Slashdot Mirror

Um, yeah, that's the entire point. A potato has a very high satiety in the Holt satiety index. Potatoes were in the top spot, with the INHERENT water draggin down calories per serving. Inherent water is very different from water outside the food like drinking water with chips. Just like an average person eating hanfuls of grapes will predictably consume much less calories in a sitting than if they ate handfuls of raisins (here the difference is 19 vs 86 calories per ounce respectively - a 4.5 fold difference).

So, okay, try eating 5 8oz potatoes and see if you want more. I know plenty of people who go through a bag of chips and still hungry. And the fat intake of 5 potatoes is 10 calories vs 720 on chips.

High water content foods drag down caloric density and eating low caloric foods typically drag down the caloric intake of meals. That's the entire name of the game.

Learn about caloric density and role in keeping thin.

Turns out this is a really really hard engineering problem to solve and it has been tried so many times before. There's a guy who even mqaintains a book on the subject. http://www.mendosa.com/The%20Pursuit%20of%20Noninvsive%20Glucose,%20Fourth%20Edition.pdf I wish them luck. It's a great challange and it will benefit a lot of people if they manage to pull it off.

A tourist from the city passed a farmhouse and saw a pig with a wooden leg. He went to the farmer and asked him about the pig.

The farmer said, "Oh, this is a great pig! There's no pig like him anywhere! Once, when I was plowing a field, the tractor tipped over and pinned my leg to the ground. This pig saw me and went to the house to get my wife. He saved my life!

"Another time, my wife and I were asleep in the house when a fire started. This pig woke us up and got us out of the house before it burned down. He saved me again! He's a wonderful pig!"

"But you didn't tell us how he got the wooden leg," said the tourist.

"Oh," said the farmer, "a pig like that, you don't eat all at once!"

(adapted from Prairie Home Companion, this short version here: http://www.mendosa.com/pig.htm...)

http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm

Well, I said *after* digestion, but to be perfectly technical, it's not nearly as much time as you think. Besides barley, your grains and cereals all have GI values over 50 if not higher. Some "complex" carbs are even worse than plain table sugar, which clocks in at 65+/-4! Compare that to whole wheat/whole meal bread at 75+/-2, or brown rice at 68+/-4.

> The Inuits (you know, the guys whom entire daily universe is either Snow or Ice...) have over a hundred words just for snow.

Not really. That's an urban legend.

See

http://www.mendosa.com/snow.html

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow

As a matter of fact, if a language doesn't have a way to express a concept, you simply can't think naturally about it.

I frequently find myself pondering concepts which I can't explain to others because I lack the words to explain them. Sometimes I can come up with ways to combine existing words for that purpose, other times I can't. Language may prevent me from expressing some concepts, but it in no way prevents me from thinking about them.

Just look at the inuit language which has something like 40 words that translate has 'ice'.

Urban legend.

As per the subject, fruits have a lot less sugar than you think.

The problem is that the average American eats a lot more sugar than they used to. Americans eat an estimated 20-34 teaspoons of added sugar in the food and drink every day. While you probably shouldn't be chugging apple juice all day, it would be a far sight better for you than chugging Coke all day. However, there's no need to avoid whole fruits whatsoever. Go wild.

The real impact of this on diet and weight is less clear. Some have taken this new research as compelling evidence that carbohydrates are bad and should be avoided. Other nutritionists are skeptical of this position. The truth probably lies somewhere in between--North Americans probably eat too many carbohydrates, and too many of the ones we eat are of the kind that is rapidly processed into blood sugar (e.g. white bread instead of whole wheat).

Functions aren't a problem. They have a strict syntax. MACROS are the fucking problem.

Macros that evaluate to include directives that include executable code are the particular problem I'm dealing with right now. No debugger I've tried can browse into that code until I cut and paste it over the offending macro. Which kind of defeats the purpose, dunnit?

The things some people (myself at one time) consider "clever" are how other people get hurt.

And remember how the PowerPC used to be the champion of RISC? Eh, not so much no more. 150 defined mnemonics for conditional branch instructions. The Eskimos don't have that many words for "snow".

We need a way to lay down a trail of popcorn when these weasels are dragging us down these ratholes.

The Great Inuit Vocabulary Hoax is anthropology's contribution to urban legends. It apparently started in 1911 when anthropologist Franz Boaz casually mentioned that the Inuit--he called them "Eskimos," using the derogatory term of a tribe to the south of them for eaters of raw meat--had four different words for snow. With each succeeding reference in textbooks and the popular press the number grew to sometimes as many as 400 words.

Myth?? Not so! Here's them eskimo snow words.

This is the same code used on police two-way radio for "Mental case, not responsible"

Some may be interested in maximizing health and longevity, perhaps at the expense of looking "buff". Check out calorie restriction.