While losing weight, one's weight will keep varying. So the diet will have to be parameterized according to one's current weight. So the diet f is determined by f(x, y, z) where say x is your current weight, y is your state as in injured/infected etc, and various other parameters.
If f is correct and healthy for all parameter values, by definition it has to be correct after "losing weight" too. If f is not correct and healthy for all parameter values, it is dangerous during a reducing weight scenario too.
It could be correct and healthy only for higher values of x , but that stinks of an incorrectly parametrized function.
Again a non -verifiable, non falsifiable claim, with circular logic. If it "works" for me, by definition it works for me. But the whole question is to determine what works for me. Short term, long term, about different parameters of health, etc.
I was answering about your claim of eventually stopping wanting to lose weight. Unhealthy is a different beast altogether and to be avoided from day one, regardless of weight.
I see you have an inability in noticing the contradictions within the accumulated practical knowledge in nutrition and fitness. Say something concrete, make a falsifiable claim and someone might be able to answer.
People have been eating for a rather long time - it takes anthropologists to determine what have people been eating a rather long time ago. Who have determined certain things. One thing they haven't determined is that "it's not that hard". Since you have determined so, why don't you say anything concrete rather than statements I demonstrated to be meaningless , unverifiable, non-falsifiable etc. ?
Even a hundred years ago, people engaged in much more physical activity and very different lifestyle than today. Learning from people from "a rather long time" ago could be answering the wrong question.
doing anything radical
Many cultures have radical diets. Alaskan Eskimos, Congolese pygmies, and the Maasai of Tanzania and Kenya have a radical meat diet. Indians have a radical vegetarian diet with 80% carbohydrate being very common. Americans have a radical corporate-serving diet.
Whatever your "not that hard" solution is, it will have to reject at least one inherited cultural wisdom.
In the meantime the best thing most of us can do is to maintain a balanced diet
But "balanced diet" is undefined "in the meantime". Because it is the meantime before balanced diet is defined. This study is one small part of scientifically, quantitatively define the "balanced diet". So this statement practically means nothing. It is even non-falsifiable to some extent.
avoiding too much of anything
Too much of polonium is 28 nanograms. Too much of water is 28 kilograms in half an hour. Until "too much" is defined, we cannot really avoid too much of anything. E.g. if you get 25% calories from fat and 100 years later it turns out that ideal was 0.025% of calories from fat, you ended up getting "too much" of fat. If 100 years later it turns out that ideal calories from fat is 89%, you ended up getting too little of fat.
So again, not really verifiably doable without a reasonable guess of the "ideal". Which is impossible "in the meantime".
Again indefinite. The logical extreme conclusion is zero calories, but even less rigorous science can quite conclusively prove that zero calories is a horrible choice. Until we get the minimum number of calories scientifically determined, this statement practically means nothing.
That is the whole problem scientists are trying to solve. Determining what exactly does it mean? Is it the same for everyone? Are there multiple perfect balanced diets for the same person? If they are different for different people, how to figure out what it is for you?
If these problems are solved, your statements would be quite correct. But they are not, so your statements are claiming a fact on a variable without defining it.
Long term keto-diet people stop losing body fat after a while and overall body weight roughly maintains if they keep the diet up. Have you seen anyone continuously losing weight , shrinking to zero weight eventually on a keto diet ? Or asymptotically reducing less and less weight progressively converging at a very low weight ? Appears unexpected and even unsupported by casual observation.
Actually, after losing the desired amount of weight , even adding back a few carbs is frequently observed to add either zero or very small amount of body fat. This is one common strategy in atkins diet, but even people with keto diet do that.
not a long term solution though
Keto is not even necessary to begin with. Without going full keto, if you just increase your dietary fat / carbohydrate ratio gradually until you feel good, that is also known to reduce body fat. Worked for me to achieve a lower body fat, better overall health.
OK, so the measures Google and Microsoft (and you believe Apple too) are taking about misogyny in workplace are far from enough, still you compare them to my imaginary misogyny eliminating measures of establishing women-only companies ? Anyway :
1. Women (a biologically defined category of humans) are not inferior to non-women for biological reasons. This is very plausible to you. So inherently there is nothing inferior in women as a technology company worker.
2. Women earning 20%-45% less than men for the same job is a common finding.
3. You say a lot of stress women face in workplace is due to misogyny. You day this in a negative connotation, so this seems to be the stress that worsens work performance, instead of improving.
Now Google is wasting money on 80% men - a women fiddle could save 20-45% on 80% staff : say around overall 20% on salaries.
