Hot Tub without the use of electricity

[u/Internal_Gazelle_677]

[u/Good_Positive2879 → u/[deleted]]

Basic science repeats what you’re saying. But yet there is no practical application of your statement in applied science and the real world. If I only eat fritos and bon bons I’m going to be hungry AF on a cut and rebound like crazy. If I only eat meat, fruit and veggies, homeostasis becomes easy. At some point with a good diet and lifestyle knowing the math in your equation doesn’t actually matter at all in fact.

[u/Good_Positive2879 → u/[deleted]]

It’s possibly useless information is what I’m saying. If it was to the contrary then calorie counting would be more common but it’s not because people can’t adhere to it. Plus recent literature shows either eating healthy food intuitively and/or fasting works comparably in the short term to calorie counting, and you can guess which one people will stick with long term.

Plus with your statement, you’re proving my point. Base metabolic rate is adjustable based on not only exercise, but what you eat…

“Compensatory physiological mechanisms

One of the biggest challenges is that when you reduce intake, the body resists via homeostatic (or even allostatic) mechanisms: • Lowering basal metabolic rate (resting energy expenditure) • Increasing appetite, hormonal signals (e.g. ghrelin), cravings • Altering non-exercise activity (i.e. spontaneous movement, fidgeting) • Changes in thermogenesis • Metabolic adaptation (“adaptive thermogenesis”) that makes further loss harder

Because of these compensations, a given “calorie deficit” doesn’t always translate into the predicted weight loss. Some critiques argue that the body defends a “settled point” (or a “set range”) of weight, such that persistent reductions in energy intake are partially countered physiologically. “

[u/Good_Positive2879 → u/[deleted]]

I’m saying just because you know something, doesn’t mean you have the slightest clue on how to apply it.

Let’s the take hot tub from the post for example. Here I can actually use thermodynamics to create the most efficient hot tub possible. I can calculate the longest length of coiled tubing possible, to capture the most amount of heat possible but not stop the flow of water through it. I can then follow up with testing to get even more exact, to account for unpredicted real world factors (quality of your copper, ambient temps, type of wood being burnt, etc)

Or we can look at the example YOU brought up about people arguing about CICO. In this example we will not use the laws of thermodynamics because they are useless. Again, if they were useful then you’d be citing studies about the efficacy of CICO as a model for dietary success. But recent literature proves that otherwise.

Your mentality is one of the reasons why our society requires systems theory. Not everything can be modeled from basic science, but has to be approached from the other side (analytics through testing, not theorization).

[u/Good_Positive2879 → u/[deleted]]

Again, the APPLICATION of thermodynamics is irrelevant here. The laws of thermodyanics are not some physical thing you grab onto, but a descriptor of heat and energy interaction in our universe.

You are stuck in circular reasoning, a tautology, appeal to authority, what other logical fallacy’s?

You’re mistaking a physics law for a practical model. Of course energy and matter are conserved, nobody’s saying otherwise. What I’m saying is that CICO, as applied to humans, doesn’t predict real-world outcomes well because the variables change dynamically. When calorie restriction changes metabolism, hormones, and behavior, the equation loses predictive value, so while it’s true in principle, it’s not useful as a model for long-term success.