Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Unpopular opinions
Replies
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
I dunno - I hated steak well into adulthood because growing up economically pinched the only steak we ever had was a pan-fried cheap cut that was so tough I could barely chew it. When I was finally introduced to a good cut of meat prepared properly I was converted, but honestly, I wouldn't even have tried it without a lot of persuasion.
I had that same experience when I was a kid. Chuck steak was tougher than a boiled owl.
Have ever tried to get an owl into a crockpot, they are tough. Lol8 -
KrazyKrissyy wrote: »KrazyKrissyy wrote: »Fiber is unnecessary
But what if all we ate was steak sandwiches and we got constipated?
Fiber constipates me (no matter how much water I drink). Fiber is unnecessary roughage and taxing to the intestines. I've dramatically lowered fiber and am finally having regular bowel movements and less bloating/pain.
It has the opposite affect on me. My fiber intake is now 40g+ a day and I'm 'regular' 2-3 times a day. To each their own!0 -
KrazyKrissyy wrote: »Fiber is unnecessary
It's real necessary for me. If I don't get close to what MFP recommends for me I'm super constipated.2 -
KrazyKrissyy wrote: »KrazyKrissyy wrote: »Fiber is unnecessary
But what if all we ate was steak sandwiches and we got constipated?
Fiber constipates me (no matter how much water I drink). Fiber is unnecessary roughage and taxing to the intestines. I've dramatically lowered fiber and am finally having regular bowel movements and less bloating/pain.
Your own personal digestive issues are not indicative of the dietary needs of healthy individuals.15 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
I dunno - I hated steak well into adulthood because growing up economically pinched the only steak we ever had was a pan-fried cheap cut that was so tough I could barely chew it. When I was finally introduced to a good cut of meat prepared properly I was converted, but honestly, I wouldn't even have tried it without a lot of persuasion.
I had that same experience when I was a kid. Chuck steak was tougher than a boiled owl.
Have ever tried to get an owl into a crockpot, they are tough. Lol
It wasn't ever anything I felt the need to do. Not even when I'm really hungry. :laugh:5 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
I dunno - I hated steak well into adulthood because growing up economically pinched the only steak we ever had was a pan-fried cheap cut that was so tough I could barely chew it. When I was finally introduced to a good cut of meat prepared properly I was converted, but honestly, I wouldn't even have tried it without a lot of persuasion.
I had that same experience when I was a kid. Chuck steak was tougher than a boiled owl.
Have ever tried to get an owl into a crockpot, they are tough. Lol
Let's back up. Have you ever tried catching an owl in order to put it in the crockpot?
4 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
I dunno - I hated steak well into adulthood because growing up economically pinched the only steak we ever had was a pan-fried cheap cut that was so tough I could barely chew it. When I was finally introduced to a good cut of meat prepared properly I was converted, but honestly, I wouldn't even have tried it without a lot of persuasion.
I had that same experience when I was a kid. Chuck steak was tougher than a boiled owl.
Have ever tried to get an owl into a crockpot, they are tough. Lol
Let's back up. Have you ever tried catching an owl in order to put it in the crockpot?
You have to be very very sneaky.2 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
I dunno - I hated steak well into adulthood because growing up economically pinched the only steak we ever had was a pan-fried cheap cut that was so tough I could barely chew it. When I was finally introduced to a good cut of meat prepared properly I was converted, but honestly, I wouldn't even have tried it without a lot of persuasion.
I had that same experience when I was a kid. Chuck steak was tougher than a boiled owl.
Have ever tried to get an owl into a crockpot, they are tough. Lol
Let's back up. Have you ever tried catching an owl in order to put it in the crockpot?
You have to be very very sneaky.
The whole process is a big hoot.16 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
I dunno - I hated steak well into adulthood because growing up economically pinched the only steak we ever had was a pan-fried cheap cut that was so tough I could barely chew it. When I was finally introduced to a good cut of meat prepared properly I was converted, but honestly, I wouldn't even have tried it without a lot of persuasion.
I had that same experience when I was a kid. Chuck steak was tougher than a boiled owl.
