Some of you may be interested in this heated debate. For the love of Pete, somebody needs to help out poor Fred Hahn. He's getting beaten like a rented mule out there.

While it's pretty clear that the weight of evidence does not support a metabolic advantage, the discussion is really a good one.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue - I think we can all learn something from the dialogue.

The evidence does show a metabolic advantage. However, it doesn't obey the PCB hypothesis' premise, i.e. it's all about calories. No, instead it's all about chemistry. This is why thermodynamics appear to be non-functional when it comes to biology, i.e. "well, I overate a boatload of fat but didn't gain an once, instead I lost weight." Or, "well, I only eat about 1000 calories every day (but it's all cakes, cookies, biscuits, sugar, bread, fruits, juice, soft drinks, etc) but I'm still fat."

To put it to rest once and for all, what's the mechanism that counts the calories to determine how much to use?

Believe it or not, the laws of thermodynamics apply even in chemistry and biology. They are among the most fundamental concepts of all science. In fact, if any theory calls for a violation of any thermodynamics law, that theory should be rejected. There is no instance when the laws are "non-functional".

If you have evidence that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to the human body, you should publish it immediately because you will go down in history as one of the greatest scientists of all time.

Did you not comprehend what I wrote? Would you like me to write it again but this time with a hyperlink to each word explaining what they mean?

I wrote "This is why thermodynamics APPEAR to be non-functional when it comes to biology..."

Carry on.

No, but I would like for you to become scientifically literate. Doing some Googling in your spare time doesn't count. Energy is perhaps the most fundamental concept in science, yet most people cannot even explain what it is.


Except they do not "appear" to be non-functional, as shown by the body of articles linked by Alan Aragon in the linked thread. If you see a phenomenon that appears to contradict one of the most well-established maxims in all of science, the burden rests with you to show why the law doesn't hold. Any scientist I can think of, of which I am one, will tell you that if a theory "appears" to violate the laws of thermodynamics, that theory should be rejected on the spot.

To the extent that all organisms reside in the physical universe, their bodies and the processes within them are all subject to the laws of physics, including the laws of thermodynamics. This is why you may have noticed the lack of flying elephants (aerodynamics) or land creatures not much larger than elephants (square-cube law). More related to this context, it is why small animals such as hummingbirds must eat almost constantly; not because they have a fast metabolism that would cause them to die of starvation, but because they would die of hypothermia even on a warm day (thermodynamics).

I am left to wonder why no one has ever designed a perpetual motion machine using biological systems as a basis. Do you have an explanation?

All you had to do was to say "I disagree." They appear to be non-functional to me. They don't to you. Who holds the truth, the one who believes in it the most?

What about these, do they obey the Laws of Thermodynamics?:
http://magicbus.myfreeforum.org/ftopic1484-0-asc-0.php
http://magicbus.myfreeforum.org/ftopic846-0-asc-100.php
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.inf...ST;f=19;t=14917

And please, please, pretty please, DON'T use the "they must be lying" excuse just this once, mkay?


As if the source of information somehow invalidated it. Please, don't be mad because your attempt at sarcasm failed. Oh, I forgot, welcome to the forums.

I am popping the popcorn and sitting back and ready to watch the show..

So would I. But I just have this little problem, most "scientists" lie about their work either through incompetence or plain willfulness or simple economics, i.e. "if I don't tell them what they want to hear, I'll lose my funding". The result is the same, there is little to no actual science being done on nutrition and health.

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=400888

The one who holds the truth is the one whose opinion is supported by the weight of empirical evidence.


Since everything in the physical universe obeys the laws of thermodynamics, of course they do, too.

Hmm, let's see, what is more plausible?

1. Several hundred years of science consisting of millions of consistent, empirical observations

2. Three anecdotal accounts

Bigfoot has three anecdotal accounts in a slow month. As I have said before, if someone has found a way to invalidate the laws of thermodynamics, it would shake the very foundations of science and that person would go down in history as one of the greatest scientists of all time. That is why I therefore urge you to publish your findings, because you will surely win a Nobel Prize and collect megabux. Then, you should use your findings to invent a perpetual motion machine. Have you wondered why no one has done so yet?


I didn't say anything about the source. I am commenting on your lack of training. Some of us have actually been tested in these matters and found competent. We don't have to run for a dictionary when someone says "enthalpy", "joule", or "coefficient of static friction".

Here is my standard cut-through-the-crap question:
What evidence would prove your belief wrong? Note that I am assuming the burden of proof.

This shows you are not to be taken seriously. You can wave your hand and dismiss any findings you find disagreeable as a lie.

Your attitude is common among cranks e.g. it is very common among evolution deniers. Cranks often dismiss the evidence by claiming some huge conspiracy of silence and lies, but such a sentiment shows a grave ignorance of how science actually works. Scientists achieve, notoriety, and funding by showing current theory to be insufficient or wrong, not by maintaining the status quo. The only reason you have heard of Albert Einstein was because he radically improved upon Newton's laws of gravitation, not because he bobbed his head and said, "yup, them laws is good!" The same for Galileo, who 400 years ago last week presented his telescope to the government of Venice. (did you notice the goofy-looking Google logo last week while searching for more crank literature?) His work improved on the Copernican model of the universe. Anyone who thinks science is about maintaining some sort of group census has displayed the most fundamental scientific illiteracy.

Were Carnot and Joule lying?

PROTIP: If either of those names has you heading for Google, you are too illiterate to take part in this discussion.

worth the price of the popcorn! I wonder if I could find a way to charge admission.................................

I asked real nicely not to use the "they must be lying" excuse and you use it anyway as if it was the only thing you could think of. Small mind? Maybe, I don't know. But perhaps you are merely fettered by the shackles of knowledge. Just for kicks, try to figure out how these people can either lose weight or maintain it even though they overeat, or fail to maintain weight even though they eat what constitutes maintenance intake. Entertain us with your eloquent discourse.

Hey Flex, you've just described 99 percent of the people on this forum. Please check out The War Zone. Please read before posting here. It will help you participate.

I did not say that anyone was lying. I asked which was more plausible. You did not answer. Did you think the question was rhetorical?

The most obvious explanation is that the data is entirely self-reported, anecdotal, and in each instance, has a sample of one. These aren't even single-blind "experiements". They're zero-blind. Oh, and where's the control? (these questions are not rhetorical, either)

Every year at least one person claims to have invented an engine that runs on air, or water, or unicorn farts in violation of thermodynamics, and every time they fade away because (surprise!) their inventions do not stand up to the most precursory scientific scrutiny. Your three dieters, whom you claim magically destroy energy inside their bodies (an as-yet unobserved phenomenon) are no different.

You also ignored my standard cut-through-the-crap question. I will repeat it for you:
What evidence would prove your belief wrong? I am simply not interested in discussing this matter so long as you refuse to answer this simple question, which I remind you places the burden of proof on me. You have nothing to lose by answering, and if you are truly interested in learning, will answer. On the other hand, if you are simply interested in moving the goal posts and word games, I imagine you will ignore this question again.

P.S. Have you Googled Carnot and Joule yet?

I did read it. I stand by the sentiment. If a person does not have the time to be educated in a given field, that's fine, but it also means they don't have the time to have an opinion. No one has the right to an uninformed opinion.