Retete de slabit,SLABIRE RAPIDA,cure slabire,DIETE DE SLABIT,RETETE NATURISTE,CURE CANCER

 Last month, I visited the southern New Jersey plant of the Robard Corporation, a company that makes meal-replacement products for dieters. Robard’s president, Robert Schwartz, took me to the factory floor, where huge vats of powders — proteins, flavoring ingredients, vitamins — are poured into a 450-gallon V-shaped industrial mixer. The ingredients are then spun together and turned into protein shakes that sell for around $3.50 a serving. As I watched this process, it seemed as if Robard were in the world’s easiest business: take dirt-cheap raw materials, mix them together and sell them at a huge markup to America’s tens of millions of desperate dieters, like me.

 I have spent much of my adulthood overweight, often obese and fruitlessly following all sorts of diet programs. Last year, however, I decided to try a new approach. I purposely didn’t apply the latest in nutritional science. (Over the years, many experts have told me that we still don’t have enough data to know definitively which diets work best.) Instead, I used economics to pick a diet that would work best for me. More specifically, I used the game theory that economists applied during the cold war.

The idea first came to me a few years ago when I was talking to the economist Thomas Schelling, who is best known for formalizing the logic behind the mutually-assured-destruction strategy. His work showed that combatants in a conflict can actually strengthen their position by restricting their choices. During the cold war, Schelling wrote, the United States placed a calculated number of soldiers in Western Europe — not enough to directly repel a Soviet attack but enough to make clear that it was committed to military action if one occurred. Schelling referred to this strategy as


  Full news story: nytimes.com