On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:43:27 GMT, posted:

"Moosh" writes:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:16:20 GMT, posted:

I should make it clear that Mr. Moosh *believes* that conservation of
energy implies that (food) calories in equals (energy) calories
out. As I pointed out, he is neglecting the second law of
thermodynamics, which implies that there is a wastage term he is
neglecting to consider.

Try the first law! The second is irrelevant to our discussion coz I'm
counting ALL energy.

You aren't counting waste energy.

What waste energy is this that I don't know about? How does it
manifest itself?

The second law guarantees that waste
energy is greater than zero.

No ****! So what! Isn't it universal? Or does it only apply to fat
metabolism.

You are remarkably ill-informed on the
physics here.

And as this waste energy is counted, (even though you seem to have
difficulty grasping this) WTF difference does this make. There is
waste energy, I count it, so what? It applies to everything.

More generally, he has failed to consider all possible energy
expenditures in the body.

I am specifically including ALL calories IN and OUT. You are the one
postulating that this and that have been neglected.

Okay, then answer the question: how much energy is wasted when
converting glucose to ATP, and when converting the lipid of your
choice to ATP.

Does this change the argument? You keep squawking for a number, which
I am counting. What is you problem?

That's why I'm insisting that Terry supply a metabolic lab study
where ALL these INs and OUTs can be measured and accounted for. When
this is done, they MUST balance. Never been a variation in this.

Straw man: the question at issue is, "Do all diets of a given caloric
level result in identical gain or loss?"

Gain or loss of what? You haven't specified, as is your habit.

You changed the subject to
conservation of energy because

That has been the subject with Terry for years.
He can't understand that all the calories must balance. I know it is
obvious, but he keeps dismissing considerable chunks of energy out of
hand. I keep asking "Where did they go?"

(1) many people would take the bait and
dispute this principle,

No bait, I thought it was blindingly obvious, but I haven't taken into
account falling standards of basic education in the sciences, and
there are so many who think certain drugs and illnesses can cause fat
storage gains, and it has nothing to do with the diet that they swear
is hypocaloric.

and (2) most people would fail to observe that
it is irrelevant.

To you, apparently, but you are not even on the same page.

Conservation of energy is crucial to the difference between me and
Terry. I say all calories must be accounted for, he says otherwise,
from time to time.

So you are now saying that the energy account DOESN'T need to balance?

I am saying that every calorie into the body (bloodstream) must be
accounted for. There can't be any over or under.
Terry says that one can take IN 3000 calories and expend only 2000 yet
not explain where the 1000 cal not accounted for goes.
But then he has no idea what the weight gain or loss consists of, so
his outburts are tantamount to nonsense.

Lest it be unclear, the reason the first law is irrelevant is that the
question is not whether energy in equals energy out, but measuring the
energy out under conditions of varied dietary composition.

That, is a stupid styatement! Of course it means measurements under
different conditions. WTF would you keep measuring the same conditions
for? Sheesh! The point is that you must assume that all calories must
be accounted for, otherwise your measurements mean nothing.

Your
assertion that energy out is invariant under change of diet needs to
be proven, and switching to your thermodynamic straw man eliminates it
from the debate.

What? Is English your first language? You seem to be having difficulty
comprehending.

Energy out is invarying from energy in, unless you have a modification
of the laws of physics.

Let me explain some simple concepts that you appear to be having
difficulty with:

A subject is placed in a metabolic chamber and fed a known diet
constituent and energywise.

The subject is periodically measured for weight and fat/water
composition, the CO2 and heat energy and water vapour is meaured in
the exhaust, The excretions are measured for energy and other
constituents.

It turns out that all calories IN exactly balance all calories OUT,
and it makes little difference what the food composition is.
Been done hundreds of times.

How so, when I insist on a metabolic lab study where NOTHING is
neglected...

Try the shoe on--give a study which proves YOUR claim that weight gain
or loss is a function of total calories ONLY, and is invariant under
changes in dietary composition.

Try any of them, I've seen dozens of them without looking, and see no
need to look again, you apparently could benefit, as you are showng
your considerable ignorance and arrogance again.

I suggest you try reading more carefully in future.

Coming from Mr. "The Second Law of Thermodynamics is totally
irrelevant", that's rather a hoot.

Misquoting is the weakest form of argument.

I said that the conservation of energy was irrelevant to my
discussion. It still is, despite your inability to grasp it.

Moosh