Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Elementary School Gym teachers telling kids to restrict calories!
Options
Replies
-
coreyreichle wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »First of all kids need proper calorie intake for proper growth. If kids are active they should be able to eat what they want. If concerned about eating healthy teach healthy eating habits. They should not be counting calories and going to the extremes this teacher is teaching them.
She is setting those kids up for an eating disorder and she should be reported to the administration. I think that is absolutely horrible.
I would disagree with most of this. Children should never be allowed to eat what they want. They'd likely live on chips and candy. Parents should teach children how to eat properly - proper portions along with proper nutrition.
I should revise what I said. I certainly don't advocate them eating junk food all day long. I meant eat as much as they want until they are full. Not feeling like they should have to restrict calories. My sons played sports throughout their youth so when we had dinner if they were hungry I let them eat until they were full. And my oldest could put away some food. Because they are so active they burn it off fast. They are grown men and they make good food choices and they very active by working out.
I bolded a very problematic statement here.
Nobody should be eating until they are full. If you are getting the "full feeling", you've ate too much. And, because we are teaching lessons like this to our kids, they are becoming obese.
Well my sons are 25 and 22. They have very little body fat, lift weights every day and have no weight problem whatsoever. So it worked in my household.
Given what the average American thinks "little body fat" is, I'd have to ask for an actual BF% here, before agreeing.
People think I look anorexic. I have ~23% bf, which is overfat.2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »My son is in cub scouts, and they had to learn about calorie counting for a recent badge. He's in fourth grade, and has no concept of obesity, weight loss, or calorie counting. They tracked calories for a week. They talked about how many calories were in what types of foods.
I think it is absolute hogwash. It's worse than worthless; it is truly damaging advice. However, I didn't try to say anything about it during his scouts meeting. I know that the vast majority of people are largely misinformed. At home, I make up for this mainstream garbage by sharing evidence-based nutrition information. Calories are a meaningless measurement, based on no concrete evidence concerning human physiology. No calorie study ever has shown that people actually lose or gain weight in direct proportion to calories-in-calories-out.
I teach my children how to distinguish real, nutrient-dense food from processed, nutrient-poor foods. How to avoid the latter in order to avoid both obesity and a whole slew of chronic illnesses. I teach them how to enjoy the rich and wholesome foods given to us by nature. I also cook almost every meal and pack their lunches at school. IMO, children should not be learning industry-sponsored dogma to count calories, they should be learning sound nutritional principles for understanding what their growing bodies need--however, if we were to do that, we wouldn't turn them into hungry little obesity-prone consumers of cheap, but profitable processed foods.
Just curious, what type of evidence based nutrition information are you referring to? I believe most people with a PhD in nutrition behind their name would not consider calories a meaningless measure.
Oh, really? @Packerjohn Do you have a PhD in nutrition behind your name? Maybe you can explain the deep scientific validity of the calorie. Your response demonstrates a classic logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. It sounds convincing, but actually undermines the soundness your argument.
A calorie is a measurement of energy--originating from chemical engineering work with heat engines. In chemistry, it is the amount of energy required to raise 1 gm of water by 1 degree Celsius. The calories you see on food packages are actually kilo-calories. The kilo-calories in food were originally determined by placing the food in a bomb calorimeter, a sealed container surrounded by water. The food was burned and the resulting rise in water temperature was measured. Now the calorie content of the majority of food is determined indirectly by estimations based on the macro-nutrient composition--this estimation is also based on estimations for fat (9 calories), protein (4 calories), and carbohydrate (4 calories). This whole theory is based on the assumption that the human body uses food energy in the same way as a bomb calorimeter--and also that the human body directly burns all calories. This is false on many levels. Our bodies can use different types of calories for a wide variety of uses: building tissues or enzymes, replenishing lost glycogen, burning energy, or storing body fat. Even the fact that a pound of human body fat equals 3,500 calories is speculation based on the estimation that human fat tissue is approximately 87% fat by weight.
1lb ~ 454 gm
454 gm x 87% ~ 395 gm
395 gm x 9 calories ~ 3,555 calories
Again, this formula is based on math estimations, not human physiology, and it has never been proven directly by any human study. Instead, evidence shows that the human body resists weight loss and weight gain through a variety of hormonal processes, by slowing or increasing BMR as needed. Human physiology is far more complicated than a calorie theory can encompass. Trusting in calories-in-calories-out for weight loss is the reason why all dieting consistently fails across the board, why obesity is rampant, and why mainstream seems confounded with understanding why (but certainly happy with all the profits on processed food, dieting products, and finally pharmaceuticals).
@Crisseyda I do not have a PhD in nutrition as I'm pretty sure you don't either. You say appeal to authority undermines the soundness of an argument. If that is the case where are you getting your information, again assuming you don't have a PhD? I'm guessing from some authority?
Agree there are a host of factors in how the body uses food but calories in vs calories out is the elephant in the corner and the factor people have individual control over.
3 -
It is possible this is a misunderstanding so I would talk to the teacher first before going to the principal. Principals prefer that things are worked out between a teacher and parent as a first step since they already have a lot on their plate to focus on without being involved in something that could be solved at a lower level. The principal should be present though if you feel things may get hostile. As a teacher of 4-8th grade students I feel "counting calories" is too much information for such young minds. It would be more appropriate to teach healthy lifestyle habits such as plenty of fruits and veggies and being active on a daily basis. Young kids can process that kind of information and develop good habits based on it. Counting calories can be processed better by middle school, but it should be emphasized that everyone has different needs. Middle school students can be very self-conscious and sometimes mean to each other so it would need to be taught carefully or wait until high school though you may still have the same issues.0
-
coreyreichle wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »My son is in cub scouts, and they had to learn about calorie counting for a recent badge. He's in fourth grade, and has no concept of obesity, weight loss, or calorie counting. They tracked calories for a week. They talked about how many calories were in what types of foods.
I think it is absolute hogwash. It's worse than worthless; it is truly damaging advice. However, I didn't try to say anything about it during his scouts meeting. I know that the vast majority of people are largely misinformed. At home, I make up for this mainstream garbage by sharing evidence-based nutrition information. Calories are a meaningless measurement, based on no concrete evidence concerning human physiology. No calorie study ever has shown that people actually lose or gain weight in direct proportion to calories-in-calories-out.
I teach my children how to distinguish real, nutrient-dense food from processed, nutrient-poor foods. How to avoid the latter in order to avoid both obesity and a whole slew of chronic illnesses. I teach them how to enjoy the rich and wholesome foods given to us by nature. I also cook almost every meal and pack their lunches at school. IMO, children should not be learning industry-sponsored dogma to count calories, they should be learning sound nutritional principles for understanding what their growing bodies need--however, if we were to do that, we wouldn't turn them into hungry little obesity-prone consumers of cheap, but profitable processed foods.
