denisbider comments on Minimum viable workout routine - Less Wrong

12 Post author: RomeoStevens 21 June 2012 04:19AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (114)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 21 September 2012 02:20:17AM *  -2 points [-]

My argument had nothing to do with conscientiousness.

There is currently no convenient way to accurately track your caloric intake and caloric expenditure. Attempts to do so have all the usual sources of error that this thread already covered.

In particular, adding up the numbers on the labels of the things you eat is not a sufficiently accurate method of determining caloric intake, see for example the FDA's Food Labeling Guide, questions N30-37. That's before we begin to talk about preparation loss ratios, nutrient bioavailability and the vagaries of the human metabolic system.

So when somebody recommends CI:CO, they're recommending either 1) vapid numerology or 2) a time-sink that is also largely numerology. It's unreliable, and therefore not something I would ever suggest to somebody else.

All your self-congratulatory narcissism is also largely off-topic. In particular,

I don't know anyone else who brings this level of dedication to their diet. I know people who don't, and so they're fat.

is such a bizarre source of evidence that I can't imagine why you bothered stating it. Is it really so controversial that pseudoscientific magic is bad advice?

I was right in the grandparent. I'm tapping out.