By definition it would have to be true that you consumed fewer calories than expended. Calories in/calories out is not wrong, it's just not useful (or at least it's not a nearly complete picture).

Calories in/out are not independent variables. The type of calories you consume dictate at least: 1) how your body processes the calories you consume, 2) the energy you will have to expend, and 3) the hunger you will feel.

That post is old, but the instructions are still valid.

> I assume the API's that NaCl-exposed have a corresponding set of C# interfaces? How does one write to the browser window, get user input, network I/O, etc?

Unfortunately there is nothing available to expose Pepper interfaces directly to the managed environment that is shipped with this, though it is possible to auto generate bindings and glue code to make it work. What you'll see in the HelloWorld example I linked above is a very manual way of doing this, exposing an internal call that itself just calls directly through the C Pepper interface, effectively allowing Pepper calls from C#.

Maybe it just is that complicated (not that I view the above as complicated, I just don't view it as simple as you make it).

> If I put 10 gallons into my tank every day, but use 11 gallons daily.. I'm "using up" gas. That's all that matters.

Imagine an engine that behaves differently depending on the type of fuel is put in it. One type of fuel causes the engine to move slower and burn less gas per unit time. So you may continue to put in your 10 gallons a day with this new fuel, but you'll notice a surplus building up because it only burns say 5 gallons a day because of this change. The output you get from the engine varies depending on what is put in it.

That's what the parent was describing. Calories in and calories out are not independent variables despite how they are treated in some research and most popular media. The type and amount of "calories in" affect your energy level (calories out) and hunger level (ability to limit your caloric intake).

Of course, that's why you have to constantly Analyze how much fuel your body is burning, and reduce the rate accordingly.

> The type and amount of "calories in" affect your energy level (calories out) and hunger level (ability to limit your caloric intake).

Indeed, though again, that doesn't impact the basic statement:

If you eat less energy less than you burn, you will lose weight.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/23/study-the-best-and-wor...

Put a stop to this myth. The type of food actually matters!

I don't even care if the keep drinking coke and eating fries, as long as they cut their calorie intake somewhat, down to below what they are using, they will lose weight. Period.

Losing weight at that point is the most important thing.

Once they've done that for a while, their body adapts and they'll have to cut more calories, as an ongoing process. In years, they will have lost a lot of weight, and they will have to cut things like Coke and fries, but that's years down the road.

For now, they need to eat less calories. Fullstop.

The point that you are missing is that this is not necessarily true. In fact, the converse may be true; that obese people require less calories to maintain their weight because they live a more sedentary lifestyle.

> I don't even care if the keep drinking coke and eating fries, as long as they cut their calorie intake somewhat, down to below what they are using, they will lose weight. Period.

> Once they've done that for a while, their body adapts and they'll have to cut more calories, as an ongoing process. In years, they will have lost a lot of weight, and they will have to cut things like Coke and fries, but that's years down the road.

And they will be literally starving, dealing with the effects of malnutrition, and have almost no energy to complete daily tasks. Switching to healthier sources of nutrition first will provide the energy the person needs as well as the ability to control caloric intake, which greatly enhances the chances of success.

You seem to have made up your mind about a subject you know little about. This isn't a simple single-variable equation.

A body burns more calories for every pound of fat it has to maintain, even if sitting on the couch all day.

> You seem to have made up your mind about a subject you know little about.

Read my other comments here. I've personally witnessed at least a thousand people lose 50-200lbs each over the years due to my involvement with Weight Watchers. I think I have a good idea of what is required for people to lose weight.

What's your experience?

I guess that's handy, actually.

I do want to point out I'm not using them to indicate "end of conversion" or "shutup" or anything like that, I'm using them to indicate that is the end of my solution/problem... as in there are no if/buts or maybes.

From things I've read [1] it seems that the vast majority of people consume more calories than they 'burn' but only in some people is it converted to unwanted weight gain. The real question, as many people have been referring to, is how do you determine whether your body hangs onto the extra calories as weight or simply disposes of it.

Saying "If you eat less energy than you burn, you will lose weight" is certainly true, but is akin to saying: "If you never get in a car your chances of dying in a car accident are significantly reduced." It's true...but not really helpful or meaningful.

1 - http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259

Very bad analogy.

It's more like saying "If you burn more gas each day than you put in, you'll eventually start burning up your reserve tank, (until you run out)."

> but not really helpful or meaningful.

It's extremely helpful and meaningful. For the massive majority of people that are overweight, they simply need to eat less calories. Not less food. Less calories. The original article here is showing what 200 calories looks like, so it's extremely helpful for people trying to eat less of them.

You would be shocked how many people have no idea a mountain of apples is equal to a small amount of alcohol, etc. Once they learn this, they lose weight.

Source: I lived with two girls who lost over 100lbs each at Weight Watchers, one of them became a WW representative, and for years I went to meetings with her as moral support. Over the years I've personally seen at least 1000 people go from being completely helpless with weight loss to losing somewhere between 50-200lbs each. All they did was eat less calories than they were burning. Nothing else. (WW obfuscates that with their points system, but it's just calories/50)

I don't disagree entirely, but there are still some gems today that are enjoyable for kids and adults. Speaking of Looney Tunes, the new "The Looney Tunes Show" is pretty great. And there are some things on Cartoon Network that are passable, like Adventure Time and reruns of other niche shows from the past 10 years.

I think the options are fewer, or the ocean of content is vaster, so it seems like there's nothing there when there is.

How is it outside of that? Is it pretty faithful to the original Looney Tunes? I know my example could be somewhat of a hyperbole, so I would love to get another opinion on it before passing final judgment.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP2qEo8j2KM

Other than that, it's a show I really look forward to watching. You may be disappointed if you're looking for original Looney Tunes, it's not really like that. The characters are the same, their personalities are more fleshed out and exaggerated, the times are modern and they live "ordinary" lives. Some of the reviews I've seen on Amazon for it accurately labeled it as Looney Tunes meets Seinfeld (they were being pejorative but I find the comparison apt and view it in a positive light).

Try watching an episode from Season 2 (the currently airing season) before writing it off. It will only take ~21 minutes out of your life if it's not your thing.

Thanks for the reply :)