Just curious, what type of evidence based nutrition information are you referring to? I believe most people with a PhD in nutrition behind their name would not consider calories a meaningless measure.
Oh, really? @Packerjohn Do you have a PhD in nutrition behind your name? Maybe you can explain the deep scientific validity of the calorie. Your response demonstrates a classic logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. It sounds convincing, but actually undermines the soundness your argument.
A calorie is a measurement of energy--originating from chemical engineering work with heat engines. In chemistry, it is the amount of energy required to raise 1 gm of water by 1 degree Celsius. The calories you see on food packages are actually kilo-calories. The kilo-calories in food were originally determined by placing the food in a bomb calorimeter, a sealed container surrounded by water. The food was burned and the resulting rise in water temperature was measured. Now the calorie content of the majority of food is determined indirectly by estimations based on the macro-nutrient composition--this estimation is also based on estimations for fat (9 calories), protein (4 calories), and carbohydrate (4 calories). This whole theory is based on the assumption that the human body uses food energy in the same way as a bomb calorimeter--and also that the human body directly burns all calories. This is false on many levels. Our bodies can use different types of calories for a wide variety of uses: building tissues or enzymes, replenishing lost glycogen, burning energy, or storing body fat. Even the fact that a pound of human body fat equals 3,500 calories is speculation based on the estimation that human fat tissue is approximately 87% fat by weight.
1lb ~ 454 gm
454 gm x 87% ~ 395 gm
395 gm x 9 calories ~ 3,555 calories
Again, this formula is based on math estimations, not human physiology, and it has never been proven directly by any human study. Instead, evidence shows that the human body resists weight loss and weight gain through a variety of hormonal processes, by slowing or increasing BMR as needed. Human physiology is far more complicated than a calorie theory can encompass. Trusting in calories-in-calories-out for weight loss is the reason why all dieting consistently fails across the board, why obesity is rampant, and why mainstream seems confounded with understanding why (but certainly happy with all the profits on processed food, dieting products, and finally pharmaceuticals).
I do not have a PhD in physiology. However, this guy does:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-food-manufacturers/
And, I hate to break it to you: We are chemical engines, that do work. You might be shocked: A Calorie is also a unit of work.
@coreyreichle Did you read that guy's article? He simply explained exactly what I did. Again, no scientific evidence that the human body works like a bomb calorimeter.
I now see you failed to actually read the article. Allow me to quote:
"The original method used to determine the number of kcals in a given food directly measured the energy it produced.The food was placed in a sealed container surrounded by water--an apparatus known as a bomb calorimeter. The food was completely burned and the resulting rise in water temperature was measured. This method is not frequently used today."
As for the human body acting as a bomb calorimeter, you are partially correct! We are highly inefficient chemical energy systems, and therefore, we MUST derive fewer calories of energy than a bomb calorimeter can derive from a food item.
@coreyreichle Right! Today's method is even less accurate. It is based on estimations created using the original method.
I asked you if you read it. I did not simply assume you didn't. I both read it and understood it--and it does not support your original argument.2 -
coreyreichle wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »My son is in cub scouts, and they had to learn about calorie counting for a recent badge. He's in fourth grade, and has no concept of obesity, weight loss, or calorie counting. They tracked calories for a week. They talked about how many calories were in what types of foods.
I think it is absolute hogwash. It's worse than worthless; it is truly damaging advice. However, I didn't try to say anything about it during his scouts meeting. I know that the vast majority of people are largely misinformed. At home, I make up for this mainstream garbage by sharing evidence-based nutrition information. Calories are a meaningless measurement, based on no concrete evidence concerning human physiology. No calorie study ever has shown that people actually lose or gain weight in direct proportion to calories-in-calories-out.
I teach my children how to distinguish real, nutrient-dense food from processed, nutrient-poor foods. How to avoid the latter in order to avoid both obesity and a whole slew of chronic illnesses. I teach them how to enjoy the rich and wholesome foods given to us by nature. I also cook almost every meal and pack their lunches at school. IMO, children should not be learning industry-sponsored dogma to count calories, they should be learning sound nutritional principles for understanding what their growing bodies need--however, if we were to do that, we wouldn't turn them into hungry little obesity-prone consumers of cheap, but profitable processed foods.
Just curious, what type of evidence based nutrition information are you referring to? I believe most people with a PhD in nutrition behind their name would not consider calories a meaningless measure.
Oh, really? @Packerjohn Do you have a PhD in nutrition behind your name? Maybe you can explain the deep scientific validity of the calorie. Your response demonstrates a classic logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. It sounds convincing, but actually undermines the soundness your argument.
A calorie is a measurement of energy--originating from chemical engineering work with heat engines. In chemistry, it is the amount of energy required to raise 1 gm of water by 1 degree Celsius. The calories you see on food packages are actually kilo-calories. The kilo-calories in food were originally determined by placing the food in a bomb calorimeter, a sealed container surrounded by water. The food was burned and the resulting rise in water temperature was measured. Now the calorie content of the majority of food is determined indirectly by estimations based on the macro-nutrient composition--this estimation is also based on estimations for fat (9 calories), protein (4 calories), and carbohydrate (4 calories). This whole theory is based on the assumption that the human body uses food energy in the same way as a bomb calorimeter--and also that the human body directly burns all calories. This is false on many levels. Our bodies can use different types of calories for a wide variety of uses: building tissues or enzymes, replenishing lost glycogen, burning energy, or storing body fat. Even the fact that a pound of human body fat equals 3,500 calories is speculation based on the estimation that human fat tissue is approximately 87% fat by weight.
1lb ~ 454 gm
454 gm x 87% ~ 395 gm
395 gm x 9 calories ~ 3,555 calories
Again, this formula is based on math estimations, not human physiology, and it has never been proven directly by any human study. Instead, evidence shows that the human body resists weight loss and weight gain through a variety of hormonal processes, by slowing or increasing BMR as needed. Human physiology is far more complicated than a calorie theory can encompass. Trusting in calories-in-calories-out for weight loss is the reason why all dieting consistently fails across the board, why obesity is rampant, and why mainstream seems confounded with understanding why (but certainly happy with all the profits on processed food, dieting products, and finally pharmaceuticals).
I do not have a PhD in physiology. However, this guy does:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-food-manufacturers/
And, I hate to break it to you: We are chemical engines, that do work. You might be shocked: A Calorie is also a unit of work.
@coreyreichle Did you read that guy's article? He simply explained exactly what I did. Again, no scientific evidence that the human body works like a bomb calorimeter.
I now see you failed to actually read the article. Allow me to quote:
"The original method used to determine the number of kcals in a given food directly measured the energy it produced.The food was placed in a sealed container surrounded by water--an apparatus known as a bomb calorimeter. The food was completely burned and the resulting rise in water temperature was measured. This method is not frequently used today."
As for the human body acting as a bomb calorimeter, you are partially correct! We are highly inefficient chemical energy systems, and therefore, we MUST derive fewer calories of energy than a bomb calorimeter can derive from a food item.
@coreyreichle Right! Today's method is even less accurate. It is based on estimations created using the original method.
I asked you if you read it. I did not simply assume you didn't. I both read it and understood it--and it does not support your original argument.
Quick question. I count calories. I've lost about 63lbs doing it. If calories are hocum how did that happen?10 -
coreyreichle wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »My son is in cub scouts, and they had to learn about calorie counting for a recent badge. He's in fourth grade, and has no concept of obesity, weight loss, or calorie counting. They tracked calories for a week. They talked about how many calories were in what types of foods.
I think it is absolute hogwash. It's worse than worthless; it is truly damaging advice. However, I didn't try to say anything about it during his scouts meeting. I know that the vast majority of people are largely misinformed. At home, I make up for this mainstream garbage by sharing evidence-based nutrition information. Calories are a meaningless measurement, based on no concrete evidence concerning human physiology. No calorie study ever has shown that people actually lose or gain weight in direct proportion to calories-in-calories-out.
I teach my children how to distinguish real, nutrient-dense food from processed, nutrient-poor foods. How to avoid the latter in order to avoid both obesity and a whole slew of chronic illnesses. I teach them how to enjoy the rich and wholesome foods given to us by nature. I also cook almost every meal and pack their lunches at school. IMO, children should not be learning industry-sponsored dogma to count calories, they should be learning sound nutritional principles for understanding what their growing bodies need--however, if we were to do that, we wouldn't turn them into hungry little obesity-prone consumers of cheap, but profitable processed foods.
Just curious, what type of evidence based nutrition information are you referring to? I believe most people with a PhD in nutrition behind their name would not consider calories a meaningless measure.
Oh, really? @Packerjohn Do you have a PhD in nutrition behind your name? Maybe you can explain the deep scientific validity of the calorie. Your response demonstrates a classic logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. It sounds convincing, but actually undermines the soundness your argument.
A calorie is a measurement of energy--originating from chemical engineering work with heat engines. In chemistry, it is the amount of energy required to raise 1 gm of water by 1 degree Celsius. The calories you see on food packages are actually kilo-calories. The kilo-calories in food were originally determined by placing the food in a bomb calorimeter, a sealed container surrounded by water. The food was burned and the resulting rise in water temperature was measured. Now the calorie content of the majority of food is determined indirectly by estimations based on the macro-nutrient composition--this estimation is also based on estimations for fat (9 calories), protein (4 calories), and carbohydrate (4 calories). This whole theory is based on the assumption that the human body uses food energy in the same way as a bomb calorimeter--and also that the human body directly burns all calories. This is false on many levels. Our bodies can use different types of calories for a wide variety of uses: building tissues or enzymes, replenishing lost glycogen, burning energy, or storing body fat. Even the fact that a pound of human body fat equals 3,500 calories is speculation based on the estimation that human fat tissue is approximately 87% fat by weight.
1lb ~ 454 gm
454 gm x 87% ~ 395 gm
395 gm x 9 calories ~ 3,555 calories
Again, this formula is based on math estimations, not human physiology, and it has never been proven directly by any human study. Instead, evidence shows that the human body resists weight loss and weight gain through a variety of hormonal processes, by slowing or increasing BMR as needed. Human physiology is far more complicated than a calorie theory can encompass. Trusting in calories-in-calories-out for weight loss is the reason why all dieting consistently fails across the board, why obesity is rampant, and why mainstream seems confounded with understanding why (but certainly happy with all the profits on processed food, dieting products, and finally pharmaceuticals).
I do not have a PhD in physiology. However, this guy does:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-food-manufacturers/
And, I hate to break it to you: We are chemical engines, that do work. You might be shocked: A Calorie is also a unit of work.
@coreyreichle Did you read that guy's article? He simply explained exactly what I did. Again, no scientific evidence that the human body works like a bomb calorimeter.
I now see you failed to actually read the article. Allow me to quote:
"The original method used to determine the number of kcals in a given food directly measured the energy it produced.The food was placed in a sealed container surrounded by water--an apparatus known as a bomb calorimeter. The food was completely burned and the resulting rise in water temperature was measured. This method is not frequently used today."
As for the human body acting as a bomb calorimeter, you are partially correct! We are highly inefficient chemical energy systems, and therefore, we MUST derive fewer calories of energy than a bomb calorimeter can derive from a food item.
@coreyreichle Right! Today's method is even less accurate. It is based on estimations created using the original method.
I asked you if you read it. I did not simply assume you didn't. I both read it and understood it--and it does not support your original argument.
So, if calorie counting doesn't work then (1) what was responsible for my weight loss, if all other variables stayed the same and I started calorie counting and (2) why are you on a calorie counting website?7 -
coreyreichle wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »My son is in cub scouts, and they had to learn about calorie counting for a recent badge. He's in fourth grade, and has no concept of obesity, weight loss, or calorie counting. They tracked calories for a week. They talked about how many calories were in what types of foods.
I think it is absolute hogwash. It's worse than worthless; it is truly damaging advice. However, I didn't try to say anything about it during his scouts meeting. I know that the vast majority of people are largely misinformed. At home, I make up for this mainstream garbage by sharing evidence-based nutrition information. Calories are a meaningless measurement, based on no concrete evidence concerning human physiology. No calorie study ever has shown that people actually lose or gain weight in direct proportion to calories-in-calories-out.
I teach my children how to distinguish real, nutrient-dense food from processed, nutrient-poor foods. How to avoid the latter in order to avoid both obesity and a whole slew of chronic illnesses. I teach them how to enjoy the rich and wholesome foods given to us by nature. I also cook almost every meal and pack their lunches at school. IMO, children should not be learning industry-sponsored dogma to count calories, they should be learning sound nutritional principles for understanding what their growing bodies need--however, if we were to do that, we wouldn't turn them into hungry little obesity-prone consumers of cheap, but profitable processed foods.
