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.
Unpopular opinions
Replies
-
I'm probably going to get woo'd into another dimension here but here goes.
CICO is not exactly true.
A version of CICO is true where CI is not the calories that go into your body. It's the calories you are able to extract from the food. We don't have that information.
We determine calories in food by burning the food. Your body is not a furnace. To my knowledge, nobody has done laborious testing to determine how many calories you can extract from different foods using stomach acid, bile, etc. So that information is not available to us.
If you're about to inform me that you can lose weight eating Twinkies, you're missed my point. Of course you can do that. You're definitely not going to get more calories from something using your body than from burning it. Hell, maybe it's even harder for our GI tract to get Twinkie calories than kale calories. F if I know. That's my point.
Also, CO isn't something you can really calculate either. I mean, humans aren't machines with four setting that include sedentary, active.... so on. You can be sedentary but super fidgety and burn quite a few calories.
I don't know of a better way to lose weight than to act as though CICO is exactly true. So we can probably calm down a bit. There's no need for a huge flame war. Those are the best estimates available to us. They are far from accurate.
The best you can do is apply this CICO for a while until you get to a calculated Ci and CO that results in weight loss, from there you shoot for precision, not accuracy.
This solves the problem of people saying they are not losing at 1000 cal/day. The response is, "You aren't losing at what you've calculated to be 1000 cal/day. So adjust down to what you calculate to be 800 cal/day."
"But 1000 is so little."
"It's not actually 1000. Nobody is eating the calories we think we're eating. We're all just estimating at best. Some better than others. Either dramatically change the way you estimate your calories or adjust down."
Hell, I know I'm not getting 1600. Don't care. If I start losing weight, I'll continue doing what I'm doing. If not, I'll make a change.
That super long thread here where a guy claims to have tracked his calories to the point where he lost the exact amount calculated he should lose, that is just a huge fluke.5 -
Waking up and immediately getting on the station bike, some say don't do this I say they're making excuses5
-
I'm probably going to get woo'd into another dimension here but here goes.
CICO is not exactly true.
A version of CICO is true where CI is not the calories that go into your body. It's the calories you are able to extract from the food. We don't have that information.
We determine calories in food by burning the food. Your body is not a furnace. To my knowledge, nobody has done laborious testing to determine how many calories you can extract from different foods using stomach acid, bile, etc. So that information is not available to us.
If you're about to inform me that you can lose weight eating Twinkies, you're missed my point. Of course you can do that. You're definitely not going to get more calories from something using your body than from burning it. Hell, maybe it's even harder for our GI tract to get Twinkie calories than kale calories. F if I know. That's my point.
Also, CO isn't something you can really calculate either. I mean, humans aren't machines with four setting that include sedentary, active.... so on. You can be sedentary but super fidgety and burn quite a few calories.
I don't know of a better way to lose weight than to act as though CICO is exactly true. So we can probably calm down a bit. There's no need for a huge flame war. Those are the best estimates available to us. They are far from accurate.
The best you can do is apply this CICO for a while until you get to a calculated Ci and CO that results in weight loss, from there you shoot for precision, not accuracy.
This solves the problem of people saying they are not losing at 1000 cal/day. The response is, "You aren't losing at what you've calculated to be 1000 cal/day. So adjust down to what you calculate to be 800 cal/day."
"But 1000 is so little."
"It's not actually 1000. Nobody is eating the calories we think we're eating. We're all just estimating at best. Some better than others. Either dramatically change the way you estimate your calories or adjust down."
Hell, I know I'm not getting 1600. Don't care. If I start losing weight, I'll continue doing what I'm doing. If not, I'll make a change.
That super long thread here where a guy claims to have tracked his calories to the point where he lost the exact amount calculated he should lose, that is just a huge fluke.
You're confusing the biological process of CICO with our ability to accurately measure/account for it.
The biological process of it is absolutely true. Our ability to account for it down to the very last decimal with pin-point accuracy? That's difficult without access to some very sophisticated laboratory equipment.
Saying that, generally, with careful tracking and reasonable application of logic, most people are able to achieve a "close enough is good enough" approximation over time.19 -
I'm probably going to get woo'd into another dimension here but here goes.
CICO is not exactly true.
A version of CICO is true where CI is not the calories that go into your body. It's the calories you are able to extract from the food. We don't have that information.
We determine calories in food by burning the food. Your body is not a furnace. To my knowledge, nobody has done laborious testing to determine how many calories you can extract from different foods using stomach acid, bile, etc. So that information is not available to us.
