Slashdot Mirror

... is available for free: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1182327

I think you mean deep vein thrombosis http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000156.htm

This says Otherwise. I can't imagine acupuncturers being wealthy or influential enough to buy off these two respected medical associations.

I got a flash light and a dirt devil. Anyone have a watch?

Just to clarify something, the PubMed database contains article citations and abstracts, while the PubMed Central database contains free full-text articles.

Interestingly, the journal that Dr. Rust published in is Nucleic Acids Research, which happens to be a PubMed Central participating journal. Thus, he could have easily obtained his article for free, at the NIH archive:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg i?artid=1634735

Depends on whether they're boys or girls.

There is some info on it at the Wikipedia page for mitochondrion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion#Replica tion_and_gene_inheritance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA#Mit ochondrial_inheritance

I don't know what kind of access you have to scientific journals but this abstract has a pretty good description of sperm mitochondria and how they are degraded via ubiquitinylation (a common degradation pathway)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed &Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=12672125

Hope that helps.

It isn't even new. There's plenty known about bacterial genes in eukaryotes. This is just a striking case of large-scale horizontal transfer into an animal genome. It isn't even the first time transfer from bacteria to animals has been seen. It seems to be a pretty widespread process in general in eukaryotes. Of course that's also ignoring the gigantic contribution of bacterial genes to eukaryotic genomes from the mitonchondrial symbiont, and the equally huge contribution of cyanobacterial genes from the chloroplast as well.

It isn't even new. There's plenty known about bacterial genes in eukaryotes. This is just a striking case of large-scale horizontal transfer into an animal genome. It isn't even the first time transfer from bacteria to animals has been seen. It seems to be a pretty widespread process in general in eukaryotes. Of course that's also ignoring the gigantic contribution of bacterial genes to eukaryotic genomes from the mitonchondrial symbiont, and the equally huge contribution of cyanobacterial genes from the chloroplast as well.

It isn't even new. There's plenty known about bacterial genes in eukaryotes. This is just a striking case of large-scale horizontal transfer into an animal genome. It isn't even the first time transfer from bacteria to animals has been seen. It seems to be a pretty widespread process in general in eukaryotes. Of course that's also ignoring the gigantic contribution of bacterial genes to eukaryotic genomes from the mitonchondrial symbiont, and the equally huge contribution of cyanobacterial genes from the chloroplast as well.

It isn't even new. There's plenty known about bacterial genes in eukaryotes. This is just a striking case of large-scale horizontal transfer into an animal genome. It isn't even the first time transfer from bacteria to animals has been seen. It seems to be a pretty widespread process in general in eukaryotes. Of course that's also ignoring the gigantic contribution of bacterial genes to eukaryotic genomes from the mitonchondrial symbiont, and the equally huge contribution of cyanobacterial genes from the chloroplast as well.

It isn't even new. There's plenty known about bacterial genes in eukaryotes. This is just a striking case of large-scale horizontal transfer into an animal genome. It isn't even the first time transfer from bacteria to animals has been seen. It seems to be a pretty widespread process in general in eukaryotes. Of course that's also ignoring the gigantic contribution of bacterial genes to eukaryotic genomes from the mitonchondrial symbiont, and the equally huge contribution of cyanobacterial genes from the chloroplast as well.

The mitochondria have not been incorporated into the human genome.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought human heart cells couldn't reproduce?

Heart cells are mostly muscle cells, which undergo cell division and regeneration just like any other muscle cells. You're thinking of neurons (brain cells) which do not regenerate and replenish themselves.

• Immunosupression-related neoplasms - nasty kinds of tumors
• Transplant vasculopathy - progressive diffuse disease of the vessels in the transplanted heart

• Men are taller, heavier, leaner and stronger than women
• Body weight does not correlate with knee-extensor muscle strength
• Heavier men are stronger, the same does not hold true for women
• Men have larger muscles than women
• Men and women have statistically similar muscle strength per unit area
• In both men and women, larger muscles are stronger.

Alcohol laws vary from state to state. In New York it is permissible for parents to give their children alcohol. http://www.alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/stateprofil es/StateProfie.asp

http://www.ibva.com/

I've seen this device since back in the 90's, and most of geeks have seen this EEG reader.
brain eeg: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/00 3931.htm

I couldn't find "BUY NOW" button, but soon after googling, I kind got an impression that it's over a grand (USD) for complete kit (including software). So I'm not 100% if that's what you are willing to shell out. And on top of that, you and your grandma have to go through intensive training to fine tune the device so that she is able to communicate thoughtfully (technically) with ease.

Well wishes to your grandma.

That contradicts other studies I've read, but now I have to do some hunting for them.

Another factor to also consider is not just the overall temperature, but how likely short-term extremes are. A study in Japan, covering the whole range of the country (Journal of Risk Research, Volume 1, Number 3, 1 July 1998 , pp. 209-220(12)) found that the optimum temperature for minimum mortality rate varied from 23C-28 C to 33+C over the North to the south of the country - so while people in a range of climates may be able to adapt to long term changes without an increase in mortality due to the average climate, if the number of extreme climate events increases then this could produce a clear increase in deaths.

A recent study by the Harvard School of Public Health (Medina-Ramon, Zanobetti, Cavanagh and Schwartz) found that in the US, extremely cold weather increases the mortality rate by less than extreme heat.

Global warming may be no problem for you if you live in a climate which can have extremes of cold but doesn't tend to get that dangerously hot (the US Pacific North-West, say, or the UK), and may be preferable if you have a particular illness (e.g. cardiovascular deaths, especially cardiac arrest deaths, show much larger increases on extremely cold days than other mortality causes). But on net - it doesn't appear to be a good thing.

> If there wasn't any copyright law to violate, then we could copy and communicate whatever we please. No one would get hurt. All the supposed damages from copyright violations are hypothetical.

See O'Reilly Media, Inc. whose profits on earlier copyrighted works allowed them to expand their scope to the point where profits from protected later works allowed them to re-issue their earlier works to the public for free.

> People dying because life saving medical techniques, in addition to all the other delays, are being held up until publication

"[A]ll the other delays" before publication are in large part review, fact-checking and making sure that the material is easily understood by others.

> and registering of copyrights and the making of some determination about the patentability.

Patents are NOT copyrights. Practices and techniques would almost certainly be protected by patents rather than copyrights. Also, copyright would protect your particular description of a technique, but neither a copyright nor patent would prevent anyone else from also describing that technique.

> Doctors discouraged from discussing ideas among themselves for fear of letting slip something that could become "valuable" intellectual property.

Because the medical profession is like any other, where egos and careers need to be boosted.

> Publicly funded research being locked up under copyright in very expensive, privately held journals ($10 or more for a 10 page article?!).

$1 per page _FOR A HARD COPY REPRINT_ is not a significant barrier to entry for most entities who can afford the $100,000s worth of kit to make use of and extend the research. Most researchers subscribe to journals of interest through their institutions, which reduces the cost and also provides access to the journals' electronic archives.

> And not being indexed thanks to the absurdities of trying to figure out appropriate fees for and legalities of such usages (witness the troubles Google Book Search has had).

PubMed is free to search and indexes the vast majority of human life sciences articles. Abstracts for all published articles in journals of repute are free to search, and published and indexed very widely. You may argue that the quality of abstracts has been in decline recently due to keyword stuffing, or that the 10-20 searchable fields of metadata for each article are insufficient, but those are not copyright issues.

> Or crucial details kept quiet for fear of someone popping up who smells a chance to score off a lawsuit or the threat of a lawsuit.

I don't understand your point here. I think you're trying to generate a tort out of plagiarism under copyright, but in the reputable academic and scientific community of which you speak, there are much more effective social and professional mechanisms. See Hwang Woo-suk re: stem cells.

> Or being bought, "NDAd", and buried by some organization that wants to eliminate some competition.

NDAs tend to protect trade secrets, a different class of "intellectual property". Your organization's security and HR practices are close to woefully broken if the organization is resorting to a claim of copyright infringement to prevent secret sauce from leaking. Also, you can't compel competition to sign NDAs under regular circumstances.

> Even if doctors have the money (and they surely do) to buy the articles, they can't learn of the existence of relevant research because they can't search it, or discuss their work with their fellows.

Doctors can and do visit http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed just as easily as the rest of us to find new articles, and they have the ability to read. Asshole doctors who don't share because of career or ego are not an issue resolvable through copyright reform.

> Maybe copyright is hypothetically keeping artists from starving. Copyright is also hypothetically ki

In case someone would like to read more about Triclosan and Triclocarban:

Triclosan and triclocarban: "Triclosan and triclocarban have been used as effective antiseptics [1] in soap since the 1960's."

From the National Institute of Health, a U.S. government web site: The finding of mutants that carry no cost to resistance implies that such resistant strains could persist in natural populations, even without the constant presence of triclosan as a selective agent. That was 6 years ago. The issues in the current article referenced by Slashdot are not new.

Some bacteria are naturally resistant to Triclosan, and always have been.

To see more about Triclosan and Triclocarban, put those words into the U.S. government's PubMed.gov web site.

As I said before, people use soap with Triclosan and Triclocarban to prevent body odor, fungus, and bacteria on the skin. People who work outside and people who can't shower every day are not going to stop using anti-bacterial soaps because the University of Michigan writes a misleading press release.

Saying, as the title of this Slashdot article does, "Anti-Bacterial Soap No Better Than Plain Soap" is misleading. The article referenced by the Slashdot article is titled "Plain soap as effective as antibacterial but without the risk" is not what the study showed. The study concerned infectious diseases, and ignored the real reasons people use Triclosan: To avoid body oder, skin bacteria, and skin fungal infections.

I have no involvement with the use of Triclosan and Triclocarban other than as an occasional user.

In case someone would like to read more about Triclosan and Triclocarban:

Triclosan and triclocarban: "Triclosan and triclocarban have been used as effective antiseptics [1] in soap since the 1960's."

From the National Institute of Health, a U.S. government web site: The finding of mutants that carry no cost to resistance implies that such resistant strains could persist in natural populations, even without the constant presence of triclosan as a selective agent. That was 6 years ago. The issues in the current article referenced by Slashdot are not new.

Some bacteria are naturally resistant to Triclosan, and always have been.

To see more about Triclosan and Triclocarban, put those words into the U.S. government's PubMed.gov web site.

As I said before, people use soap with Triclosan and Triclocarban to prevent body odor, fungus, and bacteria on the skin. People who work outside and people who can't shower every day are not going to stop using anti-bacterial soaps because the University of Michigan writes a misleading press release.

Saying, as the title of this Slashdot article does, "Anti-Bacterial Soap No Better Than Plain Soap" is misleading. The article referenced by the Slashdot article is titled "Plain soap as effective as antibacterial but without the risk" is not what the study showed. The study concerned infectious diseases, and ignored the real reasons people use Triclosan: To avoid body oder, skin bacteria, and skin fungal infections.

I have no involvement with the use of Triclosan and Triclocarban other than as an occasional user.

In case someone would like to read more about Triclosan and Triclocarban:

Triclosan and triclocarban: "Triclosan and triclocarban have been used as effective antiseptics [1] in soap since the 1960's."

From the National Institute of Health, a U.S. government web site: The finding of mutants that carry no cost to resistance implies that such resistant strains could persist in natural populations, even without the constant presence of triclosan as a selective agent. That was 6 years ago. The issues in the current article referenced by Slashdot are not new.

Some bacteria are naturally resistant to Triclosan, and always have been.

To see more about Triclosan and Triclocarban, put those words into the U.S. government's PubMed.gov web site.

As I said before, people use soap with Triclosan and Triclocarban to prevent body odor, fungus, and bacteria on the skin. People who work outside and people who can't shower every day are not going to stop using anti-bacterial soaps because the University of Michigan writes a misleading press release.

Saying, as the title of this Slashdot article does, "Anti-Bacterial Soap No Better Than Plain Soap" is misleading. The article referenced by the Slashdot article is titled "Plain soap as effective as antibacterial but without the risk" is not what the study showed. The study concerned infectious diseases, and ignored the real reasons people use Triclosan: To avoid body oder, skin bacteria, and skin fungal infections.

I have no involvement with the use of Triclosan and Triclocarban other than as an occasional user.

Did I say that proved anything? It's an anecdote, maybe you've heard of them? I don't have to prove anything, I'm not a scientist and never claimed to be. However, there is a wonderful invention, the Internet. Maybe you've heard of it. When one encounters an anecdote, one can look up the underlying assumptions to see if they have any scientific validity. Now, as you are posting on said Internet, I must assume you know about it and are simply too lazy to look things up for yourself. Being a super nice guy, I will do so for you:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg i?artid=416594
http://www.springerlink.com/content/0byj25luk2l8e6 f8/

Please let me know anytime you need help with this sort of thing, as I have absolutely nothing better to do than look up papers to back up my purely anecdotal postings on a nerd discussion site.

Look at that, I can be a sarcastic ass too! As if that surprises anyone here...

Here is a large collaborative study just published in the New England Journal of Medicine (free text with registration).

The "common gene" hypothesis almost certainly explains disease that "runs in families". The influence of these genetic variants (alleles) tends to be low, so families my have several different susceptibility alleles combining to produce disease. There is another, intriguing hypothesis that may explain the many people with disease who do not have many, or any, susceptibility alleles. This hypothesis suggests that mutations within a single immune cell may allow it to escape normal regulatory mechanisms and produce disease. It is analogous to the cancer mutation theories - some inherited from ancestors, some developed during life. This hypothesis was recently reviewed, link here (not free but you can explore from the abstract).

These two competing/complementary hypotheses constitute a good example of how science moves forward.

Here is a large collaborative study just published in the New England Journal of Medicine (free text with registration).

The "common gene" hypothesis almost certainly explains disease that "runs in families". The influence of these genetic variants (alleles) tends to be low, so families my have several different susceptibility alleles combining to produce disease. There is another, intriguing hypothesis that may explain the many people with disease who do not have many, or any, susceptibility alleles. This hypothesis suggests that mutations within a single immune cell may allow it to escape normal regulatory mechanisms and produce disease. It is analogous to the cancer mutation theories - some inherited from ancestors, some developed during life. This hypothesis was recently reviewed, link here (not free but you can explore from the abstract).

These two competing/complementary hypotheses constitute a good example of how science moves forward.

The article reports the findings from 30 patients - meaning that the trial was testing only whether the therapy was safe. The authors' note that most patients did not progress (to develop worse disease) is only parenthetical, though the information can be used to estimate how many patients will have to be tested to determine efficacy. Frankly, I don't see a solid rational for a therapeutic mechanism, but if it works, great, and we'll learn something about MS and immunology in figuring out how it works.

There is an extremely effective new therapy for MS that blocks immune cells (lymphocytes) from their normal "trafficking" through the brain. Since the lymphocytes are responsible for the neuronal damage that underlies MS, the symptoms of MS did not worsen in the vast majority of the thousands of patients who used the drug. Unfortunately, in a small number of patients, the lymphocytes are also responsible for controlling a virus that is latent in their brain. In some of these patients, the virus became active and some patients died before the cause was recognized. Here is a link to the abstract of a free research paper that summarizes current understanding. I have no financial interest in the success of this drug (generic name = natalizumab, trade name = Tysabri).

WRT calories expelled: What I have been told by an expert is that there is fairly close to perfect calorie absorption, no matter what. It sounds semi-plausible to me - if we had problems with absorption of calories that are fairly easy to digest, we'd expect to get a lot of wind. This happens when we have other things we can't digest - e.g, lactose intolerance, problems with protein digestion.

Eivind.

It's the truth. 0.08 is below any significant level of impairment under normal driving conditions....

First of all, you need to cite some sort of source for a statement like that. (A review by Fell and Voas reports that reducing the legal limit from 0.10 to 0.08 reduced alcohol-related crashes, injuries, and fatalities by between 5% and 16% in the United States; they report further statistically significant reductions in fatalities in jurisdictions that have moved to a limit of 0.05.)

Second - as other posters have noted - how prepared are you to deal with a surprise abnormal condition?

Third, nice weasel word--below any 'significant' level of impairment? What does that mean?

Fourth, I should hope that the limit would be below the level of significant impairment under any condition. There's no compelling reason why anyone should have to drive with any alcohol in their blood; any limit ought sensibly to include a margin of safety.

The association between body mass index and increasing coronary heart disease risk in women is partly explained by a rise in blood pressure, lipid profile and blood glucose across the range of body mass index. Most approaches to weight loss recommend a target or optimal weight based on body mass index alone. Our data show that this assumption is unwarranted and that body mass index should not be used as the sole basis for intervention in individuals. Successful weight loss should be defined in terms of a reduction in metabolic risk, which can often be achieved by relatively modest weight loss.

Here's a link to the abstract on pubmed. Looks like it's a bit early to say how useful it'll be.

Dynamic Visualization of Lung Sounds with a Vibration Response Device: A Case Series.
Dellinger RP, Parrillo JE, Kushnir A, Rossi M, Kushnir I.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed &Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17551264&ordinalp os=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_Res ultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Absolutely. Any health indicator that looks at height and weight and ignores body fat percentage is pretty useless in my book. Do enough weight lifting and your BMI will probably indicate you're about to croak:

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/obesi ty/lose_wt/risk.htm#limitations

The physical exams some insurance companies use for life insurance for men also include a ratio of your chest and waist size, which compensates for this very well.

BMI = teh stupid.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed &cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16920472 &query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum
Study showing that people "overweight" BMI 25-29 actually had a LOWER rate of cardio disease than leaner people.

"INTERPRETATION: The better outcomes for cardiovascular and total mortality seen in the overweight and mildly obese groups could not be explained by adjustment for confounding factors. These findings could be explained by the lack of discriminatory power of BMI to differentiate between body fat and lean mass."

http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/house hold/brands?tbl=brands&id=8020008&query=Toner&sear chas=type&prodcat=all

"Prolonged inhalation of excessive amounts of any dust may cause lung damage. Use of this product as intended does not result in inhalation of excessive amounts of dust."

They rate it as low risk mainly BECAUSE it's not airborne during normal use. This study says that it is. It also says it's a possible carcinogen.

I just picked a cartridge at random, so there may be some out there that are much worse, but this pretty much shows that they didn't spend much time dealing with the effects of airborne toner, because they didn't think it would be a problem.

As for the 'big city' 'pollution is common' statement... I instantly got an image of Neo-Tokyo where everyone was wearing masks because the smog was so hazardous that day. -sigh- I'm starting to consider it myself, and I don't even work/live in a big city.

The conversion of fructose to glucose in the liver may not be theoretically limited in terms of rate, but in practice the liver does not convert any more fructose to glucose than necessary. If there is an excess of fructose in the blood (more than the body needs to convert to glucose to maintain normal blood sugar levels) it's converted to palmitic acid, a saturated fatty acid. This is further converted to fat for storage in the body.

However, it seems like over time, some of that fat doesn't make it out of the liver. In fact, there's been an increase of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in the US over the last decade (Source: http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/nash /).

My opinion on the matter is this: if you need a candy fix, stick to pixy stix and sweetarts (which are pure glucose). Otherwise, stay away from sugar (especially HFCS) and save your liver.

To see all the underlying data, go to DTP Human Tumor Cell Line Screen data page on the National Cancer Institute's Developmental Therapeutics Program web site. There's a lot more data listed here.

To see all the underlying data, go to DTP Human Tumor Cell Line Screen data page on the National Cancer Institute's Developmental Therapeutics Program web site. There's a lot more data listed here.

To see all the underlying data, go to DTP Human Tumor Cell Line Screen data page on the National Cancer Institute's Developmental Therapeutics Program web site. There's a lot more data listed here.

I wasn't going to go that far, because the amount of physical work that even a very active person does is trivial compared to the amount of calories in even a very constricted diet. Take, for example, a packet of Indo Mie Migoreng, an affordable and tasty snack. (Cmon Indo Mie, where's my shill cheque?! At least send me some, my box of 'em is nearly empty... ;) This contains 1620kJ of energy, a similar figure, if my memory serves, to the amount in four Arnott's Mint Slice biscuits.

In terms of physical work required to work off one packet of noodles, given that I weigh 85kg, I'd have to make a vertical climb of two kilometers (85kg * 9.18ms^-2 = 833N, 1640kJ = 0.833kN * 1968m). That's the equivalent of climbing the tallest mountain on the Australian mainland. For four bikkies. Obviously we're nowhere near 100% efficient in converting chemical to mechanical energy, actually the figure is closer to 25% (Study here, see page 18). That's still a 500m vertical climb, the equivalent of climbing the Taipei 101. Twice.

Most energy expenditure, and hence weight loss, comes from resting metabolism, because it's ticking over all the time. Base adult metabolism ticks over at around 90 watts. That's 324kJ an hour, every hour, regardless of what you're doing. Raising this number (by having a higher muscle mass, or by having other maintenance work carried out, as happens after a workout when the torn muscles are healing) will raise your overall energy expenditure far more than any actual exercise you do.

But I digress. If the overall number of calories leaving a system (the body) is greater than the calories going in, then as you said, either that person is losing weight, or I'm going to patent them and be rich. RICH I TELL YOU!.

Random further reading with a scientific-sounding name: Thermodynamics of weight loss diets

I wasn't going to go that far, because the amount of physical work that even a very active person does is trivial compared to the amount of calories in even a very constricted diet. Take, for example, a packet of Indo Mie Migoreng, an affordable and tasty snack. (Cmon Indo Mie, where's my shill cheque?! At least send me some, my box of 'em is nearly empty... ;) This contains 1620kJ of energy, a similar figure, if my memory serves, to the amount in four Arnott's Mint Slice biscuits.

In terms of physical work required to work off one packet of noodles, given that I weigh 85kg, I'd have to make a vertical climb of two kilometers (85kg * 9.18ms^-2 = 833N, 1640kJ = 0.833kN * 1968m). That's the equivalent of climbing the tallest mountain on the Australian mainland. For four bikkies. Obviously we're nowhere near 100% efficient in converting chemical to mechanical energy, actually the figure is closer to 25% (Study here, see page 18). That's still a 500m vertical climb, the equivalent of climbing the Taipei 101. Twice.

Most energy expenditure, and hence weight loss, comes from resting metabolism, because it's ticking over all the time. Base adult metabolism ticks over at around 90 watts. That's 324kJ an hour, every hour, regardless of what you're doing. Raising this number (by having a higher muscle mass, or by having other maintenance work carried out, as happens after a workout when the torn muscles are healing) will raise your overall energy expenditure far more than any actual exercise you do.

But I digress. If the overall number of calories leaving a system (the body) is greater than the calories going in, then as you said, either that person is losing weight, or I'm going to patent them and be rich. RICH I TELL YOU!.

Random further reading with a scientific-sounding name: Thermodynamics of weight loss diets

I wasn't going to go that far, because the amount of physical work that even a very active person does is trivial compared to the amount of calories in even a very constricted diet. Take, for example, a packet of Indo Mie Migoreng, an affordable and tasty snack. (Cmon Indo Mie, where's my shill cheque?! At least send me some, my box of 'em is nearly empty... ;) This contains 1620kJ of energy, a similar figure, if my memory serves, to the amount in four Arnott's Mint Slice biscuits.

In terms of physical work required to work off one packet of noodles, given that I weigh 85kg, I'd have to make a vertical climb of two kilometers (85kg * 9.18ms^-2 = 833N, 1640kJ = 0.833kN * 1968m). That's the equivalent of climbing the tallest mountain on the Australian mainland. For four bikkies. Obviously we're nowhere near 100% efficient in converting chemical to mechanical energy, actually the figure is closer to 25% (Study here, see page 18). That's still a 500m vertical climb, the equivalent of climbing the Taipei 101. Twice.

Most energy expenditure, and hence weight loss, comes from resting metabolism, because it's ticking over all the time. Base adult metabolism ticks over at around 90 watts. That's 324kJ an hour, every hour, regardless of what you're doing. Raising this number (by having a higher muscle mass, or by having other maintenance work carried out, as happens after a workout when the torn muscles are healing) will raise your overall energy expenditure far more than any actual exercise you do.

But I digress. If the overall number of calories leaving a system (the body) is greater than the calories going in, then as you said, either that person is losing weight, or I'm going to patent them and be rich. RICH I TELL YOU!.

Random further reading with a scientific-sounding name: Thermodynamics of weight loss diets

1 in 56?

Don't be ridiculous. Where have you got this figure from?

Gillberg et al 9:10000
Lauritsen et al 4.7:10000
Ehlers et al 36:10000

They are European figures (mostly Scandinavian)

In the UK?

57:10000 and that's Autistic Spectrum disorders *including* Asperger's.

Even the National Autistic Society figures only suggest 36:10000

So I'd love to know where your 'reported' figure comes from.

Dan

(NT partner of AS girlfriend)

1 in 56?

Don't be ridiculous. Where have you got this figure from?

Gillberg et al 9:10000
Lauritsen et al 4.7:10000
Ehlers et al 36:10000

They are European figures (mostly Scandinavian)

In the UK?

57:10000 and that's Autistic Spectrum disorders *including* Asperger's.

Even the National Autistic Society figures only suggest 36:10000

So I'd love to know where your 'reported' figure comes from.

Dan

(NT partner of AS girlfriend)

1 in 56?

Don't be ridiculous. Where have you got this figure from?

Gillberg et al 9:10000
Lauritsen et al 4.7:10000
Ehlers et al 36:10000

They are European figures (mostly Scandinavian)

In the UK?

57:10000 and that's Autistic Spectrum disorders *including* Asperger's.

Even the National Autistic Society figures only suggest 36:10000

So I'd love to know where your 'reported' figure comes from.

Dan

(NT partner of AS girlfriend)

"Claims made about the effectiveness of colloidal silver products for numerous diseases are unsupported scientifically."

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/alerts/silver/index.ht m The fact that HIV results in full blown AIDS has been known for 20+ years. it's a testable fact.

I infact whole heartedly invite you and any other pricks proclaiming that treating HIV is a waste of time to take a trip to africa and fuck a few hookers and see if colloidal silver treatments go well.

How about we begin by naming a effective vaccine that was killed by the drug companies? How about in reporting on an AIDS we link to something more persuasive than a blog? National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: Ongoing HIV vaccine trials

http://vrc.nih.gov/clintrials/clinstudies.htm These are ongoing safety trials at the National Institutes of Health.

Just to elaborate (for those not in the know), the objective of phase III of SBIR grants is "for the small business concern to pursue with non-SBIR/STTR funds the commercialization objectives resulting from the Phase I/II R/R&D activities." (emphasis mine)

The interviewee (Dr Robert Luddig) published the article The 'skinny' on childhood obesity: how our western environment starves kids' brains in the journal Pediatric Annals (abstract here). The article provides a detailed explanation of what he is proposing, including references to the research that backs up the theory.