A Calorie REALLY ISN'T a Calorie
Replies
-
It is widely accepted by health professionals that 1,200 calories are the minimum needed for health maintenance.
You first. And now, I REALLY must go. Done for this evening. Entertain yourself by insulting your other gang members.0 -
It is widely accepted by health professionals that 1,200 calories are the minimum needed for health maintenance.
You first. And now, I REALLY must go. Done for this evening. Entertain yourself by insulting your other gang members.
I didn't make any crazy one-size-fits-all claims about what every human body needs every day. If I've made any positive claims about anything in this thread you'd like me to support with science, I'll gladly do so.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.
"Oops, I goofed" (even though I explained why I used the term). There---happy now?0 -
"Oops, I goofed" (even though I explained why I used the term). There---happy now?
Yes. Thank you.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.
Here is how it works. You make a claim = you're the one that has to back up that claim with evidence0 -
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.
Here is how it works. You make a claim = you're the one that has to back up that claim with evidence
That's not really how it works in seminary school, I think. Or journalism school. Probably not a whole lot in psychology school either, actually.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?
Slander, defaming......
I was merely asked a clarifying questions as I was interested. You brought it up first, remember. Where does defaming come into it? How on earth did you get that?0 -
I'm trying to figure out how you can defame an anonymous screen name.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?
Slander, defaming......
I was merely asked a clarifying questions as I was interested. You brought it up first, remember. Where does defaming come into it? How on earth did you get that?0 -
Ah... I see that the 'education' card has been played in here, in which various degrees, unrelated to fitness and nutrition, are used to justify half-baked theories that are only loosely based on fact. C'mon people. Just a few more posts and I never have to see this topic again!0
-
Ah... I see that the 'education' card has been played in here, in which various degrees, unrelated to fitness and nutrition, are used to justify half-baked theories that are only loosely based on fact. C'mon people. Just a few more posts and I never have to see this topic again!
I'll do what I can to help.0 -
I'll do my part. I just need to remember not to post on the roll and I won't have to see this ever again...
...at least until the next time the topic comes up on the regular rotation.
ETA: Shenanigans!0 -
Ah... I see that the 'education' card has been played in here, in which various degrees, unrelated to fitness and nutrition, are used to justify half-baked theories that are only loosely based on fact. C'mon people. Just a few more posts and I never have to see this topic again!
I know...and they failed miserably with proving their knowledge in at least one of them!0 -
Husky--what are you willing to give in return to get this rolled?
:flowerforyou:0 -
Thermic effect of food is represented on the energy output side of the equation. A calorie is still a calorie, you just increase energy expenditure slightly when eating a higher protein diet.
EXACTLY0 -
Oooo. In for round two of crazy sugar crusading.
0 -
Whoaaaaa...round two?? IN!0
-
Mulberry, you still evaded the question about your strength training. (inb4shakeweight)0
-
I wonder whether the Sugar Is Teh Enemie posters can explain why, when I have considerable 'bad' carb intake on a regular basis, I'm still losing fat at a perfectly safe level? And when I eat high fat foods - or high protein ones - the trend of my fat loss continues?
I'm not special in any way, I eat and drink crap, keep lousy hours and I'm not at the gym every day for six hours or anything like that. I take long term meds for inflammatory arthritis that are supposed to cause weight gain.
But my weight loss continues. Why? Do I have a magic metabolism that means I am immune to the Evil Sucrose?
Nope. I got fat because I ate too much and didn't move around enough. I now eat a lower amount of calories and shift my backside off the couch, go out and Do Stuff. That's all there is to it. There's no magic pill, no evil ingredient that means I am powerless over my actions or those of my internal body systems.
Calories In Vs. Calories Out is the only thing that determines whether I stay fat or not.0 -
I wonder whether the Sugar Is Teh Enemie posters can explain why, when I have considerable 'bad' carb intake on a regular basis, I'm still losing fat at a perfectly safe level? And when I eat high fat foods - or high protein ones - the trend of my fat loss continues?
I'm not special in any way, I eat and drink crap, keep lousy hours and I'm not at the gym every day for six hours or anything like that. I take long term meds for inflammatory arthritis that are supposed to cause weight gain.
But my weight loss continues. Why? Do I have a magic metabolism that means I am immune to the Evil Sucrose?
Nope. I got fat because I ate too much and didn't move around enough. I now eat a lower amount of calories and shift my backside off the couch, go out and Do Stuff. That's all there is to it. There's no magic pill, no evil ingredient that means I am powerless over my actions or those of my internal body systems.
Calories In Vs. Calories Out is the only thing that determines whether I stay fat or not.
You may be losing fat and pounds, but if you are taking long term meds for arthritis, your health would GREATLY improve if you cut out the lousy foods you eat.
That is inflammation.
Sugar's impact on pain is probably linked to the mineral loss associated with diets high in refined sugar. Human muscle relies on the minerals calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium for smooth and coordinated contraction and relaxation. A diet high in sugar causes the kidneys to extract calcium, magnesium and potassium from the blood and dump the minerals into the urine. The body then scavenges its bones and muscles to make up the mineral deficiency in the blood. The process results in muscles already less flexible due to fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis becoming even more spastic. Since sugar causes the body to extract minerals from bone and muscle, it's logical that sugar consumption intensifies pain0 -
You may be losing fat and pounds, but if you are taking long term meds for arthritis, your health would GREATLY improve if you cut out the lousy foods you eat.
That is inflammation.
Sugar's impact on pain is probably linked to the mineral loss associated with diets high in refined sugar. Human muscle relies on the minerals calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium for smooth and coordinated contraction and relaxation. A diet high in sugar causes the kidneys to extract calcium, magnesium and potassium from the blood and dump the minerals into the urine. The body then scavenges its bones and muscles to make up the mineral deficiency in the blood. The process results in muscles already less flexible due to fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis becoming even more spastic. Since sugar causes the body to extract minerals from bone and muscle, it's logical that sugar consumption intensifies pain
And that is complete bollocks.
I've had RA since I was about five. And Ehlers-Danos III Hypermobility Type since conception. In the years since, I've heard and tried all the stupid cut-out-entire-food-groups, take supplements and all the other 'great' ideas that only serve to make some quack a bunch of money from flogging books promising a cure. I've taken part in trials testing the hypotheses, from the Nightshades cause it, so cut out fruit and veg, acidic foods cause it, so cut them out, cut out dairy (great idea when steroids affect bone density, by the way - fortunately, I had more sense than to avoid dairy, so I've got very good bone density as measured by scan), be vegetarian, be vegan, be primal, eat carbs, cut out carbs - there isn't a food group that hasn't been claimed to be the reason RA occurs.
The claims are rubbish. At no point has changing foods made the slightest bit of difference to the disease. I spent many years eating what is laughably called 'clean'. During that period, not only did the disease progression ramp up to ridiculous levels (like having my partner wash my hair and help dress me at the age of 26), I lost so much mobility and felt so ill all the time, I had to stop exercising and, because I ate too much, I got fat.
My muscles aren't less flexible at all. If anything, that would be an advantage to somebody with hypermobility. So sugar, if your claims were true, would actually help. But it doesn't make any difference at all.
At present, eating what I want to eat, rather than treating food as the enemy or looking for a culprit, and eating an appropriate amount in accordance with my energy expenditure - my inflammation markers are the lowest they have been since I was about 11. And I don't have to take any painkillers at all.
So you can take your 'disease is self inflicted' snake oil apology and do with it as you will. Just stop insulting people who have heard all these claims before about every food group on the planet and are bored with 'experts' who have read something online and think it makes them competent to advise on treating disease.0 -
Oh good grief...0
-
You may be losing fat and pounds, but if you are taking long term meds for arthritis, your health would GREATLY improve if you cut out the lousy foods you eat.
That is inflammation.
Sugar's impact on pain is probably linked to the mineral loss associated with diets high in refined sugar. Human muscle relies on the minerals calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium for smooth and coordinated contraction and relaxation. A diet high in sugar causes the kidneys to extract calcium, magnesium and potassium from the blood and dump the minerals into the urine. The body then scavenges its bones and muscles to make up the mineral deficiency in the blood. The process results in muscles already less flexible due to fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis becoming even more spastic. Since sugar causes the body to extract minerals from bone and muscle, it's logical that sugar consumption intensifies pain
Wow, do you actually believe all that?
Oh, wait, it's from a "holistic health practitioner." :laugh:
Carry on.0 -
I enjoy eating gummies too much to completely cut them out. When I deprive myself of sugar, I eventually binge on it. That is much worse than having a serving or two of something I enjoy, especially when the other 80% of my calories are clean and I'm working out 6 days a week.
Not all health problems are caused by sugar. No matter how much sugar I eat, the nerve damage in my leg will be what it is. The same goes for the poster with RA.
If cutting out processed sugar works for you, that's wonderful, have a cookie......or don't. Telling people sugar causes pain when the source of the problem is completely unrelated to sugar consumption is completely ridiculous.0 -
A life without ice cream would be no life at all0
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