4 ms·

You are very right to question this! While the thermodynamics aren't assailable, it turns out that the calorie system is in fact quite fallable and bad! There

You are very right to question this! While the thermodynamics aren't assailable, it turns out that the calorie system is in fact quite fallable and bad! There's a lot of good material on why, I like this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJQxadvsmEQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJQxadvsmEQ But simply put: - Our system for measuring how much "calorie" is in any given food is extremely problematic and unrelated to how the body captures energy - Our system for estimating how much "calorie" a human body uses is extremely problematic and error-ridden. - Our systemized ignorance towards the relationship in the body between energy storage and energy consumption, as well as all the factors influencing this system. The same advice or strategy simply doesn't work the same way for two people. But our advice and labels can't capture that. As we engineers know "garbage in, garbage out". Well, when all of the data in this system is garbage, it's no surprise that the function outputs garbage.

onionisafruit 4y ago
Thank you for the recommendation. I watched it and it answered some questions I had.
syzarian 4y ago
This does not dispute the fact that if the energy input into the system exceeds the energy expended then weight gain occurs and if the energy into the system is less than the energy expended then weight loss occurs. It may be hard to balance things in a healthy way and to achieve a desired result but the underlying physics is not a meme and not incorrect.
foobarian 4y ago
The thing about the calorie system is that it's extremely simple and consistent. You could get into more advanced ways to count the calories that look at the type of food, and how body captures it, etc etc but that would be an even bigger mess than modern "dietary science." Currently the calorie count at least gives me an upper bound, and at least it's on the box and applies no matter who looks at it. How would you do better?
- criley2 4y ago
  Garbage in, garbage out. I believe "eating less food" causes you to lose weight. If you provide calorie numbers that correlate, I would ask you to demonstrate causation vs correlation, and I don't think you could do that as cleanly as you think across a broad population. A better system? Not quite sure, but as always: criticism of current failures does not, by rule, have to come paired with suggestions for improvement.
shlant 4y ago
"calories don't count" is a strong claim from a video that didn't provide a shred of evidence to support it

onionisafruit 4y ago

Thank you for the recommendation. I watched it and it answered some questions I had.

syzarian 4y ago

This does not dispute the fact that if the energy input into the system exceeds the energy expended then weight gain occurs and if the energy into the system is less than the energy expended then weight loss occurs. It may be hard to balance things in a healthy way and to achieve a desired result but the underlying physics is not a meme and not incorrect.

foobarian 4y ago

The thing about the calorie system is that it's extremely simple and consistent. You could get into more advanced ways to count the calories that look at the type of food, and how body captures it, etc etc but that would be an even bigger mess than modern "dietary science." Currently the calorie count at least gives me an upper bound, and at least it's on the box and applies no matter who looks at it. How would you do better?

criley2 4y ago
Garbage in, garbage out. I believe "eating less food" causes you to lose weight. If you provide calorie numbers that correlate, I would ask you to demonstrate causation vs correlation, and I don't think you could do that as cleanly as you think across a broad population. A better system? Not quite sure, but as always: criticism of current failures does not, by rule, have to come paired with suggestions for improvement.

shlant 4y ago

"calories don't count" is a strong claim from a video that didn't provide a shred of evidence to support it