450 karma · joined May 28, 2009
That's because you are utterly, terribly wrong, and like you millions of people, including doctors. And that's why so many people have trouble losing weight. You think you have THE TRUTH, your truth is not working, then blame the world.
Just two things:
1) The actual first law of thermodynamics is:
(Calories In) - (Calories Out) - (Calories Stored) = 0
Note in particular this is a constraint, i.e., the absence of causality assumptions.
2) You don't eat pure energy. After the first law there is the second: http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9
3) Please read Taubes.
By the way, nothing wrong with fat in our diets, unless is tran-fats or excess omega 6 PUFAs (typically seed oils). Please read Gary Taubes also.
Tell that to (ancient) Inuit.
Maybe something about torsors?
One of these things doesn't belong.
The science of the book is sound. And he is right about exercise: it's good for fitness (as in muscle) and other health reasons, but for weight loss is almost useless by itself. The reason is insulin, which signal the body to store, not use, energy.
Of course you could calorie-count people on a high carb diet and whip them to exercise and they will probably lose weight. But you will also destroy their health and they will regain all of its former weight (and then some) later. This is documented and is all in the book too.
My point is that a lot of people misinterpret conservation of energy assigning it a direction of causality it doesn't have. It's a constraint between variables (not an assignation as in programming languages) which are under complex feedback control systems in the body, and that's why the kind of calories you eat (fats vs carbohydrates) DOES matter, you don't eat abstract pure energy but as you say mass with chemical energy that has to be metabolized.
That's why starvation diets (just counting theoretical calories, which are numbers obtained in laboratories, dismissing the type of macronutrient) often fails in the long term and leave serious damage. The book talks long about this.
Taubes' book is not a diet book, it's a thick book on all the things that are wrong on modern research on nutrition. It explains why the problem is not fats (nor greens), but refined carbohydrates like sugar and white flour.
Very worth your time, really.
Energy intake - Energy expenditure - Change in energy stores = 0
There. Just f(x,y,z)=0. That's what the first law really says. There is no causality implied, it just a first integral of the "motion" of metabolism that the body, naturally, has to follow.
It does NOT say what variables are free to independently modify. It's just a relation the three of them have to obey.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/
http://nephropal.blogspot.com/
I very much like Dr Harris (PaNu blog) position: is not about blindly replicating cavemen lifestile, but studing their metabolism (which is ours) in the light of modern science.
Jaynes' book is excellent but is more about the philosophy of the Bayesian interpretation of probability than mathematics.
His problem with "random variables" is not so much the concept (although he wasn't a fan of measure theory), but the "random" in the name.
Pretty much.
uh?
Why? This isn't politics. Maybe one approach IS better than the other. Or maybe there are better methods we don't know.
In fact I think most Bayesians would consider Frequentist methods either plain "wrong" (like, at best works in special cases) or as approximations to the full Bayesian way.
And that doesn't mean they are useless, because going fully Bayesian normaly requires "a lot" of computation, or maybe we have issues with elicitation (I suspect this is the biggest hurdle for frequentists). But Bayes is still the gold standard.
I think that kinda missing the point.
You know, this could be read very, very wrongly.
This is very wrong. Obesity is not a shortage of discipline, is a hormonal disruption. We play havoc with insulin eating too much of things we didn't evolved to eat.
The body has a complex energy regulation system and hunger, energy consumption via metabolism and energy storage are interlaced. It's not as simple as "energy in" = independent variable.
It has a preference to store (instead of immediately use) calories from carbohydrates (due to insulin). So a diet low in total calories but still high in carbs is going to be painful, and very frequently fails.
Read Gary Taubes' book, people.
Exercise if you want muscle, but it's not necessary or sufficient.
puts("FAILED: " #expr )
(Or you could keep the printf, as it looks like GCC optimizes it to puts when just used to print a string, without variable interpolation)