Why do people cut back on kilo-calories?

Why do people cut back on kilo-calories?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

I am learning about specific heat in science and I learned about how the specific heat for water is called a calorie, but that is different to what is on the food label.
On the food label, that calorie is actually a kilo-calorie. My teacher went on to explain that if somebody handed you a bowl of ice-cream that contained 500 Calories (i.e. Kilo-Calories) then, that was enough to raise 500kg of water 1°C.
If a kilo-calorie is just raising your body temperature, why do we cut back on calories?? What effect does a kilo-calorie have on your body other than raising your temperature?

P.S. How can we burn calories?? This seems, at least to me, like an abstract thing… burning heat…

The calorie is a unit of energy. Our body uses the energy found in food to create ATP (a molecule that is handy to deal with energy) with the help of oxygen (that we breath in). ATP can then be used for plenty of tasks such as importing ions through a cellular membrane or more ultimately walking, talking, warming up your body, etc…

Saying that some food contain 100 calories (not kilo-calories) does not mean that it will heat up 100 grammes of our body water by one degree (Celsius). It only means that we are ingested the same amount of energy than the one that is needed for warming up 100 grammes of water by 1 degree (Celsius).

You might to have a look at CrashCourse video on ATP and respiration.

Counting calories all the time is not necessary, but in the beginning, it may help to determine how many calories are in the foods and drinks you consume regularly. See MyPlate Plan external icon to determine how many calories a day you need to maintain your current weight based on your age, sex, height, weight, and physical activity level. Then click on the results to see recommended daily amounts fruits, vegetables, protein, dairy, and grains for adequate nutrition at your calorie level.

To learn how many calories you are taking in, write down the foods you eat and the beverages you drink, plus the calories they have, each day. Check the nutrition facts label for serving sizes and number of calories, and consider portion size. A food diary will help you become more aware of what you are consuming. Also, begin writing down your physical activity each day and the length of time you do it.

Exercise 1: Gel Electrophoresis


  • Gel chamber
  • Power supply
  • Dyes
  • Pre-poured agarose gel
  • Pipetman
  • Disposable tips
  • Running buffer


  1. Gently remove the comb and the end caps from the gel. Be careful to avoid damaging the wells.
  2. Using the pipetman, add 10 µL of each dye sample to each corresponding lane as listed on the right. Use a new tip for each sample.
  3. Place the gel in the center of the gel chamber.
  4. Add buffer to one end of the chamber until the liquid is almost even with the top of the gel.
  5. Add buffer to the other side of the chamber. Keep filling until the gel is completely submerged. Be careful to avoid washing the samples out of the wells.
  6. Put the lid on the chamber. Be sure the outside surface is dry.
  7. Plug cords into the power supply. Be sure that red goes to red, and black to black. Check with me before turning on the power supply.
  8. Turn on the power supply. Look for tiny bubbles coming off the electrodes.
  9. Notice how the dye migrates as the current runs through the gel.
  10. Run until the first dye nears the bottom of the gel, then turn off the power supply and disconnect the cords.
  11. Examine the results to answer the questions.


1. What is the purpose of electrophoresis?

2. What purpose does the buffer serve?

3. Why do dye molecules migrate toward the anode (positive electrode)?

4. Why do smaller molecules migrate faster than larger molecules?

5. Draw your finished gel in the space below. Be sure to label which band is which dye on your figure.

6. Which dye molecule is the smallest? Which is the largest? List dyes by name, not appearance.

7. Which dyes are in the Explorer I mix? List dyes by name, not appearance.

8. Which dyes are in the Explorer II mix? List dyes by name, not appearance.


Recent studies have used data from a large number of countries to estimate current prevalence rates and project increases in all regions of the world 13, 16 . However, there is little detailed information on longitudinal trends in low- and middle-income countries aside from Brazil, China, India, and Mexico 17, 18 . In addition, none of these recent studies have focused on within-country trends related to urban-rural or income/wealth differences. The general impression has been that in higher-income countries we often find greater obesity rates in rural areas and among the poor—the reverse of what is seen in lower-income countries. However, new evidence suggests that these patterns are changing, and the increasing rate of obesity among the poor has important implications for the distribution of health inequalities 19 . In the past three decades the age-standardized mean BMI, the most widely used metric for defining overweight and obesity has increased by 0.4𠄰.5 kilograms/meter 2 /year 13 .

