Food for ThoughtFollow

Im not a dietitian. Go ask one where you can get your BMR done. I did mine years ago, but since my weight has been consistent eating a sustaining diet, I haven't bothered getting it checked again. I think I can confidently say my BMR is still 1500, but I am sure it will change more as I age.


(its not just a consumption test like VO2 either. It is a test on the consumption level and energy use by the body at rest. Literally they monitor you while you sleep...no eating for 12 hours prior because active digestive system skews the consumption levels, because it is active and thus requires more energy than "at rest")




Edited, Nov 18th 2013 4:20pm by rdmcandie

Well it is accurate so it means 1 thing or the other.

1) You aren't counting calories correctly

2) Your body is not consuming a healthy 80J of Energy per pound.

To elaborate on 2.

(using my numbers again).
If I were to consume half the calories I do today but maintain the same weight it means my body is not consuming energy the same as it was before.
ex.
2386/2 = 1193*4.19 = 4998.7
4998.7/125 = 39.9

So you see because my body is not requiring energy burn to function I can eat less food and still maintain my same weight. If I were to say get active and bump that up to 50J/pound and want to keep eating the same 1193 Calories.

4998.7/50 = 99.94LBs. Yikes I just dropped 26 Pounds because I increased my energy demand without also increasing my food demand.

If you are confident you are counting calories correctly than chances are high that your body is not active enough to consume the healthy 80J/Lb, instead you are only consuming "X" and storing whatever is left over.

If you are eating and not actively consuming what you eat, it will not magically consume itself. It will be stored for periods of time where you need the extra energy.

Edited, Nov 18th 2013 5:39pm by rdmcandie


(* Disclaimer I am not using you in a derogatory I just read that last part and it sounds like I am just calling you lazy, I don't intend for any insulting, just trying to explain how the energy conversion calorie intake thing works Sorry if you were insulted.)



Edited, Nov 18th 2013 5:45pm by rdmcandie

Just the one pepperoni?

I'm thinking a big one, you know like the kind that make the Hickory Farms people green with envy.

I'd rather they hurry on identifying and developing the age-retardation bacteria.

But my food says "...based on a 2000 calorie diet" so I'd think the "Calorie" in the schedule is stylistic like "Vitamin A" rather than scientific.

The information in the nutrition box is mandated by the government (at the cost of our essential liberties). I don't think they give a shit if it costs a tenth of a penny more to add a disclaimer.

Per your all knowing wiki:


Edit: I haven't followed the thread at all since it looks less fun than being goat raped. I was just noting that food labels seem to use "c" and "C" interchangeably. How that affects the discussion above, I have no clue because there's a goat waiting for me.

Edited, Nov 19th 2013 6:31pm by Jophiel

That sounds delicious....

There is no difference between Calorie and calorie. a kcal (little k little c is very very important) is 1000 Calories, a Kcal or kCal is a kintec calorie used in energy conversion (big k or little k followed C as opposite is very very important.)

But in either regard they should really come up with standard terms, in Canada we see 3 different expressions on our sh*t. Calorie/calorie/kCal all represent 1 unit of energy. kcals represent 1000 of them.

This is why nutritionits want to have the term Calorie eliminated out right, and Joules and Kilojoules to be used instead...they don't get much luck. Most calories listed are actually *1000 which makes things even more confusing...which is why most nutritionits have just gone to BMR instead of Energy based conversion (if you can't beat em join em) Not that it matters, if you mutliply both sides by 1000 you get the same sh*t, if you divide both sides by 1000 you get the same sh*t.

Ultimately they all mean the same thing at the end of the day in terms of the science behind it. It is a representation of a quantity of energy in this case Joules, and really should be represented as such...granted im sure retards would become confused and try and eat batteries because they have an out put of joules as well...actually thats probably why they won't change it.


Also you raise a good point, most people don't know that 1 Calorie as seen on their food is actually 1000 calories...we just axed the old KILO from the name a long time ago. If you eat something that has 4 Calories, its actually 4000 calories., but again that makes no difference in the math as long as you do everything in like terms. the errors come when people add 10 Calories as 10 to calories of 425. Thinking they only ate 435 when they actually ate 10425. But again science is irrelevant apparently because the terms are used interchangeably anyway. I know there isn't 9000 calories in my Yogurt that is labeled as 90 Cal, 90 cal is much more accurate, I know because my little Yogurt does not give me 377000 Joules of Energy if it did I would be a fat *** ************* with about 30 times more energy in system then I consume in day.

So again largely irrelevant to the discussion...but good points none the less.



Edited, Nov 20th 2013 1:49am by rdmcandie

I thought you were Canadian, not Ethiopian.

I did slow cook chicken burrito's this weekend - they were awesome.

I threw boneless chix thigh in the crock pot with some salsa, a big splash of vinegar and some chopped up poblano peppers (from a can) and a bit of ground clove (careful).

It was done after about 6.5 hours on low. Shredded it with a fork turned it into a burrito adding blackbeans, corn, spanish rice, some more fresh salsa and sour cream. Guac woulda been good too, but husband doesn't like it and I didn't feel like making it just for me.