One weird trick...
...you could try is browsing in a VM. Many malware suites can detect that and not activate (so security researchers can't analyse them). Plus, if you do get zapped, you just go back to the last snapshot.
9 posts • joined 8 Sep 2014
Yes, it really does. The general rule is that the more processed a foodstuff is, the less healthy. So raw cane sugar is not as bad as refined white sugar.
It's also true that calories aren't a precise measure of what a human body will do with an input (look up how calorific content is calculated and ask yourself whether your body does anything even remotely like that). A lot depends on gut bacteria and such factors - i.e. whether you can process/digest what you eat. Some people absorb 95% of the alcohol they consume, some may absorb as little as 50%, so a given amount of alcohol will make one more drunk than another.
Tim, I agree with the overall point. However, your statement that "weight is a simple function of calories ingested as against calories expended" is simply not true. You should be able to see why if you read this:
"It is known there are marked differences in gut ecology between lean and not-lean individuals. Crucially, some classes of bacteria are more efficient at processing lipids (fats) than others, which means the same fat intake can result in radically different calories being absorbed by different individuals based on their gut ecology."
In any case, the calorific value of food is very inaccurate as a measure of how a human body will use that input - would you really expect 1000 calories of raw broccoli (say) to have the same effect as 1000 calories of HFCS or refined sugar?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019