I would argue that it’s easier to track your calories if your food is packaged.

Totally, nothing wrong with more education. But like a lot of things, if you want a real push, unfortunately it’s gonna take a lot more than that. We have to look at our culture and understand why we continue to engage in these eating behaviors despite negative consequences. I don’t have much of a solution there

I understand what’s being said, but I still felt like I had a stroke reading that headline

We know it’s bad for us, but when the average person is overweight or obese, there comes a point where words mean nothing because of what’s being modeled at home, and around you

Imagine all of those texts that didn’t go through on our iPhone, and someone just randomly receives them 100 years years from now. That’s just hilarious to me

Somewhere out there is a dick pic that’s gonna be in limbo until 2123

This reminds me of when I was passing notes in math class, and I wrote “I bet (math teacher) has a real hairy ass” and I got caught. She read the note and I was sent home for the day, and I had to write an apology letter about how the guilt consumed me

Your chances are probably not very high then. Obviously, it’s not a foolproof way of approaching things, but these cancers very very often have a generic component to them.

If your parents have been tested for genetic markers, at least that tells you some of the story

Have any of your immediate relatives tested for genetic markers, or had prostate or breast cancer?

So basically, what they’re saying is this.

They went up to people and asked

> Have you done psychedelics?

“Yes, at least once in college.”

> How’s your diet?

“Healthier than it used to be.”

> Breaking: new study links the two

Your biggest challenge will be earning their respect. They’re not your coworkers anymore - they are your team members.

Two things will happen:

1. Your former coworkers will try to get away with things because they think you’re cool. It’s tempting to give into that. But you’ll learn very quickly this is favoritism, and it will be to the detriment of everyone

2. You’ll make decisions that former coworkers will not like. They will go behind your back and say “former boss would have done it this way.” Or “Why should I listen to you?”

That’s why you have to earn their respect from day one. Let them know you have their back - and you’re their defense attorney. But also let them know what your expectations are.

Give positive feedback when you see them doing something that you like, or that they did well. Thank your team OFTEN and make sure they know when they’re doing a great job. It’s very easy to have a “no news is good news” attitude as a manager, and I’m guilty of it myself; but they need to hear these things. Otherwise you get burnout, you get imposter syndrome

Giving negative feedback is hard… but sometimes you gotta do it. Avoiding negative feedback will only be to their detriment - if they’re doing something wrong, they need to know, so they can be given a chance to correct it

Your standard will be higher now. If you’re looking at your phone, your team will notice. If you’re late, your team will notice. If you dip out early Friday, or show up hungover after Super Bowl Sunday… your team will notice. Always lead by example

If you make a mistake, own up the mistake, but don’t harp on it too much. That will only encourage others to focus on your error, instead of your solution. Approach things in a solution focused way.

I’m just there to look at golden retrievers, and someone piping body butter into jars, and I intend on consuming this content for hours.

So yeah. I couldn’t find evidence to ban TikTok either

To clarify, consistency means “I do this 80-85% of the time.”

If your goal is to do something every day, and you’re skipping more then 5-6 days every month, you’re not consistent

That is … quite a sentence.

West Palm started doing something like this near the waterfront. The benches had bars added so people couldn’t sleep, and there is a park where they started playing music

The bridge to go to palm beach island (which is just outside of the downtown waterfront) has 9-10 cameras. Whenever the homeless people cross the bridge, the Palm Beach police pick them up, drive them back to the mainland (West Palm) so that they’re out of their jurisdiction, and so that the island locals don’t complain

A few months ago, I was at a stop light behind a beat up car that has a piece of cardboard taped the plate area that said “Loss Tag.”

Not lost tag. loss tag. Like they just “loss” it somewhere and they can’t find it

And yes this was in Florida. Riviera Beach. Palm beach locals won’t be surprised by that

No, I read what you said, but the problem is, you’re misinterpreting how calorie needs work.

It isn’t the smaller person doesn’t absorb the calories. It’s that they have a lower calorie need, to maintain their size.

If a smaller person is eating the same number of calories as an obese person (assuming that other factors such as height, sex, and age, and activity levels are the same) then you would have to explain by what mechanism the lean person isn’t storing energy.

Because energy that’s inputted, but not used, doesn’t just disappear. This is where your scientific understanding is falling short - energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. and if it’s not transferred in the body by way of activity, it has to be stored as fat. Fat is stored energy.

So no… lean people and obese people do not consume the same calorie amounts. Not unless the lean person is extremely active, but activity is a lot less relevant in determining one’s size, than caloric intake

But you are denying science. You’re basically saying “we don’t know, but I know.”

We know an obese person’s calories in and calories out is different to maintain their body size - that’s because it takes more energy to maintain mass, and they have a higher calorie need. What this means is that once they reduce their intake, they have an easier time losing weight.

This is not any different than what I’m saying, you’re just misinterpreting it as something else

It isn’t that lean people “absorb” fewer calories, it’s that they maintain their size on fewer calories, since they have less mass. It seems that you’re choosing to interpret this as “lean people can eat the same number of calories as obese people, they just don’t absorb it” which is not what’s happening.

If you downsized from a 4500 square foot house, to a 500 square foot apartment, your energy bill would lower. The exact same thing happens in the human body. The larger you are, the more calories you need to maintain your size, sort of like how it takes more energy to cool down a large house

If you’re eating at the right calories for your body’s demands, then you are maintaining your weight

And if there’s evidence that eating more leads to an increased activity level, that does not change the fact that if they are overweight, it’s because they’re eating more calories than they should

> The reality is we don’t know.

We do know. This is science denial, what you’re doing. Not unlike claiming the earth might not be around

Edit - also you’re saying that the gut biome has a huge impact on how we burn calories, then in the same sentence you say we don’t know have reliable data on it. Those two statements are incompatible with each other. We can’t say definitively “x has an impact on y” without a reliable way of measuring it

You don’t do that with calories because your brain doesn’t say “wait a minute, I ate too many calories. Let’s burn those calories to balance it out!”

It’s physics. What’s controversial about physics?

It’s not a coincidence that the same parts of the world with an insane level of choice when it comes to food, happen to be the most obese countries in the world.

So you think being satiated forces a person to put the food down?

And in some places, that’s illegal to knowingly facilitate a breech birth in that way

Well you seem to think that, if a food is satiating, then we robotically stop eating. That’s not the case.

As for why we don’t stop eating when we have enough… you’re forgetting that a lot of people are being raised on very large portions. When you’ve eaten that way your whole life, you’ve pretty much trained yourself to not be satiated until you’ve already had too much. Chicken stock does not make you stop

It “fails” because we don’t defy the laws of physics. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. If you take in more energy than you expend, it’s not just gonna go away, it’s gonna be stored, in this case, as fat

I’m not sure what direction you’re trying to take your question, or why you are assuming I would answer a certain way.

As to why people overeat. Over the past 1-2 generations, we had people being raised on “clean plate club” mentality, or scarcity mentality.

We also have a new phenomenon, which j feel like is not talked about enough: variety of foods. We did not have taco Tuesday, sushi happy hour Wednesday in the 1950’s. People were more likely to eat the same 4-5 meals

There are loads of reasons, there were many cultural shifts in the way we eat that happened gradually over the last 50 or so years.

Then you have people who eat a lot of food because they’re simply not calorie aware. I think this is the issue with most people in western society - they’re just not aware.