Jesus Camp, for sure.

Quote from: pandamonium on Today at 07:33:11 PM

I have such a strongly genetic disposition >_< stupid genes.

I check mine myself. (And, yes, if I'm feeling hungry and irritable, my blood sugar is generally low.)

While you're at it ask your doctor to check the following:

A1C
HDL
LDL-P
LDL-C
Triglycerides

From what you've said, you're probably at risk for T2D and metabolic syndrome.

FYI, I have three siblings, all obese, one morbidly obese. Two were diagnosed with T2D and when I was obese I was told my risk factors for that and other diseases were going in the wrong direction. I take this shit seriously.

ES

YEAH WHILE YOU'RE GETTING YOUR BLOOD SUGAR TESTED YOU SHOULD ALSO TEST YOUR A1C OH YEAH AND ALSO IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO INTO THAT MACHINE TO GET YOUR BOOBS TESTED FOR CANCER YOU SHOULD GET A MAMMOGRAM AS WELL

LOL. Have you ever way watched Burn Notice? That's how the CIA does it.

With seeing in ultra-violet, does the lens implant prevent sun blindness?

Quote from: Lukas on Jun 18, 2013, 02:29:33 PM

IOW, the calorie information on a package of almonds is significantly off, so the people who thought they were eating the same number of calories with an almond-enriched diet actually consumed less calories, and had better weight loss results. Still doesn't contradict the theory that energy-wise a calorie is a calorie, and that your long-term weight change is determined by energy balance, i.e., calories in - calories out.

It does reinforce the argument that calories in/out and a calorie is a calorie are a poor basis for diet advice.

The Atwater factors (4 cal per g of carb and protein; 9 for fat) are averages and there are many foods that are way off (although 32% for almonds is pretty far off). There is also a bias underestimating the calories of hi GI carbs and over estimating calories from whole foods.

ES

No and Yes.

The discrepancy article performed its computations based on a computation of calories in/out, so was definitely not a rejection of calories in/out .  And I don't think the conclusion they were reaching was that the proteins, fats and carbs of the almonds were being fully digested and having a lower impact, so was not really a criticism of the Atwater general factors (4 cal per g of carb and protein; 9 for fat)

It was more focused on the Atwater specific factors, the relative digestibility of the specific carbs, proteins and fats.  Not that the total energy content of nut fats is less than 9 kcal/g, but that you don't fully digest the nut fats, so get only a part of the 9 as usable energy, passing the remainder out in waste.  Net, not gross.  It 100% is a calories in/out explanation, just that of all the calories that go in, some go out in metabolic use, and some go out in waste.

From the introduction of the article:

The results of studies that show more fat in feces and less fat in plasma after the consumption of nuts cast doubt on the applicability of the Atwater factors for evaluating the energy value of nuts.