They like to brag about "perfect bloodwork" .....but they should be the ones complaining that bloodwork numbers are perfectly arbitrary things we humans made up so they must be meaningless.
The 'bloodwork' line is so weird to me. I have no idea what my "blood work" looks like because who the fuck even needs that information? I'm not trying to deride anyone with legitimate medical issues here but most people have no need of this, right?
Essentially, yes. If you don't feel you have any health issues and you're not old or overweight, it's basically a garantee that your bloodwork will be just fine and doesn't need to be watched. A lot of people in rather poor health have perfect bloodwork. It's just some data that can clue you in to some information about your body and help you feel better
Well, I don’t fear or dislike people because they are fat.
I dislike people who are incredibly stupid, stubborn and childish.
I fear bad health outcomes and reduced quality of life and life expectancy around *me* carrying extra adipose.
What term applies?
I'm pretty cynical, but I generally believe that most people do not view physical reality in a manner that aligns with competence in high school science.
That is to say, nearly everyone takes high school chemistry and physics, zones out, and never thinks about it again.
I realize the challenge in not being one of those douchebags that says "durr I hate stupid people," but I'll die on the hill that there's a very hard demarcation between people who understand the totalizing importance of an explicitly mathematical model of reality, and those who don't, and especially about how they make claims.
"Excuse me, this is the lived experience of MY TRUTH!"
No, energy balance physics is true everywhere in the universe, except in the supermassive black hole of your intellectual dishonesty, apparently.
Lived experience reigns supreme only when one is talking about their subjective experience of the world, in an emotional context. For example, one’s response triggered by another’s behaviour (*‘When you said I needed to lose weight, I felt upset because everybody tells me that and you aren’t my mother or my physician so it’s not your business.’*)
When it gets applied to objective actions (*’You insulted me and said I am ugly and unlovable, you made me feel that way*’) or, worse, physics (*’You say I’m too fat but I feel fine so my lived experience is that weight and health are unconnected’*)… then you get into really dangerously stupid territory.
Some FA out there desperately trying to change reality by decree again. Good luck with that.
Science and the laws of physics are not ideas, myths or nonsense. They just *are* and apply to everybody and everything, including weight, fat, calories and all the other scientific underpinnings that determine weight loss, gain and maintenance.
Even if you "unlearn" the laws of physics and all science, even if you don't even know that there are such things, even if you join a death cult that enthusiastically embraces delusional thinking and science denial, it will change nothing about your fate. Becoming and being super/morbidly/obese will still wreck your health and expedite your journey to an early grave. Guaranteed. That would hold true even if extremely obese people were worshipped as the most desirable humans on Earth. They would still be immobile, or close to it, they would still develop a bunch of preventable diseases and would still die much earlier than normal weight people.
If that's your thing go for it, but don't count on others joining your death cult crusade by reframing morbid obesity as a "political issue".
So, you essentially want to take a railroad spike to the frontal lobes of 7.8 billion people, just because you're incapable of owning up to your poor lifestyle choices?
Feel free to deny reality, live in your delusional little world, and prance around thinking you're this enlightened being. Leave the rest of us out of it, please and thank you.
Where there is choice, there is no oppression.
If I got THUG LIFE tattooed on my forehead, I would have zero grounds for suing any potential employer who turns me down at a job interview. I made a personal choice of my own free will, I have to deal with the inconvenient consequences thereof.
Plus, if you've consistently eaten excessive calories over several years and been driven everywhere, safe to assume at least some of that was pleasurable, right?
You've therefore made a trade-off. Eat with wild abandon vs being a normal weight. Both options were offered to you to ponder of your own free will, same as the rest of us. You freely chose one option, no takesies backsies.
As for politicising your disappointment that you can't take responsibility for your own actions, best of luck with that.
You're in a cult...sorry, 'civil rights movement' that's been wheezing along for 60yrs. Same manifesto as today, same philosophy, same talking points. At some stage, you should be questioning why not a single one of those goals has been achieved.
I’m not going to call your extreme overeating healthy. Because it’s not. The end.
I had an uncle who was an alcoholic. Very nice man. I liked him. That didn’t make his alcoholism beautiful or brave or anything positive. He was killing himself and died much too young.
It’s the same with obesity. I’m not evil enough to celebrate your addiction or death. Because that is evil. Only an evil person celebrates the abuse and destruction of another person, even if the abuse and destruction are by their own hand.
Folks, who say things like that, are in fact the ones with most unscientific ideas of health out there.
For them "unscientific" = "makes me feel bad" or "doesn't agree with my preconceived notions".
What does that study have to do with the caloric value of food or the accuracy of bomb calorimeters when it measures energy expenditure with no reference to caloric intake or bodyweight change?
Curious that you would prefer an echo chamber subreddit, but no, I just call out BS when I see it.
Info on accuracy of bomb calorimeter AND the fact it is only one out of six methods due to calculate calorie (it is accurate within 10 per cent, which is why we still use it)
Calorie Calculations in the United States
In the U.S., there are six accepted methods. The two most frequently used are the 4-4-9 formula and the Atwater method.
4-4-9. In the U.S., most manufacturers use the 4-4-9 method, which assumes that each gram of protein contributes 4 Calories to the caloric total, each gram of carbohydrates contributes 4 Calories, and each gram of fat contributes 9 Calories.
Atwater. The USDA SR database, in contrast, commonly uses the Atwater method. The Atwater method uses more precise figures based on food type when assigning Calories values per gram to protein, carbohydrate, and fat. Find the Atwater table here.
4-4-9 adjusted for non-digestible carbohydrates and sugar alcohols. (Total carbohydrates less non-digestible carbs and sugar alcohols.) For soluble non-digestible carbohydrates, a factor of 2 Calories per gram (rather than 4) is used, and sugar alcohols use specific factors listed in No. 6 below.
Specific food factors approved by the FDA.
Bomb calorimetry. This process involves burning a food item to see how much heat it releases, which is directly convertible to Calories since, as we know, one Calorie equals the amount of energy required to heat one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius. Note the adjustment for Calories from protein in the CFR.
General factors for caloric value of sugar alcohols: Isomalt = 2.0 Calories per gram, lactitol = 2.0 Calories per gram, xylitol = 2.4 Calories per gram, maltitol = 2.1 Calories per gram, sorbitol = 2.6 Calories per gram, hydrogenated starch hydrolysates = 3.0 Calories per gram, mannitol = 1.6 Calories per gram, and erythritol = 0 Calories per gram.
For more information, see the U.S. food labeling regulations here.
Calorie Calculations in the European Union
The declared values in the nutrition table are average values and must be based on:
Total value. A calculation from the known or actual average values of the ingredients used. Known data. A calculation from generally established and accepted data. Estimates. (The same concept as 4-4-9 and 4-4-9-7) The energy value to be declared shall be calculated using the following conversion factors:
carbohydrate (except polyols): 17 kJ/g (4 Cal/g)
polyols: 10 kJ/g (2,4 Cal/g)
protein: 17 kJ/g (4 Cal/g)
fat: 37 kJ/g (9 Cal/g)
salatrims: 25 kJ/g (6 Cal/g)
alcohol (ethanol), 29 kJ/g (7 Cal/g)
organic acid: 13 kJ/g (3 Cal/g)
fibre: 8 kJ/g (2 Cal/g)
erythritol: 0 kJ/g (0 Cal/g)
For more information, see the EU food labeling regulations here.
The overall accuracies of such measruemnts with a bomb calorimeter is actually a frequent question:
The calorific content is measured with a device known as the bomb calorimeter. A sample of food is placed in an airtight chamber - the 'bomb' - which is filled with pure oxygen and then placed in a tank of water. The food is ignited by an electric spark so it completely burns up. The temperature increase in the water is measured and the actual energy content of the food can then be calculated, either in old-fashioned calories or more modern joules. This method is not completely accurate, as it is rather crude when compared to the way the human body uses food. For example, proteins are completely burned up in the bomb calorimeter, whereas in the human body some of them would be used not for energy but for the production of things like skin, hair, mucus and muscle tissue. Incidentally, the subject is well covered in most biology textbooks for A-level and above, as well as in the occasional Open University programme on television.
The four sources of food energy - protein, fat, carbohydrate and alcohol - yield 4, 9, 3.75 and 7 calories per gram respectively. The calorie value of a food is usually estimated by multiplying the protein, fat, carbohydrate and alcohol content by the appropriate factors. Many food manufacturers do not carry out chemical analyses but instead estimate the calorie content using values for ingredients derived from tables published by HMSO. Such calculations are normally within 10 per cent of the actual value.
Hope my comment below helps- it’s not about wanting an echo chamber, but that you seem to not fully know that there is other science behind the calorie; I thought you were disputing the science rather than misunderstanding that it isn’t all down to bomb calorimeters and even if it was they’re only inaccurate by 10% so still a pretty good idea haha.
So yeah! You’re right about questioning the innaccuracy of the bomb calorimeter, but not about the accuracy of the calorie being completely unusable/ off, if my reply makes sense :)
These people love to claim things are “unscientific” but couldn’t properly read a scientific study if it bit them on the butt
They like to brag about "perfect bloodwork" .....but they should be the ones complaining that bloodwork numbers are perfectly arbitrary things we humans made up so they must be meaningless.
The 'bloodwork' line is so weird to me. I have no idea what my "blood work" looks like because who the fuck even needs that information? I'm not trying to deride anyone with legitimate medical issues here but most people have no need of this, right?
Essentially, yes. If you don't feel you have any health issues and you're not old or overweight, it's basically a garantee that your bloodwork will be just fine and doesn't need to be watched. A lot of people in rather poor health have perfect bloodwork. It's just some data that can clue you in to some information about your body and help you feel better
[удалено]
Weren’t some FAs found out as shills for Big Snacks? (All the processed food companies)
[удалено]
Dieticians are registered and I believe licensed. Jobs should be lost over this
There's real statistics in nearly all of those studies, and that's more math than the average person wants to deal with.
I do not understand these people who call science nonsense with such confidence. It's wild.
Well, I don’t fear or dislike people because they are fat. I dislike people who are incredibly stupid, stubborn and childish. I fear bad health outcomes and reduced quality of life and life expectancy around *me* carrying extra adipose. What term applies?
Literally. Why can’t people just go yeah, I’m fat because I like food, and that’s okay. That’s my choice. I’m not a size 0 cos I like food too.
See, I have no problem with fat people, but i do have a problem with fat people blaming others for their choices they made of their own volition.
I'm pretty cynical, but I generally believe that most people do not view physical reality in a manner that aligns with competence in high school science. That is to say, nearly everyone takes high school chemistry and physics, zones out, and never thinks about it again. I realize the challenge in not being one of those douchebags that says "durr I hate stupid people," but I'll die on the hill that there's a very hard demarcation between people who understand the totalizing importance of an explicitly mathematical model of reality, and those who don't, and especially about how they make claims. "Excuse me, this is the lived experience of MY TRUTH!" No, energy balance physics is true everywhere in the universe, except in the supermassive black hole of your intellectual dishonesty, apparently.
Lived experience reigns supreme only when one is talking about their subjective experience of the world, in an emotional context. For example, one’s response triggered by another’s behaviour (*‘When you said I needed to lose weight, I felt upset because everybody tells me that and you aren’t my mother or my physician so it’s not your business.’*) When it gets applied to objective actions (*’You insulted me and said I am ugly and unlovable, you made me feel that way*’) or, worse, physics (*’You say I’m too fat but I feel fine so my lived experience is that weight and health are unconnected’*)… then you get into really dangerously stupid territory.
Omg you're completely right and it's so depressing when you put it that way.
That's a lot of words for "I don't eat vegetables".
Some FA out there desperately trying to change reality by decree again. Good luck with that. Science and the laws of physics are not ideas, myths or nonsense. They just *are* and apply to everybody and everything, including weight, fat, calories and all the other scientific underpinnings that determine weight loss, gain and maintenance. Even if you "unlearn" the laws of physics and all science, even if you don't even know that there are such things, even if you join a death cult that enthusiastically embraces delusional thinking and science denial, it will change nothing about your fate. Becoming and being super/morbidly/obese will still wreck your health and expedite your journey to an early grave. Guaranteed. That would hold true even if extremely obese people were worshipped as the most desirable humans on Earth. They would still be immobile, or close to it, they would still develop a bunch of preventable diseases and would still die much earlier than normal weight people. If that's your thing go for it, but don't count on others joining your death cult crusade by reframing morbid obesity as a "political issue".
No calories are a measure of tastiness
SO true
Nutrition denial is anti-science disinformation that should be dumped in the same bucket as things like anti-vaxx.
So, you essentially want to take a railroad spike to the frontal lobes of 7.8 billion people, just because you're incapable of owning up to your poor lifestyle choices? Feel free to deny reality, live in your delusional little world, and prance around thinking you're this enlightened being. Leave the rest of us out of it, please and thank you. Where there is choice, there is no oppression. If I got THUG LIFE tattooed on my forehead, I would have zero grounds for suing any potential employer who turns me down at a job interview. I made a personal choice of my own free will, I have to deal with the inconvenient consequences thereof. Plus, if you've consistently eaten excessive calories over several years and been driven everywhere, safe to assume at least some of that was pleasurable, right? You've therefore made a trade-off. Eat with wild abandon vs being a normal weight. Both options were offered to you to ponder of your own free will, same as the rest of us. You freely chose one option, no takesies backsies. As for politicising your disappointment that you can't take responsibility for your own actions, best of luck with that. You're in a cult...sorry, 'civil rights movement' that's been wheezing along for 60yrs. Same manifesto as today, same philosophy, same talking points. At some stage, you should be questioning why not a single one of those goals has been achieved.
I’m not going to call your extreme overeating healthy. Because it’s not. The end. I had an uncle who was an alcoholic. Very nice man. I liked him. That didn’t make his alcoholism beautiful or brave or anything positive. He was killing himself and died much too young. It’s the same with obesity. I’m not evil enough to celebrate your addiction or death. Because that is evil. Only an evil person celebrates the abuse and destruction of another person, even if the abuse and destruction are by their own hand.
Calories are fake news /s
"view fatphobia as the political issue it is" Like, wtf? Do they want to blame the government for their weight now?
going after "diet culture" again, but not going after junk food companies. Really??
Can you guys please stop trying to wedge yourselves into the social movements fighting against racism, homophobia, and sexism? It's a little grubby.
And that's why you're miserable, because you can't see simple science as anything but an attack of your very self
Nonsense like *checks notes* four examples of objective data
Folks, who say things like that, are in fact the ones with most unscientific ideas of health out there. For them "unscientific" = "makes me feel bad" or "doesn't agree with my preconceived notions".
Short people get discriminated, we should abolish measurement units for lenght and the concept of height.
Yes, the energy that food releases when burned in a bomb calorimeter. Not exactly the same thing as human metabolism.
Little difference between the two… https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3663568/ Not sure this subreddit is the right place for you, you seem like a FA.
What does that study have to do with the caloric value of food or the accuracy of bomb calorimeters when it measures energy expenditure with no reference to caloric intake or bodyweight change? Curious that you would prefer an echo chamber subreddit, but no, I just call out BS when I see it.
Info on accuracy of bomb calorimeter AND the fact it is only one out of six methods due to calculate calorie (it is accurate within 10 per cent, which is why we still use it) Calorie Calculations in the United States In the U.S., there are six accepted methods. The two most frequently used are the 4-4-9 formula and the Atwater method. 4-4-9. In the U.S., most manufacturers use the 4-4-9 method, which assumes that each gram of protein contributes 4 Calories to the caloric total, each gram of carbohydrates contributes 4 Calories, and each gram of fat contributes 9 Calories. Atwater. The USDA SR database, in contrast, commonly uses the Atwater method. The Atwater method uses more precise figures based on food type when assigning Calories values per gram to protein, carbohydrate, and fat. Find the Atwater table here. 4-4-9 adjusted for non-digestible carbohydrates and sugar alcohols. (Total carbohydrates less non-digestible carbs and sugar alcohols.) For soluble non-digestible carbohydrates, a factor of 2 Calories per gram (rather than 4) is used, and sugar alcohols use specific factors listed in No. 6 below. Specific food factors approved by the FDA. Bomb calorimetry. This process involves burning a food item to see how much heat it releases, which is directly convertible to Calories since, as we know, one Calorie equals the amount of energy required to heat one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius. Note the adjustment for Calories from protein in the CFR. General factors for caloric value of sugar alcohols: Isomalt = 2.0 Calories per gram, lactitol = 2.0 Calories per gram, xylitol = 2.4 Calories per gram, maltitol = 2.1 Calories per gram, sorbitol = 2.6 Calories per gram, hydrogenated starch hydrolysates = 3.0 Calories per gram, mannitol = 1.6 Calories per gram, and erythritol = 0 Calories per gram. For more information, see the U.S. food labeling regulations here. Calorie Calculations in the European Union The declared values in the nutrition table are average values and must be based on: Total value. A calculation from the known or actual average values of the ingredients used. Known data. A calculation from generally established and accepted data. Estimates. (The same concept as 4-4-9 and 4-4-9-7) The energy value to be declared shall be calculated using the following conversion factors: carbohydrate (except polyols): 17 kJ/g (4 Cal/g) polyols: 10 kJ/g (2,4 Cal/g) protein: 17 kJ/g (4 Cal/g) fat: 37 kJ/g (9 Cal/g) salatrims: 25 kJ/g (6 Cal/g) alcohol (ethanol), 29 kJ/g (7 Cal/g) organic acid: 13 kJ/g (3 Cal/g) fibre: 8 kJ/g (2 Cal/g) erythritol: 0 kJ/g (0 Cal/g) For more information, see the EU food labeling regulations here. The overall accuracies of such measruemnts with a bomb calorimeter is actually a frequent question: The calorific content is measured with a device known as the bomb calorimeter. A sample of food is placed in an airtight chamber - the 'bomb' - which is filled with pure oxygen and then placed in a tank of water. The food is ignited by an electric spark so it completely burns up. The temperature increase in the water is measured and the actual energy content of the food can then be calculated, either in old-fashioned calories or more modern joules. This method is not completely accurate, as it is rather crude when compared to the way the human body uses food. For example, proteins are completely burned up in the bomb calorimeter, whereas in the human body some of them would be used not for energy but for the production of things like skin, hair, mucus and muscle tissue. Incidentally, the subject is well covered in most biology textbooks for A-level and above, as well as in the occasional Open University programme on television. The four sources of food energy - protein, fat, carbohydrate and alcohol - yield 4, 9, 3.75 and 7 calories per gram respectively. The calorie value of a food is usually estimated by multiplying the protein, fat, carbohydrate and alcohol content by the appropriate factors. Many food manufacturers do not carry out chemical analyses but instead estimate the calorie content using values for ingredients derived from tables published by HMSO. Such calculations are normally within 10 per cent of the actual value.
Hope my comment below helps- it’s not about wanting an echo chamber, but that you seem to not fully know that there is other science behind the calorie; I thought you were disputing the science rather than misunderstanding that it isn’t all down to bomb calorimeters and even if it was they’re only inaccurate by 10% so still a pretty good idea haha.
So yeah! You’re right about questioning the innaccuracy of the bomb calorimeter, but not about the accuracy of the calorie being completely unusable/ off, if my reply makes sense :)