If you're about to inform me that you can lose weight eating Twinkies, you're missed my point. Of course you can do that. You're definitely not going to get more calories from something using your body than from burning it. Hell, maybe it's even harder for our GI tract to get Twinkie calories than kale calories. F if I know. That's my point.
Also, CO isn't something you can really calculate either. I mean, humans aren't machines with four setting that include sedentary, active.... so on. You can be sedentary but super fidgety and burn quite a few calories.
I don't know of a better way to lose weight than to act as though CICO is exactly true. So we can probably calm down a bit. There's no need for a huge flame war. Those are the best estimates available to us. They are far from accurate.
The best you can do is apply this CICO for a while until you get to a calculated Ci and CO that results in weight loss, from there you shoot for precision, not accuracy.
This solves the problem of people saying they are not losing at 1000 cal/day. The response is, "You aren't losing at what you've calculated to be 1000 cal/day. So adjust down to what you calculate to be 800 cal/day."
"But 1000 is so little."
"It's not actually 1000. Nobody is eating the calories we think we're eating. We're all just estimating at best. Some better than others. Either dramatically change the way you estimate your calories or adjust down."
Hell, I know I'm not getting 1600. Don't care. If I start losing weight, I'll continue doing what I'm doing. If not, I'll make a change.
That super long thread here where a guy claims to have tracked his calories to the point where he lost the exact amount calculated he should lose, that is just a huge fluke.
This seems like an exercise in confirmation bias.
Very few things outside of the abstract are true, precise, and constant.
Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
Regarding CI:
Person A eats apple and processes 80 kcals from a 80 kcal serving.
Person B eats apple and processes 78 kcals from a 80 kcal serving.
It is impossible to process > 80 kcals from this serving.
Regarding CO:
Person A estimates their activity as sedentary, so their online calculation is 1600, but actually 1600.
Person B estimates their activity as sedentary and fidgets, so their online calculation is 1600, but actually 1660.
Person C estimates their activity as active, so their online calculation is 1800, but actually 1600.
In any case the results will tell you if you are in caloric deficit, maintenance, or surplus. This will take a matter of weeks/months over hours/days.
10 -
I'm probably going to get woo'd into another dimension here but here goes.
CICO is not exactly true.
A version of CICO is true where CI is not the calories that go into your body. It's the calories you are able to extract from the food. We don't have that information.
This has been discussed over and over again. It is understood.
In practice, it doesn't matter -- you adjust.Also, CO isn't something you can really calculate either. I mean, humans aren't machines with four setting that include sedentary, active.... so on. You can be sedentary but super fidgety and burn quite a few calories.
Same point, you adjust. It's not complicated.
Eating what I think is 2000 and being consistent in counting, I lose, maintain, or gain, and so I eat less or more or the same, depending on what my goal is. Easy-peasy.
As it happened, when I started I thought I'd lose about 1.6 lbs on 1250, ended up losing more like 3 lbs on a consistent basis, and realized I was more active than I'd realized. I increased calories to 1500 and ate back exercise calories and as I got less fat started losing 2 lb/week and then 1.5 lb/week, so on.This solves the problem of people saying they are not losing at 1000 cal/day. The response is, "You aren't losing at what you've calculated to be 1000 cal/day. So adjust down to what you calculate to be 800 cal/day."
If their tracking is way, way off, it's helpful for them to be aware of that so they can fix it. Sometimes it's something like not thinking cooking oil matters or other errors that might affect what they actually eat.8 -
This seems like an exercise in confirmation bias.
What bias do you think I am confirming, even? If we came to basically the same conclusion, what bias do you perceive I have.The best you can do is apply this CICO for a while until you get to a calculated Ci and CO that results in weight loss, from there you shoot for precision, not accuracy.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
Do you see the similarity? Do you see that we are coming to basically the same conclusion?Very few things outside of the abstract are true, precise, and constant.
I am saying that the way we measure the calories in food is nowhere near anything similar to the way the body processes the calories in food. Burning v. dissolving, it's not similar at all.
It is entirely possible that eating 100 calories of kale doesn't give you anywhere near the same calories that 100 calories of donuts gives you.
I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it's very possible and nothing I've ever seen has convinced me this is NOT true.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
I'm not saying this as advice or anything. I'm sharing it only as an opinion that is unpopular. Because that's what this thread is about. I knew this one was super unpopular, I shared it, I got like 16 woo's confirming it's unpopular.
There couldn't be a more appropriate place for me to share this opinion.
It doesn't even make any sense to call it confirmation. The only thing I'm confirming is doubt, We don't know that 100 calories of kale is the same as 100 calories of donut. Because, FFS, we don't even really know that 100 calories of food is 100 calories.10 -
This seems like an exercise in confirmation bias.
What bias do you think I am confirming, even? If we came to basically the same conclusion, what bias do you perceive I have.The best you can do is apply this CICO for a while until you get to a calculated Ci and CO that results in weight loss, from there you shoot for precision, not accuracy.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
Do you see the similarity? Do you see that we are coming to basically the same conclusion?Very few things outside of the abstract are true, precise, and constant.
I am saying that the way we measure the calories in food is nowhere near anything similar to the way the body processes the calories in food. Burning v. dissolving, it's not similar at all.
It is entirely possible that eating 100 calories of kale doesn't give you anywhere near the same calories that 100 calories of donuts gives you.
I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it's very possible and nothing I've ever seen has convinced me this is NOT true.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
I'm not saying this as advice or anything. I'm sharing it only as an opinion that is unpopular. Because that's what this thread is about. I knew this one was super unpopular, I shared it, I got like 16 woo's confirming it's unpopular.
There couldn't be a more appropriate place for me to share this opinion.
It doesn't even make any sense to call it confirmation. The only thing I'm confirming is doubt, We don't know that 100 calories of kale is the same as 100 calories of donut. Because, FFS, we don't even really know that 100 calories of food is 100 calories.
Anything is possible, but do you have any particular reason to think that 100 calories of donut *isn't* 100 calories of donut? You can use the excuse of "anything is possible" to doubt everything. Before you know it, we're making sacrifices to the moon to prevent space babies from coming down and stealing our silverware.9 -
This seems like an exercise in confirmation bias.
What bias do you think I am confirming, even? If we came to basically the same conclusion, what bias do you perceive I have.The best you can do is apply this CICO for a while until you get to a calculated Ci and CO that results in weight loss, from there you shoot for precision, not accuracy.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
Do you see the similarity? Do you see that we are coming to basically the same conclusion?Very few things outside of the abstract are true, precise, and constant.
I am saying that the way we measure the calories in food is nowhere near anything similar to the way the body processes the calories in food. Burning v. dissolving, it's not similar at all.
It is entirely possible that eating 100 calories of kale doesn't give you anywhere near the same calories that 100 calories of donuts gives you.
I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it's very possible and nothing I've ever seen has convinced me this is NOT true.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
I'm not saying this as advice or anything. I'm sharing it only as an opinion that is unpopular. Because that's what this thread is about. I knew this one was super unpopular, I shared it, I got like 16 woo's confirming it's unpopular.
There couldn't be a more appropriate place for me to share this opinion.
It doesn't even make any sense to call it confirmation. The only thing I'm confirming is doubt, We don't know that 100 calories of kale is the same as 100 calories of donut. Because, FFS, we don't even really know that 100 calories of food is 100 calories.
I'm curious - why do you want to believe this?1 -
youcantflexcardio wrote: »What unpopular/controversial opinions do you have regarding fitness/exercise/food? No BS broscience, just things that other people find harsh/do not necessarily agree with. It's better if you can back these opinions up with some sort of decent argument. I'll start, I've got a couple I wholeheartedly believe.
Unpopular opinion: Food is fuel, not therapy.
Argument - food is about giving your body what it needs, not what your brain craves. The occasional cheat is ok and mentally healthy, but the bulk of what a person consumes should be for a purpose; weight loss, weight gain, maintenence, hit macro goals, stay within calorie goals, hit micro goals, and try to fill all nutritional gaps. This is not to say you can't eat foods you enjoy and occasionally cheat, but that one should make a conscious effort to give the body what it needs with good, quality food.
Unpopular opinion: Walking is not exercise
Argument - this one is probably the most controversial of my beliefs. I do not believe walking is true exercise. Walking is good - and is a lot better than nothing, but walking does not fall into the same intensity category as things like running, cycling, swimming, weightlifting, etc. A lot of this belief stems from the quote "The human body was not designed for a sedentary lifestyle, it evolved to walk 40 miles a day and hunt saber tooth tigers". I hold that quote to be true...humans are bipedal - walking is what we evolved as our main mode of transportation. True exercise pushes the limits - walking is good and everyone should make an effort to walk more, but it is not enough on it's own to qualify a person as more than sedentary or lightly active at best.
