Hugh Pickens writes:
Scott Adams of Dilbert fame writes on his blog that science's biggest fail of all time is 'everything about diet and fitness':
I used to think fatty food made you fat. Now it seems the opposite is true. Eating lots of peanuts, avocados, and cheese, for example, probably decreases your appetite and keeps you thin. I used to think vitamins had been thoroughly studied for their health trade-offs. They haven’t. The reason you take one multivitamin pill a day is marketing, not science. I used to think the U.S. food pyramid was good science. In the past it was not, and I assume it is not now. I used to think drinking one glass of alcohol a day is good for health, but now I think that idea is probably just a correlation found in studies.
According to Adams, the direct problem of science is that it has been collectively steering an entire generation toward obesity, diabetes, and coronary problems. But the indirect problem might be worse: It is hard to trust science because it has a credibility issue that it earned. "I think science has earned its lack of credibility with the public. If you kick me in the balls for 20-years, how do you expect me to close my eyes and trust you?"
Of course, that's not true at all, since there's no way to measure how much energy can actually be extracted by the body/gut microbiome. Also proven that it changes depending on time of day.
Of course, that's not true at all, since there's no way to measure how much energy can actually be extracted by the body/gut microbiome.
And of course, that's totally irrelevant for the truth value of his inequality. The inequality is correct no matter if you manage or not to measure how much your body transforms in energy and how much is lost to your gut bugs.
If you do "calories out" larger than "calories in" you'll be guaranteed to lose weight (even if you are just a bunch of atoms undergoing nuclear fusion or fission)