The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
Haven't found an answer yet, but you may be interested in Lifespan and sexual maturity depends on your brain more than your body which says: "New Vanderbilt research finds how long humans and other warm-blooded animals live--and when they reach sexual maturity-- may have more to do with their brain than their body. More specifically, it is not animals with larger bodies or slower metabolic rates that live longer; it is animals with more neurons in the cerebral cortex, whatever the size of the body". So we're looking for an animal with more brain cells than us. Alansplodge (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
I will assume good faith in the questioner, but I will also point out that there have been other (to put it politely) banana-balls crazy questions about the public figure in question from unregistered users recently. Temerarius (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hey, banana balls are tasty! (Hmm, should banana ball be turned blue?) Anyway, cloning humans is likely feasible in the medium-term future, though I will note the Ref Desk is not for predictions. Human clones already exist and have existed for as long as humans have. We call them identical twins. The act of human cloning would simply entail producing an identical twin intentionally, and probably from a person's existing somatic cells, as opposed to "natural" clones, which result when a human zygote spontaneously splits and develops into two fetuses. Cloning of human organs (as opposed to complete humans) is seeing a lot of serious research, as this would allow an organ "self-transplant", which would solve the problems of organ rejection and limited supply of transplant organs. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Even when it is possible to clone somebody precisely, with no genetic problems introduced, there's still the issue of reproducing the exact environment that produced the original. There may be something equivalent to the butterfly effect, where a seemingly trivial event early in life sets the course for that person's entire life. NonmalignedNations (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
I've read at least two stories about attempts to recreate a legendary hero by recreating his formative childhood experiences: "The Blabber" by Vernor Vinge, and another whose title and author I cannot recall; I wanted to say "The Conqueror" by Cyril Kornbluth, but it seems Kornbluth never wrote a story by that title, though at least ten others did. —Tamfang (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
January 13
Methane
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Is Methane gas and (its associated components and) general gas as expelled in the act of flatus and defecation heavier or lighter than air? I need to change clothes daily in a public toilet and it often stinks to the point of having to hold my breath. Am I better off taking a breath when I change my shoes, or by standing on my toes? Google has not been of much help. Please assume good faith. Thanks. Anton. 81.131.40.58 (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Methane is odorless. (Gas as distributed in homes smells because they include an additive so that people can detect gas leaks.)
Assuming good faith against my better judgement for the last part... It does not fall under "google it yourself" but it still falls under "try it yourself". (The only way to answer from theory would be a combination of physiology of odor perception, chemistry of human waste composition and volatile compounds, and fluid dynamics in a 3D simulation of air motion in the place; the whole edifice would be extremely shaky.) TigraanClick here to contact me11:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
The density of a gas is (to a good approximation, if the pressure isn't too high) proportional to its molecular mass. Therefore, methane (m = 16 u) is less dense than air (average m = 29 u). If you ask about flatulence, this article (which you could have found if you'd have read the article) provides data from 16 subjects - in some of them, there was so much carbon dioxide that the resulting gas mixture would be denser than air, in some less dense. Notice that there will be some water vapor in addition which is less dense than air.
But that's all assuming that the expelled gas and air have the same temperature, which generally isn't the case. Gas in the intestine has body temperature, and the public toilet is probably cooler. However, there will be a slight cooling due to the change in pressure when the gas is expelled (Joule–Thomson effect) - you can do some research on the pressure involved.
Notice that these effects which might make the expelled gases rise or fall are short-lived, as there will likely be convection in the restroom. And also, though slower, gas diffusion.
The other question was about the smell of feces, and I guess that in this case the gases in the vicinity of the feces, a mixture of air and the emanating gases, will typically be less dense than air because most of the emanation will be water vapor, and humidity of the surrounding air may be kept below 100%.
The smell is hydrogen sulfide and other thiols. These are present in low concentrations, but your nose is exquisitely sensitive to them. Given that, I'm not sure there will be much of an effect from positioning yourself differently; the concentration gradient in the room probably isn't very large. If the smell is constant, it's quite likely sewer gas leaking from fixtures with defective traps, or some other plumbing defect that lets the gas in. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't see where it would be useful, and even if it was, it certainly wouldn't be in this horrifically sensationalist form. "Awesome facts"? Random all caps? "FACT=>"? I'm not believing anything in this listicle even though I know the facts are true. Fgf10 (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Fgf10: Thank you *very much* for your comments - they're appreciated - yes - *entirely* agree - template style could be toned-down and presented better, while maintaining the same facts (template style was somewhat influenced by trying to better communicate with some young students in my local area - but also - to be more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => "Readability of Wikipedia Articles" (BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level)[1]) - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
There are many dubious statements here, and also misleading links. Some is speculation, guesses or estimates. When I see the qualifer "fact" at the front, I can expect to be deceived. I do agree that it is an amazing list however! Also the linking to external sites is not our way to do things here. It would be better to link to an article or subsection that covers this statement in detail.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Graeme Bartlett: Thank you for your reply - and taking the time to comment - yes - also agree - seems the layout, text and links could be better managed - choosing a useful place on Wikipedia to apply such a template, even after all's been sorted out to everyone's likings, may be a challenge - perhaps the "Science" article may be a possibility? - there may be other places on Wikipedia that such a (more finished) template may be useful as well? - iac - Thanks again for your comments - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
As others have noted, the sensationalism looks very out of place. Also, this is not really the correct venue for this kind of question - we're here to answer fact-based questions. I guess the better place would be on the Village Pump. When bringing the subect up, it would be helpful to include how you intend it to work and what needs it fills. Are you just doing this yourself? How often are you doing it? Are you going to pitch a fit if a hundred people come in and change the entire thing around every minute of the day? Remember that there is no WP:OWNERSHIP on WP so you will have no control over what happens to it. IMO, it has no place here; the fact that you're here looking for a place to shoe-horn it in suggests you already know that. Generally speaking, it's much better to see a problem and then fix it than to design something and see what problems it might apply to. Matt Deres (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Matt Deres: Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - the above QUESTION has now been posted on "WP:Village Pump" as suggested - at => "VP-IdeaLab" and "VP-Technical" - also - no problem whatsoever - it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/mv/ce the template contents - or any other contributions I've made over the years - I've claimed no "WP:Ownership" over any of my edits on Wikipedia, and fully understand that the editing process on Wikipedia is a collaborative effort (per "WP:OWN") - my objective here is to see if the concept (in some form) has a place on Wikipedia - or not - it's *entirely* ok with me either way of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
NOTE: a new version (hopefully improved to the better Wikipedia standards) of the template has now been created - and, if interested, may be viewed below and/or here => "User:Drbogdan/ScienceFacts" - Thanks again for all the earlier comments - newer Comments Welcome - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
^Bogdan, Dr. Dennis (February 16, 2020). "The one particular chemical is Nucleic Acid - a basic chemical for all known life forms - in the form of DNA - and/or - RNA - that defines - by way of a particular genetic code sequence - all the astronomically diverse known life forms on Earth - all such known life forms are essentially a variation of this particular Nucleic Acid chemical that, at a very basic level, has been uniquely coded for a specific known life form". Dr. Dennis Bogdan.
No, it grows toward the artificial light you have supplied or, it does not grow at all or withers very quickly. However you may be interested in reading articles concerning the germination of seeds on Mir (or maybe on the ISS?) Space Station. Due to the lack of gravity, the seed do tend to curl around themselves. Another Wikipedian may be able to source our article for this or provide a general link to valid source. I recall reading about this several years ago and it was very interesting as are many of the experiments they do there, such as hatching chicken eggs. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
At the Alaska State Fair in Fairbanks, they annually compete for record-setting fruits and vegetables. This year, the sunflowers grew to nearly seventeen feet tall in Palmer, Alaska. The long hours of sunlight affect plant growth profoundly.
This vegetable-gigantism has been studied scientifically and is a major element of popular culture in polar regions.
For more reading on unique features of agriculture in the far North, here is the University of Alaska's agriculture extension website, publishing fun tips for home-gardeners and very up-to-date research for commercial farmers and scientists.
Best I can guess: The questioner thinks that if the sun never truly sets, it goes from east to south to west to north to east to south to west to north... So, the sunflower will twist around itself, following the sun. But, the sun remains in pretty much the same direction, making an oval. So, the sunflower will pretty much point in the same direction and have no reason to twist. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
When you're above the Arctic Circle in the summer, the sun does go all the way around the horizon from east to south to west to north to east. You can see a time lapse movie from Spitsbergen here: [1]. Of course, if you're below the Antarctic Circle, the sun goes from east to north to west to south instead. There is no place on Earth from which the sun appears to remain in pretty much the same direction. (That would require the sun to be in geosynchronous orbit.) --Amble (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
I wonder if there is some confusion from the OP about what sunflowers actually do even in countries with reasonable day-night cycles. Perhaps a read of Heliotropism and the associated ref [2] will clear up some confusion. This may also be of interest [3]. If you want more, see [4] and these 2 refs from it [5], [6] and this video [7]. (If the science ref is too complicated for you it received a lot of media attention e.g. [8].) Sunflowers track the sun from east to west during the day, then return to east during the night when immature but as they mature this stops and they only point east.
While I couldn't find any refs that discuss what sunflowers in places with a true midnight sun, my guess from the earlier sources (and note that several mention, as do others e.g. [9] floral heliotropism is observed in a number of arctic plants) is that they simply do the same thing and track the sun when immature and end up facing east when mature, assuming there's nothing significantly affecting regular growth. As Nimur mention, generally their growth may be somewhat different from place with reasonable day night-cycles. See also [10]
I did try to find images or reports of sunflowers in places with a true midnight sun, especially one lasting weeks. I did find [11] which was interesting but perhaps not very illustrative. While there are many reports of them growing in Alaska as Nimur and the refs mention or e.g. [12] (which mentions it can be difficult for some of them), I'm fairly sure we're referring to places not far north enough for a true midnight sun. Noting of course that Utqiagvik, Alaska is I think the largest Alaskan settlement north of the Arctic Circle per our article. (Despite the claims here [13], I'm unconvinced it was taken in a place with a true midnight sun. See also [14].)
Searching for northernmost is also not very successful e.g. [15]. The fact that sunflowers are a commercial crop for oil production doesn't really help searches. [16] Nor does things like. [17] But the summer climate in some places seems like it should be okay for some sunflowers even without greenhouse assistance like that used in earlier ref for an extreme case, so I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. Just choose ones with a relatively short growth cycle. (You maybe have ~ 3 months.)
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
What are exactly sea partons/nonvalence partons? Are they real particles or just something that pops up under different sorts of measurement like wave-particle duality? The article doesn't really explain anything.
There has been an evolution to that regard, which it's well explained in Component particles and Reference frame, but you must have some understanding of how things are working beyond of the isospin quantum numbers for making some sense of it. Regarding valence and sea, it's about the degree of freedom of the particle in the considered context. --Askedonty (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Getting something popping up while making the measurements implies there's has to be something in real as long as the model is keeping enough of its coherence. It's not as far seeking as trying to solve wave-particle duality. Time dilatation was predicted and quantization is not practiced as a random process. --Askedonty (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is it true that a bottle of Drano could do fantastic damage to a statue made of aluminum/brass/bronze, perhaps even to the level of its collapse? Temerarius (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sodium hydroxide solution certainly does dissolve aluminium, or zinc. Brass or bronze may have enough copper to still remain intact. Also pouring a liquid on a statue will likely have it mostly run off. You would have to dam it up some how to keep it dissolving. Also it depends how big a statue it is, as one bottle will only dissolve so much. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
tick bite
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
This was posted on the Wikiversity:Help desk. "Hi,
There is a doctor who runs a newsletter abouth medicine myths. He shows with proofs and articles why some myths are just that: myths.
I received his newsletter but then I cancelled the subscription because I was receiving too many e-mails (not from him but in general).
I need to obtain some info I had read in the past. I cannot remember his name. Do you have a clue who this doctor may be? As I said, I need to re-read one article by him...
Thanks so much,
Leonardo Cardillo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo T. Cardillo (talk • contribs) 08:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)"[18] Can anyone help out with this? --mikeutalk15:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps if you could give us more information on what this specific article entailed, we may be able to find the article. This may equally elusive to finding said doctor, yet more helpful. Anton. 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
There was a non-medical doctor (PhD) Simon Singh who regularly wrote about holistic medicine myths and debunked them. Many people complained that he was pretending to be a medical doctor, but he repeatedly said that was a lecturer, not an MD. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
"That might be Stephen Barrett who has the site Quackwatch. There's an article Reiki Is Nonsense. --mikeu talk 23:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)" -> Exactly!!! That is what is was lookig for!!!! Thank so so so so much!!! --Leonardo T. Cardillo (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What did Wow! sushi do? Can we please correct it. Please see top of the page..." Which of "geometric algebra" or "algebraic geometry" proceeds the other.
Wow! sushi (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
(we don't have so much time...) _ I need to confess , I am multi-personalities.
Wow! sushi (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Geometric algebra#History 1844
Algebraic geometry#History 16th Century? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. and for answering to such a rough-cut (or to say, "large-cut") question. Wow! sushi (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
" Thanks. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion
How has the increase in atmospheric CO2 of some 100 parts per million (0.01%) since 1960 had such a seemingly disproportionate impact on global warming? Sandbh (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
CO2 has increased from 310 to 410 ppm since 1960. That's a 32% increase, so that's quite a lot. Keep in mind that most of the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen, which don't contribute to the greenhouse effect. Then there are positive feedback loops like increased water vapour and reduced snow cover. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
The "seemingly disproportionate impact on global warming" (and also impact on climate) that we are observing is due to all the greenhouse gases, not just CO2. For example, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Methane is produced by large animals like cows. In the past 60 years the Earth's population has increased significantly so, presumably, the number of large animals has also increased, and therefore, presumably, the output of methane has also increased and contributed to global warming and climate change. Dolphin(t)11:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
It is correct that methane and other greenhouse gases are also contributing to man-made climate change, but long-term (centuries), carbon dioxide is the main driving factor, because of its long persistence in the atmosphere. Methane, nitrous oxide, etc. gradually react with other chemicals, while carbon dioxide is inert, so it persists in the atmosphere for much longer. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Just what is "proportionate" ? If we assumed that the Earth's surface temperature was solely due to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (it isn't), and varied linearly with that concentration (it doesn't), we could do the calculations. The average surface temperature is around 15 C [19] or 288 Kelvin, on the absolute scale. So, a 32% increase would take us to 380 K or 107 C, above the boiling point of water. Good thing it's far less than proportionate. The results are even worse using methane levels alone to do the same calculations. NonmalignedNations (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think we are also dealing with a question of "why does a change of 0.01% of atmospheric content lead to such a big impact?" The answer gets into some physical chemistry. CO2 is now 0.04% of atmospheric composition, yet has a large influence on warming. Why? Let's look at the rest of the gases. In order to be involved in global warming, a gas needs to absorb IR radiation (such an absorption causes molecular vibrations, and heat is essentially kinetic motion of molecules, including vibrations). In order to absorb infrared radiation, the proper selection rules must be satisfied, in this case being a change in a molecular dipole moment with respect to the change in nuclear position during vibration. N2 gas is 78% of the atmosphere, but as a homonuclear diatomic molecule, which means it has no dipole moment, and only one molecular vibration (stretching), which does not have a change in the dipole moment. Therefore, N2 does not absorb IR radiation, and plays no role in global warming, even though it is 78% of the atmosphere. Similarly, O2, which is 21% of the atmosphere, is another homonuclear diatomic molecule, and therefore still does not satisfy the IR selection rules and plays no part in global warming. Argon is 0.9% of the atmosphere, but as a single atom, it doesn't have a dipole moment and doesn't have molecular vibrations, and so still does not satisfy the selection rules and will not absorb IR radiation. That means that 99.9% of atmospheric composition plays no role, one way or another, in global warming. CO2 makeups of 40% of the remaining 0.1% of the atmosphere. While it has no permanent dipole moment, several of its vibrations do induce a change in dipole moment with respect to nuclear motion, and therefore absorb IR radiation. So, why does CO2 have a "disproportionate impact on global warming" when it is only 0.04% of the atmosphere? Because 99.9% of the atmosphere isn't doing anything at all regarding global warming. To think of this another way, if you drank a liter of water containing 0.04% of cyanide (DO NOT DO THIS, DO NOT DRINK THIS), you will die. Straight up dead. Why does the cyanide have a disproportionate impact on killing you when it is only 0.04% of the liter of water? Because the other 99.96%, being water, isn't playing a role either way in inhibiting cytochrome c oxidase, while cyanide itself binds to the enzyme and inhibits its function. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
To be extra pedantic, because it's interesting and might teach people more: regarding cyanide, this only applies to something with free cyanide ions in solution. You can safely consume lots of cyanide as long as it's bound tightly to something, since then the cyanide ions won't become unbound and enter your bloodstream. Prussian blue contains bound cyanide, and it's actually an antidote for poisionings—not of cyanide, but of some other poisons. The name "cyanide" was actually inspired by Prussian blue and its deep blue color. Hydrogen cyanide is also produced in small amounts when burning many organic substances, and tobacco smokers have detectably-elevated blood cyanide levels. This may have some negative effects long-term (and tobacco smoking is terrible for many other reasons), but people obviously don't drop dead after one drag on a cigarette, demonstrating the core principle of toxicology: "the dose makes the poison". Botulinum toxin is the most toxic substance currently known, yet extremely dilute amounts are injected into people all the time. Most famously this is done for cosmetic reasons (which people typically know as the brand name "Botox"), but it has numerous therapeutic applications as well for things like nerve and muscle disorders. In such cases, the toxin's paralytic action is desirable, so just enough is used to affect the intended target. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and another neat example that didn't come to mind earlier: the most common form of supplemental vitamin B12 is cyanocobalamin. If you guessed from the name that it contains cyanide, you were correct. And this does release cyanide in the body when it's converted to its active forms. But, the amount is much too small to cause any adverse affects. And another cool aspect of this is the reaction works in reverse when there's an excess of cyanide, like when someone suffers cyanide poisoning. Hydroxocobalamin is now considered the first-line treatment for cyanide poisoning; the hydroxocobalamin binds to cyanide to form cyanocobalamin, and the excess cyanocobalamin is then excreted in the urine. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Our greenhouse gas article suggests such gases make up about 5% ppm of our atmosphere and but for their presence the average temperature of the Earth's surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F)[255 K] rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F)[288 K]. That's a fall of 33 K. Given CO2 contributes about, say, 20% to warming, I can begin to see that increasing CO2 levels by about one-third since 1960 could have an appreciable impact on the global temperature average. A case of a little bit going a long way. Sandbh (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
January 17
Health effects of tea and coffee
Latest comment: 4 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion
Coffee and tea can sometimes contain sugar. I would assume that they may be fattening in such cases; what I'm wondering is whether they are potentially fattening in any other situation. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Your original premise had to do with tea and coffee, not with sugar, cream, etc. Those drinks are not fattening. Your additives to them might be. Another example is popcorn, which is said to be a healthy snack, being mostly air and having plenty of fiber. You render it unhealthy by adding butter and salt. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Coffee" is an ambiguous term, sometime referring to the beverage with nothing added, and sometimes to the drink with sugar, milk, cream, and various spices and flavorings added. If the term wasn't ambiguous, it wouldn't be necessary to specify "black" coffee to get the minimalist version. NonmalignedNations (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Tea and coffee contain essentially no calories. They technically do have one or two calories per cup on average, but it's impossible under any realistic scenario to consume enough for this to mean anything. Obviously if you add things to them, now you have a mixture of coffee or tea and whatever you added. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Note that it is possible for a beverage to contain no, or few, calories per se, and yet cause those who consume it to gain weight. There are several mechanism by which this can happen. Here are a few:
A salty drink can make you thirsty, and then drink more fluid and retain water weight. This doesn't seem to apply to common preparations of coffee and tea.
Artificial sweeteners are believed to cause weight gain. One possible mechanism is that they may make the body expect more calories, and when it doesn't get them this causes hunger, resulting in more calories consumed.
There could be a mental link between the beverage and something that is fattening. For example, if you have coffee and donuts each morning, then coffee alone may make you crave donuts. This is a conditioned response, similar to how dogs were made hungry by hearing a bell ring. NonmalignedNations (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Numerous reviews have concluded that the association between body weight and non-nutritive sweetener usage is inconclusive, as observational studies tend to show a link to high body weight, while randomized controlled trials instead show a small causal weight loss.[40][44][45] Other reviews concluded that use of non-nutritive sweeteners instead of sugar reduces body weight.[46][47]
Here's a reliable source which draws the opposite conclusion: [23]. They suggest another mechanism, that people think they can eat more if they drink a "diet" drink with the food. This explains why randomized studies show (minor) weight loss. If the people don't know they are drinking "diet" drinks, then they won't feel they can eat more. However, in the real world, people normally do know. NonmalignedNations (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
January 18
Health effects of wine
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Wine does contain some calories from sugar and some from alcohol. So whether it causes weight gain (which I assume is what you mean by the phrase "fattening" rather than meaning it specifically produces fat) would depend on what you compare it with. Water and coffee or tea with no additives would contain fewer calories, while something like a milkshake would contain far more. The conditioned response discussed in the previous question could also apply here. You might also read up on the Mediterranean diet, as wine is an important component.NonmalignedNations (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
The idea that any drink or foodstuff is fattening depends only partly on the number of calories it contains. If insufficient exercise or activity is undertaken to 'burn' the calories consumed then any drink or foodstuff will be fattening. Only liquids or foodstuffs with zero calories are not 'fattening'. @Bugs, a beer belly has little relationship with beer consumption. I'm sure we all know someone with a "water melon" (as they say in Andalusia) who drink moderately or not at all. Richard Avery (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
.jpg)
HIGHLIGHTS by Years (including 2000s); Breakthroughs; History; Outline; Timelines (Human, Life, Nature); Questions.
Perseverance rover & Ingenuity helicopter => 1219 sols (1253 days) (3 years, 158 days) (landed February 18, 2021).
