Thermodynamics of weight loss diets
Eugene J Fine12* and Richard D Feinman3
*
Corresponding author: Eugene J Fine efine@downstate.edu
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Jacobi Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA
Department of Biochemistry, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY 11203, USA
Department of Biochemistry, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY 11203, USA
For all author emails, please log on.
Nutrition & Metabolism 2004, 1:15 doi:10.1186/1743-7075-1-15
The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/15
Received: 20 October 2004
Accepted: 8 December 2004
Published: 8 December 2004
© 2004 Fine and Feinman; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Background
It is commonly held that "a calorie is a calorie", i.e. that diets of equal caloric content will result in identical weight change independent of macronutrient composition, and appeal is frequently made to the laws of thermodynamics. We have previously shown that thermodynamics does not support such a view and that diets of different macronutrient content may be expected to induce different changes in body mass. Low carbohydrate diets in particular have claimed a "metabolic advantage" meaning more weight loss than in isocaloric diets of higher carbohydrate content. In this review, for pedagogic clarity, we reframe the theoretical discussion to directly link thermodynamic inefficiency to weight change. The problem in outline: Is metabolic advantage theoretically possible? If so, what biochemical mechanisms might plausibly explain it? Finally, what experimental evidence exists to determine whether it does or does not occur?
Results
Reduced thermodynamic efficiency will result in increased weight loss. The laws of thermodynamics are silent on the existence of variable thermodynamic efficiency in metabolic processes. Therefore such variability is permitted and can be related to differences in weight lost. The existence of variable efficiency and metabolic advantage is therefore an empiric question rather than a theoretical one, confirmed by many experimental isocaloric studies, pending a properly performed meta-analysis. Mechanisms are as yet unknown, but plausible mechanisms at the metabolic level are proposed.
Conclusions
Variable thermodynamic efficiency due to dietary manipulation is permitted by physical laws, is supported by much experimental data, and may be reasonably explained by plausible mechanisms.
Background
Carbohydrate restriction as a general strategy for weight loss continues to gain in popularity and its utility and generally protective effect in lipid profile and glycemic control continues to be demonstrated, at least in an experimental setting [1-4]. The subject nonetheless remains controversial. Those critics who grant efficacy of low carbohydrate diets nonetheless contend that they act strictly by caloric restriction and there is no special effect of carbohydrate reduction. Beyond caloric restriction, several studies have shown increased weight loss on low carbohydrate diets compared to isocaloric low fat diets, the so-called metabolic advantage (see table 2). Although no clear experimental error has been demonstrated, critics continue to maintain that something must be wrong because the laws of thermodynamics would be violated [5], that "a calorie is a calorie" [6] We have previously shown [2,7] that this is not correct and it is our intention here to review the fundamental physics underlying the phenomenon of metabolic advantage. An outline may be described: Can metabolic advantage happen? If so, what mechanisms might account for such a phenomenon? Does it, in fact, occur?
Table 2.Isocaloric low carbohydrate (CHO) vs. higher carbohydrate investigations
Metabolic advantage: can it happen?
We have previously presented arguments that there is no violation of physical principles [2,7] and, ironically, that suggesting a change in body mass to be independent of macronutrient composition would itself be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics [7]. Here, we reframe these arguments in a more pedagogically direct way and we provide simple examples.
The misunderstanding that continues to be repeated in the expression "a calorie is a calorie" appears to be exclusive reference to the first law of thermodynamics. The difficulty with this theoretical approach is that it is only part of the relevant physics and its relationship to biologic systems. The first law says that in any transformation the total energy in the system can be accounted for by the heat added to the system, the work done by the system on its environment and the change in energy content of all the components of the system. It is important to understand, however, that the first law does not say what the relative distribution between these effects will be for any process. In fact, the first law does not even allow us to say whether the process will occur at all. To understand the progress of a physical change it is necessary to understand the second law which introduces an entity known as the entropy, S, a measure of disorder in all processes. In all real (irreversible) processes, entropy increases, usually written ΔS > 0. The most common marker of increasing entropy is heat, although it is by no means the only evidence for increased entropy.
In systems at constant temperature and pressure (i.e. biologic systems)), the first and second law are combined in the Gibbs Free Energy, ΔG, which represents the maximum useful work that can be performed by the process. The actual process however, in general derives less useful work than permitted by the theoretically available ΔG due to inefficiency in energy capture. A proper accounting of entropy and efficiency must be included if we are to understand energy utilization in biological and biochemical systems.
Biological systems and thermodynamics
It is also important in the discussion of biological systems to understand that they are open systems, i.e. they take in nutrients and oxygen and excrete carbon dioxide, water, urea and other waste products, as well as heat. The importance with respect to weight considerations is that mass and energy are conserved (the more general statement of the first law of thermodynamics), but they are not conserved entirely within the organism.
To illustrate the proper interpretation of the first law of thermodynamics consider a subject whose resting energy expenditure is met by the production of 95 moles of ATP. Since oxidation of a single mole of glucose provides 38 moles of ATP, 2.5 moles of glucose will be needed to meet this individual's resting energy requirements. It is important to note that the resultant carbon dioxide, water, and heat are not retained within the organism. The useful retained energy is in the 95 moles of ATP (Figure 1B). (Similar equations could be written for lipid or protein but we restrict our discussion to glucose for simplicity).
A: Oxidation of glucose in a calorimeter is completely inefficient.
The products of oxidation are carbon dioxide and water, and all of the energy produced is released as heat. 1B: To illustrate the proper interpretation of the first law of thermodynamics in living organisms we must consider that conservation of matter and energy includes excretion of products into the external environment. None of the products of oxidation (CO2 and H2O) remain within the organism. There is stoichiometric balance and no net weight change. Only the ATP, representing the useful energy, is retained. The wasted heat constitutes 60% of the energy of oxidation, while the efficiency is reflected in the retained ATP, available for reactions in the organism. Body fat stores are signified as TAG (triacylglycerol) 1C. A common way of thinking of weight loss is from reduction of caloric intake. If our subject ingests 2.3 moles of glucose (or equivalent lipid and/or protein) and produces only 90 moles of ATP, then homeostasis will enlist body stores of fat (and/or lean body mass) to yield the additionally required 5 moles ATP. The additional resultant CO2 and H2O (and heat) will be excreted (and radiated) leading to weight loss. 1D: If efficiency is reduced then our subject would have to eat more (e.g. 2.9 moles of glucose, or equivalent lipid/protein) to produce 95 moles of ATP and remain at the same weight. The additional CO2 and H2O produced will be excreted maintaining constant weight. 1E: Under conditions of reduced metabolic efficiency (from 40% to about 38% in this example), 90 moles of ATP will be produced from oxidation of 2.5 moles glucose (or equivalent lipid/protein). The remaining 5 moles ATP needed for homeostasis must be made up from oxidation of body stores of lipid or lean mass. This results in weight loss, exactly as it does for the example of reduced caloric intake (Figure 1C).
The illustration above can be compared to the oxidation of glucose in a calorimeter in which no useful energy is obtained and the total energy of oxidation is measured as the heat produced. This process is completely inefficient. A traditional (Atwater) value for glucose obtained in the calorimeter is approximately 4 kilocalories of energy per gram (Figure 1A). By contrast, the living organism above metabolizes and oxidizes glucose so that approximately forty percent of the energy of oxidation is retained as useful ATP (38 moles per mole of glucose)) whereas sixty percent is released as heat, the inefficiency in this mode of oxidation. The entropy (i.e. the second law of thermodynamics) shows up in this inefficiency. The calorimeter heat can no longer be interpreted in a simple way. The energy stored in use
Thermodynamics of weight loss diets
Eugene J Fine12* and Richard D Feinman3
*
Corresponding author: Eugene J Fine efine@downstate.edu
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Jacobi Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA
Department of Biochemistry, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY 11203, USA
Department of Biochemistry, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY 11203, USA
For all author emails, please log on.
Nutrition & Metabolism 2004, 1:15 doi:10.1186/1743-7075-1-15
The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/15
Received: 20 October 2004
Accepted: 8 December 2004
Published: 8 December 2004
© 2004 Fine and Feinman; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Background
It is commonly held that "a calorie is a calorie", i.e. that diets of equal caloric content will result in identical weight change independent of macronutrient composition, and appeal is frequently made to the laws of thermodynamics. We have previously shown that thermodynamics does not support such a view and that diets of different macronutrient content may be expected to induce different changes in body mass. Low carbohydrate diets in particular have claimed a "metabolic advantage" meaning more weight loss than in isocaloric diets of higher carbohydrate content. In this review, for pedagogic clarity, we reframe the theoretical discussion to directly link thermodynamic inefficiency to weight change. The problem in outline: Is metabolic advantage theoretically possible? If so, what biochemical mechanisms might plausibly explain it? Finally, what experimental evidence exists to determine whether it does or does not occur?
Results
Reduced thermodynamic efficiency will result in increased weight loss. The laws of thermodynamics are silent on the existence of variable thermodynamic efficiency in metabolic processes. Therefore such variability is permitted and can be related to differences in weight lost. The existence of variable efficiency and metabolic advantage is therefore an empiric question rather than a theoretical one, confirmed by many experimental isocaloric studies, pending a properly performed meta-analysis. Mechanisms are as yet unknown, but plausible mechanisms at the metabolic level are proposed.
Conclusions
Variable thermodynamic efficiency due to dietary manipulation is permitted by physical laws, is supported by much experimental data, and may be reasonably explained by plausible mechanisms.
Background
Carbohydrate restriction as a general strategy for weight loss continues to gain in popularity and its utility and generally protective effect in lipid profile and glycemic control continues to be demonstrated, at least in an experimental setting [1-4]. The subject nonetheless remains controversial. Those critics who grant efficacy of low carbohydrate diets nonetheless contend that they act strictly by caloric restriction and there is no special effect of carbohydrate reduction. Beyond caloric restriction, several studies have shown increased weight loss on low carbohydrate diets compared to isocaloric low fat diets, the so-called metabolic advantage (see table 2). Although no clear experimental error has been demonstrated, critics continue to maintain that something must be wrong because the laws of thermodynamics would be violated [5], that "a calorie is a calorie" [6] We have previously shown [2,7] that this is not correct and it is our intention here to review the fundamental physics underlying the phenomenon of metabolic advantage. An outline may be described: Can metabolic advantage happen? If so, what mechanisms might account for such a phenomenon? Does it, in fact, occur?
Table 2.Isocaloric low carbohydrate (CHO) vs. higher carbohydrate investigations
Metabolic advantage: can it happen?
We have previously presented arguments that there is no violation of physical principles [2,7] and, ironically, that suggesting a change in body mass to be independent of macronutrient composition would itself be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics [7]. Here, we reframe these arguments in a more pedagogically direct way and we provide simple examples.
The misunderstanding that continues to be repeated in the expression "a calorie is a calorie" appears to be exclusive reference to the first law of thermodynamics. The difficulty with this theoretical approach is that it is only part of the relevant physics and its relationship to biologic systems. The first law says that in any transformation the total energy in the system can be accounted for by the heat added to the system, the work done by the system on its environment and the change in energy content of all the components of the system. It is important to understand, however, that the first law does not say what the relative distribution between these effects will be for any process. In fact, the first law does not even allow us to say whether the process will occur at all. To understand the progress of a physical change it is necessary to understand the second law which introduces an entity known as the entropy, S, a measure of disorder in all processes. In all real (irreversible) processes, entropy increases, usually written ΔS > 0. The most common marker of increasing entropy is heat, although it is by no means the only evidence for increased entropy.
In systems at constant temperature and pressure (i.e. biologic systems)), the first and second law are combined in the Gibbs Free Energy, ΔG, which represents the maximum useful work that can be performed by the process. The actual process however, in general derives less useful work than permitted by the theoretically available ΔG due to inefficiency in energy capture. A proper accounting of entropy and efficiency must be included if we are to understand energy utilization in biological and biochemical systems.
Biological systems and thermodynamics
It is also important in the discussion of biological systems to understand that they are open systems, i.e. they take in nutrients and oxygen and excrete carbon dioxide, water, urea and other waste products, as well as heat. The importance with respect to weight considerations is that mass and energy are conserved (the more general statement of the first law of thermodynamics), but they are not conserved entirely within the organism.
To illustrate the proper interpretation of the first law of thermodynamics consider a subject whose resting energy expenditure is met by the production of 95 moles of ATP. Since oxidation of a single mole of glucose provides 38 moles of ATP, 2.5 moles of glucose will be needed to meet this individual's resting energy requirements. It is important to note that the resultant carbon dioxide, water, and heat are not retained within the organism. The useful retained energy is in the 95 moles of ATP (Figure 1B). (Similar equations could be written for lipid or protein but we restrict our discussion to glucose for simplicity).
A: Oxidation of glucose in a calorimeter is completely inefficient.
The products of oxidation are carbon dioxide and water, and all of the energy produced is released as heat. 1B: To illustrate the proper interpretation of the first law of thermodynamics in living organisms we must consider that conservation of matter and energy includes excretion of products into the external environment. None of the products of oxidation (CO2 and H2O) remain within the organism. There is stoichiometric balance and no net weight change. Only the ATP, representing the useful energy, is retained. The wasted heat constitutes 60% of the energy of oxidation, while the efficiency is reflected in the retained ATP, available for reactions in the organism. Body fat stores are signified as TAG (triacylglycerol) 1C. A common way of thinking of weight loss is from reduction of caloric intake. If our subject ingests 2.3 moles of glucose (or equivalent lipid and/or protein) and produces only 90 moles of ATP, then homeostasis will enlist body stores of fat (and/or lean body mass) to yield the additionally required 5 moles ATP. The additional resultant CO2 and H2O (and heat) will be excreted (and radiated) leading to weight loss. 1D: If efficiency is reduced then our subject would have to eat more (e.g. 2.9 moles of glucose, or equivalent lipid/protein) to produce 95 moles of ATP and remain at the same weight. The additional CO2 and H2O produced will be excreted maintaining constant weight. 1E: Under conditions of reduced metabolic efficiency (from 40% to about 38% in this example), 90 moles of ATP will be produced from oxidation of 2.5 moles glucose (or equivalent lipid/protein). The remaining 5 moles ATP needed for homeostasis must be made up from oxidation of body stores of lipid or lean mass. This results in weight loss, exactly as it does for the example of reduced caloric intake (Figure 1C).
The illustration above can be compared to the oxidation of glucose in a calorimeter in which no useful energy is obtained and the total energy of oxidation is measured as the heat produced. This process is completely inefficient. A traditional (Atwater) value for glucose obtained in the calorimeter is approximately 4 kilocalories of energy per gram (Figure 1A). By contrast, the living organism above metabolizes and oxidizes glucose so that approximately forty percent of the energy of oxidation is retained as useful ATP (38 moles per mole of glucose)) whereas sixty percent is released as heat, the inefficiency in this mode of oxidation. The entropy (i.e. the second law of thermodynamics) shows up in this inefficiency. The calorimeter heat can no longer be interpreted in a simple way. The energy stored in use
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..