Two Kinds of Inconsistency: A Constructive Note on the Empirical and Analytical Evaluation of the Energy Balance Model

Arencibia-Albite presents two arguments against the Energy Balance Model: numerical tests showing that its predictions diverge from measurement, and an analytical proof showing that it is internally inconsistent when obligatory nitrogen loss is accounted for. These arguments are frequently treated as a single case. They are not. They describe two different kinds of failure, with different causes and different corrections. The analytical argument has been addressed elsewhere: when the chemical enthalpy carried out of the body by unoxidized nitrogen is included in the energy balance equation, the contradiction resolves – and the corrected model requires a mass-based term. The numerical argument is weakened by methodological asymmetries that can inflate the apparent empirical failure of the model. Absorption corrections applied asymmetrically across trial phases, and extrapolation from weekly chamber measurements to 14-day ward expenditure, can shift the calculated energy balance systematically. These asymmetries do not refute Arencibia-Albite's conclusion. They refine its evidential basis. When both arguments are corrected, what remains is a mass-based framework. This is not a critique of his work. It is its logical continuation.