Is a calorie just a calorie?
Replies
-
It seems the confusion is that these other factors like TEF and bioavailability that ultimitely effect weight loss are not common factors in trying to calculate TDEE from most websites and this gets confused in as much that we haven't factored those into the equation.
I agree with that -- I think one of the issues is that we don't currently know whether the concerns are actually marginal. I made the above ratios 80% and 90% because they resulted in nice, round numbers that illustrated the point clearly, though I'm guessing the actual differences would be much smaller than that.In fact the body has always taken these factors into account as far as weight loss is concerned and when we actually find our TDEE the old fashion way by consuming food, recording that intake, we then know how many calories our TDEE actually is as opposed to a guess over the internet and with those built in shortcomings on an individual basis this study throws a few more scientific terms that confuse people more, unfortunately it doesn't confuse our body or thermodynamics, which is what counts.....people will always be confused.
I think there are a lot of problems, from a purely technical perspective, on how we measure almost everything related to weight management. Given that we (presumably) eat a wide variety of food with differing TEF and bioavailability, the TDEE is really always going to be a best-guess average of a 'normal' day of eating. Which, given the standards of food labeling and weighing and whatnot, works, because your intake is always going to be a best-guess average as well. You're dealing with a lot of imprecision when you're counting all of this stuff. So from a real-world perspective, it might not matter -- if the differences are negligible, or if to actually have precision, you're spending all of your day measuring food to the 1/1000th of a gram, it might not be worth worrying about to the average person.
From a science perspective, though, novel ideas are worth studying if only that they give us a better understanding of our bodies and the way we process foods. The knowledge is valuable for the future -- because good science goes where data brings us, you don't really know what we can learn by going down certain paths. If one of those paths ends up giving us another alternative dietary strategy that is scientifically sound, that's a good thing, in my opinion.0 -
The argument and confusion between a calorie is a calorie and not all calories are created equal, again.
^^This
A calorie is nothing but an unit of energy, just like joules or BTU's. So when people say "a calorie is just a calorie", they're right.
BUT
We can't take calories out of context. We don't live in a universe where we gobble down little spheres of energy. Those calories come from food and that food have a varying degree of nutritional value, and this has to be acknowledge too.0 -
Agree totally.It seems the confusion is that these other factors like TEF and bioavailability that ultimitely effect weight loss are not common factors in trying to calculate TDEE from most websites and this gets confused in as much that we haven't factored those into the equation.
I agree with that -- I think one of the issues is that we don't currently know whether the concerns are actually marginal. I made the above ratios 80% and 90% because they resulted in nice, round numbers that illustrated the point clearly, though I'm guessing the actual differences would be much smaller than that.In fact the body has always taken these factors into account as far as weight loss is concerned and when we actually find our TDEE the old fashion way by consuming food, recording that intake, we then know how many calories our TDEE actually is as opposed to a guess over the internet and with those built in shortcomings on an individual basis this study throws a few more scientific terms that confuse people more, unfortunately it doesn't confuse our body or thermodynamics, which is what counts.....people will always be confused.
I think there are a lot of problems, from a purely technical perspective, on how we measure almost everything related to weight management. Given that we (presumably) eat a wide variety of food with differing TEF and bioavailability, the TDEE is really always going to be a best-guess average of a 'normal' day of eating. Which, given the standards of food labeling and weighing and whatnot, works, because your intake is always going to be a best-guess average as well. You're dealing with a lot of imprecision when you're counting all of this stuff. So from a real-world perspective, it might not matter -- if the differences are negligible, or if to actually have precision, you're spending all of your day measuring food to the 1/1000th of a gram, it might not be worth worrying about to the average person.
From a science perspective, though, novel ideas are worth studying if only that they give us a better understanding of our bodies and the way we process foods. The knowledge is valuable for the future -- because good science goes where data brings us, you don't really know what we can learn by going down certain paths. If one of those paths ends up giving us another alternative dietary strategy that is scientifically sound, that's a good thing, in my opinion.0 -
Okay, I actually did read the article, and this is another example of someone with a writing background trying to teach people about a subject she seems to know little about. She interviewed some people and is clearly ill-equipped to challenge anything they told her because nutrition is not her area of expertise.
Her article starts with the premise that weight-loss may not really be just a matter of energy balance, and instead of explaining why, she launches into a discussion of how cooked food takes less energy to digest than raw food. What does that have to do with anything? Is the difference really so large that eating a diet of mostly cooked food is going to prevent me from losing weight because I'm relying on nutrition labels that are not 100% accurate? No. It isn't.
Losing, gaining, or maintaining weight is entirely about energy balance. A calorie IS just a calorie. If you want to get into a more nuanced discussion of how different kinds of foods affect different people or the margin of error on nutrition labels or the nutritional difference between a raw chicken breast and a cooked one, then put a different label on it, because those discussions have little, if anything, to do with whether or not you can lose as much weight eating 2000 calories of processed food vs. 2000 calories of raw, whole food.0 -
The title of thread is "Is a calorie just a calorie?" and that's what OP is implying, that it isn't, by offering this irrelevant article what talks about something completelly else. That's what I was replying to...
Obviously food digests differently. And that's nothing new, there have been countless studies and research, that's proven. It should be a know fact by now. But people should not take atricles what writes about it implying that it has something to do with calorie itself and actual "quality of calorie"... there's no such thing.
A secondary point that the article makes would be about concepts like denaturing proteins - that speaks not necessarily to the calorie impact of the food, but to the usability of the nutrient itself. If a piece of food X has 5g of protein, but when cooked, the proteins are denatured and unusable, one should not count 5g for protein intake, because that food may not be supplying the essential components of protein which are needed for life (which is why we count protein in the first place).
That speaks directly to the nutritional quality of a given calorie and is a pretty interesting point.0 -
But this obviously is hard to digest...
LOL0 -
IN for snarkiness
TL/DR
However, this is subjective...like medicine is subjective. The calorie is subjective according to what the body does with it. And there are a million different variables that could effect that usage...
NO, I do not believe that one calorie going into the body is just like another calorie. I know my body uses them differently, some go straight to my *kitten*, and some like to fuel my workouts. Oversimplification, yes...but so is saying a calorie is a calorie.
And I'm one of those freaky americans who use cups...
and this IS me being serious...for realz....take some nutrition and anatomy & physiology classes...eventually you stop trying to over simplify the science.
0 -
I like.Okay, I actually did read the article, and this is another example of someone with a writing background trying to teach people about a subject she seems to know little about. She interviewed some people and is clearly ill-equipped to challenge anything they told her because nutrition is not her area of expertise.
Her article starts with the premise that weight-loss may not really be just a matter of energy balance, and instead of explaining why, she launches into a discussion of how cooked food takes less energy to digest than raw food. What does that have to do with anything? Is the difference really so large that eating a diet of mostly cooked food is going to prevent me from losing weight because I'm relying on nutrition labels that are not 100% accurate? No. It isn't.
Losing, gaining, or maintaining weight is entirely about energy balance. A calorie IS just a calorie. If you want to get into a more nuanced discussion of how different kinds of foods affect different people or the margin of error on nutrition labels or the nutritional difference between a raw chicken breast and a cooked one, then put a different label on it, because those discussions have little, if anything, to do with whether or not you can lose as much weight eating 2000 calories of processed food vs. 2000 calories of raw, whole food.
0 -
Losing, gaining, or maintaining weight is entirely about energy balance. A calorie IS just a calorie. If you want to get into a more nuanced discussion of how different kinds of foods affect different people or the margin of error on nutrition labels or the nutritional difference between a raw chicken breast and a cooked one, then put a different label on it, because those discussions have little, if anything, to do with whether or not you can lose as much weight eating 2000 calories of processed food vs. 2000 calories of raw, whole food.
I think you're missing the point of the article (and the resulting discussion). I'm not putting it in terms of processed food versus whole foods, just one food versus another food.
See my points above -- the article's hypothesis (and I agree -- it's not very well written or well sourced, but it's not a medical journal, so I take what I can) is that the measurement of a calorie at the mouth provides an incorrect measurement of the amount of net calories the food puts into our system.
It's saying that 2000 calories at the mouth of food X might correspond to 1800 usable calories to our bodies (as there is a digestive cost in calories for everything we take in), whereas 2000 calories at the mouth of food Y might correspond to 1700 usable calories (as the digestive cost is different).
They're not arguing energy balance at all. If anything, they're arguing for a paradigm shift in how we measure calorie intake and TDEE - the hypothesis is "[o]ur current system for assessing calories is surely wrong".0 -
Quality of the calories is NOT just as important as the quantity of calories when it comes to weight loss.
It might be important to general overall health and body composition, but that doesn't mean that one should completely deny themselves indulgent food either, as it may not be good for mental health.
Honestly, good health and nutrition is about finding balance.0 -
Geniuses are like thunderstorms. They go against the wind, terrify people, cleanse the air.Losing, gaining, or maintaining weight is entirely about energy balance. A calorie IS just a calorie. If you want to get into a more nuanced discussion of how different kinds of foods affect different people or the margin of error on nutrition labels or the nutritional difference between a raw chicken breast and a cooked one, then put a different label on it, because those discussions have little, if anything, to do with whether or not you can lose as much weight eating 2000 calories of processed food vs. 2000 calories of raw, whole food.
I think you're missing the point of the article (and the resulting discussion). I'm not putting it in terms of processed food versus whole foods, just one food versus another food.
See my points above -- the article's hypothesis (and I agree -- it's not very well written or well sourced, but it's not a medical journal, so I take what I can) is that the measurement of a calorie at the mouth provides an incorrect measurement of the amount of net calories the food puts into our system.
It's saying that 2000 calories at the mouth of food X might correspond to 1800 usable calories to our bodies (as there is a digestive cost in calories for everything we take in), whereas 2000 calories at the mouth of food Y might correspond to 1700 usable calories (as the digestive cost is different).
They're not arguing energy balance at all. If anything, they're arguing for a paradigm shift in how we measure calorie intake and TDEE - the hypothesis is "[o]ur current system for assessing calories is surely wrong".
Kierkegaard
Paradigm shifts can be scary when the minds are stagnant.0 -
From my research, which again means little, TEF is pretty much inconsequential in a fairly balanced diet. Of course if one was consuming a high refined carb and fat diet compared to a high protein and vegetable diet there could be a measurable difference. Even is we calculated TEF at say 10%, it's still falls well short of the basic counting calorie error of 20 to 50% by most of the population.........Losing, gaining, or maintaining weight is entirely about energy balance. A calorie IS just a calorie. If you want to get into a more nuanced discussion of how different kinds of foods affect different people or the margin of error on nutrition labels or the nutritional difference between a raw chicken breast and a cooked one, then put a different label on it, because those discussions have little, if anything, to do with whether or not you can lose as much weight eating 2000 calories of processed food vs. 2000 calories of raw, whole food.
I think you're missing the point of the article (and the resulting discussion). I'm not putting it in terms of processed food versus whole foods, just one food versus another food.
See my points above -- the article's hypothesis (and I agree -- it's not very well written or well sourced, but it's not a medical journal, so I take what I can) is that the measurement of a calorie at the mouth provides an incorrect measurement of the amount of net calories the food puts into our system.
It's saying that 2000 calories at the mouth of food X might correspond to 1800 usable calories to our bodies (as there is a digestive cost in calories for everything we take in), whereas 2000 calories at the mouth of food Y might correspond to 1700 usable calories (as the digestive cost is different).
They're not arguing energy balance at all. If anything, they're arguing for a paradigm shift in how we measure calorie intake and TDEE - the hypothesis is "[o]ur current system for assessing calories is surely wrong".0 -
For what it's worth, Alan Aragon is currently tackling this argument in the current AARR.
My cliffs notes opinions on this topic:
1) The argument itself usually consists of both sides taking their position to extremes resulting in both sides making fundamentally incorrect statements. Typical exclusion of the middle.
