FREE TAPATALK APP

Zeuzzz · 10th January 2013, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Tell me, Zeuzzz, have you studied much biology? And I mean really studied it, not just read fringe books on the subject? Do you know what you are arguing against?

Fringe books are fun to read, if you choose the right ones and have a half decent woo filter. Still, I think I know the answer to this one.

Is it non fringe biology?

And I would not say i'm arguing against it more being educated by it as the thread progresses.

dlorde · 10th January 2013, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Since heat energy is the main way we loose energy why don't people in climates way below body temperature have to eat loads more than people in more temperate regions?

Insulation. They wear furs & stuff.

Also, from what I've seen, they also tend to have more fatty, calorie-rich diets (although given the increasing waistlines of some temperate folk, perhaps that's less true than it used to be). You don't have to eat 'loads more' to go from lo-cal to hi-cal.

Quote:

I'm trying to apply all sorts of physics to humans about kinetic energy and heat energy and they just end up with silly answers when you think about them practically.

There's your problem. You need to apply the right sort of physics, not just any sort, or all sorts.

Quote:

Would be nice to see how energy is conserved in a Tibetan monk who meditates and raises parts of his skin temperature by 10C or his core body temperature by 2-3C in a few minutes with no extra food and no physical exertion.

If they could, they would lose more heat energy, mostly by radiation and convection. They would generate more heat to compensate. What did you expect would happen?

Quote:

I would say it's a cognitive mastery of metabolism via biofeedback but I don't think the relationship between metabolism and core body temperature is that linear.

Why 'but'? what has the second half of that statement got to do with the first half?

Zeuzzz · 10th January 2013, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by dlorde

There's your problem. You need to apply the right sort of physics, not just any sort, or all sorts.

Can we take: Total food energy input ≈ Total energy output

As an approximate groundwork to work from in humans?

There seem to be more outputs than inputs from what I have gathered, with food being the only really significant input.

PixyMisa · 10th January 2013, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/4746/29038467.jpg

I think his theories about psychic dogs anticipating owners return home via supernatural means was a fairly large enough nail in his credibility coffin.

We often don't see eye-to-eye, but in this case I even applaud your use of extraneous imagery.

macdoc · 10th January 2013, 09:40 PM

Quote:

There seem to be more outputs than inputs from what I have gathered, with food being the only really significant input.

you'd be wrong.
Humans are not even very efficient at it tho we do have decent storage ability ( think fat reserves ).

this is NOT rocket science. But some of the birds are almost magical in their efficiencies.

Quote:

During another five-day flight with more favourable weather and winds, the same bird — identified as Red Knot YOY for record-keeping purposes — covered 8,000 km in six days between Brazil and North Carolina.

That’s the greatest distance ever documented for a single, non-stop flight by a red knot. And the total migration path covered by the bird between May 2009 and May 2010 — 26,700 km — is described as not only a red knot record but “one of the longest recorded annual distances of any bird species.”

http://www.globalanimal.org/2010/10/...-flight/19188/

That's 8,000 km non-stop by a bird that weighs

Quote:

The weight varies with subspecies, but ranges between 100 and 200 g Red Knots can double their weight prior to migration

Here is a bird that can travel 8,000 km without feeding on about 80gm of body weight.
It's not magical...it's just incredibly efficient.

TjW · 11th January 2013, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by macdoc

you'd be wrong.
Humans are not even very efficient at it tho we do have decent storage ability ( think fat reserves ).

this is NOT rocket science. But some of the birds are almost magical in their efficiencies.

http://www.globalanimal.org/2010/10/...-flight/19188/

That's 8,000 km non-stop by a bird that weighs

Here is a bird that can travel 8,000 km without feeding on about 80gm of body weight.
It's not magical...it's just incredibly efficient.

It would be interesting to know if the route followed ran along the large mountain ranges. Ridge lift and mountain wave could reduce the energy required to stay aloft by quite a bit.

bjornart · 11th January 2013, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Sorry but the quote is from Rupert Sheldrake^WP

http://runesoup.com/2012/06/what-you...-can-kill-you/

Does this argument have any type of weight to it? Are there more recent studies into energy generation/conservation in living organisms?

Not only is it a quote from Sheldrake, it's a Sheldrake quote on a page that thinks combining one of the nice failed-rocket-launch-spiral pics with an encouragement to "google HAARP" is worth while.

And if Webb in the 1970s got a clear result that humans sometimes lose more energy than metabolism accounts for, why didn't he write about that in the 1991 review of the methods you found a link for? Maybe because in the 1980 study you also linked to the experiments where the energy expenditure from estimated metabolism exceeded heat loss to the environment far outweighed the ones with the opposite result?

bjornart · 11th January 2013, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

So they were days when the subjects burned fat reserves. This is a mystery to no one who knows biology--that's how fat reserves WORK.

They're comparing metabolism, not food intake, to heat loss. There are of course lots of potential errors in this research, but ignoring the body burning reserves isn't one of them.

bjornart · 11th January 2013, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

There are innumerable factors leading to false data, and the only way to account for them all would be to put the creature on a space station for a generation or two.

You are aware that the underlying studies here aren't woo science even if Sheldrake is trying to spin them that way, but studies where people are locked in isolated and heavily monitored rooms with ventilation monitored for oxygen and carbon dioxide? Now I'm no expert on the subject, but I haven't seen any similar attacks on the research using similar setups to analyze the metabolic consequences of various diets.

bjornart · 11th January 2013, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Oh wow, lets measure them for just 24 hours and if they have less food intake lets pretend its 'unmeasured energy', but lets not give initial body mass, and subsequent body mass, and intake. Which would give what, body mass lost?

They're not looking at food intake at all, except in comparing the conditions of the subjects. The comparison is between energy released by metabolism, by measuring metabolism through oxygen consumed and carbon dioxide excreted, and energy lost to the environment as heat, by having the subjects locked in a huge calorimeter.

Dinwar · 11th January 2013, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Can we take: Total food energy input ≈ Total energy output

As an approximate groundwork to work from in humans?

There seem to be more outputs than inputs from what I have gathered, with food being the only really significant input.

The equation works, but only over a very long period of time. Again, humans have a mechanism for storing energy, so looking at what I ate today and what activities I did today will not provide you with accurate information.

Originally Posted by bjornart

They're comparing metabolism, not food intake, to heat loss.

How did they measure metabolism?

tsig · 11th January 2013, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Fringe books are fun to read, if you choose the right ones and have a half decent woo filter. Still, I think I know the answer to this one.

Is it non fringe biology?

And I would not say i'm arguing against it more being educated by it as the thread progresses.

You might want to consider switching to a finer grade.

macdoc · 11th January 2013, 10:12 AM

Quote:

It would be interesting to know if the route followed ran along the large mountain ranges. Ridge lift and mountain wave could reduce the energy required to stay aloft by quite a bit.

water.....but yes there is some lift available and tail winds help - but they flap the entire way they are not soaring birds.

The geese that fly over the Himalayas also flap the entire time. These are efficient creatures.
The geese would evolved as the Himalaya's rose over time with the ones making it breeding. Does make one think tho that given how specialized that an epigenetic factor of responding to a stress pays a role rather than random mutations.

GF biologist and I were chatting about that.

Dancing David · 11th January 2013, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by bjornart

They're not looking at food intake at all, except in comparing the conditions of the subjects. The comparison is between energy released by metabolism, by measuring metabolism through oxygen consumed and carbon dioxide excreted, and energy lost to the environment as heat, by having the subjects locked in a huge calorimeter.

I know that I am addressing the woo 'extra energy' as presented by Zeuzzz through Sheldrake.

bjornart · 11th January 2013, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

How did they measure metabolism?

From the quote Zeuzzz supplied from the 1980 experiment by Paul Webb:

Quote:

Continous measurements of O2 consumption and CO2 production provided data on metabolic expenditure (M) by indirect calorimetry.

bjornart · 11th January 2013, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I know that I am addressing the woo 'extra energy' as presented by Zeuzzz through Sheldrake.

You're doing so by completely misrepresenting the actual research that Sheldrake is misinterpreting and misrepresenting.

bjornart · 11th January 2013, 12:48 PM

Here's a newer research result showing that indirect calorimetry gives inaccurate results, and that exactly why was still unknown (at least to these researchers) in 2005.

