Viewing the message boards in:

A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE

Options
1131416181926

Replies

  • Posts: 7,436 Member

    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........
  • Posts: 2,395 Member
    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.

    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).
  • Posts: 2,395 Member

    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.
  • Posts: 6,129 Member

    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:
  • Posts: 2,395 Member

    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.
  • Posts: 3,069 Member
    IN because I'm bored tonite!:laugh:
  • Posts: 24,208 Member

    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.
  • Posts: 3,730 Member

    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:
  • Posts: 15,357 Member
    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.
  • Posts: 24,208 Member

    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)
  • Posts: 15,267 Member
    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!!!

    I had burger king chicken tenders...nom nom...so worth it...
  • Posts: 24,208 Member

    Wanna translate all that into derp for me? :laugh:

    Arguing from the position of degrees and IQ is not too smart.
  • Posts: 7,436 Member

    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 :smile:

    it's http://cavepeopleandstuff.wordpress.com/
  • Posts: 17,857 Member
    I just want to know what foods I can eat that will let me burn 1200 calories an hour swinging a kettlebell.
  • Posts: 24,208 Member

    thanks :smile:

    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!
  • Posts: 22,505 Member

    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.

    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.
  • :drinker:

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

    This whole thread is effing exhausting! Be thankful for your food and enjoy it! :laugh:
    Meat Lovers Pizza for me!!!!!!! :love:
  • Posts: 5,413 Member

    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.
  • Posts: 2,395 Member

    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.
  • Posts: 15,267 Member

    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....
  • Posts: 7,436 Member

    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!

    It's a really good idea for a holiday destination :drinker: and swimming and climbing are excellent too
  • Posts: 253 Member
    ReDiMKi.gif
  • Posts: 699 Member

    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.

    Exactly. It is a little amusing to see people clinging to undergrad studies on fitness message boards. A non college educated fitness enthusiast could use the internet to learn more relevant information to body composition and weightlifting/diet than nearly all hard science undergrad majors in probably 1 months time.

    I know this is true for endocrinology as it relates to muscle gain. I would trust a totally average avid forum poster on a bodybuilding website to have more accurate and more applicable knowledge on the subject than almost any General Practitioner in the US. The amount of endocrinology they are required to cover, especially as it relates to weightlifting, is pitiful and easily outmatched by most internet gurus.

    Of course, people need the education and capacity for logic to fully understand this stuff, but come on...this is an internet fitness forum...most everyone is fairly educated/nerdy/intelligent/etc etc. Not a bunch of uneducated idiots.

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

    I don't think we're talking about calories anymore. I think that the topic has changed to who has the best undergraduate degree and IQ:)
  • Posts: 24,208 Member

    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.

    Interesting - I wish my daughter's program had been more generalist at first rather than deep dives in sub categories. Maybe she would have found it less overwhelming.

    Guyton's, huh?
  • Posts: 2,395 Member

    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.

    I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that. I went back and read most of my posts, and they're not really complicated. Some people just don't want to address the differences with fat loss, muscle loss and weight loss and how different calories affect that. I firmly believe it's not a lack of being clear, but a lack of basic reading comprehension and desire not conflict with their long-held belief that all calories are the same.
  • Posts: 17,857 Member

    agreed....
    I herd that.
  • Posts: 29,136 Member

    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).


    oooooo with honors…and top 1% of class….

    yea, I do not need to go through my "credentials" to impress a bunch of people..

    The fact is you have contradicted yourself about five times in this thread, and I will let your previous posting history speak for itself..

    and I will sign off with this…

    If you really graduated in the top 1% of your class, why do you cite "marks daily apple" as a source..??/ And how come whenever someone asks for the studies that you always cite you can never "access" them …

    seems to me if you were in the top 1% of a "top institution" then you would have said studies easily accessible…

    but have fun never being wrong and contradicting yourself about a thousand more times...
  • ReDiMKi.gif

    :laugh:

    Science!!
  • Posts: 2,395 Member

    Interesting - I wish my daughter's program had been more generalist at first rather than deep dives in sub categories. Maybe she would have found it less overwhelming.

    Guyton's, huh?

    I think the idea was that they wanted to provide the opportunity for both. The university was and is a research powerhouse, so there was no lack of deep diving available. In fact, you had to kind of fight against that tendency as many professors wanted to scoop you up his research assistants very quickly. Plus the IB department had the big advantage of having a research station in Tahiti. That's pretty big advantage, no?
This discussion has been closed.