Author Topic: Episode #715  (Read 2920 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2445
    • jt512
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #30 on: March 25, 2019, 09:11:29 PM »

Yeah, a real addict: has to have two teaspoons of sugar a day. NOT! By any rational or medical definition, this does not constitute addiction.


"I don't want to live without that sugar."

That’s the same shit smokers say, and alcoholics and coke or heroine addicts.

What she did not say was that’s all the sugar she has all day. 

She's following a 1500-kcal diet.  Do you really want to claim that she's addicted to 40 kcal of sugar in her morning coffee?
First I said that language i quoted sounded like  the language the addicted use. Do you deny that?

I don't deny that.  I deny that that implies that she is addicted.  I am implying that you were implying that she is addicted.  Do you deny that?  if so, then what, if anything, was the point of your comment in the first place?  That people who aren't addicted use language that is similar to people who are?
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 09:42:08 PM by jt512 »
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2445
    • jt512
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #31 on: March 25, 2019, 09:13:14 PM »
All of the talk about calorie counting on this week's podcast made me think of a recent article in The Economist:
https://www.economist.com/news/2019/03/16/death-of-the-calorie

It turns out that assigning a caloric value to food is highly imprecise and unscientific.

That's utter nonsense.  The energy content of foods is known to great precision.  It is listed on every food package and in official nutrient tables. 


No. There are significant discrepancies and the labeling regime has built-in biases.

The caloric ratios of macronutrients are based on averages. And vary from food to food and between individuals.

The labels are based on those averages and there is no requirement that the labeled food be tested to ensure the calorie count is accurate.

We've been through this before.  Deviations from the averages are unimportantly small.
30% is unimportantly small?

If the overall diet were off by 30%, then that would be huge.  But that is not even close to the case, is it?
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11304
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #32 on: March 25, 2019, 10:16:13 PM »
All of the talk about calorie counting on this week's podcast made me think of a recent article in The Economist:
https://www.economist.com/news/2019/03/16/death-of-the-calorie

It turns out that assigning a caloric value to food is highly imprecise and unscientific.

That's utter nonsense.  The energy content of foods is known to great precision.  It is listed on every food package and in official nutrient tables. 


No. There are significant discrepancies and the labeling regime has built-in biases.

The caloric ratios of macronutrients are based on averages. And vary from food to food and between individuals.

The labels are based on those averages and there is no requirement that the labeled food be tested to ensure the calorie count is accurate.

We've been through this before.  Deviations from the averages are unimportantly small.
30% is unimportantly small?

If the overall diet were off by 30%, then that would be huge.  But that is not even close to the case, is it?

What diet? We're talking about calorie content of foods, right? Some calorie counts are off by that much and more, most are off by less.

The precision you claimed is not that precise.
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.

Online fuzzyMarmot

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 660
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #33 on: March 25, 2019, 11:14:07 PM »
All of the talk about calorie counting on this week's podcast made me think of a recent article in The Economist:
https://www.economist.com/news/2019/03/16/death-of-the-calorie

It turns out that assigning a caloric value to food is highly imprecise and unscientific.

That's utter nonsense.  The energy content of foods is known to great precision.  It is listed on every food package and in official nutrient tables. 


No. There are significant discrepancies and the labeling regime has built-in biases.

The caloric ratios of macronutrients are based on averages. And vary from food to food and between individuals.

The labels are based on those averages and there is no requirement that the labeled food be tested to ensure the calorie count is accurate.

We've been through this before.  Deviations from the averages are unimportantly small.
30% is unimportantly small?

If the overall diet were off by 30%, then that would be huge.  But that is not even close to the case, is it?

The whole point of this piece is that calorie counts are highly imprecise, as are estimations of how much food energy different individuals absorb from the same foods.

The article notes that "The information on some processed frozen foods misstates their calorific content by as much as 70%." There are plenty of other fascinating facts and considerations in here that are worthy of consideration (variation is energy absorption based on food preparation, individual physiology, etc.).

Online arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8739
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #34 on: March 25, 2019, 11:25:53 PM »
Oh boy, this thread again.  ::)
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?

Online jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2445
    • jt512
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #35 on: March 26, 2019, 05:58:52 AM »
All of the talk about calorie counting on this week's podcast made me think of a recent article in The Economist:
https://www.economist.com/news/2019/03/16/death-of-the-calorie

It turns out that assigning a caloric value to food is highly imprecise and unscientific.

That's utter nonsense.  The energy content of foods is known to great precision.  It is listed on every food package and in official nutrient tables. 


No. There are significant discrepancies and the labeling regime has built-in biases.

The caloric ratios of macronutrients are based on averages. And vary from food to food and between individuals.

The labels are based on those averages and there is no requirement that the labeled food be tested to ensure the calorie count is accurate.

We've been through this before.  Deviations from the averages are unimportantly small.
30% is unimportantly small?

If the overall diet were off by 30%, then that would be huge.  But that is not even close to the case, is it?

The whole point of this piece is that calorie counts are highly imprecise, as are estimations of how much food energy different individuals absorb from the same foods.

The article notes that "The information on some processed frozen foods misstates their calorific content by as much as 70%." There are plenty of other fascinating facts and considerations in here that are worthy of consideration (variation is energy absorption based on food preparation, individual physiology, etc.).


I think that article is highly misleading.  And it doesn‘t cite its sources so it can’t easily be fast checked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1669
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #36 on: March 26, 2019, 06:51:07 AM »
Spoiler alert regarding ‘science or fiction:’

(click to show/hide)
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8382
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #37 on: March 26, 2019, 04:14:05 PM »

Yeah, a real addict: has to have two teaspoons of sugar a day. NOT! By any rational or medical definition, this does not constitute addiction.


"I don't want to live without that sugar."

That’s the same shit smokers say, and alcoholics and coke or heroine addicts.

What she did not say was that’s all the sugar she has all day. 


What she actually said was "I don't want to live in a world where I could not have two sugars in my morning coffee." Now, you could be hyper-literal and claim that she is saying she'd rather die than give up her two sugars (in her 1,500-calorie diet). Or you could understand how language is actually used and recognize the statement for the hyperbole it obviously is. I.e., given a choice between living in this real world where two sugars in her morning coffee is harmless, or living in a hypothetical world where she had to drink her coffee black, she prefers this world.

Cara, in spite of her hyperbolic comment, is not addicted to sugar. She enjoys it and treats herself to a very small amount of it. (And I cannot resist saying, thereby, for shame! ruining the coffee. But that's her right.)
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 The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7605
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #38 on: March 26, 2019, 04:48:30 PM »
If the average calorie content of foods were systematically underestimated by labels, that would be a problem.  But if the issue is simply that the content varies by as much as 30%, those errors should wash out over time.  What we're concerned with for weight loss and maintenance is the average calorie intake, not the calorie intake at any one meal.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11304
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #39 on: March 26, 2019, 05:19:49 PM »

Yeah, a real addict: has to have two teaspoons of sugar a day. NOT! By any rational or medical definition, this does not constitute addiction.


"I don't want to live without that sugar."

That’s the same shit smokers say, and alcoholics and coke or heroine addicts.

What she did not say was that’s all the sugar she has all day. 


What she actually said was "I don't want to live in a world where I could not have two sugars in my morning coffee." Now, you could be hyper-literal and claim that she is saying she'd rather die than give up her two sugars (in her 1,500-calorie diet). Or you could understand how language is actually used and recognize the statement for the hyperbole it obviously is. I.e., given a choice between living in this real world where two sugars in her morning coffee is harmless, or living in a hypothetical world where she had to drink her coffee black, she prefers this world.

Cara, in spite of her hyperbolic comment, is not addicted to sugar. She enjoys it and treats herself to a very small amount of it. (And I cannot resist saying, thereby, for shame! ruining the coffee. But that's her right.)

I quoted her exactly in my previous comment:

Quote
Cara: "I don't want to live a live life where I can't put two sugars in my coffee every morning. I just don't."

"I don't want to live without that sugar."

You left out that second part.

How do you know that all she has is the 30g of sugar in her coffee? She didn't say that was all the sugar she consumes.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 07:36:43 PM by CarbShark »
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 CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11304
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #40 on: March 26, 2019, 05:23:40 PM »
If the average calorie content of foods were systematically underestimated by labels, that would be a problem.  But if the issue is simply that the content varies by as much as 30%, those errors should wash out over time.  What we're concerned with for weight loss and maintenance is the average calorie intake, not the calorie intake at any one meal.

Some of those errors occur in foods specifically marketed for dieting and weight loss, by significant percentages. For example, high fiber low fat foods.

Quote
The energy content of foods is known to great precision. 

Are you agreeing now that this was an overstatement? Or do 30% errors that wash out over time what you mean by "great precision"?
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 Swagomatic

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2708
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #41 on: March 26, 2019, 06:57:03 PM »

Yeah, a real addict: has to have two teaspoons of sugar a day. NOT! By any rational or medical definition, this does not constitute addiction.


"I don't want to live without that sugar."

That’s the same shit smokers say, and alcoholics and coke or heroine addicts.

What she did not say was that’s all the sugar she has all day. 

She's following a 1500-kcal diet.  Do you really want to claim that she's addicted to 40 kcal of sugar in her morning coffee?
First I said that language i quoted sounded like  the language the addicted use. Do you deny that?

Second, I can’t claim she’s addicted or habituated without knowing how much sugar is in her diet. All we know is she has more sugar in her coffee than I have in total in a week.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FFS, the point she's trying to make is, nattering over 40 calories (more or less) of sugar is stupid.
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.
---George Bernard Shaw

Online jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2445
    • jt512
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #42 on: March 26, 2019, 07:05:39 PM »

Yeah, a real addict: has to have two teaspoons of sugar a day. NOT! By any rational or medical definition, this does not constitute addiction.


"I don't want to live without that sugar."

That’s the same shit smokers say, and alcoholics and coke or heroine addicts.

What she did not say was that’s all the sugar she has all day. 


What she actually said was "I don't want to live in a world where I could not have two sugars in my morning coffee." Now, you could be hyper-literal and claim that she is saying she'd rather die than give up her two sugars (in her 1,500-calorie diet). Or you could understand how language is actually used and recognize the statement for the hyperbole it obviously is. I.e., given a choice between living in this real world where two sugars in her morning coffee is harmless, or living in a hypothetical world where she had to drink her coffee black, she prefers this world.

Wow, that is some nice Bayesian analysis.  I think I have a man-crush.  Wait, can we still say "man"?.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 07:14:48 PM by jt512 »
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8382
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #43 on: March 26, 2019, 08:10:08 PM »
I quoted her exactly in my previous comment:

Quote
Cara: "I don't want to live a live life where I can't put two sugars in my coffee every morning. I just don't."

"I don't want to live without that sugar."

You left out that second part.

How do you know that all she has is the 30g of sugar in her coffee? She didn't say that was all the sugar she consumes.


And you are elevating a hyperbolic comment about enjoying two sugars in her coffee (in what she has elsewhere described as a 1,500-calorie-per-day diet of otherwise generally healthy foods) into practically a threat to commit suicide if someone were to deprive her of those two sugars.

Your obsession with the evils of sugar have blinded you to the actual nature and intent of her statement. People who work in the field of weight loss have long known that (as elsewhere in life) "the perfect is the enemy of the good." An occasional treat is necessary for most people, in order to keep life enjoyable. For Cara that's sweetened coffee. And the science shows that a small amount of sugar is not going to hurt a person. We get it that you believe that two teaspoons of sugar a day is an unforgivable assault on your health. But even you cannot rationally argue that Cara is an addict because she uses two sugars in her coffee every morning.

You are far too intelligent a person to be blind to the fact that her statement (whether your version or mine was the correct one) was hyperbole. She was not declaring that she literally cannot survive without her "fix" of two teaspoons of sugar a day. She was declaring it to be a pleasure that she has no intention of giving up merely on the basis of the undisputed fact that half a dozen cans of sugar-sweetened soda per day is deleterious to the health.
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 daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8382
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #44 on: March 26, 2019, 08:13:01 PM »
(click to show/hide)

Wow, that is some nice Bayesian analysis.  I think I have a man-crush.  Wait, can we still say "man"?.

Thank you ;D

And, yes, I think both "man" and "woman" are acceptable words even among the enlightened among us who endeavor to avoid demeaning language.
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

 

personate-rain
personate-rain