Why are you counting calories https://youtu.be/HGunZpKLb5o

>>40675202
You mean I can't eat giant muffins and starbucks to get lean? Fuck this gay world.

Really makes you think.

>>40675219
Not the point if is saying that mostly every food has the wrong amount of calories labeled

ahahahahja

stfu dymb faget

>>40675202
>Why are you counting calories
Because I have self control and like to maintain a good diet.

Because it's better than not counting them at all. Why else, you turbofaggot.

>>40675202
>that guy who does farmers walks with plates instead of dumbells

This video's completely insignificant if you're making your own meals anyway.

I'm not.

>>40676089
nope

>>40676104
Yep

>>40675636
the methodology of the labelling comes into question. Is it an average? unlikely, but possible, or is it a minimum that the company found in one example muffin, and chose to use that.

Unless the labelling includes like confidence intervals and variance estimates (hell or even the probability distribution it's coming from) it's never going to be accurate. But yeah, no doubt shady stuff going on with nutrition labels to make anything seem as healthy as they feasibly can.

>>40676147
Literally applies just as much to your safeway raw chicken as it does to anything else

>>40676152
I saw a report years ago that the listings on frozen "diet meals" can be off but up to 1/3rd.

The reasoning is that those values are based on an Ideal meal they create. But in practice they tend to slightly over pack the meals. They do this to make sure the meals weigh out to at least the reported amount to avoid customers suing if the machines are out of whack and happen to under fill the meal. This probably happens with the muffins and other pre-preped food.

As for starbucks and chipotle there is a major human error factor there. Like he said if they add an extra squirt of flavor or pour in too much milk it will throw off the numbers easily same with chipolte unless each scoop of meat/cheese/guaq is weighted out it will never be accurate.

>>40675202
> bomb calorimetry results don't translate to human digestion

well no shit, for one thing humans can't derive calories from fiber, and for another thing this is all processed food

>>40676196
what if you weigh every piece of raw meat and cook it yourself

>>40675202

because i lose weight when i track my calories and when i dont track 'em i usually stay at maintenance naturally.

couldn't give a flying fuck what this retard says. it works for me.

>>40675202
>implying calorie-dense food is "not healthy"
(literally said it at some point)

>expecting cooked foods (cakes and shit) to be announced at the exact calorie count, not one kcal more or less
wew

>>40675202
You track and weigh yourself so if you gain weight you can decrease what you normally eat more easily. This then stops inaccurate labels being that much of a problem, since eventually you will lose weight.

>>40677211

This, the inaccuracies will just even out if you adjust your caloric intake after checking your weight change for some amount of time.

File: IMG_8980.jpg (36KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 320x240px

>>40675202
Can someone please tell me what the point is of spamming the same thread over and over again? Is it just for (you)s? Or is he actually just a fat neckbeard trying to delude himself that counting calories doesn't work?