If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Good news, everybody. A slab of cheesecake does not actually require 4 1/2 hours of aerobic exercise to work off. So get on out there and eat, eat, EAT   (slate.com) divider line 91
    More: Spiffy, consumer advocacy group, CSPI, Center for Science, Red Robin, Doing It Wrong, Cheesecake Factory, L.V. Anderson, cheesecakes  
•       •       •

6395 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Aug 2014 at 3:53 AM (6 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-04 09:49:29 PM
That is good news, because it is less disenheartening than thinking that my paltry 200 calorie jog can be defeated by a handful of M & Ms.

Now get out there and raise your basal metabolism, and tell the diet only freaks to clam their tits.
 
2014-08-04 09:56:46 PM

Fano: clam their tits


Uh ... okay.

i.ebayimg.com
 
2014-08-04 10:16:40 PM
if you eat a 1,500-calorie slice of cheesecake, you don't need to do 4½ hours of aerobics to burn it off-if you just do nothing for the next day or so, your body will use all those calories.

Also bullshiat.  Your body has already stored that energy as fat deposits, if you're like most people, and sitting around on your ass isn;t going to get rid of it.
 
2014-08-04 10:30:26 PM
Article is whiny bullshiat, and the author sounds fat and angry.
 
2014-08-04 11:19:19 PM

Fano: That is good news, because it is less disenheartening than thinking that my paltry 200 calorie jog can be defeated by a handful of M & Ms.

Now get out there and raise your basal metabolism, and tell the diet only freaks to clam their tits.


This
 
2014-08-05 12:30:20 AM
Granted, equating junk foods with exercise times is a common tactic on my favorite website-y health websites

An author at Slate just biatched about click-baiting. Yet, this is the lead-in to the article being discussed.

img.fark.net

I'm pretty sure this is the internet equivalent of looking at the Trap, Ray.
 
2014-08-05 12:31:35 AM
More examples of click-baiting from Slate.

img.fark.net
 
2014-08-05 12:41:12 AM
The insulin reaction is a myth!  Hallelujah!
 
2014-08-05 01:01:06 AM
Without reading the article...

* The body's regular metabolic processes burn a lot of those calories
* The digestive process is imperfect, meaning a lot of those calories are excreted
* You still sound fat
 
2014-08-05 02:14:29 AM
Talk about a pedantic argument.  OMG, some people might only require 4 hours of exercise to burn those calories, but other people might need 5 hours of exercise to burn the same amount of calories, and they just gave a rough general number of 4 1/2 hours.  This is an outrage!  And they don't mention you could just not eat any other food for the next 24 hours, and you'll burn the calories.  How dare they?  Because most people who eat a calorie laden meal will then fast for the next 18-36 hours.
 
2014-08-05 02:20:18 AM
In reality it only takes four and a half tickles of the uvula.
 
2014-08-05 03:59:34 AM

HawgWild: Fano: clam their tits

Uh ... okay.

[i.ebayimg.com image 225x300]


Those are scallops.
 
2014-08-05 04:09:46 AM
Meh. If someone does more exercise than they strictly need to because they were misled, that doesn't really seem like a problem to me. Unless they swim laps til they die like Julie Dwyer.
 
2014-08-05 04:13:43 AM
1500 calories is more than half of a 10-inch cheesecake. If you can eat that, you already have issues exercise won't solve. Restaurant portions are beyond insane.

That said, I'm baffled as to how 1500 calories can be 4½ hours of exercise unless you're shuffling around on your walker, resting your arthritic hip every 30 seconds. Anyone who's ever seen gym equipment should have at least a foggy idea that those numbers are total bullshiat.
 
2014-08-05 04:21:49 AM

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Talk about a pedantic argument.  OMG, some people might only require 4 hours of exercise to burn those calories, but other people might need 5 hours of exercise to burn the same amount of calories, and they just gave a rough general number of 4 1/2 hours.  This is an outrage!  And they don't mention you could just not eat any other food for the next 24 hours, and you'll burn the calories.  How dare they?  Because most people who eat a calorie laden meal will then fast for the next 18-36 hours.


Your reading comprehension sucks. Here, I'll help: You can do 24 hours of absolutely nothing to burn it, whether you eat anything else or not. Calories are fungible. And since your research skills also suck, you burn anywhere from 200 calories an hour (the above arthritic golf) to almost fifteen-hundred calories an hour (high intensity stuff like hard cycling and cross-fit). So the range is actually 1 hour to 24 hours, and 4½ is plucked from a moldy corner of their posterior.
 
2014-08-05 04:21:55 AM
Soooo, how long to work off half a large cherry cheese cake made by a master baker?

<CSB>
My grandmother was an excellent cook in quite a few items, especially outstanding in fried chicken (at a reunion, there would be maybe 6-8 people bring it and everyone would want to know where my grandmother's was first, before even touching the other peoples' lol).  and cheesecakes, made literally from scratch in a huge Corning casserole dish.

One one occasion my grandmother made a big dinner, my dipshiat cousin hardly put anything on his plate for dinner... then excused himself.  My mother got up in a few minutes for something and caught him in the kitchen - the stupid bastard had already eaten half the huge cheesecake!  Started a fight the family never did recover from... 20+ years later and my mom didn't go to her brother's funeral if that says anything...
Says it was some damned good cheesecake! *rimshot*

</CSB>

/seriously, she didn't go.. she's THAT vicious... actually makes long lists of stuff to biatch about so she doesn't forget to biatch about it.
 
2014-08-05 04:34:19 AM

TheMega: Soooo, how long to work off half a large cherry cheese cake made by a master baker?

<CSB>
My grandmother was an excellent cook in quite a few items, especially outstanding in fried chicken (at a reunion, there would be maybe 6-8 people bring it and everyone would want to know where my grandmother's was first, before even touching the other peoples' lol).  and cheesecakes, made literally from scratch in a huge Corning casserole dish.

One one occasion my grandmother made a big dinner, my dipshiat cousin hardly put anything on his plate for dinner... then excused himself.  My mother got up in a few minutes for something and caught him in the kitchen - the stupid bastard had already eaten half the huge cheesecake!  Started a fight the family never did recover from... 20+ years later and my mom didn't go to her brother's funeral if that says anything...
Says it was some damned good cheesecake! *rimshot*

</CSB>

/seriously, she didn't go.. she's THAT vicious... actually makes long lists of stuff to biatch about so she doesn't forget to biatch about it.


"Let's see here <looks at handwritten list> left the toilet seat up, eh? I'll give you a 20 second head start <picks up frying pan, still hot and dripping sizzling grease>."
 
2014-08-05 04:46:35 AM
TheMega:
/seriously, she didn't go.. she's THAT vicious... actually makes long lists of stuff to biatch about so she doesn't forget to biatch about it.

.... So your mom's brother's dipshiat kid had a bit of an eating disorder, and it caused a 20+ year rift in the family?
Something tells me there is more to this story...
 
2014-08-05 04:48:32 AM

foxyshadis: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Talk about a pedantic argument.  OMG, some people might only require 4 hours of exercise to burn those calories, but other people might need 5 hours of exercise to burn the same amount of calories, and they just gave a rough general number of 4 1/2 hours.  This is an outrage!  And they don't mention you could just not eat any other food for the next 24 hours, and you'll burn the calories.  How dare they?  Because most people who eat a calorie laden meal will then fast for the next 18-36 hours.

Your reading comprehension sucks. Here, I'll help: You can do 24 hours of absolutely nothing to burn it, whether you eat anything else or not. Calories are fungible. And since your research skills also suck, you burn anywhere from 200 calories an hour (the above arthritic golf) to almost fifteen-hundred calories an hour (high intensity stuff like hard cycling and cross-fit). So the range is actually 1 hour to 24 hours, and 4½ is plucked from a moldy corner of their posterior.


Really it requires a marginal analysis. If I burn 2,500 Calories a day on average, and I eat 2,500 Calories one day plus an extra 1,500 Calories of cheesecake, how much extra physical exertion do I need to engage in to offset those extra Calories?

The honest answer is, only an idiot thinks they can just work out a little harder that day and "reset the calorie clock" as some tools like to say. It's a lot like losing sleep - if you screw up one day, you can't do one thing and reset back to your normal schedule. It's best to continue with your normal routine and let the deficit or excess smooth out over time. That should have been the main point of TFA.
 
2014-08-05 04:55:29 AM

foxyshadis: Your reading comprehension sucks. Here, I'll help: You can do 24 hours of absolutely nothing to burn it, whether you eat anything else or not. Calories are fungible.


If you normally consume and burn 2,000 calories a day, and one day you add an extra 2,500 calories because you decided to have a slice of restaurant cheesecake at the end of your meal, you will either need to either increase your exercise levels to burn off the extra calories or cut back how much you eat going forward to compensate. It doesn't just magically disappear in 24 hours regardless of what you do or eat.

And since your research skills also suck, you burn anywhere from 200 calories an hour (the above arthritic golf) to almost fifteen-hundred calories an hour (high intensity stuff like hard cycling and cross-fit). So the range is actually 1 hour to 24 hours, and 4½ is plucked from a moldy corner of their posterior.
 You might be surprised to learn this, but when dealing with large populations with wide variables, people use averages and generalities to create guidelines to provide advice that applies to the largest chunk of the population and make it easier to have a conversation.  You don't waste time being pedantic and pointing out all the variables, outliers, and exceptions.
 
2014-08-05 04:55:38 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: if you eat a 1,500-calorie slice of cheesecake, you don't need to do 4½ hours of aerobics to burn it off-if you just do nothing for the next day or so, your body will use all those calories.

Also bullshiat.  Your body has already stored that energy as fat deposits, if you're like most people, and sitting around on your ass isn;t going to get rid of it.


If you eat a big cheese cake and then do nothing for the next 2 days, nothing at all. Except breathe. I think your body will burn it off. So the author is clearly suggesting and advocating for extreme fasting. 

Can't disagree with that. I fasted myself thin, now I keep it off with exercise and healthy eating. I recommend a good fasting.
 
2014-08-05 05:01:12 AM

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Talk about a pedantic argument.  OMG, some people might only require 4 hours of exercise to burn those calories, but other people might need 5 hours of exercise to burn the same amount of calories, and they just gave a rough general number of 4 1/2 hours.  This is an outrage!  And they don't mention you could just not eat any other food for the next 24 hours, and you'll burn the calories.  How dare they?  Because most people who eat a calorie laden meal will then fast for the next 18-36 hours.


Meh. When I overeat, I notice that more goes out the other end, very much undigested. So eating one 1,500 cal slice of cake in a sitting probably results in much less weight gain than eating seven 200 cal cakes throughout the week. And if I did have a meal at cheesecake factory, I know my calorie intake would decrease significantly over the next 12 hours. It's only natural. Contrast that with indulging in one little extra sugar snack per day, which would only result in tummy rumblings for more, like clockwork.

Blasting mega-meals seems pretty silly to me. Overall daily habits extended over the long term are what count.
 
2014-08-05 05:18:47 AM

foxyshadis: That said, I'm baffled as to how 1500 calories can be 4½ hours of exercise unless you're shuffling around on your walker, resting your arthritic hip every 30 seconds. Anyone who's ever seen gym equipment should have at least a foggy idea that those numbers are total bullshiat.


Do you even hobble, Bro?
 
2014-08-05 05:21:26 AM

HotWingAgenda: foxyshadis: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Talk about a pedantic argument.  OMG, some people might only require 4 hours of exercise to burn those calories, but other people might need 5 hours of exercise to burn the same amount of calories, and they just gave a rough general number of 4 1/2 hours.  This is an outrage!  And they don't mention you could just not eat any other food for the next 24 hours, and you'll burn the calories.  How dare they?  Because most people who eat a calorie laden meal will then fast for the next 18-36 hours.