2) Calories are just units of energy but the amount of usable energy is not the same as the amount of energy the food contains before being consumed. Fortunately this isn't new information (TEF/DIT being one example)
But unless you're making quite significant shifts in macronutrient composition of the diet, I don't think it's likely that this difference in energy availability is going to be large. Will it make a difference if someone goes from consuming a very low protein diet to a moderate/high protein diet? Probably. Will it make a difference if someone shifts 20g from one macronutrient to another? Not so much.
Once you get going, get your calories and macronutrients set up intelligently, and start tracking with some degree of accuracy, a "simple" energy balance model can be quite accurate and reliable. If you just put your calories at X and eat w/e you want with no regard towards micro or macronutrition I'd argue you're doing it wrong to begin with.0 -
Interesting article challenging the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" argument:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/02/calorie-counting/
I personally agree with this article, that the quality of calories is just as important as the quantity. Discussion?
Ready.....GO!
It's full of contradiction with a quote from Ludwig at the end. No beuno.0 -
Losing, gaining, or maintaining weight is entirely about energy balance. A calorie IS just a calorie. If you want to get into a more nuanced discussion of how different kinds of foods affect different people or the margin of error on nutrition labels or the nutritional difference between a raw chicken breast and a cooked one, then put a different label on it, because those discussions have little, if anything, to do with whether or not you can lose as much weight eating 2000 calories of processed food vs. 2000 calories of raw, whole food.
I think you're missing the point of the article (and the resulting discussion). I'm not putting it in terms of processed food versus whole foods, just one food versus another food.
See my points above -- the article's hypothesis (and I agree -- it's not very well written or well sourced, but it's not a medical journal, so I take what I can) is that the measurement of a calorie at the mouth provides an incorrect measurement of the amount of net calories the food puts into our system.
It's saying that 2000 calories at the mouth of food X might correspond to 1800 usable calories to our bodies (as there is a digestive cost in calories for everything we take in), whereas 2000 calories at the mouth of food Y might correspond to 1700 usable calories (as the digestive cost is different).
They're not arguing energy balance at all. If anything, they're arguing for a paradigm shift in how we measure calorie intake and TDEE - the hypothesis is "[o]ur current system for assessing calories is surely wrong".
No, I'm one of the only people who even bothered to READ the article, so I'm not missing the point. The author of the article is missing the point. She IS arguing energy balance in the very first paragraph, and then she goes on to talk about something totally different.0 -
From my research, which again means little, TEF is pretty much inconsequential in a fairly balanced diet. Of course if one was consuming a high refined carb and fat diet compared to a high protein and vegetable diet there could be a measurable difference. Even is we calculated TEF at say 10%, it's still falls well short of the basic counting calorie error of 20 to 50% by most of the population.........
I'm inclined to agree with you, at least as my prediction of what a back-of-the-napkin type experiment would result in.
I just think, if someone is going to take a counter position to the article, they should at least grok what the article is saying. Most of our conversation (meaning, you and I) has taken into account the distinction between scientific knowledge and practical application, something that the article also mentions in the conclusion:Why does all of this matter? Because we’re in the midst of an obesity epidemic and counting calories has been misleading, said David Ludwig, a pediatric endocrinologist at Children’s Hospital Boston and Harvard Medical School. How the body processes different foods in different ways matters. “The quality of calories is as important as the quantity of calories.” While others not on the panel welcome applying “the best science” to the problem of weight loss, they also provide a word of caution about getting too worried about precise calorie counts. “You can put a ton of effort into getting more accurate calorie counts,” says nutrition scientist Christopher Gardner of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. “But why are you doing this? Will it make a real difference? If you want to lose weight, you still have to cut back on calories.” A few calories here and there may not matter to most people. But to the panel members, every little bit counts.
The problem here is that the oft-repeated "all calories are the same" statement is either:
a. Pedantic, in that they're referring to a packet of energy, or
b. Simplistic, in that they're not taking into account all biological processes.
However, anything that challenges this notion must be intrinsically faulty and therefore, be attacked.
Upon the topic of whether or not the differences between foods that we've discussed actually matters at this point to an average Joe-Schmoe calorie counter, reasonable people can disagree, I think. We are absent much of the data that would allow us to form a consensus as to how much any of it actually has an impact on obesity and public health.
