Those counters aren't really precise. They estimate they overshoot calories by 20% already, but then they dont consider level of fitness, or how proficient you are at an exercise. My buddy and I can hop on the treadmill, same age, same height/weight, put it on the same speed and we will end up having burnt the same number of calories. Difference is he barely knows how to put one foot in front of the other and he confuses running with stomping. After 10 minutes, he can barely breath, while I can still hold a perfect conversation without grasping for air.
Yet, the machine has us both at the same caloric loss, which makes anything but sense.
It's very similar to the BMI and how it's extremely flawed as it doesnt consider body composition.
So..I'd be wary of those calorie counters on cardio machines.
That's fine, and in general, I don't believe in counting calories to better than 10% or 15% precision, for a lot of reasons which I've stated. Thus, I don't really care.
When I'm on a cardio machine, I pay more attention to the heart rate. Ideally, I'd like to be able to stay above 150 BPM as long as possible, and to be able to briefly brake 170, but that can be difficult.
Where the calorie counter might be more useful is that it's at least precise even if it's not more accurate. Thus, I know that if I break 750 calories on the elliptical, I had more intensity than the day when I reached 650 in the same amount of time, regardless of how many calories were actually burned.
If you want to believe James Cameron helped produce Game Changers in an effort to get people to eat more peas from his Saskatchewan company, you do you. I don't believe that. I think it's quite clear that we have a famous filmmaker who attached his name to a doc in order to help the doc secure funding and distribution. He supports the doc, because the doc supports plant based eating which he supports as an environmentalist. That's all there is to it.
But I guess when you can't attack the actual substance of the doc, you have to go after the motivations of it's producers, right?
First, I think that you're probably right about Cameron. He's a genuine environmentalist and has been for a long time. It's probably a passion project for him, similarly with the green peas. If Cameron only cared about making money he would probably invest in firearms manufacturers or something like that, that's possibly the best investment that an American can make, but he might want the green peas to be better developed as a food source. My impression is that a lot of angel investors like the idea of an investment being "cool".
However, there's been a lot of bullshit in the past several pages that I feel the need to point out. Among them:
Nate Diaz winning or losing to Connor McGregor provides no constraint on whether or not changes to their diets are universally good or bad. There are hundreds of variables involved, several of them are covariant, and a single fight counts as a small sample size. In general I don't think that we should obsess over the dietary practices of elite athletes. They are elite athletes, so they are superior genetically, superior in prior training, superior in ongoing training, often taking a lot of steroids, and finally, I'm confident that many of them lie when they describe their diets.
A better example might be that of Novak Djokovic a few years ago. He stopped consuming gluten and dairy (I think?) and his performance drastically improved. Not over a single fight against a single competitor, but over an extended period including dozens to hundreds of matches which took place in different days, different conditions, and against different opponents. But even that doesn't generalize: he may have just had a specific auto-immune response.
