tjogin

Which competition's tablets is the iPad playing catch-up to?

A moderate caloric deficit is not starvation, however. So the experiment in question is completely unrelated to your claims. Science does not say that a caloric deficit automatically is starvation, you alone are making that claim.

That experiment does not support any of your claims.

Not being able to understand the difference between excess muscle and fat is not semantics.

BMI is a tool applied to populations, used on individuals it can be very inaccurate, which is why nobody does it outside of blogs and magazines.

I understand that from the zoomed out perspective, when you learn about advancements in the field from newspapers, magazines or blogs, it looks that way. But this is mostly the fault of various media sensationalizing findings, drawing their own conclusions and prioritizing shocking headlines over levelheaded critique of scientific study results as well as framing it in the proper context.

The total body of scientific evidence is not really in such disarray as the reporting would have you believe.

However, your conclusion still hits the mark; eat well and exercise.

None of the claims you just made are correct.

You did not link to scientific evidence, you linked to articles on the Internet.

You are making the claim that a caloric deficit is detrimental to health (although you choose to call it "starving yourself" for unknown reasons, even though starvation is something completely different), the onus is on you to show evidence for that.

That has only been demonstrated in mice, however, and only with semi-unrealistically large dosages of sucralose, if memory serves me right.

In humans, we have a lot of evidence that shows that the source of calories does not matter, for fat loss. Long term health is another issue, of course.

IMHO, putting focus anywhere but on calories is doing oneself a very big disservice, except for some athletes and bodybuilders for whom other factors are important as well.

There is nothing detrimental about being on a caloric deficit diet if are overweight. It's not starving yourself, it's not bad for you, it's the ONLY way you can lose fat. Reducing intake is much more efficient than increasing output, as the article we are discussing elaborates on.

No, having muscle doesn't make you overweight, no matter how much of it you have. The word overweight means to have excess fat, specifically.

Im not sure what you mean by under eating, but eating fewer calories than you spend is the only way to lose fat, other than surgery.

No, I'm talking about actual scientific evidence published in peer reviewed scientific journals. There are mountains of it available.

Being in a caloric deficit is not starving yourself, it just means that over a period of time, usually a full day, you spent more energy than you consumed, and the difference is taken out of your energy storage, which is mostly adipose tissue. This is how fat loss happens.

Being overweight is unhealthy, it can't be done in a healthy way; not in the long term.

While it is possible for an overweight person to not have any of the common health problems associated with being overweight, that is temporary. If you are overweight, you will develop those health problems, it's just a matter of time.

It's basically like smoking and cancer; not all smokers have cancer or get cancer, but there is no such thing as smoking in a healthy way, and if you do it, then the best way to get healthier and to prevent developing health problems in the future is to stop doing it.

Some people can be overweight without developing health problems for a long time, even for a decade or two, but it's just a matter of time. Reducing your bodyweight is easily the best way to improve your health, and to make sure you don't develop health problems in the future.

And, vice versa, many of the things we associate with bad health don't become health problems at all for people who stay lean. Food that we know to have strong correlations with bad health, like eating red meat, sodium, cholesterol, etc, are only really problematic if you also over eat.

Exercise is great, it's terrific, but not over eating is much more important. The saying is true, "you can't outrun a bad diet".

I never said anything to the contrary?

I just said nutrient timing is not important; i.e. the exact moment when you eat things, or don't eat things, is not important, for most normal people.

And they are not "my sources"; I'm refering to the available scientific evidence, they are everyone's sources.

And, lastly, the idea that you need to "break down" muscle in order to build it up is not really correct, either. Muscle breakdown happens yes, but it happens whether you workout or not, working out just elevates muscle protein synthesis, thus both the breakdown and build up of muscle protein. But it's not like the breakdown causes the build up, and it's not like there can't be buildup without breakdown, it's not a very good analogy and it's not a really good illustration of the mechanics at work.

None of what you just said is correct, not a syllable of it, really. You should read up on the available scientific evidence.

Research has shown that, among dietary and health guidelines, switching soda for diet soda is the most effective guideline that exists.

Eating better is obviously preferable, but the reason most people fail their diet is because it is too hard for them to comply with it. This is where the "switch to diet soda" is so effective; people can actually do it.

You are confusing "calorie counting", which is a method of losing weight, with a "caloric deficit" being the number one factor for losing weight, which is a fact.

It doesn't matter if you count calories or not. What matters is that you achieve a caloric deficit. Any method that is applied successfully to achieve weight loss has resulted in a caloric deficit, whether or not that method was calorie counting.

Yes, it has been scientifically proven about a bajillion or so times that a caloric deficit causes weightloss, and a caloric surplus causes weight gain, irrespective of the source of calories.

However, eating 3000kcal of "healthy food" is a lot harder than eating the same amount of "junk food", because "junk food" has a higher caloric density -- that is the very thing that makes the food "bad".

A person can easily eat 3000kcal of junk food in a day and still not be satisfied, while a person who eats as much healthy food as they can may still fall shy of 3000kcal.

The literature shows that a caloric deficit is what matters the most for weightloss, by an extremely large margin, so large that all other factors can safely be ignored for "normal people".

Nutrient timing is completely irrelevant for normal people who want to lose weight, and only becomes relevant for bodybuilders with extremely low body fat levels, as well as athletes who train or compete multiple times a day, and even for them it is not one of the most important factors.

There is too much mysticism around nutrition and health; people think it's about the method when it's rather about finding a method that works for you the way you apply it.

People seem to find it very hard to reason about dosages as well; so-and-so is "good for you" and so-and-so is "bad for you", again with the mysticism. Nothing is bad for you and everything is bad for you, all depending on the dose. And vice versa, foods that are supposedly good for you don't do shit if you don't dose it appropriately, and become bad for you if you overdose it.

Another Swede, I agree with a lot of the points, especially how the current government can't help but make themselves look foolish.

But, free health care, free education, almost no religious zealots what so ever, zero religious impact on lawmaking, a relatively inclusive society, etc, makes Sweden one of the better places to live in the world, imho. Obviously, I'm biased.

I too find it rather weird that someone who yearns for more socialism would move from Sweden to the US. :)

Correct, the app is called Health.

There is no auto manufacturer, or manufacturer of any kind, really, that is in a position to push Apple.

The seasonal flu isn't like H1N1, the latter put some young healthy people under so bad that they had to be hospitalized for weeks and needed equipment to breathe.

Those who suffer that bad from the seasonal flu are very old, very young or have a very weakened immune system.

How do you know that bird/pig flu wouldn't have had more severe impact if it wasn't for the vaccinations?

Oh, so in your version of history, Apple had about as much success prior to 1981 as they did after? Interesting.

Well you can count any way you like if you absolutely want to make it so. But I count Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes and the App Store as pretty good successes.

Yeah, it's fun to make shit up that but let's not ignore the fact that while Woz was technically employed at Apple until 1987, he did not play any role of significance at Apple after his plane crash in 1981, and was never involved in the Mac project at all. Any importance Woz may have had to Apple effectively ended in 1981.

The problem with sitting for long periods of time, or remaining in any static position really, is that as muscles fatigue more stress is put on joints and bones. Having more muscle and strength helps significantly, but not all forms of exercise develops muscle and strength adaptations equally.

It would depend on the exercise. If you by "exercise" mean superflous human movement for the purpose of wasting excess energy, I would agree it doesn't do much to counter sitting the rest of the day, it's basically just a break from sitting.

If you instead mean methodical heavy barbell training for the purpose of invoking physiological adaptations in the form of increased muscle and strength, it would probably do a great deal to offset sitting for the rest of the day, especially coupled with the increased awareness and understanding of spinal positioning that comes with lifting weights.

Most of the time when people talk of "exercise", they mean the kind that don't do much for muscle and strength development (mainly the aerobic kind or light anaerobic work), but a lot of people actually do the kind that does.

> Are you arguing that there were no societies that had caloric surplus up until late in the XX century?

No, only that a caloric surplus is necessary to gain weight. Matter cannot be created from nothing, a surplus of energy is required to perform all the bodily functions and to also build body mass.

A people can have an abundance of food and still not get obese, if they simply don't eat too much of it, relative to their caloric expenditure.

> It is not that simple. If you have a calorie deficit but aren't getting enough nutrients you will get cravings but won't be able to sustain your diet.

That makes no sense. In that case, you aren't on a caloric deficit. If you aren't able to achieve a caloric deficit, then you are not on a caloric deficit.