Google is stressing out 20% of women employees, say worsening their performance by 10%, overall 2% better performance by ditching men.
So with these numbers, a women-Google should get 2% better work than existing Google, at 20% lower salary cost. If this logic does not work on Google itself, I'll be more than satisfied if i see a women-only company beat the shit out of a regular mixed-sex company in any major field at a large scale.( Though I'd be happy to know why it does not work for Google itself.) Otherwise, these are strong indications that points 1, 2 and/or 3 above are wrong.
The point instead is that lots of women face daily or weekly put-downs due to misogyny...
So in the context of Google when you said this, you were not being very honest ? I deduce that the context is about Google from the fact that the/. story you commented on has the context of Google, and you even followed it with a statement about biological reasons implied by Damore , very presumably in his famous document, which is about Google.
If you say Google has this misogyny, a female only company should beat the shit out of Google. If not, you should not say that women face workplace misogyny in the context of Google. Which is it ?
You make no assertion ? Who cares ? My GP post was not a reply to you. You are an AC, so anyone can claim to be you and assert that you make such and such assertion. As an AC, asserting anything about your own assertion is idiotic.
Animals have lived for millions of years without any money.
Taxation IS theft. PERIOD
Animals have been thieving for millions of years. So decide whether you want to emulate animal morals or delegitimize theft.
You mean you have to PAY to live on the planet you were born on??
Animals have to pay too. Smaller fish have to pay the barracuda their own bodies. Barracuda has to pay with increased heavy metal concentration in its own body. All have to pay with constant vigilance, chasing and being chased - payment with labour is also a payment. In fact, the major currency when there is no "money".
Angry mobs are powerless today, and will be completely useless by the time the automation dystopia materializes. In any war, information about the enemy's movements, plans, positions , strengths is of utmost importance. The would be "angry mobs" are providing the corporations (Facebook, Google etc.) real time information about themselves, and equipping themselves with self-sponsored surveillance devices.
Already the governments-corporations monster has access to more powerful weaponry. The only strength in angry mobs could have been the unpredictability - which is vanishing very fast.
Second, STEM fields are among the highest paid and most sought after jobs in our economy. Look at any top-20 high paid jobs list and you will probably find nothing but CEO, various MD roles, lawyer, and various STEM jobs (and arguably most MD roles could be considered STEM). This makes it an important industry to tackle first when looking at gender inequality. After we deal with the "good" jobs then society could spend more times on less desirable ones.
Why? Aren't women equal partners in the society forming roughly 50% of the population? Why don't they want to shoulder the responsibility with the "bad" jobs ? How about preferential treatment to women convicts so that jail inmate ratio comes closer to 50-50% men and women ?
You see so much talk of equality in STEM fields simply because it is relatively low hanging fruit for improving our economy.
Low-hanging ? How about fruit lying on the ground. Mandatory military training in many countries for men (or lottery selected men), not for women - just need to change.the law to end discrimination. 10 times men than women rotting in jails the world over - just need to change the law to encourage imprisonment of women.
If women and their advocates want only "good" jobs, there is no intent to discuss fairness, partiality, improvement of economy or any lofty ideals. What is happening is a phenomenon called lobbying where one asks for more for oneself or groups in which the oneself belongs, regardless of the fairness of this asking.
The point instead is that lots of women face daily or weekly put-downs due to misogyny. They see and experience it ALL the blasted time in their professional lives. It's a constant source of extra stress and career battles. This is a very plausible reason for there being fewer women in IT, and it's very plausible that it's a more significant reason than the biological reasons that Damore implied.
Ok, so you just need to start a competitor to Apple, Google, Microsoft and all these misogynist companies. Employ only women so that they are freed from this extra stress and can unleash their inner awesomeness to blow the current incumbents in the technology industry to smithereens. Ready to put your money on your own opinion ?
If it is really so plausible, why don't I see any technology company trying this ? If I am not looking in the right places, please educate me about these women-centric companies beating the shit out of Google, Apple, Microsoft.
Gross ? Never heard of it, and not much useful either. One common way life expectancy is calculated by actuaries is life expectancy at age x. Infant mortality (one common definition of infant is less than 5 years age for this purpose in my country) is expectancy at age 5 - i.e. someone who has survived 5 years, how much is he going to live on an average.
Infant mortality is therefore almost useless for pension actuaries because 5 year old is unlikely to be employed anywhere.
I read the first few pages of the document. It was a mixture of appeal to emotion,
Ok, I take your word that this is your conclusions from how things are in his document.
for instance stating how things are and drawing conclusions from that rather than examining why they are that way.
Now you are also stating how things are and drawing conclusions from that rather than examining why they are that way. In as much, you are no better than him.
I for one have never found it offensive to live in reality, but you seem to be offending yourself here.
such mal-formed reasoning to reinforce prejudices against women and then share them around
Exact passage would be appreciated rather than the usual kind of arguments you get on this topic which is to omit the exact argument you are arguing against.
self-grading by the participants, not any scientific measure
If you are trying to suggest they are mutually exclusive, why don't you say so explicitly so that people can laugh at you better?
One of the studies is a meta-analysis of over half-a-million subjects. You can publish your criticism of the specific failures in scientific method in those studies in your own papers.
Although, maybe not even then, as some research shows that men will underestimate the achievements of female colleages and overestimate the achievements of male colleagues
I wonder at that research. This is a gold-mine - you just need to open a competitor to Google with only women employees and beat the shit out of Google by the sheer brilliance of women.
Even if one argues Google has had too much of a head start, in many industries / companies this principle can be used to outcompete the companies making the mistake of hiring less women, or misjudging their competence . I don't see any in the industries I follow. Do you ?
Proof of a pudding is in the eating. Proof of competence is in company profits. Proof in those (so far unnamed) researches is far feebler than the company profit numbers I see.
But rats could teach themselves how to control their abuse of more addictive drugs than alcohol : in a rat park.
While the study could not be replicated, I haven't come across an honest attempt to replicate without structurally changing it significantly to force the view-point of the replicator scientist. Some anecdotal evidence can also be explained using this theory too, it might have a point.
Yes, i was myself defending Doyle from the charge of hypocrisy. The parent post of mine was saying that Doyle believed in supernatural stuff in his personal life, but he made his Holmes completely reject supernatural hypotheses.
Slashdot Mirror
While losing weight, one's weight will keep varying. So the diet will have to be parameterized according to one's current weight. So the diet f is determined by f(x, y, z) where say x is your current weight, y is your state as in injured/infected etc, and various other parameters.
If f is correct and healthy for all parameter values, by definition it has to be correct after "losing weight" too. If f is not correct and healthy for all parameter values, it is dangerous during a reducing weight scenario too.
It could be correct and healthy only for higher values of x , but that stinks of an incorrectly parametrized function.
Again a non -verifiable, non falsifiable claim, with circular logic. If it "works" for me, by definition it works for me. But the whole question is to determine what works for me. Short term, long term, about different parameters of health, etc.
I was answering about your claim of eventually stopping wanting to lose weight. Unhealthy is a different beast altogether and to be avoided from day one, regardless of weight.
I see you have an inability in noticing the contradictions within the accumulated practical knowledge in nutrition and fitness. Say something concrete, make a falsifiable claim and someone might be able to answer.
Signing in might help too.
Which culture's wisdom ?
People have been eating for a rather long time - it takes anthropologists to determine what have people been eating a rather long time ago. Who have determined certain things. One thing they haven't determined is that "it's not that hard". Since you have determined so, why don't you say anything concrete rather than statements I demonstrated to be meaningless , unverifiable, non-falsifiable etc. ?
Even a hundred years ago, people engaged in much more physical activity and very different lifestyle than today. Learning from people from "a rather long time" ago could be answering the wrong question.
doing anything radical
Many cultures have radical diets. Alaskan Eskimos, Congolese pygmies, and the Maasai of Tanzania and Kenya have a radical meat diet. Indians have a radical vegetarian diet with 80% carbohydrate being very common. Americans have a radical corporate-serving diet.
Whatever your "not that hard" solution is, it will have to reject at least one inherited cultural wisdom.
In the meantime the best thing most of us can do is to maintain a balanced diet
But "balanced diet" is undefined "in the meantime". Because it is the meantime before balanced diet is defined. This study is one small part of scientifically, quantitatively define the "balanced diet". So this statement practically means nothing. It is even non-falsifiable to some extent.
avoiding too much of anything
Too much of polonium is 28 nanograms. Too much of water is 28 kilograms in half an hour. Until "too much" is defined, we cannot really avoid too much of anything. E.g. if you get 25% calories from fat and 100 years later it turns out that ideal was 0.025% of calories from fat, you ended up getting "too much" of fat. If 100 years later it turns out that ideal calories from fat is 89%, you ended up getting too little of fat.
So again, not really verifiably doable without a reasonable guess of the "ideal". Which is impossible "in the meantime".
keeping our caloric intake sufficiently restricted
Again indefinite. The logical extreme conclusion is zero calories, but even less rigorous science can quite conclusively prove that zero calories is a horrible choice. Until we get the minimum number of calories scientifically determined, this statement practically means nothing.
good balanced diet
That is the whole problem scientists are trying to solve. Determining what exactly does it mean? Is it the same for everyone? Are there multiple perfect balanced diets for the same person? If they are different for different people, how to figure out what it is for you?
If these problems are solved, your statements would be quite correct. But they are not, so your statements are claiming a fact on a variable without defining it.
at some point I won't want to lose wight
Long term keto-diet people stop losing body fat after a while and overall body weight roughly maintains if they keep the diet up. Have you seen anyone continuously losing weight , shrinking to zero weight eventually on a keto diet ? Or asymptotically reducing less and less weight progressively converging at a very low weight ? Appears unexpected and even unsupported by casual observation.
Actually, after losing the desired amount of weight , even adding back a few carbs is frequently observed to add either zero or very small amount of body fat. This is one common strategy in atkins diet, but even people with keto diet do that.
not a long term solution though
Keto is not even necessary to begin with. Without going full keto, if you just increase your dietary fat / carbohydrate ratio gradually until you feel good, that is also known to reduce body fat. Worked for me to achieve a lower body fat, better overall health.
But if you "own" a few square miles of sea, can you prohibit your neighbour from pumping the fish out of your part of the sea?
OK, so the measures Google and Microsoft (and you believe Apple too) are taking about misogyny in workplace are far from enough, still you compare them to my imaginary misogyny eliminating measures of establishing women-only companies ? Anyway :
1. Women (a biologically defined category of humans) are not inferior to non-women for biological reasons. This is very plausible to you. So inherently there is nothing inferior in women as a technology company worker.
2. Women earning 20%-45% less than men for the same job is a common finding.
3. You say a lot of stress women face in workplace is due to misogyny. You day this in a negative connotation, so this seems to be the stress that worsens work performance, instead of improving.
Now Google is wasting money on 80% men - a women fiddle could save 20-45% on 80% staff : say around overall 20% on salaries.
Google is stressing out 20% of women employees, say worsening their performance by 10%, overall 2% better performance by ditching men.
So with these numbers, a women-Google should get 2% better work than existing Google, at 20% lower salary cost. If this logic does not work on Google itself, I'll be more than satisfied if i see a women-only company beat the shit out of a regular mixed-sex company in any major field at a large scale.( Though I'd be happy to know why it does not work for Google itself.) Otherwise, these are strong indications that points 1, 2 and/or 3 above are wrong.
The point instead is that lots of women face daily or weekly put-downs due to misogyny...
So in the context of Google when you said this, you were not being very honest ? I deduce that the context is about Google from the fact that the /. story you commented on has the context of Google, and you even followed it with a statement about biological reasons implied by Damore , very presumably in his famous document, which is about Google.
If you say Google has this misogyny, a female only company should beat the shit out of Google. If not, you should not say that women face workplace misogyny in the context of Google. Which is it ?
You make no assertion ? Who cares ? My GP post was not a reply to you. You are an AC, so anyone can claim to be you and assert that you make such and such assertion. As an AC, asserting anything about your own assertion is idiotic.
The _entire_ purpose ? Strong words. Any evidence of that ? How do you even determine the purpose of something other than yourself ?
Animals have lived for millions of years without any money.
Taxation IS theft. PERIOD
Animals have been thieving for millions of years. So decide whether you want to emulate animal morals or delegitimize theft.
You mean you have to PAY to live on the planet you were born on??
Animals have to pay too. Smaller fish have to pay the barracuda their own bodies. Barracuda has to pay with increased heavy metal concentration in its own body. All have to pay with constant vigilance, chasing and being chased - payment with labour is also a payment. In fact, the major currency when there is no "money".
Angry mobs are powerless today, and will be completely useless by the time the automation dystopia materializes. In any war, information about the enemy's movements, plans, positions , strengths is of utmost importance. The would be "angry mobs" are providing the corporations (Facebook, Google etc.) real time information about themselves, and equipping themselves with self-sponsored surveillance devices.
Already the governments-corporations monster has access to more powerful weaponry. The only strength in angry mobs could have been the unpredictability - which is vanishing very fast.
Second, STEM fields are among the highest paid and most sought after jobs in our economy. Look at any top-20 high paid jobs list and you will probably find nothing but CEO, various MD roles, lawyer, and various STEM jobs (and arguably most MD roles could be considered STEM). This makes it an important industry to tackle first when looking at gender inequality. After we deal with the "good" jobs then society could spend more times on less desirable ones.
Why? Aren't women equal partners in the society forming roughly 50% of the population? Why don't they want to shoulder the responsibility with the "bad" jobs ? How about preferential treatment to women convicts so that jail inmate ratio comes closer to 50-50% men and women ?
You see so much talk of equality in STEM fields simply because it is relatively low hanging fruit for improving our economy.
Low-hanging ? How about fruit lying on the ground. Mandatory military training in many countries for men (or lottery selected men), not for women - just need to change.the law to end discrimination. 10 times men than women rotting in jails the world over - just need to change the law to encourage imprisonment of women.
If women and their advocates want only "good" jobs, there is no intent to discuss fairness, partiality, improvement of economy or any lofty ideals. What is happening is a phenomenon called lobbying where one asks for more for oneself or groups in which the oneself belongs, regardless of the fairness of this asking.
The point instead is that lots of women face daily or weekly put-downs due to misogyny. They see and experience it ALL the blasted time in their professional lives. It's a constant source of extra stress and career battles. This is a very plausible reason for there being fewer women in IT, and it's very plausible that it's a more significant reason than the biological reasons that Damore implied.
Ok, so you just need to start a competitor to Apple, Google, Microsoft and all these misogynist companies. Employ only women so that they are freed from this extra stress and can unleash their inner awesomeness to blow the current incumbents in the technology industry to smithereens. Ready to put your money on your own opinion ?
If it is really so plausible, why don't I see any technology company trying this ? If I am not looking in the right places, please educate me about these women-centric companies beating the shit out of Google, Apple, Microsoft.
Gross ? Never heard of it, and not much useful either. One common way life expectancy is calculated by actuaries is life expectancy at age x. Infant mortality (one common definition of infant is less than 5 years age for this purpose in my country) is expectancy at age 5 - i.e. someone who has survived 5 years, how much is he going to live on an average.
Infant mortality is therefore almost useless for pension actuaries because 5 year old is unlikely to be employed anywhere.
Where does he demonstrate that the effect size of these differences in the Google setting are non-zero?
Who said he does ?
Even if I accept these points of yours, at worst he is wrong. I haven't met anyone who was never wrong. Have you ?
If that is the criterion for not being fired, only people who make no statements will remain employed.
I read the first few pages of the document. It was a mixture of appeal to emotion,
Ok, I take your word that this is your conclusions from how things are in his document.
for instance stating how things are and drawing conclusions from that rather than examining why they are that way.
Now you are also stating how things are and drawing conclusions from that rather than examining why they are that way. In as much, you are no better than him.
I for one have never found it offensive to live in reality, but you seem to be offending yourself here.
such mal-formed reasoning to reinforce prejudices against women and then share them around
Exact passage would be appreciated rather than the usual kind of arguments you get on this topic which is to omit the exact argument you are arguing against.
self-grading by the participants, not any scientific measure
If you are trying to suggest they are mutually exclusive, why don't you say so explicitly so that people can laugh at you better?
One of the studies is a meta-analysis of over half-a-million subjects. You can publish your criticism of the specific failures in scientific method in those studies in your own papers.
Although, maybe not even then, as some research shows that men will underestimate the achievements of female colleages and overestimate the achievements of male colleagues
I wonder at that research. This is a gold-mine - you just need to open a competitor to Google with only women employees and beat the shit out of Google by the sheer brilliance of women.
Even if one argues Google has had too much of a head start, in many industries / companies this principle can be used to outcompete the companies making the mistake of hiring less women, or misjudging their competence . I don't see any in the industries I follow. Do you ?
Proof of a pudding is in the eating. Proof of competence is in company profits. Proof in those (so far unnamed) researches is far feebler than the company profit numbers I see.
But rats could teach themselves how to control their abuse of more addictive drugs than alcohol : in a rat park.
While the study could not be replicated, I haven't come across an honest attempt to replicate without structurally changing it significantly to force the view-point of the replicator scientist. Some anecdotal evidence can also be explained using this theory too, it might have a point.
Yes, i was myself defending Doyle from the charge of hypocrisy. The parent post of mine was saying that Doyle believed in supernatural stuff in his personal life, but he made his Holmes completely reject supernatural hypotheses.