Have ever tried to get an owl into a crockpot, they are tough. Lol
Let's back up. Have you ever tried catching an owl in order to put it in the crockpot?
You have to be very very sneaky.
Do owls taste like chicken? Inquiring minds want to know.
1 -
IMO, owls taste like unicorns.8
-
L1zardQueen wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
I dunno - I hated steak well into adulthood because growing up economically pinched the only steak we ever had was a pan-fried cheap cut that was so tough I could barely chew it. When I was finally introduced to a good cut of meat prepared properly I was converted, but honestly, I wouldn't even have tried it without a lot of persuasion.
I had that same experience when I was a kid. Chuck steak was tougher than a boiled owl.
Have ever tried to get an owl into a crockpot, they are tough. Lol
Let's back up. Have you ever tried catching an owl in order to put it in the crockpot?
You have to be very very sneaky.
Do owls taste like chicken? Inquiring minds want to know.
More like Bald Eagles.....3 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
I dunno - I hated steak well into adulthood because growing up economically pinched the only steak we ever had was a pan-fried cheap cut that was so tough I could barely chew it. When I was finally introduced to a good cut of meat prepared properly I was converted, but honestly, I wouldn't even have tried it without a lot of persuasion.
I had that same experience when I was a kid. Chuck steak was tougher than a boiled owl.
Have ever tried to get an owl into a crockpot, they are tough. Lol
Let's back up. Have you ever tried catching an owl in order to put it in the crockpot?
You have to be very very sneaky.
Do owls taste like chicken? Inquiring minds want to know.
More like Bald Eagles.....
You are Canadian? We eat turkey down here.3 -
I'm probably going to get woo'd into another dimension here but here goes.
CICO is not exactly true.
A version of CICO is true where CI is not the calories that go into your body. It's the calories you are able to extract from the food. We don't have that information.
We determine calories in food by burning the food. Your body is not a furnace. To my knowledge, nobody has done laborious testing to determine how many calories you can extract from different foods using stomach acid, bile, etc. So that information is not available to us.
If you're about to inform me that you can lose weight eating Twinkies, you're missed my point. Of course you can do that. You're definitely not going to get more calories from something using your body than from burning it. Hell, maybe it's even harder for our GI tract to get Twinkie calories than kale calories. F if I know. That's my point.
Also, CO isn't something you can really calculate either. I mean, humans aren't machines with four setting that include sedentary, active.... so on. You can be sedentary but super fidgety and burn quite a few calories.
I don't know of a better way to lose weight than to act as though CICO is exactly true. So we can probably calm down a bit. There's no need for a huge flame war. Those are the best estimates available to us. They are far from accurate.
The best you can do is apply this CICO for a while until you get to a calculated Ci and CO that results in weight loss, from there you shoot for precision, not accuracy.
This solves the problem of people saying they are not losing at 1000 cal/day. The response is, "You aren't losing at what you've calculated to be 1000 cal/day. So adjust down to what you calculate to be 800 cal/day."
"But 1000 is so little."
"It's not actually 1000. Nobody is eating the calories we think we're eating. We're all just estimating at best. Some better than others. Either dramatically change the way you estimate your calories or adjust down."
Hell, I know I'm not getting 1600. Don't care. If I start losing weight, I'll continue doing what I'm doing. If not, I'll make a change.
That super long thread here where a guy claims to have tracked his calories to the point where he lost the exact amount calculated he should lose, that is just a huge fluke.
Even if our estimates of CI and CO are flawed...that doesn't mean that CICO itself is wrong. CICO is just thermodynamics....its true, as true as anything we know. What you are talking about is skepticism on how accurate our measurements of CI and CO are in terms of human food consumption and energy usage and how that potentially varies across the population. Okay....not sure how that makes CICO not true and its application in terms of dieting not useful. If you track your weight over time and count the calories you consume and the trend does not match the expectations based on population stats then you can adjust based on the results you get. Data is useful...collecting it can help....I fail to see how not collecting it is the better option.
