T.I.L

TIL

the focus of men's vision is programmed

1763410383182.webp
 
Exige said:
TIL that these are now on sale after I paid £68 less than a month ago from the same online store 🙂


View attachment 152025
Click to expand...

Good choice to only buy one. No point buying extra for imaginary friends. Although it must be hours of fun watching you trying to fit in it. On second thoughts, buy a second one then you have a chair for each bum cheek mr wobble chops. (y)
 
Noobie said:
Good choice to only buy one. No point buying extra for imaginary friends. Although it must be hours of fun watching you trying to fit in it. On second thoughts, buy a second one then you have a chair for each bum cheek mr wobble chops. (y)
Click to expand...
I bought 2, why would I want 3 for a 2 person Holiday Let you Muppet 🤪


1A1.gif
 
Dox said:
Aye ya would!

This perfectly demonstrates the futility of counting calories...because they have absolutely no bearing on your weight; a calorie has zero mass, therefore they cannot alter your weight.
Click to expand...
Calories is a measure of energy, usually chemical energy, contained in a substance. Some substances have energy (calories) that the body has evolved to convert to tissue (fat) in order to store it.

So "calories" can cause you to gain weight but only the calories that your body is capable of metabolising into fat.
On the other hand, calories from methane on the other hand won't cause an increase in weight, despite containing rather a lot of calories. Calories from uranium are also likely to cause weight loss rather than weight gain.
 
Loz said:
Calories is a measure of energy, usually chemical energy, contained in a substance. Some substances have energy (calories) that the body has evolved to convert to tissue (fat) in order to store it.

So "calories" can cause you to gain weight but only the calories that your body is capable of metabolising into fat.
On the other hand, calories from methane on the other hand won't cause an increase in weight, despite containing rather a lot of calories. Calories from uranium are also likely to cause weight loss rather than weight gain.
Click to expand...

You rightly state that a calorie is a measurement.

But calories cannot increase your weight...not even a billion of them.

It's like saying a Mars Bar is 15 centimetres long, so if you eat 1.5 metres of mars bars every day, you'll get fat. You can eat 10 mars bars and you will get fat, but you won't injest one single centimetre.

It is impossible to eat a calorie - they have no mass - a calorie cannot alter your physical being one iota.

Everything you do eat effects your body. But you can't eat calories...what would a bag of calories look like?

This is why calories aren't equal and are a terrible way to define a system of weight control.
 
Next up: Why Mars Bars are effectively a vacuum as the atoms that comprise it are mostly empty space.

I get what you are saying - calories are energy, not mass. Energy has no mass, as we understand it, and something massless cannot of itself contribute to measured mass. It would be like saying, I had a really heavy thought earlier and gained a kilo in weight.

And you get it too - the calorific content of food is a measure of its energy and an effective measure of the likely increase in body mass, if consumed. You don't gain mass because you accumulate calories, you gain mass because of the calorific content of food and the chemical reactions that take place in your body as a result.

A similar idea is when you consume a gram of sugar and gain substantially more than a gram in body mass. Glucose, when stored in the body, collects up four atoms for each glucose atom and it is for this reason you can eat a 50g Mars Bar and gain half a kilo in weight.
Another example: a flask of methanol contains a given number of calories which if ignited, with result in a measurable amount of heat given off - but a flask of methanal isn't hot. The calorific value just tells us how hot things will get if ignited.

Calories in food are a measure the likely effect of consuming the food they contain in terms of body mass increase. Calories are the main reason you increase your body fat, assuming you metabolise in a normal fashion and thus increase your weight.

Increases in weight arising from ingestion of protein is of course a different matter.
 
Dox said:
Aye ya would!

This perfectly demonstrates the futility of counting calories...because they have absolutely no bearing on your weight; a calorie has zero mass, therefore they cannot alter your weight.
Click to expand...
I would just presume a gram of uranium ingested would be lights out 🤣 IE you wouldn't ever need to eat again 👀👀
 
Loz said:
Next up: Why Mars Bars are effectively a vacuum as the atoms that comprise it are mostly empty space.

I get what you are saying - calories are energy, not mass. Energy has no mass, as we understand it, and something massless cannot of itself contribute to measured mass. It would be like saying, I had a really heavy thought earlier and gained a kilo in weight.

And you get it too - the calorific content of food is a measure of its energy and an effective measure of the likely increase in body mass, if consumed. You don't gain mass because you accumulate calories, you gain mass because of the calorific content of food and the chemical reactions that take place in your body as a result.

A similar idea is when you consume a gram of sugar and gain substantially more than a gram in body mass. Glucose, when stored in the body, collects up four atoms for each glucose atom and it is for this reason you can eat a 50g Mars Bar and gain half a kilo in weight.
Another example: a flask of methanol contains a given number of calories which if ignited, with result in a measurable amount of heat given off - but a flask of methanal isn't hot. The calorific value just tells us how hot things will get if ignited.

Calories in food are a measure the likely effect of consuming the food they contain in terms of body mass increase. Calories are the main reason you increase your body fat, assuming you metabolise in a normal fashion and thus increase your weight.

Increases in weight arising from ingestion of protein is of course a different matter.
Click to expand...

Yes, but no.

Calories, are a unit of measurement - that is all that they are.

Calories are not energy. And as a way of measuring if something is likely to make you fat, they are pointless. In the past I've tried losing weight just by restricting food rated at 700 calories a day, and didn't lose a thing over about 10 days...just felt crap. And I've lost weight easily just eating what I eat and not thinking about how many calories the food was rated as, but a quick calculation says it would be about 2400-2700 a day.

You don't gain mass because of the calorific content of food...you gain mass because of what that food is made of (which isn't massless calories).

No one in the history of the world has ever eaten a calorie - just like no one has ever eaten a centimetre, or a kilogram. You can certainly eat a kilogram of 'something', but until someone can show us a kilogram of calories, they will never affect your weight.
 
Dox said:
Yes, but no.

Calories, are a unit of measurement - that is all that they are.

Calories are not energy. And as a way of measuring if something is likely to make you fat, they are pointless. In the past I've tried losing weight just by restricting food rated at 700 calories a day, and didn't lose a thing over about 10 days...just felt crap. And I've lost weight easily just eating what I eat and not thinking about how many calories the food was rated as, but a quick calculation says it would be about 2400-2700 a day.

You don't gain mass because of the calorific content of food...you gain mass because of what that food is made of (which isn't massless calories).

No one in the history of the world has ever eaten a calorie - just like no one has ever eaten a centimetre, or a kilogram. You can certainly eat a kilogram of 'something', but until someone can show us a kilogram of calories, they will never affect your weight.
Click to expand...
I simply tell people.. if you are stupid enough to think a mars bar is the same as eating a steak just because they have similar calories you are not fat from your diet your fat from stupidity 🤣
 
Dox said:
Yes, but no.

Calories, are a unit of measurement - that is all that they are.

Calories are not energy. And as a way of measuring if something is likely to make you fat, they are pointless. In the past I've tried losing weight just by restricting food rated at 700 calories a day, and didn't lose a thing over about 10 days...just felt crap. And I've lost weight easily just eating what I eat and not thinking about how many calories the food was rated as, but a quick calculation says it would be about 2400-2700 a day.

You don't gain mass because of the calorific content of food...you gain mass because of what that food is made of (which isn't massless calories).

No one in the history of the world has ever eaten a calorie - just like no one has ever eaten a centimetre, or a kilogram. You can certainly eat a kilogram of 'something', but until someone can show us a kilogram of calories, they will never affect your weight.
Click to expand...
I doubt that the calories you consumed and the calories you were told you consumed are the same. Plus how much of what you consumed resulted in water retention?

The mass of the food you eat won't necessarily tell you how much weight you'll gain. Or lose. The interaction of the food you consume with your body is more relevant to how much you gain or lose.

If the food you eat causes your body to build body fat, or retain water, or build muscle, you'll gain weight. If you eat food that results in less of these interactions, you'll lose weight.

Calories or rather, food with a high calorific content that your body can metabolise, sugars like glucose thatvattract water molecules within the body, and high protein food combined with exercise, all contribute to weight gain.

Since I went low carbs, and thus low calorie, and lost a lot of weight, I've found myself much more thirsty. Drinking a couple litres of water a day in addition to tea & coffee, is essential for me.
 
Loz said:
I doubt that the calories you consumed and the calories you were told you consumed are the same. Plus how much of what you consumed resulted in water retention?

The mass of the food you eat won't necessarily tell you how much weight you'll gain. Or lose. The interaction of the food you consume with your body is more relevant to how much you gain or lose.

If the food you eat causes your body to build body fat, or retain water, or build muscle, you'll gain weight. If you eat food that results in less of these interactions, you'll lose weight.

Calories or rather, food with a high calorific content that your body can metabolise, sugars like glucose thatvattract water molecules within the body, and high protein food combined with exercise, all contribute to weight gain.

Since I went low carbs, and thus low calorie, and lost a lot of weight, I've found myself much more thirsty. Drinking a couple litres of water a day in addition to tea & coffee, is essential for me.
Click to expand...
I eat easily 3000 -3500 so called calories a day and carry fuck all fat ... spent from 16 to 35 years old measuring calories and always carried weight with my muscle mass... the moment I gave up this bullshit method of monitoring food I haven't looked back and despite me nearly doubling my so called calories im leaner than ever and have no problems at 50 maintaining muscle mass ... calories are useless to human beings we aren't bunson burners and we even react to food types very differently... with protein I'd be a hyper responder seeing the benefits immediately where friends have seen the benefits slower although positive .. the minute some gobshite starts to talk calories to me I just walk away 😆
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom