Sometimes it works the other way. We cannot get our teenage daughter to eat anything but junk food half the time and yet she's far thinner than either of us were as teenagers. Neither of us can understand it.
You can be thin eating any type of food. It’s generally just far easier to over-consume junk food, but if she’s not eating too much it won’t inherently lead to weight gain
As a teen I would out eat, in physical quantity, any 2 full grown adults and not gain weight, I was 5'11" @ 125lbs by 16. I could eat several plates of whatever was in front of me, at that time my parents made food, not prepackaged processed crap. Into my 20s I'd sit down and empty a tub of ice cream, not one of them tiny ben & jerrys containers. No weight gain until I hit 28 doing a physical job and went up to 180 lbs of muscle, now I'm 150 ish and can still eat what I want when I want, tho normally I eat to live not live to eat. Calories-in-calories-out, like BMI, is only a part of the whole picture with so many unseen things affecting it, like medicines. And no, being skinny was not an easy ride.
I assure you that it’s just a matter of your perception. Every study ever performed reveals people have a notoriously bad internal concept of the quantity of their intake, frequently being off by more than double. The problem is even further exacerbated when trying to estimate someone else’s intake
Western capitalists are dominant globally. They enjoyed a multi decade head start. Yes, all capitalists are bad but western capitalists have been the most destructive.
China is authoritarian capitalism with communism for their under classes. They are the worlds 2nd largest economy. Their capitalist practices are just as, if not more reckless than Americas. Just because they dress it up different doesn’t mean they aren’t capitalists. They have the 2nd most billionaires in the world. So sick of everyone acting like evil begins and ends with the West because they live there and don’t get exposed to other news enough. The whole world is fucked, it’s not just “the west.”
I can get behind the logic of more screen time probably meaning less physical activity. But someone needs to explain to me how eating less would ever lead to weight gain. Especially when your typical breakfast junk is just as unhealthy as snacking could ever be.
I know that if I skip a meal, I can get really hungry later. That or I start snacking on crap. So skipping a meal could potentially lead to weight gain because you end up eating more than if you didn't skip the meal.
your body adjusts to fasting by increasing hunger hormones and sensitivity to them. This can lead to overconsuming food when its available.
additionally roads and traffic have also reduced effective social and play areas even as vehicles become more dangerous to pedestrians.
Its possible even that the evolutionary adaptation to cars is that low energy kids have less risk of injury/death while more high energy kids get hit by cars, possibly selecting for less active kids generation to generation (notably it may also be selecting for taller heights)
i absolutely hate that this correct answer gets any downvotes.
so much anti-intellectualism on the internet, so much surface level “BuT CaLoRiEs iN CalOriEs OuT” combined with outright denial and doubt of empirical evidence.
humans are a mess. yes, sometimes skipping morning meals can have an effect on the rest of your day and you eat more later. why are we so quick to doubt that?
Yea i can absolutely see that. Though it's also understandable to doubt it because personally it just doesn't apply - which I think is largely because I don't changr my portion sizes, and I'm probably not the only one. I make food and eat all of it, and I usually eat 2 meals a day + sometimes breakfast. I've found that delaying food intake for as long as possible leads to me eating less overall and losing weight.
In my case, eating breakfast or not is more of a result of how much I ate the previous day.
Here you encounter the difference between personal anecdote and statistical averages in risk factors :)
Risk factors don’t mean you, personally are doing something wrong, risk factors just help identify patterns that inform action in health care where it is needed
General trends should only be applied by trained professionals, such as physicians or dietitians, who can do so with the necessary care and attention. Unless you are a doctor, you’re right that it’s hard! In fact you shouldn’t do it at all.
It is important for people to understand this concept, because it seems to be commonly overlooked. The average person should not create a diet or fitness plan based solely on data like what is discussed in this article. Rather, it is far more healthy to defer to professionals and their recommendations in the form of interpretation of that data for guidance rather than attempting to interpret this information on your own.
Edit: My apologies, it’s in the subtitle line cut out of context like this. I think this is the egregious fault of the publisher more than the author, probably some SEO BS, because again this was obviously not the intent of that sentence.
My browser’s reader mode cut out that subtitle line, hence my original comment:
Bad reading of the author’s intent and you ignore the immediately preceding sentence which provides context for your cherry picked quote:
The researchers identified great heterogeneity in the prevalence between countries and also diverse risk factors, from dietary to behavioral.
The intent of that paragraph is to highlight the diversity of risk factors, not to give the most prevalent ones.
When you ask a text to do something it didn’t ever even pretend to want to do, of course you are going to come away disappointed. Media literacy. < Publisher accountability.
Bad reading of the author’s intent and you ignore the immediately preceding sentence which provides context for your cherry picked quote
It is the subtitle in its entirety, as the author of the article intended. That sentence didn't grow legs and and walk all the way up to the top of the article by itself.
hot damn my apologies my reader view cut out the subtitle. somehow i doubt that was the author’s intent though. i would blame the publisher for this because that’s a really poor manipulation of the text.
For more than 20 years, Clooney has been involved in a number of diverse causes. She works at a prestigious London law firm specializing in human rights called Doughty Street Chambers and is also an adjunct professor at Columbia Law School in New York. She has been collaborating with Prosecutor Khan for three years, when he asked her to act as special advisor to observe the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region. In addition to creating the foundation that bears their names in 2016, the couple have made numerous donations through it, such as the $1 million they gave in 2017 to fight against racism and hate crimes in the United States, the aid project to provide schooling to 3,000 Syrian refugee children in Lebanon, arms control or hosting an Iraqi refugee fleeing the Islamic State in their own home. The lawyer has also worked on international cases, such as the long border dispute between Vietnam and Cambodia, on the return of Greek sculptures from the British Museum to Greece; and on the recognition of the Armenian genocide.
I don’t know, maybe because she’s fucking busy doing other important shit?
The ICC has 124 member states. If the charges lead to convictions, Netanyahu and the Hamas leaders would never be able to visit those nations under threat of arrest. At the very least it would curtail their ability to advertise their violence.
I think you mean if the warrants are issued. There is a warrant for Putin, and that made him cancel a trip to South Africa. I agree with the rest of what you said. I hate how often people let, "Perfect be the enemy of Good." It would definitely be better if the ICC had more members, but even in states that aren't signatories, the court can have an influence on their leaders.
I forget what award show it was but I'm pretty sure Tina Fey and Amy Pohler brought her up and listed a lengthy resumé of all her accomplishments. Then transitioned to "And tonight we're here to give her husband a lifetime achievement award."
There are three famous Clooneys. Two of them are married, one of them is the nephew of the third. When you think of them, you should think of Amal first, then George, then Rosemary. Sorry, Rosemary. Them's the breaks.
I think you're leaving out a few dozen or so extremely highly-rated and award winning George Clooney films. You could have mentioned films like Good Night, and Good Luck or O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Meanwhile, I would say most people associate White Christmas with Bing Crosby.
But more importantly, neither of them are human rights lawyers who argue in front of the ICC.
Imagine being so morally dishonest and inconsistent that you are willing to criticize Milei for things that Peronists have been doing for decades (on a larger scale and for absolutely shameful reasons). Also, the malice of selling an estimate as if it were a fact.
It seems wrong to me to look at a specific expense and imply that public funds are being wasted. Public spending cannot be zero, no matter who governs. What must be ensured is that the money that is actually spent is spent with care not to waste and that it serves a purpose that benefits the country.
In this case, it would be interesting if instead of saying "it cost the state more than half a million dollars" they said if it could have been done for less money (considering that he is a president and the mobility limitations that entails) and if the the objective of the trip can be considered in pursuit of the general interest of moving the country forward.
The way it is written lacks logical support and shows a simple attempt at a cheap, ineffective blow.
As a note of interest, the used presidential plane that the previous leftist government bought does not spend the same as a commercial one, because it is outdated, it is hyper inefficient in autonomy and performance, requires constant maintenance, is not efficient with fuel among other things (it needs to be "taken for a walk" empty constantly because if it stops it breaks more and those repairs are much more expensive than flying it "pointlessly" to prevent it from breaking).
.
That's why it is more expensive (much more expensive) than a regular flight. Oh but complaining about current administration spending while turning a blind eye to the spending of the previous administration is free!
english.elpais.com
Newest