As for it being a huge fluke that if you track calories it will match your weight loss....well, no. Because the calculators and estimates we employ are based on population averages and statistics and so by definition most people will find that it is fairly accurate. Not sure why you would assume that most people would find it inaccurate.
You'd have to go out several sigma before youd see a disconnect between formulas and results assuming accurate tracking and at that point if you have the data you can just adjust the formulas...which of course you can only do if you have the data from tracking.
Are the assumptions and formulas used to calculate CI and CO going to be 100% exact for everyone...well, no....but nothing is and it doesn't have to be to be extremely useful. Chances are (and I mean that in the literal stats sense) that of someone calorie tracking and it doesn't match their weight change it will be more likely to be inaccurate tracking than 3-sigma special snowflake status.17 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
I dunno - I hated steak well into adulthood because growing up economically pinched the only steak we ever had was a pan-fried cheap cut that was so tough I could barely chew it. When I was finally introduced to a good cut of meat prepared properly I was converted, but honestly, I wouldn't even have tried it without a lot of persuasion.
I had that same experience when I was a kid. Chuck steak was tougher than a boiled owl.
Have ever tried to get an owl into a crockpot, they are tough. Lol
Let's back up. Have you ever tried catching an owl in order to put it in the crockpot?
It's easy. You put a dead mouse in the crockpot, sit the crockpot outside, and wait.
And what restaurant even serves owl?Hooters14 -
This content has been removed.
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Are the assumptions and formulas used to calculate CI and CO going to be 100% exact for everyone...well, no....but nothing is and it doesn't have to be to be extremely useful. Chances are (and I mean that in the literal stats sense) that of someone calorie tracking and it doesn't match their weight change it will be more likely to be inaccurate tracking than 3-sigma special snowflake status.
Was thinking about this and I think I thought of a good example of something else that is accepted as "good enough" to clarify.
My speedometer is off by 2%. So when I'm going 100kmh, my truck says 102. I've tested this against a GPS. GM (my truck brand) calibrates their speedos to a standard tire size, but it might not be the exact size they put on. And tire size varies from brand to brand. VW (from what I understand) can be as much as 5% off. Probably to help fake MPG numbers. But all in all, it's good enough and you don't really need to care unless you seriously go from stock size (like offroaders will do). Cops and the courts understand this and don't target the exact speed limit, but allow wiggle room. Some more than others, but always enough to cover the difference. It also means if you are diligently driving the speed limit, as per your speedo, you may be passed by someone doing the same thing with.
The calorie estimates are "good enough". If your experience is dramatically different, then you are likely making a mistake. Yeah, there are people with absorption issues (and guys running 44 inch tires), but in general you either know about them or need to see a doctor. Barring a serious medical issue, you are going to be good enough with the models.
15 -
#1 You don't need amazing willpower or motivation from other people to lose weight. If you do need those things then your plan is probably wrong for you.
12 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Are the assumptions and formulas used to calculate CI and CO going to be 100% exact for everyone...well, no....but nothing is and it doesn't have to be to be extremely useful. Chances are (and I mean that in the literal stats sense) that of someone calorie tracking and it doesn't match their weight change it will be more likely to be inaccurate tracking than 3-sigma special snowflake status.
Was thinking about this and I think I thought of a good example of something else that is accepted as "good enough" to clarify.
My speedometer is off by 2%. So when I'm going 100kmh, my truck says 102. I've tested this against a GPS. GM (my truck brand) calibrates their speedos to a standard tire size, but it might not be the exact size they put on. And tire size varies from brand to brand. VW (from what I understand) can be as much as 5% off. Probably to help fake MPG numbers. But all in all, it's good enough and you don't really need to care unless you seriously go from stock size (like offroaders will do). Cops and the courts understand this and don't target the exact speed limit, but allow wiggle room. Some more than others, but always enough to cover the difference. It also means if you are diligently driving the speed limit, as per your speedo, you may be passed by someone doing the same thing with.
The calorie estimates are "good enough". If your experience is dramatically different, then you are likely making a mistake. Yeah, there are people with absorption issues (and guys running 44 inch tires), but in general you either know about them or need to see a doctor. Barring a serious medical issue, you are going to be good enough with the models.
