Summary
Currently, obesity treatment rests on the “calories-in, calories-out” rule, formally named the energy balance theory (EBT). It maintains that body weight increases as food calories are greater than expended calories but decreases when the opposite occurs; hence, weight stability is expected at energy balance meaning that over time energy-in equals energy-out.1 It follows that dietary regimens with identical energy content should evoke similar amounts of weight and fat loss with only minor differences that emerge from diet’s macronutrient composition7, e.g., diet-induced glycogen depletion and water excretion. A vast collection of evidence shows, however, that low-carbohydrate diets typically result in much greater weight and fat loss than isocaloric low-fat diets.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Furthermore, our recent mathematical analysis demonstrated that weight stability coincides with a persistent energy imbalance and not otherwise.4 As an alternative, the mass balance model (MBM) was proposed that fitted weight loss data and explained the often superior weight loss evoked by low-carbohydrate diets versus low-fat diets.4 Here, we expand on these observations by computationally contrasting the predictions of both models in two scenarios described in the literature3, 16: altering the diet’s macronutrient composition while energy intake is kept at weight maintenance level; and the weight loss response as diet composition is changed under untreated type 1 diabetes. Our results indicate that MBM predictions are remarkably accurate while those of the EBT are clearly erroneous. These findings may represent the beginning of a paradigm shift in obesity research.
Introduction
“Four stages of acceptance: 1) this is worthless nonsense; 2) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view; 3) this is true, but quite unimportant; 4) I always said so.” --JBS Haldane
Macronutrients – proteins, fats and carbohydrates – are an important part of a diet, and as such, have been the subject of a great deal of discussion and controversy, especially among obesity researchers. According to the energy balance theory (EBT), “[a] fundamental principle of nutrition and metabolism is that body weight change is associated with an imbalance between the energy content of food eaten and energy expended by the body to maintain life and to perform physical work.”1 Many current approaches to obesity treatment are based on the EBT; however, neither behavioral prevention nor behavioral treatment is generally successful in practice. Furthermore, this theory has major limitations for explaining obesity, as reviewed by Wells and Siervo.2 Weight stable obese individuals, for example, may experience substantial changes in body weight as a reaction to isocaloric modifications in diet. In many instances these body mass alterations are far greater than those expected from the macronutrient-induced changes in total body water.3 Thus, the EBT is rendered inadequate in these circumstances.
Arencibia-Albite4 has recently used mathematical methods to investigate EBT’s central claim: As energy balance approaches zero body weight becomes stable.
The conclusion of this paper is highly polemical – to put it mildly – and possibly represents the beginning of a paradigm shift:
Body weight stability coincides with a persistent energy imbalance which is negative under low-fat diets but positive under low-carbohydrate diets.
This signifies, then, that the EBT is an incorrect theory, and also explains why in numerous well-controlled studies negative energy balance measurements are frequently observed under a “normal diet” in weight stable populations.5, 6 These findings do not represent a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, as it allows for any open system to express a positive or negative energy balance under a null mass change (For further details, see Supplementary File 2).
As an alternative to the EBT, the mass balance model (MBM) of obesity was proposed. It maintains in qualitative terms that body weight fluctuations are ultimately dependent on the difference between daily nutrient mass intake and daily mass excretion (e.g., elimination of macronutrient oxidation products) and NOT on energy imbalance. In its mathematical form the MBM fitted weight loss data from dietary interventions of low-carbohydrate diets (LCDs) versus isocaloric low-fat diets (LFDs) leading to a simple and convincing explanation for the often superior weight loss evoked by LCDs over LFDs (Figure 1).4 This work compares the MBM predictions against those derived from the EBT; and it is convincingly demonstrated that in the experimental settings where the EBT makes erroneous forecasts the MBM results in remarkably accurate predictions.
Materials and Methods
As noted above, this study compares the MBM predictions against those derived from the EBT.
Mass Balance Model (MBM)
For model derivation and details consult Arencibia-Albite4 but, briefly, daily body weight (BW, in kg) fluctuations are given by: where t is time in days; M is the average daily mass intake defined as the sum of the energy-providing mass (EPM; e.g., F, C and P) plus the non-energy-providing mass (nEPM; i.e., water, insoluble fiber, vitamins and minerals); R is the average relative daily rate of mass excretion free of total daily O2 uptake; BW0 is the initial body weight; Floss is the average relative daily rate of mass excretion that includes of total daily O2 uptake; is O density in kg/L at 270 C and 1 ATM; PAL is a dimensionless number that represents the physical activity level computed as the ratio of total daily O2 uptake over the total daily resting O2 consumption; and VO2 is the specific daily resting O2 uptake in L/(kg x day).
The EMP parameter is adjusted according to: where EI is the energy intake; 0≤ xi ≤1 is the energy fraction from i = C, F, P; and ρi is the energy density of i with ρC = 4.2kcal / g, ρF =9.4kcal / g, ρC = 4.7kcal / g. To simulate pancreatic β-cell death xC = 0 as the bulk of ingested glucose is lost through urination.
Fat mass (FM) and fat free mass (FFM) alterations are given by: where FM0 is the initial fat mass and W is the lambert W function.
In MBM simulations daily energy expenditure (EE) can be estimated by The first term at the right-hand side can approximated with the diet’s macronutrient composition and the following Weir formula13
Energy Balance Theory (EBT)
The quantitative form of the EBT use in this study is that of the United States National Institute of Health (NIH) Body Weight Planner developed by Hall et al.14 A succinct model description is given below.
Glycogen (G), extracellular fluid (ECF), body fat (Fb), lean tissue (L) and adaptive thermogenesis (AT) are modeled by following system of equations: where CIb is the carbohydrate energy intake (CI) at energy balance; G0 is the initial body glycogen amount; ρG is the glycogen energy density (4.2 kcal/g); [Na] is the extracellular Na concentration (3.22 mg/ml); ξNa is a ECF Na excretion constant (3 000 mg/[ml x day]); ξCI CI dependent Na excretion constant (4 000 mg/[ml x day]); ρL Is the energy density of lean tissue (1.815kcal/g); τAT is the AT time constant (14 days); and βAT = 0.14 is the AT coefficient.
EE is defined as where K is arbitrary constant determined to achieved energy balance at BW0; is the specific body fat metabolic rate coefficient; γL = 21.99kcal /[kg.day]is the specific lean tissue metabolic rate coefficient; βTEF =0.1is the thermic effect of feeding coefficient; RMR =19.7(BW − Fb) + 413 is Mifflin et al.15 resting metabolic rate formula; ηL = 229.446kcal / kg is the lean tissue synthesis efficacy; and is the fat tissue synthesis efficacy.
Body weight at time t is obtained by the following sum To simulate pancreatic β-cell death CI = 0, as majority of the ingested glucose is lost through urination. The system of differential equations was solved using the fourth order Runge-Kutta method with a time step of 1 day.
Results
The Figure 2 A uses the MBM to simulate the effect of exchanging a high-carbohydrate diet (HCD) for an isocaloric very-low-carbohydrate diet (VLCD) in a weight-stable 70kg individual. Under the HCD (day 150-400), body weight gradually increases to 73kg. However, after beginning the isocaloric VLCD (day 400), body weight decreases towards a steady value of 67.5kg. Figure 2 B repeats the simulation in panel A, but with Hall et al.14 model of the EBT. The latter indicates, in general, that isocaloric perturbations only elicit non-significant alterations in body weight that are mostly a consequence of changes in extracellular fluid (ECF) and stored glycogen (Gly, Figure 2 C1). In such cases, therefore, changes in body composition are expected to be nearly undetectable (Figure 2 C2). For further details, see the figure legend.
An interesting aspect of the MBM is its capacity to account for the degree of weight loss observed at the onset of type 1 diabetes (T1D). Before the discovery of insulin, a common dietary treatment of T1D was a very-low-carbohydrate diet/high-fat diet which slowed down and reduced the excessive weight loss while alleviating the classical symptoms of polyuria, polyphagia and polydipsia [16]. The Figure 2 D1 shows that the MBM explains the weight loss associated with the onset of T1D and also makes predictions consistent with the diabetes treatment during the pre-insulin era. The EBT, however, predicts a substantial weight loss at T1D onset even if the pre-onset diet is a VLCD (Figure 2 D2). For further details, see the figure legend.
Kong et al.3 have recently published a well-controlled feeding study that allows to test the validity of the predictions made by the MBM and EBT. Their young female subjects (age: 21± standard deviation [SD]: 3.7 years, weight: 65.5 ± SD: 7.7 kg, body mass index: 24.9 ± SD: 2.7 kg/m2) were weight-stable for 4 weeks under a normal diet (ND: 1 967kacl ± SD: 362kcal ; F 44% ± SD: 7.6%, C 39.6% ± SD: 5.8%, 15.4%± SD: 3.3%) and then switched to an isocaloric ketogenic diet (KD 1 817kacl ± SD: 285kcal; F 69% ± SD: 5.4%, C 9.2% ± SD: 4.8%, 21.9%± SD: 3.4%) for another 4 weeks leading to a substantially reduced body weight (– 2.9 kg) and body fat percentage (– 2.0%).
Figure 3 A1, A2 and A3 simulate Kong et al.3 data using the Hall et al.14 model of the EBT. Here the KD decreases body weight by 1.71Kg (Figure 3 A1) which is mainly a result of changes in ECF and stored glycogen (Figure 3 A2). In such case, the EBT predicts a slight increase in body fat percentage (Figure 3 A2). Figure 3 B1 simulates Kong et al.3 data using the MBM. As illustrated, this model predicts a much larger drop in body weight (–3.05kg) under KD than the EBT. Contrary to the EBT, however, the MBM predicts a drop in body fat percentage of about 1.6%. This signifies, therefore, that at the MBM leads to more accurate predictions in than those made by the EBT.
Discussion
According to the EBT, at energy balance, changes in macronutrient composition elicit non-substantial changes in body weight. These alterations are assumed to be secondary to changes in ECF and glycogen that follow from adjustments in the diet’s sodium content and carbohydrate intake.1, 7 The EBT also claims that body composition alterations, under these circumstances, are expected to be small but to occur in parallel to the amount of dietary fat intake (see Figure 2 C2). Consequently, from the EBT perspective, the MBM simulations (see Figure 2 A and C2) are unrealistic, as body weight and body fat alterations are much greater than those predicted when energy balance is assumed to be present. If such an argument is definitive, then the accuracy of EBT predictions should always exceed those made by the MBM. Figure 3 illustrates, however, that this is clearly not the case.
Moreover, the EBT implicitly asserts that blood leptin concentration should be minimally affected when arbitrary subject switches from a weight-maintenance standard diet to an isocaloric ketogenic diet since, as argued by this theory, under such conditions fat mass decline is insignificant (see Figure 3 A2). In contrast, the MBM predicts a substantial drop in leptin levels since this model indicates that this type of isocaloric exchange results in a substantial drop in fat mass. Indeed, a recent well-controlled feeding trial by Kong et al.3 showed that the interchange of a weight-preserving normal diet for an isocaloric ketogenic diet evokes a significant reduction in leptin levels.
In addition, the MBM simulations on pancreatic β-cell death are consistent with a review of case histories from the pre-insulin era illustrating that VLCDs could result in some weight gain after the onset of T1D.16 Elliot Proctor Joslin, for example, was the first United States medical doctor that specialized in diabetes treatment during this era. Although anecdotal, one of his diabetic patients, Mary H., reportedly gained nearly 3kg of body weight while consuming a diet containing solely protein and fat. The EBT simulations, in contrast, do not predict such therapeutic effect.
Numerous examples in the weight management literature show that the amount of weight loss is far greater in low-carbohydrate diets (LCDs) compared to isocaloric low-fat diets (LFDs). 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 According to the EBT, this can only occur if the energy expenditure under LCDs is larger than that in LFDs. However, in many of these dietary interventions non-significant differences are found between the energy expenditures of these diets.7, 12, 17, 18, 19 Researchers that subscribe to the EBT, therefore, argue that in such cases the most likely explanation of the observed superior weight loss is the result of energy intake underreporting by low-fat dieters.12 This claim has encountered minimal opposition since it is widely accepted that the majority of the energy intake recording devices (e.g., self-reported food records) are biased toward underestimation.5, 6 (For further discussion, see Supplementary File 1). Two alternative models, however, may explain the apparent weight loss advantage of LCDs over isocaloric LFDs: the carbohydrate-insulin model (CIM) of obesity20 and the MBM4.
The CIM postulates that high-carbohydrate intake elevates insulin levels leading to the activation of complex neuroendocrine responses that drive body fat deposition, increase appetite and decrease energy expenditure17; which, according to the EBT, explains the persistent weight gain over time observed in obese subjects. Conversely, LCDs, by significantly decreasing circulating insulin levels, should increase energy expenditure by augmenting fat oxidation, which – as argued by CIM advocates – accounts for the greater and faster weight loss observed in feeding trails of LCDs vs. isocaloric LFDs. The above claims are open to discussion, however, as evidence shows that obese individuals manifest a highly elevated energy expenditure relative to normal weight subjects21, plus, as already mentioned, the predominant evidence indicates that no significant energy expenditures differences exist between diets. 7, 12, 17, 18, 19 A recent meta-analysis by Ludwig et al.22 suggests that an adaptation period of at least 14 days may be required in order to LCDs to elevate energy expenditure. If this is the case, then one would expect a slow decay of the respiratory quotient (RQ) toward 0.71 since this would reflect the gradual metabolic dependence on fat as the main energy fuel. In ketogenic diets, however, the RQ reaches a steady state within the first week and continuous to be stable for at least three more weeks.17 Taken together, it seems that the LCD-enhanced weight loss is unlikely to be a consequence of an augmented energy expenditure as proposed by the CIM.
In contrast, the MBM describes body weight fluctuations as a mass imbalance problem. Specifically, when macronutrient mass intake exceeds the excretion of macronutrient oxidation products body weight increases and vice versa. Body weight stability is, hence, expected as over time the average consumed mass equals the average eliminated mass. Our model arrives from the following long-standing observations:
1. The physiological/biochemical activity that decreases body weight is the excretion of oxidation products and not energy expenditure.23
This is exemplified in the oxidation of a “general” triglyceride molecule: The mass entering this reaction is (in g/mol) whereas mass exiting the reaction is only present in the reaction products and not in the dissipated heat (i.e., Calories). Therefore, body mass decreases as the body excretes or eliminates oxidation products but not as consequence of the heat content in the energy expenditure.
2. The food property that has the capacity to increases body weight is its macronutrient mass and not its potential nutritional energy
For instance, the absorption and retention within body cells of 1 gram of fat, carbohydrate or protein will increase body mass by exactly 1 gram. This observation is independent of the potential caloric content ascribe to the macronutrient; according to the Law of Conservation of Mass, the absorbed macronutrient mass cannot be destroyed and, thus, it will contribute to total body mass as long as it remains within the body. Such contribution ends, however, when the macronutrient is eliminated from the body either as products of metabolic oxidation (e.g., H2O and CO2) or in other forms (e.g., shedding of dead skin cells fill with keratin protein).
3. From points 1 and 2 it follows that body weight fluctuations can be described by the difference between daily mass intake and daily mass excretion
Although at first sight this statement may seem not to have far-reaching consequences, Arencibia-Albite4 has shown that when translated into mathematical form it fits body weight and fat mass data from isocaloric diet trails of LCDs vs. LFDs, and also results in predictions that are not evident from the qualitative inspection of points 1, 2 and 3. This work further substantiates such predictions and demonstrates that MBM-based simulations result in highly realistic forecasts in settings where the EBT-based simulations collapse.
The energy picture of body weight dynamics explains body fat fluctuations as the balance between fat intake and fat oxidation. The EBT cannot foresee, therefore, that a LCD may lead to more fat loss than an isocaloric LFD since the fat balance in the latter appears to be more negative than in the former.7 A multitude of feeding studies3, 9,11,12 suggest, however, this is not the case as the contrary is a more frequent observation. In the mass picture, in contrast, body fat fluctuations are not only dependent on fat intake and oxidation but other routes contribute as well to fat loss. In LCDs, for instance, the elevated fatty acid oxidation leads, in hepatocytes, to high cytoplasmic HMG-CoA levels which are rapidly reduced to mevalonic acid for cholesterol production. The characteristic excess cholesterol of LCDs24, in turn, is then eliminated in in feces as bile acids. Additionally, in LCDs, carbon atoms from fatty acid breakdown circulate in the blood stream as high acetoacetate levels which can exit the body either in the urine or through breathing when spontaneously decarboxylated to acetone. The afore mentioned processes may thus be responsible for the greater fat loss in LCDs vs. isocaloric LFD even if fat oxidation is greater in LFDs as suggested by short-term (e.g., 6 days) studies.7 Consequently, in the light of this theoretical study, the above argument suggests that the variable that better accounts for body fat fluctuations is mass and not energy.
Conclusions
Implicit in the EBT discourse is that body fat accumulates only if fat intake exceeds fat oxidation, even under dietary energy restriction, which explains why this theory argues in favor of LFDs as the optimal fat loss dietary treatment.7 Such point of view is clearly captured in Figure 2 C2 and Figure 3 A2; however, numerous examples in experimental literature indicates the opposite. The MBM, on the other hand, is highly consistent with these data suggesting that the relevant variable for weight fluctuation is mass and not energy. Our model by its razor-sharp yet simple logic, seems to be perfectly able to account for the deferential weight loss among isocaloric diets. The obesity community is trying to explain such “mysterious” findings by invoking complex signaling pathways that completely ignore the fundamental rule in science: the Occam’s razor (novacula Occami), i.e., the simplest explanation is usually the right one. More specifically, “entities should not be multiplied without necessity”, a notion attributed to English Franciscan friar William of Ockham. Nevertheless, we are certainly not claiming that our model is definitive, or downplaying the emergent and promising therapeutic value of LCDs, but rather to stimulate researchers around the world to acknowledge that the widely accepted EBT is incorrect.
The daily intake of macronutrient mass is, obviously, influenced by the ever-present interplay between the environment and genes; thus, it is important to realize that the MBM makes no claims regarding the behavioral aspects of obesity. Certainly, food processing, distribution, marketing, education, etc. plays a big role in current obesity epidemics.
Data Availability
N/A.
Authors contribution
Study concept and designing: Manninen, Arencibia-Albite
Acquisition of data: Manninen, Arencibia-Albite
Statistical analysis and interpretation of data: Manninen, Arencibia-Albite
Drafting the manuscript: Manninen, Arencibia-Albite
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Manninen, Arencibia-Albite
Administrative, technical or material support: Manninen, Arencibia-Albite.
Study supervision: N/A.
Funding sources
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
“The mass balance model of obesity explains the weight loss advantage of a low-carbohydrate diet over a isocaloric low-fat diet”
SUPPLEMENTARY FILE 1 Additional discussion regarding free-living human feeding studies with special reference to Kong et al
As recently discussed by Hall [1], feeding trials have their own challenges, including – but certainly not limited to – the impracticality and difficulty of randomizing large numbers of free-living subjects to eat different diets for a long period time while ensuring very-high levels of adherence throughout. Although so-called domiciled feeding studies [1] can certainly provide important insights, their “artificial” environment may seriously limit generalizability and applications to free-living individuals, not to mention the fact that this type of studies have become prohibitively expensive to conduct in the United States since the National Institutes of Health (NIH) ceased directly funding Clinical Research Centers [1]. Consequently, well-controlled randomized free-living feeding studies remain the gold standard when it comes to proving causality in the areas of nutrition and metabolism.
There are always potential problems with any kind of dietary records; although we know that these records have relatively high error rates, they can be very meaningful – in terms of causality – if 1) the differences in the study arms are large enough; and 2) there are indicators of very good adherence (e.g., the presence of ketone bodies). A Very-low-carbohydrate diet always win in a well-controlled face-off with an isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet (see the Supplementary File 1 Figure 1). If such a response is not observed, then it is simply not a well-controlled study, as alternative results would indicate a violation of the Law of Conversation of Mass (see Supplementary File 2).
Researchers guided by the erroneous EBT, however, tend to automatically assume that the subjects on the very-low-carb arm must have overreported what they actually ate, or the people of the high-carb arm must have underreported what they ate, or both. How likely is that the very-low-carb arms, time after time, substantially overreport dietary records, whereas the high-carb arms consistently underreport dietary records? [2]
To test the predictive power of both the MBM and the EBT, we decided to utilize the recent free-living feeding data by Kong et al. (see Figures A1, A2, A3, B1, and B2 in the main body of the manuscript). Their young female subjects were weight-stable for 4 weeks under a “normal diet” and then switched to an isocaloric ketogenic diet for another 4 weeks leading to a substantially reduced body weight (– 2.9 kg) and body fat percentage (– 2.0%), consistent with the MBM.
To assure subjects’ adherence to ketogenic diet (KD), Kong et al. required that:
The subjects measure urinary ketones every day (early morning or after dinner) and record 3-day food diaries (2 weekdays and 1 weekend day) during the experimental period.
3-day food diaries were kept by all subjects for 8 weeks.
All subjects were given in advance “thorough instructions” on how to estimate portion sizes and record food/beverages intake on food composition tables.
Subjects were asked to report to the laboratory every week to assess changes in body weight and hand in the logbook with dietary records.
Energy and macronutrient distribution were calculated by the same dietician using the nutrition analysis and management system; diet compliance was evaluated based on the results of the urinary ketones and food diaries, and subjects received follow-up dietary advice and counseling individually from the dietician.
In summary, we believe it is safe to conclude that the energy intake values in a report by Kong et al. are about as reliable as it gets. Of course, one can claim – and some certainly do – that such free-living feeding studies are not well-controlled. If we follow such criteria, how many “well-controlled” studies we have on dietary supplements, or pharmaceuticals, or other interventions lasting longer than few weeks? Zero.
Already in 1971, Young et al. [3] compared 3 diets that contained the same amount of calories (1800 kcal/d) and protein (115g/d) but that differed in carbohydrate content. After 9 weeks on the 30g, 60g, and 104g carbohydrate diets, weight loss was 16.2kg, 12.8kg, and 11.9kg and fat accounted for 95%, 84%, and 75% of the weight loss, respectively. Thus, the authors concluded, “[w]eight loss, fat loss, and percent of weight loss as fat appeared to be inversely related to the level of carbohydrate in the isocaloric, isoprotein diets”, consistent with the MBM (When the energy fraction from dietary fat increases, while energy intake is clamped, mass intake decreases due to the significantly higher energy density of fat in contrast to other substrates). And since these authors were also guided by the erroneous EBT, “[n]o adequate explanation can be given for weight loss differences.” To our knowledge, no one has found flaws in the trial by Young et al. It is worth noting that they utilized underwater weighing (i.e., hydrodensitometry) to determine body composition, which is more accurate than other widely available methods of body composition testing. When performed properly, underwater weighing can be accurate to 1.8 to 2.8% compared to the state-of-the-art methods (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], computed tomography [CT]).
Since it is widely – and mistakenly – assumed that the fundamental cause of obesity is an energy imbalance between calories consumed and calories expended, it was logical to recommend a low-fat diet for weight management and obesity treatment. However, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) indicate a large increase in carbohydrate intake as a major contributor to “caloric excess” (in reality, macronutrient mass excess) in the United States from 1974 to 2000, whereas the absolute amount of fat decreased for men during this period and showed only a slight increase for women [4]. And it was during this very period when the incidence of obesity raised to its current epidemic proportions, consistent with the mass balance model (MBM) predictions.
[DEAR EDITORS, PLEASE NOTE THAT THE REFERENCES IN THIS SUPPLEMENTARY FILE ARE SEPARATE FROM THE REFERENCES IN THE MAINBODY OF THE MANUSCRIPT. THUS, THEY DO NOT FOLLOW THE SAME REFERENCE NUMBERING OR REFERENCE STYLE.]
NOTE:
Note:
As Corresponding Author, I confirm that this SUPPLEMENTARY FILE 1 has been read and approved for submission by all the named authors.
