The second law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely transposed.
Translation: You are not a caloric black hole, to gain weight (tissue = caloric storage), eat more; if you are not gaining weight at X amount of kcal, then eat more.
It’s not rocket science.
After much time lurking I finally signed up to respond to this wide spread sentiment lol.
Well, it’s not the first time I’ve see the “laws of thermodynamics,” being invoked when it comes to framing why you should eat more, but as always, it’s a bad way to frame the argument because it misunderstands the way digestion works.
A. The human body is not a closed system, so axioms following from the laws of thermodynamics don’t apply.
B. Digestion is complex biological process working on multiple levels of emergence; principles of particle physics don’t carry over to human digestion.
For an extreme illustration of this, take the various poisons that exist that can kill a person by not allowing them to digest food. It’s possible to die of starvation while getting plenty of food if you’re one of the unlucky few to be mistakenly ingesting these chemicals.
I get that people feel they have to drive home to others that they need to eat more to keep gaining weight. However, since there is also a limit to how much energy your body can effectively use to build muscle, it’s also important to consider what you eat, in terms of macronutrients as well as how it’s going to be digested.
In terms of nutrition, there is a severe lack of good peer-reviewed studies to guide choices when it comes to a diet for bulking. Really, everyone develops their own idea of what works for them over time based on reading and experimenting. Thinking of nutrition primarily just in terms of kcal in > kcal out is probably going to hinder that process. [/quote]
As a Physics student I often spot a lot of references to mainstream concepts being used to explain lifting/diet methodologies/systems/whatever in a misguided fashion. I generally understand the gist of the idea they are trying to get across but sometimes I can’t help but cringe a little. Lots of buzz words/phrases make it there too.
That being said bitching over definitions instead of concepts is nitpicking and somewhat irritating - god knows I hate it when people do it to me. A flatmate was trying to tell me that English literature is not only a science but is the same degree of… science-ness(?) as Physics and the other “hard” sciences… Her argument was based on the Oxford English Dictionary definition of science.
Regardless OP chances are you simply need more quality foods (that is… more quantity AND quality) - Weetabix generally isn’t considered the breakfast dish of champions.[/quote]
hahaha! humanities suck. (I may be moving to oxford uni in a couple of months!)
back on topic.
This is some great advise, if no one minds I’d like to start writting a food log here. As i haven’t measured anything today here are some approximate numbers:
380kcal of wheetabix (judging by box labels)
skipped protien shake- out of milk
50 grams of leftover roast beef
1:00 1st lunch
100 grams tuna, big bowl of rice, beans,lettice onions,spices(chinese housemates recipee)
2:30 2nd lunch
more of the same
another bowl of the tuna n rice …
and thats what i’ve done so far, tonight I may be out for a meal for supper, about 7, and will probably have another meal before bed, either leftovers from this vast tuna and rice thing I made or more likely a nice bedtime protien shake, which I would add a load of oats to, so i can bummp up my carbs for the day.
All that being said, I probably made more tuna and rice for lunch than I should have, most days I get much more of a variety of meats