Is there any boilerplate legalese for open sourcing that kind of data?
There are no hard/fast rules for calorie consumption, and I don't believe a calorie counter will help. In-fact, it is the precise quantification of food that leads to poor diets/eating habits.
EDIT: My fear is that focusing on only a small part of nutrition will further harm the nutrition of individuals. If we place too much attention on calories other things can be overlooked such as vital fats and acids or minerals. I'm trying to make the case that increased awareness and education of food and the human diet/nutrition is more important than counting calories. As someone points out below, there are many situations where calories are not labeled. In my case, I'm aware of what food is decent, and what food is junk and this allows me to forgo strict quantification of the food I consume. I know that food from most food chains is generally junk. This extends beyond the nutrition of the food as well. Food chains typically source their food from the cheapest distributors, and these are often the same distributors that end up distributing massive quantities of contaminated foods.
Here's another case. I could potentially consume 5 sodas in a single day and remain under my caloric restriction, but I would have consumed a ton of empty calories. A calorie monitor is not able to help in this case, but my own awareness of health and nutrition keeps me from doing this.
The issue of health is far larger simple quantification of a few metrics. It is within any individuals ability to determine for themselves general effects of the food they are consuming.
For some of the best arguments contrary to my own: http://www.foodpolitics.com/tag/calorie-labeling/
The idea that the precise quantification of food that leads to poor diets/eating habits is rather obsurd given that most diets unfortuantely don't actually do that. Most diets are composed of ridiculous rules like "Don't eat any carbs!" or "Eat only cabbage!" Tracking what you are eating and not going over a calorie limit is one of the most reliable ways to lose weight if you actually do it. Most people, "dieters" included, have absolutely no clue how many calories they eat every day.
I guarantee that anyone who wants to lose weight can do so if they eat fewer calories than they use in a day. Losing weight is that simple. It's not necessarily easy, but it is extremely simple.
I agree completely that weight loss/control is about caloric spendature in relation to caloric intake. However in the US we have more labeling and discussion about calories than any other country that I'm aware of yet we remain an overweight nation with nearly 2/3 of our population being over weight, and 1/3 being obese. I don't feel as though further quantification on the consumer side is going to remedy the situation.
Another example is a bottle of ice tea might say '4 servings per bottle' and say 30 calories/serving. Missing those small numbers is easy to do and I know of people thinking they're only consuming 30 calories vs. 120 calories.
The cheapest food is also very unhealthy, while in other countries it is opposite. That along with a car and sit in an office culture leads to part of the obesity epidemic today.
A magic automatic calorie counter would decrease the effort to diet significantly and would still be a great educational tool for many people.
This is one of the few use cases where Soylent ( the pseudo food ) may be superior. Because you can guarantee that you are eating x calories per day and only x calories per day.
But then, you'd be living on soylent...
That's the thing - some days. People who are overweight generally do it every day.
And I'll also assume you're ~ 25 years old and your metabolism hasn't started slowing down yet.
There are much larger issues than calorie counting that cause 2/3 of the U.S to be overweight. Agricultural corn subsidies for starters, a defunct FDA, poor education, lack of strong culinary traditions and a lack of preventative healthcare all play into a massive amount of people being overweight.
If you drive to work, take the elevator, sit in front of a computer all day and then watch television to relax... then; duh. You're gonna be chubby, even if you only eat organic salads from Whole Paycheck.
If you walk or bike for local trips, stand or take frequent stretch breaks while at work, always take the stairs and garden in the evenings you're going to much more fit even if taquitos are a food group as far as you're concerned.
Habits are the key. Figure out how to shift your default behaviours and you will effect change.
I remained slim despite eating some very rich restaurant meals every so often until I started drinking and eating similar food at home nearly every day.
Would his age tell you much, really? I know people who are frustrated that they can't gain weight. Me, on the other hand, feel that I can't eat snacks, desserts etc. or other 'empty calories' without gaining weight. And that's been the case since I was 20, or my teens.
I start my day by drinking a cup of coffee with 60-70 grams of grass-fed butter (Bulletproof Coffee) and it made me lose 15 kilo's over the last year. It puts your body into 'fat-burning mode' and I found out by experience it's true. Also, I drink no more soda or fruit juices, and limit my overall sugar intake to barely nothing (but still I will never say no to any offered pie/cookies/chocolate at social gatherings). Oh and I lost weight and got more energy without exercising any more than I did (which is close to nothing).
Do away with light or low fat products, especially margarine, and embrace bacon and grass-fed meat. Make about 60% of your food-intake be fat, 20% veggies and 20% protein, and limit carbs like potatoes to once a week, and you will never have to count any calories again.
For info, I advise to look up Bulletproof diet, and you don't have to buy any of the products/books offered, on the website is also explained for free what to look for if you don't feel like spending any money on his overpriced products :)
No.
It depends on what causes the heart attack, but it's generally either a clot that dislodges from somewhere else and lodges in a coronary artery, or a new clot that forms suddenly. Neither of those events could be predicted (other than the general prediction of risk factors). For that matter, it also depends on what event you consider the 'heart attack'. Is it the occlusion of blood flow, or the resulting ischemia? There will be a time lag between those as well.
Detecting a heart attack shortly _after_ it occurred would also be useful, and likely much easier to do (detect cardiac enzymes, etc).