The major gaps in this literature relate to lack of data and superficial examinations of patterns and trends without sufficient attention to the extant literature and the dynamics of change rather than simplistic cross-sectional perspectives. For example, in recent papers, Subramanium and colleagues, using just one wave of data and ignoring dynamics point out that the rich are far more likely than the poor to be obese 16 . This is a very different conclusion from Jones-Smith and colleagues, who use similar data, but longitudinal analysis 20, 21 . Jones-Smith studied repeated cross-sectional data from women ages 18� in 37 developing countries to assess within-country trends in overweight/obesity inequalities by SES between 1989 and 2007 (n = 405,550). Meta-regression was used to examine the associations between GDP and disproportionate increases in overweight prevalence by SES with additional testing for modification by country-level income inequality. In 27 of 37 countries, higher SES (vs. lower) was associated with higher gains in overweight prevalence in the remaining 10 countries, lower SES (vs. higher) was associated with higher gains in overweight prevalence. GDP was positively related to a faster increase in overweight prevalence among the lower wealth groups. Among countries with a higher GDP, lower income inequality was associated with faster overweight growth among the poor.

Another limitation is the focus on women of childbearing age and preschoolers. This reflects the availability of data from multiple countries which have relied on the Demographic and Health Surveys, which focus on women of childbearing age and their children. A few studies, in particular some national surveys in Mexico and Brazil and a few large-scale longitudinal studies, including the China Health and Nutrition Survey, the Indonesia Family Life Survey, and the Mexico Family Life Survey, cover all age and gender groups 19 . Using inclusive data, one sees quite different gender-specific patterns of change and differentials by socioeconomic status. According to the limited research and data available, men with higher socioeconomic status (SES) have higher rates of overweight and obesity than do lower SES men 22 .

While we know obesity prevalence appears to be rising across all low- and middle-income countries, it is not clear what urban-rural difference may exist. Here we use some recent data we published in other form and rearrange for this review 19, 20 . These data provided repeated nationally representative cross-sectional surveys that include 441,916 rural and 364,267 urban (806,183 total) adult women (18� years old) from 42 countries in Asia, the Middle East, Africa (East, West, central, and southern), and Latin America. The absolute and relative change in the prevalence of overweight and obesity for women in these countries and the regions are shown in Supplementary Table 1. The combined prevalence of overweight and obesity (overweight = BMI ≥ 25. obesity = BMI ≥ 30 called overweight/obesity hereafter grew for all 42 countries at about 0.7 percentage points per year on average. Using population weights, we estimate that 19 percent of rural women and 37.2 percent of urban women are overweight or obese.

Urban-rural differences and the shifting burden of obesity toward the poor

Figure 1 and Supplemental Figure 1 summarize the weighted absolute annual change and relative annual change in the prevalence of overweight/obesity and obesity only, respectively, among rural versus urban women by region. On average, urban women have higher baseline prevalence and larger increases in prevalence of overweight/obesity compared to rural women in the 42 countries (0.8 vs. 0.5 percentage points for overweight 0.4 vs. 0.2 percentage points for obesity). However, there are regional differences, with rural women in Latin America, the Middle East, and North Africa having much higher increases in prevalence compared to their urban counterparts. However, the relative annual change in weighted prevalence is higher for rural (3.9%) than urban women (2.5%). In other words, women in rural areas are quickly catching-up to their urban counterparts. Supplemental Figure 1 shows the statistics for obesity prevalence, and the results are consistent. The higher relative annual rates of change for obesity compared to overweight suggest that obesity in particular is changing very quickly.

Absolute and relative annual percentage point change in weighted prevalence of overweight and obesity (BMI ≥ 25) among women in rural and urban areas of 42 countries by region (N=42)

We also looked at the data for each of the 42 countries in our study ranked by gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (Supplemental Figure 2). There appears to be little association of residence with prevalence of overweight/obesity among higher GDP countries. Among lower GDP countries, urban women are more likely to be overweight/obese, and countries around the middle and bottom of the GDP distribution have a higher proportion of urban women who are overweight or obese compared to rural women. Statistical analyses show that increased per capita GDP is associated with increases in the absolute annual change in prevalence of overweight/obesity only in rural areas.


Conversion of forests to land used for other purposes has a long history. Earth’s croplands, which cover about 49 million square km (18.9 million square miles), are mostly deforested land. Most present-day croplands receive enough rain and are warm enough to have once supported forests of one kind or another. Only about 1 million square km (390,000 square miles) of cropland are in areas that would have been cool boreal forests, as in Scandinavia and northern Canada. Much of the remainder was once moist subtropical or tropical forest or, in eastern North America, western Europe, and eastern China, temperate forest.

The extent to which forests have become Earth’s grazing lands is much more difficult to assess. Cattle or sheep pastures in North America or Europe are easy to identify, and they support large numbers of animals. At least 2 million square km (772,204 square miles) of such forests have been cleared for grazing lands. Less certain are the humid tropical forests and some drier tropical woodlands that have been cleared for grazing. These often support only very low numbers of domestic grazing animals, but they may still be considered grazing lands by national authorities. Almost half the world is made up of “ drylands”—areas too dry to support large numbers of trees—and most are considered grazing lands. There, goats, sheep, and cattle may harm what few trees are able to grow.

Although most of the areas cleared for crops and grazing represent permanent and continuing deforestation, deforestation can be transient. About half of eastern North America lay deforested in the 1870s, almost all of it having been deforested at least once since European colonization in the early 1600s. Since the 1870s the region’s forest cover has increased, though most of the trees are relatively young. Few places exist in eastern North America that retain stands of uncut old-growth forests.

You Do Need Fat in Your Diet - Here's Why

A recent column I read by a nutrition expert made me realize why we keep getting nutrition and dieting so wrong.
Yes, we need to identify a few specific food choices as off limits (trans fats), and we need to identify selections that should be restricted treats (foods with large amounts of added sugars or saturated fat). But dieters keep wrongly taking entire food categories off the menu. I hear so many people, typically not experts, saying, "Don't eat fats," or "Don't' eat carbs," and that's way too simplistic, too challenging, and frankly quite wrong when it comes to better health and weight-loss goals.

Fats provide us with energy in a very concentrated format.
One gram of fat has nine calories, compared to proteins and carbohydrates, which have four calories per gram.
A certain amount of fat storage (think of your butt) provides a cushion for when you fall, and body fat can help to protect organs and hold them in position.
Fats make up the membrane that surrounds every type of cell in your body, and without fats, the cell can't function properly.
Certain vitamins such as A, D, E, and K, are fat-soluble. These need fat in order to help the body, transport, store, and absorb them. Lycopene, found in tomatoes, also benefits from the presence of fat for maximal absorption.
That's why you should put a bit of olive oil in tomato sauce or when dressing a salad that has tomatoes.

Some fats are good for us, some are nohe ⟺ts' food group plays a huge role in our body's functions and contributes to our general health.
The problem is, some of the fats
within the category also contribute to the risk of certain health risks and conditions. Trans fats contribute plaque to the walls of arteries, and that particular plaque can be quite tenacious, remaining even if you cut down on trans fat consumption.
Trans fats also make foods taste, really, really good.

Saturated fats, derived from animals, can also clog arteries
and contribute to your risk of heart disease. Omega-3 fatty acids (found in fish and plant-based foods like nuts/seeds), are considered heart-healthy and can also help to minimize inflammatory processes in the body.
Polyunsaturated fats (vegetable oils) and monounsaturated fats (avocadoes, olive oils) are considered the healthier oil choices, supporting overall health when consumed in appropriate portion sizes.
Given these facts, why would you decide to cut out such an important food group?

What's a dieter to do? You need to "manage" your fat choices, and it's important to emphasize portion control when using oils and fat-based products.
Be a label detective: "find the fat" and figure out if it's healthy or unhealthy fat.
Also decide just how many calories per day in your diet should derive from the fat food group.
Don't remove fats from your life.
Do however decide to be selective in your oil and condiment choices.

Swap out unhealthy fats for healthier fats.
Commit to more home cooking so you can select your fats wisely, and control the amount you use.
Choose to support your health and lose weight by choosing quality foods like nuts and seeds, avocadoes, fish, plant-based proteins like tofu that all contain the good fats.
It's time to lose the "no fats" attitude.
We do need fats daily in our diet to feel full and to be healthy.
We just need to choose healthy

30 Reasons Why People Lie

Rebecca is a middle school English teacher. Previously she worked in a local public school but was frustrated by number of daily lies from her students. Thinking the private school environment would be better, she switched. But what she found was even more creative lies that her students would tell her.

One day she decided to count the number of deceptions she heard. Much to her surprise, it wasnt just the students who were deceitful but the administration, other teachers and parents as well. In all, she counted over 50 lies in one day. This lead to generating a list to the different types of deceit. Here is her list of reasons why people lie.

  1. Defensive: The most common reason for lying is to self-protect. There might be a real consequence or a perceived one that a person is trying to defend themselves against.
  2. Vindictive: Some people lie intentionally to cause harm to others because they feel harmed by that person. It is a way of getting back at another person.
  3. Disappointment: In order to avoid disappointing another person or even themselves, a lie might be told. The uncomfortable feeling of disappointment justifies the deception.
  4. Manipulate: An abusive person constantly lies in order to continue their manipulation. If the truth came out, the abused might leave.
  5. Intimidated: Sometimes a lie is done because the person feels intimidated by others. Again, this feeling of inferiority is so uncomfortable that they lie to cover it up.
  6. Attention-seeking: Unfortunately, there are people who lie just to get the attention of other people. The irony is that most of them dont know what to do with the attention when they do get it.
  7. Curiosity: This is a very childlike behavior that some adults dont grow out of. Instead, they lie just to see what will happen regardless of the harm it might cause others.
  8. Superior: For those with a larger than life ego and in order to maintain their superiority, they lie to make themselves look better than others.
  9. Avoid: Some lies are done to get out of trouble or avoid any consequences. This is especially true with children.
  10. Cover: Some people wear a mask and pretend to be something they are not. To maintain their appearances, they lie to cover up any attempt at revealing the real person.
  11. Control: Sadly, sometimes it all comes down to control. In an effort to control another persons behavior, a lie is told.
  12. Procrastinate: Passive-aggressively avoiding responsibilities is procrastination. This lie is more subtle in that the person knows they should be doing something but is intentionally putting it off.
  13. Bored: Some people like drama in their lives. So they lie to stir it up and watch the reactions of other people.
  14. Protect: There are some lies that are done to protect others. In some cases, a lie is told to take on responsibility for things they are not responsible for in an effort to help someone else.
  15. Habit: After a period of time and done constantly enough, bad habits can form. This is true for some lies that are said over and over.
  16. Fun: Some people lie as their form of private entertainment. For them, lying is fun because they like to watch how others respond.
  17. Desire: A person who wants a lie to be the truth has a deep desire to believe their misperception.
  18. Harm: People who want to harm others undecided, lie about who they are and what they are doing. This is a common tactic during the abduction of others.
  19. Sympathy: Similar to attention-seeking, a person is trying to get empathy from others by lying about a past or current event.
  20. Lazy: On occasion, a lie boils down to a person being lazy and not wanting to do the work, so they lie about it.
  21. Indifference: If a point or issue doesnt matter to a person, they might lie about it and not see anything wrong with their deception.
  22. Perception: Some people believe their own lie. Their perception of reality is not accurate so in their eyes, its not a lie.
  23. Elevate: A person might want to elevate themselves to another persons level high morality, strong work ethic, or perfectionistic standards, so they lie to lift themselves up.
  24. Impress: As a way of trying to impress others and cause a better impression, a person might lie about who they are, what they have done, or where they are going.
  25. Covet: When a person wants what other have, they covet the item or person and lie about their jealousy.
  26. Minimize: As a way of reducing the damage, harm, or consequences that might otherwise occur, a person minimizes the truth in their lie.
  27. Maximize: On the opposite end, a person might exaggerate their lie and make things worse than what it really is.
  28. Suppress: In an effort to cover up a problem, a person might suppress the truth. This lie is intentional.
  29. Deny: Not every person who doesnt want something to exist by denying the reality, is lying intentionally. Sometimes this is an unintentional.
  30. Hide: A person might hide themselves, others, or things and lie about doing so as a way to avoid accountability. This is commonly done in conjunction with addictive behavior.

For Rebecca, understanding why a person lies helped her to identify the behavior and more accurately address the underlying issues. She took her frustration of experiencing the lies and turned it into a greater awareness of knowledge and discernment.

Why Do People Kiss?

Her eyes are wide as they stare into yours. You wrap your arm around her waist and pull her in close. She touches your face and you lean in, tilt your head — to the right, of course — and your lips connect. The rushing sensation leaves you little room to wonder, “Why the hell am I doing this anyway?”

Of course, the simplest answer is that humans kiss because it just feels good. But there are people for whom this explanation isn't quite sufficient. They formally study the anatomy and evolutionary history of kissing and call themselves philematologists.

So far, these kiss scientists haven't conclusively explained how human smooching originated, but they've come up with a few theories, and they've mapped out how our biology is affected by a passionate lip-lock.

A big question is whether kissing is learned or instinctual. Some say it is a learned behavior, dating back to the days of our early human ancestors. Back then, mothers may have chewed food and passed it from their mouths into those of their toothless infants. Even after babies cut their teeth, mothers would continue to press their lips against their toddlers' cheeks to comfort them.

Supporting the idea that kissing is learned rather than instinctual is the fact that not all humans kiss. Certain tribes around the world just don't make out, anthropologists say. While 90 percent of humans actually do kiss, 10 percent have no idea what they're missing.

Others believe kissing is indeed an instinctive behavior, and cite animals' kissing-like behaviors as proof. While most animals rub noses with each other as a gesture of affection, others like to pucker up just like humans. Bonobos, for example, make up tons of excuses to swap some spit. They do it to make up after fights, to comfort each other, to develop social bonds, and sometimes for no clear reason at all — just like us.

Today, the most widely accepted theory of kissing is that humans do it because it helps us sniff out a quality mate. When our faces are close together, our pheromones “talk” — exchanging biological information about whether or not two people will make strong offspring. Women, for example, subconsciously prefer the scent of men whose genes for certain immune system proteins are different from their own. This kind of match could yield offspring with stronger immune systems, and better chances for survival.

