A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE

show previous quotes

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.

show previous quotes

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.

show previous quotes

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:

Exactly. Lindsey is making an awful lot of assumptions about this particular herd and where she fits into it.

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.

show previous quotes

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:

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:

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!!!

show previous quotes

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.

show previous quotes

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.

thanks

it's http://cavepeopleandstuff.wordpress.com/

show previous quotes

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!!!

:drinker:

I had burger king chicken tenders...nom nom...so worth it...

show previous quotes

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:

Exactly. Lindsey is making an awful lot of assumptions about this particular herd and where she fits into it.

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)

show previous quotes

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.

thanks

it's http://cavepeopleandstuff.wordpress.com/

It's great, my oldest daughter has received the link too.

Btw, since we might as well make the thread drift a little, I never got to Neanderthal on my last vacation. The girls were too interested in climbing and swimming. But it's still a destination. Thanks!

I think the person was referring to the fact that we are on a fitness site, and that the posters here are going to tend to have done more research on fitness and nutrition than the general population, not to mention their own personal experience. And I'm sorry, but neither IQ nor a specialization in science are required for one to have an understanding of nutrition or to be able to extrapolate information from scientific articles, nor are they required for people to be correct in their arguments.

show previous quotes

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:

Exactly. Lindsey is making an awful lot of assumptions about this particular herd and where she fits into it.

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)

Where I was, it was called integrative biology. At the time, and still may be the case, there are two different biology degrees: integrative biology and molecular and cell biology, though there are a lot of overlaps in the classes. Had I taken two more classes in MCB, I would've been up with that degree instead. Integrative captured everything that was not strictly molecular or cellular-based, so from histology all the way up to population studies, cognitive science, ecology and macroevolution. I, personally, spent a lot of time in the human body classes, from histology to organ systems and whatnot because, at the time, I thought (1) it was more interesting, and (2) thought I was going to go either into related research or medicine.

show previous quotes

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....