Direct calorimetry reveals large errors in respirometric estimates of energy expenditure

Dancing David · 12th January 2013, 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by bjornart

You're doing so by completely misrepresenting the actual research that Sheldrake is misinterpreting and misrepresenting.

Seems likely I am.

GlennB · 12th January 2013, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Can we take: Total food energy input ≈ Total energy output

As an approximate groundwork to work from in humans?

There seem to be more outputs than inputs from what I have gathered, with food being the only really significant input.

afaics a number of people have told you, but you don't seem to have responded to them.

Without measuring the mass of the subject along the way you'll know nothing about the energy balance at play (and even then there's a different energy density between glycogen stores and fat stores).

The point being that any of us could sit in one of these boxes for a week, eat nothing, yet stay busy pumping out energy. We'd be getting thinner.

Or we could stuff our faces and turn out less energy than the food intake suggests. We'd be getting fatter.

10th January 2013, 03:58 PM	#41
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by Dinwar Tell me, Zeuzzz, have you studied much biology? And I mean really studied it, not just read fringe books on the subject? Do you know what you are arguing against? Fringe books are fun to read, if you choose the right ones and have a half decent woo filter. Still, I think I know the answer to this one. Is it non fringe biology? And I would not say i'm arguing against it more being educated by it as the thread progresses.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

10th January 2013, 04:08 PM	#42
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,654	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Since heat energy is the main way we loose energy why don't people in climates way below body temperature have to eat loads more than people in more temperate regions? Insulation. They wear furs & stuff. Also, from what I've seen, they also tend to have more fatty, calorie-rich diets (although given the increasing waistlines of some temperate folk, perhaps that's less true than it used to be). You don't have to eat 'loads more' to go from lo-cal to hi-cal. Quote: I'm trying to apply all sorts of physics to humans about kinetic energy and heat energy and they just end up with silly answers when you think about them practically. There's your problem. You need to apply the right sort of physics, not just any sort, or all sorts. Quote: Would be nice to see how energy is conserved in a Tibetan monk who meditates and raises parts of his skin temperature by 10C or his core body temperature by 2-3C in a few minutes with no extra food and no physical exertion. If they could, they would lose more heat energy, mostly by radiation and convection. They would generate more heat to compensate. What did you expect would happen? Quote: I would say it's a cognitive mastery of metabolism via biofeedback but I don't think the relationship between metabolism and core body temperature is that linear. Why 'but'? what has the second half of that statement got to do with the first half?
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,654	__________________ Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... Last edited by dlorde; 10th January 2013 at 04:13 PM.

10th January 2013, 05:52 PM	#43
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by dlorde There's your problem. You need to apply the right sort of physics, not just any sort, or all sorts. Can we take: Total food energy input ≈ Total energy output As an approximate groundwork to work from in humans? There seem to be more outputs than inputs from what I have gathered, with food being the only really significant input.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

10th January 2013, 08:12 PM	#44
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,950	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/4746/29038467.jpg I think his theories about psychic dogs anticipating owners return home via supernatural means was a fairly large enough nail in his credibility coffin. We often don't see eye-to-eye, but in this case I even applaud your use of extraneous imagery.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

10th January 2013, 09:40 PM	#45
macdoc Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Planet earth on slow boil Posts: 4,602	Quote: There seem to be more outputs than inputs from what I have gathered, with food being the only really significant input. you'd be wrong. Humans are not even very efficient at it tho we do have decent storage ability ( think fat reserves ). this is NOT rocket science. But some of the birds are almost magical in their efficiencies. Quote: During another five-day flight with more favourable weather and winds, the same bird — identified as Red Knot YOY for record-keeping purposes — covered 8,000 km in six days between Brazil and North Carolina. That’s the greatest distance ever documented for a single, non-stop flight by a red knot. And the total migration path covered by the bird between May 2009 and May 2010 — 26,700 km — is described as not only a red knot record but “one of the longest recorded annual distances of any bird species.” http://www.globalanimal.org/2010/10/...-flight/19188/ That's 8,000 km non-stop by a bird that weighs Quote: The weight varies with subspecies, but ranges between 100 and 200 g Red Knots can double their weight prior to migration Here is a bird that can travel 8,000 km without feeding on about 80gm of body weight. It's not magical...it's just incredibly efficient.
	__________________ Mainstream climate science sources others have found useful. http://www.macmagic.ca/ubbthreads.ph...5753#Post45753 Nature Reports Climate Change Copenhagen Climate Change Synthesis Report 2009

11th January 2013, 07:08 AM	#46
TjW Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: up in the air Posts: 10,115	Originally Posted by macdoc you'd be wrong. Humans are not even very efficient at it tho we do have decent storage ability ( think fat reserves ). this is NOT rocket science. But some of the birds are almost magical in their efficiencies. http://www.globalanimal.org/2010/10/...-flight/19188/ That's 8,000 km non-stop by a bird that weighs Here is a bird that can travel 8,000 km without feeding on about 80gm of body weight. It's not magical...it's just incredibly efficient. It would be interesting to know if the route followed ran along the large mountain ranges. Ridge lift and mountain wave could reduce the energy required to stay aloft by quite a bit.
	__________________ TjW People like TjW -- Kelly

11th January 2013, 08:06 AM	#47
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,409	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Sorry but the quote is from Rupert Sheldrake^WP http://runesoup.com/2012/06/what-you...-can-kill-you/ Does this argument have any type of weight to it? Are there more recent studies into energy generation/conservation in living organisms? Not only is it a quote from Sheldrake, it's a Sheldrake quote on a page that thinks combining one of the nice failed-rocket-launch-spiral pics with an encouragement to "google HAARP" is worth while. And if Webb in the 1970s got a clear result that humans sometimes lose more energy than metabolism accounts for, why didn't he write about that in the 1991 review of the methods you found a link for? Maybe because in the 1980 study you also linked to the experiments where the energy expenditure from estimated metabolism exceeded heat loss to the environment far outweighed the ones with the opposite result?
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,409	__________________ Well, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU LIKE TO BELIEVE, GODDAMMIT! I DEAL IN THE FACTS! -Cecil Adams

11th January 2013, 08:13 AM	#48
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,409	Originally Posted by Dinwar So they were days when the subjects burned fat reserves. This is a mystery to no one who knows biology--that's how fat reserves WORK. They're comparing metabolism, not food intake, to heat loss. There are of course lots of potential errors in this research, but ignoring the body burning reserves isn't one of them.
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,409	__________________ Well, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU LIKE TO BELIEVE, GODDAMMIT! I DEAL IN THE FACTS! -Cecil Adams

11th January 2013, 08:22 AM	#49
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,409	Originally Posted by Dinwar There are innumerable factors leading to false data, and the only way to account for them all would be to put the creature on a space station for a generation or two. You are aware that the underlying studies here aren't woo science even if Sheldrake is trying to spin them that way, but studies where people are locked in isolated and heavily monitored rooms with ventilation monitored for oxygen and carbon dioxide? Now I'm no expert on the subject, but I haven't seen any similar attacks on the research using similar setups to analyze the metabolic consequences of various diets.
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,409	__________________ Well, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU LIKE TO BELIEVE, GODDAMMIT! I DEAL IN THE FACTS! -Cecil Adams

11th January 2013, 08:28 AM	#50
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,409	Originally Posted by Dancing David Oh wow, lets measure them for just 24 hours and if they have less food intake lets pretend its 'unmeasured energy', but lets not give initial body mass, and subsequent body mass, and intake. Which would give what, body mass lost? They're not looking at food intake at all, except in comparing the conditions of the subjects. The comparison is between energy released by metabolism, by measuring metabolism through oxygen consumed and carbon dioxide excreted, and energy lost to the environment as heat, by having the subjects locked in a huge calorimeter.
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,409	__________________ Well, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU LIKE TO BELIEVE, GODDAMMIT! I DEAL IN THE FACTS! -Cecil Adams

11th January 2013, 08:36 AM	#51
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,183	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Can we take: Total food energy input ≈ Total energy output As an approximate groundwork to work from in humans? There seem to be more outputs than inputs from what I have gathered, with food being the only really significant input. The equation works, but only over a very long period of time. Again, humans have a mechanism for storing energy, so looking at what I ate today and what activities I did today will not provide you with accurate information. Originally Posted by bjornart They're comparing metabolism, not food intake, to heat loss. How did they measure metabolism?
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,183	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

11th January 2013, 09:01 AM	#52
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,257	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Fringe books are fun to read, if you choose the right ones and have a half decent woo filter. Still, I think I know the answer to this one. Is it non fringe biology? And I would not say i'm arguing against it more being educated by it as the thread progresses. You might want to consider switching to a finer grade.

11th January 2013, 10:12 AM	#53
macdoc Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Planet earth on slow boil Posts: 4,602	Quote: It would be interesting to know if the route followed ran along the large mountain ranges. Ridge lift and mountain wave could reduce the energy required to stay aloft by quite a bit. water.....but yes there is some lift available and tail winds help - but they flap the entire way they are not soaring birds. The geese that fly over the Himalayas also flap the entire time. These are efficient creatures. The geese would evolved as the Himalaya's rose over time with the ones making it breeding. Does make one think tho that given how specialized that an epigenetic factor of responding to a stress pays a role rather than random mutations. GF biologist and I were chatting about that.
	__________________ Mainstream climate science sources others have found useful. http://www.macmagic.ca/ubbthreads.ph...5753#Post45753 Nature Reports Climate Change Copenhagen Climate Change Synthesis Report 2009 Last edited by macdoc; 11th January 2013 at 10:14 AM.

11th January 2013, 10:39 AM	#54
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,931	Originally Posted by bjornart They're not looking at food intake at all, except in comparing the conditions of the subjects. The comparison is between energy released by metabolism, by measuring metabolism through oxygen consumed and carbon dioxide excreted, and energy lost to the environment as heat, by having the subjects locked in a huge calorimeter. I know that I am addressing the woo 'extra energy' as presented by Zeuzzz through Sheldrake.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

11th January 2013, 12:30 PM	#55
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,409	Originally Posted by Dinwar How did they measure metabolism? From the quote Zeuzzz supplied from the 1980 experiment by Paul Webb: Quote: Continous measurements of O2 consumption and CO2 production provided data on metabolic expenditure (M) by indirect calorimetry.
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,409	__________________ Well, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU LIKE TO BELIEVE, GODDAMMIT! I DEAL IN THE FACTS! -Cecil Adams

11th January 2013, 12:44 PM	#56
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,409	Originally Posted by Dancing David I know that I am addressing the woo 'extra energy' as presented by Zeuzzz through Sheldrake. You're doing so by completely misrepresenting the actual research that Sheldrake is misinterpreting and misrepresenting.
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,409	__________________ Well, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU LIKE TO BELIEVE, GODDAMMIT! I DEAL IN THE FACTS! -Cecil Adams

11th January 2013, 12:48 PM	#57
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,409	Here's a newer research result showing that indirect calorimetry gives inaccurate results, and that exactly why was still unknown (at least to these researchers) in 2005. Direct calorimetry reveals large errors in respirometric estimates of energy expenditure
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,409	__________________ Well, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU LIKE TO BELIEVE, GODDAMMIT! I DEAL IN THE FACTS! -Cecil Adams

12th January 2013, 05:12 AM	#58
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,931	Originally Posted by bjornart You're doing so by completely misrepresenting the actual research that Sheldrake is misinterpreting and misrepresenting. Seems likely I am.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

12th January 2013, 06:29 AM	#59
GlennB Jellied eel and offal fancier Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia Posts: 9,213	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Can we take: Total food energy input ≈ Total energy output As an approximate groundwork to work from in humans? There seem to be more outputs than inputs from what I have gathered, with food being the only really significant input. afaics a number of people have told you, but you don't seem to have responded to them. Without measuring the mass of the subject along the way you'll know nothing about the energy balance at play (and even then there's a different energy density between glycogen stores and fat stores). The point being that any of us could sit in one of these boxes for a week, eat nothing, yet stay busy pumping out energy. We'd be getting thinner. Or we could stuff our faces and turn out less energy than the food intake suggests. We'd be getting fatter.