71–80 of 152 posts
Very interesting. Startup idea: stool sample testing and custom diet design via a mobile app. I call "not it" for the stool testing part. I'll work on the mobile app instead.
You sound like a great candidate to be the team lead on that project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://news.discovery.com/animals/fat-pets-obesity-weight.ht... - Mammals that live near or with humans, from lab rats to pet pooches, have gotten fatter over recent decades. - Fatter lab animals are the hardest to explain, since their diet is tightly controlled and well documented. - Endocrine disruptors, pathogens or temperature changes might play a role and could also factor into human obesity http://www.bbc.com/n…
The laws of thermodynamics still apply. If someone does not lose weight on 1300 calories a day then either their body is a marvel of science and should be studied for its amazing efficiency... or they are completely sedentary.
This is interesting, but people shouldn't be misled. Counting calories _always_ works for weight loss. If you simply eat fewer calories than your body needs each day, you will lose weight. There was a very highly cited paper in the NEJM where they studied a group of people who believed they were "diet resistant" using a new technique--doubly labeled water--to determine how much they were really eating and exercising.…
Funny you should say that when this was just published today: http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/why-the-calorie-is-br...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Thermodynamics"? There are 120 calories in a tablespoon of olive oil. If I pay you $50 to drink a whole bottle of olive oil, do you think you'll gain several pounds of fat?
To elaborate upon this point, let's say I gave you 10,000 calories of sawdust to eat every day for a week. Would you gain weight or lose weight, ignoring the other health consequences?
This is interesting, but people shouldn't be misled. Counting calories _always_ works for weight loss. If you simply eat fewer calories than your body needs each day, you will lose weight. There was a very highly cited paper in the NEJM where they studied a group of people who believed they were "diet resistant" using a new technique--doubly labeled water--to determine how much they were really eating and exercising.…
And the whole point of the article is that we differ significantly on how are bodies respond to food.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's tough to hear but no matter what your genetics or internal flora are, being overweight is still your fault . It may not be "fair" that someone puts on less weight than someone else eating the same diet, but ultimately you're the one responsible for maintaining your own weight (by controlling what you put in your mouth) no matter what the state of your gut microbes. edit: not picking on you Onion2k...I end up com…
>...being overweight is still your fault Citation needed. The ability of human beings to control their biology through willpower is limited (if you don't believe me, try holding your breath for 30 minutes, or not drinking anything for a few days). Willpower itself is limited, and motivation is itself influenced by mental health. And diseases like Prader-Willi and Emery-Dreifuss demonstrate situations in which motivat…
This is a great analogy. "It's your fault" is not a public health policy, it's a cop-out. And it doesn't even make sense. Obesity is rising dramatically in developed countries. Is the current generation just morally inferior to the ones that came before?
Obesity is peoples' fault in the same way car accidents are. That doesn't mean the proper response is to simply blame people, instead of using science to devise solutions.
This is interesting, but people shouldn't be misled. Counting calories _always_ works for weight loss. If you simply eat fewer calories than your body needs each day, you will lose weight. There was a very highly cited paper in the NEJM where they studied a group of people who believed they were "diet resistant" using a new technique--doubly labeled water--to determine how much they were really eating and exercising.…
But how your body reacts to food has an effect on how hungry you get. It's easier to eat fewer calories if you aren't as hungry. And the whole point of the article is that we differ significantly on how are bodies respond to food.
This is interesting, but people shouldn't be misled. Counting calories _always_ works for weight loss. If you simply eat fewer calories than your body needs each day, you will lose weight. There was a very highly cited paper in the NEJM where they studied a group of people who believed they were "diet resistant" using a new technique--doubly labeled water--to determine how much they were really eating and exercising.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But how your body reacts to food has an effect on how hungry you get. It's easier to eat fewer calories if you aren't as hungry. And the whole point of the article is that we differ significantly on how are bodies respond to food.
Agreed. But obese people need to understand the basics first (EAT LESS!) and then they can tweak their diets to make them more comfortable with fewer calories.
This is interesting, but people shouldn't be misled. Counting calories _always_ works for weight loss. If you simply eat fewer calories than your body needs each day, you will lose weight. There was a very highly cited paper in the NEJM where they studied a group of people who believed they were "diet resistant" using a new technique--doubly labeled water--to determine how much they were really eating and exercising.…
>Counting calories _always_ works for weight loss. If you simply eat fewer calories than your body needs each day, you will lose weight. Funny you should say that when this was just published today: http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/why-the-calorie-is-br...