The calorie thing is disingenuous, because while it may not be able to simplify it to calories in - calories out, if you eat more calories than you expend, you will gain weight. All calories are indeed created equal, but the accompanying nutritional content of how you get those calories is not.

Eating an apple at say 95 calories will make you eat less than if you ate 35% of a 271 calorie Snickers bar, simply because the apple is more filling.

That, and who only eats a little over 1/3 of a Snickers?

I think it is the heat of the pee that makes stings feel better, I got stung by a scorpion fish in the thumb once and spent the night re-filling the bucket of warm water that I kept my hand in ... pee is warm.

mantidor: anecdotal experience would tell me that is not how long you sleep but your own sleep cycle. When I sleep for 5 hours I'm left a bit tired but I'm functional, when I sleep 7 is perfect, but when I sleep 6, I feel the whole day drowsy. Is not hard to make this experiment, everyone can find their own cycles. Maybe theres some placebo effect but if it works then who cares :P I'm sure is not placebo effect though, everyone I know has different numbers than I.

THIS...

It's not how MUCH sleep I personally get, but when I get it. I can get by on 5-6 hours sleep easily, but I have to go to sleep 3-4 and sleep until 9-10. I have been working jobs that required me to get up at 7 am at the latest since about '92, and I STILL can not adjust to getting up even that 'late'. I also have trouble getting to sleep at night, but if I go until I feel tired, I sleep just fine. I can still stay up all night on the weekends and readjust for work, I can get up in the morning on Monday, I don't like it, but I'm no more tired than any other weekday, whereas on the weekends, I wake up feeling fine, even if I drank all night and got 4 hours of sleep, which I hardly do anymore, but I thought I'd throw it in to make my point, since it still happens occasionally.

FloydA: Oh great. NOW you tell me!

Sprry, I didn't have you on my mailing list. Next memo will definitely come your way... ;-)

fusillade762: RexTalionis: Why would you even want to sleep 8 hours a night, much less think that your body requires 8 hours a night?

Dude, I LOVE sleeping. It's one of the only things I'm good at. Like to get at least 10 hours a night.


Myth 1: Body Hair Grows Back Thicker When You Shave It

However, if you shave your junk it does tend to grow back quite a bit straighter for a while.

Lol, "junk" ... what are you, a refugee from 2009?

Myth 11: Shrinkage is due to cold

No, no it isn't. Sorry dude

"It'll only feel like a big poop."

They forgot the one about not swimming for 30 minutes after eating.

fusillade762: TravisBickle62: fusillade762: RexTalionis: Why would you even want to sleep 8 hours a night, much less think that your body requires 8 hours a night?

Dude, I LOVE sleeping. It's one of the only things I'm good at. Like to get at least 10 hours a night.


Myth 1: Body Hair Grows Back Thicker When You Shave It

However, if you shave your junk it does tend to grow back quite a bit straighter for a while.

Lol, "junk" ... what are you, a refugee from 2009?

I debated whether to use "pubes" or "genitals" instead, but neither had quite the right ring to it. What term do you prefer?

Lol, doesn't matter, party like it's 2009 dude .....

LDM90: Did you know the human body is 99% water? No wait, 86%. Or is it 70%? No no, that's the earth's surface. Anyway, we only use 10% of our brains.

We? Talk for yourself, my psychic powers come from that remainder 90%.

FTA Basically, shaved hair feels coarse and that leads you to believe it's thicker. In reality you're just fooling yourself and your hair remains the same.

I would also add to this, people tend to get hairier (at least on the body) as they age. If you constantly shave an area for an extended period, then let it grow back, it'll likely be hairier than when you first shaved it.

TravisBickle62: Lol, "junk" ... what are you, a refugee from 2009?

You discovered the word "junk" in 2009?

I found weight loss was most prevalent in... people that burned off more calories than they took in.

Just sayin'. Pretty damn simple (barring biological disorders like thyroid probs). It's that whole "Diet, exercise, and self discipline" thing that makes it hard.

/ Mother effin' snickers are delicious.
// In my ice cream.

Myth 8: More Heat Escapes Through Your Head

I'm not buying this as a myth. Your brain is a bucket full of constantly-flowing blood insulated by a little bit of bone. There's no thick layers of fat or muscle. You lose tons of heat through your head and neck.

They forgot the myth of the female orgasm.

Article fails for #9.

Cholesterol denialists are on par with anti-vaxers.

foo monkey: Myth 8: More Heat Escapes Through Your Head

I'm not buying this as a myth. Your brain is a bucket full of constantly-flowing blood insulated by a little bit of bone. There's no thick layers of fat or muscle. You lose tons of heat through your head and neck.

TFA is saying it is a myth because the study wasn't rigorous enough. this is a bullshiat argument as well.

it probably depends on a multitude of factors, such as hair amount and humidity.

Chief_ Danz153A: I found weight loss was most prevalent in... people that burned off more calories than they took in.

Just sayin'. Pretty damn simple (barring biological disorders like thyroid probs). It's that whole "Diet, exercise, and self discipline" thing that makes it hard.

/ Mother effin' snickers are delicious.
// In my ice cream.

There's a bit more to it.

500 calories from sugar/simple carbs do very different things to your body than 500 calories from protein. Sure, you need to burn those 500, but the protein goes to prevent muscle loss or help with muscle rebuild, whereas those 500 calories that come from the simple carbs will shoot your insuline levels and tell your body to store energy as fat.

meat0918: The calorie thing is disingenuous, because while it may not be able to simplify it to calories in - calories out, if you eat more calories than you expend, you will gain weight. All calories are indeed created equal, but the accompanying nutritional content of how you get those calories is not.

Eating an apple at say 95 calories will make you eat less than if you ate 35% of a 271 calorie Snickers bar, simply because the apple is more filling.

That, and who only eats a little over 1/3 of a Snickers?

All calories on a nutrition label are NOT created equal. fiber is the easiest example.

next you'll tell me you knew that, but are still totally correct because you were referring solely to energy gained by the body and not contained in the food, right?

Oversimplifying to the point of uselessness is useless. Even if one ignores nutrition, we still have no accurate measure of calories ingested, or burned (unless you spend each day in a box and measure all your expiration and whatnot).

Man On Fire: foo monkey: Myth 8: More Heat Escapes Through Your Head

I'm not buying this as a myth. Your brain is a bucket full of constantly-flowing blood insulated by a little bit of bone. There's no thick layers of fat or muscle. You lose tons of heat through your head and neck.

TFA is saying it is a myth because the study wasn't rigorous enough. this is a bullshiat argument as well.

it probably depends on a multitude of factors, such as hair amount and humidity.

And finger length. Ann Coulter has massive finger surface area.

Mikey1969: FTA:

But if that's true, why do people contract a cold more often in the Winter? Doctors don't have a certain answer, but according to the New York Times there are a few working theories. Because colds are spread by transferring the virus from one person to another, you need to be in contact with other people. People spend more time indoors during the Winter, and so you often find yourselves 1) around them, and 2) in an enclosed space. If one person gets sick in a household, office, or wherever, there's a good chance that virus will spread. As you should any time of year, keep your distance from the contagious.

Who writes this crap? Of course they know what causes it, and it didn't take the NYT to figure it out.

1. Enclosed spaces.

2. People in these enclosed spaces with each other more often and for longer times.

(And now the big one)

3. Warm, dry, recirculated air is perfect for germinating these germs while they float around waiting to make people sick.

And also...

No, you don't actually get a cold FROM the cold, but you're going to be far more vulnerable to infection if you get sick with something like pneumonia, so it isn't a good idea to go streaking through the snow and dive in the lake, then walk home soaking wet.

You forgot:

Crotch droppings go to school and trade boogers.

Crotch droppings go to day care, and trade boogers.

Crotch droppings go to spring break, and trade boogers with Germans or what the fark ever else shows up at Aruba.

Crotch droppings come home from college, and trade boogers with old friends, then go back to the dorms and trade boogers again.

It's the friggin children. Adults don't change massive populations of booger traders like the droppings do.

All this happens as the result of the school year. That's why it's in winter. Otherwise, the exact opposite happens. Antarctica stations they trade all the colds around and then STOP GETTING THEM because they already had everything there. Cold means absolute DICK in this case, it's the travelling, and the poor hygienic practices of children and young adults.

/wash your friggin hands

Cyno01, the dry air may have done it more than your body temp.

jafiwam: All this happens as the result of the school year. That's why it's in winter. Otherwise, the exact opposite happens. Antarctica stations they trade all the colds around and then STOP GETTING THEM because they already had everything there. Cold means absolute DICK in this case, it's the travelling, and the poor hygienic practices of children and young adults.

Ohhh, you got SO close there....

Yes, you're right, you don't catch the SAME cold twice, but that doesn't mean that the lack of kids is why nobody at the Antarctica stations catch them. It's the lack of people, period. I still got colds in my 20's, when NOBODY I worked with had kids. I'm sorry, "crotch droppings". I LOVE when people biatch and moan about kids, somehow forgetting that they were once kids as well. More of that 'Well at least I got min' mentality, I guess.

But yes, you're right, once a controlled group trades a cold around, it's done. No new carriers in the mix, no new colds. Unfortunately, you're off base taking any responsibility away from kids. It's not the school year, or people would be perfectly healhty all summer, and get sick immediately in August/September. Like I said, the BIGGEST factor is being locked inside with the germs produced by SOMEBODY in an environment where they thrive and get circulated nicely as well.

Sybarite: The idea that all calories are created equal is a pernicious myth that keeps people from maintaining a healthy weight. There was a really good long-term study on weight that came out last year.

"The foods that contributed to the greatest weight gain were not surprising. French fries led the list: Increased consumption of this food alone was linked to an average weight gain of 3.4 pounds in each four-year period. Other important contributors were potato chips (1.7 pounds), sugar-sweetened drinks (1 pound), red meats and processed meats (0.95 and 0.93 pound, respectively), other forms of potatoes (0.57 pound), sweets and desserts (0.41 pound), refined grains (0.39 pound), other fried foods (0.32 pound), 100-percent fruit juice (0.31 pound) and butter (0.3 pound).

Also not too surprising were most of the foods that resulted in weight loss or no gain when consumed in greater amounts during the study: fruits, vegetables and whole grains. Compared with those who gained the most weight, participants in the Nurses' Health Study who lost weight consumed 3.1 more servings of vegetables each day.

But contrary to what many people believe, an increased intake of dairy products, whether low-fat (milk) or full-fat (milk and cheese), had a neutral effect on weight.

And despite conventional advice to eat less fat, weight loss was greatest among people who ate more yogurt and nuts, including peanut butter, over each four-year period. "

Your post reads nice, and I appreciate the quantitation and the fact that you cited the name of the study, but "calories in, calories out" is a lot easier to remember, and I'm lazy. Besides, my current simplistic and ignorant viewpoint lets me mock fat people as lacking in self control.

/mmmm...freedom fries.
//(but seriously, thanks; I'll have to check this one out)

maq0r: Chief_ Danz153A: I found weight loss was most prevalent in... people that burned off more calories than they took in.

Just sayin'. Pretty damn simple (barring biological disorders like thyroid probs). It's that whole "Diet, exercise, and self discipline" thing that makes it hard.

/ Mother effin' snickers are delicious.
// In my ice cream.

There's a bit more to it.

500 calories from sugar/simple carbs do very different things to your body than 500 calories from protein. Sure, you need to burn those 500, but the protein goes to prevent muscle loss or help with muscle rebuild, whereas those 500 calories that come from the simple carbs will shoot your insuline levels and tell your body to store energy as fat.

This is half true. Macronutrient sufficiency (specifically protein and fat) is important in terms of body composition and overall health. Protein is important for muscle maintenance/building and fat plays an important role in hormone regulation. That said, the first law of thermodynamics still applies to the human body. Overall weight gain or loss (without regard to body composition) is really just determined by the difference between caloric expenditure and caloric intake.

Too much is made of the difference between various carbohydrate sources. Simple and complex carbs really don't have a significantly different affect on weight gain/loss or body composition in the context of isocaloric diets. Foods that cause an acute insulin response may stimulate energy storage, but they do not decrease your metabolic rate. Essentially, short term energy storage will be balanced by longer term energy use unless there is a caloric surplus (in which case, weight gain will occur regardless). As a note, protein actually causes an insulinogenic response on par with simple carbohydrates.

In the end, I'm a big proponent of eating whole and minimally processed foods because they tend to be a better source of micronutrients (which are important for general health, obviously) and are often more satiating than "junk food" alternatives. That said, "weight loss" is a very general term and you will lose weight if you consume less calories than you expend. Specific food choices are very important in terms of overall health and body composition, but not in terms of body weight.

Smackledorfer:

All calories on a nutrition label are NOT created equal. fiber is the easiest example.


Fiber is not counted in the caloric content stated on a nutrition label.

I'm pretty sure they "debunked" a few truths with something other than science here. Like the calorie one. If not calories, what tracks with weight gain and loss from food? "mumble mumble, something"

RexTalionis: When I was a kid, I was a mysophobe and a compulsive handwasher. I think I've earned the right to biatch and moan about them being diseased and filthy.

You "earned" a right by having a compulsive disorder? Maybe people should cut you a break because it's not something you can really control, but it's not an "earned" thing...

That's like all the Bush fans telling me that I "had" to respect him merely because he got elected president.

I'll be more understanding of someone with a compulsion like that, but they have to earn my respect.

Smackledorfer: All calories on a nutrition label are NOT created equal. fiber is the easiest example.

Undigestible fiber isn't calorie counted. That's why a large stock of celery is only listed as containing 10 calories.

If you're chained up and your captor only gives you a 400 calorie a day diet, you'll lose weight at the same rate whether it's 400 calories in carrots or 400 calories in chocolate. But when you can pick and choose freely what to eat foods are going to make you feel satiated differently. You'll feel fuller eating 3 small Apples instead of 3 Oreos, even though the calorie count is the same.

Friends episode, Seinfeld episode, they're all from Jackass episodes

beer4breakfast: Smackledorfer: All calories on a nutrition label are NOT created equal. fiber is the easiest example.

Undigestible fiber isn't calorie counted. That's why a large stock of celery is only listed as containing 10 calories.

If you're chained up and your captor only gives you a 400 calorie a day diet, you'll lose weight at the same rate whether it's 400 calories in carrots or 400 calories in chocolate. But when you can pick and choose freely what to eat foods are going to make you feel satiated differently. You'll feel fuller eating 3 small Apples instead of 3 Oreos, even though the calorie count is the same.

False.

Smackledorfer: beer4breakfast: Smackledorfer: All calories on a nutrition label are NOT created equal. fiber is the easiest example.

Undigestible fiber isn't calorie counted. That's why a large stock of celery is only listed as containing 10 calories.

If you're chained up and your captor only gives you a 400 calorie a day diet, you'll lose weight at the same rate whether it's 400 calories in carrots or 400 calories in chocolate. But when you can pick and choose freely what to eat foods are going to make you feel satiated differently. You'll feel fuller eating 3 small Apples instead of 3 Oreos, even though the calorie count is the same.

False.

1.

Mikey1969: FTA:

But if that's true, why do people contract a cold more often in the Winter? Doctors don't have a certain answer, but according to the New York Times there are a few working theories. Because colds are spread by transferring the virus from one person to another, you need to be in contact with other people. People spend more time indoors during the Winter, and so you often find yourselves 1) around them, and 2) in an enclosed space. If one person gets sick in a household, office, or wherever, there's a good chance that virus will spread. As you should any time of year, keep your distance from the contagious.

Who writes this crap? Of course they know what causes it, and it didn't take the NYT to figure it out.

1. Enclosed spaces.

2. People in these enclosed spaces with each other more often and for longer times.

(And now the big one)

3. Warm, dry, recirculated air is perfect for germinating these germs while they float around waiting to make people sick.

And also...

No, you don't actually get a cold FROM the cold, but you're going to be far more vulnerable to infection if you get sick with something like pneumonia, so it isn't a good idea to go streaking through the snow and dive in the lake, then walk home soaking wet.

Being cold and wet will give you pneumonia? I had always assumed that it, like the common cold, required the presence of microorganisms.

RexTalionis: blahpers: RexTalionis: That's interesting, but wouldn't you rather have the time available to you if you don't sleep as much? For me, at least, sleep was never an altogether pleasant experience and I don't typically get (or need) more than 2-5 hours a night.

Why not just avoid sleep altogether? That way you get 24 waking hours a day instead of just 19 to 22 hours.

If only I could, I would. But the brain stops functioning very well after 2 or 3 days.

...Then do I have the drug for you!


/Side effects may include spoilers, allergic reactions, hideous monsters giving you motherly advice, being followed by imps who have a crude sense of humor, getting stepped on by the man, loss of employment, random and comedic impotence, as well as that fishooks through the eyeballs thing and strong urges to commit arson against your coworkers.
/If symptoms persist, please talk to the giant coffee pot at the train station.

beer4breakfast: Smackledorfer: All calories on a nutrition label are NOT created equal. fiber is the easiest example.

Undigestible fiber isn't calorie counted. That's why a large stock of celery is only listed as containing 10 calories.

If you're chained up and your captor only gives you a 400 calorie a day diet, you'll lose weight at the same rate whether it's 400 calories in carrots or 400 calories in chocolate. But when you can pick and choose freely what to eat foods are going to make you feel satiated differently. You'll feel fuller eating 3 small Apples instead of 3 Oreos, even though the calorie count is the same.

Correct. Those who disagree fail at thermo.

Bert_Harbinson: beer4breakfast: Smackledorfer: All calories on a nutrition label are NOT created equal. fiber is the easiest example.

Undigestible fiber isn't calorie counted. That's why a large stock of celery is only listed as containing 10 calories.

If you're chained up and your captor only gives you a 400 calorie a day diet, you'll lose weight at the same rate whether it's 400 calories in carrots or 400 calories in chocolate. But when you can pick and choose freely what to eat foods are going to make you feel satiated differently. You'll feel fuller eating 3 small Apples instead of 3 Oreos, even though the calorie count is the same.

Correct. Those who disagree fail at thermo.

Speaking as an engineer/chemist and not as a nutritionist, I don't know if that is true. Some food takes more energy to be made into a form useful for use in the body, correct? So a bomb calorimeter might say that 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of digestible fiber are the same, but your body might have to do more work on the fiber.

For another questionable analogy: you have a lighter. If you use it to burn up gasoline, it won't take much expended energy from the lighter to get just about 100% consumption of the fuel. If you burn the same stored energy's worth of wood, you will have to expend a lot more effort and you likely won't completely consume all of the fuel that you might have.

I don't know if it is correct, but you can't just dismiss the idea out of hand that some caloric sources are harder to burn than others. Its not an absurd idea.

Bert_Harbinson: beer4breakfast: Smackledorfer: All calories on a nutrition label are NOT created equal. fiber is the easiest example.

Undigestible fiber isn't calorie counted. That's why a large stock of celery is only listed as containing 10 calories.

If you're chained up and your captor only gives you a 400 calorie a day diet, you'll lose weight at the same rate whether it's 400 calories in carrots or 400 calories in chocolate. But when you can pick and choose freely what to eat foods are going to make you feel satiated differently. You'll feel fuller eating 3 small Apples instead of 3 Oreos, even though the calorie count is the same.

Correct. Those who disagree fail at thermo.

I think the major disagreement is over terminology.

One side (my usual side) says: "eat less than you burn, lose weight." This is undisutably true.
The other side says: "not all calories are the same." This is also undisputably true.

But these two things are not opposites. That protein, fat, and sugar (and alcohol) affect appetite differently is widely known. That they affect metabolism in complicated ways is widely known. But none of this changes the simple truth of the "burn more than you eat" equation. Both are true at once.

Where we get into trouble is when people are sloppy with their wording, and we get "eat less to lose weight." Because of the more complicated interactions of foods with metabolism, this statement is not always true.

RexTalionis: blahpers: RexTalionis: That's interesting, but wouldn't you rather have the time available to you if you don't sleep as much? For me, at least, sleep was never an altogether pleasant experience and I don't typically get (or need) more than 2-5 hours a night.

Why not just avoid sleep altogether? That way you get 24 waking hours a day instead of just 19 to 22 hours.

If only I could, I would. But the brain stops functioning very well after 2 or 3 days.

Exactly. For some people, that's how it is on 2-5 hours a night. You're a fortunate Farker, Rex.

LikeTheSearchEngine: Bert_Harbinson: beer4breakfast: Smackledorfer: All calories on a nutrition label are NOT created equal. fiber is the easiest example.

Undigestible fiber isn't calorie counted. That's why a large stock of celery is only listed as containing 10 calories.

If you're chained up and your captor only gives you a 400 calorie a day diet, you'll lose weight at the same rate whether it's 400 calories in carrots or 400 calories in chocolate. But when you can pick and choose freely what to eat foods are going to make you feel satiated differently. You'll feel fuller eating 3 small Apples instead of 3 Oreos, even though the calorie count is the same.

Correct. Those who disagree fail at thermo.

Speaking as an engineer/chemist and not as a nutritionist, I don't know if that is true. Some food takes more energy to be made into a form useful for use in the body, correct? So a bomb calorimeter might say that 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of digestible fiber are the same, but your body might have to do more work on the fiber.

For another questionable analogy: you have a lighter. If you use it to burn up gasoline, it won't take much expended energy from the lighter to get just about 100% consumption of the fuel. If you burn the same stored energy's worth of wood, you will have to expend a lot more effort and you likely won't completely consume all of the fuel that you might have.

I don't know if it is correct, but you can't just dismiss the idea out of hand that some caloric sources are harder to burn than others. Its not an absurd idea.

I'm actually speaking as an engineer with some interest in nutrition... which may be dangerous.

In nutrition, the energy required to process food is called thermic effect. Thermic effect can basically be subtracted from the gross caloric content of a food source. That said, the effect is small and is more strongly related to the type of macronutrient (fat, protein, carb) than the quality of the source. What this means is that isocaloric diets will basically provide the same net energy if they have the same macro breakdown. If they don't, the effect can be slightly different, but it generally won't be on the order of the amount required to significantly affect weight gain or loss.

Your analogy is interesting. I think my argument would be that it's only difficult to access all the combustion energy in the piece of wood because the reaction isn't occurring in a system designed to process the fuel. I think a better analogy might be throwing some gasoline on a fire vs. throwing a piece of wood (with the same energy content) on it. The gasoline will release heat at a higher rate, but once the wood is consumed, the overall energy release will have been the same.

Bert_Harbinson: Your analogy is interesting. I think my argument would be that it's only difficult to access all the combustion energy in the piece of wood because the reaction isn't occurring in a system designed to process the fuel.

Yeah, I don't know enough to comment with any conviction. My suggestion was just that the system consuming the fuel, might be perfectly suited to one (sugar) and have to struggle with the other (fiber). Also, I find it completely plausible that the difference might be negligible - if it exists at all.

LikeTheSearchEngine: Bert_Harbinson: Your analogy is interesting. I think my argument would be that it's only difficult to access all the combustion energy in the piece of wood because the reaction isn't occurring in a system designed to process the fuel.

Yeah, I don't know enough to comment with any conviction. My suggestion was just that the system consuming the fuel, might be perfectly suited to one (sugar) and have to struggle with the other (fiber). Also, I find it completely plausible that the difference might be negligible - if it exists at all.

In terms of net energy, I think negligible is a good way to describe the difference. The analogy of gasoline vs. wood on a fire is probably a good one. The body is designed to process carbohydrates. While some may process more slowly than others, there ultimately won't be a net energy difference between two samples with the same caloric content. My understanding is that the metabolic pathway for digestible carbs is basically the same regardless of the source. It is different for fats and proteins, however, which is why their thermic effect is different. Ultimately, I think the only way to significantly alter thermic effect in the overall diet is to drastically alter the the proportions of protein, carbs, and fat.

Anyway, my point is that food choices don't really have a practical effect on weight gain or loss. There are subtle differences, but they're not exactly easy to manipulate and are small in comparison to the role of calorie consumption and activity level.