Science Reveals why Calorie Counts are all wrong.

supplemama

So...all these crazy estimates screwed me out of 50 pounds?

Bummer.

I know, right? Screwed me out of 89 pounds. I feel so gullible believing in counting calories now!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

MB_Positif

So...all these crazy estimates screwed me out of 50 pounds?

Bummer.

I know, right? Screwed me out of 89 pounds. I feel so gullible believing in counting calories now!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

BOOM! Love it.

camila_scl

(Face palm)

You can't really talk about accuracy without defining how accurate you need to be for your measurements to be relevant.

Counting calories works. If you want to get accurate, instead of just successful, just eat the same thing for every meal, and adjust quantities over time based on projected vs actual change in body mass. Also be as sedentary as possible and don't exercise, because that will change the energy balance and add more uncertainty. Congrats now, on being unable to see the forest for the trees.

Oh wait, what's that? Your goal is not measurement accuracy? You just want to lean out and become more fit? Than carry on counting calories.

Congrats to you, on being unable to read. Did she say anything related on what you are blabering about?? No, she didn't. She said "Fascinating article" that's it, so, congratulations on being unable to read and understand what you read.

---

It is fascinating, but it is the closest thing we have yet, I would love something more accurate than the labels, but at the moment is all we have

pcastagner

(Face palm)

You can't really talk about accuracy without defining how accurate you need to be for your measurements to be relevant.

Counting calories works. If you want to get accurate, instead of just successful, just eat the same thing for every meal, and adjust quantities over time based on projected vs actual change in body mass. Also be as sedentary as possible and don't exercise, because that will change the energy balance and add more uncertainty. Congrats now, on being unable to see the forest for the trees.

Oh wait, what's that? Your goal is not measurement accuracy? You just want to lean out and become more fit? Than carry on counting calories.

Congrats to you, on being unable to read. Did she say anything related on what you are blabering about?? No, she didn't. She said "Fascinating article" that's it, so, congratulations on being unable to read and understand what you read.

---

It is fascinating, but it is the closest thing we have yet, I would love something more accurate than the labels, but at the moment is all we have

No, I am pretty sure I can read, and that my response fits the context of a larger and very popular debate.

Maybe, just maybe, I was addressing the author OF THE ARTICLE, which popped up in scientific American reader on my google currents a while back.

If I'm being sarcastic, it's an emotional response to all the time I wasted looking for "tricks" when counting calories is so simple and effective.

Wildflower0106

I never expected this process to be 100% accurate... all I can say is that it worked and still works for me! I guess the estimates are close enough.

Hexahedra

What matters is that the numbers we have are accurate enough for the purpose. They might not be accurate to the last digit, or even the last two digits, but they're still close enough for me to get a calorie deficit.

DavPul

(Face palm)

You can't really talk about accuracy without defining how accurate you need to be for your measurements to be relevant.

Counting calories works. If you want to get accurate, instead of just successful, just eat the same thing for every meal, and adjust quantities over time based on projected vs actual change in body mass. Also be as sedentary as possible and don't exercise, because that will change the energy balance and add more uncertainty. Congrats now, on being unable to see the forest for the trees.

Oh wait, what's that? Your goal is not measurement accuracy? You just want to lean out and become more fit? Than carry on counting calories.

Congrats to you, on being unable to read. Did she say anything related on what you are blabering about?? No, she didn't. She said "Fascinating article" that's it, so, congratulations on being unable to read and understand what you read.

---

It is fascinating, but it is the closest thing we have yet, I would love something more accurate than the labels, but at the moment is all we have

WHY ARE PEOPLE HERE SO MEAN?!?!

Achrya

(Face palm)

You can't really talk about accuracy without defining how accurate you need to be for your measurements to be relevant.

Counting calories works. If you want to get accurate, instead of just successful, just eat the same thing for every meal, and adjust quantities over time based on projected vs actual change in body mass. Also be as sedentary as possible and don't exercise, because that will change the energy balance and add more uncertainty. Congrats now, on being unable to see the forest for the trees.

Oh wait, what's that? Your goal is not measurement accuracy? You just want to lean out and become more fit? Than carry on counting calories.

Congrats to you, on being unable to read. Did she say anything related on what you are blabering about?? No, she didn't. She said "Fascinating article" that's it, so, congratulations on being unable to read and understand what you read.

Why so hostile? Aren't we all here for the same reason?

BusyRaeNOTBusty

What matters is that the numbers we have are accurate enough for the purpose. They might not be accurate to the last digit, or even the last two digits, but they're still close enough for me to get a calorie deficit.

This. If I gain at approximately 3000 and lose at approximately 2000 it doesn't matter if it was really 3254 and 2198.

het100

You mean it was all just a coincidence that my weight loss happened at the same time I began paying close attention to what I ate and started counting calories? I was duped!