Just curious, what type of evidence based nutrition information are you referring to? I believe most people with a PhD in nutrition behind their name would not consider calories a meaningless measure.
Oh, really? @Packerjohn Do you have a PhD in nutrition behind your name? Maybe you can explain the deep scientific validity of the calorie. Your response demonstrates a classic logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. It sounds convincing, but actually undermines the soundness your argument.
A calorie is a measurement of energy--originating from chemical engineering work with heat engines. In chemistry, it is the amount of energy required to raise 1 gm of water by 1 degree Celsius. The calories you see on food packages are actually kilo-calories. The kilo-calories in food were originally determined by placing the food in a bomb calorimeter, a sealed container surrounded by water. The food was burned and the resulting rise in water temperature was measured. Now the calorie content of the majority of food is determined indirectly by estimations based on the macro-nutrient composition--this estimation is also based on estimations for fat (9 calories), protein (4 calories), and carbohydrate (4 calories). This whole theory is based on the assumption that the human body uses food energy in the same way as a bomb calorimeter--and also that the human body directly burns all calories. This is false on many levels. Our bodies can use different types of calories for a wide variety of uses: building tissues or enzymes, replenishing lost glycogen, burning energy, or storing body fat. Even the fact that a pound of human body fat equals 3,500 calories is speculation based on the estimation that human fat tissue is approximately 87% fat by weight.
1lb ~ 454 gm
454 gm x 87% ~ 395 gm
395 gm x 9 calories ~ 3,555 calories
Again, this formula is based on math estimations, not human physiology, and it has never been proven directly by any human study. Instead, evidence shows that the human body resists weight loss and weight gain through a variety of hormonal processes, by slowing or increasing BMR as needed. Human physiology is far more complicated than a calorie theory can encompass. Trusting in calories-in-calories-out for weight loss is the reason why all dieting consistently fails across the board, why obesity is rampant, and why mainstream seems confounded with understanding why (but certainly happy with all the profits on processed food, dieting products, and finally pharmaceuticals).
I do not have a PhD in physiology. However, this guy does:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-food-manufacturers/
And, I hate to break it to you: We are chemical engines, that do work. You might be shocked: A Calorie is also a unit of work.
@coreyreichle Did you read that guy's article? He simply explained exactly what I did. Again, no scientific evidence that the human body works like a bomb calorimeter.
I now see you failed to actually read the article. Allow me to quote:
"The original method used to determine the number of kcals in a given food directly measured the energy it produced.The food was placed in a sealed container surrounded by water--an apparatus known as a bomb calorimeter. The food was completely burned and the resulting rise in water temperature was measured. This method is not frequently used today."
As for the human body acting as a bomb calorimeter, you are partially correct! We are highly inefficient chemical energy systems, and therefore, we MUST derive fewer calories of energy than a bomb calorimeter can derive from a food item.
@coreyreichle Right! Today's method is even less accurate. It is based on estimations created using the original method.
I asked you if you read it. I did not simply assume you didn't. I both read it and understood it--and it does not support your original argument.
So, let's assume since we're not perfect chemical engines, our burn efficiency is less than 100%, follow so far?
If we presume calories are purely based on a bomb calorimeter, and food A produces 1000 (k)cals of energy, then our body can only access, let's say 80% of that, 800 of those calories.
That would only mean that calorie counts on labels are high, but are all equally high. Which, basically means they are all still accurate, because they are all inaccurate by the same magnitude, every time.
All this means is that calorie counting would still work!
Allow me to ask: How did I lose ~50 lbs via calorie counting, on the very schedule projected by my caloric deficits?9 -
coreyreichle wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »My son is in cub scouts, and they had to learn about calorie counting for a recent badge. He's in fourth grade, and has no concept of obesity, weight loss, or calorie counting. They tracked calories for a week. They talked about how many calories were in what types of foods.
I think it is absolute hogwash. It's worse than worthless; it is truly damaging advice. However, I didn't try to say anything about it during his scouts meeting. I know that the vast majority of people are largely misinformed. At home, I make up for this mainstream garbage by sharing evidence-based nutrition information. Calories are a meaningless measurement, based on no concrete evidence concerning human physiology. No calorie study ever has shown that people actually lose or gain weight in direct proportion to calories-in-calories-out.
I teach my children how to distinguish real, nutrient-dense food from processed, nutrient-poor foods. How to avoid the latter in order to avoid both obesity and a whole slew of chronic illnesses. I teach them how to enjoy the rich and wholesome foods given to us by nature. I also cook almost every meal and pack their lunches at school. IMO, children should not be learning industry-sponsored dogma to count calories, they should be learning sound nutritional principles for understanding what their growing bodies need--however, if we were to do that, we wouldn't turn them into hungry little obesity-prone consumers of cheap, but profitable processed foods.
Just curious, what type of evidence based nutrition information are you referring to? I believe most people with a PhD in nutrition behind their name would not consider calories a meaningless measure.
Oh, really? @Packerjohn Do you have a PhD in nutrition behind your name? Maybe you can explain the deep scientific validity of the calorie. Your response demonstrates a classic logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. It sounds convincing, but actually undermines the soundness your argument.
A calorie is a measurement of energy--originating from chemical engineering work with heat engines. In chemistry, it is the amount of energy required to raise 1 gm of water by 1 degree Celsius. The calories you see on food packages are actually kilo-calories. The kilo-calories in food were originally determined by placing the food in a bomb calorimeter, a sealed container surrounded by water. The food was burned and the resulting rise in water temperature was measured. Now the calorie content of the majority of food is determined indirectly by estimations based on the macro-nutrient composition--this estimation is also based on estimations for fat (9 calories), protein (4 calories), and carbohydrate (4 calories). This whole theory is based on the assumption that the human body uses food energy in the same way as a bomb calorimeter--and also that the human body directly burns all calories. This is false on many levels. Our bodies can use different types of calories for a wide variety of uses: building tissues or enzymes, replenishing lost glycogen, burning energy, or storing body fat. Even the fact that a pound of human body fat equals 3,500 calories is speculation based on the estimation that human fat tissue is approximately 87% fat by weight.
1lb ~ 454 gm
454 gm x 87% ~ 395 gm
395 gm x 9 calories ~ 3,555 calories
Again, this formula is based on math estimations, not human physiology, and it has never been proven directly by any human study. Instead, evidence shows that the human body resists weight loss and weight gain through a variety of hormonal processes, by slowing or increasing BMR as needed. Human physiology is far more complicated than a calorie theory can encompass. Trusting in calories-in-calories-out for weight loss is the reason why all dieting consistently fails across the board, why obesity is rampant, and why mainstream seems confounded with understanding why (but certainly happy with all the profits on processed food, dieting products, and finally pharmaceuticals).
