Author Topic: Episode #660  (Read 8017 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4858
  • mooh
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #15 on: March 05, 2018, 02:39:18 PM »
my new job required that I started doing 7 hours of cardio with weights a day.

I assume from this post that you are either a horse or a camel of some kind. Now I feel bad for only biking 94km today.

Aren't all of the exercise calorie calculators only very rough guesstimates?

Yeah, they are rough estimates (obviously it depends on the terrain and the wind and a whole other host of factors), but I would be surprised if they were off by a factor of three.

I think in general one of the problems with tracking calories in/out is that people assume that their estimates are more accurate and unbiased than they really are. I try to assume a reasonably wide error margin and make an effort to try not to fool myself too much so that the errors will (hopefully) even out.
Mooohn!

Offline Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13258
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #16 on: March 05, 2018, 03:07:26 PM »
Its almost like there's more than one definition of grain.  This argument is the equivalent of, "Tomatoes are actually fruit" true but pointless.


Online Friendly Angel

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4444
  • Post count reset to zero in both forum apocalypses
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #17 on: March 05, 2018, 05:16:17 PM »
I weigh myself three times a day - more data is good.  I can take averages of morning weights, or average 21 readings for the week and see minimums and maximums. 

Makes more sense to understand the fluctuations than hiding them from yourself.
Amend and resubmit.

Offline 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2799
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #18 on: March 05, 2018, 05:28:44 PM »
Well, with enough data points, it doesn't matter when you sample them. Could have a scale that automatically saves each weighing, built into the floor somewhere, for extra laziness.

Offline Swagomatic

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2721
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #19 on: March 05, 2018, 05:41:11 PM »
Well, with enough data points, it doesn't matter when you sample them. Could have a scale that automatically saves each weighing, built into the floor somewhere, for extra laziness.

I have a scale like that. I think it remembers your footprint.  It turns green and happy if you lose weight, and gets all red and angry if you gain weight.  I weigh myself fairly often, but for the one that counts, the one I remember, I try to do it at the same time. 
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.
---George Bernard Shaw

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8596
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2018, 05:43:06 PM »
Its almost like there's more than one definition of grain.  This argument is the equivalent of, "Tomatoes are actually fruit" true but pointless.

So, presumably, although grains are seeds, not all seeds are grains. Wild guess here: Maybe grains are the seeds of grasses. Wheat, barley, rye, and corn, are all grasses. And though I reject all claims of "superfoods," variety is good, and quinoa is a very good-tasting food.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4858
  • mooh
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2018, 06:10:44 PM »
Well, with enough data points, it doesn't matter when you sample them. Could have a scale that automatically saves each weighing, built into the floor somewhere, for extra laziness.

I have a scale like that. I think it remembers your footprint.  It turns green and happy if you lose weight, and gets all red and angry if you gain weight.  I weigh myself fairly often, but for the one that counts, the one I remember, I try to do it at the same time.

Curious: what color would you say your scale is on average?

Mooohn!

Offline DevoutCatalyst

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1548
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2018, 06:17:48 PM »
Its almost like there's more than one definition of grain.  This argument is the equivalent of, "Tomatoes are actually fruit" true but pointless.

Agree. Usually pointless to contradict in colloquial usage.


So, presumably, although grains are seeds, not all seeds are grains. Wild guess here: Maybe grains are the seeds of grasses. Wheat, barley, rye, and corn, are all grasses. And though I reject all claims of "superfoods," variety is good, and quinoa is a very good-tasting food.

Agree. Pre-Internet I wrestled with food writers who insisted wild rice is not a true rice, rather it's the seed of a grass. Told them what's commonly known as rice is also the seed of a grass, albeit a different species. Anyway, the meme that wild rice is different because it's the seed of a grass persisted at Wikipedia for a while but is now long forgotten after a few rounds of back and forth years ago.

Do you like millet?

Offline Swagomatic

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2721
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #23 on: March 05, 2018, 06:52:02 PM »
Well, with enough data points, it doesn't matter when you sample them. Could have a scale that automatically saves each weighing, built into the floor somewhere, for extra laziness.

I have a scale like that. I think it remembers your footprint.  It turns green and happy if you lose weight, and gets all red and angry if you gain weight.  I weigh myself fairly often, but for the one that counts, the one I remember, I try to do it at the same time.




Curious: what color would you say your scale is on average?


Well, it's been pretty green for the past month or so, I've lost about 5 lbs.   :laugh:
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.
---George Bernard Shaw

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8596
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #24 on: March 05, 2018, 07:07:38 PM »
Its almost like there's more than one definition of grain.  This argument is the equivalent of, "Tomatoes are actually fruit" true but pointless.

Agree. Usually pointless to contradict in colloquial usage.


So, presumably, although grains are seeds, not all seeds are grains. Wild guess here: Maybe grains are the seeds of grasses. Wheat, barley, rye, and corn, are all grasses. And though I reject all claims of "superfoods," variety is good, and quinoa is a very good-tasting food.

Agree. Pre-Internet I wrestled with food writers who insisted wild rice is not a true rice, rather it's the seed of a grass. Told them what's commonly known as rice is also the seed of a grass, albeit a different species. Anyway, the meme that wild rice is different because it's the seed of a grass persisted at Wikipedia for a while but is now long forgotten after a few rounds of back and forth years ago.

Do you like millet?

Haven't had it for years, but I think I liked it when I had it. Another non-grain that I really liked, but have not had in ages is buckwheat. I think it's actually a legume. I once had a really good recipe that I think involved frying buckwheat with eggs and then adding water and cooking like rice.

Maybe there's something similar with rice in Chinese cuisine.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4961
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #25 on: March 05, 2018, 10:17:51 PM »
Its almost like there's more than one definition of grain.  This argument is the equivalent of, "Tomatoes are actually fruit" true but pointless.

No.  Grains (wheat, barley, oats, rice, maize, triticale) belong to Poaceae.  Grains are from that family, Quinoa is from family amaranthacea.  These families are actually from separate classes. 
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13258
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #26 on: March 06, 2018, 09:14:47 AM »
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/grain

Quote
a small, hard seed, especially the seed of a food plant such as wheat, corn, rye, oats, rice, or millet.
So, sure, the plant isn't a grain but the food is.

Its almost like there's more than one definition of grain.  This argument is the equivalent of, "Tomatoes are actually fruit" true but pointless.

No.  Grains (wheat, barley, oats, rice, maize, triticale) belong to Poaceae.  Grains are from that family, Quinoa is from family amaranthacea.  These families are actually from separate classes. 
Nope, still pointless.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 09:17:29 AM by Ah.hell »

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8596
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #27 on: March 06, 2018, 10:21:33 AM »
It really is kind of like the tomato thing. The tomato is a fruit. But in our food we treat it as a non-fruit vegetable. When I say I'm having a piece of fruit for dessert, I'm not thinking of a tomato. I think of tomatoes as a salad vegetable. It's still a fruit but I don't think of it that way. Not all seeds are grains, but there are non-grain seeds that we treat as grains. When I think of seeds, the phrase "nuts and seeds" comes to mind. I think of sunflower or pumpkin seeds that I eat the same way I eat nuts. Quinoa is a non-grain seed that I cook and eat like rice, a grain.

There are formal scientific classifications, and there is common colloquial use. Both are linguistically valid even if only one is scientifically correct. To the delight of poets and the chagrin of pedants, language is full of ambiguities.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11560
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #28 on: March 06, 2018, 12:26:58 PM »
First thing I notice is that Steve poisons the well. He dismisses everyone who advocates for LCHF diets as emotional. Great.

You know last year Steve did an online debate with someone on a different topic.

I would love to see him do that on this topic.

Gary Taubes would embarrass him.

As for this episode:
At 20 minutes in Steve says: "You cannot extrapolate from basic science to complex final clinical outcomes."

And I heard that and I thought: "Well, isn't that exactly what calories in/calories out is? The basic science extrapolated to clinical outcomes?

Then one minute later Steve says: "What you need to know is calories in/calories out."

So in essence he's saying LCHF diets are making the mistake using the basic science of the glucose/insulin/fat storage model and trying to apply it to clinical outcomes, then he immediately turns around and uses even more basic science to do exactly the same thing.

Steve criticized LCHF diet activists of using Animal data.

This would be a legitimate complaint, especially in the realm of the glucose/insulin/fat storage model.

Humans have an insulin response to glucose in circulation, but not fat. Rats and mice have an insulin response to both. That makes the rodent model invalid for many human applications, and is probably one reason why a low fat diet works better in rodents than in humans.

But, LCHF activists rarely, if ever, use rodent studies to highlight weightloss or other effects of the diet.

If anything, the opposite, LCHF opponents often use rodent studies to criticize LCHF diets.

(We don't need to look at rodent studies. There are plenty of RCTs and meta-analyses showing a significant advantage.)

As to the study they're citing, as they point out, it's not a LCHF Ketogenic diet at all, but even so, the study methodology has some serious errors.

First, the study they're quoting was not designed to show an advantage between Low Carb and Low Fat weigthloss diets. They picked two diets that they expected to have similar results.

Second, both the low fat and low carb subjects were instructed to reduce consumption of sugar and refined carbs. So it's a low-fat, low sugar diet compared to a moderate carb low sugar diet.

Third, after starting the low carb group at good level, they told them to increase carb intake to what "felt comfortable." As a result they finished consuming nearly as much carbs as the low fat group.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2673150

Somehow Steve interprets this weak comparison as evidence that differences in macronutrient intake don't account for a dietary advantage.

Finally, he mistates the body of evidence on diets. His claim is that after a year there is no difference. There are numerous studies showing a significant advantage to LCHF diets after one year, including meta-analyses. He's cherry picking those studies that agree with his predetermined position.

The one thing I learn again and again when Steve discusses diet and nutrition on the show is that even brilliant skeptics can be guilty of bias.



and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8596
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #29 on: March 06, 2018, 02:27:24 PM »
As for this episode:
At 20 minutes in Steve says: "You cannot extrapolate from basic science to complex final clinical outcomes."

And I heard that and I thought: "Well, isn't that exactly what calories in/calories out is? The basic science extrapolated to clinical outcomes?

No. It's clinical studies comparing calorie balance to changes in weight. Not extrapolating basic science, but studies that test the hypothesis suggested by basic science.

It's also the conservation of energy. If you claim that energy is not conserved, that is an extraordinary claim, given the entirety of physics supporting conservation, and you need to provide extraordinary evidence. But I was under the impression that the claim of LCHF advocates was not that the calorie balance didn't matter, but that supposedly you would eat fewer calories (or maybe burn more?) on that diet.

Other studies have offered convincing evidence that success in losing weight depends far more on the individual's commitment to losing weight than on the specific diet or macronutrient ratios. And if it turned out that I'd have a 1% better chance of meeting my weight goal on an LCHF diet than on a balanced diet, I'd still choose the balanced diet, because the minuscule increase in my chances of success does not justify what I consider to be a less healthy diet overall. (Though I'm aware you disagree on that last point. I trust my doctor more than the minority opinion of a chat board.) And I have ethical considerations that would make a high-fat diet difficult for me to maintain. (I choose not to eat meat because I regard it as barbaric and commercial meat production to be an environmental disaster.)
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck