Tosh, RM. You have never placed a different interpretation on those cites. You just assert that it can be done.
Ntucker asked you a question earlier. You never answered it. You still haven’t it. That encapsulates why, as he said, you are losing this argument.
I did read through them, last year. I’ve denied that they necessarily support your position, and I’ve given reasons. That’s an interpretation different from yours, I think.
That there can be a different intrepretation placed? That’s a fine distinction.
That reasoning encapsulates…
The argument will be “lost” or “won”, I suppose, when Cecil changes his mind.
Denied is what you have done. It is all you have done. You have not given any reasons.
Heh heh … I almost don’t want to resurrect this thread … but what the heck, it’s been a slow day.
In this thread, specifically here, swyves says that Cecil’s answer was right and that as long as you don’t change your body temperature while drinking cold beverages, you will indeed be burning calories.
He’s apparently a physiologist, so he should know what he’s talking about, I guess… but I think I’ll wait and see if anybody replies before I make up my mind.
Stir away chorpler! I’ll admit that I haven’t read all the way through this magnum thread, but I’ll stand by what I said before. Maybe this observation will help some of the hardcore out there: non-shivering thermogenesis, ie how that the body actively burns calories to make thermal energy, is active under normal conditions.
Note that if it’s a really hot day and you’re sweating, you won’t lose as many calories through intake of cold stuff (though I suspect a litre of ice water would still lose you some – math on request 
): instead, at least some of the coolness of your ice-water may drop your core temperature slightly (fractions of a degree) and just result in a decrease in e.g. sweating (and other cooling mechanisms). And sweating * costs * energy!
Yeah, I believe somebody mentioned something similar to this early on in this thread – that on a hot day a cold drink would result in less sweating, thereby causing you to burn fewer calories than you otherwise would. Any idea how much energy it takes to sweat?
Also, do you know of any handy references (preferably online, of course) that discuss non-shivering thermogenesis?
I remember reading a blurb in a non-fiction Isaac Asimov book once (some old paperback published in the 1950’s, I believe) where he said that it was recently discovered that warm-blooded creatures maintained their high body temperatures via rapid-but-very-small muscular contractions – he was saying that body heat is generated by constant micro-shivering, in other words. It seemed a bit odd to me at the time, and I wondered if it was true, since that was the only place I had ever heard of anything like that, before or since.
Can I make a suggestion swyves? IMHO you have a couple of options.
Option One: read this whole thread. Deal with the cites to detailed studies of the body’s behaviour in relevant respects. Consider the arguments put and whether you have anything to add. If you do, add something.
Option Two: have the good grace to keep your presumptious, generalising, “I-haven’t-read-this-thread-but-I’m-going-to-comment-on-the-participants-and-what’s-been-said-anyway” cakehole shut.
Welcome to the boards.
I should perhaps add that it was this comment in the other thread (on negative calorie foods) by swyves:
“However, with that long argument, I don’t think I see much evidence of people who are interested in how the body works and what the answer is to the problem. They seem more keen on keeping on shouting their ideas until they become right.”
that got up my nose.
Princhester, my point is that I’m adding information to this thread, information that seems not to have been discussed before. I’m not “taking sides” on the issue, and I don’t see any point in your aggressive attitude. If I have anything to add to the thread, surely it should be added. The existence of NST as a significant physiological effect is clearly germane to the question at issue. If I were saying “I think so and so is wrong” then yes, it would be unfair without having read everything. But as chorpler at least seems to have gained from what I’ve written, I think I was right to do so.
As for the “tiny muscle contractions”, it’s an old theory that’s since been discredited. I’m working on the online references, give me a day or two. Most of this is from papers that can only be accessed with a subscription, but googling will surely work wonders…