Sincerely,
Anssi H. Manninen 12/01/2021
“The mass balance model of obesity explains the weight loss advantage of low-carbohydrate diets over isocaloric low-fat diets”
SUPPLEMENTARY FILE 2 Mass balance model (MBM) does not violate any laws of physics
In the “Introduction” section of the main body of the manuscript, it is briefly clarified that the mass balance model (MBM) does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. In this SUPPLEMENTARY FILE 2, we further discuss this topic to clear some confusion.
As explained by Arencibia-Albite [1], it is possible for an open system, such as the human body, to be at mass balance while the system experiences a persistent energy imbalance; that is, energy balance may be positive (ΔE > 0) or negative (ΔE < 0) yet the mass change that may occur during energy flux is not required by the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e., the Law of Conservation of Energy) to mirror the energy balance direction.
Thus, it is clear that the MBM does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.
The energy balance theory (EBT), in contrast, ignores the Law of Conservation of Mass [2]. This Law dates from Antoine Lavoisier’s 1789 discovery that mass is neither created nor destroyed in any chemical reaction; hence, the O2 mass that enters cellular respiration plus the mass of macronutrients that served as energy fuel will equal the mass of the excreted oxidation products. Daily weight loss is, therefore, the result of daily the elimination of oxidation products (CO2, H2O, urea, etc.) and not a consequence of the heat release upon nutrient combustion (i.e., daily energy expenditure).
The Supplementary File Figure 1 illustrates an example of how weight stability happens concomitant to a persistent and significant energy imbalance. The reader may wonder how we are certain that is not possible to obtain a set of mass-in/mass-out values that result in the expected coincidence of mass balance with energy balance? Arencibia-Albite [1], using linear algebra, analyzed under what conditions mass balance concur with energy balance and found that both ONLY coexist if the following three conditions are simultaneously satisfied: For example, if Then, And, hence The reason why this is the only way in which weight stability and energy balance coincide lies outside biochemistry and physiology. In mathematics and physics any well-defined problem, such as the coincidence of weight stability and energy balance, has one and only one possibility:
The problem is unsolvable.
The problem has one and only one solution.
The problem has many solutions.
Thus, not all well-defined problems can be solved and if they do it may be true that it has exactly one solution. A classic example is the famous Königsberg bridge problem that in 1736 the Swiss mathematician Leonard Euler was able to demonstrate, without any doubt, that the problem solution did not exist leading to the birth of graph theory, a branch of mathematics with many important applications. Consequently, as demonstrated by Arencibia-Albite [1], the simultaneous satisfaction of these three requirements is what guarantees that weight stability happens together with energy balance and NO OTHER WAY IS POSSIBLE. Consequently, body weight stability must coincide with a persistent energy imbalance, since, as exemplified in the Supplementary File 2 Figure 1, the constitutive processes of gluconeogenesis and de novo lipogenesis impede the simultaneous satisfaction of afore mentioned conditions.
[DEAR EDITORS, PLEASE NOTE THAT THE REFERENCES IN THIS SUPPLEMENTARY FILE ARE SEPARATE FROM THE REFERENCES IN THE MAINBODY OF THE MANUSCRIPT. THUS, THEY DO NOT FOLLOW THE SAME REFERENCE NUMBERING OR REFERENCE STYLE.]
NOTE:
As Corresponding Author, I confirm that this SUPPLEMENTARY FILE 2 has been read and approved for submission by all the named authors.
Sincerely,
Anssi H. Manninen 12/01/2021
List of abbreviations
- MBM
- mass balance model
- MB
- mass balance
- EBT
- energy balance theory
- CIM
- carbohydrate insulin model
- FFM
- fat-free mass
- FM
- fat mass
- EPM
- energy-providing mass
- VLCD
- very-low-carbohydrate diet
- KD
- ketogenic diet
- HCD
- high-carbohydrate diet
- ND
- “normal diet”
- BW
- body weight
- BF
- body fat
- EI
- energy intake
- EE
- energy expenditure
- T1D
- type 1 diabetes
- ECF
- extra cellular fluid
- Gly
- glycogen
- nEPM
- non-energy-providing mass
- AT
- adaptive thermogenesis
- PAL
- physical activity level
- RQ
- respiratory quotient