The field of mathematical biology has been abuzz with the work of Dr.'s West, Brown, Enquist, Gillooly, Savage, et al. for the last 11 years with regard to the claim that a certain power law, called Kleiber's Law, models the relation between metabolic rate (MR) and biomass raised to an exponent. Hyperbolic claims have been made about the universality of this law for all life, for aging, and for ecology. The law, as presented, suggests that basal MR (BMR) is dependent upon the mass of the organism, whether that organism is an organelle, a cell, a whale, or a human society or forest. What's absolutely amazing is that no one yet has pointed out that this approach implies that MR is independent of external conditions for the organism, its ability to find food. A starving bear and a lamb of similar mass are claimed to have the same BMR! In fact the claim has been made that a bird and a rat of similar mass share metabolic rates, in the same paper that remarked the vast difference in lifespans of the two was perplexing, and perhaps could be squeezed from the numbers. This claim conflicts with studies on strength of metabolic and systemic functioning done on those subjected to near starvation, and supports the preposterous notion that morbid obesity should result in higher metabolic rates

The lack of any severe testing of deductions from Kleiber, as handled by West et al. in the form of quarter power scaling, is related to its speculation on the nature of metabolism itself. No position is specified as to whether thermogenesis should be included as part of metabolism; or not, in which case the role of caloric efficiency in sustaining biomass enters the picture. To sustain biomass heat is created in the power transmission needed to maintain the constantly degenerating covalent bonds necessary to prevent the disintegration of the biomass. Efficiency is measured against loss to heat, and does not include it. The endurance of quarter-power flim-flammery is highly dependent upon neglecting this issue, and upon the on-going lack of in vivo metabolic measurement that can detect this.

When the factor for efficiency is introduced to Kleiber in the exponent, things like the difference in lifespans of birds and rats can be seen as a matter of efficiency. MR becomes the recharge rate of the biomass measured in grams, and is itself measured in watts, and the exponent of biomass changes from 3/4 to (4ME-1)/4ME, where ME is a ratio of amperes of reduction to amperes of oxidation, known as redox coupling efficiency. The graph of this version of the equation, with a different curve for each biomass, reveals a picture far and away more powerful than that trotted out by the doddering West at a string of moribund symposiums whose continuation is more a matter of academic inertia than clinical or biological relevance and consequence. The exponent favored by West et al. is 3/4 when ME is 100%. Is it universally so for all life that they function at 100% metabolic efficiency? The exponent 2/3, favored by traditional biologists, obtains when ME is 89%, still high, but closer to what is probably so when thermogenesis is included, with 11% being lost as undigested calories.

Hey, but that's just the way that it is. The Pied Piper of the Santa Fe Institute will lead a generation down an intellectual cul de sac of irrelevance, and then one day increasing numbers will ask, hey, why can't we do anything with this? Right now there is speculation about how temperature can be introduced to the equation, and other factors like rainfall and nutrient availability too. Nothing rigorously testable without lots of field work, fortunately for ambitious students. For the clinic? Nothing. Just promises of one day...maybe something pharmacological perhaps...or a new way of cutting. Someday they'll get the math right, and turn the electrodes spewing amperes upon their own bodies in recharge rate of their biomasses. The updated Kleiber explains why rats live longer when hungry, and why this won't work for large mammals. It also explains why discharging a battery into our bodies will extend our lives and restore our muscles. The equation tells us how most effectively to manipulate the histology of our biomass to remain fit and to lose mass.

Now one must ask, given the math, why would West et al. continue to promote their presumptuous version? What drives these guys? Is it a matter of ego? They insist upon sample sizes of one gram mass, what they call mass specific, something that only happens in vitro, not vivo. They make this choice because the math is easier, that is, by dividing both sides of the equation by mass, they hope to make their calculations fit the data by eliminating mass as a factor. And the data comes mostly from in vitro testing on one gram biomasses, and whole body study of people at rest who have not eaten for more than 24 hours. And they say the exponent becomes a -1/4. Important to their analysis is the fact that, at one gram biomass, no matter what the efficiency is, the recharge rate will be the same. This rules out matters of efficiency, and treats metabolic functioning as, again, something independent of surrounding conditions and the histological structure of the biomass, something entirely dependent upon mass. Again, this benighted approach is an attempt to fit an equation to the data which is itself inadequate for any sort of applied mathematical deductions.

Hey, but enjoy the show! West especially will eventually and unwittingly confirm that dictum of Max Planck that science advances with each funeral.