There is plenty of evidence for the idea that energy consumption/conversion is directly related to simple calorie calculations. That idea, pretty much, is what Cecil used. There is plenty of evidence that, on a case by case basis, it is not exactly true–eating a twinkie one day will not have the exact same effect as eating a twinkie on the next day. Many popular diets advocate protein over carbohydrates, regardless of calorie content–but they are much debated. If anyone has evidence against the simple calorie model–which has been fairly successful–then I’d like to review it. It’s possible that your idea is right.
But the qualitative analogy doesn’t hold up–your conclusion about beer on the car engine should hold for beans on the car engine–but it doesn’t. So the analogy fails. That’s all that I was trying to point out.
Yes certainly, and no he does not. I have no problem with the theory that energy consumption/conversion is directly related to simple calorie calculations. What I have a problem with is the suggestion that energy consumption/conversion varies in a simple and direct relationship with things that cause the body temp to change slightly.
Cecil uses exactly the opposite of the idea you mention, because he is proposing that calorie consumption will rise due to the temperature of the liquid consumed.
**
I don’t know why you think my analogy doesn’t hold up. It does. It does with beans too. If you drive a car from A to B, and then you drive your car from A to B with a can of cold beans on the engine, at the end of the trip the beans will have been warmed, but the engine will have used to the same fuel to get from A to B.
I took your analogy to mean that since the beer didn’t affect the temperature of the engine, that beer in your gut might not affect the temperature of the body. But, I countered, just because it doesn’t affect the engine doesn’t mean it won’t affect the body–just look at the example of beans. Bean don’t affect the engine either, but they certainly do affect your body.
I notice that it was Race Bannon, not you, that made the statement that “Everybody also knows that running your heater doesn’t make any difference at all, because the engine needs to dump heat anyway.” I wish he’d phrased that “doesn’t make much difference most of the time” rather than “at all”. The beer and beans do have some effect on the engine–whether it is measureable or not is what we’re talking about. Wait, all of a sudden, I’m hungry…
Well you entirely misunderstood what I was trying to point out by my analogy, but perhaps I wasn’t entirely clear. I was in no way trying to suggest that the beer wouldn’t have some effect on the engine’s temperature (however miniscule). I was pointing out that it would have no effect on fuel consumption (ie drawing a parallel with the body’s calorie consumption).
As a matter of interest, what do you see as inaccurate about Race Bannon’s statement? What effect on fuel consumption do you think the cold beer/beans would have?
Race Bannon wasn’t talking about beans or beer, they were talking about running the heater. I’ve been in cars where, if you didn’t run the heater, the car would break down.
I’m not an expert on the topic. However, check out this site originally cited by Truth Seeker. It has more info on the topic of the body’s temperature control than you would ever need.
On my reading, it seems to suggest that your metabolism will go up if it is cold enough, but that your body copes through other methods down to a certain level.
That was a big homework assignment. I even found what seem to be some errors in the page, but I’m not so sure that the page supports your position, or even if it supports mine. Could you be more specific about the parts that you think seem to contradict Cecil?
I haven’t read the whole article, but it seems that the body’s temp regulation relies on several different systems for heating and cooling, each with their own set points and triggers, so that overall the reaction of the body to a fall in outside temperature or the introduction of a cold liquid is not simple.
For example, the warmer your skin (shell temperature), the lower your core temperature can go without triggering shivering.
From reading various parts of the site, it seems that 20C is the key. At a shell temperature below that, metabolic rate increases when your core temp drops.
Bear in mind, in the experiment used to gain this information, shell temp was manipulated by putting someone in a bath up the neck. Obviously, an external air temperature of 20C is not unusual, but what they are talking about is not merely being in an air temperature of 20C with your clothes on, but being in a cold bath. A very unusual, and unusually cold situation.
So in most normal human situations, your shell temp is going to be much higher, and shivering is not going to be triggered.
That’s sorta my point. It’s not simple. Just eating a quarter pounder doesn’t mean your weight gains a quarter pound. The usual rule of thumb is that it takes 3500 calories to burn off a pound of fat, but eating 3500 calories isn’t necessarily going to produce a pound of fat. I think the food calorie calculations are in that spirit.
I don’t see anything in that article that really contradicts Cecil’s claim. I could be wrong.
Cecil claims, straight out, that if you drink a certain beer (containing a certain number of calories) with a certain amount of ice water, you will not gain weight. In other words he does a simple “calories in equals calories to raise a certain mass by a certain amount” calculation.
That is wrong, because it is just not that simple.
For someone who purports to disagree with me, you sure seem to agree with me a lot, RM Mentock.
Things aren’t simple, it’s true. If someone said, “putting on a coat will warm you up,” would you disagree because it’s possible that the coat has been soaked in liquid nitrogen? Generalizations are seldom completely true in every application.
If that’s the reasoning behind your disagreement, then I would agree with you–but I’d think it a stretch to call it wrong.
IMHO you have it upside down. I’m not sure it’s worth discussing the matter further with you, because you are not dealing with the points I make.
But one last time…
The coat analogy you use illustrates my point precisely. The example you give makes the point that no one, when making a statement that is generally true (such as that putting on a coat makes you warmer) takes into account extreme examples.
Cecil’s answer is true in an extreme case. Namely, where you are already borderline cold, and then you have a cold drink so as to push your body into shivering, thereby increasing calorie consumption. Cecil’s answer is analogous to the coat soaked in liquid nitrogen. That is why it is essentially wrong.
The more normal case is that your body is at a comfortable temperature, and the cold beer is consumed as only part of your normal diet, and your body will not need to shiver to warm the beer, so no more calories will be consumed just because the beer was cold than would have been consumed even if it were warm.
Mine is the more correct answer precisely the same way as “a coat will make you warmer” is the more correct answer.
That’s where we disagree. You’ve made qualitative arguments for your side, I’ve made qualtitative arguments for mine. I say that it’s entirely possible that Cecil’s analysis would bear out in the long run–and that’s all that the nutritionists are really talking about anyway.
I am well aware that is what you say. I am yet to hear you advance any (even slightly) convincing argument to that effect. Not only that, but you don’t deal with the points raised in my critique, nor do you deal with the cites I give to support my critique. You just continue to assert a position.
**
Well we are going round in circles here. My position is a critique of Cecil’s and yours. I do not have to prove anything.
RM Mentock, I think the point where we diverge is that you are viewing this problem as if it is simply about calories consumed and used. What you are not dealing with is the fact that the question asked of Cecil is whether the questioner will put on weight depending upon the temperature of liquid consumed. Cecil’s answer implicitly asserts that if you drink a cold thing, your body will increase its calorie consumption by an amount precisely equivalent to the calorific difference between the temperature of the liquid consumed and body temperature.
I have provided a cites that firmly and convincingly show, following experiment, that
[ul]1/ The body produces a lot of heat as a by product of living [which means that it might very well be able to heat the cold liquid without doing additional work, beyond that which it would have anyway].
2/ The body has multiple strategies for maintaining core temperature, only one of which is increasing metabolism or shivering (ie using additional calories)
3/ Those latter strategies only kick in when you are already quite cold [a situation which is not normal for most people most of the time][/ul]
Against that background, your/Cecil’s assertion that if you drink something cold, the body will use additional calories precisely equivalent to the calorific value of the increase in temperature to raise the drink to body temp is not merely insupportable, but verging on the laughable.
You and Cecil are yet to provide a single argument or cite to support that proposition and the onus of proof is on you.
Since we have company coming, I’d like a little clarification about how your approach works for a spoon full of sugar. What if the body burns it, but the body reverses the effect you describe–and it loses more heat than it normally would. How do you treat that case, and what conclusions do you draw from it?
RM Mentock, clarify please. What the heck has your example got to do with the question asked of Cecil (and the only aspect I am talking about), namely whether you will/will not put on weight depending on the temperature of the food consumed (a factor that doesn’t even appear in your example)?
