Comments by "JP 72" (@739jep) on "The Calories Expert: Health Experts Are Wrong About Calories u0026 Diet Coke! Layne Norton" video.

Lol good one
1
Bart Kay is probably the dumbest person on YouTube.
1
He knows exactly what a calorie is and explained everything quite well ? 🤷‍♂️
1
@danfox8819 you seem to be forgetting that energy is transformable. 1 calorie of heat energy = 1 calorie of chemical energy = 1 calorie of mechanical energy and so on and so forth. Energy is energy regardless of form. This is a basic principle in physics. So Layne is not incorrect in the slightest when he uses calories as a unit of measurement for energy in the human body. Nobody is denying that energy has a rest mass of 0. But energy is stored in the chemical bonds of the mass we consume and changes to energy balance in the system is what drives how much of that mass is stored. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Only transformed. In a bomb calorimeter when the chemical bonds of food are broken it will release the same amount of energy as when an equivalent number of bonds are broken by the human metabolic system. The difference is in a bomb calorimeter they’re released mostly as heat , whereas in the human body they’re released mostly as mechanical energy and heat energy and a little bit as other forms of energy. But what’s important if the number of bonds are held constant then the amount of energy released (regardless of form) will be equivalent between a bomb calorimeter and the human metabolism. Now the same number of bonds being broken are inevitably not the same between the two systems. You’re correct in pointing out this difference. It is true that the human metabolism uses different processes than a bomb calorimeter in order to release the energy stored in the chemical bonds of food. This leads to different conversion efficiencies between the two but in no way does this discredit CICO or make calories irrelevant to the human metabolism. These differences are in fact fairly well understood and accounted for. These differences in efficiencies add nuance to the conversation but doesn’t override the basic principle that in order to achieve fat loss one needs to be in a caloric deficit. At the university level, the disciplines of physics and biochemistry intersect to study human metabolism. Students learn that energy is conserved and quantified using calories, representing various forms like chemical, mechanical, and heat energy. Despite methodological differences, the principle of energy conservation (1st law) remains constant. This underscores the importance of the calories in/calories out paradigm in understanding weight management and nutritional physiology. There are lots of courses online you can audit for free and even some free textbooks on this very topic that are easy to find to learn more about this. Therefore, Layne’s discussion of calories in this video aligns with established scientific understanding. To demonstrate that he is incorrect you’re going to have to demonstrate that in terms of quantity 1 unit of heat energy is somehow different to 1 unit of mechanical energy or 1 unit of chemical energy. Otherwise you’d have to demonstrate that energy isn’t conserved. Only if you did either of those things you’d be breaking fundamental laws of physics 🤷‍♂️
1
@danfox8819 I’m having trouble replying , hopefully you’re not seeing heaps of copies of this reply 😂 The human body is indeed an open system. But the first law of thermodynamics applies to open systems as well. Simply google ‘the first law of thermodynamics as applied to open systems’. Nobody is saying the human body processes food the same as a calorimeter. You’re right , that would be insane. But its irrelevant. What matters is the principle of the conservation of energy and the fact that energy is transformable. In both a calorimeter and the human body the utilised energy begins as potential energy stored in the chemical bonds of food. The calorimeter transforms this chemical energy into heat energy , the human metabolism transforms it into several forms of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed , only transformed- so if you’re using calories to measure the heat energy in the calorimeter then you must be able to use it to measure the chemical energy it began as. Calories are the currency of energy transfer. The lump of coal argument is a strawman. We don’t count the total caloric content of the mass of food we consume , only the metabolisable mass (carbs , fat and protein). Since we wouldn’t metabolise the lump of coal , for all intents and purposes the calories in would be 0. With protein we have to consider the thermic effect of food , which was actually addressed in this video by Layne. That’s the calories out part of the equation.
1
You should probably avoid accusing others of not doing well in physics if you yourself don’t understand that the first law of thermodynamics applies to both open and closed systems. Just a thought 🤷‍♂️
1
@danfox8819 ok well then I think that maybe you’re just unaware of Laynes full position on this topic. Quite honestly he would agree with you on a lot of what you just said , but calorie counting as a tool is a completely different concept than CICO as a model for explaining fat loss. Layne has videos discussing many of the same challenges you just listed. He specifically goes into the challenges of counting calories , both in and out. He does this often and consistently , you may not have been aware he does this , but he does. That doesn’t mean that in order to lose fat mass a caloric deficit isn’t required. That’s why Layne will often use the budget analogy. In order to increase your savings you need more money coming in then going out - that doesn’t mean you MUST keep a budget or that it’s easy or even possible to estimate how much you will earn or spend in the future - but nevertheless in order to increase savings you can’t get around the fact that you need more money coming in then going out. It’s the same for fat loss. You need less calories going in , then going out. Layne doesn’t even say you need to count calories (just like savers don’t need to keep a budget), it’s just a useful tool for some people. Saying calorie counting is completely useless as a tool is also a bit of stretch. Lots of people have success counting calories. In controlled studies where caloric consumption is controlled they also consistently see weight loss. Of course it won’t be suitable for everyone, and people should use what works for them - but regardless if the goal is to get leaner , whatever people are doing will have to involve being in a caloric deficit. If you think that Layne doesn’t know what a calorie is , but you also think that a calorie is only ever a measurement of heat energy - then it is in fact you that doesn’t know what a calorie is im afraid. 🤷‍♂️ Finally - the challenges you present regarding open systems and adiabatic work are problems relating to analysing and predicting what will happen in systems (particularly complex systems)- they do not invalidate the application of the laws of thermodynamics to open systems such as the human body. All that is required for CICO to be true , is for energy to be conserved within the human body. And it is. I think your mistake is assuming that those involved in nutrition sciences are not aware of the challenges you’re talking about. They are , they’re hardly a secret to anyone. But they doesn’t mean the model is useless.
1
@danfox8819 energy being equated from one form to another is a fundamental principle of physics be it in a closed system or an open system. If this were not the case, our understanding of physics currently would completely and radially shift. All that aside. If you’re not happy accepting calories as a unit of measurement for all forms of energy , what unit do you propose we use to measure the chemical energy stored in food / the mechanical energy used by the body? Joules? What you’re probably referring to is differences in conversion efficiency. A bomb calorimeter will more efficiently convert chemical energy into heat energy , whereas the human body won’t as efficiently convert chemical energy into the various forms of utilisable energy - some will be lost as heat for example and perhaps some chemical bonds won’t be broken. But importantly the total quantity of energy is constant (neither created or destroyed). It will also take more energy in order to break certain bonds depending on the specific metabolic substance (fat , carbs , protein ) . It is very fair to point out these differences in efficiency as they are important. These differences in efficiency however don’t discredit the model , they simply make it more complex. It’s kind of like when financial models have to begin to account for inflation. These nuances arnt a secret and in a lot of cases are accounted for. It’s important for people who happen to choose to calorie count that they are aware of these factors so they can better plan and implement their weight loss strategy.
1