A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE
Replies
-
right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.
Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..
Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).
LOL. Ok, so do I and many others here. It's MUCH more likely that you are just wrong.
You have a BS in biology w/ honors huh?. Uh oh, we got ourselves a biology expert here! The automatic sign of a completely failed argument is an appeal to authority like that one.
Attack the argument. I've debunked everyone that's said otherwise.
And I just challenge the sheer numbers argument he made -- that fifteen people agree with him. I'll take the one with a biology degree (let alone from a top program) over the other ones that don't.
You don't debunk, you just move the goal posts.
How so? I feel that I've been very consistent throughout.
*coughs* bull$hit *coughs*0 -
Is this mother still going???:grumble: :grumble: :grumble:0
-
Attack the argument. I've debunked everyone that's said otherwise.
And I just challenge the sheer numbers argument he made -- that fifteen people agree with him. I'll take the one with a biology degree (let alone from a top program) over the other ones that don't.
I've got a Human Sciences degree (with hons) and my uni's life sciences dept was judged to be one of the top 3 in the UK and I have a high IQ too in fact an ed psych said if I'd had adequate help for ADHD and dyslexia at high school I'd have "got straight As and gone to Oxford or Cambridge" .....so could have been at one of the top two unis but for factors beyond my control, plus my spelling's pretty good for someone who'd diagnosed dyslexic...... and also I have a palaeoanthropology blog that's kinda awesome though I say so myself. And I have neanderthal DNA and they had the biggest brain for body size of all primate species ever, including Homo sapiens.
so can I play? :flowerforyou:
A calorie is just a calorie just like a centimetre is just a centimetre and a pascal is just a pascal and all the rest... but 200 calories of chicken and vegetable vindaloo is not the same, nutritionally speaking, as 200 calories of m&ms because macronutrient ratios and micronutrients.... the latter statement does not contradict the former, they are both true at the same time. Additionally, if you burn 2000 calories in a day, yet you consume (and successfully absorb, if you want to be really pedantic) 2200 calories, you are 200 calories in surplus and that's going to be stored as fat whether you consumed and absorbed 2200 calories of chicken and vegetable vindaloo, or 2200 calories of m&ms. People who say "a calorie is just a calorie" are NOT saying that macronutrient balance doesn't matter. To take "a calorie is just a calorie" to mean "macronutrient ratios and getting adequate micronutrients aren't important" is a logical fallacy, because the two facts are not mutually exclusive.
A major problem with people who go on about "clean eating" and the like, is that there are lots of people out there who think they can eat as much as they want of "clean" foods and they'll still lose weight, because the foods are "clean" (whatever that means, because no-one can even agree upon what constitutes "clean" foods even). Then these people get confused as to why they're not losing weight or even gaining weight, when they're doing everything "right"........... fact is that calories are a unit of energy and 2000 calories of anything is the same amount of energy as 2000 calories of anything else, and weight loss is a matter of energy balance, and yes while optimal macronutrient ratios help to ensure that the weight lost is fat rather than lean mass, if there's no calorie deficit to begin with, there won't be any fat loss at all, hence the strong emphasis on the importance of a calorie deficit for successful weight/fat loss. No-one is saying that macronutrient ratios are not also important, or that micronutrients are not important. However as I said, the importance of those things doesn't negate the simple fact that a calorie is a unit of energy, and for weight loss to happen in the first place, you need to be using more energy than you're taking in, and without that, nothing else you do, like having balanced macros or getting enough micronutrients and the rest, is going to make you lose fat. So the message being put out there is 1. calorie deficit for weight loss, 2. macronutrient balance + strength training for ensuring that the weight lost is just fat and 3. adequate micronutrient intake for general health.
I don't disagree with you on the majority of your assertions, except for one. There certainly were people on this thread that said weight loss was not impacted by anything other than caloric deficit. And like you, I believe there are other important factors, one of which is going to be the content of the calories you're eating.
I like it when we agree Neandermagnon.
yes people did say that and in saying that they are not automatically disregarding the importance of macronutrients for ensuring that the weight lost is muscle not fat. so if you agree with me, then you agree with them too, you just think you don't, because you think they're saying something that they're not actually saying
it's the logical falacy I was trying to explain. "weight loss is a matter of calories in v calories out" does not negate the statement "optimal macronutrient ratios are important for good body composition" or however you want to phrase it, because the two are not mutually exclusive. Considering one to be true does not mean you have to consider the other to be false. So just because someone says "weight loss is just a matter of calories in v calories out" does not mean that they don't believe that macronutrient ratios are also important.0 -
The NFL comparison is a bad one, because most of the NFL coaches in the Hall of Fame were VERY good players. John Madden, who only failed to play in the NFL due to injury, and Vince Lombardi who was a fullback, and Don Shula, who played cornerback. Mike Ditka, Tight End. Bill Belichick, center. There are very few NFL coaches who weren't skilled players in college or the NFL.And yet so many of the scientists studying such things don't have nearly as impressive of a back. Have you been in a lab lately? Ever?
