A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE
Replies
-
I herd that.My son falls in to that same category.
My reason for telling you this...
Sometimes he can't see the forest for the trees (or is that the trees for the forest?). He is so brilliant that at times...he can't see the things that are simple. In his mind...he looks for the complicated...at times he has trouble communicating his thoughts in a way that others can understand.
I have always told him...he is not a special snowflake...in the real world things don't always work as he thinks they should...and that he has trouble some times coming in out of the rain.
The other thing that I taught him...never make someone else feel less than simply because he is in that top 1%.
I generally agree with you. But when challenge with a herd mentality argument of sheer numbers (i.e. 15 say you're wrong = you must be wrong), I do feel it's fair to counter with a comparison of the individuals in that herd.
If most people in this thread have vocalized the fact that you are confused not making sense, shouldn't you be asking yourself "what is the common demoninator here?" Instead of trying to imply that you are the genius victim of a bunch of stupid people (i.e. herd mentality'), maybe (just maybe) you might be wrong.
agreed....
ETA: my sincere apologies to the mods, but this poster doesn't get why it's not okay to be rude to a multitude of people all at one time.0 -
I wish my son, who just got his Master's in Cognitive Neuroscience, could do some indepth analysis of this one.0
-
What if that *kitten* is accidental?
I herd that.My son falls in to that same category.
My reason for telling you this...
Sometimes he can't see the forest for the trees (or is that the trees for the forest?). He is so brilliant that at times...he can't see the things that are simple. In his mind...he looks for the complicated...at times he has trouble communicating his thoughts in a way that others can understand.
I have always told him...he is not a special snowflake...in the real world things don't always work as he thinks they should...and that he has trouble some times coming in out of the rain.
The other thing that I taught him...never make someone else feel less than simply because he is in that top 1%.
I generally agree with you. But when challenge with a herd mentality argument of sheer numbers (i.e. 15 say you're wrong = you must be wrong), I do feel it's fair to counter with a comparison of the individuals in that herd.
If most people in this thread have vocalized the fact that you are confused not making sense, shouldn't you be asking yourself "what is the common demoninator here?" Instead of trying to imply that you are the genius victim of a bunch of stupid people (i.e. herd mentality'), maybe (just maybe) you might be wrong.
agreed....
ETA: my sincere apologies to the mods, but this poster doesn't get why it's not okay to be rude to a multitude of people all at one time.0 -
YES!! There are not enough fart gifs in this thread!!
btw, Harvard Scientists personally tested my IQ and it is 2353ddjfbv3594wzzqlmn5460 -
From this:
"Questioning a person's food diary is rude, because it's personal, even if the person is using it to prove a claim."
To this:
"Questioning a person's intelligence as a counterargument is totally good debate."
Lindsey, I'd like to be the first to officially welcome you to MFP. :flowerforyou:0 -
I wish my son, who just got his Master's in Cognitive Neuroscience, could do some indepth analysis of this one.
Please do. I imagine he'll say something to the effect of, "This isn't that controversial of a subject. I don't understand why they were even arguing about this."0 -
From this:
"Questioning a person's food diary is rude, because it's personal, even if the person is using it to prove a claim."
To this:
"Questioning a person's intelligence as a counterargument is totally good debate."
Lindsey, I'd like to be the first to officially welcome you to MFP. :flowerforyou:
Especially when that person insinuated that you were the dumb one in the first place. That is apparently perfectly okay, but providing evidence to the contrary is horrible. Sometimes, it's like an asylum around here.0 -
I guess Thermodynamics was NOT your first course you took in college!
0 -
Especially when that person insinuated that you were the dumb one in the first place. That is apparently perfectly okay, but providing evidence to the contrary is horrible. Sometimes, it's like an asylum around here.
:laugh:
I never said he was polite.
I just said, welcome to the club.
What you choose to call it is up to you.0 -
I guess Thermodynamics was NOT your first course you took in college!
Not my first, but I did get an A in it. Nothing I've said conflicts with the laws of thermodynamics. Some people simply don't understand how to apply them correctly to the system of the human body.0 -
Ha ha ha. This!0
-
I meant to say: This!0 -
Especially when that person insinuated that you were the dumb one in the first place. That is apparently perfectly okay, but providing evidence to the contrary is horrible. Sometimes, it's like an asylum around here.
:laugh:
I never said he was polite.
I just said, welcome to the club.
What you choose to call it is up to you.
Oh, I expected it. I just find it humorous that the pile on was to me and not a single person commented on the original nasty insinuation. Very telling...0 -
For weight loss: calories in < calories out
For body composition: get enough protein and lift heavy
For overall health: get enough micronutrients
For your sanity: don't eliminate a whole group of foods for no medical reason
THIS
:drinker: :drinker:0 -
Oh, I expected it. I just find it humorous that the pile on was to me and not a single person commented on the original nasty insinuation. Very telling...
It's not a pile on to comment on your statements. That's part of a discussion.
I didn't post my post to white knight anyone. You're capable of defending yourself and so are the others.
I was "genuinely curious" about what you see as setting you apart from everyone else here in the MFP family. Oh, Lindsey talks MFP. Lindsey talks MFP very well. 0 -
Lolz this bad boy has been going for hours!!
I would like to apologize to any and all pooper scoopers I may have offended in my earlier post. :bigsmile:0 -
Yep.
There are a few other high IQ societies, but that's an aside. I find it curious that a person of self-proclaimed intelligence basically uses that as an argument since it is a very weak and basic logical fallacy called appeal to authority.
The argument that something is correct based on a person's degree or IQ and not on intrinsic structural and information value is hubris and shows a strong lack of study of syllogistic basics, something that anyone, even a biologist, dealing with scientific theory must have learned a bit. It is in fact an argument supporting that the person that pulls out that card has weak logic skills.
Good lawd that is hot!0 -
Oh, I expected it. I just find it humorous that the pile on was to me and not a single person commented on the original nasty insinuation. Very telling...
It's not a pile on to comment on your statements. That's part of a discussion.
I didn't post my post to white knight anyone. You're capable of defending yourself and so are the others.
I was "genuinely curious" about what you see as setting you apart from everyone else here in the MFP family. Oh, Lindsey talks MFP. Lindsey talks MFP very well.
I don't mind it as a part of the discussion, it's the hypocrisy that drives me a little nuts. Apparently it's okay for someone to defend his statements by saying that everyone agrees with him, so obviously I must be dumb and wrong. But to counter by by pointing out a weakness of his argumens, namely that the people who agreed with him may not be of equal intelligence to me, that's terribly uncouth. The whole point was that the number of people who agree or disagree on this thread does not impact the objective reality of the facts.0 -
I don't mind it as a part of the discussion, it's the hypocrisy that drives me a little nuts. Apparently it's okay for someone to defend his statements by saying that everyone agrees with him, so obviously I must be dumb and wrong. But to counter by by pointing out a weakness of his argumens, namely that the people who agreed with him may not be of equal intelligence to me, that's terribly uncouth. The whole point was that the number of people who agree or disagree on this thread does not impact the objective reality of the facts.
Oh, I don't think him saying that proved that you were dumb and wrong. I just didn't see it necessary to expend any energy to debate the point, since you made your point already (without your personal remarks about intelligence.)
I actually thought you were articulating your points on the quality/rate of loss issue quite well.
I don't care who would be decided as "right" in this thread. I agree that quality matters, and I agree that people can get thin on a crap diet too.
Without naming names, at least one or two of the people in particular that you may have implied you were smarter than are actually brilliant.0 -
roll?
0 -
Oh, I don't think him saying that proved that you were dumb and wrong. I just didn't see it necessary to expend any energy to debate the point, since you made your point already (without your personal remarks about intelligence.)I don't mind it as a part of the discussion, it's the hypocrisy that drives me a little nuts. Apparently it's okay for someone to defend his statements by saying that everyone agrees with him, so obviously I must be dumb and wrong. But to counter by by pointing out a weakness of his argumens, namely that the people who agreed with him may not be of equal intelligence to me, that's terribly uncouth. The whole point was that the number of people who agree or disagree on this thread does not impact the objective reality of the facts.
I actually thought you were articulating your points on the quality/rate of loss issue quite well.
I don't care who would be decided as "right" in this thread. I agree that quality matters, and I agree that people can get thin on a crap diet too.
Without naming names, at least one or two of the people in particular that you may have implied you were smarter than are actually brilliant.
I don't dispute some people's overall brilliance. Some would consider me brilliant in certain areas and a complete lunkhead in others. I think that can apply to many people.
But, to the extent that people were disagreeing with my points, they're simply incorrect, whether they're brilliant or not. I'm glad you were able to follow them because some seem to think that they were very confusing.
Some tried to twist things or extrapolate further than I stated to make completely different points. It seems that either people do that intentionally as a strawman/red herring or they simply can't understand the nuance of the arguments.
I understand that simple is desirable in many things. But incorrect oversimplification can be very dangerous too, and that's the issue I have with the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" statement because it demands that all calories are the same in regards to weight loss, and that's just not accurate.0 -
roll?
:laugh:0 -
I understand that simple is desirable in many things. But incorrect oversimplification can be very dangerous too, and that's the issue I have with the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" statement because it demands that all calories are the same in regards to weight loss, and that's just not accurate.
This is why I welcomed you.
You know you are really one of us when you can't leave an argument alone because of semantics.
Welcome to the dark side.
:devil:0 -
I understand that simple is desirable in many things. But incorrect oversimplification can be very dangerous too, and that's the issue I have with the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" statement because it demands that all calories are the same in regards to weight loss, and that's just not accurate.
This is why I welcomed you.
You know you are really one of us when you can't leave an argument alone because of semantics.
Welcome to the dark side.
:devil:
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure I was born and raised on the dark side and my family goes back for generations. Plus, I practice there as a matter of livelihood, though I like to think I'm more interested in the spirit of the law, than the technicalities of the legal application of the letter of the law.0 -
Oh, I don't think him saying that proved that you were dumb and wrong. I just didn't see it necessary to expend any energy to debate the point, since you made your point already (without your personal remarks about intelligence.)I don't mind it as a part of the discussion, it's the hypocrisy that drives me a little nuts. Apparently it's okay for someone to defend his statements by saying that everyone agrees with him, so obviously I must be dumb and wrong. But to counter by by pointing out a weakness of his argumens, namely that the people who agreed with him may not be of equal intelligence to me, that's terribly uncouth. The whole point was that the number of people who agree or disagree on this thread does not impact the objective reality of the facts.
I actually thought you were articulating your points on the quality/rate of loss issue quite well.
I don't care who would be decided as "right" in this thread. I agree that quality matters, and I agree that people can get thin on a crap diet too.
Without naming names, at least one or two of the people in particular that you may have implied you were smarter than are actually brilliant.
I don't dispute some people's overall brilliance. Some would consider me brilliant in certain areas and a complete lunkhead in others. I think that can apply to many people.
But, to the extent that people were disagreeing with my points, they're simply incorrect, whether they're brilliant or not. I'm glad you were able to follow them because some seem to think that they were very confusing.
Some tried to twist things or extrapolate further than I stated to make completely different points. It seems that either people do that intentionally as a strawman/red herring or they simply can't understand the nuance of the arguments.
I understand that simple is desirable in many things. But incorrect oversimplification can be very dangerous too, and that's the issue I have with the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" statement because it demands that all calories are the same in regards to weight loss, and that's just not accurate.
And yet you agreed with neandermagnon on that very point. A calorie is just a calorie as a unit of thermodynamics and during consumption of food whether clean or not, but when considering macro consumption during dietary planning, the two can be considered both exclusively and together. To whit: keep a calorie deficit. That's important for weight loss. And then follow a macro plan, that's important for meeting nutrition goals. Because of the variety in the human diet, especially from person to person to person, it's impossible to calculate calorie goals based on food types. Thus, assume the variety and set a basic ideal, (3,500 calories to lose a pound of body fat) and calculate the deficit that way. Then set macro goals based on what's known about the individual's medical history, exercise plans and goals and nutritional needs.0 -
Oh, I don't think him saying that proved that you were dumb and wrong. I just didn't see it necessary to expend any energy to debate the point, since you made your point already (without your personal remarks about intelligence.)I don't mind it as a part of the discussion, it's the hypocrisy that drives me a little nuts. Apparently it's okay for someone to defend his statements by saying that everyone agrees with him, so obviously I must be dumb and wrong. But to counter by by pointing out a weakness of his argumens, namely that the people who agreed with him may not be of equal intelligence to me, that's terribly uncouth. The whole point was that the number of people who agree or disagree on this thread does not impact the objective reality of the facts.
I actually thought you were articulating your points on the quality/rate of loss issue quite well.
I don't care who would be decided as "right" in this thread. I agree that quality matters, and I agree that people can get thin on a crap diet too.
Without naming names, at least one or two of the people in particular that you may have implied you were smarter than are actually brilliant.
I don't dispute some people's overall brilliance. Some would consider me brilliant in certain areas and a complete lunkhead in others. I think that can apply to many people.
But, to the extent that people were disagreeing with my points, they're simply incorrect, whether they're brilliant or not. I'm glad you were able to follow them because some seem to think that they were very confusing.
Some tried to twist things or extrapolate further than I stated to make completely different points. It seems that either people do that intentionally as a strawman/red herring or they simply can't understand the nuance of the arguments.
I understand that simple is desirable in many things. But incorrect oversimplification can be very dangerous too, and that's the issue I have with the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" statement because it demands that all calories are the same in regards to weight loss, and that's just not accurate.
And yet you agreed with neandermagnon on that very point. A calorie is just a calorie as a unit of thermodynamics and during consumption of food whether clean or not, but when considering macro consumption during dietary planning, the two can be considered both exclusively and together. To whit: keep a calorie deficit. That's important for weight loss. And then follow a macro plan, that's important for meeting nutrition goals. Because of the variety in the human diet, especially from person to person to person, it's impossible to calculate calorie goals based on food types. Thus, assume the variety and set a basic ideal, (3,500 calories to lose a pound of body fat) and calculate the deficit that way. Then set macro goals based on what's known about the individual's medical history, exercise plans and goals and nutritional needs.
I never disputed that from the very beginning. In fact, I used the emphasis on the importance of macros in weight loss (see protein example) to underline the very premise of the fact that not all calories are equal as regards weight loss. That looking to BOTH quality and quantity is important.0 -
Lolz this bad boy has been going for hours!!
I would like to apologize to any and all pooper scoopers I may have offended in my earlier post. :bigsmile:
Thank you I felt so offended :sad:0 -
Thanks for the lively debate but I must be going. The pub is calling and Jameson waits for no man (or woman either).0
-
Thanks for the lively debate but I must be going. The pub is calling and Jameson waits for no man (or woman either).
DON'T GOOOO!! This thread was getting to be interesting
0 -
Thank you, Flax Milk. I didn't realize you'd noticed. :laugh:
Mmmm Burger King.
ETA:
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions