Jason Garrett is the head coach. It's his job to go to his OC and tell him that with a 26 pts lead to run the ball more and keep his defense off the field.

The Eagles 7 or 8 years ago? That happened every year. It happened last year with LeSean McCoy. Goddamn Andy Reid.

Wait—last night Deadspin told us it was the defense's fault. Now it's Jason Garrett and the offensive coordinator's fault. Never Tony Romo's fault that they always choke in December. Never. He never forces the ball or makes ignorant decisions late in the game. Keep forcing that narrative. The weak-minded will believe…

It reminds me of Brian Westbrook on the Eagles 7 or 8 years ago when it seemed like he was one of the better backs in the league except McNabb or Reid would never seem to let him get more than 10 or 11 carries. Although I suppose Romo has a better argument to make throwing to Dez and Witten than McNabb did throwing to…

It's indeed precisely how it's supposed to work, and it looks like it has. Either consumers were put off by the prices and didn't use Uber (plenty of other choices in that market) and Uber won't attempt a similar hike in the future, or consumers weren't bothered enough not to use it and got what they paid for. Weird…

No one asked.

This seems like a great idea, until you realize the whole thing melts if you hit three shots in a row.

Sounds like a guy that appreciates Brazillian Fart Porn:

So why does any player in any sport who plays for a bad team continue to suit up? This is a ridiculous opinion, Samer. Especially for a second-year player. He needs to continue to play so that he can improve. He's not Brady or Manning.

fart like a Clydesdale

it isn't a useful model because it doesn't help anyone who is trying to lose weight. it simply isn't possible to use it predictively, and consistent weight loss does not result.

the fact is, the body makes its own internal adjustments to account for different caloric intake, and each body has its own unique mitigating factors that affect this. you cannot predict the outcome of any one individual person. if it was a simple formula with entirely known factors, it would be possible but that is…

that study does count because it explains why many people may be fatter than they should be given the calories they consume and the exercise they engage in. also, other

You, your family, your boyfriend, your friends...and voila! No more data is needed! Stupid Harvard scientists with their data. Thank God we have you and your family and boyfriend and friends to prove them wrong!

You, like Dodai, are misconstruing the argument here. I'm not saying, and I'm not sure others are either, that the specific formula for weight loss is eating 2000 calories and burning 2001.

science cannot engineer that, no. because it cannot take all of the myriad (and some unknown) factors into account. no prescription is going to be accurate for each person because these factors are not fully known. trial-and-error does not count as"science".

I'm going to disagree with a whole lot of people here. It is NOT as simple as less calories in/more calories burned = weight loss. Different types of foods are metabolized quite differently by your body; sugars like fructose and sucrose tend to spike insulin levels and be made into fat more readily than glucose.…

If you lowered your calorie intake too far, your body goes into starving mode, which slows down the metabolism, basically shutting down your body and trying to retain whatever fat it can. Then the moment you fall off the diet, you gain weight rapidly.

Then why am I not losing weight?! I was strictly counting calories early this year and almost never went over 1200-1300 calories. I lost three pounds, then plateaued for months. I started eating 1800 calories, lost three more pounds, stalled again, and gained it back. Then I lowered my goal down to 1600 calories and…

#90 - Develop Type 1 Diabetes; lose tons of weight as you go into a coma and are fed through a tube.