Broken clocks are right twice a day too.
Let's put it this way. If you go to a dentist who has awful teeth, would you really think he's a good dentist? Honestly, the fact that she has an awesome back does give her credit in regards to fitness. And those people in labs with big guts saying quality over quantity - well...
Is your doctor the paragon of fitness? Neither of my surgeons are, but man they are two of the highest rated surgeons in their specialty. And that's what I look for, not whether they have impressive backs or not.
LOL Nvm. I don't need my cardiologist to be fit, I would need him to be good at knowing his stuff. But you, within the 1% of smart people in the US didn't get what I said. What I mean is you can't talk about something that you can't personally prove. Just never mind LOL.
And the whole point of that is ridiculous. Then no one but athletes would be able to discuss nutritional science or the biological and chemical factors that affect such things.
Would all NFL coaches have to have been star players? Some were, but many were not -- because it's a difference skill set, just as is scientific discussion.
There are plenty of personal trainers that are GREAT personal shape, but give very bad advice both generally and specifically because they fail to understand the science involved, at least in part. That's why it's much easier to become a trainer than a biologist.0 -
So now we've gone from "It's equally important" to "it will have some impact." That's a helluva backtrack.Yep, taking it as a win. I'm not arguing how much it will impact as that's going to vary a lot depending on a multitude of factors. Merely, that is does have an impact. Some have said that there is no impact, and that's what I've been trying to debunk with the explanations and variety of examples.
Nope, never a back track. Go back and look at all of my posts and you'll see that I've been consistent in that from the get-go.
I've never gotten into the idea of which is more important. My gut says that caloric deficit is probably more important, but I haven't seen any research that says one way or the other. I've merely been positing from the very beginning that quality is also an important factor, that quantity wasn't the ONLY important factor.
Calorie deficit is more important. Much.
I suspect you're probably right, though I imagine there is a good amount of variation as well. But, I didn't want to go down that rabbit hole unnecessary.
Well looky here...admitting a calorie deficet is more important....
SCORE
PS I don't have a degree in science...but I too know what my IQ is...the pond is getting smaller.:bigsmile:0 -
Attack the argument. I've debunked everyone that's said otherwise.
And I just challenge the sheer numbers argument he made -- that fifteen people agree with him. I'll take the one with a biology degree (let alone from a top program) over the other ones that don't.
I've got a Human Sciences degree (with hons) and my uni's life sciences dept was judged to be one of the top 3 in the UK and I have a high IQ too in fact an ed psych said if I'd had adequate help for ADHD and dyslexia at high school I'd have "got straight As and gone to Oxford or Cambridge" .....so could have been at one of the top two unis but for factors beyond my control, plus my spelling's pretty good for someone who'd diagnosed dyslexic...... and also I have a palaeoanthropology blog that's kinda awesome though I say so myself. And I have neanderthal DNA and they had the biggest brain for body size of all primate species ever, including Homo sapiens.
so can I play? :flowerforyou:
A calorie is just a calorie just like a centimetre is just a centimetre and a pascal is just a pascal and all the rest... but 200 calories of chicken and vegetable vindaloo is not the same, nutritionally speaking, as 200 calories of m&ms because macronutrient ratios and micronutrients.... the latter statement does not contradict the former, they are both true at the same time. Additionally, if you burn 2000 calories in a day, yet you consume (and successfully absorb, if you want to be really pedantic) 2200 calories, you are 200 calories in surplus and that's going to be stored as fat whether you consumed and absorbed 2200 calories of chicken and vegetable vindaloo, or 2200 calories of m&ms. People who say "a calorie is just a calorie" are NOT saying that macronutrient balance doesn't matter. To take "a calorie is just a calorie" to mean "macronutrient ratios and getting adequate micronutrients aren't important" is a logical fallacy, because the two facts are not mutually exclusive.
A major problem with people who go on about "clean eating" and the like, is that there are lots of people out there who think they can eat as much as they want of "clean" foods and they'll still lose weight, because the foods are "clean" (whatever that means, because no-one can even agree upon what constitutes "clean" foods even). Then these people get confused as to why they're not losing weight or even gaining weight, when they're doing everything "right"........... fact is that calories are a unit of energy and 2000 calories of anything is the same amount of energy as 2000 calories of anything else, and weight loss is a matter of energy balance, and yes while optimal macronutrient ratios help to ensure that the weight lost is fat rather than lean mass, if there's no calorie deficit to begin with, there won't be any fat loss at all, hence the strong emphasis on the importance of a calorie deficit for successful weight/fat loss. No-one is saying that macronutrient ratios are not also important, or that micronutrients are not important. However as I said, the importance of those things doesn't negate the simple fact that a calorie is a unit of energy, and for weight loss to happen in the first place, you need to be using more energy than you're taking in, and without that, nothing else you do, like having balanced macros or getting enough micronutrients and the rest, is going to make you lose fat. So the message being put out there is 1. calorie deficit for weight loss, 2. macronutrient balance + strength training for ensuring that the weight lost is just fat and 3. adequate micronutrient intake for general health.
I don't disagree with you on the majority of your assertions, except for one. There certainly were people on this thread that said weight loss was not impacted by anything other than caloric deficit. And like you, I believe there are other important factors, one of which is going to be the content of the calories you're eating.
I like it when we agree Neandermagnon.
yes people did say that and in saying that they are not automatically disregarding the importance of macronutrients for ensuring that the weight lost is muscle not fat. so if you agree with me, then you agree with them too, you just think you don't, because you think they're saying something that they're not actually saying
it's the logical falacy I was trying to explain. "weight loss is a matter of calories in v calories out" does not negate the statement "optimal macronutrient ratios are important for good body composition" or however you want to phrase it, because the two are not mutually exclusive. Considering one to be true does not mean you have to consider the other to be false. So just because someone says "weight loss is just a matter of calories in v calories out" does not mean that they don't believe that macronutrient ratios are also important.
Which is why it's useless to argue with her. she thinks you agreed with her, but we disagreed with her, although you and I said virtually the same thing, a few pages apart.0 -
Exactly. Lindsey is making an awful lot of assumptions about this particular herd and where she fits into it.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.
Except that you can't be sure of who is in that herd. :flowerforyou:
I actually feel badly. I should have warned her. Seriously. :frown:
Can I play? Lindsey, your sample here in non-random and doesn't represent the general population. Don't dig that statistical hole.0 -
right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.
Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..
Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).
Oh, now I am so in.
Me too...0 -
I’m a mum of two and have being trying to lose weight for ages. I tried a new slimming pill... quick-slim.net and have followed the simple instructions and I’ve cut down on my carbs and have started to slim down. I’d be interested to know if anyone else has found similar slimming pills effective.
Thanks
Jane
Oh, honey, you should probably move this post to the "introduce yourself" section. You will probably have much more success.
ETA: and remove the online reference or you will be reported for spam.0 -
And since I'm an utter attention store, I'd like to add that I am 15 minutes from satisfying my burger craving.
Ohhhh happy happy mouth!!!0 -
Attack the argument. I've debunked everyone that's said otherwise.
And I just challenge the sheer numbers argument he made -- that fifteen people agree with him. I'll take the one with a biology degree (let alone from a top program) over the other ones that don't.
I've got a Human Sciences degree (with hons) and my uni's life sciences dept was judged to be one of the top 3 in the UK and I have a high IQ too in fact an ed psych said if I'd had adequate help for ADHD and dyslexia at high school I'd have "got straight As and gone to Oxford or Cambridge" .....so could have been at one of the top two unis but for factors beyond my control, plus my spelling's pretty good for someone who'd diagnosed dyslexic...... and also I have a palaeoanthropology blog that's kinda awesome though I say so myself. And I have neanderthal DNA and they had the biggest brain for body size of all primate species ever, including Homo sapiens.
so can I play? :flowerforyou:
A calorie is just a calorie just like a centimetre is just a centimetre and a pascal is just a pascal and all the rest... but 200 calories of chicken and vegetable vindaloo is not the same, nutritionally speaking, as 200 calories of m&ms because macronutrient ratios and micronutrients.... the latter statement does not contradict the former, they are both true at the same time. Additionally, if you burn 2000 calories in a day, yet you consume (and successfully absorb, if you want to be really pedantic) 2200 calories, you are 200 calories in surplus and that's going to be stored as fat whether you consumed and absorbed 2200 calories of chicken and vegetable vindaloo, or 2200 calories of m&ms. People who say "a calorie is just a calorie" are NOT saying that macronutrient balance doesn't matter. To take "a calorie is just a calorie" to mean "macronutrient ratios and getting adequate micronutrients aren't important" is a logical fallacy, because the two facts are not mutually exclusive.
A major problem with people who go on about "clean eating" and the like, is that there are lots of people out there who think they can eat as much as they want of "clean" foods and they'll still lose weight, because the foods are "clean" (whatever that means, because no-one can even agree upon what constitutes "clean" foods even). Then these people get confused as to why they're not losing weight or even gaining weight, when they're doing everything "right"........... fact is that calories are a unit of energy and 2000 calories of anything is the same amount of energy as 2000 calories of anything else, and weight loss is a matter of energy balance, and yes while optimal macronutrient ratios help to ensure that the weight lost is fat rather than lean mass, if there's no calorie deficit to begin with, there won't be any fat loss at all, hence the strong emphasis on the importance of a calorie deficit for successful weight/fat loss. No-one is saying that macronutrient ratios are not also important, or that micronutrients are not important. However as I said, the importance of those things doesn't negate the simple fact that a calorie is a unit of energy, and for weight loss to happen in the first place, you need to be using more energy than you're taking in, and without that, nothing else you do, like having balanced macros or getting enough micronutrients and the rest, is going to make you lose fat. So the message being put out there is 1. calorie deficit for weight loss, 2. macronutrient balance + strength training for ensuring that the weight lost is just fat and 3. adequate micronutrient intake for general health.
I don't disagree with you on the majority of your assertions, except for one. There certainly were people on this thread that said weight loss was not impacted by anything other than caloric deficit. And like you, I believe there are other important factors, one of which is going to be the content of the calories you're eating.
I like it when we agree Neandermagnon.
yes people did say that and in saying that they are not automatically disregarding the importance of macronutrients for ensuring that the weight lost is muscle not fat. so if you agree with me, then you agree with them too, you just think you don't, because you think they're saying something that they're not actually saying
it's the logical falacy I was trying to explain. "weight loss is a matter of calories in v calories out" does not negate the statement "optimal macronutrient ratios are important for good body composition" or however you want to phrase it, because the two are not mutually exclusive. Considering one to be true does not mean you have to consider the other to be false. So just because someone says "weight loss is just a matter of calories in v calories out" does not mean that they don't believe that macronutrient ratios are also important.
Which is why it's useless to argue with her. she thinks you agreed with her, but we disagreed with her, although you and I said virtually the same thing, a few pages apart.
maybe it's because you didn't post your CV or tell her what your IQ is........0 -
I don't feel the need to quantify the specificity of my degrees or my field of expertise. The point I was trying to make was that you are not the only smart person in the gene pool, and you have been rude in making assumptions and some personal remarks about the people who have disagreed with you here. Granted that you are intelligent, but as some intelligent people tend to do, you are being narrow-minded in your area of expertise, and failing to open your mind to any other potential avenues of information as have been presented to you by anyone you perceive might not be as "intelligent' as you hold yourself to be.Actually, I have been in a lab. You see, I have a Bachelor's degree, too, my dear. I also graduated top 1% of my class, with Honors. I also have an IQ that places me in the top 1% of the population. I just don't typically run around putting it in everyone's face. I've studied biology and chemistry and calories and all sorts of scientific things. And if you need me to, someday, I can even save your life.
I've also found a way to eat and work out that have brought me to an optimal level of fitness for me. Without "clean" eating. And I'm nice when I talk to people, too.
I didn't throw it anyone's face -- I brought it up as counter to the ridiculous herd mentality argument. That's all. And despite the several later mocking response, so be it --- I anticipated such a response from some people.
Do you have a science degree? Just because I noticed you failed to say that specifically.
I think it's great that you found a way that works for you -- you obviously have very nice results personally. But that doesn't negate the biological facts around which I've based my argument -- that the content of the calories also impacts weight loss. It's not ONLY a caloric deficit that matters.
Well, I think that's an unfair characterization. I didn't bring up the intelligence issue until mine was specifically mocked, by someone attempting to validate his argument by the fact that others agreed with him.
And, I never said I was the only smart person or the smartest person. Merely that I have specific expertise in the area relevant to this discussion. So that others disagreeing with me on an internet thread isn't very persuasive on its face (especially since there will almost always be disagreement somewhere).0 -
Attack the argument. I've debunked everyone that's said otherwise.
