Eris235 [undecided]

  • 0 Posts
  • 11 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: December 17th, 2020

help-circle



  • I don’t understand how the first part disagrees with what I said? Many body builders do estimate it close enough to be useful, yes. But, it’s still estimates. We have no way of tracking things like ‘basal metabolic rate’, and how that might change over time and under different conditions (which, isn’t to say it can’t be estimated). If you are working out or doing physical labor to a large degree, like body builders and professional athletes do, you can make those basal calories and their fluctuations basically negligible, able to be left as just a line item. When professional bodybuilders are eating 5000 calories a day, yeah, deviations in ‘background calories’ don’t really matter.

    I don’t want to discount the math pros do as unimpressive, or not useful. But there’s a lot of it that is ‘napkin math’, figured out second or third hand, from the data that is able to be tracked accurately.

    but I don’t think the ‘average person’ is expected to work out for 6 hours a day, nor would they likely be capable.


  • Calorie tracking can be useful for some people, yes.

    but, that’s not the same as CICO. We cannot know nor control actual calories in and actual calories out. Anything we do to estimate them is just that, an estimate. Sure, for some people, those estimates are close enough to be useful. But to bandy CICO around as an absolute is insulting. Unless CICO can be actually measured, it’s simply not an absolute rule in any useful sense.

    And, its also pretty insulting to say for ‘most of us’ CICO is the only way to regulate body weight, when that’s not really true. There are many many other ways of losing weight outside of tracking or caring about CICO. Yes, technically, at the end of the day, it must be because of CICO, but like, why should we care enough to track that, when we can’t accurately track that?





  • Yes, CICO is a basically thermodynamics, and is, fundamentally, true.

    But, I don’t think anyone really thinks CICO is basically wrong? Only that its an unhelpful framing. And, there’s a lot of other problems in your comment here.

    Biggest one is the implication that fat people aren’t eating healthy, aren’t exercising. Many are! And, ‘healthy’ vs ‘unhealthy’ foods I don’t think is generally a helpful framing either. Like, I know what you’re trying to say with it, but you can lose weight on mcdonalds and gain it eating salads, and its not really the ‘unhealthiness’ or ‘healthiness’ that causes weight gain or loss.

    Just look at the mess of ‘diet info’, where there’s so many diets whose explanations are directly contradictory with one another, yet some people lose weight doing one, and other lose weight doing the other.


  • Its the balance with this kind of stuff that’s tricky. You don’t want to make kids ashamed of having urges. But also, you do want them to act in ways that are socially acceptable (speaking very generally), and of course, porn specifically can easily become pretty mentally unhealthy for adults, let alone teens.

    I feel like, especially for ‘awkward/nerdy’ kids, this kind of shaming can lead them to being anxiety ridden wrecks anytime they are around potentially interested partners, as they think their urges overall are something to be ashamed of.

    And, that shame is multiplied if the content is LGBT, generally speaking.

    But also, “I’m sorry women” is very funny