> completely made up numbers with no basis in fact.
Did we look at the same website? They give the formula by which they derived the numbers, based on "standard" nutritional data for those foods. It's not a dataset per-se, it is (supposedly) a simple and easily reproducible computation of a widely available dataset. (No, I did not try to reproduce though I would if I were going to take any action based on this).
Why would you assume it is random?
And I ask, again, if you can point me to the two independent studies that confirm potato's properties, because I can only find one.
Suit yourself. The "calorie count" is just as invented according to your definition -- if you are not familiar with how calories are measured, educate yourself (and if you believe it is science, then make sure you can answer the question "then how come gasoline (12kc/gr) or paper (a carbohydrate) are not human edible", and "when and how were atwater factors derived". If you can answer these things and believe anything in nutrition is not "invented science" by your definition, then we have differing definitions of what constitutes science.
And if you believe (as I do) that all of this is entirely unscientific, but some of it is sort of useful - than what exactly are you arguing?
Did we look at the same website? They give the formula by which they derived the numbers, based on "standard" nutritional data for those foods. It's not a dataset per-se, it is (supposedly) a simple and easily reproducible computation of a widely available dataset. (No, I did not try to reproduce though I would if I were going to take any action based on this).
Why would you assume it is random?
And I ask, again, if you can point me to the two independent studies that confirm potato's properties, because I can only find one.