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
-
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
-
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,
FWIW, I perceived you in the first place as basically saying "we can't count CI and CO completely accurately, but we can approximate them and adjust and get to the right place". . . which I agree with 100%.
Where we differ is that I think "a calorie of kale is not the same as a calorie of donuts" is like saying "a mile of mountain-goat trail is not the same as a mile of superhighway". In one sense, either is trivially true . . . but analytically, both are silly and not useful**.
Another place we differ (I think) is that I think of CICO as the energy balance equation, not a weight loss method. CICO is exactly true, whether you can measure the terms or not. It doesn't have methodological flaws, because it doesn't have methods.
Calorie counting, in contrast, is a weight-management method that focuses very directly on estimating the CI and CO. One of its methodological shortcomings is that one does have to estimate both intake and expenditure . . . but, as I think we agree, the process of trial and adjustment lets us work through that to a productive result.
Finally, I differ from you, if I'm reading you right (not sure, here), on the right sort of advice to people who are "eating only 1000 calories but not losing weight". You seem to be saying that if they're truly not losing weight, it's obvious that they're underestimating intake, so it's fine to let them eat 800 calories because they'll be 800 equally poorly estimated calories, and eventually they'll find their right poorly-estimated intake level, and then lose weight. I think that's not especially helpful, and that it's better to try to help them estimate with better accuracy, even though it can't be perfect.
** "a calorie of kale is not the same as a calorie of donuts" when said around here, seems usually to mean that somehow calories encapsulate all the nutritional properties of the food they're in, which is seriously fuzzy thinking. I'm not saying you meant that, but I think it's encouragement to those who do.
Units of measure are just units of measure. They're not subdivisions of the substance, they're abstract properties of it, like color. They don't magically capture other qualities of things we're talking about. To use them that way can be a synecdoche or other figure of speech, but it's a usage that (around here) encourages fuzzy thinking, because many people don't understand the figure of speech analytically, and take it more literally.
edited: Typo. "Uncourages" s.b. "encourages". LOL.10 -
Fiber is unnecessary21
-
Good point, Ann.
CICO is literally true, which means that if you are not losing or gaining CI=CO. So you know that cutting calories is needed to lose. This is why it makes no difference that we cannot be perfect in our counting.
My interpretation was that the poster was trying to claim that 100 cal of donuts might really be 300 cal for some person's body, and that's clearly wrong, but so far have not obtained clarification.2 -
KrazyKrissyy wrote: »Fiber is unnecessary
But what if all we ate was steak sandwiches and we got constipated?
2 -
KrazyKrissyy wrote: »Fiber is unnecessary
But what if all we ate was steak sandwiches and we got constipated?
Then you would have a 20 lb bowel obstruction and your BMI would be invalid. Or something like that.24 -
KrazyKrissyy wrote: »Fiber is unnecessary
But what if all we ate was steak sandwiches and we got constipated?
Fiber constipates me (no matter how much water I drink). Fiber is unnecessary roughage and taxing to the intestines. I've dramatically lowered fiber and am finally having regular bowel movements and less bloating/pain.15 -
KrazyKrissyy wrote: »Fiber is unnecessary
But what if all we ate was steak sandwiches and we got constipated?
Then you would have a 20 lb bowel obstruction and your BMI would be invalid. Or something like that.
I know I think that really happened to me once and CICO couldn't even fix it.
2 -
KrazyKrissyy wrote: »Fiber is unnecessary
But what if all we ate was steak sandwiches and we got constipated?
Then you would have a 20 lb bowel obstruction and your BMI would be invalid. Or something like that.
That's what happens to me when I DO eat fiber. Have experienced 20+ pound obstructions before.4 -
KrazyKrissyy wrote: »Fiber is unnecessary
For you. I need plenty of it, or my body fails to function well at all.
I'm in an online group of 10,000+ veggie-eaters, and all of them agree: Fiber is essential.10 -
Food is not calories or nutrients, although it does have calories and nutrients. Looking at food through the narrow lens of nutrition exclusively misses a host of other purposes food usually serves. This can set people up for failure at best, and create disordered thinking patterns at worst.12
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »Food is not calories or nutrients, although it does have calories and nutrients. Looking at food through the narrow lens of nutrition exclusively misses a host of other purposes food usually serves. This can set people up for failure at best, and create disordered thinking patterns at worst.
^^This
I know this threads about disagreement but I believe this too.1 -
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.
You don't have any reason to think that . . . so why are you arguing for it being possible?0 -
My unpopular opinion....
No one should do a single ab exercise until they learn how to properly engage their TVA (Transversus Abdominis) muscle...3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »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.
On the bright side this makes for some outstanding comedy/parody opportunities.3 -
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,
Not sure where you're perceiving anger. It appears you're asking the wrong questions and trapped in cognitive dissonance, hence the weird contention.
As your questions are unclear it is unclear which evidence to present. Specificity helps.
Humans digest food via a series of biochemical processes, breaking down matter into usable molecules each following a specific pathway. The energy usage and variations may be slightly different, but these variations are so small they are largely undetectable - beneath the degree of error of instrumentation. For the purpose of weight management this is useless.
Your senses may perceive food as different, but when it gets into your stomach this is all biology and chemistry - which does not know or care what the matter is.
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.
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,
Not sure where you're perceiving anger. It appears you're asking the wrong questions and trapped in cognitive dissonance, hence the weird contention.
As your questions are unclear it is unclear which evidence to present. Specificity helps.
Humans digest food via a series of biochemical processes, breaking down matter into usable molecules each following a specific pathway. The energy usage and variations may be slightly different, but these variations are so small they are largely undetectable - beneath the degree of error of instrumentation. For the purpose of weight management this is useless.
Your senses may perceive food as different, but when it gets into your stomach this is all biology and chemistry - which does not know or care what the matter is.
Bravo!!!1 -
2
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »
I dunno - I hated steak well into adulthood because growing up economically pinched the only steak we ever had was a pan-fried cheap cut that was so tough I could barely chew it. When I was finally introduced to a good cut of meat prepared properly I was converted, but honestly, I wouldn't even have tried it without a lot of persuasion.2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
I dunno - I hated steak well into adulthood because growing up economically pinched the only steak we ever had was a pan-fried cheap cut that was so tough I could barely chew it. When I was finally introduced to a good cut of meat prepared properly I was converted, but honestly, I wouldn't even have tried it without a lot of persuasion.
I had that same experience when I was a kid. Chuck steak was tougher than a boiled owl.4 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
I dunno - I hated steak well into adulthood because growing up economically pinched the only steak we ever had was a pan-fried cheap cut that was so tough I could barely chew it. When I was finally introduced to a good cut of meat prepared properly I was converted, but honestly, I wouldn't even have tried it without a lot of persuasion.
I had that same experience when I was a kid. Chuck steak was tougher than a boiled owl.
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions