Slashdot Mirror

I'm curious about the eight additional weeks for physical recovery. I can certainly picture it taking eight weeks to recover physically, at least in some cases with more complicated births, but that's not what we're talking about here. Maybe the first twelve weeks weren't set aside for physical recovery, but that's what happens anyway during that period. So now we're up to twenty weeks, and that's a long time.

And don't forget that next on the docket is paid Menstrual leave. https://www.self.com/story/pai... .

I'm not against time off for mothers. It's nice to have some time at home with the baby, and in some cases after a C-Section it really make sense.

But for the fathers? That's 3 months for exactly what? Moral support?

So here we have a person getting 3 months off of every year that she decides to have a child, and then an extra 12 days of leave every year that she doesn't.

Folks, we really need to look at the reality of the situation. This sort of thing tends to be well meaning, but eventually backfires. So you have a young woman of childbearing age and a young man interviewing for the same job. They are both similarly qualified. By law, you cannot ask her many questions. I had a big list of verboten questions, and often had to ride herd over a co-worker who tried to sneak them in.

Who are you going to hire?

It is actually an important question, especially for demanding positions that require a lot of training. If, as one of the women where I worked had several children over a short period of time, her replacements were putting in more time than she was for several years. Side note - every time she came back to work at her guaranteed job, another woman - the replacement - lost her job.

I wonder though if Microsoft's demand includes paid maternity leave for the replacement workers filling in while the first worker is out on maternity leave.

But back to that question of how much time off is to be expected, it will come into question, because there will be a tendency to hire the person who is going to cost your company less. Single men will have a big advantage.

another note: several women candidate interviewees would quickly blurt out their marital status, and that they didn't intend to have children or already did, so that they could sidestep the issue of our not being allowed to ask anything of the sort. Interestingly enough, they tended to be more qualified and worked out well when hired. Seems like the understood that workplace omertà wasn't working in their favor. third note. I always tried to keep the office at 50:50 regarding gender.

Also, some sexism.

https://www.self.com/story/sex...

https://www.self.com/story/tra...

Can't find anything claiming he worked for the NSA, simply Army intelligence (which is anything but intelligent).

I'm guessing you're just making a joke, but corn is actually not too bad at 7% protein: http://nutritiondata.self.com/...

this is interesting, having grown up around banana plants etc. So you know all bananas are clones as it's next to impossible to grow a banana from a seed those are the little dots along the core of a mature banana. Banana's are one of the most nutritious fruits and they are cheap. I'm sure this may not be a lofty a solution as you would like to see but the bottom line is it is a efficient way to feed people. Since you are in a complaining mood one thing to complain about is single sourced bananas, despite being a easy to grow tropical fruit the US does single source much of it's fruit resulting in the need of a mega plantation as opposed to several small sustainable locally owner options.

Banana propagation
https://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/ch...

Banana nutrition
http://nutritiondata.self.com/...

Perhaps I'm a special snowflake, but I also don't discuss my workouts or diet etc. with anybody, except for cases like this. Heck, each device brand gives different estimations on calories burned. My fitbit shows an extra 300 calories a day burned versus the same time last year for the same routine. Software updates.

I wouldn't say a false sense of accomplishment but poor accuracy /bad math can cause poor results.

Exactly. I used the app "Lose It" to drop huge amounts of weight several years ago to track calorie/carb count and with reasonable exercise; due to meds and health reasons I have put on weight again and are back at the point to lose it. If I compare Fitbit vs. Lose It calorie estimates on food, waaaay different. I am about to switch back to Lose It, but then I lose the combined steps, heart rate and calorie intake in one place... which sucks.

I also use http://nutritiondata.self.com/ a lot last time to help plan meals in advance etc; instead of putting random ingredients I think I know stats about in my food, I plan my meals around using that site last time for nutrient tracking (understand it is just a guide).

And again.... are you picturing that - instead of eating more food - vegans eat less total calories per day? // baffled

To get enough protein from lettuce, you'd have to eat seven kilos of it per day

Because that's totally a normal vegan diet, the all-lettuce diet.

My figures above for kidney beans (24g protein / 100g) are for dried ; cooked they are more like 8g / 100g, so you'd have to eat 700g of cooked kidney beans (a pound and a half) to get enough protein for a day.

Again, because that's totally a normal vegan diet, the all-kidney-bean diet?

But hey, let's go with kidney beans, shall we? This page says that 177g is 32% of the USRDA for protein - so the actual figure is 550g of cooked kidney beans. Let's say that they're a density of... oh, maybe 1,5g/cc, does that sound fair to you? Then that's 366cc, or 1,54 cups of cooked kidney beans. Divided over 3 meals, that's half a cup of kidney beans per meal to get 100% of their daily protein. MY GOD, WHAT SORT OF MONSTER COULD EAT THAT MUCH??? Note that those kidney beans would only make up a third of the person's daily calories. If they actually ate only kidney beans, and ate an average number of calories, they'd be consuming 3 times the USRDA for protein.

And let's not get into the "complete protein" myth again, it's already been well addressed elsewhere in this thread.

Warning: some necessary graphic imagery

The main difference between white and whole grain bread is the fibers. White doesn't have much of them. In starch content they are quite similar (if you compensate for the difference in serving size).
Fibers help your bowel movements. They prevent the most common blockages in your intestines but in extreme cases it can cause continuous diarrhea due to the same reason. They don't do anything else, they aren't absorbed through the intestine wall.
For most people this means "eat whole grain", because our intestines are used to the fibers. If you don't you risk blocking your intestines, which is quite painful.
Personally I shouldn't eat to much whole grain because blockages aren't the issue with me. On the contrary.

Ergo: white bread is digested more slowly than whole wheat. Quite the opposite of your statement.
That doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong. slow bowel movements means more starch (and other nutrients) are absorbed in the body. Fast bowel movements means that more carbohydrates are pooped out and thus not turned to fat in the body. If you add the other stuff you eat with the fibers (a burger for example) which also passes through faster and more of which gets pooped out then you see WHY fibers are good for weight loss.

Disclaimer: I am not a doctor. I just spend a lot of time with doctors and extensively discuss healthy food with them. I have spend a lot of time trying to understand how food works and why some foods are unhealthy. I have, however, not had formal education on it.

Warning: some necessary graphic imagery

The main difference between white and whole grain bread is the fibers. White doesn't have much of them. In starch content they are quite similar (if you compensate for the difference in serving size).
Fibers help your bowel movements. They prevent the most common blockages in your intestines but in extreme cases it can cause continuous diarrhea due to the same reason. They don't do anything else, they aren't absorbed through the intestine wall.
For most people this means "eat whole grain", because our intestines are used to the fibers. If you don't you risk blocking your intestines, which is quite painful.
Personally I shouldn't eat to much whole grain because blockages aren't the issue with me. On the contrary.

Ergo: white bread is digested more slowly than whole wheat. Quite the opposite of your statement.
That doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong. slow bowel movements means more starch (and other nutrients) are absorbed in the body. Fast bowel movements means that more carbohydrates are pooped out and thus not turned to fat in the body. If you add the other stuff you eat with the fibers (a burger for example) which also passes through faster and more of which gets pooped out then you see WHY fibers are good for weight loss.

Disclaimer: I am not a doctor. I just spend a lot of time with doctors and extensively discuss healthy food with them. I have spend a lot of time trying to understand how food works and why some foods are unhealthy. I have, however, not had formal education on it.

I am an avid biker and although I cant counter your points completely I must argue against them.

You can't carry as much luggage

Velobobiles have a surprising amount of cargo space. That is only the Orca, as it seems to have about the most of the production models I know but Quest has sufficient for my daily needs. If I need more I borrow a car (I would rent if borrowing wasn't possible).

and you can't easily have a passenger,

2 person velomobile prototype is under development.

rain and other inclement situations suck a lot more

While still true, I have a hood on my bike. This keeps rain out and makes the bike a bit more aerodynamic.
Cold isn't a problem, as cycling produces a lot of heat. One guy bikes the year round in Canada and even -14C(6.8F) doesn't need much extra isolation. I'd link to his blogspot but I don't know how Blogspot handles sudden heavy traffic. I wouldn't want to bankrupt the guy.

and it can be slightly more scary to ride one on the highway than the scion

That depends strongly on country. Here in the Netherlands most 80 km/h (50 mph) roads have separate bike paths and the car drivers expect bicyclists.
It is a typical bootstrapping issue: There isn't much use for bike paths if nobody rides bikes once they can legally drive a car. Most people don't ride bikes once they can legally drive a car if there is no infrastructure for it.
In the Netherlands biking has been default since horses stopped being common. When the cars became common they already needed to share the road with hundreds of thousands of bikes. When there became too many cars to be safe the bikes got their own paths. Currently intercity fast bike "highways" are under heavy construction across the country.

but bikes have a much better MPG*

And eating much food is a unhealthy hobby if you don't sport much. I like eating, the biking keeps my weight within sane limits.

significantly lower sticker price

Not as much if you lower the other disadvantages. My bike cost me E8500 ($12000) in total (quest + some upgrades like better suspension, hood and turn signals).
There are bikes in the E10K-15K range.

range

I have tried to bike 100 km(62 miles) daily as my commute. I am currently trying to get a place closer to my work as it is just to far. I need 3 hours a day just to get to my work and back and that takes too long.

when I was riding a LOT, was that I wasn't really saving any money because my calories cost way more than a gallon of gas, and my intake went up significantly.

While true there are a few points I'd like to make on that.
1. It levels after a while. In the beginning you eat for fuel + to build muscle. After two years or so the building muscle part is mostly over.
2. Many people like to eat too much. It is difficult for many to eat as little as needed.
3. ...
4. Profit!

According to some calculator I found I needed about 2000 Kcal as fuel to bike 100 km. (number depends on a lot) That is the same amount as my base calorie intake.
However, most of that doesn't need to be in the form of expensive meat (or meat replacement) or even vegetables. It needs to supply calories, not protein, vitamins or minerals. Potatoes or pasta is good enough.
2000 Calories is 4.1 large portions of French fries at Mc Donalds according to Nutritiondata.com. I can't find a price but that is only a couple of euro's here in the Netherlands. If you make the food yourself you save on that.

http://frugalliving.about.com/...
http://www.drfuhrman.com/libra...

Leafy greens especially are really important to preventing many diseases. Cabbage is a fairly cheap one. You can steam the cabbage while cooking the rice. Dandelions are a terrific source of healthy greens (if they have not been sprayed with weedkiller etc.). It's crazy that people have been taught to hate healthy Dandelions.

Our stainless steel "Miracle" rice cooker with a steamer attachment was one of our best kitchen investments ($70) as it does not have Teflon as most rice cookers do, but we worked up to it from cheaper Teflon ones.

Without good food, the mind and body can go into a downward spiral of low energy and depression -- thus a cycle of poverty. Hunter/gathers are more than 100 different types of food over the course of a year. Getting calories in not enough -- you need micronutrients too, and that means a diversity of foods -- but they don't have to be expensive foods.

Of course, so many sick care schemes (Medicaid, Medicare, "health" insurance) will pay for expensive drugs and surgeries but won;t pay for good food to avoid drugs and surgeries. It doesn't help that stressed-out people tend to bulk up on calories as an ages old survival mechanism, not knowing where the next meal may be coming from. This is all made worse by US farm policy:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes....
"Thanks to lobbying, Congress chooses to subsidize foods that weâ(TM)re supposed to eat less of."

Watch out for additives in bullion that might cause headaches and such. Lots of bad headaches could make it hard to keep a job or graduate from college.

Beans are also cheaper to buy dried than canned -- except you need to know how to prepare them and have a place to cook them and the electricity or gas too cook them, which together may not be possible for many students.

People need a healthy source of fat, too -- something lacking in what you outline. The brain is mostly fat, so it is no wonder on low fat (or poor fat) diets that people can get messed up mentally. Nuts can be one, but they tend to be expensive and they may be lacking in Omegas 3s. Eggs might be a good cheap choice of fat including some Omega-3s for many people; some other sources:
http://www.self.com/blogs/flas...

Eating vegetarian in general is healthier and cheaper. So is buying the right things in bulk, maybe splitting big purchases with others.

We also got a lot of value from a $100 blender to do smoothies from frozen fruit -- but that is beyond very cheap (although still cheaper and much healthier than a carton of ice cream).

Still, something like a "basic income" may be a needed as a general solution to poverty. The problem with a lot of frugal advice is that it forces people to take on various risks (like health risks of lack of vegetables, or safety risk of a cheap car, or assault risk in a bad neighborhood, and so on). Or it entails doing a lot of time consuming things that prevent more productive activities. Your advice though is very time-saving and practical, which is why I like it (except for quibbles on some of the above points as far as long-term living).

http://nutritiondata.self.com/...

this is WAAAAAAY too much sodium. If this label is true, it's heart disease in a foil packet. have even 2 per day and you're at 5x what the FDA is talking about recommending as the ACTUAL recommended daily intake of sodium: 1000mg

I really question how many health experts this guy has talked to...

All that said, I ordered some last month.

Its not so much that cooking negates the nutritional value. Rather, it leeches some of the vitamins and minerals out of the vegetables and into the cooking medium. If you cook the vegetables and don't drain away the water, you'll retain most of the vitamins. And even if you do, you'll still retain the bulk of the nutrients in the plant.

Myself, I prefer to eat my veges pre-processed by a cow. No, not cud. Steak!

Fungi perfecti looks to have more information about holistic and appetizer rather than nutritional values...

I did find this though. Not completely devoid, but I can see why they'd suggest looking for other sources of food if you're stuck in the woods. The risk/return seems a little high.

I said 33 percent for Potassium in the direct comparison, but later "a quarter" and "23%" lower down. The latter two are correct. The first is not.

Also...

I didn't give a reference. Fail.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1846/2

--
BMO

In fairness, "fruit juice" isn't much better than soda when it comes to garbage foods. It's all just sugar, with little to no additional nutritional value.

Drinking both raises hell with your blood sugar & insulin levels.

Assuming you fresh squeeze raw oranges into juice, you're downing 26g of carbs in a single 8 oz cup of OJ. In 8 oz of Mountain Dew, you're getting 31g of carbs. So yeah, OJ is "better" for you than Mountain Dew... but that's like saying being stabbed is "better" for you than being shot. They're both pretty fucking awful.

Tofu isn't very low in fat. It derives almost half of it's calories from it.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/legumes-and-legume-products/4393/2

88 calories per half cup, 44 from fat.

I believe you might be referring to it being low in saturated fat, or trans fat. Which would be true. But there's tons of fat in there.

Potassium and other vitamins are in potato skin.

It's also in the flesh without the skin.

You cited boiled potato without skin--and the link you gave didn't list potassium or B6.

Under "Good Points", it says:
"High in potassium
  High in vitamin B6
  High in vitamin C"

It also lists the breakdown if you click "See more extended nutritional details". Alternatively, you can check out these links, which also list the breakdown as a percent daily value:

Boiled, without skin

Baked, with skin

Stop floating your arguments around.

On the contrary, you are the one doing that. I mentioned the skin for completeness, as potatoes came up under the discussion of what foods we evolved on. But even ignoring the skin, your argument has been shown to be ridiculous with regards to cupcakes, or even dumber, soda. Can you admit you were wrong?

Potassium and other vitamins are in potato skin.

It's also in the flesh without the skin.

You cited boiled potato without skin--and the link you gave didn't list potassium or B6.

Under "Good Points", it says:
"High in potassium
  High in vitamin B6
  High in vitamin C"

It also lists the breakdown if you click "See more extended nutritional details". Alternatively, you can check out these links, which also list the breakdown as a percent daily value:

Boiled, without skin

Baked, with skin

Stop floating your arguments around.

On the contrary, you are the one doing that. I mentioned the skin for completeness, as potatoes came up under the discussion of what foods we evolved on. But even ignoring the skin, your argument has been shown to be ridiculous with regards to cupcakes, or even dumber, soda. Can you admit you were wrong?

There's pretty much something there to sabotage everyone's digestive system and metabolic balance.

is completely meaningless.

There is a lot of FUD being spread around about various types of food, and a lot of misinformation about nutrition in general. Eating at a fast-food joint every day is probably going to be unhealthy depending on what you order, assuming you have a daily caloric expenditure that is close to the 2,000/d that the government bases its recommendations on. However, it is more important that your diet match your activity level, than that you avoid specific foods or food groups. As an illustrative example, Michael Phelps consumes 12,000 calories/d when training. He is obviously a statistical outlier, but that is partially my point. The maintenance energy requirement for every person is different, and very much dependent upon that persons activity level. Their is nothing inherently bad about any of the ingredients in a triple bacon cheeseburger, nor with the final product. It is when such calorie dense meals are consumed in excess of your calorie expenditure that they start to cause problems.

Seals are around 25% fat. A mere 28 grams (that's like a SPOON of it) contains 11% of your recommended daily fat intake.. Feeding them to terrorists might not be such a bad idea. Feed em seal for a month, terrorist dies of a coronary.

When it was an apple it had 13g of sugar and 3g of fiber. When it gets turned into juice it has twice the sugar and a sixth of the fiber. So yes it was healthier when it was in the apple.

When it was an apple it had 13g of sugar and 3g of fiber. When it gets turned into juice it has twice the sugar and a sixth of the fiber. So yes it was healthier when it was in the apple.

Apple juice is terrible for you. It's just flavored sugar water. See for yourself. The fact that it comes from a fruit doesn't automagically make it healthy.

The idea that beans are fattening is absurd. One cup of beans has 250 calories, 15 grams of fiber, and 15 grams of protein. They are a good source of some vitamins and many minerals. Source The fiber and protein help you feel full, so it is not as easy to overeat as other foods.

Potatoes are also a healthy option. Whole grains (whole wheat pasta or brown rice) are not too expensive, and although they don't provide large amounts of any particular vitamin, they are a good source of some minerals and can't in any way be considered unhealthy. Rice, due to its lower fiber and protein content than wheat is easier to overeat, but I would still not call it fattening. White rice and refined wheat products can be a problem if they make up a significant part of the diet.

Certain nutrients are most easily obtained through fresh fruits and vegetables. Their limited shelf life tends to make them more expensive. Despite their nutritional value, they tend to be significantly less filling (lower calorie and in the case of fruits, having quickly digested simple sugars) than the aforementioned foods. Thus, they are often bypassed because they don't seem to be as cost effective. Similarly, refined grains tend to be slightly cheaper, in addition to tasting better for many people raised on them.

I think it's not that all cheap foods are unhealthy, but that a balanced diet requires some more expensive/less tasty/less convenient foods so people miss out on some nutrients and purchase mostly foods that are easier to overeat.

The idea that beans are fattening is absurd. One cup of beans has 250 calories, 15 grams of fiber, and 15 grams of protein. They are a good source of some vitamins and many minerals. Source The fiber and protein help you feel full, so it is not as easy to overeat as other foods.

Potatoes are also a healthy option. Whole grains (whole wheat pasta or brown rice) are not too expensive, and although they don't provide large amounts of any particular vitamin, they are a good source of some minerals and can't in any way be considered unhealthy. Rice, due to its lower fiber and protein content than wheat is easier to overeat, but I would still not call it fattening. White rice and refined wheat products can be a problem if they make up a significant part of the diet.

Certain nutrients are most easily obtained through fresh fruits and vegetables. Their limited shelf life tends to make them more expensive. Despite their nutritional value, they tend to be significantly less filling (lower calorie and in the case of fruits, having quickly digested simple sugars) than the aforementioned foods. Thus, they are often bypassed because they don't seem to be as cost effective. Similarly, refined grains tend to be slightly cheaper, in addition to tasting better for many people raised on them.

I think it's not that all cheap foods are unhealthy, but that a balanced diet requires some more expensive/less tasty/less convenient foods so people miss out on some nutrients and purchase mostly foods that are easier to overeat.

Thiomersal is added as a preservative ... i.e. make it safer for longer

That is not what a preservative does. Formaldehyde is a very effective preservative but that does not make it safe for human consumption.

Preservatives are chemical stabilizers and/or toxins intended to prevent biological activity. To preserve things intended to go in the human body, you have to use a preservative that is non-toxic to humans in that concentration, and that doesn’t build up gradually to toxic levels.

E.g. salt is toxic in high concentrations but is safely used as a preservative. Suppose a 28 gram portion of cooked sausage contains 183 mg sodium; that is a concentration of over 6,500 PPM. However it is perfectly safe when it dilutes in the human body, and since salt is extremely water-soluble it normally flushes out of the human body long before it could build up to a toxic level.

You don't have to go so far out like agave (something many folks never will encounter except in it's liquid tequila form). Many common foods have a very high fructose content...

http://nutritiondata.self.com/foods-000011000000000000000.html

Ironically, corn (as opposed to HFCS) really doesn't show up on this list because the sugar in actual corn is mostly glucose (they have to process the crap out of corn-glucose convert some of the glucose to fructose to make HFCS).

The corn "haters" out there that sweeten their drinks with honey and have their apple-a-day, really aren't really in a much superior situation when it comes to avoiding the problems associated with fructose (primarily that the fructose sugar isomer doesn't normally stimulate insulin production unlike the glucose isomer). Although if you actually eat an apple (as opposed to drinking apple juice or eating apple sauce), you probably get enough fiber to limit the intake of sugar.

Also, something that everyone should know is that a surprisingly common ailment is fructose intolerance/malabsorption where the symptoms are similar to lactose intolerance. Avoiding all foods high in fructose often provides relief for this ailment.

At no point does he say, "I can only eat 15 grams a day" or anything similar. At no point does he say that algae should be used as a source of calories.

What it excels at is providing various nutrients. Take a look at the nutritional data, and set the display to "Tablespoon", which is half what he says he eats daily. The vitamin load seems quite high to me for such a small amount of food, then there are amino acids, "good" fats etc...

Are you at all likely to get all the nutrition you need from this stuff? Not at all, but it looks like a pretty well rounded supplement to me. Note my assumption here is that when he says "15 grams", he means "the equivalent of 15 grams of dried Spirulina", if he literally means "15 grams of live Spirulina", I can't determine the nutrition information since I don't know how the drying process affects weight and nutrient content.

The appeal is that you can produce this stuff for extremely low cost and it has really good health benefits, in addition to actually lowering your impact on waste processing facilities (if you take the "urine as a fertilizer" approach).

And if you're squeamish about using urine for growing things, grow up. It's the same thing as people who object to head-on fish because, "I can't eat it if I can see it's face!". In other words, you're eating foods grown in bodily waste already, and having your head stuck in the ground (or elsewhere) won't change that.

If by 55% you mean 11%. So does white wheat flour. Quinoa comes in at 15%, although it can be higher, so it's a good source of protein, and it has a lot more essential amino acids than most things, so it's a good crop for sure, but it is still akin to a carbohydrate staple food.

If by 55% you mean 11%. So does white wheat flour. Quinoa comes in at 15%, although it can be higher, so it's a good source of protein, and it has a lot more essential amino acids than most things, so it's a good crop for sure, but it is still akin to a carbohydrate staple food.

If by 55% you mean 11%. So does white wheat flour. Quinoa comes in at 15%, although it can be higher, so it's a good source of protein, and it has a lot more essential amino acids than most things, so it's a good crop for sure, but it is still akin to a carbohydrate staple food.