tjogin

7 ms·

1.
by tjogin 11y ago
Which competition's tablets is the iPad playing catch-up to?
2.
by tjogin 11y ago
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.
3.
by tjogin 11y ago
That experiment does not support any of your claims.
4.
by tjogin 11y ago
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.
5.
by tjogin 11y ago
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
6.
by tjogin 11y ago
None of the claims you just made are correct. You did not link to scientific evidence, you linked to articles on the Internet.
7.
by tjogin 11y ago
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 s
8.
by tjogin 11y ago
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
9.
by tjogin 11y ago
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 increasin
10.
by tjogin 11y ago
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 on
11.
by tjogin 11y ago
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, usua
12.
by tjogin 11y ago
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
13.
by tjogin 11y ago
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&#
14.
by tjogin 11y ago
None of what you just said is correct, not a syllable of it, really. You should read up on the available scientific evidence.
15.
by tjogin 11y ago
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 h
16.
by tjogin 11y ago
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
17.
by tjogin 11y ago
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&
18.
by tjogin 11y ago
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
19.
by tjogin 11y ago
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
20.
by tjogin 11y ago
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
21.
by tjogin 12y ago
Correct, the app is called Health.
22.
by tjogin 13y ago
There is no auto manufacturer, or manufacturer of any kind, really, that is in a position to push Apple.
23.
by tjogin 13y ago
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 youn
24.
by tjogin 13y ago
How do you know that bird/pig flu wouldn't have had more severe impact if it wasn't for the vaccinations?
25.
by tjogin 13y ago
Oh, so in your version of history, Apple had about as much success prior to 1981 as they did after? Interesting.
26.
by tjogin 13y ago
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.
27.
by tjogin 13y ago
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 in
28.
by tjogin 13y ago
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 exer
29.
by tjogin 14y ago
> 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
30.
by tjogin 14y ago
> 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

More ›