Motte and bailey. You stated, “If a human could eat significantly more calories for the same amount of work and not put on weight we would be prodding them in a lab for breaking the laws of physics on conservation of mass and conservation of energy.”
If you understand “work” there to mean whatever your body does to lose weight, then you might be right. But you made the claim to support this:
“If you ever had that conversation it goes something like,
“How are you so thin?”
“raah raah metabolism”
“raah raah I dont know why I don’t put on weight”
“Take advantage of the habit”
Well I have had enough. You’re wrong. You’re lying and you probably don’t even know it.”
But that conversation is completely consistent with your new interpretation of work. With that interpretation, it is consistent with the laws of physics for someone to double all of his meals and continue with the same daily routine, every day, and not gain any weight, because “work” means something quite different then the normal stuff that a person does every day and considers to be work or exercise.
it appears that I should have been more clear. Yes. Work does have several definitions, one is, “all energy exerted including energy to persist—i.e. sleep, Base Metabolic rate, incidental exercise and actual purposeful exercise”, and the other is, “the actual activity alone, excluding the base metabolic rate”.
I intended to use this definition for the whole post: “all energy exerted including energy to persist—i.e. sleep, Base Metabolic rate, and actual activity”
If you only count the work that people purposely do − 90% or more of the picture will be left out. Similar if I only counted the food I ate while “dieting” (or “having a meal”) and not the food I eat while “snacking” or “being hungry” or other definitions of what doesn’t count.
Motte and bailey. You stated, “If a human could eat significantly more calories for the same amount of work and not put on weight we would be prodding them in a lab for breaking the laws of physics on conservation of mass and conservation of energy.”
If you understand “work” there to mean whatever your body does to lose weight, then you might be right. But you made the claim to support this:
“If you ever had that conversation it goes something like,
“How are you so thin?” “raah raah metabolism” “raah raah I dont know why I don’t put on weight” “Take advantage of the habit”
Well I have had enough. You’re wrong. You’re lying and you probably don’t even know it.”
But that conversation is completely consistent with your new interpretation of work. With that interpretation, it is consistent with the laws of physics for someone to double all of his meals and continue with the same daily routine, every day, and not gain any weight, because “work” means something quite different then the normal stuff that a person does every day and considers to be work or exercise.
it appears that I should have been more clear. Yes. Work does have several definitions, one is, “all energy exerted including energy to persist—i.e. sleep, Base Metabolic rate, incidental exercise and actual purposeful exercise”, and the other is, “the actual activity alone, excluding the base metabolic rate”.
I intended to use this definition for the whole post: “all energy exerted including energy to persist—i.e. sleep, Base Metabolic rate, and actual activity”
If you only count the work that people purposely do − 90% or more of the picture will be left out. Similar if I only counted the food I ate while “dieting” (or “having a meal”) and not the food I eat while “snacking” or “being hungry” or other definitions of what doesn’t count.