What's the likelihood the expected error on my car is 20%? I feel like this could be compelling next time I'm doing 120 in a 100 zone.5 -
Math. Urgh3
-
L1zardQueen wrote: »Math. Urgh
That's why you go with big round numbers. Much easier to calculate 20% of 100.0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Are the assumptions and formulas used to calculate CI and CO going to be 100% exact for everyone...well, no....but nothing is and it doesn't have to be to be extremely useful. Chances are (and I mean that in the literal stats sense) that of someone calorie tracking and it doesn't match their weight change it will be more likely to be inaccurate tracking than 3-sigma special snowflake status.
Was thinking about this and I think I thought of a good example of something else that is accepted as "good enough" to clarify.
My speedometer is off by 2%. So when I'm going 100kmh, my truck says 102. I've tested this against a GPS. GM (my truck brand) calibrates their speedos to a standard tire size, but it might not be the exact size they put on. And tire size varies from brand to brand. VW (from what I understand) can be as much as 5% off. Probably to help fake MPG numbers. But all in all, it's good enough and you don't really need to care unless you seriously go from stock size (like offroaders will do). Cops and the courts understand this and don't target the exact speed limit, but allow wiggle room. Some more than others, but always enough to cover the difference. It also means if you are diligently driving the speed limit, as per your speedo, you may be passed by someone doing the same thing with.
The calorie estimates are "good enough". If your experience is dramatically different, then you are likely making a mistake. Yeah, there are people with absorption issues (and guys running 44 inch tires), but in general you either know about them or need to see a doctor. Barring a serious medical issue, you are going to be good enough with the models.
What's the likelihood the expected error on my car is 20%? I feel like this could be compelling next time I'm doing 120 in a 100 zone.
Have you got 44 inch tires on it?
I've seen guys who are off that much. Most get it fixed at the tranny/transfer case with aftermarket products or software patches.1 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Math. Urgh
That's why you go with big round numbers. Much easier to calculate 20% of 100.
Yeah, well I'm an accountant so I use my high school algebra most days.
0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Are the assumptions and formulas used to calculate CI and CO going to be 100% exact for everyone...well, no....but nothing is and it doesn't have to be to be extremely useful. Chances are (and I mean that in the literal stats sense) that of someone calorie tracking and it doesn't match their weight change it will be more likely to be inaccurate tracking than 3-sigma special snowflake status.
Was thinking about this and I think I thought of a good example of something else that is accepted as "good enough" to clarify.
My speedometer is off by 2%. So when I'm going 100kmh, my truck says 102. I've tested this against a GPS. GM (my truck brand) calibrates their speedos to a standard tire size, but it might not be the exact size they put on. And tire size varies from brand to brand. VW (from what I understand) can be as much as 5% off. Probably to help fake MPG numbers. But all in all, it's good enough and you don't really need to care unless you seriously go from stock size (like offroaders will do). Cops and the courts understand this and don't target the exact speed limit, but allow wiggle room. Some more than others, but always enough to cover the difference. It also means if you are diligently driving the speed limit, as per your speedo, you may be passed by someone doing the same thing with.
The calorie estimates are "good enough". If your experience is dramatically different, then you are likely making a mistake. Yeah, there are people with absorption issues (and guys running 44 inch tires), but in general you either know about them or need to see a doctor. Barring a serious medical issue, you are going to be good enough with the models.
What's the likelihood the expected error on my car is 20%? I feel like this could be compelling next time I'm doing 120 in a 100 zone.
Have you got 44 inch tires on it?
I've seen guys who are off that much. Most get it fixed at the tranny/transfer case with aftermarket products or software patches.
44 inch tires on my car would look a lot like this:
7 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Are the assumptions and formulas used to calculate CI and CO going to be 100% exact for everyone...well, no....but nothing is and it doesn't have to be to be extremely useful. Chances are (and I mean that in the literal stats sense) that of someone calorie tracking and it doesn't match their weight change it will be more likely to be inaccurate tracking than 3-sigma special snowflake status.
Was thinking about this and I think I thought of a good example of something else that is accepted as "good enough" to clarify.
My speedometer is off by 2%. So when I'm going 100kmh, my truck says 102. I've tested this against a GPS. GM (my truck brand) calibrates their speedos to a standard tire size, but it might not be the exact size they put on. And tire size varies from brand to brand. VW (from what I understand) can be as much as 5% off. Probably to help fake MPG numbers. But all in all, it's good enough and you don't really need to care unless you seriously go from stock size (like offroaders will do). Cops and the courts understand this and don't target the exact speed limit, but allow wiggle room. Some more than others, but always enough to cover the difference. It also means if you are diligently driving the speed limit, as per your speedo, you may be passed by someone doing the same thing with.
The calorie estimates are "good enough". If your experience is dramatically different, then you are likely making a mistake. Yeah, there are people with absorption issues (and guys running 44 inch tires), but in general you either know about them or need to see a doctor. Barring a serious medical issue, you are going to be good enough with the models.
What's the likelihood the expected error on my car is 20%? I feel like this could be compelling next time I'm doing 120 in a 100 zone.
Have you got 44 inch tires on it?
I've seen guys who are off that much. Most get it fixed at the tranny/transfer case with aftermarket products or software patches.
44 inch tires on my car would look a lot like this:
And????1 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Are the assumptions and formulas used to calculate CI and CO going to be 100% exact for everyone...well, no....but nothing is and it doesn't have to be to be extremely useful. Chances are (and I mean that in the literal stats sense) that of someone calorie tracking and it doesn't match their weight change it will be more likely to be inaccurate tracking than 3-sigma special snowflake status.
Was thinking about this and I think I thought of a good example of something else that is accepted as "good enough" to clarify.
My speedometer is off by 2%. So when I'm going 100kmh, my truck says 102. I've tested this against a GPS. GM (my truck brand) calibrates their speedos to a standard tire size, but it might not be the exact size they put on. And tire size varies from brand to brand. VW (from what I understand) can be as much as 5% off. Probably to help fake MPG numbers. But all in all, it's good enough and you don't really need to care unless you seriously go from stock size (like offroaders will do). Cops and the courts understand this and don't target the exact speed limit, but allow wiggle room. Some more than others, but always enough to cover the difference. It also means if you are diligently driving the speed limit, as per your speedo, you may be passed by someone doing the same thing with.
The calorie estimates are "good enough". If your experience is dramatically different, then you are likely making a mistake. Yeah, there are people with absorption issues (and guys running 44 inch tires), but in general you either know about them or need to see a doctor. Barring a serious medical issue, you are going to be good enough with the models.
What's the likelihood the expected error on my car is 20%? I feel like this could be compelling next time I'm doing 120 in a 100 zone.
Have you got 44 inch tires on it?
I've seen guys who are off that much. Most get it fixed at the tranny/transfer case with aftermarket products or software patches.
44 inch tires on my car would look a lot like this:
And????
I'm short. I'd need a ladder to climb in. Seems like an awful lot of effort to get out of an alleged speeding ticket or two.2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Are the assumptions and formulas used to calculate CI and CO going to be 100% exact for everyone...well, no....but nothing is and it doesn't have to be to be extremely useful. Chances are (and I mean that in the literal stats sense) that of someone calorie tracking and it doesn't match their weight change it will be more likely to be inaccurate tracking than 3-sigma special snowflake status.
Was thinking about this and I think I thought of a good example of something else that is accepted as "good enough" to clarify.
My speedometer is off by 2%. So when I'm going 100kmh, my truck says 102. I've tested this against a GPS. GM (my truck brand) calibrates their speedos to a standard tire size, but it might not be the exact size they put on. And tire size varies from brand to brand. VW (from what I understand) can be as much as 5% off. Probably to help fake MPG numbers. But all in all, it's good enough and you don't really need to care unless you seriously go from stock size (like offroaders will do). Cops and the courts understand this and don't target the exact speed limit, but allow wiggle room. Some more than others, but always enough to cover the difference. It also means if you are diligently driving the speed limit, as per your speedo, you may be passed by someone doing the same thing with.
The calorie estimates are "good enough". If your experience is dramatically different, then you are likely making a mistake. Yeah, there are people with absorption issues (and guys running 44 inch tires), but in general you either know about them or need to see a doctor. Barring a serious medical issue, you are going to be good enough with the models.
What's the likelihood the expected error on my car is 20%? I feel like this could be compelling next time I'm doing 120 in a 100 zone.
Have you got 44 inch tires on it?
I've seen guys who are off that much. Most get it fixed at the tranny/transfer case with aftermarket products or software patches.
For this you have a serious answer.
Now that's funny. 2 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Are the assumptions and formulas used to calculate CI and CO going to be 100% exact for everyone...well, no....but nothing is and it doesn't have to be to be extremely useful. Chances are (and I mean that in the literal stats sense) that of someone calorie tracking and it doesn't match their weight change it will be more likely to be inaccurate tracking than 3-sigma special snowflake status.
Was thinking about this and I think I thought of a good example of something else that is accepted as "good enough" to clarify.
My speedometer is off by 2%. So when I'm going 100kmh, my truck says 102. I've tested this against a GPS. GM (my truck brand) calibrates their speedos to a standard tire size, but it might not be the exact size they put on. And tire size varies from brand to brand. VW (from what I understand) can be as much as 5% off. Probably to help fake MPG numbers. But all in all, it's good enough and you don't really need to care unless you seriously go from stock size (like offroaders will do). Cops and the courts understand this and don't target the exact speed limit, but allow wiggle room. Some more than others, but always enough to cover the difference. It also means if you are diligently driving the speed limit, as per your speedo, you may be passed by someone doing the same thing with.
The calorie estimates are "good enough". If your experience is dramatically different, then you are likely making a mistake. Yeah, there are people with absorption issues (and guys running 44 inch tires), but in general you either know about them or need to see a doctor. Barring a serious medical issue, you are going to be good enough with the models.
What's the likelihood the expected error on my car is 20%? I feel like this could be compelling next time I'm doing 120 in a 100 zone.
Good luck with that. I know what my answer to you would be.
Please sign at the bottom. Press hard, there's five copies.8 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Are the assumptions and formulas used to calculate CI and CO going to be 100% exact for everyone...well, no....but nothing is and it doesn't have to be to be extremely useful. Chances are (and I mean that in the literal stats sense) that of someone calorie tracking and it doesn't match their weight change it will be more likely to be inaccurate tracking than 3-sigma special snowflake status.
Was thinking about this and I think I thought of a good example of something else that is accepted as "good enough" to clarify.
My speedometer is off by 2%. So when I'm going 100kmh, my truck says 102. I've tested this against a GPS. GM (my truck brand) calibrates their speedos to a standard tire size, but it might not be the exact size they put on. And tire size varies from brand to brand. VW (from what I understand) can be as much as 5% off. Probably to help fake MPG numbers. But all in all, it's good enough and you don't really need to care unless you seriously go from stock size (like offroaders will do). Cops and the courts understand this and don't target the exact speed limit, but allow wiggle room. Some more than others, but always enough to cover the difference. It also means if you are diligently driving the speed limit, as per your speedo, you may be passed by someone doing the same thing with.
The calorie estimates are "good enough". If your experience is dramatically different, then you are likely making a mistake. Yeah, there are people with absorption issues (and guys running 44 inch tires), but in general you either know about them or need to see a doctor. Barring a serious medical issue, you are going to be good enough with the models.
What's the likelihood the expected error on my car is 20%? I feel like this could be compelling next time I'm doing 120 in a 100 zone.
Good luck with that. I know what my answer to you would be.Please sign at the bottom. Press hard, there's five copies.
Meanie.
4 -
.2
-
The resistance felt when considering removing an MFP friend who hasn't logged on in over six months, is the same force that is holding on to all the rest of life's baggage.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 422 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions