Calories in, Calories out and Laws of Thermodynamics
- Calorie is a specific measurement of one of the aspects of energy contained within a given foodstuffs, that's it...
Guess what? Calories in food to not equal total calories available for human absorption and different calories are metabolized differently! LEARN SOME PATHO-PHYSIOLOGY...
Heat Energy is transferred between bodies by exchanges of photons.
Heat ALWAYS flows from warmer to colder, due to Entropy, I'll lay that out soon.
- Thermogenesis is a separate type of energy transformation and is a counterfactor against the CICO hypothesis..
- Calorimeters are not physiologically applicable, because humans and animals do not combust their food with a flame, they use a massive series of chemical, metabolic, and biological processes to extract, absorb, and use that said energy.
When you eat protein, most of it is used by the body to rebuild and construct new body infrastructure before portions of it are finally converted to sugars to fuel the sugar required essential functions in the body, including easy to oxidize fuel in every mitochondria in every cell and microbe in your damned body..
All the carbohydrates in the forms of starches and sugars will be oxidized for energy by the mitochondria.
Soluble fibers get broken down in to butyrate, propionate, and acetic acids by various molds, yeasts, and bacteria in your microbiome through enzymatic and selective putrification and fermentation, because that's how the small intestine and colon work!
Fats get broken down into ffas and glycerin and then turned into ketones, which have multiple implications before they get turned into another variety of ketones and acids that are excreted by the kidneys and bladder, and if you eat enough minerals and carbon (from proteins, various sources of minerals and fats) your kidneys make bicarbonate when they're not being plagued by excess sugar in the blood and damaged from that...
The fats and ketones are used differently before the last part of their cycle happens.
Glycerin gets turned into sugar through another gluconeogenesis pathway.
There are also a massive interplay of fucking enzymes and hormones that mess with each step of these processes that can either add to or subtract "energy" from the processes.
If a "calorie" of one thing does not have the same effect as a "calorie" of another, then calories are fucking useless from that ground alone.
If fats and soluble fibers promote massive satiety signals before you COULD eat too much of them, that throws that off too.
4 The problems are in how calories are measured, in the assumption that all foods have the same effective energy value, (which is objectively wrong) when one analyzes the different thermic effects of different macros and different mixes of different macros, and the total ignorance of the Randle Cycle on your part.
- Calories in foodstuffs do not have the same available energetic value to the human anatomy for use in metabolic processes.
- CICO denies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which makes it wrong.
If you don't claim that a calorie is a calorie and admit the equivalent of "calories" of Food A may affect somebody differently than the equivalent of "calories" of Food B, then you're still contradicting that a calorie is a calorie and you're contradicting the whole "calories in, calories out" rhetoric at least to some bare minimum level.
https://accscience.com/journal/GTM/2/1/10.36922/gtm.222
https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC506782/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35896818/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6082688/
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1605
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32685707/
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.22.21252026v1
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519322002351?via%3Dihub
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202208.0309/v12
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27246-z
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajpendo.00487.2024
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10475871/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8634575/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-019-0466-1
- WHY IN THE FUCK DID I NOT GO BACK TO 290-SOMETHING POUNDS YET?!!
I used to have QUITE THE SET OF TITTIES BACK IN 2011 BEFORE I LOST OVER 100 POUNDS!
- Energy is both an abstract construct and a verb, which is why you can't measure it, but you can measure its expressions when manifested where they will, electrical, kinetic, gravitational negative, nuclear, chemical, thermochemical, heat/thermal, physico-chemical, electrochemical, etc.....
It's the ability to do work or "impetus or motive force" for "work"... hence why it's a verb and a construct..
W=fd
F=ma
Both m and a are relative to the inertial frame of reference.
Again, energy itself cannot be measured.
What CAN be measured are the expressions of "energy" which I already listed examples thereof, the effect of said expressions of energy AKA the expressions converting work or POWER as an example, and mass...
These can be measured.
The idea is a bit circular with no external validity when you wanna go meta level on that stuff, but again, it works and energy expressions manifest and are detectable... so it has INDIRECT validity through said expressions that's objectively real.
It's a bit fucky going into this deeper part of the territory, but yeah.
Energy is falsely claimed to be "conserved"... After Emily Noether (1882-1935).
To all intents and purposes, Miss Noether is correct in the context of day to day life.
"Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed in form".
Mass is not conserved, so anyone claiming it is a fucking idiot, like Lameass Norton the Crank.
If mass cannot be created, it cannot exist, see CERN results, look at the research in the mid-1990's that synthesized a gram of anti-hydrogen and other such high energy particle and nuclear physics results.
If mass cannot be destroyed, what the fucking FUCK happened in Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945?
There are 4 Thermodynamics Laws.
Zeroth, First, Second, and Third.
The Zeroth Law was discovered in the late 1930's after the first 3 were established.
The first law of thermodynamics is a formulation of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic processes. It distinguishes in principle two forms of energy transfer, heat and thermodynamic work for a system of a constant amount of matter. The law also defines the internal energy of a system, an extensive property for taking account of the balance of energies in the system.
The First Law of Thermodynamics is known as the Law of Conservation of Energy which states that the total energy of any isolated or closed system, which cannot exchange energy or matter, is constant. Energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed.
Delta,U = Q - W
where ∆,U denotes the change in the internal energy of a closed system (for which heat or work through the system boundary are possible, but the transfer of either matter, potential, or other expressions of energy is not possible), Q denotes the quantity of energy supplied to the system as heat, and W denotes the amount of thermodynamic work done by the system on its surroundings.
The Second law of thermodynamics can be precisely stated in the following two forms, as originally formulated in the 19th century by the Scottish physicist William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and the German physicist Rudolf Clausius, respectively:
"A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transform heat extracted from a source which is at the same temperature throughout into work is impossible."
"A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transfer heat from a body at a given temperature to a body at a higher temperature is impossible."
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says, in simple terms, entropy always increases. This principle explains, for example, why you can't unscramble an egg or why you can't necessarily undo specific nuclear fission or fusion reactions and there are many other examples.
The THIRD Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system at thermodynamic equilibrium approaches a constant value when its temperature approaches absolute zero. This constant value cannot depend on any other parameters characterizing the system, such as pressure or applied magnetic field. At absolute zero (zero kelvins) the system must be in a state with the minimum possible energy.
Entropy is related to the number of accessible microstates, and there is typically one unique state (called the ground state) with minimum energy. In such a case, the entropy at absolute zero will be exactly zero. If the system does not have a well-defined order (if its order is glassy, for example), then there may remain some finite entropy as the system is brought to very low temperatures, either because the system becomes locked into a configuration with non-minimal energy or because the minimum energy state is non-unique. The constant value is called the residual entropy of the system.
The ZEROTH Law of Thermodynamics is one of the four principal laws of thermodynamics. It provides an independent definition of temperature without reference to entropy, which is defined in the second law. The law was established by Ralph H. Fowler in the 1930s, long after the first, second, and third laws had been widely recognized.
The zeroth law states that if two thermodynamic systems are both in thermal equilibrium with a third system, then the two systems are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
Two systems are said to be in thermal equilibrium if they are linked by a wall permeable only to heat, and they do not change over time.
Body mass can ONLY be exchanged by absorbing or excreting mass across the system's boundaries.
Humans' bodies are open system thermodynamic systems.
Body mass / composition changes are "Mass in / Mass Out" NOT energy in / energy out.
There are still carnivores that eat more than that and do not do that much physical activity, but they still lose weight.
So that doesn't really matter, so the calorie and the oversimplification of what is "energy" are still issues.
If CICO is true, then let's turn gold into lead or vice versa!
Seriously think about it, the analogy works because unless you disassemble everything to the sub-atomic level, of which, the body works, ususally, at the molecular level and seldomly at the atomic level, you aren't doing that transmutation.
It's another way to challenge the whole "CICO" and "a calorie is a calorie" claims, because you need a higher amount of energy expression input to disassemble one and transmute it into the other in the same way that your body needs specific chemicals and biologies to actually use the substrate to generate energy and there are byproducts and losses at each step of the way to turn any of the substrates into ATP, which is the fuel to turn into energy in the mitochondria.
The different chemicals in the analogy are the equivalent to the sufficient power, nuclear chemistry, and particle physics understandings and equipment to turn gold or lead into one another.
CICO is a strawman of being physics-centric.
The issue is trying to apply this attempt at accurate physics-centeredness to open system biochemistry and biology, the complexities make too much noise for any decent signal here.