3 ms·
We already know it's not exactly calories in, calories out. But it's close. This article too says that when the fat mice ate 10% less they went back to a norma
by knorker 4y ago
We already know it's not exactly calories in, calories out. But it's close.
This article too says that when the fat mice ate 10% less they went back to a normal weight.
10% less is not "starving yourself".
If you have a gene like this then it's not fair. But life's not fair. At least this you CAN fix.
You can't fix ugly genes, short genes, or hair loss genes. Or low IQ genes.
So the title is wrong. Ultimately it is, actually, someone's fault. The fat person led their own life there.
It's not a short person's fault that they're short, and they can't fix it. But a fat person ate themselves fat, and can eat less and will lose weight.
- pnutjam 4y agoWould you take a 10% pay cut? 10% is a significant amount.
- knorker 4y agoI would take a 10% pay cut for vastly better health, yes. And for food i disagree. 10% less is actually not that much less. It's more like remembering to eat less than it is to stop eating while still hungry.
- colinmhayes 4y ago> We already know it's not exactly calories in, calories out. It literally is though. If you burn more calories than you eat you will lose weight. It's tautological. Now some people are genetically disposed to having different calorie spends all else equal, but that doesn't change the calories in, calories out equation.
- knorker 4y agoYou are technically correct. The best kind of correct.