Can your body mistake calories?

Chain_Ring

lol

ninerbuff

Well no.
My experience is that people with this "problem" are either are eating more than they think, burning more than they think or have a health/hormonal issue they are unaware of.

A.C.E. Certified Group Fitness and Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

defauIt

Math does no lie. If it's not working, you're doing something wrong.

That's the beautiful thing about math. The truths are universal.

That's not correct. The universe does not run on math, and math's foundations are based on our subjective experience. It's a useful tool for describing the universe from a very specific perspective, but it does not contain "universal truths" - hell, math isn't even internally consistent.

1 + 1 does not always equal 2.

Can you provide an example where 1 + 1 does not equal 2?

That's actually true in some cases, although not what he had in mind...
The simplest case is to think of vectors. Or for some more fancy stuff, think of non Euclidean geometries. Think of living on a sphere for a second. It's like a wonderland, you have to reconsider everything, e.g. the sum of the angles of a triangle is not pi anymore...

But back to mundane flat Euclidean life: I'm much more curious about the "math is not even internally consistent" comment.
Really? Do tell...

1+1 is always 2. The situation you're describing (net distance when adding vectors) is not analgous to the statement 1+1!=2.

The only cop out way to try to say 1+1!=2 is by claiming you're working in a non base-10 model such as binary where 1 + 1 = 10, but that's just being a smart *kitten* and deliberately misleading.

suzieduh

One drop of rain + one drop of rain = one puddle

ElliInJapan

1+1 is always 2. The situation you're describing (net distance when adding vectors) is not analgous to the statement 1+1!=2.

In the sense of "adding two items of the same length does not give you an item of twice that length", of course it is. That's why so many students make that mistake. Of course, once you understand what vectors are and how you add them up, there's no issue.

Another easy to see example is special relativity, where if you added up the speed of two photons you'd get c+c=c.

At the end of day, to violate 1+1=2 you need to either redefine addition i.e. the objects you add up obey different summation rules (see vectors) or redefine the symbols (like in binary code) or change the space geometry (e.g. in relativity).

aethre

1+1=2

1.3+1.4=2.7

Rounding to nearest whole number, 1+1=3



Slice of bread (120) + slice of bread (120) = sandwich (240)

Slice of bread (with spread) + slice of bread (with turkey) = sandwich (more than 240)


Sandwich algebra.

Sangebra.

(I'm sorry. It's 4am)

Unknown

This content has been removed.

defauIt

1+1 is always 2. The situation you're describing (net distance when adding vectors) is not analgous to the statement 1+1!=2.

In the sense of "adding two items of the same length does not give you an item of twice that length", of course it is. That's why so many students make that mistake. Of course, once you understand what vectors are and how you add them up, there's no issue.

Another easy to see example is special relativity, where if you added up the speed of two photons you'd get c+c=c.

At the end of day, to violate 1+1=2 you need to either redefine addition i.e. the objects you add up obey different summation rules (see vectors) or redefine the symbols (like in binary code) or change the space geometry (e.g. in relativity).

The claim was made, rather boldly, that sometimes 1 + 1 != 2. That is simply wrong.

Assuming i and j are orthogonal vetors, saying that ||(1,0)+(0,1)|| = sqrt(2) is not proof that 1 + 1 != 2. It's proof that describing that operation as 1 + 1 is misleading and wrong and demonstrates a basic failure in understanding what is happening.

The fact that special relativity adds a layer of complexity to determining relative motion of objects also doesn't prove that 1 + 1 sometimes doesn't equal 2. All it proves is that our basic understanding for determining relative motion - which is all based around moving at speeds significantly slower than the speed of light - is not correct. The fact that relative motion should be calculated as v.rel = [v1 - v2]/[1 - (v1*v2/(c^2))] = 2v/[1 + (v^2)/(c^2)] instead of just v.rel = [v1 - v2] because the [1-(v1*v2/(c^2))] *usually* ~= 1 changes nothing.

Trying to over simplify a situation and say it kinda looks like 1 + 1 but doesn't equal 2 does nothing to prove that 1 + 1 != 2.

paperpudding

1+1=2

1.3+1.4=2.7

Rounding to nearest whole number, 1+1=3



Slice of bread (120) + slice of bread (120) = sandwich (240)

Slice of bread (with spread) + slice of bread (with turkey) = sandwich (more than 240)


Sandwich algebra.

Sangebra.

(I'm sorry. It's 4am)

Sangebra :laugh: :laugh:

countscalories

I'm not fat, I just have math that cheats.

ElliInJapan

1+1 is always 2. The situation you're describing (net distance when adding vectors) is not analgous to the statement 1+1!=2.

In the sense of "adding two items of the same length does not give you an item of twice that length", of course it is. That's why so many students make that mistake. Of course, once you understand what vectors are and how you add them up, there's no issue.

Another easy to see example is special relativity, where if you added up the speed of two photons you'd get c+c=c.

At the end of day, to violate 1+1=2 you need to either redefine addition i.e. the objects you add up obey different summation rules (see vectors) or redefine the symbols (like in binary code) or change the space geometry (e.g. in relativity).

The claim was made, rather boldly, that sometimes 1 + 1 != 2. That is simply wrong.

Assuming i and j are orthogonal vetors, saying that ||(1,0)+(0,1)|| = sqrt(2) is not proof that 1 + 1 != 2. It's proof that describing that operation as 1 + 1 is misleading and wrong and demonstrates a basic failure in understanding what is happening.

The fact that special relativity adds a layer of complexity to determining relative motion of objects also doesn't prove that 1 + 1 sometimes doesn't equal 2. All it proves is that our basic understanding for determining relative motion - which is all based around moving at speeds significantly slower than the speed of light - is not correct. The fact that relative motion should be calculated as v.rel = [v1 - v2]/[1 - (v1*v2/(c^2))] = 2v/[1 + (v^2)/(c^2)] instead of just v.rel = [v1 - v2] because the [1-(v1*v2/(c^2))] *usually* ~= 1 changes nothing.

Trying to over simplify a situation and say it kinda looks like 1 + 1 but doesn't equal 2 does nothing to prove that 1 + 1 != 2.

*sigh*
You kind of missed what I was trying to say. Never mind.

Edited to add: Just to clarify, of course we're not talking about disproving the algebraic 1+1=2 (how could you anyway, this is basically a definition of '2'). But context matters, and in some contexts that I explained above 1+1 might not be 2.

defauIt

*sigh*
You kind of missed what I was trying to say. Never mind...

I fully understand what you're trying to say - not everything adds together simply and linearly. It's a fair point to make, and I agree with it completely, I just disagree with people extrapolating from that fact and trying to use it to make unrelated claims like math not being internally consistent or that the universe doesn't run on basic laws.

(Fair warning - when science advances far enough, we may very well find that the universe does not run on any basic laws, but that discovery would go against pretty much everything we've observed and experienced up until this point in time.)



Back on topic, to answer the OP:

No, your body can't eat 2,000 calories and extract 3,000 calories. That is literally impossible. The caloric value of your food is the maximum amount of energy it can extract from it. Now, it can work the other way - in some cases, such as Crohn's disease or just after gastric bypass surgery, your body will experience malabsorption, where it's unable to extract as much energy from the food as it normally would. In these cases you may eat 2,000 calories but your body may only be able to get out 1,000 calories.

With that said, each and every body will also have it's own metabolic rate and each will burn through calories eaten at a different rate. A 100lb, 4'9" sedentary woman may eat 1,200 calories for breakfast and not need to eat again all day while a 250lb, 6'5" male bodybuilder may eat 1,200 calories for breakfast and need a snack before lunch. Just because two people are eating the same amount and one is losing weight while the other is gaining weight, it does not necessarily mean the guy who is gaining weight is getting more out of his food. It just means he's eating at a calorie surplus.

ElliInJapan

I fully understand what you're trying to say - not everything adds together simply and linearly. It's a fair point to make, and I agree with it completely, I just disagree with people extrapolating from that fact and trying to use it to make unrelated claims like math not being internally consistent or that the universe doesn't run on basic laws.

(Fair warning - when science advances far enough, we may very well find that the universe does not run on any basic laws, but that discovery would go against pretty much everything we've observed and experienced up until this point in time.)

the laws are all we have to study the universe, but anyway we basically agree :flowerforyou: