A Calorie REALLY ISN'T a Calorie
Replies
-
I'm quite aware of the bio-chemistry---but the obsessive focus on the macro-nutrients at the expense of the micro-nutrients is to do a disservice to one's body. When sub-optimal food is consumed at the expense of more nourishing food, it can lead to undesirable health outcomes.
So it's a disservice to your body to provide it with energy that don't have some micronutrients mixed in with them?
You need to understand that "more" and "better" aren't the same thing.
Here's a quote by Eric Helms on Sara's profile:
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food!"0 -
forums are, in nature, a spoken communication because it involves a back and forth.
I see you understand law about as well as you understand nutrition.
That, in itself is another accusation that is unfounded. I was not discussing "the law"--I was discussing the rules here.0 -
forums are, in nature, a spoken communication because it involves a back and forth.
I see you understand law about as well as you understand nutrition.
That, in itself is another accusation that is unfounded. I was not discussing "the law"--I was discussing the rules here.
No, you were discussing the definition of "slander."
This is not spoken communication, even if there's "back and forth." There's back and forth in letters, newspaper articles, etc. They are, however, printed and not spoken. Nothing on MFP can be "slanderous" because there's literally no spoken word on MFP.0 -
Yes but it wasn't the sugar. It was the calories.
A calorie restricted diet would work if you eat a lot of sugar or not. That is IF you can stay on that diet while eating lots of sugar
I've pointed that out in a couple other posts in this thread and others. Obviously, calorie deficits can work. However, I feel like any discussion of actual dietary philosophy (meaning, something more than "eat less calories than you take in") that doesn't include maintainability and healthfulness is probably one that isn't looking at the whole issue.
It's very individualized when you start to see "what diet can a person actually maintain, long term".
A calorie deficit WILL work for her. Sugar or not. If both diets = the exact same calories, the results should be the same. Period.
If eating sugar makes that person eat MORE calories, it's still a calorie thing
Hate to burst your bubble, but we get back to the OP on this one. A calorie's worth of carbohydrate is treated differently by my body than a calorie's worth of protein and/or fat. I choose the foods I do to maximize the loss of body fat for ME. I went on many a calorie-restricted diet in the past, and though I lost weight, I probably lost as much muscle as fat--setting me up for regain. The crash-diets I followed were even worse--because I was malnourished at the end.
Are you an alien?
Unless you are strength training, any calorie restricted diet no matter the make up is going to net you fat and muscle loss.0 -
I'm quite aware of the bio-chemistry---but the obsessive focus on the macro-nutrients at the expense of the micro-nutrients is to do a disservice to one's body. When sub-optimal food is consumed at the expense of more nourishing food, it can lead to undesirable health outcomes.
So it's a disservice to your body to provide it with energy that don't have some micronutrients mixed in with them?
You need to understand that "more" and "better" aren't the same thing.
Here's a quote by Eric Helms on Sara's profile:
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food!"
And this is getting boring--we have already covered this territory, Jonnythan. I have already showed you my food diary for a day a long time ago and I showed you that even eating at a mild calorie deficit that I was perilously close to the 1,200 calories that every adult needs to keep all bodily systems operating well. We already covered this some time ago. For some reason, you seem to want to harass me--and THAT is also against the rules.0 -
Yes but it wasn't the sugar. It was the calories.
A calorie restricted diet would work if you eat a lot of sugar or not. That is IF you can stay on that diet while eating lots of sugar
I've pointed that out in a couple other posts in this thread and others. Obviously, calorie deficits can work. However, I feel like any discussion of actual dietary philosophy (meaning, something more than "eat less calories than you take in") that doesn't include maintainability and healthfulness is probably one that isn't looking at the whole issue.
It's very individualized when you start to see "what diet can a person actually maintain, long term".
A calorie deficit WILL work for her. Sugar or not. If both diets = the exact same calories, the results should be the same. Period.
If eating sugar makes that person eat MORE calories, it's still a calorie thing
Hate to burst your bubble, but we get back to the OP on this one. A calorie's worth of carbohydrate is treated differently by my body than a calorie's worth of protein and/or fat. I choose the foods I do to maximize the loss of body fat for ME. I went on many a calorie-restricted diet in the past, and though I lost weight, I probably lost as much muscle as fat--setting me up for regain. The crash-diets I followed were even worse--because I was malnourished at the end.
Are you an alien?
Unless you are strength training, any calorie restricted diet no matter the make up is going to net you fat and muscle loss.
I do strength training but you are apparently unaware of some of the scientific studies that show that some diets cause greater fat loss than others AT THE SAME CALORIE LEVEL. There are many of them--Google is your friend.0 -
the 1,200 calories that every adult needs to keep all bodily systems operating well.
This is a completely nonsensical statement, and it says volumes about what you actually know about human nutrition.0 -
Yes but it wasn't the sugar. It was the calories.
A calorie restricted diet would work if you eat a lot of sugar or not. That is IF you can stay on that diet while eating lots of sugar
I've pointed that out in a couple other posts in this thread and others. Obviously, calorie deficits can work. However, I feel like any discussion of actual dietary philosophy (meaning, something more than "eat less calories than you take in") that doesn't include maintainability and healthfulness is probably one that isn't looking at the whole issue.
It's very individualized when you start to see "what diet can a person actually maintain, long term".
A calorie deficit WILL work for her. Sugar or not. If both diets = the exact same calories, the results should be the same. Period.
If eating sugar makes that person eat MORE calories, it's still a calorie thing
Hate to burst your bubble, but we get back to the OP on this one. A calorie's worth of carbohydrate is treated differently by my body than a calorie's worth of protein and/or fat. I choose the foods I do to maximize the loss of body fat for ME. I went on many a calorie-restricted diet in the past, and though I lost weight, I probably lost as much muscle as fat--setting me up for regain. The crash-diets I followed were even worse--because I was malnourished at the end.
Are you an alien?
Unless you are strength training, any calorie restricted diet no matter the make up is going to net you fat and muscle loss.
I do strength training but you are apparently unaware of some of the scientific studies that show that some diets cause greater fat loss than others AT THE SAME CALORIE LEVEL. There are many of them--Google is your friend.
I'd like to see the ones you are siting.
What type of strength training?0 -
psssst....it's libel not slander with the written word.0
-
forums are, in nature, a spoken communication because it involves a back and forth.
I see you understand law about as well as you understand nutrition.
That, in itself is another accusation that is unfounded. I was not discussing "the law"--I was discussing the rules here.
No, you were discussing the definition of "slander."
This is not spoken communication, even if there's "back and forth." There's back and forth in letters, newspaper articles, etc. They are, however, printed and not spoken. Nothing on MFP can be "slanderous" because there's literally no spoken word on MFP.
I have a journalism degree--and I took a course in journalism law. I'm well aware of the legal definition of both slander and libel. For a fuller view of both, read here: http://crime.about.com/blslander.htm
I was actually speaking in a more colloquial sense in my original complaint of "slander"--it is doubtful that anyone can or should make a claim of "libel" here. You can pick at my words all you want, but it is really off the OP--are you trying to derail the topic?0 -
psssst....it's libel not slander with the written word.
And I would say the same to you that I said to Jonnythan. Slander can actually be spoken or written. See the link I provided.0 -
the 1,200 calories that every adult needs to keep all bodily systems operating well.
This is a completely nonsensical statement, and it says volumes about what you actually know about human nutrition.
Many here repeatedly refer to the minimum number of calories needed to maintain health as being 1,200--are you going to argue with them too? Trying to make out your opponent as ignorant is a very poor form of argumentation--but I suspect you know that and do it anyway. Why the desperation--why stoop to insulting others who disagree with you? What are your nutritional credentials, by the way?0 -
forums are, in nature, a spoken communication because it involves a back and forth.
I see you understand law about as well as you understand nutrition.
That, in itself is another accusation that is unfounded. I was not discussing "the law"--I was discussing the rules here.
No, you were discussing the definition of "slander."
This is not spoken communication, even if there's "back and forth." There's back and forth in letters, newspaper articles, etc. They are, however, printed and not spoken. Nothing on MFP can be "slanderous" because there's literally no spoken word on MFP.
I have a journalism degree--and I took a course in journalism law. I'm well aware of the legal definition of both slander and libel. For a fuller view of both, read here: http://crime.about.com/blslander.htm
I was actually speaking in a more colloquial sense in my original complaint of "slander"--it is doubtful that anyone can or should make a claim of "libel" here. You can pick at my words all you want, but it is really off the OP--are you trying to derail the topic?
You claimed to have a psychology degree as well in the past. You seem to come up with having a degree in situations that benefit you to have such degree. I just find this interesting.0 -
the 1,200 calories that every adult needs to keep all bodily systems operating well.
This is a completely nonsensical statement, and it says volumes about what you actually know about human nutrition.
Many here repeatedly refer to the minimum number of calories needed to maintain health as being 1,200--are you going to argue with them too? Trying to make out your opponent as ignorant is a very poor form of argumentation--but I suspect you know that and do it anyway. Why the desperation--why stoop to insulting others who disagree with you? What are your nutritional credentials, by the way?
Yeah, I do argue with them. A lot of people on MFP say a lot of stupid things.
I'm not making you out to be ignorant. I'm just pointing out the nonsensical and wrong things you're saying.0 -
forums are, in nature, a spoken communication because it involves a back and forth.
I see you understand law about as well as you understand nutrition.
That, in itself is another accusation that is unfounded. I was not discussing "the law"--I was discussing the rules here.
No, you were discussing the definition of "slander."
This is not spoken communication, even if there's "back and forth." There's back and forth in letters, newspaper articles, etc. They are, however, printed and not spoken. Nothing on MFP can be "slanderous" because there's literally no spoken word on MFP.
I have a journalism degree--and I took a course in journalism law. I'm well aware of the legal definition of both slander and libel. For a fuller view of both, read here: http://crime.about.com/blslander.htm
I was actually speaking in a more colloquial sense in my original complaint of "slander"--it is doubtful that anyone can or should make a claim of "libel" here. You can pick at my words all you want, but it is really off the OP--are you trying to derail the topic?
You claimed to have a psychology degree as well in the past. You seem to come up with having a degree in situations that benefit you to have such degree. I just find this interesting.
I have an undergraduate major in journalism from a widely respected school of journalism (The E. W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University, if you must know.) I also have an M.S. in Counseling Psychology from another university in Ohio. In addition to those two degrees, I have a seminary degree from another institution. I do not lie. if that is what you are implying. Anything else you'd like to know?0 -
forums are, in nature, a spoken communication because it involves a back and forth.
I see you understand law about as well as you understand nutrition.
That, in itself is another accusation that is unfounded. I was not discussing "the law"--I was discussing the rules here.
No, you were discussing the definition of "slander."
This is not spoken communication, even if there's "back and forth." There's back and forth in letters, newspaper articles, etc. They are, however, printed and not spoken. Nothing on MFP can be "slanderous" because there's literally no spoken word on MFP.
I have a journalism degree--and I took a course in journalism law. I'm well aware of the legal definition of both slander and libel. For a fuller view of both, read here: http://crime.about.com/blslander.htm
I was actually speaking in a more colloquial sense in my original complaint of "slander"--it is doubtful that anyone can or should make a claim of "libel" here. You can pick at my words all you want, but it is really off the OP--are you trying to derail the topic?
You claimed to have a psychology degree as well in the past. You seem to come up with having a degree in situations that benefit you to have such degree. I just find this interesting.
I have an undergraduate major in journalism from a widely respected school of journalism (The E. W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University, if you must know.) I also have an M.S. in Counseling Psychology from another university in Ohio. In addition to those two degrees, I have a seminary degree from another institution. I do not lie. if that is what you are implying. Anything else you'd like to know?
Not at all, I just found it interesting. The seminary degree actually explains a lot.0 -
the 1,200 calories that every adult needs to keep all bodily systems operating well.
This is a completely nonsensical statement, and it says volumes about what you actually know about human nutrition.
Many here repeatedly refer to the minimum number of calories needed to maintain health as being 1,200--are you going to argue with them too? Trying to make out your opponent as ignorant is a very poor form of argumentation--but I suspect you know that and do it anyway. Why the desperation--why stoop to insulting others who disagree with you? What are your nutritional credentials, by the way?
Yeah, I do argue with them. A lot of people on MFP say a lot of stupid things.
I'm not making you out to be ignorant. I'm just pointing out the nonsensical and wrong things you're saying.
Based on what? You have yet to post a link to any scientific article in this discussion.0 -
the 1,200 calories that every adult needs to keep all bodily systems operating well.
This is a completely nonsensical statement, and it says volumes about what you actually know about human nutrition.
Many here repeatedly refer to the minimum number of calories needed to maintain health as being 1,200--are you going to argue with them too? Trying to make out your opponent as ignorant is a very poor form of argumentation--but I suspect you know that and do it anyway. Why the desperation--why stoop to insulting others who disagree with you? What are your nutritional credentials, by the way?
Yeah, I do argue with them. A lot of people on MFP say a lot of stupid things.
I'm not making you out to be ignorant. I'm just pointing out the nonsensical and wrong things you're saying.
Based on what? You have yet to post a link to any scientific article in this discussion.
You're the one who said that said people need 1200 calories "to keep all bodily systems operating well." If you want to back up that ridiculous claim, you are more than welcome.0 -
forums are, in nature, a spoken communication because it involves a back and forth.
I see you understand law about as well as you understand nutrition.
That, in itself is another accusation that is unfounded. I was not discussing "the law"--I was discussing the rules here.
No, you were discussing the definition of "slander."
This is not spoken communication, even if there's "back and forth." There's back and forth in letters, newspaper articles, etc. They are, however, printed and not spoken. Nothing on MFP can be "slanderous" because there's literally no spoken word on MFP.
I have a journalism degree--and I took a course in journalism law. I'm well aware of the legal definition of both slander and libel. For a fuller view of both, read here: http://crime.about.com/blslander.htm
I was actually speaking in a more colloquial sense in my original complaint of "slander"--it is doubtful that anyone can or should make a claim of "libel" here. You can pick at my words all you want, but it is really off the OP--are you trying to derail the topic?
You claimed to have a psychology degree as well in the past. You seem to come up with having a degree in situations that benefit you to have such degree. I just find this interesting.
I have an undergraduate major in journalism from a widely respected school of journalism (The E. W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University, if you must know.) I also have an M.S. in Counseling Psychology from another university in Ohio. In addition to those two degrees, I have a seminary degree from another institution. I do not lie. if that is what you are implying. Anything else you'd like to know?
Not at all, I just found it interesting. The seminary degree actually explains a lot.
Was that meant as an insult too? I have never made any secret of my faith.0 -
Still waiting on that study that some foods burn fat faster than others.0
-
the 1,200 calories that every adult needs to keep all bodily systems operating well.
This is a completely nonsensical statement, and it says volumes about what you actually know about human nutrition.
Many here repeatedly refer to the minimum number of calories needed to maintain health as being 1,200--are you going to argue with them too? Trying to make out your opponent as ignorant is a very poor form of argumentation--but I suspect you know that and do it anyway. Why the desperation--why stoop to insulting others who disagree with you? What are your nutritional credentials, by the way?
Yeah, I do argue with them. A lot of people on MFP say a lot of stupid things.
I'm not making you out to be ignorant. I'm just pointing out the nonsensical and wrong things you're saying.
Based on what? You have yet to post a link to any scientific article in this discussion.
You're the one who said that said people need 1200 calories "to keep all bodily systems operating well." If you want to back up that ridiculous claim, you are more than welcome.
"...A diet based on 1200 calories daily is the recommended minimum for safe and healthy weight loss. This is because 1200 calories will generally provide an adequate nutritional intake for most individuals, yet still allows the reduction of calories to the level that most dieters require in order to lose weight. Many diet plans for weight loss that are developed by nutritionists and health professionals are based on 1200 calories daily..."
You can read the rest of the article here: http://www.everydiet.org/diet/1200-calorie-diet
It was merely the first article that I pulled up---I'm sure there are many, many more.0 -
Still waiting on that study that some foods burn fat faster than others.
Go look it up yourself---there are many studies on the subject. I have to go.0 -
Still waiting on that study that some foods burn fat faster than others.
Go look it up yourself---there are many studies on the subject. I have to go.
I don't recall you ever posting a link to an actual study.0 -
psssst....it's libel not slander with the written word.
And I would say the same to you that I said to Jonnythan. Slander can actually be spoken or written. See the link I provided.
Where do you get that from that link?
"Libel is committed when defamatory matter is published in permanent form or in a form which is deemed to be permanent. Defamation published by spoken word or in some other transitory form is slander."
In Pollard v Lyon, Mr. Lyon accused Ms Pollard of "being in bed with Captain Denty".
Them thar fightin' words!
The US Supreme Court defined slander as:
"... slander ... may be divided into five classes, as follows: (1.) Words falsely spoken of a person which impute to the party the commission of some criminal offence involving moral turpitude, for which the party, if the charge is true, may be indicted and punished. (2.) Words falsely spoken of a person which impute that the party is infected with some contagious disease, where, if the charge is true, it would exclude the party from society; or (3.) Defamatory words falsely spoken of a person, which impute to the party unfitness to perform the duties of an office or employment of profit, or the want of integrity in the discharge of the duties of such an office or employment. (4.) Defamatory words falsely spoken of a party which prejudice such party in his or her profession or trade. (5.) Defamatory words falsely spoken of a person, which, though not in themselves actionable, occasion the party special damage.
Historically, the common law used the word to capture both libel and slander, which lawyers today prefer to use the word defamation in that context.
The common law described what we now call slander as verbal or oral slander and libel as written or printed slander.
Unless I am reading it wrong - the context when it was used was historically - i.e. *was* in common law.0 -
"...A diet based on 1200 calories daily is the recommended minimum for safe and healthy weight loss. This is because 1200 calories will generally provide an adequate nutritional intake for most individuals, yet still allows the reduction of calories to the level that most dieters require in order to lose weight. Many diet plans for weight loss that are developed by nutritionists and health professionals are based on 1200 calories daily..."
You can read the rest of the article here: http://www.everydiet.org/diet/1200-calorie-diet
It was merely the first article that I pulled up---I'm sure there are many, many more.
You talk about "a link to any scientific article" and then give us a link to an unsourced anonymous blog article.
Well done. For all that time you spent in school....
And another insult? It is widely accepted by health professionals that 1,200 calories are the minimum needed for health maintenance. I explained that it was merely the first article that I pulled up but I am pressed for time and must go. You're quite welcome to have a go at it yourself. Have a good night.0 -
:huh:0
-
In for the gif war... wrong thread? Aww
0 -
It is widely accepted by health professionals that 1,200 calories are the minimum needed for health maintenance.
0 -
psssst....it's libel not slander with the written word.
And I would say the same to you that I said to Jonnythan. Slander can actually be spoken or written. See the link I provided.
Where do you get that from that link?
"Libel is committed when defamatory matter is published in permanent form or in a form which is deemed to be permanent. Defamation published by spoken word or in some other transitory form is slander."
In Pollard v Lyon, Mr. Lyon accused Ms Pollard of "being in bed with Captain Denty".
Them thar fightin' words!
The US Supreme Court defined slander as:
"... slander ... may be divided into five classes, as follows: (1.) Words falsely spoken of a person which impute to the party the commission of some criminal offence involving moral turpitude, for which the party, if the charge is true, may be indicted and punished. (2.) Words falsely spoken of a person which impute that the party is infected with some contagious disease, where, if the charge is true, it would exclude the party from society; or (3.) Defamatory words falsely spoken of a person, which impute to the party unfitness to perform the duties of an office or employment of profit, or the want of integrity in the discharge of the duties of such an office or employment. (4.) Defamatory words falsely spoken of a party which prejudice such party in his or her profession or trade. (5.) Defamatory words falsely spoken of a person, which, though not in themselves actionable, occasion the party special damage.
Historically, the common law used the word to capture both libel and slander, which lawyers today prefer to use the word defamation in that context.
The common law described what we now call slander as verbal or oral slander and libel as written or printed slander.
Unless I am reading it wrong - the context when it was used was historically - i.e. *was* in common law.
Are we discussing the law or are we discussing nutrition or are you merely interested in defaming me?0 -
psssst....it's libel not slander with the written word.
And I would say the same to you that I said to Jonnythan. Slander can actually be spoken or written. See the link I provided.
Where do you get that from that link?
"Libel is committed when defamatory matter is published in permanent form or in a form which is deemed to be permanent. Defamation published by spoken word or in some other transitory form is slander."
In Pollard v Lyon, Mr. Lyon accused Ms Pollard of "being in bed with Captain Denty".
Them thar fightin' words!
The US Supreme Court defined slander as:
"... slander ... may be divided into five classes, as follows: (1.) Words falsely spoken of a person which impute to the party the commission of some criminal offence involving moral turpitude, for which the party, if the charge is true, may be indicted and punished. (2.) Words falsely spoken of a person which impute that the party is infected with some contagious disease, where, if the charge is true, it would exclude the party from society; or (3.) Defamatory words falsely spoken of a person, which impute to the party unfitness to perform the duties of an office or employment of profit, or the want of integrity in the discharge of the duties of such an office or employment. (4.) Defamatory words falsely spoken of a party which prejudice such party in his or her profession or trade. (5.) Defamatory words falsely spoken of a person, which, though not in themselves actionable, occasion the party special damage.
Historically, the common law used the word to capture both libel and slander, which lawyers today prefer to use the word defamation in that context.
The common law described what we now call slander as verbal or oral slander and libel as written or printed slander.
Unless I am reading it wrong - the context when it was used was historically - i.e. *was* in common law.
Are we discussing the law or are we discussing nutrition or are you merely interested in defaming me?
She is disputing your [incorrect] definition of slander.
Look, you used the wrong term. Your attempts at justifying it instead of just saying "oops, I goofed" are astonishing.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions