Author Topic: Episode #715  (Read 2936 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8744
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #15 on: March 24, 2019, 11:53:41 PM »
The woman who mainlined fruit juice seems to be an extreme interpretation of the appeal to nature fallacy. Nature is always good and more is better. That's kind of the problem with the simplistic label of healthy, which invites abuse. I like Steve's quote: "the poison is in the dosage".

It's also a lack of understanding about human physiology. I think she was thinking "Juice is great and really good for me when I drink it - it should be even better when I shoot it directly into my arm. No mucking about with all that messy digestion, just put it straight where it needs to be."
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.
Morticia Addams was elegaunt.

Offline Skepmic

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #16 on: March 25, 2019, 08:47:25 AM »
A preference for robot pets? Steve really is a Vulcan.

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. If anyone thinks they can precisely monitor their caloric intake, they are mistaken. This article does a good job of debunking that approach.

Yeah, it's OK to ballpark the calories/macros in your food if you want to make adjustments. But that's about it, it's not going to be exact. What matters is what the scale says. I eat roughly four times what Cara is eating and barely gain weight.

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8398
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #17 on: March 25, 2019, 12:07:51 PM »
The woman who mainlined fruit juice seems to be an extreme interpretation of the appeal to nature fallacy. Nature is always good and more is better. That's kind of the problem with the simplistic label of healthy, which invites abuse. I like Steve's quote: "the poison is in the dosage".

In this case, I would say, The poison is in the method of administration.

A preference for robot pets? Steve really is a Vulcan.

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. If anyone thinks they can precisely monitor their caloric intake, they are mistaken. This article does a good job of debunking that approach.

Yeah, it's OK to ballpark the calories/macros in your food if you want to make adjustments. But that's about it, it's not going to be exact. What matters is what the scale says. I eat roughly four times what Cara is eating and barely gain weight.

The point being that a high level of accuracy is not necessary. Counting calories is the best way to get a handle on how much you are consuming. Soon you learn how much you can consume to maintain or lose weight. And eventually you may learn to eat the right amount for you without counting anymore.

My aunt had a very effective method for dieting: she ate exactly the same things she normally did, but only half as much. You don't have to count the calories, you just have to eat less than needed to maintain, and counting calories is a good way to know how much that is.
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: 11321
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #18 on: March 25, 2019, 12:07:59 PM »

This is the robot we used to repel raccoons from our Koi pond.



ScareCrow Motion-Activated Animal Deterrent-Ortho


Quote
Tired of battling deer, cats, raccoons, squirrels and rabbits? Stop animals from invading gardens and ponds with ScareCrow Motion-Activated Animal Deterrent. Guaranteed effective from day one, this smart ScareCrow uses a startling, yet harmless, blast of water to keep deer and other destructive animals at bay. Plus, the custom motion sensor lens increases detection range for smaller animals, like cats and raccoons. The original motion-activated deterrent protects day and night, all season long.

We designed the pond in a way to make it difficult (but not impossible) for them to get the fish. But they would make a mess trying, and did succeed a few times.

We set this up in a way that would spray them right in the face when they got to the spot they used the most, and would spray the whole pond if they tried another route.

It worked. We noticed it triggered several times the first night, then once or twice a week.

Because we didn't want to have a garden hose running to the pond all the time, I made a modification where I attached it to one of those bug sprayers you pump up with air pressure. It didn't spray as much or make as much noise, but worked just as well.  We haven't had an issue for a couple years now. 


(This is a promo video, our pond is a lot smaller)



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: 11321
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #19 on: March 25, 2019, 02:00:58 PM »
 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."

Sounds like an addict.
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 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2687
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #20 on: March 25, 2019, 03:08:02 PM »
Yeah, just stop drinking the coffee, you won't crave it anymore. After a while.

Offline mabell_yah

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 64
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #21 on: March 25, 2019, 04:24:08 PM »
The woman who mainlined fruit juice seems to be an extreme interpretation of the appeal to nature fallacy. Nature is always good and more is better. That's kind of the problem with the simplistic label of healthy, which invites abuse. I like Steve's quote: "the poison is in the dosage".

It's also a lack of understanding about human physiology. I think she was thinking "Juice is great and really good for me when I drink it - it should be even better when I shoot it directly into my arm. No mucking about with all that messy digestion, just put it straight where it needs to be."

Isn't it funny how nature worship applies to super foods and things you can buy. It's spectacularly arrogant to suppose (without evidence) that you can completely bypass your entire, natural, digestive system.

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2447
    • jt512
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #22 on: March 25, 2019, 06:17:00 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. 

Quote
If anyone thinks they can precisely monitor their caloric intake, they are mistaken.

It is really no problem to accurately monitor your calorie intake, at least if you don't eat out.  You do have to be detail-oriented, honest, and motivated.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8398
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #23 on: March 25, 2019, 06:48:59 PM »
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."

Sounds like an addict.

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.

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: 11321
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #24 on: March 25, 2019, 07:25:06 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.

But if a manufacturer can demonstrate that the macronutrient averages don’t accurately reflect the calorie count they list the accurate count. That is the source of bias. If the label shows more calories than the product actually has then they will put the smaller number on the label (and sell more)   

But if the label shows fewer calories there is no financial incentive to put the larger number on the label.








Discrepancy between the Atwater factor predicted and empirically measured energy values of almonds in human diets


Quote
Results: The energy content of almonds in the human diet was found to be 4.6 ± 0.8 kcal/g, which is equivalent to 129 kcal/28-g serving. This is significantly less than the energy density of 6.0–6.1 kcal/g as determined by the Atwater factors, which is equivalent to an energy content of 168–170 kcal/serving. The Atwater factors, when applied to almonds, resulted in a 32% overestimation of their measured energy content.

Conclusion: This study provides evidence for the inaccuracies of the Atwater factors for certain applications and provides a rigorous method for determining empirically the energy value of individual foods within the context of a mixed diet.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 07:29:56 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 jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2447
    • jt512
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #25 on: March 25, 2019, 07:57:03 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.

Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11321
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #26 on: March 25, 2019, 08:01:45 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. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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 jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2447
    • jt512
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #27 on: March 25, 2019, 08:07:08 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?
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11321
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #28 on: March 25, 2019, 08:47:06 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
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: 11321
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #29 on: March 25, 2019, 08:48:01 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?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.

 

personate-rain