I do not have a PhD in physiology. However, this guy does:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-food-manufacturers/
And, I hate to break it to you: We are chemical engines, that do work. You might be shocked: A Calorie is also a unit of work.
@coreyreichle Did you read that guy's article? He simply explained exactly what I did. Again, no scientific evidence that the human body works like a bomb calorimeter.
I now see you failed to actually read the article. Allow me to quote:
"The original method used to determine the number of kcals in a given food directly measured the energy it produced.The food was placed in a sealed container surrounded by water--an apparatus known as a bomb calorimeter. The food was completely burned and the resulting rise in water temperature was measured. This method is not frequently used today."
As for the human body acting as a bomb calorimeter, you are partially correct! We are highly inefficient chemical energy systems, and therefore, we MUST derive fewer calories of energy than a bomb calorimeter can derive from a food item.
@coreyreichle Right! Today's method is even less accurate. It is based on estimations created using the original method.
I asked you if you read it. I did not simply assume you didn't. I both read it and understood it--and it does not support your original argument.
So, let's assume since we're not perfect chemical engines, our burn efficiency is less than 100%, follow so far?
If we presume calories are purely based on a bomb calorimeter, and food A produces 1000 (k)cals of energy, then our body can only access, let's say 80% of that, 800 of those calories.
That would only mean that calorie counts on labels are high, but are all equally high. Which, basically means they are all still accurate, because they are all inaccurate by the same magnitude, every time.
All this means is that calorie counting would still work!
Allow me to ask: How did I lose ~50 lbs via calorie counting, on the very schedule projected by my caloric deficits?
To be clear, counting calories can and does work, especially in the short term. You can white knuckle weight loss for a period of time. But what happens when you stop counting? And when are young children expected to begin this supposedly life-long task? And what about during the weight loss, when one is feeling hungry after the calorie requirement is met? As children are growing, they should be allowed to eat to satisfaction. Children shouldn't have to feel hungry to fight obesity. Yet, why is childhood obesity at epidemic proportions? What's out of whack with their bodies' ability to consume food as needed and grow normally?
My point is that the calorie theory is inadequate and puts the focus on the wrong measurement. The focus should be on nutrient density within each calorie. Can a child use calories from sugar-rich foods in the same way as protein-rich foods? Certainly not. Let's take one example, upon rising in the morning, a child could consume a chewy granola bar or a large boiled egg...
The granola bar is sugar-sweetened carbohydrate. The child has just risen, and the liver and muscle glycogen stores are full. Therefore, as the child's blood sugar rapidly rises, the body will immediately release insulin to push it into cells because high blood sugar is inflammatory and directly damaging to cellular proteins (through glycation), and the body does not want to keep more that a few grams floating about on hand--it does its best to keep this parameter tightly regulated. The excess glucose is turned into fat and stored. There is about 1 g of protein, although not a complete protein like in an egg, that can be used for building other tissues or energy.
The egg, on the other, is primarily fat and protein. The fat is taken up by the liver and packaged into chylomicrons. These globules of fat are not inflammatory and their levels can safely vary up to 10 fold. Also, and especially in the presence of low insulin, they will hang around in the bloodstream for hours upon hours, supplying energy to cells. The protein is also a complete protein and can easily be used to build body tissues.
Let's assume the calorie count is exactly equal. However, the effects on the body are clearly anything but. This is one simple example, but it easily demonstrates why the calorie theory is, at best, incomplete; at worst, dangerous, because it promotes the consumption of any processed crap in a box, bag, or bottle in the name of "harmless empty calories." And I haven't even touched upon the vast micronutrient density difference between an egg and a granola bar!2 -
kk_inprogress wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »My son is in cub scouts, and they had to learn about calorie counting for a recent badge. He's in fourth grade, and has no concept of obesity, weight loss, or calorie counting. They tracked calories for a week. They talked about how many calories were in what types of foods.
I think it is absolute hogwash. It's worse than worthless; it is truly damaging advice. However, I didn't try to say anything about it during his scouts meeting. I know that the vast majority of people are largely misinformed. At home, I make up for this mainstream garbage by sharing evidence-based nutrition information. Calories are a meaningless measurement, based on no concrete evidence concerning human physiology. No calorie study ever has shown that people actually lose or gain weight in direct proportion to calories-in-calories-out.
I teach my children how to distinguish real, nutrient-dense food from processed, nutrient-poor foods. How to avoid the latter in order to avoid both obesity and a whole slew of chronic illnesses. I teach them how to enjoy the rich and wholesome foods given to us by nature. I also cook almost every meal and pack their lunches at school. IMO, children should not be learning industry-sponsored dogma to count calories, they should be learning sound nutritional principles for understanding what their growing bodies need--however, if we were to do that, we wouldn't turn them into hungry little obesity-prone consumers of cheap, but profitable processed foods.
Just curious, what type of evidence based nutrition information are you referring to? I believe most people with a PhD in nutrition behind their name would not consider calories a meaningless measure.
Oh, really? @Packerjohn Do you have a PhD in nutrition behind your name? Maybe you can explain the deep scientific validity of the calorie. Your response demonstrates a classic logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. It sounds convincing, but actually undermines the soundness your argument.
A calorie is a measurement of energy--originating from chemical engineering work with heat engines. In chemistry, it is the amount of energy required to raise 1 gm of water by 1 degree Celsius. The calories you see on food packages are actually kilo-calories. The kilo-calories in food were originally determined by placing the food in a bomb calorimeter, a sealed container surrounded by water. The food was burned and the resulting rise in water temperature was measured. Now the calorie content of the majority of food is determined indirectly by estimations based on the macro-nutrient composition--this estimation is also based on estimations for fat (9 calories), protein (4 calories), and carbohydrate (4 calories). This whole theory is based on the assumption that the human body uses food energy in the same way as a bomb calorimeter--and also that the human body directly burns all calories. This is false on many levels. Our bodies can use different types of calories for a wide variety of uses: building tissues or enzymes, replenishing lost glycogen, burning energy, or storing body fat. Even the fact that a pound of human body fat equals 3,500 calories is speculation based on the estimation that human fat tissue is approximately 87% fat by weight.
1lb ~ 454 gm
454 gm x 87% ~ 395 gm
395 gm x 9 calories ~ 3,555 calories
Again, this formula is based on math estimations, not human physiology, and it has never been proven directly by any human study. Instead, evidence shows that the human body resists weight loss and weight gain through a variety of hormonal processes, by slowing or increasing BMR as needed. Human physiology is far more complicated than a calorie theory can encompass. Trusting in calories-in-calories-out for weight loss is the reason why all dieting consistently fails across the board, why obesity is rampant, and why mainstream seems confounded with understanding why (but certainly happy with all the profits on processed food, dieting products, and finally pharmaceuticals).
I do not have a PhD in physiology. However, this guy does:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-food-manufacturers/
And, I hate to break it to you: We are chemical engines, that do work. You might be shocked: A Calorie is also a unit of work.
@coreyreichle Did you read that guy's article? He simply explained exactly what I did. Again, no scientific evidence that the human body works like a bomb calorimeter.
I now see you failed to actually read the article. Allow me to quote:
"The original method used to determine the number of kcals in a given food directly measured the energy it produced.The food was placed in a sealed container surrounded by water--an apparatus known as a bomb calorimeter. The food was completely burned and the resulting rise in water temperature was measured. This method is not frequently used today."
As for the human body acting as a bomb calorimeter, you are partially correct! We are highly inefficient chemical energy systems, and therefore, we MUST derive fewer calories of energy than a bomb calorimeter can derive from a food item.
@coreyreichle Right! Today's method is even less accurate. It is based on estimations created using the original method.
I asked you if you read it. I did not simply assume you didn't. I both read it and understood it--and it does not support your original argument.
So, if calorie counting doesn't work then (1) what was responsible for my weight loss, if all other variables stayed the same and I started calorie counting and (2) why are you on a calorie counting website?
MFP can count many other things besides calories, FWIW.0 -
Based upon the bolded, you're not sharing evidence-based nutrition information with your children. At all.My son is in cub scouts, and they had to learn about calorie counting for a recent badge. He's in fourth grade, and has no concept of obesity, weight loss, or calorie counting. They tracked calories for a week. They talked about how many calories were in what types of foods.
I think it is absolute hogwash. It's worse than worthless; it is truly damaging advice. However, I didn't try to say anything about it during his scouts meeting. I know that the vast majority of people are largely misinformed. At home, I make up for this mainstream garbage by sharing evidence-based nutrition information. Calories are a meaningless measurement, based on no concrete evidence concerning human physiology. No calorie study ever has shown that people actually lose or gain weight in direct proportion to calories-in-calories-out.
I teach my children how to distinguish real, nutrient-dense food from processed, nutrient-poor foods. How to avoid the latter in order to avoid both obesity and a whole slew of chronic illnesses. I teach them how to enjoy the rich and wholesome foods given to us by nature. I also cook almost every meal and pack their lunches at school. IMO, children should not be learning industry-sponsored dogma to count calories, they should be learning sound nutritional principles for understanding what their growing bodies need--however, if we were to do that, we wouldn't turn them into hungry little obesity-prone consumers of cheap, but profitable processed foods.
In addition to the 148 studies annotated in the link above, here is research review which thoroughly discusses energy balance and many of the physiological, psychological and sociological factors which impact weight gain/loss. Note, however, that it relies fundamentally upon the irrefutable principles of energy balance: https://sites.uni.edu/dolgener/UG_Sport_Nutrition/Articles/Energy_Balance.pdf10 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »First of all kids need proper calorie intake for proper growth. If kids are active they should be able to eat what they want. If concerned about eating healthy teach healthy eating habits. They should not be counting calories and going to the extremes this teacher is teaching them.
She is setting those kids up for an eating disorder and she should be reported to the administration. I think that is absolutely horrible.
I would disagree with most of this. Children should never be allowed to eat what they want. They'd likely live on chips and candy. Parents should teach children how to eat properly - proper portions along with proper nutrition.
Absolutely untrue - my daughter prefers eating cherry tomatoes, avocado over chips and strawberries, grapes over candies! when we go out dinning at the pub she eats all the tomatoes and beetroot from my burger ... not interested in chips at all (shé's not a fan of meat either). For the snack, same story, shé's not interested in biscuits or chocolate (she would not eat a piece of her birthday cake lol - she stopped after two mouthful, I didn't though) she ´s just happy with her fruits. When shé's no longer hungry she just stops.
I would be so upset if a well intended teached messed her healthy habits with some calorie counting nonsense.
I understand the majority of kids or your kids might be different but in my family at least, it seems that kids prefer healthier food (same story with my nephews). So you shouldn't put all the kids in the same box.3 -
FatPorkyChop wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »First of all kids need proper calorie intake for proper growth. If kids are active they should be able to eat what they want. If concerned about eating healthy teach healthy eating habits. They should not be counting calories and going to the extremes this teacher is teaching them.
She is setting those kids up for an eating disorder and she should be reported to the administration. I think that is absolutely horrible.
I would disagree with most of this. Children should never be allowed to eat what they want. They'd likely live on chips and candy. Parents should teach children how to eat properly - proper portions along with proper nutrition.
Absolutely untrue - my daughter prefers eating cherry tomatoes, avocado over chips and strawberries, grapes over candies! when we go out dinning at the pub she eats all the tomatoes and beetroot from my burger ... not interested in chips at all (shé's not a fan of meat either). For the snack, same story, shé's not interested in biscuits or chocolate (she would not eat a piece of her birthday cake lol - she stopped after two mouthful, I didn't though) she ´s just happy with her fruits. When shé's no longer hungry she just stops.
I would be so upset if a well intended teached messed her healthy habits with some calorie counting nonsense.
I understand the majority of kids or your kids might be different but in my family at least, it seems that kids prefer healthier food (same story with my nephews). So you shouldn't put all the kids in the same box.
Curious as to how old your daughter is?
Mine had very healthy eating habits and preferences as a child, too. We didn't demonize sweet things - they were just another food group that we didn't indulge in very often.
As a child, she would happily munch on a carrot or a mushroom or a brussel sprout (yuk!) when we went grocery shopping. Her favourite was fresh green peas.
As she grew up, though, and the peer thing started to factor in, her tastes expanded a bit but, to this day (she's now 25) her very favourite snacks are still carrots and peas in the pod. The raw brussels sprouts? No longer a fan.
2 -
You can get quite fat eating healthy, nutrient dense foods and praying attention to your hunger cues if you simply eat a little more than it's needed each day. Evolution favors those who eat beyond minimum necessity by periods of scarcity, which were common until very recently.3
-
You can get quite fat eating healthy, nutrient dense foods and praying attention to your hunger cues if you simply eat a little more than it's needed each day. Evolution favors those who eat beyond minimum necessity by periods of scarcity, which were common until very recently.
Yes, it's really easy to override the "hunger-off" signals. It varies in strength from person to person. As children our parents may have pushed food or not listened to children saying "all done". And society has a lot of signals that tell us to eat, from huge Christmas dinners, to fast food restaurant advertising, eating by the clock and not by hunger (schools, workplaces, etc.) and so on.
4 -
@Calimom10 So sorry to hear about this! I've struggled with bulimia and binge eating, and know the kind of detrimental effects that can come from people in authority telling young children to lose weight and be hyper-vigilant about calorie intake. I would be talking to the principal about this...1
-
coreyreichle wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »My son is in cub scouts, and they had to learn about calorie counting for a recent badge. He's in fourth grade, and has no concept of obesity, weight loss, or calorie counting. They tracked calories for a week. They talked about how many calories were in what types of foods.
I think it is absolute hogwash. It's worse than worthless; it is truly damaging advice. However, I didn't try to say anything about it during his scouts meeting. I know that the vast majority of people are largely misinformed. At home, I make up for this mainstream garbage by sharing evidence-based nutrition information. Calories are a meaningless measurement, based on no concrete evidence concerning human physiology. No calorie study ever has shown that people actually lose or gain weight in direct proportion to calories-in-calories-out.
I teach my children how to distinguish real, nutrient-dense food from processed, nutrient-poor foods. How to avoid the latter in order to avoid both obesity and a whole slew of chronic illnesses. I teach them how to enjoy the rich and wholesome foods given to us by nature. I also cook almost every meal and pack their lunches at school. IMO, children should not be learning industry-sponsored dogma to count calories, they should be learning sound nutritional principles for understanding what their growing bodies need--however, if we were to do that, we wouldn't turn them into hungry little obesity-prone consumers of cheap, but profitable processed foods.
Just curious, what type of evidence based nutrition information are you referring to? I believe most people with a PhD in nutrition behind their name would not consider calories a meaningless measure.
Oh, really? @Packerjohn Do you have a PhD in nutrition behind your name? Maybe you can explain the deep scientific validity of the calorie. Your response demonstrates a classic logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. It sounds convincing, but actually undermines the soundness your argument.
A calorie is a measurement of energy--originating from chemical engineering work with heat engines. In chemistry, it is the amount of energy required to raise 1 gm of water by 1 degree Celsius. The calories you see on food packages are actually kilo-calories. The kilo-calories in food were originally determined by placing the food in a bomb calorimeter, a sealed container surrounded by water. The food was burned and the resulting rise in water temperature was measured. Now the calorie content of the majority of food is determined indirectly by estimations based on the macro-nutrient composition--this estimation is also based on estimations for fat (9 calories), protein (4 calories), and carbohydrate (4 calories). This whole theory is based on the assumption that the human body uses food energy in the same way as a bomb calorimeter--and also that the human body directly burns all calories. This is false on many levels. Our bodies can use different types of calories for a wide variety of uses: building tissues or enzymes, replenishing lost glycogen, burning energy, or storing body fat. Even the fact that a pound of human body fat equals 3,500 calories is speculation based on the estimation that human fat tissue is approximately 87% fat by weight.
1lb ~ 454 gm
454 gm x 87% ~ 395 gm
395 gm x 9 calories ~ 3,555 calories
Again, this formula is based on math estimations, not human physiology, and it has never been proven directly by any human study. Instead, evidence shows that the human body resists weight loss and weight gain through a variety of hormonal processes, by slowing or increasing BMR as needed. Human physiology is far more complicated than a calorie theory can encompass. Trusting in calories-in-calories-out for weight loss is the reason why all dieting consistently fails across the board, why obesity is rampant, and why mainstream seems confounded with understanding why (but certainly happy with all the profits on processed food, dieting products, and finally pharmaceuticals).
I do not have a PhD in physiology. However, this guy does:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-food-manufacturers/
And, I hate to break it to you: We are chemical engines, that do work. You might be shocked: A Calorie is also a unit of work.
@coreyreichle Did you read that guy's article? He simply explained exactly what I did. Again, no scientific evidence that the human body works like a bomb calorimeter.
I now see you failed to actually read the article. Allow me to quote:
"The original method used to determine the number of kcals in a given food directly measured the energy it produced.The food was placed in a sealed container surrounded by water--an apparatus known as a bomb calorimeter. The food was completely burned and the resulting rise in water temperature was measured. This method is not frequently used today."
As for the human body acting as a bomb calorimeter, you are partially correct! We are highly inefficient chemical energy systems, and therefore, we MUST derive fewer calories of energy than a bomb calorimeter can derive from a food item.
@coreyreichle Right! Today's method is even less accurate. It is based on estimations created using the original method.
I asked you if you read it. I did not simply assume you didn't. I both read it and understood it--and it does not support your original argument.
So, let's assume since we're not perfect chemical engines, our burn efficiency is less than 100%, follow so far?
If we presume calories are purely based on a bomb calorimeter, and food A produces 1000 (k)cals of energy, then our body can only access, let's say 80% of that, 800 of those calories.
That would only mean that calorie counts on labels are high, but are all equally high. Which, basically means they are all still accurate, because they are all inaccurate by the same magnitude, every time.
All this means is that calorie counting would still work!
Allow me to ask: How did I lose ~50 lbs via calorie counting, on the very schedule projected by my caloric deficits?
To be clear, counting calories can and does work, especially in the short term. You can white knuckle weight loss for a period of time. But what happens when you stop counting? And when are young children expected to begin this supposedly life-long task? And what about during the weight loss, when one is feeling hungry after the calorie requirement is met? As children are growing, they should be allowed to eat to satisfaction. Children shouldn't have to feel hungry to fight obesity. Yet, why is childhood obesity at epidemic proportions? What's out of whack with their bodies' ability to consume food as needed and grow normally?
My point is that the calorie theory is inadequate and puts the focus on the wrong measurement. The focus should be on nutrient density within each calorie. Can a child use calories from sugar-rich foods in the same way as protein-rich foods? Certainly not. Let's take one example, upon rising in the morning, a child could consume a chewy granola bar or a large boiled egg...
The granola bar is sugar-sweetened carbohydrate. The child has just risen, and the liver and muscle glycogen stores are full. Therefore, as the child's blood sugar rapidly rises, the body will immediately release insulin to push it into cells because high blood sugar is inflammatory and directly damaging to cellular proteins (through glycation), and the body does not want to keep more that a few grams floating about on hand--it does its best to keep this parameter tightly regulated. The excess glucose is turned into fat and stored. There is about 1 g of protein, although not a complete protein like in an egg, that can be used for building other tissues or energy.
The egg, on the other, is primarily fat and protein. The fat is taken up by the liver and packaged into chylomicrons. These globules of fat are not inflammatory and their levels can safely vary up to 10 fold. Also, and especially in the presence of low insulin, they will hang around in the bloodstream for hours upon hours, supplying energy to cells. The protein is also a complete protein and can easily be used to build body tissues.
Let's assume the calorie count is exactly equal. However, the effects on the body are clearly anything but. This is one simple example, but it easily demonstrates why the calorie theory is, at best, incomplete; at worst, dangerous, because it promotes the consumption of any processed crap in a box, bag, or bottle in the name of "harmless empty calories." And I haven't even touched upon the vast micronutrient density difference between an egg and a granola bar!
Odd... I've been maintaining, without white knuckling anything, improving my run times, and improving my lifts, by calorie counting, and secondly by ensuring I hit my macros. I enjoy beer, wine, doritos, and pizza... In moderation, if it fits my caloric goals.
So, how am I maintaining, exactly as projected?
What you're attempting to do is to overcomplicate a rather simplistic system. As for cals in fats, proteins, and carbs: The calorie counts on labels already adjust for it.8 -
I'm skeptical that that's really what's being said, because it is being told to you by a Child who can sometimes misunderstand what an adult is saying. that's coming from someone who used to teach kindergarten. Have you talked to the teacher yourself?
It is part of a health teacher's job to teach nutrition, which is a good thing because many parents don't teach their children anything about nutrition. That is a big reason why there is a childhood obesity problem and why children are getting diseases and conditions that used to be for adults (like diabetes and heart disease).
I don't understand why a parent would disagree with the school teaching children to make healthy good choices and the importance of leading a healthy active lifestyle. Isn't that something we should all be striving for? Children also should never be able to just eat whatever they want. There should be structure there because let's face it, if kids could just eat whatever they wanted they would try to live off of soda and chips and popcorn and pop tarts. No one can sustain their life on that, nor should they try.
I am actually a big advocate of states that require kids be in gym every single year from elementary school through high school.1 -
I am actually a big advocate of states that require kids be in gym every single year from elementary school through high school.
Yes, yes, a million times yes. Despite the fact that I loathed gym from the time I was in 2nd grade (loved it in k & 1, oddly enough) until "released" from mandatory gym after 10th grade.
I teach in a public school district that cut gym from 5 days a week to 2 days a week this year, and the behavior problems with the students are absolutely through the roof. The kids are going bananas, and no one really wants to say a word about it because you can get fired for that kind of criticism. But we all know it, we all see it, and it's a really big problem.2 -
Based upon the bolded, you're not sharing evidence-based nutrition information with your children. At all.My son is in cub scouts, and they had to learn about calorie counting for a recent badge. He's in fourth grade, and has no concept of obesity, weight loss, or calorie counting. They tracked calories for a week. They talked about how many calories were in what types of foods.
I think it is absolute hogwash. It's worse than worthless; it is truly damaging advice. However, I didn't try to say anything about it during his scouts meeting. I know that the vast majority of people are largely misinformed. At home, I make up for this mainstream garbage by sharing evidence-based nutrition information. Calories are a meaningless measurement, based on no concrete evidence concerning human physiology. No calorie study ever has shown that people actually lose or gain weight in direct proportion to calories-in-calories-out.
I teach my children how to distinguish real, nutrient-dense food from processed, nutrient-poor foods. How to avoid the latter in order to avoid both obesity and a whole slew of chronic illnesses. I teach them how to enjoy the rich and wholesome foods given to us by nature. I also cook almost every meal and pack their lunches at school. IMO, children should not be learning industry-sponsored dogma to count calories, they should be learning sound nutritional principles for understanding what their growing bodies need--however, if we were to do that, we wouldn't turn them into hungry little obesity-prone consumers of cheap, but profitable processed foods.
In addition to the 148 studies annotated in the link above, here is research review which thoroughly discusses energy balance and many of the physiological, psychological and sociological factors which impact weight gain/loss. Note, however, that it relies fundamentally upon the irrefutable principles of energy balance: https://sites.uni.edu/dolgener/UG_Sport_Nutrition/Articles/Energy_Balance.pdf
Gatorade Sport Science Institute! LMAO0 -
Based upon the bolded, you're not sharing evidence-based nutrition information with your children. At all.My son is in cub scouts, and they had to learn about calorie counting for a recent badge. He's in fourth grade, and has no concept of obesity, weight loss, or calorie counting. They tracked calories for a week. They talked about how many calories were in what types of foods.
I think it is absolute hogwash. It's worse than worthless; it is truly damaging advice. However, I didn't try to say anything about it during his scouts meeting. I know that the vast majority of people are largely misinformed. At home, I make up for this mainstream garbage by sharing evidence-based nutrition information. Calories are a meaningless measurement, based on no concrete evidence concerning human physiology. No calorie study ever has shown that people actually lose or gain weight in direct proportion to calories-in-calories-out.
I teach my children how to distinguish real, nutrient-dense food from processed, nutrient-poor foods. How to avoid the latter in order to avoid both obesity and a whole slew of chronic illnesses. I teach them how to enjoy the rich and wholesome foods given to us by nature. I also cook almost every meal and pack their lunches at school. IMO, children should not be learning industry-sponsored dogma to count calories, they should be learning sound nutritional principles for understanding what their growing bodies need--however, if we were to do that, we wouldn't turn them into hungry little obesity-prone consumers of cheap, but profitable processed foods.
In addition to the 148 studies annotated in the link above, here is research review which thoroughly discusses energy balance and many of the physiological, psychological and sociological factors which impact weight gain/loss. Note, however, that it relies fundamentally upon the irrefutable principles of energy balance: https://sites.uni.edu/dolgener/UG_Sport_Nutrition/Articles/Energy_Balance.pdf
Gatorade Sport Science Institute! LMAO
Yep, GSSI...The Institute is internationally recognized for its research and education offerings, which serve nearly 100,000 subscribers in more than 145 countries. In addition, more than 100 Student Research Grants have been awarded to research fellows and graduate students throughout North America, Latin America, Australia, Asia and Europe supporting research in a variety of areas.
It's a foundation, named after it's seed money provider. Done quite often, ie "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation", which has put out a number of papers regarding computer science, and they are seen as still reliable sources.
You do realize this benefits Gatorade, because they engineer a product for athletes, to aid performance, and if their product were to be found sub-par for it's use, athletes would quickly discover that, and move onto better products, right?
New Balance and Nike often commission research into foot and ankle issues, as well, so they can design better shoes.11
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions