191–200 of 201 posts
It's just amazing how much "common knowledge" about food has been shown to be completely wrong: * Breakfast is the most important meal [0] * Saturated fat is bad [1] * Carbs are evil [2] * You regain more weight after a fast diet [3] Many will argue but studies have show each one of these to be wrong. [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/10/the-s... [1]: http://www.eufic.org/page/en/show/latest-sc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I eat muesli at 7:15 and don't feel hungry until 12. Maybe people don't think of muesli when they hear the word cereal.
Depending on the composition, muesli is either close to oats, or packed with sugar ("45% fruit!").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why hasn't HN implemented a collapsible thread function yet like Reddit? I love HN comments, but this is my biggest gripe.
There's an extension for Chrome, but it really should be built-in: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hacker-news-collap...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
Doesn't do it for me. It leads to confusion in a couple different contexts. I think we should be open to intelligently refactoring our language, instead of being slaves to organic change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think if there's one big idea about nutrition, it should be that there are no one-size-fits-all answers. I skipped breakfast for most of my childhood, and I had no idea why I was so lethargic all the time. I was typically anxious from undone schoolwork, etc and had no appetite in the morning. I'd self-medicate with cigarettes. I started forcing myself to eat breakfast about a year ago and my mind is so much clearer…
My bike ride into work usually feels significantly more sluggish if I skip breakfast and/or coffee.
If you eat breakfast at XX:XX and start cycling at XX:XX+30, you won't actually be using the energy from the food you just ate, whereas the caffeine will take effect almost immediately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just not true. I can run much farther if I ate my previous meal than if I didn't. And the effects of skipping breakfast on the cognition of children have been studied ad nauseam. A lengthy list: http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/breakfastforlearn...
> I can run much farther if I ate my previous meal than if I didn't If anything I would think the reverse to be true. Runners and cyclists eat sugar gels instead of 'real food' because gels are easier to digest, and all the energy you spend on digestion isn't spent on the activity.
In any case, this really only applies to lengthy activities, where glycogen is exhausted. It doesn't matter for a 5k or even a 10k run.
This may be an argument against breakfast for the sedentary, but athletes on extended training programs usually need to eat in the morning. You're much more likely to hit the wall on an empty stomach, a few hours into your training.
That is very much unsubstantiated, all kinds of athletes enjoy and thrive training fasted. It's probably much more complex in what's best for whom than just "much more likely to hit the wall". Type of metabolism, levels of fat adaption, type of activity, length of activity, etc all matters. As an personal anecdote, I enjoy climbing in the mornings before having food, that's a few good hours of intermittent sprint typ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why hasn't HN implemented a collapsible thread function yet like Reddit? I love HN comments, but this is my biggest gripe.
There's an extension for Chrome, but it really should be built-in: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hacker-news-collap...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying that willpower is a factor implies that it is unpleasant, which is actually agreeing with the implication of "pure torture" that the parent comment implied.
Not really, it has nothing to do with it being pleasant or not. It means that you need to commit to actually doing it (like anything in life). I'm absolutely fine with it and prefer it, like many other people. It's definitely not "torture". Maybe it isn't for some but mostly it's about overcoming the change in routine and there's no shortcut to changing or building habits, it's just willpower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't do it for me. It leads to confusion in a couple different contexts. I think we should be open to intelligently refactoring our language, instead of being slaves to organic change.
But "ve" doesn't create confusion?
The idea of overloading the plural "they" to mean a gender-neutral singular nominative has some inherent problems you can't just learn away, because context is often not sufficient to pinpoint a meaning from the possibilities.