Your reading comprehension sucks. Here, I'll help: You can do 24 hours of absolutely nothing to burn it, whether you eat anything else or not. Calories are fungible. And since your research skills also suck, you burn anywhere from 200 calories an hour (the above arthritic golf) to almost fifteen-hundred calories an hour (high intensity stuff like hard cycling and cross-fit). So the range is actually 1 hour to 24 hours, and 4½ is plucked from a moldy corner of their posterior.

Really it requires a marginal analysis. If I burn 2,500 Calories a day on average, and I eat 2,500 Calories one day plus an extra 1,500 Calories of cheesecake, how much extra physical exertion do I need to engage in to offset those extra Calories?

The honest answer is, only an idiot thinks they can just work out a little harder that day and "reset the calorie clock" as some tools like to say. It's a lot like losing sleep - if you screw up one day, you can't do one thing and reset back to your normal schedule. It's best to continue with your normal routine and let the deficit or excess smooth out over time. That should have been the main point of TFA.


Yeah, yeah. Blah, blah, blah. I want to know more about TheMega's mom's list.
 
2014-08-05 05:22:21 AM
They seem to be confusing the shiaiaiat you buy from the supermarket with actual cheese cake. A good home-made cheesecake is almost as good as sex. That reminds me, I'm going to go and have some right now.
 
2014-08-05 05:23:33 AM

E5bie: So eating one 1,400 cal slice of cake in a sitting probably results in much less weight gain than eating seven 200 cal cakes throughout the week.


(I changed a number for easier mathemating) That probably depends on whether your body sends through, let's say for simplicities sake, 10% of your calories undigested, then that's either 140 calories from your big one lump cake, or 7 x 20 calories from your many sittings, which works out at 140 calories anyway.

If your body can't get to maximum efficiency when it's as much as 1400 calories and so sends a lot through the system undigested (say 20%), but breaking it up into smaller chunks results in greater efficiency, only 5% lost, then you'd be right.

We need to go to the scientorium to do studies to find out which is the case!
 
2014-08-05 05:25:41 AM
The author is correct... If you eat a nice thick piece of 1500-calorie cheesecake and then do nothing for the next 24 hours, you will burn it off easily.

The problem is that "doing nothing" also means not consuming more calories. Which is not realistic (or healthy) for most people. The real question is how many calories per day they consume on average... Is cheesecake an occasional treat, or a daily indulgence?

The CSPI argument is hyperbolic and misleading, but the article's author is missing the point as well in an attempt to imitate a good skeptical resource like Skeptoid. The truth lies in the middle: high-calorie food is fine if you only consume it every one in awhile as part of an otherwise appropriate diet.
 
2014-08-05 05:52:24 AM

Slaxl: E5bie: So eating one 1,400 cal slice of cake in a sitting probably results in much less weight gain than eating seven 200 cal cakes throughout the week.

We need to go to the scientorium to do studies to find out which is the case!


I'd go with ya, but it just occurred to me that this project may involve loading many poops into a food calorimeter.

MmmMMmm! Smells like science!
 
2014-08-05 05:55:51 AM

E5bie: TheMega:
/seriously, she didn't go.. she's THAT vicious... actually makes long lists of stuff to biatch about so she doesn't forget to biatch about it.

.... So your mom's brother's dipshiat kid had a bit of an eating disorder, and it caused a 20+ year rift in the family?
Something tells me there is more to this story...


Meh. Story didn't say how old the dipshiat kid was, but he showed some seriously poor form, and I also tend to blame the parents if kids are really badly behaved. That's not an eating disorder, that's a lack of the most basic manners. Since he was referred to as the "dipshiat" it probably wasn't the only occasion where he behaved badly either. Besides, he did say it was really good cheesecake, a 20 year grudge over really good cheesecake is nothing.
 
2014-08-05 06:03:38 AM
I like the large portions. My husband and I sometimes share one meal. If We get two, or I'm alone there is a thing called a doggie bag. Most people don't think of that. We were Applebee's one day. We ordered one dessert to share, and a woman asked us how we could eat it after the large meal. I said we only ate half of the meal. The rest goes home for lunch the next day. She looked at us and said, "You can do that"? When we go to Long Horns, bring the cake prt home and eat the ice cream part there.
 
2014-08-05 06:06:38 AM

syrynxx: The insulin reaction is a myth!  Hallelujah!


If your cheesecake is low carb, the insulin reaction IS a myth.

For example

Tastes just like the "real thing"
 
2014-08-05 06:07:35 AM
I'd bet a nickel that most of the people consuming these calorie bombs aren't doing any additional exercise to try and burn off some of those calories, and a whole quarter that they preceded that Reese's cheesecake with a 1700 calorie burger entree. This rebuttal is even more pointless than the original article, and the original article was  pointless because the kind of people who are mindful of their caloric intake aren't likely to blow an entire day or two's worth of calories on one meal. At least not for shiatty chain restaurant food.

/calories, calories, calories
//if only semantic satiety were a substitute for gastrointestinal satiety
 
2014-08-05 06:13:52 AM

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: You might be surprised to learn this, but when dealing with large populations with wide variables, people use averages and generalities to create guidelines to provide advice that applies to the largest chunk of the population and make it easier to have a conversation.

No, sometimes you have to point out there isn't even a conversation to have.  No one talks about the average speed of a car -- it's a lot lower than people think, but it's also completely nonsensical because it provides no useful information.  If you're sitting in traffic you're going 0mph.  If you're in the Great Plains it's probably going 80.  But the average is completely meaningless.  And guess what?  Nobody talks about it precisely because there's nothing to gain by talking about it.

Similarly, "exercise" has such wildly variable levels of exertion that summarizing ANYTHING in terms of time spent exercising is meaningless.  If you're walking on a treadmill you're not doing shiat.  If you're playing basketball (and not just standing under the net) after an hour you've probably burned at least 400 calories above baseline and that's assuming you're slow and out of shape.

Of course, the headline was my favorite website and that's annoying, but this was something that needed to be said.
 
2014-08-05 06:16:04 AM

dragonchild: Of course, the headline was my favorite website

The Fark filters are getting increasingly heavy-handed and nonsensical these days.
 
2014-08-05 06:17:52 AM

Fano: That is good news, because it is less disenheartening than thinking that my paltry 200 calorie jog can be defeated by a handful of M & Ms.

Now get out there and raise your basal metabolism, and tell the diet only freaks to clam their tits.


s3.sillylikes.com
 
2014-08-05 06:23:11 AM

E5bie: Slaxl: E5bie: So eating one 1,400 cal slice of cake in a sitting probably results in much less weight gain than eating seven 200 cal cakes throughout the week.

We need to go to the scientorium to do studies to find out which is the case!

I'd go with ya, but it just occurred to me that this project may involve loading many poops into a food calorimeter.

MmmMMmm! Smells like science!


It's been done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctorius
 
2014-08-05 06:28:25 AM

dragonchild: No, sometimes you have to point out there isn't even a conversation to have. No one talks about the average speed of a car -- it's a lot lower than people think, but it's also completely nonsensical because it provides no useful information.


Sure they do.  We do it all the time.  We say "Oh, it's a 15 minute drive from here."  We don't say "Well, what type of car do you drive?  How quickly do you accelerate off a light?  Do you drive 50 in the slow lane or 80 in the fast lane?   Tell me all of that and I'll work out how long of a drive it is after I pull up Google maps to check the traffic."  Instead we give a rough number based on a typical driver.  At most we might say "Oh it's 15 minutes from, 20 if there's traffic."
 
2014-08-05 06:53:47 AM
Author sounds fat.
 
2014-08-05 06:54:49 AM

gweilo8888: Article is whiny bullshiat, and the author sounds fat and angry.


One of those that describes delicious food as 'sinful' is my guess.

/dnrtfa
 
2014-08-05 06:59:03 AM

make me some tea: Without reading the article...

* The body's regular metabolic processes burn a lot of those calories
* The digestive process is imperfect, meaning a lot of those calories are excreted
* You still sound fat


What really makes me angry about the second point is that we've already accounted for that. A food calorie isn't a regular calorie and isn't measured with a bomb calorimeter.
 
2014-08-05 07:07:12 AM

Shakin_Haitian: make me some tea: Without reading the article...

* The body's regular metabolic processes burn a lot of those calories
* The digestive process is imperfect, meaning a lot of those calories are excreted
* You still sound fat

What really makes me angry about the second point is that we've already accounted for that. A food calorie isn't a regular calorie and isn't measured with a bomb calorimeter.


Don't let it make you angry, it isn't in the article.  BMR was, and most of the rest of it was about how age, weight and exercise intensity all affect energy expenditure rate.
 
2014-08-05 07:11:33 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: if you eat a 1,500-calorie slice of cheesecake, you don't need to do 4½ hours of aerobics to burn it off-if you just do nothing for the next day or so, your body will use all those calories.

Also bullshiat.  Your body has already stored that energy as fat deposits, if you're like most people, and sitting around on your ass isn;t going to get rid of it.


Plus the implied result would also mean that you refrained from consuming any calories the next day.  I'm willing to bet most people don't have the willpower to do that.
 
2014-08-05 07:13:22 AM

Mose: Shakin_Haitian: make me some tea: Without reading the article...

* The body's regular metabolic processes burn a lot of those calories
* The digestive process is imperfect, meaning a lot of those calories are excreted
* You still sound fat

What really makes me angry about the second point is that we've already accounted for that. A food calorie isn't a regular calorie and isn't measured with a bomb calorimeter.

Don't let it make you angry, it isn't in the article.  BMR was, and most of the rest of it was about how age, weight and exercise intensity all affect energy expenditure rate.


Article?
 
2014-08-05 07:14:47 AM
Sure. This is suspiciously convenient news just when Hillary is running for President of this stupid men world again.

i57.tinypic.com

/ seriously. Nobody?
 
2014-08-05 07:15:42 AM
What makes me angry is the stupid headline and the stupid article.  The energy absorbed from a slab of cheesecake absolutely could require 4.5 hours of exercise to consume, considering the given quantities of cheesecake and exercise intensity (not to mention a whole host of other parameters) are so vague, they could mean almost anything.

It's somewhat akin to having a headline read: "your house consumes the equivalent of a large bucket of crude oil when you turn on the blender for an hour!"

Unless I've perhaps overlooked where NIST has defined exactly how many kcals are in one "slab" of cheesecake, or even the rough weight, volume or dimensions thereof, I'd say to everyone, be more precise in what you say, and then you won't have idiots screaming their equally idiotic reactions at your dumb article.  Click bait is absolutely right on both accounts.
 
2014-08-05 07:16:42 AM
Shakin_Haitian:

Article?

Thanks, almost forgot where I was for a second.
 
2014-08-05 08:09:42 AM
It's only 1500 calories? Sweet, I can go to Cheesecake Factory for two slices every Sunday.

/Sunday is long-run day.
//1500 calories is around 8 miles for me.
///Marathon in 2 months.
 
2014-08-05 08:11:28 AM
Eat less....

Move more...

That'll be $500... Payment in genuine cheesecake acceptable...

Fasting is a terrible idea....

*Author still sounds like a fatty working overtime to blame anything other than gluttony for a problem with a simple solution.
 
2014-08-05 08:15:57 AM
Obvious, because these guys would have been 300 pounds.

images.wolfgangsvault.com
 
2014-08-05 08:24:34 AM
They also don't discuss the option of just throwing it up afterwards. What irresponsible journalism.
 
Displayed 50 of 91 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report