs calories out (CICO) is a gross simplification. Not all calories are equal, especially for people with insulin resistance (which is mostly any person with a lot of excess fat.) The Framingham Nurses Study showed that fewer calories over a long time did not produce predicted weight loss. Of course extreme calorie deficits are likely to cause temporary weight loss.
Some calories slow down a metabolism (sugar and starch) and some calories speed it up (caffeine). Some calories need to be processed in the liver exclusively (fructose) and some calories are immediately available to the cells (medium chain triglycerides). Different calories have different effects on hormones and the hormonal effects are greater than the effect of the quantity of calories. For instance, carbohydrates cause a greater insulin response than do proteins. Fats cause very little insulin response. Insulin is the fat-storing hormone.
The timing of calories matters also. If you are looking to lose a lot of weight then you probably have some insulin resistance. This then would suggest that eating more frequently will always keep insulin at higher levels, slowing the metabolism and staying in fat-storing mode. Eating less frequently allows insulin levels to drop allowing the body to let fat-burning pathways kick in.
CICO ignores the effect of specific foods on gut bacteria, how much is used/stored versus eliminated, the effects on water retention, the effects on metabolism, and the specific biochemistry of how different foods are handled differently.
Dr Jason Fung has some excellent videos that explain this very well.
Insulin suppresses lipolysis. It does not stop it. Also, you still store fat after each meal regardless of dietary composition. Fat increases the release of acylation stimulating protein, which also suppress hormone sensitive lipase. Fasting does not increase fat burning at all. In fact, all it does is transfer where insulin is present. If calories are equal, the total time that insulin is present is equal. Instead of 3 small windows, it's 2 long windows; likewise with the whole glycemic index.6 -
I think it comes down to CICO but there are factors that adjust CI or CO which can make it seem like it doesn't work.
I can lose 2-3lbs per week on 1500 kcal for one way of eating but gain weight at 1800kcal if I eat another way. It doesn't appear to make sense but I have found that the foods I eat affect my CI and CO quite a bit. I have insulin resistance and some autoimmune issues that may affect those values too.
different ways of eating don't change math and physics....you are either in a deficit or not ..
and yes a medical condition would affect CICO; however, one would need medication to regulate the out side, and it still boils down to CICO..
Yes. That`s what I said. Weight loss comes down to CICO but health and foods will affect that CI or CO in unexpected ways which can make it appear that CICO is not working. Like in my case.
Sadly, only in the perfect world can one take a medication and suddenly be all better. Medication is often not enough, or available, or even works, for an individual to regulate CO.
High carbs + IR = lower metabolic rate. There are plenty of PCOS/IR studies that are isocaloric that support such a thing. In fact, I think evgeni had a thread on the topic.1 -
I think it comes down to CICO but there are factors that adjust CI or CO which can make it seem like it doesn't work.
I can lose 2-3lbs per week on 1500 kcal for one way of eating but gain weight at 1800kcal if I eat another way. It doesn't appear to make sense but I have found that the foods I eat affect my CI and CO quite a bit. I have insulin resistance and some autoimmune issues that may affect those values too.
different ways of eating don't change math and physics....you are either in a deficit or not ..
and yes a medical condition would affect CICO; however, one would need medication to regulate the out side, and it still boils down to CICO..
Yes. That`s what I said. Weight loss comes down to CICO but health and foods will affect that CI or CO in unexpected ways which can make it appear that CICO is not working. Like in my case.
Sadly, only in the perfect world can one take a medication and suddenly be all better. Medication is often not enough, or available, or even works, for an individual to regulate CO.
High carbs + IR = lower metabolic rate. There are plenty of PCOS/IR studies that are isocaloric that support such a thing. In fact, I think evgeni had a thread on the topic.
Exactly. Food choices and health will affect your CICO numbers.It doesn't mean CI<CO isn't needed, it just means that CO can be affected in unexpected ways.
For me, insulin resistance makes me more likely to lose better if I cut carbs. I also have autoimmune issues that will cut my CO down when it flares up. I could be losing a couple of pounds per week but if it flares up, losses stop and I may even gain a bit, without any large changes to my diet.2 -
What kind of question is this? That's like asking if it's really that important to know how to operate a car to get your drivers license. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Eat too much, you're not losing a dang thing.7
-
What kind of question is this? That's like asking if it's really that important to know how to operate a car to get your drivers license. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Eat too much, you're not losing a dang thing.
There are plenty of people who do not believe in CICO, including many doctors like Dr. Fung.1 -
Imagine if we could just create these magical insulin problems for starving countries. They'd be obese in no time.
First world problems create epic first world myths. I just can't with these threads anymore....16 -
What kind of question is this? That's like asking if it's really that important to know how to operate a car to get your drivers license. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Eat too much, you're not losing a dang thing.
There are plenty of people who do not believe in CICO, including many doctors like Dr. Fung.
Yep, here is his take on cico:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »What kind of question is this? That's like asking if it's really that important to know how to operate a car to get your drivers license. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Eat too much, you're not losing a dang thing.
There are plenty of people who do not believe in CICO, including many doctors like Dr. Fung.
Yep, here is his take on cico:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
Fung is a fraud.
6 -
it is amusing that the "CICO does not matter folks" always complain about it with respect to losing weight, but they never challenge CICO when it comes to gaining weight...12
-
Gianfranco_R wrote: »What kind of question is this? That's like asking if it's really that important to know how to operate a car to get your drivers license. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Eat too much, you're not losing a dang thing.
There are plenty of people who do not believe in CICO, including many doctors like Dr. Fung.
Yep, here is his take on cico:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
"I studied biochemistry in university and took a full year course on thermodynamics. At no point did we ever discuss the human body or weight gain/ loss."
I'm guessing he did not get stellar marks in his biochem or thermo class.6 -
it is amusing that the "CICO does not matter folks" always complain about it with respect to losing weight, but they never challenge CICO when it comes to gaining weight...
No, my experience is that macros make the difference and not calories. I can eat really high calorie of a certain set of macros and NOT gain weight. I can eat really low calorie of a different set of macros and lose much more slowly. At a point, the same CI of a set of macros causes gains while the other set of macros causes losses. So CICO when it comes to gaining weight is the same point. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear for you.
The "CICO does not matter folks" commenting are generally those who are struggling to lose weight on very low calorie diets... that is most common. But I'm sure there are a few (though not nearly as many) who struggle to gain to a healthy weight regardless of how much they eat. The reason you see fewer posts from the latter is probably because there are not as many of them.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »What kind of question is this? That's like asking if it's really that important to know how to operate a car to get your drivers license. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Eat too much, you're not losing a dang thing.
There are plenty of people who do not believe in CICO, including many doctors like Dr. Fung.
Yep, here is his take on cico:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
"I studied biochemistry in university and took a full year course on thermodynamics. At no point did we ever discuss the human body or weight gain/ loss."
I'm guessing he did not get stellar marks in his biochem or thermo class.
And that is one of the reason I would rather take dietary advice from scientist who have an actual education in nutrition, than doctors who convert to this field because it's more lucrative.
He also uses the same strawman arguments as many other people to justify his views on why insulin makes you fat: "Consider two foods that are equal caloric values – a plate of cookies versus a salad with olive oil with salmon"5 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »it is amusing that the "CICO does not matter folks" always complain about it with respect to losing weight, but they never challenge CICO when it comes to gaining weight...
No, my experience is that macros make the difference and not calories. I can eat really high calorie of a certain set of macros and NOT gain weight. I can eat really low calorie of a different set of macros and lose much more slowly. At a point, the same CI of a set of macros causes gains while the other set of macros causes losses. So CICO when it comes to gaining weight is the same point. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear for you.
The "CICO does not matter folks" commenting are generally those who are struggling to lose weight on very low calorie diets... that is most common. But I'm sure there are a few (though not nearly as many) who struggle to gain to a healthy weight regardless of how much they eat. The reason you see fewer posts from the latter is probably because there are not as many of them.
If you spent time in the gaining weight section, you would see the latter. With the exception of those with medical issues like malabsorption, many of them struggle to gain weight is because they don't eat big meals, they eat low calorie items, they are very active, etc..
The biggest issue is people are assuming TDEE is a static number. There is potential you lose more weight at a higher number, like I did, but that doesn't disprove CICO. For me, eating at a higher number also drove more dietary compliance, it gave more more energy to push harder in workouts and be more consistent and encouraged me to increase daily activity. Unfortunately, it's hard to quantify most of these items, which then makes people assume they lost more by eating more. Also, extreme calorie suppression can increase the reduction of RMR, which can decrease TDEE.3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »it is amusing that the "CICO does not matter folks" always complain about it with respect to losing weight, but they never challenge CICO when it comes to gaining weight...
No, my experience is that macros make the difference and not calories. I can eat really high calorie of a certain set of macros and NOT gain weight. I can eat really low calorie of a different set of macros and lose much more slowly. At a point, the same CI of a set of macros causes gains while the other set of macros causes losses. So CICO when it comes to gaining weight is the same point. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear for you.
The "CICO does not matter folks" commenting are generally those who are struggling to lose weight on very low calorie diets... that is most common. But I'm sure there are a few (though not nearly as many) who struggle to gain to a healthy weight regardless of how much they eat. The reason you see fewer posts from the latter is probably because there are not as many of them.
If you spent time in the gaining weight section, you would see the latter. With the exception of those with medical issues like malabsorption, many of them struggle to gain weight is because they don't eat big meals, they eat low calorie items, they are very active, etc..
The biggest issue is people are assuming TDEE is a static number. There is potential you lose more weight at a higher number, like I did, but that doesn't disprove CICO. For me, eating at a higher number also drove more dietary compliance, it gave more more energy to push harder in workouts and be more consistent and encouraged me to increase daily activity. Unfortunately, it's hard to quantify most of these items, which then makes people assume they lost more by eating more. Also, extreme calorie suppression can increase the reduction of RMR, which can decrease TDEE.
It's probably true that I just don't see most of those posts.
What I'm reading mostly is that CICO is difficult / impossible to prove because it is difficult or impossible to measure most of what goes into CO. I can agree, but my experiences with different macros and the same calories shows that there is probably even more involved in the complication of successful CICO approaches than just CO measurement.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »it is amusing that the "CICO does not matter folks" always complain about it with respect to losing weight, but they never challenge CICO when it comes to gaining weight...
No, my experience is that macros make the difference and not calories. I can eat really high calorie of a certain set of macros and NOT gain weight. I can eat really low calorie of a different set of macros and lose much more slowly. At a point, the same CI of a set of macros causes gains while the other set of macros causes losses. So CICO when it comes to gaining weight is the same point. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear for you.
The "CICO does not matter folks" commenting are generally those who are struggling to lose weight on very low calorie diets... that is most common. But I'm sure there are a few (though not nearly as many) who struggle to gain to a healthy weight regardless of how much they eat. The reason you see fewer posts from the latter is probably because there are not as many of them.
If you spent time in the gaining weight section, you would see the latter. With the exception of those with medical issues like malabsorption, many of them struggle to gain weight is because they don't eat big meals, they eat low calorie items, they are very active, etc..
The biggest issue is people are assuming TDEE is a static number. There is potential you lose more weight at a higher number, like I did, but that doesn't disprove CICO. For me, eating at a higher number also drove more dietary compliance, it gave more more energy to push harder in workouts and be more consistent and encouraged me to increase daily activity. Unfortunately, it's hard to quantify most of these items, which then makes people assume they lost more by eating more. Also, extreme calorie suppression can increase the reduction of RMR, which can decrease TDEE.
It's probably true that I just don't see most of those posts.
What I'm reading mostly is that CICO is difficult / impossible to prove because it is difficult or impossible to measure most of what goes into CO. I can agree, but my experiences with different macros and the same calories shows that there is probably even more involved in the complication of successful CICO approaches than just CO measurement.
The bigger issue is people's interpretation and self justification of CICO. CICO is simply discussing energy balance. What people struggle with, even here admittedly, is that there are a plethora of variables to effect energy balance. But since you weren't in a metabolic chamber, it's hard to actually know the outcome of your macro change. there is a solid chance that it effect your CO portion in some manor. But when it comes down to metabolic ward studies, the only macros that really effects energy balance (outside of a short term increase) is protein. Protein is a known thermogenic.3 -
bercyn1291 wrote: »It is agreed upon that quality of the food matters in faster weight loss but ideally calories out-calories in should determine how much weight you lose. Please share your experience.
is it?0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »What kind of question is this? That's like asking if it's really that important to know how to operate a car to get your drivers license. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Eat too much, you're not losing a dang thing.
There are plenty of people who do not believe in CICO, including many doctors like Dr. Fung.
Yep, here is his take on cico:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
"I studied biochemistry in university and took a full year course on thermodynamics. At no point did we ever discuss the human body or weight gain/ loss."
I'm guessing he did not get stellar marks in his biochem or thermo class.
And that is one of the reason I would rather take dietary advice from scientist who have an actual education in nutrition, than doctors who convert to this field because it's more lucrative.
He also uses the same strawman arguments as many other people to justify his views on why insulin makes you fat: "Consider two foods that are equal caloric values – a plate of cookies versus a salad with olive oil with salmon"
Oh, hey look, here is a picture of a plate of cookies from my Thermo 101 textbook, chapter 1-11: Thermodynamic Aspects of Biological Systems. Global CICO Cookie Conspiracy confirmed!
Stating that you studied biochemistry at an accredited university and the human body was never discussed is as bizarre as stating that you watched the entire World Series and you didn't see anybody playing baseball.
11 -
It is absolutely mind numbing how some people overcomplicate this stuff...
CI>CO = Weight Gain
CI<CO = Weight Loss
11 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »What kind of question is this? That's like asking if it's really that important to know how to operate a car to get your drivers license. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Eat too much, you're not losing a dang thing.
There are plenty of people who do not believe in CICO, including many doctors like Dr. Fung.
Yep, here is his take on cico:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
"I studied biochemistry in university and took a full year course on thermodynamics. At no point did we ever discuss the human body or weight gain/ loss."
I'm guessing he did not get stellar marks in his biochem or thermo class.
I majored in biochemistry and genetics, and the biochem classes were more about differences and similarities in processes between prokaryotes/eukaryotes, plant/animal, you get the idea. Not so much that was tied particularly to humans except by default as members of the animal kingdom.
Physics classes never mentioned any applicability to the human body. I took first-year physics and physical chemistry (intersection of physics and chemistry). Presumably explicitly connecting these things to human physiology as part of the classwork is the kind of thing you'd get in medical school, not so much in undergrad where you're taught the broader principles unless you take something specifically oriented that way like human physiology or human nutrition.
That said, it's not any kind of decent reason to suggest that CICO is irrelevant
4 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »What kind of question is this? That's like asking if it's really that important to know how to operate a car to get your drivers license. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Eat too much, you're not losing a dang thing.
There are plenty of people who do not believe in CICO, including many doctors like Dr. Fung.
Yep, here is his take on cico:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
"I studied biochemistry in university and took a full year course on thermodynamics. At no point did we ever discuss the human body or weight gain/ loss."
I'm guessing he did not get stellar marks in his biochem or thermo class.
I majored in biochemistry and genetics, and the biochem classes were more about differences and similarities in processes between prokaryotes/eukaryotes, plant/animal, you get the idea. Not so much that was tied particularly to humans except by default as members of the animal kingdom.
Physics classes never mentioned any applicability to the human body. I took first-year physics and physical chemistry (intersection of physics and chemistry). Presumably explicitly connecting these things to human physiology as part of the classwork is the kind of thing you'd get in medical school, not so much in undergrad where you're taught the broader principles unless you take something specifically oriented that way like human physiology or human nutrition.
That said, it's not any kind of decent reason to suggest that CICO is irrelevant
So you find it plausible that a person who is competent enough and puts in enough effort to pass a class that is an entire semester worth of macromolecules and metabolic pathways never realizes that it applies to humans because the professor did not explicitly announce that humans are animals? I am not buying it.
I am also highly skeptical that an introductory thermodynamics class did not at least briefly cover energy transfer in biological systems.2 -
bercyn1291 wrote: »It is agreed upon that quality of the food matters in faster weight loss but ideally calories out-calories in should determine how much weight you lose. Please share your experience.
I think a few minutes on these forums will show you that that is not at all agreed upon.5 -
My calories goal: 1,300 calories.
When I stay below this with foods like: yogurt, beans, seeds, salads -> I gain weight!!
When I stay below this with foods like: McDonald's, mashed potatoes, quesadilla, Subway -> I lose weight.
I have no frickin' clue why.0 -
Mary_Anastasia wrote: »My calories goal: 1,300 calories.
When I stay below this with foods like: yogurt, beans, seeds, salads -> I gain weight!!
When I stay below this with foods like: McDonald's, mashed potatoes, quesadilla, Subway -> I lose weight.
I have no frickin' clue why.
It's calories in vs. calories out ALWAYS.
Some food types are easier to count - easier to measure. This is why many people here use a digital food scale for all solids. Double check any entries, there is lots of crap in the database.
Some high sodium foods may make you hold some water weight - this is temporary weight gain (not fat gain).
Sore muscles hold water (for repair). Time of month, again water weight. Unless you did this experiment for a couple months (for each style of eating)....while meticulously weighing & logging ALL portions......it's coincidence.3 -
Mary_Anastasia wrote: »My calories goal: 1,300 calories.
When I stay below this with foods like: yogurt, beans, seeds, salads -> I gain weight!!
When I stay below this with foods like: McDonald's, mashed potatoes, quesadilla, Subway -> I lose weight.
I have no frickin' clue why.
This is really not true at all. You are either measuring your food inaccurately, recording unreliably or assuming that fluctuations from high sodium food are weight loss/gain.8 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »What kind of question is this? That's like asking if it's really that important to know how to operate a car to get your drivers license. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Eat too much, you're not losing a dang thing.
There are plenty of people who do not believe in CICO, including many doctors like Dr. Fung.
Yep, here is his take on cico:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
I'm seriously asking this question. How can Fung claim that he's not advocating restricting calories when he advocates fasting?
Am I missing something? It's like he's working a shell game con with them.9 -
Mary_Anastasia wrote: »My calories goal: 1,300 calories.
When I stay below this with foods like: yogurt, beans, seeds, salads -> I gain weight!!
When I stay below this with foods like: McDonald's, mashed potatoes, quesadilla, Subway -> I lose weight.
I have no frickin' clue why.
Purely a guess but when it comes to yogurt, beans, seeds and the like, measuring properly without a scale can be difficult. Also, making sure you are using the proper database entry can be an issue. McDonalds and the like actually have some of the more accurate calorie numbers in the restaurant industry, likely because they run on a small margin so cannot have a lot of extra sauces and the like added without cutting into their profits, so there is a standardization in their products one would not find in other places. Thus eating McD's means your calories are closer to what they should be. Purely a guess though.0 -
rileysowner wrote: »Mary_Anastasia wrote: »My calories goal: 1,300 calories.
When I stay below this with foods like: yogurt, beans, seeds, salads -> I gain weight!!
When I stay below this with foods like: McDonald's, mashed potatoes, quesadilla, Subway -> I lose weight.
I have no frickin' clue why.
Purely a guess but when it comes to yogurt, beans, seeds and the like, measuring properly without a scale can be difficult. Also, making sure you are using the proper database entry can be an issue. McDonalds and the like actually have some of the more accurate calorie numbers in the restaurant industry, likely because they run on a small margin so cannot have a lot of extra sauces and the like added without cutting into their profits, so there is a standardization in their products one would not find in other places. Thus eating McD's means your calories are closer to what they should be. Purely a guess though.
I also suspect that the user isn't eating this exact combo for a month, so it's really hard to make a true assessment on impacts of food combos.5 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »What kind of question is this? That's like asking if it's really that important to know how to operate a car to get your drivers license. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Eat too much, you're not losing a dang thing.
There are plenty of people who do not believe in CICO, including many doctors like Dr. Fung.
Yep, here is his take on cico:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
"I studied biochemistry in university and took a full year course on thermodynamics. At no point did we ever discuss the human body or weight gain/ loss."
I'm guessing he did not get stellar marks in his biochem or thermo class.
I majored in biochemistry and genetics, and the biochem classes were more about differences and similarities in processes between prokaryotes/eukaryotes, plant/animal, you get the idea. Not so much that was tied particularly to humans except by default as members of the animal kingdom.
Physics classes never mentioned any applicability to the human body. I took first-year physics and physical chemistry (intersection of physics and chemistry). Presumably explicitly connecting these things to human physiology as part of the classwork is the kind of thing you'd get in medical school, not so much in undergrad where you're taught the broader principles unless you take something specifically oriented that way like human physiology or human nutrition.
