Girl eats nothing but chicken nuggets for 15 years...
- Thread starter MyOwnDemon
- Start date
Once in a while it doesn't hurt. It only becomes a problem when you're giving them shit several times a month.
@turbo
If your kids refuse to eat what you're cooking don't feed them anything else. They'll eventually eat it. You're the parent and dictate to them what a healthy diet is. It's not the other way around.
Ug I can't believe you're making me quote myself (especially after I've said the same thing over and over and asked you to look at the orginal statement)
Pretty much every freakin word I said still applies: 1) Calories in Calories out. (seriously please don't make me clarify this one again) 2) For the most part (allowing for slight factors such with regards to WHAT you eat and how it may marginally effect your metabolism)
Additionally, if you'll notice it was in direct response to the statement above me that said:
Hence my response of why people need to stop thinking this way: What you eat (again for the most part) does not make you fat. It's the calories you consume vs the calories you burn. My statement made no reference to the possible state of her health or fitness.
The burden of proof lays on you since you are disputing a commonly held wisdom within the medical and scientific community, not to mention disputing basic math and the second law of thermodynamics.
I'll end this with an extension on what I said earlier. If we would just get the basics through people's head from the start and not bog people down with a thousand different possibilities of what they're body may or may not be doing when factors X Y and Z are presented then maybe people wouldn't feel so out of control, giving up their weight loss goals from the start. If we could get the 30% of the obese in this nation to adopt the calories in/calories out mantra to get down to a healthy weight, THEN feel free to bombard them all you want with how to fine tune and tweak their diets.
Edit: Holy crap this guy is saying everything I've been trying to get across in this thread: http://www.theironsamurai.com/2011/12/21/calories-in-calories-out-fact-or-fiction-redux/
TL;DR: Everything I said originally still applies. Suck it.
While your statement is basically on point, you and all the calories-in/calories-out pundits forget about one very important detail: what your body decides to do with those calories.
It's not as simple as willing yourself thin because you're going to eat less and exercise more. If your body feels it's expending too much energy it will stop you dead in your tracks through fatigue and uncontrollable hunger.
When it comes to intellect vs. instinct, obviously the latter always win. It's an issue of survival.
Obesity wouldn't be so rampant if we weren't getting so many of our calories from frankenfoods like partially hydrogenated soybean oil, and corn syrup - things we can't properly metabolize and alter our normal physiological responses.
By the way, have you ever seen any obese animals in the wild? What are they all calculating calories-in/calories-out? Of course not, they're relying on hunger to keep their weight stable. And obviously, the hunger response is still intact because they're eating their natural diets, not some artificial shit.
Unsurprisingly, your reading comprehension sucks. You're the one making me repeat myself as I said in this statement that I understood perfectly well what you meant when I said this:
Stop trying to make it seem like I don't understand what you said. I did. So did everyone else.
Once again, you're the only one getting mad.
1) You never had to clarify anything. Everyone knows what you were saying. You can repeat it ad nauseum but you're still wrong.
2) You're honestly trying to pass off the notion that 3,000 calories of chocolate ice cream would equal 3,000 calories of apples? That 3,000 calories of apples would make you just as fat as 3,000 calories of chocolate ice cream. That's what you're saying.
That's insanity.
Face it. You're wrong.
Your lack of maturity is overshadowed only by your vehement insistence on perpetuating your ignorance.
Remember, what you're saying is that 3,000 calories of apples will make you just as fat as 3,000 calories of chocolate ice cream. Or Big Macs. Or whatever.
That's what you're saying.
And its fucking retarded.
And don't come at me with some jerkoff's "fitness blog" either. You should (though you just may not - your level of intelligence isn't looking so high right now) know that any asshat that can set up a wordpress can write anything they want. Oh, and by the way what you posted from it does NOT in any way, shape, or form, support your argument that an ingested calorie is a calorie is a calorie. Read it again. Twice, if you have to. Or maybe have an adult read it to you.
I was being civilized. Obviously you can't be even though you're a moderator.
Either go find a published study that backs up your assertion or shut the fuck up about it. You're only making yourself look even more stupid the more you post.
Exactly.
Last edited:
Regarding your apples vs ice cream deal....
6000g of Apples
Cals - 3120
Fat 12g
Total Carbs 828g
Fiber - 144g
Sugars - 623g
Protein - 15.6g
45oz of Ben & Jerrys Chocolate Chip Cookies Dough Ice Cream
Cals - 3045
Fat - 157g
Carbs - 372g
Fiber - 0g
Sugars - 281g
Protein - 45g
Hmmmmmm....
(This is in regards to body composition only, which is what this argument is about...I think....)
6000g of Apples
Cals - 3120
Fat 12g
Total Carbs 828g
Fiber - 144g
Sugars - 623g
Protein - 15.6g
45oz of Ben & Jerrys Chocolate Chip Cookies Dough Ice Cream
Cals - 3045
Fat - 157g
Carbs - 372g
Fiber - 0g
Sugars - 281g
Protein - 45g
Hmmmmmm....
(This is in regards to body composition only, which is what this argument is about...I think....)
So if I can eat over my daily calorie expenditure (under normal circumstances) and I won't get fat? Gary Taubes, is that you?
Jeez, why did it take so long for someone to point this out. After all, it's official.
I caught it and plus repped him, I thought it was hilarious.
I'm also loling at the idea of arguing with someone over why skinny doesn't mean healthy and that losing weight doesn't equate becoming healthier.
As soon as she said that she fed her kids whatever they wanted I realized there's nothing more to hear there.
Siiigh. You're 100% right and I'm usually much, much better at not falling into the trap of trying to debate dumb people. How's that saying go? Oh yeah...
"Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
You may want to get an adult to help you out with the definition of that word too.
Now get off the forum and go feed your kids a healthy meal.
Adults are talking.
1. Learn how to read.
2. When you have kids come back. And I'll try not to point and laugh.
I know how to feed my kids and... the trolls, apparently.
Still waiting for those sources bud.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Heading off to bed, but I'll look forward to more of your trolling and nothing to back it up tomorrow. Night!
Alright, you dumbshit, you've beaten me down with your persistent idiocy.
So I got off my lazy ass and did the research for you.
I don't expect that you'll actually be able to comprehend anything I post here, but I'll try to pick out the small words.
First of all, there's this paper called "A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics
by Richard D Feinman and Eugene J Fine (two pesky doctor types that are obviously fed up of the shitty psuedo-science that you've obviously bought into hook, line, and sinker.
The paper is linked, of course but here's a few parts of particular interest to our discussion:
From the abstract:
"Here, we propose that a misunderstanding of the second law accounts for the controversy about the role of macronutrient effect on weight loss and we review some aspects of elementary thermodynamics. We use data in the literature to show that thermogenesis is sufficient to predict metabolic advantage. Whereas homeostasis ensures balance under many conditions, as a general principle, "a calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics.
From the conclusion:
"The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a "calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle...."
"Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a calorie" might be a good place to start."
Obviously, you're going to have a little trouble understanding anything above a third grade level so I'll spell out what that means:
Y-O-U A-R-E W-R-O-N-G
(the W is silent)
In fact, simple searches around Pubmed yielded study after study debunking the calorie in/calorie out myth.
In fact, I only found one that only vaguely supported your claim (but only vaguely) and that was this:
"Is a calorie a calorie?" by Andrea C Buchholz and Dale A Schoeller
and even that study concluded the following:
"We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another. In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy, because the Atwater factors used in calculating metabolizable energy are not exact. As such, our food tables are not perfect, and small errors are associated with their use.
In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation."
Doesn't really matter, though. The paper was quickly dismissed by physicians that point to larger, more careful studies as well as more credible sources in the letters to the editor:
Whatever happened to the second law of dynamics?
"In our own review we pointed out that one cannot ignore 1) the second law of thermodynamics and 2) the fact that living organisms are open systems, far from equilibrium, and therefore subject to different efficiencies depending on metabolic path."
Is a calorie a calorie? Biologically speaking, no.
"the authors ignored the fact that the energy utilization of different diets depends on the biochemical pathways taken (2). For example, a low-carbohydrate diet dramatically increases gluconeogenesis relative to a high-carbohydrate diet. Obviously, gluconeogenesis is an energy-consuming process: 6 mol ATP is consumed during the synthesis of 1 mol glucose from pyruvate or lactate (3). The transformation of gluconeogenic amino acids, such as alanine, into glucose requires even more energy because 4 mol ATP is needed to dispose of the nitrogen as urea (3). Furthermore, the energy-dependent processes of maintaining the turnover of body proteins—including synthesis, folding, targeting, regulatory processes, and protein breakdown—have an overall cost to body energy homeostasis that is significantly higher than previously appreciated"
For a more "layman's terms" approach, there's plenty of reading on that as well. I prefer to stick to peer-reviewed studies, but since you like linking to blogs, I can do that too:
Calories In/Calories Out Has Been Proven False and Frustrating (no less than 4 more Pubmed papers cited in this post alone that debunk your stupid myth)
Calories in/Calories out Science says NO.
The Calorie In/Calorie Out Myth
TL;DR: You're a fucking idiot and I'm pissed that I wasted my time proving that you're a fucking idiot because everyone here already knew that you're a fucking idiot.
Now go get your fucking shinebox you fucking idiot.
Last edited:
No, under normal circumstances (i.e. you're not consuming the shit I mentioned in my original post that derails your metabolism) you can NOT eat over your daily calorie expenditure over a long period of time, that is.
Meaning, your physiology will compensate by making you move more/less based on too many/too few calories ingested. It won't be a zero-sum game every day, but over time, that's how your body achieves energy balance. If that wasn't the case we would not be able to survive.
In short, I'm not arguing against the 1st law of thermodynamics (and neither was Taubes). But the key is that calories-in and calories-out are interdependent. You can't just separate the two because one directly affects the other (again, under normal circumstances and over a long period of time).
That makes no sense...
How would your physiology compensate by making you move more/less based on too many/too few calories ingested?
Calories in and Calories out are interdependent? How does the amount of calories you eat effect the amount of energy your body requires to operate on a daily basis? Sure, you eat more food, you get fat, your body has to lug around the extra weight which burns extra calories, and your daily maintenance goes up, but I don't think that's what you are talking about
*If you want to get picky about it, you could throw in the thermic effect of food, but that is soooooo small it won't make any difference even over the long term, and your comments don't hint at that at all.
Seriously?!!!
Try this: don't eat anything for a few days and try going for a run. You think your body wouldn't force you to stay on the couch? Conversely, stuff your face all day with natural, whole foods. Then try sitting on the couch all night watching TV. You'll feel like you have a hyperkinetic disorder.
The better question is: How does the amount of calories you eat affect the amount of energy your body has available to operate on a daily basis?
Then the answer becomes obvious.
No, not at all. You eat more food than normal, create an energy surplus, but then you move more (instinctively) to burn it off. It's not a matter of will, it's natural instinct.
That's irrelevant to our conversation.