Here is the latest edition of my weekly newsletter. This week we talk about the mass balance equation, the latest Cochrane report, Mask hysteria, and Ozempic and Wegovy. With an old video of Fauci when he still told the truth. And, Iris DeMent.
Some of us had already watched your talk directly from the "Low Carb Down Under" site on Youtube prior to your link in The Arrow. Very amazing new information that I have watched several times. Thanks for all your wonderful information
I got the chance to watch the video over the weekend and I think it is absolutely brilliant. And I enjoyed reading your further explanation. It's like an "ah-ha" moment when someone wakes from a dream and sees the details of a complex problem laid out. I've been reading your books, Gary Taubes, Atkins, and a very long list of others for twenty years and it seems like that just sums it all up. I went from 225 to 150 along the way and stayed there, so I knew low carb eating works. It's nice to have an explanation that cuts through the noise and makes sense of it all. Thanks.
I went from a size 18 to a size 12 in three weeks following Protein Power book guide. I also read Life without Bread, a translation of Leben obne Brot by Wolfgang Lutz, MD, published in 1967 about low carbohydrate nutrition.
Hi, managed to watch your presentation on YouTube before your post, due to suggestion of YouTube. So I don't count as a click on your blog, and suppose this applies to many readers of you.
Mass flux makes sense, combined with hormonal effects.
Don’t feel bad, Dr Eades that more people didn’t use the link to watch your video. I suspect many, like me, saw it in our YouTube feed right after it was posted and watched it before you posted your link. Your proposal is very intriguing. I really appreciate your expanding the topic in this week’s Arrow. That really helped me to understand the theory and details. Thanks! And good luck brushing up on your engineering math!! I am looking forward to more details in the future.
I had listened to your talk before The Arrow came out. I believe I saw it posted on Twitter. I was happy to see that you urinate more on a low carb diet. Because being on a carnivore diet, I was wondering! 😄 I am reading Gary Taube's The Case for Keto. I was eating protein before my strength training but I guess I'll go back to after. Thanks for the the review of your talk.
Thanks for covering your Low Carb USA Boca talk again, as you said you would last week. Maybe that is why only 6% opened the link last week.
I didn’t open it because I was at Boca, and as I told you there, I needed to view it again because I lost you at some point. I see now where I (and perhaps others) lost you: I missed when you flipped the kcal/g to g/kcal (4 to .25 & 9 to .11).
Perhaps, my mind was still distracted by the revelation that calories (energy) has no weight (mass), as demonstrated...and I missed that crucial slide.
Anyway, I offer this as feedback, as I imagine you will make this remarkable presentation again going forward.
The explanation in #111 is very clear; take a look at it again. I think I just got distracted by the import and the implications of the earlier revelation about calories having no weight (mass), and therefore not directly responsible for weight loss. Eades new paradigm is related to the lower mass of fat as a fuel, so, for one thing, eating fat on an isocaloric diet with carbs gives you a metabolic advantage. (.11 being the reciprocal of 9, and .25 the reciprocal of 4)
Michael, an elegant dismissal of the "Energy in Energy out" for weight loss- the dimensions don't equate (unless you are doing nuclear fission or fusion). LHS is Kg and RHS is Joules.
(You can tell I did watch your Video!)
I really like your analysis of sliming foods. 38 years ago Biochem 301 Patsy Shaw told the class "Carbs are great because you can eat twice as much of them". Patsy followed her low fat diet and I was shocked years later to read that She died in a suicide pact with her Husband- She was suffering severe osteoporosis, he dementia.
To be fair Patsy gave us an a appreciation of nutrition (in a 6 year MB BS there was not much other exposure). The correct logic is "Fat is great as you don't have to eat as much to get your required energy. Carbs should be moderated as we are not adapted to store them so we fatten the liver and boost adipose stores". Glycation of our bodies is more dangerous than carrying a little extra subcutaneous padding. Down Under, there is MAID legislation for the terminally ill - but Patsy and her Husband (who was a noted Antarctic explorer and academic) ended it all prior to this becoming legal.
It is metabolic advantage that has to be explained. We agree that part of the problem is we don't eat energy (calories), we eat food (grams). The problem is that in the absence of labelling and keeping track of everything, we don't know what happens to the food. The information that tells you what happens to the food resides in the mechanism, that is the kinetics (rates) not just the energy. One source of metabolic advantage is substrate cycling. So if you convert fatty acids to TAG and then, because of a change in the hormones and the change in some physiologic state, you hydrolyze that TAG, that cycle is unproductive and wastes energy. The Atwater energy, however, measures the reaction, complete combustion. If you do anything else, all bets are off. So, you don't really know what will come out, what its mass is or how much energy it took to get there.
The bottom line is that thermodynamics does not have mechanism. It is the history of the problem that gives us this grief. When Atkins showed that you lose more weight on his diets, the old guard went crazy and started saying laws of thermodynamics. Never mind that they were really thinking only of the first law and didn't really know that beyond the sound-bite "calorie in equals calories out." So, their expectation (demand) was that calories are conserved. But as we are both saying, you don't eat calories. you get calories from the process and the first law says energy may be conserved but for different isocaloric conditions, you get more work and less heat from one reaction than the other. So, there never was any physical expectation that isocaloric diets were independent of nutrient composition.
The real question was not why CICO was violated but rather why it is true so often -- we all do nutritional experiments. Our weight does not fluctuate much with our diet most of the time. That's what has to be explained. It does not come from physics. It comes from biology and extensive feedback systems that try to maintain a steady state. That's why you have to do some extreme, like keto or carnivore or calorie restriction to break through metabolism. And that may be why Hizzona' Eric Adams, the mayor of New York is controlling his diet with a vegan diet. From interviews he is really doing it. I think few people can do it -- I'm not a health provider but I believe that vegan diets are the only place where you can see malnourishment outside of a clinic. And it does see to have much suffering. Eric Adams is mayor of New York and he used to be a Captain in the NYPD compared to which, a vegan diet must be a joy ride. So, it is really that thermodynamics predicts it should be easy to lose weight. It is biology that stands in our way.
I understand there is some evidence that a calorie restricted diet increases life-span. It would be interesting to know if this is actually due to a reduction in mass intake.
Also, I wonder what a fart in a balloon would solidify into when cooled?
As is usual, this was the most interesting, engaging, and provocative piece I read all week, and I read a lot. Thank you!
Always
Some of us had already watched your talk directly from the "Low Carb Down Under" site on Youtube prior to your link in The Arrow. Very amazing new information that I have watched several times. Thanks for all your wonderful information
Same here. I have watched somany of Dr Mike's videos that it was in my you tube feed before this Arrow arrived in my inbox.
I got the chance to watch the video over the weekend and I think it is absolutely brilliant. And I enjoyed reading your further explanation. It's like an "ah-ha" moment when someone wakes from a dream and sees the details of a complex problem laid out. I've been reading your books, Gary Taubes, Atkins, and a very long list of others for twenty years and it seems like that just sums it all up. I went from 225 to 150 along the way and stayed there, so I knew low carb eating works. It's nice to have an explanation that cuts through the noise and makes sense of it all. Thanks.
I went from a size 18 to a size 12 in three weeks following Protein Power book guide. I also read Life without Bread, a translation of Leben obne Brot by Wolfgang Lutz, MD, published in 1967 about low carbohydrate nutrition.
Hi, managed to watch your presentation on YouTube before your post, due to suggestion of YouTube. So I don't count as a click on your blog, and suppose this applies to many readers of you.
Mass flux makes sense, combined with hormonal effects.
JR
Thanks for a great early Friday read here in Ireland. Looking forward to Protein 2.
Don’t feel bad, Dr Eades that more people didn’t use the link to watch your video. I suspect many, like me, saw it in our YouTube feed right after it was posted and watched it before you posted your link. Your proposal is very intriguing. I really appreciate your expanding the topic in this week’s Arrow. That really helped me to understand the theory and details. Thanks! And good luck brushing up on your engineering math!! I am looking forward to more details in the future.
I had listened to your talk before The Arrow came out. I believe I saw it posted on Twitter. I was happy to see that you urinate more on a low carb diet. Because being on a carnivore diet, I was wondering! 😄 I am reading Gary Taube's The Case for Keto. I was eating protein before my strength training but I guess I'll go back to after. Thanks for the the review of your talk.
Thank you for this truly enlightening post.
Thanks for covering your Low Carb USA Boca talk again, as you said you would last week. Maybe that is why only 6% opened the link last week.
I didn’t open it because I was at Boca, and as I told you there, I needed to view it again because I lost you at some point. I see now where I (and perhaps others) lost you: I missed when you flipped the kcal/g to g/kcal (4 to .25 & 9 to .11).
Perhaps, my mind was still distracted by the revelation that calories (energy) has no weight (mass), as demonstrated...and I missed that crucial slide.