That said, it's not any kind of decent reason to suggest that CICO is irrelevant
So you find it plausible that a person who is competent enough and puts in enough effort to pass a class that is an entire semester worth of macromolecules and metabolic pathways never realizes that it applies to humans because the professor did not explicitly announce that humans are animals? I am not buying it.
I am also highly skeptical that an introductory thermodynamics class did not at least briefly cover energy transfer in biological systems.
No, I don't. Thus:That said, it's not any kind of decent reason to suggest that CICO is irrelevant
My point is that the statement may very well be factual. It's the kind of tactic frequently used when you know damn well there are holes in your story but you don't have anything solid to back them up. Use the truth and make it sound like it means more than or something different than it does.
I mean, what difference does it make if some class you took didn't teach certain verifiable facts. Does it mean they aren't true or are meaningless, or does it mean that either your class was sub-standard or those facts weren't relevant to the goal of the class?
As for your last statement, we didn't have a 'thermodynamics' class available so I can't really say. In my classwork, thermodynamics came up in undergrad multiple times as part of:
physics (not connected to biology),
chemistry (not connected to biology),
biochemistry (connected to biology),
physical chemistry (not connected to biology),
organic chemistry (both biological and non-biological)0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »What kind of question is this? That's like asking if it's really that important to know how to operate a car to get your drivers license. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Eat too much, you're not losing a dang thing.
There are plenty of people who do not believe in CICO, including many doctors like Dr. Fung.
Yep, here is his take on cico:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
"I studied biochemistry in university and took a full year course on thermodynamics. At no point did we ever discuss the human body or weight gain/ loss."
I'm guessing he did not get stellar marks in his biochem or thermo class.
I majored in biochemistry and genetics, and the biochem classes were more about differences and similarities in processes between prokaryotes/eukaryotes, plant/animal, you get the idea. Not so much that was tied particularly to humans except by default as members of the animal kingdom.
Physics classes never mentioned any applicability to the human body. I took first-year physics and physical chemistry (intersection of physics and chemistry). Presumably explicitly connecting these things to human physiology as part of the classwork is the kind of thing you'd get in medical school, not so much in undergrad where you're taught the broader principles unless you take something specifically oriented that way like human physiology or human nutrition.
That said, it's not any kind of decent reason to suggest that CICO is irrelevant
So you find it plausible that a person who is competent enough and puts in enough effort to pass a class that is an entire semester worth of macromolecules and metabolic pathways never realizes that it applies to humans because the professor did not explicitly announce that humans are animals? I am not buying it.
I am also highly skeptical that an introductory thermodynamics class did not at least briefly cover energy transfer in biological systems.
No, I don't. Thus:That said, it's not any kind of decent reason to suggest that CICO is irrelevant
My point is that the statement may very well be factual. It's the kind of tactic frequently used when you know damn well there are holes in your story but you don't have anything solid to back them up. Use the truth and make it sound like it means more than or something different than it does.
I mean, what difference does it make if some class you took didn't teach certain verifiable facts. Does it mean they aren't true or are meaningless, or does it mean that either your class was sub-standard or those facts weren't relevant to the goal of the class?
As for your last statement, we didn't have a 'thermodynamics' class available so I can't really say. In my classwork, thermodynamics came up in undergrad multiple times as part of:
physics (not connected to biology),
chemistry (not connected to biology),
biochemistry (connected to biology),
physical chemistry (not connected to biology),
organic chemistry (both biological and non-biological)
I got your point. Since you claim to be well-educated in biochemistry, I was asking if you found Fung's account plausible, so thanks for the confirmation. I agree the actual content of his course syllabus is rather immaterial, as I also understand that it is possible that his account is true. However, I believe it is near the same probability of being true as the hypothetical person who claims to watch the entire World Series without understanding they were watching baseball.
As an electrical engineer, I find his account of taking a year of thermodynamics and not making the connection that the human body is a thermodynamic system to be laughable. His entire article demonstrates a gross misunderstanding (or perhaps, misrepresentation) of thermodynamic fundamentals. I likewise have to conclude that he is intelligent enough to persuade laypeople of his arguments, though I also perceive his motivation to most likely be profit oriented at the expense of his own cognitive dissonance.3
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
- 427 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