People often mean "kilocalories" when they say "calories" because "kilocalories" is abbreviated "kcal". So 200 calories is really little, pretty much nothing, but 200 kilocalories or kcals is a lot ! More than a tenth of what a woman should take in one day.
@@DCBfanboy No, I know about the kcal thing. Part of why I find this absurd is this: The 2,000 calorie thing is just a half-assed attempt at standardization that arose from self-reporting in the 90s. It's not a figure based in any kind of real scientific rigor, and even if it were, nothing we currently know about nutrition would imply that such a thing could be considered universal. Calorie counting is an extremely bad metric by which to keep healthy.
@@grannys_sinister_corn_matrix This such a terrible take! Calories are a simple unit of measurement; specifically heat to water, or you could go a little deeper and find the average body temp for stomach acid, which variables would raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree celsius. To say the science lacks any kind of rigorous approach to how it deals with this topic, is a complete conjecture. A calorie does not change nor is it influenced, the same 1 degree celsius will raise, as any lower will remain stagnant, it isn't some stochastic variable waiting on other mechanics; water and heat are the only mechanics at play when talking about the unit: That is why it is a unit of measurement. A calorie weighs the same in any body, which is why it's so easy to measure with, or be super lenient with (i.e with the tdee. Self-reporting is an easy way for the math to lead to p-hacking, which of course is why there is a rigorous approach in the first place and why we have been using it; a very replicated test.
