With a few exceptions like honey, animal foods (meat, fish, dairy) are fat and protein, and grown foods are carbohydrates.

Grown foods are carbohydrates, fat, vitamins, protein and fiber. Fiber in particular is the substance that fills you up, then thoroughly cleanses you. It's key to healthy weight loss. Steam your food in water, rather than frying in vegetable fat. Instead of bread, rice and potatoes, fill up on sliced turnips, onions, and, most importantly, sliced butternut squash, steamed to perfection with savory seasonings. Eat plenty of the good stuff. Do not tolerate hunger; it'll destroy your mood and your diet.

And a few minutes each day of exercise to get your heart racing is infinitely better than none, and will set your body up for more.

(I've been down the road, and won't be fat again.)

And wow, there is a lot of unsolicited advice! "Eat x y and z and you'll be skinny like me."

I find unsolicited advice as irritating as anyone, but the display here reads: "Post a Letter About This Article." That's more than a solicitation; it's an imperative. You can't expect Salon Letters to function as a closed-off pity party.

Certainly anyone actually promising outcomes, as you claim, is wrong to be doing so. For the most part, we "concern trolls" are sharing our experience, founded in body and food science, in reading and experimentation, just as others freely express the futility and resentment that is equally real and galling to themselves.

Choosing between change and acceptance is something we all do in our many aspects. Good health is desired by everyone; it's constructive therefore to share some ways we've found to give our life force a fighting chance. Which will typically entail both change and acceptance, and sometimes even the protective carapace of denial.

That's why it's important to point out that, whatever you've heard about "selfish genes," the secret to humanity's success lies in Hobbesian competition rather than in individuals' capacity to cooperate, and even to act altruistically. While there are short-term benefits to individuals who behave selfishly -- say, by stealing or hoarding food -- the long-term benefits of sharing usually outweigh the quick payoff, provided that everybody else in your group also participates fairly. Human beings are what biologists call "hypersocial," more social by far than any other animal, and the major product of our deep investment in sociality is our culture....

The second sentence contradicts the first. Is Hobbesian competition, or hypersocial, altruistic cooperation the key to humanity's success? Laura, I suspect you either reversed the arguments (Freudian slip?) and intended something like:

the secret to humanity's success lies in cooperation rather than Hobbesian competition

or that you meant to distance yourself from the first view, as:

whatever you've heard about "selfish genes," -- that the secret to humanity's success lies in Hobbesian competition rather than in individuals' capacity to cooperate -- the long-term benefits of sharing usually outweigh the quick payoff....

Why would we not expect demographic targeting in these products? Revealed consumer preference is why women's shampoos are packaged to resemble perfume bottles while men's resemble quarts of transmission fluid. A consumer who self-identifies as a customer for a Lady Titanium will be receiving discount offers that would not be of interest to the bank's male customers.

There are thousands of branded affinity cards these days. To be generic and utilitarian in credit card packaging is to waste marketing resources while leaving money on the table.

the guys last name is Edmunds. his wifes last name is bar....

and its clear by your comments that you did not read the previous post by Mr. Leonard nor did you read the excerpt.

read that first, then come back and post.

Actually, his last name is Andrews. That's the danger of snarky corrections (and why this one had better be right.)

Ms. Gores said that as much as she loves fashion, she also loves to talk about business "and to be very knowledgeable about everything going on in the finance world."

Nuh-uh! Even though she loves fashion? Shut up!

Rebecca may have missed that Vows is paraphrasing the words of Ms. Gores herself. Or does she not believe this accomplished woman has the agency to note that the variety and contrasts in her life experience may at times confound expectation. As did Judge Sotomayor: "Although I grew up in very modest and challenging circumstances, I consider my life to be immeasurably rich. I was raised in a Bronx public housing project, but studied at two of the nation's finest universities." Nuh-uh!

Ms. Traister scours all of media for statements in which she can find offense, and has, this morning, come up high and dry. Carrying around this anger, then directing it at matters so routine and innocuous, is the erosion of the soul. Here's to the happy couple.

In the ad, Roeder said he'd had some college education at Washburn University, in Topeka, and that he'd majored in French Government.

I doubt Washburn offered a major in French Government. More likely Roeder attended a few courses in French and Political Science.

Putting the "men" in menopause: In the New York Times' Well Blog, Dana Stevens chronicled the hot flashes, junk food cravings and subsequent weight gain that came along with his hormone therapy to treat prostate cancer.

Dana Stevens is a (female) film critic for Slate.

We’re borrowing more to spend more ... it defies any sensible economic policy that any of us ever learned through college … We’re borrowing from China, and we consider that now we own 60 percent of General Motors – or the U.S. government does … But who is the U.S. government becoming more indebted to? It’s China. So that leads you to have to ask who is really going to own our car industry than in America.

Transcribed with respect, that final sentence might have read:

So that leads you to have to ask: who is really going to own our car industry, then, in America?