4 ms·

Oh boy, I regret commenting in this thread. I feel like people keep either inventing things to argue against (olive oil) or bringing up scenarios that are purp

Oh boy, I regret commenting in this thread. I feel like people keep either inventing things to argue against (olive oil) or bringing up scenarios that are purposefully missing the overall point of what people are actually saying. Again, sure, if you zoom in, eating donuts is probably a bad strategy because you'll be hungry again, and thus eat more calories. But in the grand scheme of things, you CAN eat a donut if you remain below you calories. That is all people are saying. Nothing more. Nothing less. fwiw, we weight lifters regularly put this into practice. Bulking? add more food. Cutting? less food. Yes, there are details (gotta hit those macros!), but overall, the strategy boils down to calories in/out.

amanaplanacanal 8y ago
You say that like measuring calories in/out is an easy thing to do :-) For most people it absolutely is not, on either end of that.
- electrograv 8y ago
  Case in point: I’ve not met a single person who (in addition to measuring calorie intake) captures all the content deposited in their toilet, and measures it all every day in a bomb calorimeter :)
  - base698 8y ago
    You off-gas a lot of carbon when you exhale, so it's not a fair comparison.
jpindar 8y ago
OK, OK, you're just better than us mere humans. We still experience hunger. And we don't like it. And being dumb animals, our behavior is influenced by that.
jdminhbg 8y ago
This is basically the equivalent of the "why does it matter what programming language you pick as long as it's Turing complete, which means you can do anything with it" argument. Losing weight by eating a donut and starving yourself is like writing a web application in brainfuck.
- zbentley 8y ago
  Not at all. It's like saying "it doesn't matter what programming language you pick, the computer is still only going to execute the code you told it to". Neither the GP, nor the original root of this thread are proposing that food choices are automatic, obvious, or don't have bearing on your weight/happiness/whatever; they're saying that food quantities (in calories) are the primary determinant of how much you weigh. That's it. Narrow ruling, specific point; no "why don't you just"-ism or anything of the sort--or if it's there, I'm not seeing it.

amanaplanacanal 8y ago

You say that like measuring calories in/out is an easy thing to do :-) For most people it absolutely is not, on either end of that.

electrograv 8y ago
Case in point: I’ve not met a single person who (in addition to measuring calorie intake) captures all the content deposited in their toilet, and measures it all every day in a bomb calorimeter :)
- base698 8y ago
  You off-gas a lot of carbon when you exhale, so it's not a fair comparison.

jpindar 8y ago

OK, OK, you're just better than us mere humans. We still experience hunger. And we don't like it. And being dumb animals, our behavior is influenced by that.

jdminhbg 8y ago

This is basically the equivalent of the "why does it matter what programming language you pick as long as it's Turing complete, which means you can do anything with it" argument. Losing weight by eating a donut and starving yourself is like writing a web application in brainfuck.

zbentley 8y ago
Not at all. It's like saying "it doesn't matter what programming language you pick, the computer is still only going to execute the code you told it to". Neither the GP, nor the original root of this thread are proposing that food choices are automatic, obvious, or don't have bearing on your weight/happiness/whatever; they're saying that food quantities (in calories) are the primary determinant of how much you weigh. That's it. Narrow ruling, specific point; no "why don't you just"-ism or anything of the sort--or if it's there, I'm not seeing it.