|
|
|
|
|
by jackvalentine
3387 days ago
|
|
I'm not claiming any degree of accuracy in the estimates, just that without tricking yourself in to think you're being rigorous you can achieve pretty much the same results. I outlined the mechanism that I think these 'counters' are actually achieving results by in spite of their atrocious data collection. I can't believe people are defending such poor data collection practices. You'd be all over it if someone else was selling their results based on such inaccurate data but in this case it's fine? If you're going to call it counting you need to be accurate. |
|
The mechanism is simple: they reduce their caloric intake, because they can track how much they eat. More or less: it doesn't have to be perfect, nor is it "atrocious" if it isn't. And you can easily just round the numbers up ("I calculated 500 for this thing, but let's say it's 600 just to be safe").
You seem to believe that any kind of "back of the envelope" / "ballpark" calculation is useless. Or that people only eat complex multi-part meals with no nutricion information, and have to gauge everything from zero all the time.