3 ms·

Exactly. I'm amazed people are still contesting basic stuff like this. It's not open for debate, it has been proven in many ways. In fact, one can set out to pr

by seec 1y ago

Exactly. I'm amazed people are still contesting basic stuff like this. It's not open for debate, it has been proven in many ways. In fact, one can set out to prove it to himself, by just using an accurate enough smartwatch and precisely logging all calories. Over time, the math just math, even if it's off by a few percent that's largely irrelevant and can be attributed to measurement error. I think people refuse to accept the truth because they feel like it should be a one-time thing when in fact it's a lifelong discipline. Some seems to have it easier but that's pretty much true of everything, people aren't equal in self-control and I think the constant propaganda about "equality" just mess with their heads.

ehnto 1y ago
The argument misses the point, is why. It's something you would say to trivialise a complex human problem, in order to sound smart. It's treated as if all the advice people need to lose weight is a Thermodynamics 101 class. Just like how all you need to write software is knowing binary. Technically true, woefully ineffective. If it helps you understand my point of view, I have been strength and fitness training for 15 years, this isn't a matter of lack of discipline. I understand the human aspect of the problem. People don't learn about the thermodynamic aspect and suddenly it all works out for them, it doesn't help.
- seec 1y ago
  I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that I advocate for people going through a thermodynamics class so they "get it"? Traditional education isn't very effective even for some trivial matters so I wouldn't dare to propose that. As far as I'm concerned, the vast majority of people cannot learn much of complex science and there is nothing wrong with that. And I wouldn't advise learning about thermodynamics just to solve a diet/exercice balance problem. In fact, I do the opposite. I tell people interested in the matter about various strategies they can use to control their caloric input and other strategies/motivations they can use to get a minimum of exercice. But that's largely irrelevant, that's not the point. The problem is the various gurus who spit pseudo-science on the matter, pretending that CiCo isn't a thing and pointing the finger at various other things (sometimes with a sprinkle of truth to make things confusing). There are many nuances in nutrition but if you don't get the basics right, nothing good can happen. And the gist of the matter is that every human needs to find a strategy that works for him to control his caloric input in relation to his energy expenditure. One way to do this that is extremely effective is to build an intuition on how many calories most common foods are "worth" but also how much various activities/exercices spend. It takes effort but it is pretty simple and once people have the intuition on the matter they can more easily regulate the intake or exercice more, depending on what's easier/more successful for them. It doesn't necessarily solve some psychological disorders (like addictions and compulsive eating to regulate emotional state) but at least it gives a "roadmap" and a pretty accurate picture on how/why. I have no idea what you are trying to say but it really isn't that complex of a problem. Humans being what they are make it more complicated than it needs to be.

by seec 1y ago

ehnto 1y ago

The argument misses the point, is why. It's something you would say to trivialise a complex human problem, in order to sound smart. It's treated as if all the advice people need to lose weight is a Thermodynamics 101 class. Just like how all you need to write software is knowing binary. Technically true, woefully ineffective. If it helps you understand my point of view, I have been strength and fitness training for 15 years, this isn't a matter of lack of discipline. I understand the human aspect of the problem. People don't learn about the thermodynamic aspect and suddenly it all works out for them, it doesn't help.

seec 1y ago
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that I advocate for people going through a thermodynamics class so they "get it"? Traditional education isn't very effective even for some trivial matters so I wouldn't dare to propose that. As far as I'm concerned, the vast majority of people cannot learn much of complex science and there is nothing wrong with that. And I wouldn't advise learning about thermodynamics just to solve a diet/exercice balance problem. In fact, I do the opposite. I tell people interested in the matter about various strategies they can use to control their caloric input and other strategies/motivations they can use to get a minimum of exercice. But that's largely irrelevant, that's not the point. The problem is the various gurus who spit pseudo-science on the matter, pretending that CiCo isn't a thing and pointing the finger at various other things (sometimes with a sprinkle of truth to make things confusing). There are many nuances in nutrition but if you don't get the basics right, nothing good can happen. And the gist of the matter is that every human needs to find a strategy that works for him to control his caloric input in relation to his energy expenditure. One way to do this that is extremely effective is to build an intuition on how many calories most common foods are "worth" but also how much various activities/exercices spend. It takes effort but it is pretty simple and once people have the intuition on the matter they can more easily regulate the intake or exercice more, depending on what's easier/more successful for them. It doesn't necessarily solve some psychological disorders (like addictions and compulsive eating to regulate emotional state) but at least it gives a "roadmap" and a pretty accurate picture on how/why. I have no idea what you are trying to say but it really isn't that complex of a problem. Humans being what they are make it more complicated than it needs to be.