Sugar-Free Products Might Actually Stop Us From Getting Slimmer (dw.com) 172
Nutritionists suspected that artificial sweeteners weren't really helping people lose weight, according to a new article submitted by schwit1. Now there's hints of proof in a new aspartame study by the Massachusetts General Hospital.
"We found that aspartame blocks a gut enzyme called intestinal alkaline phosphatase," explains Professor Hodin. IAP is produced in the small intestine. "We previously showed [this enzyme] can prevent obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome [a disease characterized by a combination of obesity, high blood pressure, a metabolic disorder and insulin resistance]. So, we think that aspartame might not work because, even as it is substituting for sugar, it blocks the beneficial aspects of IAP...."
The researchers confirmed their suspicions via a variety of tests on mice. In one case, they fed IAP directly to mice, who were also on a high-fat diet. It turned out that the IAP could effectively prevent the emergence of the metabolic syndrome. It also helped relieve symptoms in animals that were already suffering from the obesity-related illness.
The researchers confirmed their suspicions via a variety of tests on mice. In one case, they fed IAP directly to mice, who were also on a high-fat diet. It turned out that the IAP could effectively prevent the emergence of the metabolic syndrome. It also helped relieve symptoms in animals that were already suffering from the obesity-related illness.
Good then bad then good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Dr. Orva: Here. You smoke this, and be sure you get the smoke deep down into your lungs.
Miles Monroe: I don't smoke.
Dr. Orva: It's tobacco. It's one of the healthiest things for your body. Now go ahead. You need all the strength you can get.
Re: (Score:2)
Hate to be that guy, but:
[citation needed]
Citation provided [nytimes.com]. Smoking does not lead to higher healthcare costs. Neither does obesity. The savings from their shorter lifespans cancel out the costs of their poorer health.
Disclaimer: The citation is only for lower healthcare costs. There are other costs associated with smoking, such as pregnant smokers having stupider children, by about 3 IQ points on average. Income is depressed by about 1% for every IQ point below 120, so that will mean a cost of roughly $100k over the kid's lifetime ($3k per
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about a cite for them so we can check it?
Smoking in late pregnancy is linked to lower IQ in offspring [nih.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they are, they're the ones that vote Republican! Bah-dum-tiss!
Re: (Score:2)
Hate to be that guy, but:
[citation needed]
Here is a sample calculation done by the various people who make that claim:
typical study of reduction in lifespan due to smoking:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
The average geezer on SSA gets 15K a year.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/doc... [ssa.gov]
The average medicare per-person yearly cost for the over 65 people is $19K.
https://www.cms.gov/research-s... [cms.gov]
cigarettes killing the old folks 7 years early save $238K from SSA and Medicare
Lung cancer is an expensive way to go. typical last-year costs are 95K.
cigarettes death
Re: (Score:1)
If you die in their fifties...
Then you'd better hope their fifties corresponds with your [insert age at which you would like to die].
Re: (Score:1)
Care to rewrite that in English?
Re: (Score:2)
It's written in english. Bad english.
Fortunately, I could understand it despite the error. A truly amazing superhuman feat.
So could Korben Dallas.
Re: (Score:2)
They do the same with hamburger meat.
Re:Good then bad then good (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh... this again.
Everything you eat can have good and bad effects. That a new good or bad effect to some particular food may be discovered in the future does not invalidate those discovered previously.
Furthermore, a lot of the "refinements" are just that - refinements. For example, fat. First it was "too much fat is bad". Then we broke fats down: "saturated fat is bad, unsaturated fat is good". Then we broke those down. For example, "polyunsaturated fats are mixed but often bad, monounsaturated are mixed but often good". Then you break those down - for example, "omega-3 polyunsaturated are good, most of the others are consumed in too much quantity relative to the amount of omega-3". And then you break those down - "ALA omega-3 is good, but EPA and DHA are better".
Just because you learn more and break categories down in more detail doesn't mean that the previous, more general statements, were wrong. Yes, sometimes things will actually be wrong, but that's not the general case; you just add more information to the corpus.
As to this article:
So it's not actually a study on aspartame (which breaks down immediately in the stomach to phenylalanine, methanol and aspartic acid). Phenylalanine is an amino acid, found in many foods in quantities well more than in typical amounts of aspartame - for example, eggs, meat / seafood, nuts, legumes, dairy, etc are all high in phenylalanine. Basically, most source of protein are also major sources of phenylalanine. So why spin this study as an anti-aspartame study? And furthermore, are people who eat high protein diets (aka, rich in phenylalanine) famous for being overweight, for that matter?
Looks like this study involved a questionable procedure I've seen in the past - feeding mice ad libitum either aspartame-sweetened water, or just plain water. The ones that had the sweetened water ate more and gained more weight. Great, except that's not comparing what you're claiming it's comparing. If you want to see the benefits of switching from sugary drinks to artificially sweetened ones, the control group should be drinking sugar sweetened water ad libitum, not plain water. At least in this study the sweetener was in the water in this one; I've seen some where they put the sweetener in the food. Which leads to the result "gee, I am so shocked that they ate more of their food after you sweetened it up". Even in this case, they're having a sweet liquid with their food, which could on its own explain why they're eating more of it. I'm no expert in the flavour of lab mouse food, but I'm going to wager that it's not the most delicious of substances on Earth.
Re: (Score:3)
Then we broke those down.
"We" didn't, the food industry did, so that they could sell more food and/or charge more for pseudo health labeling.
If you want to see the benefits of switching from sugary drinks to artificially sweetened ones, the control group should be drinking sugar sweetened water ad libitum, not plain water.
That would answer "whether". We already know "whether" and would like to understand "why".... Specifically, the mechanism by which Aspartame promotes weight gain / hinders weight loss.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Try to eat as much unprocessed whole foods...period.
If you stick with a diet of foods (and yes, you need to learn the relatively EASY task of cooking your own food from scratch) composed in the majority of fresh vegetables, fruits and healthy protiens....you'll do much better.
Your body is trained and knows how to process these and keep you healthy. If you're eating mostly vegetables, you'll be full and not overeat calorically....so, put those meats and stuff fin there too, but don't make
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! Sugar-free and aspartame aren't even synonyms.
Anything I would eat that is sugar-free is also aspartame-free, so the whole premise of the story is crap.
Food. It's what's for dinner.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh look, unprocessed whole food woo [rationalwiki.org]. We should avoid vaccines too?
Most people are kind of shocked to learn a poorly-tuned fast food diet (yes, even McDonalds) is actually as healthy (or more) as a heavy-tuned fruits-and-vegetables diet, so long as you avoid eating too god damned much. The problem is meats and complex foods in general (that is: hamburgers with ketchup and onions and lettuce) contain an average amount of nearly all nutrients; various plant-based foods are high in specific nutrients, altho
Re: (Score:2)
Except unprocessed whole foods is kind of unclear for many people, and some of them aren't necessarily healthy. If you ate nothing but raw honey all day then you'd have serious health issues. Then there is "whole grain wheat" which can be as little as 15% whole grain.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like this study involved a questionable procedure I've seen in the past - feeding mice ad libitum either aspartame-sweetened water, or just plain water. The ones that had the sweetened water ate more and gained more weight. Great, except that's not comparing what you're claiming it's comparing. If you want to see the benefits of switching from sugary drinks to artificially sweetened ones, the control group should be drinking sugar sweetened water ad libitum, not plain water.
I'm not sure what the study is "claiming it's comparing," but at face value I think the study is claiming that artificial sweeteners may have an effect that causes weight gain, whereas water does not. That's a distinct claim from the way many such sweeteners are marketed, where they assume there is no calories, therefore no impact on digestion or metabolism and thus no impact on the way people eat otherwise. (Basically, the substances are assumed to be inert.)
You seem to want them to do a different stud
Re: (Score:3)
Everything you eat can have good and bad effects. That a new good or bad effect to some particular food may be discovered in the future does not invalidate those discovered previously.
I'm sorry, but this is the wrong explanation. The right explanation is that doing nutritional research is hard and that nutritional claims are often not well-supported.
There was never enough proof to say "Fat is bad for you", nor is there currently enough proof to say that "Saturated fat is bad for you". Besides being instantly suspect by being ridiculously simplistic, such claims are almost exclusively based on correlations or effects in high-risk groups. But people really want nutritional advice, so someb
Re: Good then bad then good (Score:2)
You're free to disagree with all major medical associations on saturated fat's correlation with heart disease if you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And this is how total misunderstanding of nutritional science spreads.
Correlation does not equal causation and 'all major medical associations' do not disagree with me on this.
There are plenty of studies that did not find any correlation or only a very very weak one between saturated fat and heart disease. Even if a correlation is found, it still does not prove causation.
Re: (Score:1)
This post by Rei just has so much smart thought put down in writing for the general public to consider, I had to post this saying so. Some common sense items that I never considered: rats probably like sweeter food. Rats probably don't like general lab food. When they do these tests, do they sweeten the food or the water?
Thank you for the post!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good then bad then good (Score:4, Insightful)
Sugar free. First good. Then bad. Then good. Now bad again.
This article doesn't say a word about sugar. It's not sugar that's good, it's aspartame that's worse.
And it was always a questionable ingredient, despite an overwhelming amount of sponsored research claiming that it's all ok.
Re:Good then bad then good (Score:5, Funny)
And it was always a questionable ingredient, despite an overwhelming amount of sponsored research claiming that it's all ok.
A good rule of thumb is don't eat anything that we didn't evolve to eat. If hunter-gathers didn't eat it, neither should you. I eat mostly roots, berries and grubs.
Re: (Score:2)
A good rule of thumb is don't eat anything that we didn't evolve to eat. If hunter-gathers didn't eat it, neither should you.
Except, you're totally ignoring all the evolution that has happened since hunter-gathering times. Lactase persistence [wikipedia.org] for instance only evolved 5k-10k years ago
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm lucky, my genetic profile shows I descend from a bacon-hunting and pancake-gathering tribe!
Re:Good then bad then good (Score:4, Interesting)
I know this was tongue-in-cheek, but how long did hunter-gatherers live on average?
If they made it past infant, the best estimates are about the same as 15-16th century men. Generally hunter-gatherers that made it past infancy died from external means (accidents, infections, etc). Of course making it past infancy was pretty hard for typical hunter gathers. It is a myth that they somehow prehistoric people all died around 30 because that was their "life-expectanacy" at birth. The huge increase in infant mortality greatly skew their life-expectancy down greatly.
Studies in the 50's and 60's of isolated hunter-gather societies in Africa and south america provide our best estimates for lifespans of hunter-gatherer societies post infant mortality. The studies of these relatively contemporary isolated hunter-gatherer societies tracked with human life spans in the 15-16th century when actual records were more available. One of the big assumption they make in many studies is that childhood and other infectious diseases were much more common in the 15-16th century as population densities increased vs isolated hunter gatherer societies so you can perhaps take all this with a grain of salt...
As an additionally data point, many recovered fossils of prehistoric men (and neanderthals for that matter) have shown advanced arthritis and dental wear consistent with ages around 60yo so their is at least existant proof of older people of that era. Although there aren't enough fossil records to be sure of actual age statistics solely from fossil records.
When the industrial revolution rolled around and our lives became less physically dangerous and learned more about diseases, infant/child mortality greatly decreases and our life expectancy has raised considerably and now people that made it past childhood were dying of typical cardio-vascular diseases (probably from higher calorie diets that didn't exist during our species hunter-gather phase).
If you really want to live to your natural age limit of relatively cardio-vascular disease free life, various studies from the 1930's to present day have shown highly calorie restricted diets have shown to possibly be one way to go. It must be balanced, and sadly caloric levels are at the level of near starvation like some hunter-gathers that hit a few lean years. Unfortunately, the statistics have shown the next thing in line to get you is probably cancer, so it doesn't really make you live much longer just w/o cardio-vascular disease, so it may not be worth for many folks to basically starving yourself to get this benefit... yet...
Re: (Score:2)
And it was always a questionable ingredient, despite an overwhelming amount of sponsored research claiming that it's all ok.
Just like sugar back in the days.
Different day, different ingredient.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sugar free. First good. Then bad. Then good. Now bad again.
Actually - sugar-free is good, and has been good always. Sugar substitutes whose ingredients include toxins (methanol)? Now that sounds like it's just bad.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but here at least in the US sugar-free means one of the substitutes. Not actually free from that junk.
Re: Good then bad then good (Score:3)
Sugar free isn't really good. Humans tend to seek out sugar. Most foods have sugars in them. Our bodies are designed to process them effectively.
The problem is that people like to use fake sugar due to a fear of sugar, or they replace fat with sugar... These things confuse the digestive tract, which causes the body to do weird things it shouldn't do to compensate. It's why "sugar substitutes" that insulin doesn't break down seem to be contributors to diabetes in the long term.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just about anything can be toxic if levels exceed our bodies ability to deal with them.
Re: (Score:1)
Just about anything can be toxic if levels exceed our bodies ability to deal with them.
Moderation is key. I don't know of a single substance that an excess of won't kill you.
Re: (Score:1)
it was always bad according to scientists that weren't paid by the people promoting aspartame
ALWAYS
This has been known longer than i have been alive but marketing > science to most people
Re: (Score:2)
Coffee is another one. Every 30 days or so, there is media coverage declaring coffee is healthy and good for you. And then 30 days after that, more media coverage declaring coffee is going to kill you.
Ultimately life is fatal. We all die. I am not particularly interesting in living in a live sanitized and isolated for my protection and devoid of fun, just so I can maybe live a bit longer before I die. Screw that.
But the aspartame thing makes sense. There are an awful lot of very heavy people who dri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Don't eat too much.
2. Eat mostly plants.
If you want to add a #3, it would be "exercise."
Other than those points, nutrition research says more about the scientists, the design of the studies, and the complexity of the human body than it does about what you should eat (and should generally be ignored).
Re: (Score:2)
> Sugar free. First good. Then bad. Then good. Now bad again.
No, sugar-free has always been good. Weird chemicals that simulate some of the taste properties of sugar while causing unknown side-effects are bad.
I dropped all added sugar and much sugary foods from my diet with great results. That means no cake no cookies no ice-cream no soda. Few packaged-factory-produced foods of any type because its impossible to find them without tons of sugar. I have not replaced these with "diet" garbage.
Added sugar vs (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a difference between adding aspartame and not adding it.
Its not the absent of sugars that will stop us from getting slimmer. Its (allegedly) the adding of aspartame.
So I should not eat carrots and tomatoes?
"Sugar-Free Products Might Actually Stop Us From Getting Slimmer" I should drink more of Coca-Cola to get slimmer?
PS
Don't post this in the internet. Trump will now take this as we need more sugars in all food. "All I know is whats on the internet"
Can someone call Bill Gates so he can remove it? He is the one with the off-switch, right?
Aspartame and Mice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Aspartame and Mice (Score:5, Interesting)
There have been studies on other sweeteners. Basically all of the sugar alcohols except erythritol interfere with your system in some way when used as a sugar substitute... And maybe that one too, and they just haven't figured it out yet. Stevia, on the other hand, so far appears as if it may even be beneficial. If you don't mind that it tastes like a leaf.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that it wouldn't work well in cakes or pies.
Your guess is correct. I mix it with erythritol, you can also buy a product in which that is done for you. I have some right now, but forget what it's called.
Re: (Score:2)
Where can I get this IAP stuff? (Score:5, Insightful)
Clickbait (Score:1)
"Sugar-Free Products Might Actually Stop Us From Getting Slimmer" should be
"Aspartame Products Might Actually Stop Us From Getting Slimmer "
aspartame only (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if they turn out to be reproducible, these results only apply to aspartame, not to all sugar-free products. Most sugar-free products don't contain aspartame.
Re: (Score:1)
Didn't saccharin allegedly cause cancer?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the labels... (Score:2)
Re: Look at the labels... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much the "healthy" label, it's "low fat" (which means it's crammed full of sugar to make it taste good and give it texture) or "low sugar" (which means it's crammed full of bullshit chemicals to make it sweet, because the shittiest non-sugar sweeteners are also the cheapest.)
Re: (Score:1)
If your food has a label, you're doing it wrong already.
More fake news (Score:1)
These so-called "scientists" are just trying to cover up the fact that Diet Coke contains natural compounds that act as nature's Viagra.
And, they're trying to suggest that being fat is somehow bad just because the new Leader of the Free World is a fat SOB.
I noticed (Score:3)
when I start my energy drink addiction vs caffeine pills I gain weight even with one large (Xience) sugar free drink per day. I do get less anxiety from the energy drinks like say Beaver Buzz Green Tea vs popping one pill. Seem the pill (200mg) hits way faster. One thing I did notice if I get 8+ hours of sleep I much way less during the day and especially at night when I get crazy cravings if I only get 5 hours of sleep or less. It does take about a week for the body to adjust from the short to long hour sleeps.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you can try it out by taking the short bus one day.
So.... (Score:2)
Nothing at all to do with being sugar-free and everything to do with the artificial sweeteners?
Re: (Score:2)
Everything to do with *one* artificial sweetener. No study done on sucralose/splenda, stevia, etc. Incredibly misleading title.
The entire diet & exercise industry is a scam (Score:3)
The whole industry is predicated on you not losing weight in a short period of time and keeping it off without you continually having to buy their products. If you lost weight in six months by using a product that reset your metabolic rate to a faster rate permanently, you wouldn't need to buy that product anymore (and they've lost a revenue stream). Think this sounds crazy? Consider how many things in your life that you never actually own but rather pay "rent" on every month. You don't pay for just the electricity or water you use. You cough up a mandatory service fee every month. So in a way you rent your utilities. Same with your cellphone and internet access. Same with your car particularly if you haven't paid it off. Think you own your house because you paid off your mortgage? Think again. You're paying property tax (a form of rent) and insurance (another form of rent). More and more businesses are changing over to subscription models, basically rent. Health insurance is yet another form of rent and an expensive one at that and by extension, your health itself is being rented. Ultimately, you're renting an attractive body (not a healthy weight), by paying for a gym membership and/or Weight Watchers. Welcome to The Machine.
Re: (Score:1)
Short answer: eat real food and stop eating sugar and you'll lose weight quickly, without starving and without even exercising.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean all I have to do is burn more calories than I eat? But how can businesses make money with that model?
No. Study is nonsense. (Score:2)
From the article: "aspartame does not block the enzyme directly. It does so through one of its intestinal breakdown products called phenylalanine."
So I guess phenylaline is a terrible substance that gives people the fats?
"Good sources of phenylalanine are eggs, chicken, liver, beef, milk, and soybeans. Other sources include spinach and leafy greens, tofu, amaranth leaves, and lupin seeds." It's also an important component of mother's milk.
So, I guess the same logic as this study could tell you to never eat
Re: (Score:2)
So, I guess the same logic as this study could tell you to never eat some of the healthiest foods we are aware of, or else you will get fat.
The question is, then, what is found in those healthy foods that helps your body process that phenylalanine, potentially rendering it beneficial (or, at least, neutral) rather than harmful? Much like fruits (not juices) contain fructose, which we know is bad for us in quantity, they're fine because that fructose is bundled with fiber, which your body utilizes in the course of processing and storing that sugar, rendering it beneficial (as a stored source of energy) rather than harmful (as a literal poison).
Tenuous risk, unlike sugar (Score:2)
"We previously showed [this enzyme] can prevent obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome [a disease characterized by a combination of obesity, high blood pressure, a metabolic disorder and insulin resistance]. So, we think that aspartame might not work because, even as it is substituting for sugar, it blocks the beneficial aspects of IAP...."
So when looking for the mechanism that causes weight gain with all low calorie sweeteners[1], we found that aspartame reduces the effect of IAP in mice. IAP, in turn,
Re: (Score:2)
You might find Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) [wikipedia.org] interesting.
I know no one will ever believe me (Score:4, Interesting)
But I have consistently been able to identify (without prior knowledge) sucralose, an artificial sweetener, in my food.
I can do that because I get sick immediately after.
I get a horrible after-taste coming up from my stomach, and one time I ate a whole can of peaches before realizing it (canned PEACHES have artificial sweetener now?!), I ended up dizzy and I could feel heart was beating out of my chest and a pain all around it.
I've thought about doing a live double blind study, on video, and posting it to Youtube to prove I'm not full of crap. But it's also strange that I'd have to go to such extravagant lengths to "prove" I'm not lying. Are we supposed to assume every chemical produced by a "food" company is good for us now? When did Big Pharma become the good guys?
Re: (Score:1)
Have you been checked for this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylketonuria
Re: (Score:2)
I could see that. Myself, I have a correlation between a few (but not most) sugarfree soft-drinks and getting a headache.
So I simply have stopped drinking those. One does wonder about the others though...
Source citation (Score:2)
Here's the actual URL to the Massachusetts General's study. Initially, I questioned whether this was true or a hit-piece/fake news against Aspartame.
http://www.massgeneral.org/abo... [massgeneral.org]
http://www.massgeneral.org/about/pressrelease.aspx?id=2016
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, at least anecdotally, I'm a little skeptical of these findings because I had metabolic syndrome at one point, (I was even on 40mg of lovastatin at one point just to control blood cholesterol) and it went away when I switched from regular soda to diet soda. While that doesn't mean that this study came to a wrong conclusion, I'd like to see this researched in humans rather than mice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many seed that are probably part of Mice traditional evolutionary food supply are very high in fat content, a high density energy source is necessary for many seeds to germinate and establish themselves and that is exactly what fats are. Our brains are hard-wired to crave certain types of foods, fatty-salty foods and sweet foods, Fritos corn chips have almost the exact combination of fat and salt to elicit this, almost addictive response.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
all this study tells us that overeating while drinking diet sodas is worse than just overeating
Most people already overeat, so information about whether diet sodas benefit overeaters is more useful than whether they benefit moderate eaters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And there is one more odd thing with the article. They claim that it's due to phenylalanine:
However, aspartame does not block the enzyme directly. It does so through one of its intestinal breakdown products called phenylalanine.
However phenylalanine is something that we get from a wide variety of food sources (quote from Wikipedia):
Good sources of phenylalanine are eggs, chicken, liver, beef, milk, and soybeans.[5] Other sources include spinach and leafy greens, tofu, amaranth leaves, and lupin seeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I caught that too. Phenylalanine is in a LOT of things, including some fruits (I know for example that bananas have it.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly. Soda doesn't have anything in it that you won't find in a number of other foods that a lot of people would say are "natural" (and I use that term loosely because practically nothing that anybody eats is truly "natural", even if you eat organic fruit/vegetables, as practically all of them have been selectively bred to bear almost no resemblance to the wild vegetables that they came from, which as it turns out, our bodies can't digest the "natural" ones very well to the point that we'd likely sta
Re: (Score:2)
Artificial sugar may cause other problems:
After TASTING the sweetness, the body may ask, "But where's the calories?"
Sweet tooth unsatisfied, we may be eating more other stuff.
Artificial sweeteners appear to disturb the body's ability to count calories [webmd.com] and, as a result, diet foods and drinks may wind up encouraging weight gain rather than weight loss, an expert contends. ... Commonly used sweeteners include sucralose, aspartame and saccharin, among others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eating less and "exercising" more will lead to weight loss. What the studies try to figure out is how I can eat less and exercise more than someone else of the same size and age, yet I gain weight, while he loses weight.
When nobody can explain that, a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing, isn't it? People often underestimate the power of walking, veggies, and drinking water. Walking takes longer than more active exercise to burn the same amount of calories, true, but it's easier on the body. Veggies and water don't taste as good as other things. Even after years of doing it, I can't say I enjoy the taste of most veggies. But my body feels better when I eat them. Short-term pleasure vs. long-term satisfaction, I suppose.
I understand that people seem to store calories with varyi
Re: (Score:2)