Ragen vs. Neil deGrasse Tyson

Ragen studied at the University of Texas at Austin for seven years.  And never graduated.  Yet here she is, debating the Laws of Thermodynamics.  She talks in circles.  She loses you in the first few sentences.  That’s what she does.   Blathers on.  And talks and talks and talks.  It’s a ploy to get people to think she is so smart.  And people really do fall for it.  Sucker born every minute, right?

Now, let’s take Neil Degrasse Tyson.  Who, just like Ragen, also studied at the University of Texas at Austin.   Only difference is that he just went there for his Masters.  After getting his BA from Harvard.  And before getting his PhD from Columbia.

This is what he has to say:



Okay Ragen, you are right and Neil Degrasse Tyson is wrong.   He is an astrophysicist.   You are a self proclaimed  ‘trained researched’ without a degree.    Even better, according to him, “those ‘who cherry pick science simply don’t understand how’ it works

So who do you believe?  A college drop out and self proclaimed ‘trained researcher” or Neil DeGrasse Tyson?  Your call.

As a courtesy, I will e-mail Mr. deGrasse and ask him to weigh in on Ragens ‘Laws of Thermodynamics’.  I’ll let you know if I hear anything.





One thought on “Ragen vs. Neil deGrasse Tyson

  1. I got through the first part of Regan’s diatribe on thermodynamics and the lack of understanding is just astounding. She honestly does not understand the first law of thermodynamic at all.

    She points out (Issue 1) that “energy-in” can do more than (1) be burned and (2) get stored as fat – for example, it can be converted to cell membrane and insulate neurons. Somehow, in her world, this is an argument against the 1st law’s applicability to the human body. She says “At any rate, the calories in the proteins and fats used in this manner are neither burned nor stored.” E=MC^2. Energy can be converted to mass. What exactly does she think “stored” means? The calories have not disappeared, and no holes have been poked.

    From the very start she demonstrates that she absolutely has no understanding of thermodynamics most simple and basic tenants.

    She then goes on to claim BMR is not very accurate (Issue 2). She links to 1 study that specifically looks at people who have just begun dieting (a study that could not find explanation in loss of lean mass, but that also did not evaluate any subsequent cessation of activity on the part of the participants, possibly due to being tired and becoming more sedentiary from eating fewer calories?). In the long run, however BMR calculators are strikingly accurate for the vast majority of people:

    One comprehensive review(1) noted there were nearly 250 calcuations for determining Basal Metabolic Rate based on studies performed in the past few decades. This same review noted that 47 had sufficient detail to create a highly accurate calculator that you can access here (2). Over the years there have been countless (3) studies that have verified the accuracy of the BMR calculations: in old women (4), in the obese(5) (though this[5a] study says Harris Benedict over-estimates it in the obese), in the Chinese(6), in Korean children(7), in policemen walking their beat(8), overall (9), overall again (10), and confirming the Mifflin St. Jeor(11).

    Issue 3 is again a gross misunderstanding of thermodynamics. The body does not need to be a 100% efficient engine; it merely can’t create calories from nothing. Hormones, genetics, and BMR fluctuations do not manifest calories from the aether. Shockingly to none (except maybe Regan), your hormones and genetics are part of the system known as your body and should be considered as *part of the equation* when evaluating calories in and calories out (as opposed to being used as “evidence” that thermodynamics isn’t realz).

    I won’t touch on the 95% statistic as we both know it’s bull.

    (1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23318720
    (2) http://www.sdl.ise.vt.edu/tutorials.html
    (3) http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Validation+of+Basal+Metabolic+Rate+site%3A.gov
    (4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7594140
    (5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11817239
    (5a) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12963943
    (6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7594142
    (7) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22413041
    (8) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23429979
    (9) http://openagricola.nal.usda.gov/Record/FNI86010845
    (10) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16277825
    (11) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15883556

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s