Still, most people are satisfied with the explanation that humans kiss because it feels good. Our lips and tongues are packed with nerve endings, which help intensify all those dizzying sensations of being in love when we press our mouths to someone else's. Experiencing such feelings doesn't usually make us think too hard about why we kiss — instead, it drives us to find ways to do it more often.

This answer is provided by Scienceline, a project of New York University's Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program.


Emma's mom first noticed the cuts when Emma was doing the dishes one night. Emma told her mom that their cat had scratched her. Her mom seemed surprised that the cat had been so rough, but she didn't think much more about it.

Emma's friends had noticed something strange as well. Even when the weather was hot, Emma wore long-sleeved shirts. She had become secretive, too, like something was bothering her. But Emma couldn't seem to find the words to tell her mom or her friends that the marks on her arms were from something that she had done. She was cutting herself with a razor when she felt sad or upset.

Injuring yourself on purpose by making scratches or cuts on your body with a sharp object &mdash enough to break the skin and make it bleed &mdash is called cutting. Cutting is a type of self-injury, or SI. People who cut often start cutting in their young teens. Some continue to cut into adulthood.

People may cut themselves on their wrists, arms, legs, or bellies. Some people self-injure by burning their skin with the end of a cigarette or lighted match.

When cuts or burns heal, they often leave scars or marks. People who injure themselves usually hide the cuts and marks and sometimes no one else knows.

Why Do People Cut Themselves?

It can be hard to understand why people cut themselves on purpose. Cutting is a way some people try to cope with the pain of strong emotions, intense pressure, or upsetting relationship problems. They may be dealing with feelings that seem too difficult to bear or bad situations they think can't change.

Some people cut because they feel desperate for relief from bad feelings. People who cut may not know better ways to get relief from emotional pain or pressure. Some people cut to express strong feelings of rage, sorrow, rejection, desperation, longing, or emptiness.

There are other ways to cope with difficulties, even big problems and terrible emotional pain. The help of a mental health professional might be needed for major life troubles or overwhelming emotions. For other tough situations or strong emotions, it can help put things in perspective to talk problems over with parents, other adults, or friends. Getting plenty of exercise also can help put problems in perspective and help balance emotions.

But people who cut may not have developed ways to cope. Or their coping skills may be overpowered by emotions that are too intense. When emotions don't get expressed in a healthy way, tension can build up &mdash sometimes to a point where it seems almost unbearable. Cutting may be an attempt to relieve that extreme tension. For some, it seems like a way of feeling in control.

The urge to cut might be triggered by strong feelings the person can't express &mdash such as anger, hurt, shame, frustration, or alienation. People who cut sometimes say they feel they don't fit in or that no one understands them. A person might cut because of losing someone close or to escape a sense of emptiness. Cutting might seem like the only way to find relief or express personal pain over relationships or rejection.

People who cut or self-injure sometimes have other mental health problems that contribute to their emotional tension. Cutting is sometimes (but not always) associated with depression, bipolar disorder, eating disorders, obsessive thinking, or compulsive behaviors. It can also be a sign of mental health problems that cause people to have trouble controlling their impulses or to take unnecessary risks. Some people who cut themselves have problems with drug or alcohol abuse.

Some people who cut have had a traumatic experience, such as living through abuse, violence, or a disaster. Self-injury may feel like a way of "waking up" from a sense of numbness after a traumatic experience. Or it may be a way of reliving the pain they went through, expressing anger over it, or trying to get control of it.

What Can Happen to People Who Cut?

Although cutting may provide some temporary relief from a terrible feeling, even people who cut agree that it isn't a good way to get that relief. For one thing, the relief doesn't last. The troubles that triggered the cutting remain &mdash they're just masked over.

People don't usually intend to hurt themselves permanently when they cut. And they don't usually mean to keep cutting once they start. But both can happen. It's possible to misjudge the depth of a cut, making it so deep that it requires stitches (or, in extreme cases, hospitalization). Cuts can become infected if a person uses nonsterile or dirty cutting instruments &mdash razors, scissors, pins, or even the sharp edge of the tab on a can of soda.

Most people who cut aren't attempting suicide. Cutting is usually a person's attempt at feeling better, not ending it all. Although some people who cut do attempt suicide, it's usually because of the emotional problems and pain that lie behind their desire to self-harm, not the cutting itself.

Cutting can be habit forming. It can become a compulsive behavior &mdash meaning that the more a person does it, the more he or she feels the need to do it. The brain starts to connect the false sense of relief from bad feelings to the act of cutting, and it craves this relief the next time tension builds. When cutting becomes a compulsive behavior, it can seem impossible to stop. So cutting can seem almost like an addiction, where the urge to cut can seem too hard to resist. A behavior that starts as an attempt to feel more in control can end up controlling you.

How Does Cutting Start?

Cutting often begins on an impulse. It's not something the person thinks about ahead of time. Shauna says, "It starts when something's really upsetting and you don't know how to talk about it or what to do. But you can't get your mind off feeling upset, and your body has this knot of emotional pain. Before you know it, you're cutting yourself. And then somehow, you're in another place. Then, the next time you feel awful about something, you try it again &mdash and slowly it becomes a habit."

Natalie, a high-school junior who started cutting in middle school, explains that it was a way to distract herself from feelings of rejection and helplessness she felt she couldn't bear. "I never looked at it as anything that bad at first &mdash just my way of getting my mind off something I felt really awful about. I guess part of me must have known it was a bad thing to do, though, because I always hid it. Once a friend asked me if I was cutting myself and I even lied and said 'no.' I was embarrassed."

Sometimes self-injury affects a person's body image. Jen says, "I actually liked how the cuts looked. I felt kind of bad when they started to heal &mdash and so I would 'freshen them up' by cutting again. Now I can see how crazy that sounds, but at the time, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me. I was all about those cuts &mdash like they were something about me that only I knew. They were like my own way of controlling things. I don't cut myself anymore, but now I have to deal with the scars."

You can't force someone who self-injures to stop. It doesn't help to get mad at a friend who cuts, reject that person, lecture her, or beg him to stop. Instead, let your friend know that you care, that he or she deserves to be healthy and happy, and that no one needs to bear their troubles alone.

Pressured to Cut?

Girls and guys who self-injure are often dealing with some heavy troubles. Many work hard to overcome difficult problems. So they find it hard to believe that some kids cut just because they think it's a way to seem tough and rebellious.

Tia tried cutting because a couple of the girls at her school were doing it. "It seemed like if I didn't do it, they would think I was afraid or something. So I did it once. But then I thought about how lame it was to do something like that to myself for no good reason. Next time they asked I just said, 'no, thanks &mdash it's not for me.' "

If you have a friend who suggests you try cutting, say what you think. Why get pulled into something you know isn't good for you? There are plenty of other ways to express who you are.

Lindsay had been cutting herself for 3 years because of abuse she suffered as a child. She's 16 now and hasn't cut herself in more than a year. "I feel proud of that," Lindsay says. "So when I hear girls talk about it like it's the thing to do, it really gets to me."

Getting Help

There are better ways to deal with troubles than cutting &mdash healthier, long-lasting ways that don't leave a person with emotional and physical scars. The first step is to get help with the troubles that led to the cutting in the first place. Here are some ideas for doing that:

  1. Tell someone. People who have stopped cutting often say the first step is the hardest &mdash admitting to or talking about cutting. But they also say that after they open up about it, they often feel a great sense of relief. Choose someone you trust to talk to at first (a parent, school counselor, teacher, coach, doctor, or nurse). If it's too difficult to bring up the topic in person, write a note.
  2. Identify the trouble that's triggering the cutting. Cutting is a way of reacting to emotional tension or pain. Try to figure out what feelings or situations are causing you to cut. Is it anger? Pressure to be perfect? Relationship trouble? A painful loss or trauma? Mean criticism or mistreatment? Identify the trouble you're having, then tell someone about it. Many people have trouble figuring this part out on their own. This is where a mental health professional can be helpful.
  3. Ask for help. Tell someone that you want help dealing with your troubles and the cutting. If the person you ask doesn't help you get the assistance you need, ask someone else. Sometimes adults try to downplay the problems teens have or think they're just a phase. If you get the feeling this is happening to you, find another adult (such as a school counselor or nurse) who can make your case for you.
  4. Work on it. Most people with deep emotional pain or distress need to work with a counselor or mental health professional to sort through strong feelings, heal past hurts, and to learn better ways to cope with life's stresses. One way to find a therapist or counselor is to ask at your doctor's office, at school, or at a mental health clinic in your community.

Although cutting can be a difficult pattern to break, it is possible. Getting professional help to overcome the problem doesn't mean that a person is weak or crazy. Therapists and counselors are trained to help people discover inner strengths that help them heal. These inner strengths can then be used to cope with life's other problems in a healthy way.

What happens physiologically when people gossip?

In a 2015 study published in Social Neuroscience, scientists looked at brain imaging of men and women as they heard positive and negative gossip about themselves, their best friends and celebrities. People hearing gossip &mdash good and bad &mdash about themselves, as well as negative gossip in general, showed more activity in the prefrontal cortex of their brains, which is key to our ability to navigate complex social behaviors.

This activity indicated the subjects responded to the gossip and its insight. The authors say this is related to our desire to be seen positively by others and fit in socially, regardless of whether this reflects what we’re actually feeling.

The study also found that the caudate nucleus, a reward center in the brain, was activated in response to negative gossip about celebrities subjects seemed to be amused or entertained by salacious celebrity scandals. (The researchers also polled how the subjects felt, in addition to studying what their brain images revealed. Not surprisingly, they were happier to hear positive gossip about themselves, and more irked by hearing negative gossip about themselves as opposed to hearing gossip about others.)


As a service to our readers, Harvard Health Publishing provides access to our library of archived content. Please note the date of last review or update on all articles. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct medical advice from your doctor or other qualified clinician.


What gets me in trouble relates to a factor Dr. Ludwig talks about, but inadvertently, I assume, was not mentioned by the author of this article: glycemic load. Glycemic Load = Glycemic Index (%) x grams of carbohydrate per serving. Many commentators are “fighting back” because the glycemic index by itself, unrelated to serving size, leaves you wondering if serving sizes matter at all. But serving size, of course, is where calories come in to the equation. Staying away from high glycemic load (28) raisins, for me, is easier than being content with 1/4 cup (normal serving), while the longer sustenance obtained from a serving of strawberries, g.l. 1, or watermelon, g.l. 4, saves me from the sugar high and keeps me happier longer.

Again, overly simplistic. Harvard Health lags behind public health research, nutrition being just one area. For example, a croissant has a GI ranging from 40-60, which makes it a low GI food choice, not a high GI food as you suggest. Get with it. For up to date information on GI facts, go to, a website of the Univesity of Sydney. As another example, you really missed a golden opportunity in your brief article about GI to talk of the health benefits associated with food blending (as in combinations of, not as in using a blender), which is a key to using the GI to guide healthy food choices.

Nice one but nowadays we’re bombarded with all kinds of health and weight loss ‘news’. It’s hard to filter out what is right and what is wrong….

in a normal measure of every day physical movement eats 3000 calories for every day they will get fat. On the off chance that they eat just 1500 calories for each day they won’t put on anyplace close as much weight. Calories do make a difference in weight control. Inside a slender utmost of +/ – 10% or so what the calories comprise of can have any kind of effect in helping your digestion system devour them.

Amazing that so many support olive oil when there is no evidence it is healthy but evidence that it reduces blood flow almost immediately after consumption. The known nutrients in olive oil are minuscule compared to whole plant-based products like olives, avocado, nuts and seeds…
Considering the high number of calories for the 100% fat product why do so many insist on consuming it? Ohhh you like the taste! I bet milk chocolate taste good to many more than unprocessed cocoa too but that is again not a valid reason to consume so much of it…

There is good and bad information floating everywhere, including this article. Readers should not think calories do not matter relative to weight but what you eat is much more important for long term health than your weight.
A very large percentage of the world population would be at their correct weight if they focused properly on whole plant-based products without counting calories but much more importantly there would be significantly less heart disease, diabetes and cancer to name just a few ailments.
Salt does not contain many calories but a large number in the world are slowly killing themselves with the large amount of daily salt they consume. Trans fats may have more calories than salt but it also appears to be more deadly and likely should be banned and is in some countries.

There is NO known carbohydrate deficiency disease, where as this is not true of proteins and fats, hence carbs are a Non-Essential macronutrient. That is why the LCHF ketogenic diet works and is curing everything from diabetes to cancer .. remember before insulin was invented i.e. a “Patentable Drug” we cured diabetes by avoiding carbs. We only have about 1 tsp of glucose dissolved in our blood … and insulin is really a growth hormone not designed to control the upper limit, is only controls the lower limit and triggers gluconeogenesis to support the nervous system.

All this bogus science is the failure of the AMA, FDA, and NIH who have failed the patient …

Simple … The AMA (the most powerful lobby in Washington) and NIH have failed the patient … Physicians have abandoned the nutritional approach to patient diagnostics and medicine, simply because they are not trained in nutrition. A key part of the Hippocratic Oath … “I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure… “, has been forgotten …

70 Going On 100 … the Centenarian Diet

My mother was right… We drank cod liver oil in the bath tub in case we spilled it, ate one green and one yellow vegetable with dinner every night along with lean protein and a carb. We needed our roughage so fruit was not peeled and rice was brown. Soda was expensive so we drank water. She was a juvenile diabetic who lived into her 70s without most of the common diabetic complications.

If the notion that burning more calories than you consume has been debunked as diet advice, then either the laws of physics have been repealed or there are still problems in nutritional science. If you consistently burn more calories than you consume, then the laws of physics say you must lose weight – calories cannot be created out of thin air, but only by the conversion of mass to energy. Are starving people delusional they are not really emaciated when their intake is insufficient to generate the calories expended?
If the research suggests that eating less than you burn will not lead to weight loss, then the measurement of one or both of these must be wrong. Nutrition tables are based on the assumption that protein and carbohydrate both yield 4 kilocalories per gram, 9 Kcal for fat and 7 Kcal per gram of alcohol. I am not clear on how the deduction for non-digestible fiber in carbohydrates is made but this deduction process could lead to inaccuracies in calculating actual caloric intake. There may also be differences in the percentage of available calories that the body takes up: for example, perhaps the body absorbs a higher percentage of the 4 Kcal per gram of easily digested high-glycemic index carbs and a lower percentage from low index foods which may transit the bowel before it is all absorbed. It seems highly likely that not all people absorb the same percentage of theoretically available calories in their foods – our guts are just too diverse.
Even if researchers got the caloric UPTAKE right, the measurement of caloric expenditure is susceptible to estimation errors, since it is unlikely that all of the subjects in these studies spent their days hooked up to a calorimeter measuring oxygen consumption or carbon dioxide exhaled. Instead, average rates of caloric expenditure are applied per minute or hour of each type of activity. Even if you wear an accelerometer, there is a margin of error in estimating expended calories that may be significant.
And of course, people lie about how active they are and how much they eat, so unless there are actual measurements, then the validity of the conclusion may be seriously compromised.
While the article focuses on the shaky history of nutritional science, to me, the evidence so far is that things have improved but are still far from perfect. The one thing we should have learned is not that we don’t yet have all the answers, but that the answers we do have may not be correct – unless the laws of physics have been repealed..

The low-fat craze certainly created a public health problem for the reasons you mention in your article. However, I feel this article oversimplifies things and will lead some people to be more confused. Calories do still matter insofar as they measure food energy. Eat too much food energy (calories), whether from protein, carbohydrates or fat, and you’ll gain weight at the margin. Yes, fatty foods like nuts are nutritious and healthier choices than chips. But, fatty foods are calorie dense and I have watched people gain significant weight by eating more than a small amount of nuts each day. So, food choices matter for lots of reasons including satiety and metabolic effects. But, calories still count (however you measure them, e.g. serving sizes and number). For example, when I dine out I often marvel at small women sitting next to large men and they are both eating the same too-large serving of food. Who do you guess is likely to gain more excess body fat with that behavior? Refined carbohydrates may have something to do with it, but it’s hard to ignore the relative surplus of food energy she’s consuming for her height and weight.

I am sorry but from personal experience I can tell you my moderate to high fat diet which comes to between 3,000-5,000 calories is how I maintain 115 pounds (5𔄂″). I learn about this from Peter Atiia, MD. I am 57, and a T1D for 28 years ( gestational). I was doing poorly on the diet Joslin had me on and took matters into my own hands. 6 months later my blood work looks so much better and my renal specialist said whatever you are doing stay with it-you are on your way. I should add I am a life time athlete and scull, Pilates, tennis, box,,etc -do something every day. I just can’t get enough movement. Carbs are below 50 and try to stay around 25 but am flexible. Each body is unique. This is what works for me. With your MD’s permission/guidance I suggest people try it. Easy enough to stop if isn’t producing desirable results. I am a retired dentist with a strong medical background.

I fully agree with Mr. Saunders. Of course, the source of energy, the way food is digested and nutrients are absorbed, as well as their effect on insulin secretion, etc., should be taken into account. But having said that, it should be painfully obvious that if you spend 2500 kcal per day and get 1500 per day from food long enough , you will inexorably lose weight. It’s thermodynamics, it’s physics. Biological systems – including our own bodies – are very complex but they cannot go against thermodynamics.

Think of this: Everyone understands that virtually all features of human biology are controlled by genetic expression of things like hormones– height, liver size, hair follicles, outer ear dimensions, and so on: everything, except that some people believe that fat deposition and amount is inexplicably nothing more than an unregulated response to food intake. Never mind all the counter examples to this idea: a calorie in is either burned or it is turned into fat. How ridiculous! A thoughtful consideration of all the other possibilities shows that a hormonally controlled body has many more options than simply turning a calorie of food into fat. How about the gut absorbing less efficiently if calories are not needed. We know, for example, that kidneys respond to different levels of water availability by changing urine concentration. So far as I have read, nobody’s bothered to measure caloric extraction efficiency as a function of body needs. Probably the gut just reduces efficiency when calories aren’t needed. How about increasing heat loss by increasing slightly blood flow to the skin surface. Increased heat loss certainly disposes of excess calories. These two options alone demolish the notion that ingested calories have to go to fat cells.

So what actually controls the amount of fat if it isn’t just the amount we eat? Scientists have known for decades that serum insulin plays a major role instructing fat cells to remove fuel from the blood stream and create triglycerides within the fat cell. Oh wow! Insulin is a hormone. So, in fact, fat tissue is hormonally controlled, just like all the other features of the body. Surprise, surprise!