On the belief that any calorie is treated the same as any other calorie, though, I don't think that there can be a reasonable disagreement on that. We've known for years that that isn't the case.0 -
This is why I read articles like this one, but don't take them to heart. This discussion proves that points they make are so vague, that everybody seems to be interpreting them in their own way.
After years of trial and error I personally decided to KISS (keep it simple, stupid):
- calorie quantity for weight control
- calorie quality for general healthy
- exercise for general fitness and aesthetics
Works for me!0 -
No, I'm one of the only people who even bothered to READ the article, so I'm not missing the point. The author of the article is missing the point. She IS arguing energy balance in the very first paragraph, and then she goes on to talk about something totally different.
I quoted from the first paragraph of the article: "[o]ur current system for assessing calories is surely wrong" (emphasis mine).
That's not an argument against energy balance. That's an argument against our current methodologies of assessment -- i.e., how we count. An argument against energy balance would be an argument that attacks the fact that we count, at all.0 -
Losing, gaining, or maintaining weight is entirely about energy balance. A calorie IS just a calorie. If you want to get into a more nuanced discussion of how different kinds of foods affect different people or the margin of error on nutrition labels or the nutritional difference between a raw chicken breast and a cooked one, then put a different label on it, because those discussions have little, if anything, to do with whether or not you can lose as much weight eating 2000 calories of processed food vs. 2000 calories of raw, whole food.
I think you're missing the point of the article (and the resulting discussion). I'm not putting it in terms of processed food versus whole foods, just one food versus another food.
See my points above -- the article's hypothesis (and I agree -- it's not very well written or well sourced, but it's not a medical journal, so I take what I can) is that the measurement of a calorie at the mouth provides an incorrect measurement of the amount of net calories the food puts into our system.
It's saying that 2000 calories at the mouth of food X might correspond to 1800 usable calories to our bodies (as there is a digestive cost in calories for everything we take in), whereas 2000 calories at the mouth of food Y might correspond to 1700 usable calories (as the digestive cost is different).
They're not arguing energy balance at all. If anything, they're arguing for a paradigm shift in how we measure calorie intake and TDEE - the hypothesis is "[o]ur current system for assessing calories is surely wrong".
No, I'm one of the only people who even bothered to READ the article, so I'm not missing the point. The author of the article is missing the point. She IS arguing energy balance in the very first paragraph, and then she goes on to talk about something totally different.
Exactly. This is what I was referring to as contradictory. Also, in the beginning, it's stated how calorie counts are all wrong, then at the end, it says not to attempt precision in calorie-counting. And the point is that yes, you *can't* be exactly precise, but if you are careful, you can be damn close, and with a 500ish daily calorie deficit, that's close enough.0 -
For what it's worth, Alan Aragon is currently tackling this argument in the current AARR.
My cliffs notes opinions on this topic:
1) The argument itself usually consists of both sides taking their position to extremes resulting in both sides making fundamentally incorrect statements. Typical exclusion of the middle.
2) Calories are just units of energy but the amount of usable energy is not the same as the amount of energy the food contains before being consumed. Fortunately this isn't new information (TEF/DIT being one example)
But unless you're making quite significant shifts in macronutrient composition of the diet, I don't think it's likely that this difference in energy availability is going to be large. Will it make a difference if someone goes from consuming a very low protein diet to a moderate/high protein diet? Probably. Will it make a difference if someone shifts 20g from one macronutrient to another? Not so much.
Once you get going, get your calories and macronutrients set up intelligently, and start tracking with some degree of accuracy, a "simple" energy balance model can be quite accurate and reliable. If you just put your calories at X and eat w/e you want with no regard towards micro or macronutrition I'd argue you're doing it wrong to begin with.
Sidesteel summing up Aragon FTW!0 -
For what it's worth, Alan Aragon is currently tackling this argument in the current AARR.
My cliffs notes opinions on this topic:
1) The argument itself usually consists of both sides taking their position to extremes resulting in both sides making fundamentally incorrect statements. Typical exclusion of the middle.
2) Calories are just units of energy but the amount of usable energy is not the same as the amount of energy the food contains before being consumed. Fortunately this isn't new information (TEF/DIT being one example)
But unless you're making quite significant shifts in macronutrient composition of the diet, I don't think it's likely that this difference in energy availability is going to be large. Will it make a difference if someone goes from consuming a very low protein diet to a moderate/high protein diet? Probably. Will it make a difference if someone shifts 20g from one macronutrient to another? Not so much.
Once you get going, get your calories and macronutrients set up intelligently, and start tracking with some degree of accuracy, a "simple" energy balance model can be quite accurate and reliable. If you just put your calories at X and eat w/e you want with no regard towards micro or macronutrition I'd argue you're doing it wrong to begin with.
It's rare that I find myself in alignment with what you say, but I don't really disagree with anything in this post.
I guess, with a possible exception to point 1 being the two fronts that this topic can be discussed on. From a logical perspective, the excluded middle is an error. From a scientific perspective, we normally test at the boundaries to see if something is true, deliberately excluding the middle. Mainly because the science shouldn't be immediately concerned with the ramifications of a finding, but primarily concern itself with whether a given hypothesis is either true, or not.0 -
Exactly. This is what I was referring to as contradictory. Also, in the beginning, it's stated how calorie counts are all wrong, then at the end, it says not to attempt precision in calorie-counting. And the point is that yes, you *can't* be exactly precise, but if you are careful, you can be damn close, and with a 500ish daily calorie deficit, that's close enough.
I think where you and the other poster fail is that you read an article like this an immediately assume that it's taking a position that you are doing something wrong and need to do something about it.
What the article actually does, is this:
1. Points out that a school of thought is emerging that challenges the way we have conceptualized calorie counting.
2. Gives some history of how our current thinking came about
3. Gives some examples as to why some people are questioning whether our assessment model is correct
4. Concludes by saying that the differences might not make a difference for most people, and that doing things the way we currently do is still an acceptable method.
In short, you're ascribing a motive to the article where one may not exist.
Interestingly, you also high-fived SideSteel on his response, which actually goes a step further than the article and states that these effects may matter when dealing with large macronutrient shifts - something the article never argues.0 -
This thread is a typical example of why science isn't advancing quicker. Some individuals are driven by the need to prove others wrong and they enjoy dissecting the writings of others. They also refuse to take what is good in something, then build on top of that through brainstorming and acceptance of differing personalities. Instead they seek out the bad, harp on it endlessly and quit only once they feel like they "won". With the collective intelligence of this forum, mountains could be moved, but it never will, at least as long as people keep viewing each other as various sorts of rivals. Foldit consists of layman gamers yet they did something big together. Some scientists are too bookish and could use the experience from "the streets", whereas those who read popular science only could benefit from a laid-back dialogue with writers of research articles. Minds are small.0
-
I think many of us could benefit from not over complicating things.0
-
Exactly. This is what I was referring to as contradictory. Also, in the beginning, it's stated how calorie counts are all wrong, then at the end, it says not to attempt precision in calorie-counting. And the point is that yes, you *can't* be exactly precise, but if you are careful, you can be damn close, and with a 500ish daily calorie deficit, that's close enough.
I think where you and the other poster fail is that you read an article like this an immediately assume that it's taking a position that you are doing something wrong and need to do something about it.
What the article actually does, is this:
1. Points out that a school of thought is emerging that challenges the way we have conceptualized calorie counting.
2. Gives some history of how our current thinking came about
3. Gives some examples as to why some people are questioning whether our assessment model is correct
4. Concludes by saying that the differences might not make a difference for most people, and that doing things the way we currently do is still an acceptable method.
In short, you're ascribing a motive to the article where one may not exist.
Interestingly, you also high-fived SideSteel on his response, which actually goes a step further than the article and states that these effects may matter when dealing with large macronutrient shifts - something the article never argues.
Well you thought wrong. I agree that calorie counting can not be precise. I agree that Americans have a wrong conception about calories. (before MFP, I did too) I am not ascribing a motive, simply pointing out the contradictions.0 -
I think many of us could benefit from not over complicating things.
:drinker:0 -
Well you thought wrong. I agree that calorie counting can not be precise. I agree that Americans have a wrong conception about calories. (before MFP, I did too) I am not ascribing a motive, simply pointing out the contradictions.
I guess it's possible, but unlikely. You're pointing out contradictions in the article where none exist.0 -
This thread is a typical example of why science isn't advancing quicker. Some individuals are driven by the need to prove others wrong and they enjoy dissecting the writings of others. They also refuse to take what is good in something, then build on top of that through brainstorming and acceptance of differing personalities. Instead they seek out the bad, harp on it endlessly and quit only once they feel like they "won". With the collective intelligence of this forum, mountains could be moved, but it never will, at least as long as people keep viewing each other as various sorts of rivals. Foldit consists of layman gamers yet they did something big together. Some scientists are too bookish and could use the experience from "the streets", whereas those who read popular science only could benefit from a laid-back dialogue with writers of research articles. Minds are small.
Oh I disagree completely, and not just to be contrary. Dissent and competition are whats drives science and humans forward. The desire to excel, find answers etc...that is what makes us high on the food chain. Only when we question what we know do we surpass our current knowledge. Hell even in non-scientific fields we are taught to question, my very wise priest told me when you question your faith, that is when you have your first religious experience. So, yes, I strongly disagree with your statement. We are all rivals for knowledge, competitors for health...and that is what makes us great! Can we also be kind and supportive, hell to the YES!0 -
I think many of us could benefit from not over complicating things.
Yes, and when someone makes a post that says, "hey, I'm completely new to this and I want to lose some weight," my response will be based on practical application of the science behind weight loss and will likely be very simple.
This post is about the science itself. Simplification doesn't benefit anyone -- if you'd like to have a simple conversation about applying the science, you can. It's just not the conversation this article sparked, nor should it.0 -
This thread is a typical example of why science isn't advancing quicker. Some individuals are driven by the need to prove others wrong and they enjoy dissecting the writings of others. They also refuse to take what is good in something, then build on top of that through brainstorming and acceptance of differing personalities. Instead they seek out the bad, harp on it endlessly and quit only once they feel like they "won". With the collective intelligence of this forum, mountains could be moved, but it never will, at least as long as people keep viewing each other as various sorts of rivals. Foldit consists of layman gamers yet they did something big together. Some scientists are too bookish and could use the experience from "the streets", whereas those who read popular science only could benefit from a laid-back dialogue with writers of research articles. Minds are small.
Oh I disagree completely, and not just to be contrary. Dissent and competition are whats drives science and humans forward. The desire to excel, find answers etc...that is what makes us high on the food chain. Only when we question what we know do we surpass our current knowledge. Hell even in non-scientific fields we are taught to question, my very wise priest told me when you question your faith, that is when you have your first religious experience. So, yes, I strongly disagree with your statement. We are all rivals for knowledge, competitors for health...and that is what makes us great! Can we also be kind and supportive, hell to the YES!
I'm not sure you two disagree, though I think the first post was rather inelegantly phrased at that point. Putting a bunch of people in a room to have a discussion is a much better exercise if significant disagreement exists, especially in the realm of novel science. You test hypothesis, and rule out ones that don't work. I don't think the first post would disagree with that at all.
It is important, though, that everyone in the room is actually having the same conversation, which is something that is lost frequently. It doesn't just occur here, though the internet likely magnifies the experience. It's like saying, "OK, we're going to have a conversation about the best type of socks to wear for hiking. A handful of people are proponents of wool socks, a handful are proponents of cotton socks, a handful are a proponent of synthetic fibers, and are arguing the merits of each. A fourth group is sitting in the corner yelling "SOCKS ARE AWESOME, YOU SHOULD WEAR THEM!" Technically not something anyone in the room would disagree with, but completely besides the point, because that's not the conversation that everyone else is having.
Among the first three groups, if they're science minded, they'd eventually design a few experiments, run them, and see what the data says -- then make a conclusion. The fourth group would be, and should be, left out. They're not interested in the discussion the other group is having.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions