Readit NewsIt seems that headlights got much brighter to benefit the driver behind them, without any consideration that they blind everyone else -- and also reduce the ability for peoples' eyes to adjust to dim conditions. That can't be a good trade-off.
Yes, it’s a well known fact that if you eat too few calories, that your metabolism slows down - and you burn less calories. That doesn’t make anything that the original poster said scientifically valid.
I saw all sorts of crazy crap that people believed would help them lose weight and tone when I was a part time fitness instructor like excercises that would help them spot reduce (no such thing) to people who tried to come into my classes wearing those plastic bags because they thought it would help them lose weight. They reported me to management plenty of times for not allowing them to come to my class like that and I would budge.
The problem with this line of thinking is the "just".
Sure, physics says it's calories in and out, and we all agree that mostly makes sense.
But -- how do you measure how many calories are going out? Sleep is known to have an impact on weight. How does one translate their sleep quality or sleep issues into a better "out" measure? How do you know how many calories are going out during all of the other things you do during the day? What about the thousands of assorted complex processes going on in your body that you aren't really aware of?
For the "in"... ok, so you studiously track everything you eat. What's the efficiency that your body absorbs all of the calories from the food you ate? How many of those calories pass through and aren't actually consumed? Is eating 1000 calories of lettuce really the same thing as eating 1000 calories of pork?
If fixing this for people was just about "the equation", weight loss would be a lot easier to solve.
"Calories in, calories out" is one of those things that sounds great, but is not nearly as practical for people to actually implement as people like to imagine.
They added instructions to my account indicating which door the packages should be left at. So far, about 50% of the deliveries have been at a different door, but at least they've made it to the house.
Saying that unsubscribing takes a few days means that in the off-chance that this happens, the sender has some coverage against annoyed users who have one of these mails delivered after unsubscribing.
But this is just my guess.
Maybe erring on the side of safety here makes sense?
Edit: As pointed out below, I'm stupid, it's stated in the article and I didn't read that part