What do you have to say for yourselves?
not going to read this jew shit, but yes it literally gets converted into energy and then co2 you breath out. read a biochem textbook
OP iz a fag
if fat doesnt give you energy then why did we evolve to have it?
surely the first thing that would have that would have died off before trees existed
>no it doesnt get converted to energy
there are PEOPLE who READ this shit and BELIEVE IT
i am not reading all that shit
>literal fake news
I hate when pol is right
This article was useless.... They didn't say anything wrong but they framed it in a way that said:
>GOTCHA!!! I BET YOU DIDN'T KNOW THESE FACTS OH YOU SILLY LITTLE SOCIETY THAT IS OBSESSED WITH WEIGHT LOSS CULTURE!!! TEE HEE!!! PLEASE SUBSCRIBE
worthless filler article
all it says is that the fat gets exhaled
but what they dont say anything about is the fact that carbohydrates are stored in fat cells
>”If you lose 10 pounds of fat, precisely 8.4 pounds comes out through your lungs and the remaining 1.6 pounds turns into water. In other words, nearly all the weight we lose is exhaled.”
evolution is jewish tricksto destroy Christianity and western civilization lmao
So my fat isn't turning in to muscle?
Frankly, "converting into energy" is a common layman's phrase, and the article is simply pointing out the error in that.
Obviously, ten kilograms of mass (no matter what kind of soft tissue) cannot simply become pure energy - that would require annihilation of mass, which simply cannot happen in a living organism.
What happens is that the components of tissue (proteins, fats, carbohydrates and what not) are oxidized to other forms, resulting in dinitrogen, water and carbon dioxide, which leave the body primarily by exhalation.
The article is in no way wrong, it's just that you're fucking retards too caught up in the (((CNN))) label.
>Obviously, ten kilograms of mass (no matter what kind of soft tissue) cannot simply become pure energy
Tell that to Vegeta
Animu doesn't real, evidence is dismissed.
>want to lose weight
>want to turn my fat into energy
>have to burn 90 quintillion calories to lose one gram of body mass
No thank you.
How the fuck can you be smart enough to understand the Krebs cycle but stupid enough take a colloquialism about "energy" to mean literally turning matter into energy?
Next up on CNN: Exercise doesn't "burn fat" because your body doesn't contain a furnace.
Bc (((they))) want views and clicks
>The most common misconception by far, was that fat is converted to energy. The problem with this theory is that it violates the law of conservation of matter, which all chemical reactions obey.
omfg read a chemistry textbook faggot. Conservation of matter does not exist in reality, mass is almost never entirely conserved. And in this case it isn't because (shocker), some mass is converted to energy. Haven't you ever heard e = mc^2? The energy lost results in less mass existing in the products. Fucking brainlets.
you can produce energy without annihilating mass brainlet
Learn relativity faggot. Mass and energy are directly interchangeable, by the ratio of e=mc^2. Losing energy is implicitly losing mass.
nothing in your body is capable of converting mass into energy, it stores energy as chemical bonds. if any mass is turning into energy in your body its going to be from radioactive decay not from a bodily function
>Losing energy is implicitly losing mass.
i assume you worded this incorrectly because that is literally a violation of conservation of mass-energy
Oh that's great because I thought fat loss actually was magical
>nothing in your body is capable of converting mass into energy, it stores energy as chemical bonds
When chemical bonds break, energy is released, which means mass is lost.
Even energy stored in bonds have mass. You see this all the time when looking at particles. A neutron has more mass than a proton and electron combined, because the bond has stored energy. And energy and mass are directly related, to the point where they are barely distinguishable at a quantum level.
>i assume you worded this incorrectly because that is literally a violation of conservation of mass-energy
Conservation of matter doesn't exist. At all. It's a rough estimate from early chemistry when we weren't able to detect how energy lost relates to mass lost. Use wikipedia, or better yet, finish high school chemistry.
>tells something we all already knew
fuck off Abraham