Anyway, I offer this as feedback, as I imagine you will make this remarkable presentation again going forward.
Thanks. I'll try to put more emphasis on that next time.
Yes that’s where I’m stuck too—my math is really shaky.
The explanation in #111 is very clear; take a look at it again. I think I just got distracted by the import and the implications of the earlier revelation about calories having no weight (mass), and therefore not directly responsible for weight loss. Eades new paradigm is related to the lower mass of fat as a fuel, so, for one thing, eating fat on an isocaloric diet with carbs gives you a metabolic advantage. (.11 being the reciprocal of 9, and .25 the reciprocal of 4)
Michael, an elegant dismissal of the "Energy in Energy out" for weight loss- the dimensions don't equate (unless you are doing nuclear fission or fusion). LHS is Kg and RHS is Joules.
(You can tell I did watch your Video!)
I really like your analysis of sliming foods. 38 years ago Biochem 301 Patsy Shaw told the class "Carbs are great because you can eat twice as much of them". Patsy followed her low fat diet and I was shocked years later to read that She died in a suicide pact with her Husband- She was suffering severe osteoporosis, he dementia.
She should have said, "carbs are bad, because you can't even eat half as much of them..."
To be fair Patsy gave us an a appreciation of nutrition (in a 6 year MB BS there was not much other exposure). The correct logic is "Fat is great as you don't have to eat as much to get your required energy. Carbs should be moderated as we are not adapted to store them so we fatten the liver and boost adipose stores". Glycation of our bodies is more dangerous than carrying a little extra subcutaneous padding. Down Under, there is MAID legislation for the terminally ill - but Patsy and her Husband (who was a noted Antarctic explorer and academic) ended it all prior to this becoming legal.
https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/5-ways-to-skin-a-genetically-modified
This is an interesting article on 5 ways the vaccines can cause cancer.
Also, have you seen this about altered heart scans after vaccination
https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/covid-vaccines-damage-all-hearts
I don't think the mass-balance idea is quite right. I wrote about the whole problem in my Substack https://richardfeinman.substack.com/p/a-calorie-is-what?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
It is metabolic advantage that has to be explained. We agree that part of the problem is we don't eat energy (calories), we eat food (grams). The problem is that in the absence of labelling and keeping track of everything, we don't know what happens to the food. The information that tells you what happens to the food resides in the mechanism, that is the kinetics (rates) not just the energy. One source of metabolic advantage is substrate cycling. So if you convert fatty acids to TAG and then, because of a change in the hormones and the change in some physiologic state, you hydrolyze that TAG, that cycle is unproductive and wastes energy. The Atwater energy, however, measures the reaction, complete combustion. If you do anything else, all bets are off. So, you don't really know what will come out, what its mass is or how much energy it took to get there.
The bottom line is that thermodynamics does not have mechanism. It is the history of the problem that gives us this grief. When Atkins showed that you lose more weight on his diets, the old guard went crazy and started saying laws of thermodynamics. Never mind that they were really thinking only of the first law and didn't really know that beyond the sound-bite "calorie in equals calories out." So, their expectation (demand) was that calories are conserved. But as we are both saying, you don't eat calories. you get calories from the process and the first law says energy may be conserved but for different isocaloric conditions, you get more work and less heat from one reaction than the other. So, there never was any physical expectation that isocaloric diets were independent of nutrient composition.
The real question was not why CICO was violated but rather why it is true so often -- we all do nutritional experiments. Our weight does not fluctuate much with our diet most of the time. That's what has to be explained. It does not come from physics. It comes from biology and extensive feedback systems that try to maintain a steady state. That's why you have to do some extreme, like keto or carnivore or calorie restriction to break through metabolism. And that may be why Hizzona' Eric Adams, the mayor of New York is controlling his diet with a vegan diet. From interviews he is really doing it. I think few people can do it -- I'm not a health provider but I believe that vegan diets are the only place where you can see malnourishment outside of a clinic. And it does see to have much suffering. Eric Adams is mayor of New York and he used to be a Captain in the NYPD compared to which, a vegan diet must be a joy ride. So, it is really that thermodynamics predicts it should be easy to lose weight. It is biology that stands in our way.
What do you think?
Here's another take on that Cochrane study:
https://gidmk.medium.com/do-masks-work-for-covid-19-36ccfca4e107
I watched your talk, twice. Fascinating!
I understand there is some evidence that a calorie restricted diet increases life-span. It would be interesting to know if this is actually due to a reduction in mass intake.
Also, I wonder what a fart in a balloon would solidify into when cooled?