And I just challenge the sheer numbers argument he made -- that fifteen people agree with him. I'll take the one with a biology degree (let alone from a top program) over the other ones that don't.
I've got a Human Sciences degree (with hons) and my uni's life sciences dept was judged to be one of the top 3 in the UK and I have a high IQ too in fact an ed psych said if I'd had adequate help for ADHD and dyslexia at high school I'd have "got straight As and gone to Oxford or Cambridge" .....so could have been at one of the top two unis but for factors beyond my control, plus my spelling's pretty good for someone who'd diagnosed dyslexic...... and also I have a palaeoanthropology blog that's kinda awesome though I say so myself. And I have neanderthal DNA and they had the biggest brain for body size of all primate species ever, including Homo sapiens.
so can I play? :flowerforyou:
A calorie is just a calorie just like a centimetre is just a centimetre and a pascal is just a pascal and all the rest... but 200 calories of chicken and vegetable vindaloo is not the same, nutritionally speaking, as 200 calories of m&ms because macronutrient ratios and micronutrients.... the latter statement does not contradict the former, they are both true at the same time. Additionally, if you burn 2000 calories in a day, yet you consume (and successfully absorb, if you want to be really pedantic) 2200 calories, you are 200 calories in surplus and that's going to be stored as fat whether you consumed and absorbed 2200 calories of chicken and vegetable vindaloo, or 2200 calories of m&ms. People who say "a calorie is just a calorie" are NOT saying that macronutrient balance doesn't matter. To take "a calorie is just a calorie" to mean "macronutrient ratios and getting adequate micronutrients aren't important" is a logical fallacy, because the two facts are not mutually exclusive.
A major problem with people who go on about "clean eating" and the like, is that there are lots of people out there who think they can eat as much as they want of "clean" foods and they'll still lose weight, because the foods are "clean" (whatever that means, because no-one can even agree upon what constitutes "clean" foods even). Then these people get confused as to why they're not losing weight or even gaining weight, when they're doing everything "right"........... fact is that calories are a unit of energy and 2000 calories of anything is the same amount of energy as 2000 calories of anything else, and weight loss is a matter of energy balance, and yes while optimal macronutrient ratios help to ensure that the weight lost is fat rather than lean mass, if there's no calorie deficit to begin with, there won't be any fat loss at all, hence the strong emphasis on the importance of a calorie deficit for successful weight/fat loss. No-one is saying that macronutrient ratios are not also important, or that micronutrients are not important. However as I said, the importance of those things doesn't negate the simple fact that a calorie is a unit of energy, and for weight loss to happen in the first place, you need to be using more energy than you're taking in, and without that, nothing else you do, like having balanced macros or getting enough micronutrients and the rest, is going to make you lose fat. So the message being put out there is 1. calorie deficit for weight loss, 2. macronutrient balance + strength training for ensuring that the weight lost is just fat and 3. adequate micronutrient intake for general health.
I don't disagree with you on the majority of your assertions, except for one. There certainly were people on this thread that said weight loss was not impacted by anything other than caloric deficit. And like you, I believe there are other important factors, one of which is going to be the content of the calories you're eating.
I like it when we agree Neandermagnon.
yes people did say that and in saying that they are not automatically disregarding the importance of macronutrients for ensuring that the weight lost is muscle not fat. so if you agree with me, then you agree with them too, you just think you don't, because you think they're saying something that they're not actually saying
it's the logical falacy I was trying to explain. "weight loss is a matter of calories in v calories out" does not negate the statement "optimal macronutrient ratios are important for good body composition" or however you want to phrase it, because the two are not mutually exclusive. Considering one to be true does not mean you have to consider the other to be false. So just because someone says "weight loss is just a matter of calories in v calories out" does not mean that they don't believe that macronutrient ratios are also important.
I guess I look at it as a further carve out or nuance in the argument. And that's why I started with the whole "either/or" versus "both/and" argument. That one did not necessarily exclude the other, but that BOTH were an important part of the overall equation of weight loss (optimal or otherwise).
Some disagreed and said it was ALL about calories for weight loss, and that's simply incorrect. The content of your calories affects your weight loss.0 -
right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.
Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..
Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).
Oh, now I am so in.
Me too...
i love when people on a forum pull out the MENSA card (real or implicit) as a last ditch effort to try and win an argument that they cannot win via the power of persuasion. i understand that MENSA allows the top 2% of IQ's to join (based on applicable standardized tests or their own test) and that she's claiming to be in the top 1% (i.e. 99th percentile), but since there is no next-lowest level high IQ society between MENSA (1 in 50 are eligible to join) and the Triple 9 Society (1 in 1000 are eligible to join), i'm going to go ahead and say that for all intents and purposes, she's pulling the MENSA card.
also, for pulling the MENSA card --> :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
Exactly. Lindsey is making an awful lot of assumptions about this particular herd and where she fits into it.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.
Except that you can't be sure of who is in that herd. :flowerforyou:
I actually feel badly. I should have warned her. Seriously. :frown:
Can I play? Lindsey, your sample here in non-random and doesn't represent the general population. Don't dig that statistical hole.
Just to play, what do you think is the skewing here on these boards? Do you think people are smarter than the average population or dumber? Do you think more people here specialize in scientific subjects (by either practice or education)?
I certainly haven't seen anything either way to give me a gut instinct that people are particularly smarter or have greater scientific expertise on average? Some, certainly, but not as a statement against the whole, given the small sample I've seen.0 -
IN because I'm bored tonite!:laugh:0
-
right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.
Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..
Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).
Oh, now I am so in.
Me too...
i love when people on a forum pull out the MENSA card (real or implicit) as a last ditch effort to try and win an argument that they cannot win via the power of persuasion. i understand that MENSA allows the top 2% of IQ's to join (based on applicable standardized tests or their own test) and that she's claiming to be in the top 1% (i.e. 99th percentile), but since there is no next-lowest level high IQ society between MENSA (1 in 50 are eligible to join) and the Triple 9 Society (1 in 1000 are eligible to join), i'm going to go ahead and say that for all intents and purposes, she's pulling the MENSA card.
also, for pulling the MENSA card --> :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
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.0 -
right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.
Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..
Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).
Oh, now I am so in.
Me too...
i love when people on a forum pull out the MENSA card (real or implicit) as a last ditch effort to try and win an argument that they cannot win via the power of persuasion. i understand that MENSA allows the top 2% of IQ's to join (based on applicable standardized tests or their own test) and that she's claiming to be in the top 1% (i.e. 99th percentile), but since there is no next-lowest level high IQ society between MENSA (1 in 50 are eligible to join) and the Triple 9 Society (1 in 1000 are eligible to join), i'm going to go ahead and say that for all intents and purposes, she's pulling the MENSA card.
also, for pulling the MENSA card --> :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
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.
Wanna translate all that into derp for me? :laugh:0 -
I've got a Human Sciences degree (with hons) and my uni's life sciences dept was judged to be one of the top 3 in the UK and I have a high IQ too in fact an ed psych said if I'd had adequate help for ADHD and dyslexia at high school I'd have "got straight As and gone to Oxford or Cambridge" .....so could have been at one of the top two unis but for factors beyond my control, plus my spelling's pretty good for someone who'd diagnosed dyslexic...... and also I have a palaeoanthropology blog that's kinda awesome though I say so myself. And I have neanderthal DNA and they had the biggest brain for body size of all primate species ever, including Homo sapiens.
so can I play? :flowerforyou:
Never knew you had a blog. I need to check that out. I always find the information you share about paleo life super interesting.0 -
Exactly. Lindsey is making an awful lot of assumptions about this particular herd and where she fits into it.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.
Except that you can't be sure of who is in that herd. :flowerforyou:
I actually feel badly. I should have warned her. Seriously. :frown:
Can I play? Lindsey, your sample here in non-random and doesn't represent the general population. Don't dig that statistical hole.
Just to play, what do you think is the skewing here on these boards? Do you think people are smarter than the average population or dumber? Do you think more people here specialize in scientific subjects (by either practice or education)?
I certainly haven't seen anything either way to give me a gut instinct that people are particularly smarter or have greater scientific expertise on average? Some, certainly, but not as a statement against the whole, given the small sample I've seen.
Hmmm, let's see.
Given that people need to find the place, use the forums, be sufficiently educated to interact with an interface that is less than perfect, inference meaning through a conversation medium full of ambiguity and use an app in the calculation of TDEE, BMR,etc I'd guess that the general MFP consumer has at least a slight kurtosis towards educated and higher IQ. Given that I worked in Internet and health marketing the general stats also show a skew in population that use forums (at least through 2010).
So yes. However, smarter or not, it's got little to do with that actual knowledge. Or validity of proposition.
What kind of biology did you specialize in? (Not an attack or argument point, I'm curious)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions