Why exercise probably can’t help you target fatty areas of the body

Interesting way to write the article but I find it unnecessarily complicated and redundant. Still, the message is clear in that excercise is beneficial for a healthy body and that spot fat reduction is not likely to be as effective in the intended purpose nor in the general benefit for the health.

A very important note that was fortunately included in the part where topical pharmaceutical options were mentioned is that they carry important risks, this is not always included in articles that are not focused on those options.

A very important note that was fortunately included in the part where topical pharmaceutical options were mentioned is that they carry important risks, this is not always included in articles that are not focused on those options.

Good point, that risks from pharmaceutical products are unfortunately often not mentioned in articles.

“Have an ice day”, with photo, is the next article. It’s good to see the editors enjoying themselves on occasion. (Not implying that those ARE the editors pictured…)

Good point, that risks from pharmaceutical products are unfortunately often not mentioned in articles.

Most of the time they are, but on articles about diets and weight loss they are sometimes hidden, specially when they are recommending supplements or vitamins that also have health risks but are promoted as "natural and safe". This article is an example of how scientifically correct information do not require to hide this as those other example do.

Much easier to lose fat on a low carb diet, as insulin prevents the breakdown of your stored fat.

virusrexJan. 9  02:37 pm JST

Good point, that risks from pharmaceutical products are unfortunately often not mentioned in articles.

Most of the time they are, but on articles about diets and weight loss they are sometimes hidden, specially when they are reccomending supplements or vitamins that also have health risks but are promoted as "natural and safe". This article is an example of how scientifically correct information do not require to hide this as those other example do.

This article does not refer to supplements or vitamins, so of course there is no hiding.

At the same time, the article also does not reference pink unicorns.

This article does not refer to supplements or vitamins, so of course there is no hiding.

The examples are not exhaustive, they are only some of which frequently try to hide this information, what makes this article not guilty of the same flaw is that it is scientifically based and written by a professional.

At the same time, the article also does not reference pink unicorns.

Is this your argument to criticize the examples? that you think articles written about other ways to lose weight (but with less responsible disclose of the risks) are like pink unicorns?

Let's see an example where those are hidden then!

So your argument is that you ignore completely any example where supplements of vitamins are promoted as help to reduce weight without mentioning the risk for the health they have? that would betray a deep lack of knowledge about a topic you want to have an opinion about, it takes no time to google for examples where risk is not mentioned even once, for example*

https://www.timesunion.com/marketplace/article/best-diet-pill-supplements-17167158.php

No, it is criticizing your off-topic statements.

There is nothing off topic about recognizing the value of the writer of this article to clearly present the option as something that includes risk, something that for other kinds of articles is hidden without justification. Yours is the one that is not on the topic just because you are more interested in following people around to contradict every comment they make instead of addressing the content of the article.