Of course those things come into play, but they're taken into consideration when applying the laws of thermodynamics. There is no way in hell that "Calories In vs Calories Out" implies that whatever enters your mouth is 100% absorbed. It applies to what you DO absorb.
Since you keep referring to machines... Say a car gets 10 miles to a gallon of regular. You pump 10 gallons according to the gas pump meter, but the hose is full of holes. Does this indicate that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply in this situation and that the car doesn't get 10 miles per gallon? Or do you take the loss of fuel into consideration when you're applying the Energy In vs Energy Out model? So why would you not think that the Calories in vs Calories out model would do the same?

And yes, laws of thermodynamics apply to everything in a closed system (the known universe).
I'm sure you know that mass = energy and that the golden number is 3500 calories per lb. So that means you absolutely need some excess amount of mass or energy to build. (Ie you can't build bigger lego sets with only 5 pieces.)
So your only ways of getting/losing mass are through calories, water, swallowing a rock, getting metal joints, ... or somehow drawing energy from an alternate dimension.

Sheesh, like I said previously, Jason has been doing keto for over a year now so long before he conducted this experiment he was already eating very low carb so there was no loss of water weight as he was already low on glycogen and water. He merely increased his caloric intake to see the result. For all those claiming 1st law of thermo, how can you explain a obvious surplus in calories every day for 21 days and yet not a lb was gained? Surely, there is an explanation?

Do I have to link you to the thread on here with the guy getting ripped while eating a pint of ice cream a day?

Are you saying he is only eating a pint of ice cream a day and nothing else? Because in that case obviously eating that little will cause weight loss. On the opposite end of the spectrum that Jason Wittrock experiment, he ate 4k calories for 21 days and lost weight. So it imo comes down to how efficient your internals operated (thyroid, liver, pancreas, gallbladder, etc.)

OP is one of those guys who thinks he's smart, but isn't. Probably the worst kind of person.

I didn't realize I was writing a college thesis over here; I always lol at people who think they are superior when they call someone out on their grammar and sentence structure. I'm merely trying to get my point across.I know science and physics very well actually and like I said with the other gentlemen, our bodies aren't steam boilers where the principles of energy and thermo processes are valid. Human bodies are infinitely more complex with 8 major hormones at play, which is why biological not physics dominates how the body regulates its weight.

Sheesh, like I said previously, Jason has been doing keto for over a year now so long before he conducted this experiment he was already eating very low carb so there was no loss of water weight as he was already low on glycogen and water. He merely increased his caloric intake to see the result. For all those claiming 1st law of thermo, how can you explain a obvious surplus in calories every day for 21 days and yet not a lb was gained? Surely, there is an explanation?

Are you saying he is only eating a pint of ice cream a day and nothing else? Because in that case obviously eating that little will cause weight loss. On the opposite end of the spectrum that Jason Wittrock experiment, he ate 4k calories for 21 days and lost weight. So it imo comes down to how efficient your internals operate (thyroid, liver, pancreas, gallbladder, etc.)

brb energy companies are going to start harvesting humans 'cause "hormones" can create energy from nothing
brb "keto" can cause the metabolism to become a "black hole"

and that the laws of thermodynamics apply the the human body where we should know by now that the body is governed by biological functions.

I agree with OP, and then I agree with the people disagreeing with OP.

I'll tell you how:
Scientists don't know everything.
Dieticians don't know everything.
Doctors with PhD's don't know everything.

One thing every single person in an extremely high-caliber, intellectual profession has in common is the understanding that the more you know, the more you realize you don't know.

There is definitely more at play than input/output. But that being said, one can assume the things at play are brain function, metabolic function, movement, exertion, breathing patterns, and heart rate.
I believe these are what OP is referring to, but they fall under the bracket of outputs, well sort of, because they draw from input, and reduce the body's energy output.
But each and every person differs in body and in mind, therefore you have to assume that due to the amount of threads talking about "eating heaps and haven't put on weight" or "eating less and still not losing weight" is actually caused by the fact that each body depending on different potential factors such as hereditary traits etc impact the body far more than just simply input vs output.

Are you saying he is only eating a pint of ice cream a day and nothing else? Because in that case obviously eating that little will cause weight loss. On the opposite end of the spectrum that Jason Wittrock experiment, he ate 4k calories for 21 days and lost weight. So itimo comes down to how efficient your internals operate (thyroid, liver, pancreas, gallbladder, etc.)

I agree with OP, and then I agree with the people disagreeing with OP.

I'll tell you how:
Scientists don't know everything.
Dieticians don't know everything.
Doctors with PhD's don't know everything.

One thing every single person in an extremely high-caliber, intellectual profession has in common is the understanding that the more you know, the more you realize you don't know.

There is definitely more at play than input/output. But that being said, one can assume the things at play are brain function, metabolic function, movement, exertion, breathing patterns, and heart rate.
I believe these are what OP is referring to, but they fall under the bracket of outputs, well sort of, because they draw from input, and reduce the body's energy output.
But each and every person differs in body and in mind, therefore you have to assume that due to the amount of threads talking about "eating heaps and haven't put on weight" or "eating less and still not losing weight" is actually caused by the fact that each body depending on different potential factors such as hereditary traits etc impact the body far more than just simply input vs output.

Calories in v calories out determining weight change is a non negotiable scientific fact. That's a law of physics that cannot be broken. I think what some of youidiotsare trying to say is that the way WE MEASURE calories in and calories out is often inaccurate and therefore hard to follow to the letter. But u need to work on your wording because u sound really ignorant and stupid suggesting that the human body somehow defies physics because it's "biological"

Yes. No one is saying it defies physics, so take what I highlighted in bold it and apply it directly to your forehead.
Let me guess, you've never published an Academic Journal?
Ever read peer-reviewed scholar articles either?

Guess who the dumbest people in history turned out to be? The people that thought that each law applied directly to a certain instance of something no matter what, without performing any analysis or experiments on the matter.




Bet you don't know that the laws of energy state that to transfer energy, you must go from a thing with energy, to a thing with less energy.

But guess what smart guy, the sun can transfer energy from itself into something with more energy, and that energy will gradually increase, meaning the sun can make something hotter than the heat that resides in itself.

That's a law. Turns out it could be broken. It's still a law though.

I think you need to work on your education because you are really ignorant and stupid suggesting that something cannot be changed because of your uneducated opinion of it.

Soz bb

Yes. No one is saying it defies physics

But the sun doesn't magically generate that energy out of nowhere.

Other resources have to be consumed in order to create more heat.

If you have discovered a way to create more energy/mass than you started with you're on your way to being a billionaire.

Bet you don't know that the laws of energy state that to transfer energy, you must go from a thing with energy, to a thing with less energy.

But guess what smart guy, the sun can transfer energy from itself into something with more energy, and that energy will gradually increase, meaning the sun can make something hotter than the heat that resides in itself.

That's a law. Turns out it could be broken. It's still a law though.

I think you need to work on your education because you are really ignorant and stupid suggesting that something cannot be changed because of your uneducated opinion of it.

Soz bb

You're right, the sun has a coronal heating problem which causes it to actually generate further energy out of it's core.
It basically creates nuclear explosions in it's outer layers out of nothing.

Yet no scientist has determined how that energy is created.
It goes against the laws of thermodynamics...BIG time.

Where does the sun get that energy?

Stopped reading here. Wrong. Work on your reading comprehension then come back and talk.

Edit: kept reading for lols, rest of your post is complete rubbish and mot even remotely relevant to the discussion. Make ONE relevant point and i might take u seriously, cause i ain't reading another wall of text only to be disappointed again.

You're right, the sun has a coronal heating problem which causes it to actually generate further energy out of it's core.
It basically creates nuclear explosions in it's outer layers out of nothing.

Yet no scientist has determined how that energy is created.
It goes against the laws of thermodynamics...BIG time.

Where does the sun get that energy?

Bet you don't know that the laws of energy state that to transfer energy, you must go from a thing with energy, to a thing with less energy.

But guess what smart guy, the sun can transfer energy from itself into something with more energy, and that energy will gradually increase, meaning the sun can make something hotter than the heat that resides in itself.

That's a law. Turns out it could be broken. It's still a law though.

I think you need to work on your education because you are really ignorant and stupid suggesting that something cannot be changed because of your uneducated opinion of it.

Soz bb

---------------

Step 1. re-read the above which I posted before
Step 2. read your comment where you said "Work on your reading comprehension"
Step 3. read your comment where you said "non negotiable scientific fact"
Step 4. understand that scientific facts are always negotiated, because we humans as a collective continually discover more things that we didn't know previously in terms of scientific fact
Step 5. stop commenting on chit you know nothing about, unless in fact you are a physicist, and if you are, same here, so I'm more than happy to exchange names and chit and talk about this in a more professional and dynamic way in which we can actually allude to something that we can both agree on, but I'm pretty sure we're arguing semantics because you said somebody said something about defying physics, when in fact no one was talking about it, so I just basically made you my bitch by showing you that laws of physics do not in fact relate to everything in the entire world (maybe the world that you know, but not the actual cosmos world etc)
Step 6. re-read this again because I know this is exactly what you tried to establish when you first replied to my comment:

"There is definitely more at play than input/output. But that being said, one can assume the things at play are brain function, metabolic function, movement, exertion, breathing patterns, and heart rate.
I believe these are what OP is referring to, but they fall under the bracket of outputs, well sort of, because they draw from input, and reduce the body's energy output.
But each and every person differs in body and in mind, therefore you have to assume that due to the amount of threads talking about "eating heaps and haven't put on weight" or "eating less and still not losing weight" is actually caused by the fact that each body depending on different potential factors such as hereditary traits etc impact the body far more than just simply input vs output. "

Calories in v calories out determining weight change is a non negotiable scientific fact. That's a law of physics that cannot be broken. I think what some of you idiots are trying to say is that the way WE MEASURE calories in and calories out is often inaccurate and therefore hard to follow to the letter. But u need to work on your wording because u sound really ignorant and stupid suggesting that the human body somehow defies physics because it's "biological"

Einstein wrote down a few letters that led to scientists quickly realizing the sun follows the first law of thermodynamics.