What opinions do you have that might seem harsh or controversial?
I would only argue with the walking is not exercise. When you're carrying 100+ extra pounds on your body walking is ABSOLUTELY exercise. If you haven't been that fat, you don't know the stress simply walking can put on the body. I sweat like a PIG when I walk, my heart pounds in my chest, my body has the same reaction it used to have to running (when I ran).
So it's all relative.12 -
My unpopular opinion:
It's better to resurrect an old thread then start a new one with the same topic. :P19 -
janejellyroll wrote: »This seems like an exercise in confirmation bias.
What bias do you think I am confirming, even? If we came to basically the same conclusion, what bias do you perceive I have.The best you can do is apply this CICO for a while until you get to a calculated Ci and CO that results in weight loss, from there you shoot for precision, not accuracy.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
Do you see the similarity? Do you see that we are coming to basically the same conclusion?Very few things outside of the abstract are true, precise, and constant.
I am saying that the way we measure the calories in food is nowhere near anything similar to the way the body processes the calories in food. Burning v. dissolving, it's not similar at all.
It is entirely possible that eating 100 calories of kale doesn't give you anywhere near the same calories that 100 calories of donuts gives you.
I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it's very possible and nothing I've ever seen has convinced me this is NOT true.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
I'm not saying this as advice or anything. I'm sharing it only as an opinion that is unpopular. Because that's what this thread is about. I knew this one was super unpopular, I shared it, I got like 16 woo's confirming it's unpopular.
There couldn't be a more appropriate place for me to share this opinion.
It doesn't even make any sense to call it confirmation. The only thing I'm confirming is doubt, We don't know that 100 calories of kale is the same as 100 calories of donut. Because, FFS, we don't even really know that 100 calories of food is 100 calories.
Anything is possible, but do you have any particular reason to think that 100 calories of donut *isn't* 100 calories of donut? You can use the excuse of "anything is possible" to doubt everything. Before you know it, we're making sacrifices to the moon to prevent space babies from coming down and stealing our silverware.
None at all. I couldn't care less.
I just see people claim all the time that a calorie is a calorie and I always think, "You're talking out of your *kitten*." But I don't disagree because any time I do I'm beset by an angry mob. So it's just this unpopular opinion I had sitting in my pocket when this thread came up.12 -
This seems like an exercise in confirmation bias.
What bias do you think I am confirming, even? If we came to basically the same conclusion, what bias do you perceive I have.The best you can do is apply this CICO for a while until you get to a calculated Ci and CO that results in weight loss, from there you shoot for precision, not accuracy.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
Do you see the similarity? Do you see that we are coming to basically the same conclusion?Very few things outside of the abstract are true, precise, and constant.
I am saying that the way we measure the calories in food is nowhere near anything similar to the way the body processes the calories in food. Burning v. dissolving, it's not similar at all.
It is entirely possible that eating 100 calories of kale doesn't give you anywhere near the same calories that 100 calories of donuts gives you.
I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it's very possible and nothing I've ever seen has convinced me this is NOT true.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
I'm not saying this as advice or anything. I'm sharing it only as an opinion that is unpopular. Because that's what this thread is about. I knew this one was super unpopular, I shared it, I got like 16 woo's confirming it's unpopular.
There couldn't be a more appropriate place for me to share this opinion.
It doesn't even make any sense to call it confirmation. The only thing I'm confirming is doubt, We don't know that 100 calories of kale is the same as 100 calories of donut. Because, FFS, we don't even really know that 100 calories of food is 100 calories.
I'm curious - why do you want to believe this?
You're begging the question. I don't want to believe any particular thing.
I don't care. I believe what makes the most sense to me.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »This seems like an exercise in confirmation bias.
What bias do you think I am confirming, even? If we came to basically the same conclusion, what bias do you perceive I have.The best you can do is apply this CICO for a while until you get to a calculated Ci and CO that results in weight loss, from there you shoot for precision, not accuracy.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
Do you see the similarity? Do you see that we are coming to basically the same conclusion?Very few things outside of the abstract are true, precise, and constant.
I am saying that the way we measure the calories in food is nowhere near anything similar to the way the body processes the calories in food. Burning v. dissolving, it's not similar at all.
It is entirely possible that eating 100 calories of kale doesn't give you anywhere near the same calories that 100 calories of donuts gives you.
I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it's very possible and nothing I've ever seen has convinced me this is NOT true.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
I'm not saying this as advice or anything. I'm sharing it only as an opinion that is unpopular. Because that's what this thread is about. I knew this one was super unpopular, I shared it, I got like 16 woo's confirming it's unpopular.
There couldn't be a more appropriate place for me to share this opinion.
It doesn't even make any sense to call it confirmation. The only thing I'm confirming is doubt, We don't know that 100 calories of kale is the same as 100 calories of donut. Because, FFS, we don't even really know that 100 calories of food is 100 calories.
Anything is possible, but do you have any particular reason to think that 100 calories of donut *isn't* 100 calories of donut? You can use the excuse of "anything is possible" to doubt everything. Before you know it, we're making sacrifices to the moon to prevent space babies from coming down and stealing our silverware.
None at all. I couldn't care less.
I just see people claim all the time that a calorie is a calorie and I always think, "You're talking out of your *kitten*." But I don't disagree because any time I do I'm beset by an angry mob. So it's just this unpopular opinion I had sitting in my pocket when this thread came up.
People state a calorie is a calorie based upon the collective body of objective evidence.
Do you have objective evidence to the contrary? An opinion, having no basis in facts or reasoning, probably isn't the best means for disagreement.
6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »This seems like an exercise in confirmation bias.
What bias do you think I am confirming, even? If we came to basically the same conclusion, what bias do you perceive I have.The best you can do is apply this CICO for a while until you get to a calculated Ci and CO that results in weight loss, from there you shoot for precision, not accuracy.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
Do you see the similarity? Do you see that we are coming to basically the same conclusion?Very few things outside of the abstract are true, precise, and constant.
I am saying that the way we measure the calories in food is nowhere near anything similar to the way the body processes the calories in food. Burning v. dissolving, it's not similar at all.
It is entirely possible that eating 100 calories of kale doesn't give you anywhere near the same calories that 100 calories of donuts gives you.
I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it's very possible and nothing I've ever seen has convinced me this is NOT true.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
I'm not saying this as advice or anything. I'm sharing it only as an opinion that is unpopular. Because that's what this thread is about. I knew this one was super unpopular, I shared it, I got like 16 woo's confirming it's unpopular.
There couldn't be a more appropriate place for me to share this opinion.
It doesn't even make any sense to call it confirmation. The only thing I'm confirming is doubt, We don't know that 100 calories of kale is the same as 100 calories of donut. Because, FFS, we don't even really know that 100 calories of food is 100 calories.
Anything is possible, but do you have any particular reason to think that 100 calories of donut *isn't* 100 calories of donut? You can use the excuse of "anything is possible" to doubt everything. Before you know it, we're making sacrifices to the moon to prevent space babies from coming down and stealing our silverware.
None at all. I couldn't care less.
I just see people claim all the time that a calorie is a calorie and I always think, "You're talking out of your *kitten*." But I don't disagree because any time I do I'm beset by an angry mob. So it's just this unpopular opinion I had sitting in my pocket when this thread came up.
People state a calorie is a calorie based upon the collective body of objective evidence.
Do you have objective evidence to the contrary? An opinion, having no basis in facts or reasoning, probably isn't the best means for disagreement.
I have never seen evidence that the human body can extract the same number of calories from 100 calories of X as it does from 100 calories of Y. As far as I know, we don't even know how many calories the body can extract from 100 calories of X much less compare it to Y.
And that is based entirely in facts and reality. I've never seen it. That's true.
I'm excited if there is an objective body of evidence. That interests me. I'm sure it isn't a secret so let's see it.
My point is, "AS FAR AS I KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW THAT."
What is so hard about saying, "We actually do know that. There have been some studies. Here they are."
This conversation is always so strange and weirdly contentious. Everybody telling me what I want to believe and that I'm biased and there's a secret body of evidence nobody has shared. It's baffling to me,7 -
My unpopular opinion:
It's better to resurrect an old thread then start a new one with the same topic. :P
Depends on the resurrection.
I've seen too many resurrections where someone is addressing the OP who hasn't posted in years.
It's rare that you see a resurrection that goes "I've got the same issue and read through this thread and have questions". Those almost always get a pass. But then what often happens is someone else comes along, read from the beginning and starts responding to posts from long gone posters.
A better way to do it is to start a new thread, refer back to the dead thread and ask the pertinent questions that you have so they can be addressed without bringing up old issues from long gone posters. It will work better to get your questions answered.
But there is nothing against the rules from resurrecting old posts so feel free.
Besdies, some of the resurrections are frikken hysterical
2 -
0
-
See, the problem my actually be that I care so little because I'm not coming back to this thread. Dealing with the kinds of replies I'm getting isn't worth it. I'll just go on having my unpopular opinion.
To imply that my opinion. is held simply because I desire to hold that opinion is unkind and unfair.
This is why I only debate people who seem to abide by the principle of charity. Anything else is a waste of time.
I'm out.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »This seems like an exercise in confirmation bias.
What bias do you think I am confirming, even? If we came to basically the same conclusion, what bias do you perceive I have.The best you can do is apply this CICO for a while until you get to a calculated Ci and CO that results in weight loss, from there you shoot for precision, not accuracy.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
Do you see the similarity? Do you see that we are coming to basically the same conclusion?Very few things outside of the abstract are true, precise, and constant.
I am saying that the way we measure the calories in food is nowhere near anything similar to the way the body processes the calories in food. Burning v. dissolving, it's not similar at all.
It is entirely possible that eating 100 calories of kale doesn't give you anywhere near the same calories that 100 calories of donuts gives you.
I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it's very possible and nothing I've ever seen has convinced me this is NOT true.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
I'm not saying this as advice or anything. I'm sharing it only as an opinion that is unpopular. Because that's what this thread is about. I knew this one was super unpopular, I shared it, I got like 16 woo's confirming it's unpopular.
There couldn't be a more appropriate place for me to share this opinion.
It doesn't even make any sense to call it confirmation. The only thing I'm confirming is doubt, We don't know that 100 calories of kale is the same as 100 calories of donut. Because, FFS, we don't even really know that 100 calories of food is 100 calories.
Anything is possible, but do you have any particular reason to think that 100 calories of donut *isn't* 100 calories of donut? You can use the excuse of "anything is possible" to doubt everything. Before you know it, we're making sacrifices to the moon to prevent space babies from coming down and stealing our silverware.
None at all. I couldn't care less.
I just see people claim all the time that a calorie is a calorie and I always think, "You're talking out of your *kitten*." But I don't disagree because any time I do I'm beset by an angry mob. So it's just this unpopular opinion I had sitting in my pocket when this thread came up.
That a calorie is a calorie doesn't assume we can measure them perfectly. People certainly don't count them perfectly. That part of your argument seems to be against a strawman.
Re 100 calories of kale would have fewer calories than 100 calories of donuts, what you seem to be talking about it that your body does not absorb all the calories. So you might actually get only 80 calories from the kale, and 98 from the donut. Possible, even though I think they try to take that into account by how they determine the calories (and by the fact that calories from fiber are counted only partially). But I certainly can believe that some people might not absorb the calories from high fiber foods as well as lower fiber foods, and I think there's some question about whether calories from the protein in meat and from nuts might be overstated vs. what we actually absorb.
But what this does not mean is that 100 calories of donuts is really 300 calories to the body. (Much more likely that someone is using wishful thinking in how they estimate and log the donuts or the entries chosen.)
It also doesn't really matter in practice, just adjust if your diet tends toward foods that may be lower calorie in reality than the nutrition information claims, and so you lose way more than expected. Heck, maybe that's why I lost more than expected initially.4 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
It's better to resurrect an old thread then start a new one with the same topic. :P
Depends on the resurrection.
I've seen too many resurrections where someone is addressing the OP who hasn't posted in years.
It's rare that you see a resurrection that goes "I've got the same issue and read through this thread and have questions". Those almost always get a pass. But then what often happens is someone else comes along, read from the beginning and starts responding to posts from long gone posters.
A better way to do it is to start a new thread, refer back to the dead thread and ask the pertinent questions that you have so they can be addressed without bringing up old issues from long gone posters. It will work better to get your questions answered.
But there is nothing against the rules from resurrecting old posts so feel free.
Besdies, some of the resurrections are frikken hysterical
All of this.
I think it would be better if someone would look to see if there's a recent thread on, say, keto rather than starting a new thread asking if anyone in the world does keto. But so often it's a really obscure thing and the resurrecting one jumps in to scold people who said stuff 7 years ago or to advise a long-gone OP.
And as you said, that is very often hysterical. I enjoy it.0 -
Obsession with gluten, preservatives, GMOs, artificial sweeteners and vaccines is a symptom of a society where most legitimate health concerns that affect global health have been dealt with in that locality.16
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions