Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
No, you're again wrong.
|
Not once, of the many times you've said this, have you actually demonstrated that I am wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
You cannot compare calories from chemicals to foodstuffs. It's not a fair comparison at all.
|
Sorry, Will, you can't do it.
Why? Is there a rule? Are there different kinds of calories?
Nope, not at all. You just can't do it because it's unfair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
In fact, it is the fallacy of equivocation since you are making them appear equal in some fashion when in any reality they are not.
|
Who was it that said "calories are calories"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
But you can compare edible goods to edible goods. Calories are calories, what is important is nutrient density to the caloric density, which is obviously the point you are trying to make.
|
Yes. It's convenient to ignore the nutritional value, but that means ignoring half the equation and the nutrient density does play an important role. As a matter of fact, for what this thread is asking, calories are
completely irrelevant. Cost vs. being sustained should be the debate and calories should be sidelined. That's kinda what I've been heading towards for a while, but I was on Benadryl and quite frankly I wasn't concentrating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
But again, it's MORE expensive to make low calorie high nutrient density foodstuffs than it is to make high calorie low nutrient.
|
It's cheaper to stay full and healthy on healthy food. That's the bottom line. You may very well be able to get 2000 calories cheaper in unhealthy form, but the reality is that if it's really unhealthy you're probably going to go hungry and also be short on necessary nutrients. So it's really not cheaper, because you have to eat
more unhealthy calories to compensate for the lack of mass and nutrient value... and suddenly it's
more expensive to eat unhealthy.
Edit: looks like Jetee beat me to it. Damn you Benadryl.