This post of mine contained keywords that could have helped you Google this. First instalment of breakup of your homework :
1. Read the link on faeces http://www.britannica.com/EBch... 2. For each component :
2a. Find out how it is influenced by diet. Hint - many have direct relation.
I already read that. But since you keep thinking I am talking about you drawing conclusions from gut flora whereas I am talking about your drawing conclusions from the study in TFA, that is useless.
Calling you an idiot isn't personal attack really, is just a statement of fact.
In this post (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5615545&cid=47818351) I asked you to read second sentence of this post (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5615545&cid=47818111)
Yes idiot, that is what i just said. I brought it up because you are drawing unwarranted conclusions from the study. Whoever brings it up, and whether or not it is the subject of a study, if a factor affects conclusions it affects conclusions. By simply not making it a subject of a study you can't escape the factor.
A factor need not be the "subject of the study" for it to affect drawing of conclusions from it. You draw more conclusions from it than are warranted , in fact more than the researchers themselves draw.
Additionally, your "can be different" claim specifically strays beyond this set of people. The people whose digestive system is abnormal, who either cannot digest certain things properly (say, those who are lactose intolerant) or can (and do) digest things that normal people don't (say, people whose gut biome burns through all kinds of fiber). That's not what this study is focusing on, and that's not what I'm talking about. Please don't derail the conversation by straying from the topic at hand.
"Can be different" has nothing to do with "abnormal" people. Energy utilization in human body has varying efficiencies for normal people too. (off topic examples - Exercise improves efficiency. Blood vessel blockages reduce efficiency.) Where is your citation about everyone having equal efficiency in converting food into energy? Since same person keeps changing efficiency, you must be very smart indeed to know everyone's efficiency is same all the time.
It is known that gut flora differ. Very different species of gut flora work on carbohydrates vs fat and proteins. Where is your citatin about all gut flora having equal efficiency in processing all kinds of food?
Or are you saying anyone's gut flora differ from yours makes them "abnormal"? There is no normal person then, I'm afraid.
Perhaps you can clarify what, exactly, "is idiotic"?
I said it already - you don't know what the law of conservation of energy is about. Closed systems. Human body is not. Yes, all that and more can be different. Gut flora do nearly all of our "digesting", which are a different culture in everyone's gut - if you are saying the other impacts are low enough to be ignored, gut flora surely isn't. A huge proportion of your faeces is gut flora that multiplied eating your food.
Water is another. It is known that carbohydrates and sodium retain water in body. Fat cells store fat along with lot of water, the amount of water changes. Where is your citation that amount of water is same in everybody under all diets? Which effect takes precedence in which people - carbohydrate+sodium water retention, or fat cells.
Also, I'm not sure what "imperfect citation in TFA" you're talking about. As far as I can tell, your statements have all been in relation to my posts, and none of them has "cited" anything from TFA.
TFA says composition of diet with respect to carbohydrates and fats changes body fat composition, without saying anything about amount of diet. You say it must be only amount of diet (calorifically). I cite TFA to point out that it is not necessarily so. A different citation can give some evidence for it, but you haven't provided that yet.
I didn't realize that you weren't making a counterargument, merely calling out my statement as uncorroborated. Now that I've clarified that the scope of my statement was limited to people with normal digestion/metabolism (as was the scope of this study), I trust we can move beyond this point.
I'll wait for a citation for "people with normal digestion/metabolism", then.
"Is same" and "can be different" do not need the same level of citation. If you don't understand this, no need to read further, it will be beyond your comprehension.
1) It's consistent with what we know about theses types of diets. Carb calories offer very little in the way of satiety, unlike fat carbs. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect that people on a high fat diet will feel "more full" with fewer calories than people on a high carb diet. Since this study was unrestricted, we'd expect both groups to eat to the same level of satiety, on average. The effect would be more calories consumed for the high carb group, and fewer calories consumed for the high fat group.
Possibly. It still doesn't buttress your stronger statement.
2) It's consistent with what we know about the laws of physics. You can't gain fat weight from calories that you don't consume. You can't avoid fat gain if you metabolize more calories than you expend. Everyone digests things differently, but that doesn't negate the law of conservation of energy. This study did not concern itself with individual variations in gut biomes or other factors which could account for individual discrepancies in digestion, so let's not trot out that distraction.
This is idiotic - there is a lot of other outputs like heat, sound, flatulence, gas, faeces, gut flora. Read up on law of conservation of energy - it works on closed systems.
You derive your conclusions from the entirely baseless assumption that the relative calorie consumption between the groups was similar on average
You will note that I did not draw any conclusions - I just asked you for citations for your strong unsubstantiated statement I also hypothetically put it against another statement - weaker, with imperfect citation in TFA. I put it against your much stronger statement with zero citation.
The low fat craze started when the amount of fat in the average diet started climbing.
No. Ancel Keys did a multivariable regression analysis of various countries, diets and disease patterns. He found a positive correlation between fat consumption and symptoms of metabolic syndrome. Japan and Italy were countries with low saturated fat and low metabolic syndrome, US, England and Wales were with high saturaged fat and high metabolic syndrome.
He mentioned, as an interesting fact, that correlation is also similar for sugar intake - but he did not follow up on it and brushed it aside as sugar being correlated with fat. This was a fallacy, and the conclusion inadmissible. But he gained fame and his "recommendations" stuck - USFDA launched a war against dietary fat in early 80s. He should have followed up on the other possibilities and found that Italians and Japanese ate very little sugar, eat a lot of fish. His very methodology was wrong because in such studies huge genetic factors need to be considered as countries typically inbreed.
Fat consumption in US has since reduced 30%, but metabolic syndrome hasn't only increased.
With nothing available about their relative calorie consumption, probably on an average it was similar. What do you expect from a far from perfect citation? On the other hand, you have zero citation, while making a stronger statement.
And lets say I did provide all that information, would you then accept I was right?
Not sure about the other guy, but I will accept a good citation about diets being the same.
you could just ask someone over the age of 60 or 70. Ask them what they ate as children and what adults ate at that time
I asked, and they said they rarely had enough food nor enough time to eat it. Wheat and rice were only for the rich, coarser grains were staple. Vegetables were much cheaper, and diets contained much more of them than today'' diets.
Whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same
Citation needed. TFA is a citatin against this statement, though far from perfect. There are others, but none that support your statement.
Also note that your statement I quoted above is a stronger statement than "12 megacalories in pizza and 12 megacalories in kale can have different impact on someone's weight". Stronger because your statement needs to be proven for everyone, this one needs to be proven for just one person. Difference is proven even if of a millionth of a percentage, equality needs to be proven to a larger extent. So you will need more precise and better citation.
expenditures (loss) during human metabolism but these differences are already reflected in their rated calorie values - they are "net" values after metabolism
you understand that the diet itself is only healthy in context with the exercise
Perfect.
And that the exercise is probably a great deal more important then what you're actually eating
Non-actionable, imprecise, non-falsifiable statement. Because 2 things are indispensable, and you are saying one is "more important" than another.
The point I made is that exercise can make a 12 thousand calorie diet of pizza healthy.
Many Americans are eating around one third of that 12 mega calories diet. Very very fewer are doing even one thirtieth of the exercise of Phelps, most are doing around one three hundredth. This shows that this example of yours did not make the point you think it made. It makes the point that no problem if they eat thrice as much, but they will have to exercise 300 times as much. Stresses that most people will do well to concentrate on their diets rather than dream of a impossible regimen of exercise.
You are right, but it makes my point nevertheless . Computers are being used for division and considered reliable for half a century. 3 decades after computers are ready, such a bug with such handling happened.
I have no problem accepting that more than 3 decades after self driving cars are ready, which is not yet, basic mistakes might be eliminated.
Software making specialists have perfected the at of not getting into trouble and convincing the world that all mistakes are users' fault. Ford isn't one of those specialists, even though it might make some; Google is.
I even said "software makers " in the part you quoted.
Do you? Are you prepared if the pedestrian darts into the road?
Wrong question. Context is that humans can determine from context the likely objects which could dart into the road. To that you said it doesn't matter, just that if anything does dart, Google cars are likely to be better.
After that you don't get to ask a human if they also slow down always, because the human, being human, can determine the likely objects which could dart into the road.
Really, it seems like you wont be happy unless it drives exactly like a human does, which is a terrible idea given the rate of auto deaths every year because of bad decisionmaking, poor reaction speed, and unsafe driving.
Really, it seems like you would be happy if it drives exactly the general state of software bugginess in the world today, which is a terrible idea given the everyday goof-ups because of rushing out releases, regulatory ignorance, lobbying legislators to keep out software makers of all trouble irrespective of consequences, and unsafe coding.
So the famous Intel math bug, the inability to properly add 2 and 2 together, never happened. Great.
Just because it is theoretically possible for an automaton to not make some kinds of mistakes doesn't mean all such automatons will actually not make said mistakes.
Slashdot Mirror
Before second instalment, answer to question :
Kale faeces should not contain milk fat. Pizza faeces is likely to.
Similarly see protein, micro-organisms, dead cells and spare parts of life.
This post of mine contained keywords that could have helped you Google this. First instalment of breakup of your homework :
1. Read the link on faeces http://www.britannica.com/EBch...
2. For each component :
2a. Find out how it is influenced by diet. Hint - many have direct relation.
Not all unburned calories. Find out about more exceptions here : http://www.britannica.com/EBch...
Whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same.
Regarding the pizza, that's what I said.
Without citation.
No, you said "Whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same".
This is much more than just saying the study doesn't contest " a calorie is a calorie ".
I already read that. But since you keep thinking I am talking about you drawing conclusions from gut flora whereas I am talking about your drawing conclusions from the study in TFA, that is useless.
Calling you an idiot isn't personal attack really, is just a statement of fact.
In this post (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5615545&cid=47818351) I asked you to read second sentence of this post (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5615545&cid=47818111)
Second sentence of this post :
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Wow! How idiotic can you get? I said you're drawing conclusions from the study. Just read my very last post, second sentence.
Yes idiot, that is what i just said. I brought it up because you are drawing unwarranted conclusions from the study. Whoever brings it up, and whether or not it is the subject of a study, if a factor affects conclusions it affects conclusions. By simply not making it a subject of a study you can't escape the factor.
A factor need not be the "subject of the study" for it to affect drawing of conclusions from it. You draw more conclusions from it than are warranted , in fact more than the researchers themselves draw.
OK clearly you have not read or understood my last to last post which detailed all this. Good.
So you prefer to remain ignorant of the significant influence of gut flora and to some extent water.
Additionally, your "can be different" claim specifically strays beyond this set of people. The people whose digestive system is abnormal, who either cannot digest certain things properly (say, those who are lactose intolerant) or can (and do) digest things that normal people don't (say, people whose gut biome burns through all kinds of fiber). That's not what this study is focusing on, and that's not what I'm talking about. Please don't derail the conversation by straying from the topic at hand.
"Can be different" has nothing to do with "abnormal" people. Energy utilization in human body has varying efficiencies for normal people too. (off topic examples - Exercise improves efficiency. Blood vessel blockages reduce efficiency.) Where is your citation about everyone having equal efficiency in converting food into energy? Since same person keeps changing efficiency, you must be very smart indeed to know everyone's efficiency is same all the time.
It is known that gut flora differ. Very different species of gut flora work on carbohydrates vs fat and proteins. Where is your citatin about all gut flora having equal efficiency in processing all kinds of food?
Or are you saying anyone's gut flora differ from yours makes them "abnormal"? There is no normal person then, I'm afraid.
Perhaps you can clarify what, exactly, "is idiotic"?
I said it already - you don't know what the law of conservation of energy is about. Closed systems. Human body is not. Yes, all that and more can be different. Gut flora do nearly all of our "digesting", which are a different culture in everyone's gut - if you are saying the other impacts are low enough to be ignored, gut flora surely isn't. A huge proportion of your faeces is gut flora that multiplied eating your food.
Water is another. It is known that carbohydrates and sodium retain water in body. Fat cells store fat along with lot of water, the amount of water changes. Where is your citation that amount of water is same in everybody under all diets? Which effect takes precedence in which people - carbohydrate+sodium water retention, or fat cells.
Also, I'm not sure what "imperfect citation in TFA" you're talking about. As far as I can tell, your statements have all been in relation to my posts, and none of them has "cited" anything from TFA.
TFA says composition of diet with respect to carbohydrates and fats changes body fat composition, without saying anything about amount of diet. You say it must be only amount of diet (calorifically). I cite TFA to point out that it is not necessarily so. A different citation can give some evidence for it, but you haven't provided that yet.
I didn't realize that you weren't making a counterargument, merely calling out my statement as uncorroborated. Now that I've clarified that the scope of my statement was limited to people with normal digestion/metabolism (as was the scope of this study), I trust we can move beyond this point.
I'll wait for a citation for "people with normal digestion/metabolism", then.
"Is same" and "can be different" do not need the same level of citation. If you don't understand this, no need to read further, it will be beyond your comprehension.
1) It's consistent with what we know about theses types of diets. Carb calories offer very little in the way of satiety, unlike fat carbs. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect that people on a high fat diet will feel "more full" with fewer calories than people on a high carb diet. Since this study was unrestricted, we'd expect both groups to eat to the same level of satiety, on average. The effect would be more calories consumed for the high carb group, and fewer calories consumed for the high fat group.
Possibly. It still doesn't buttress your stronger statement.
2) It's consistent with what we know about the laws of physics. You can't gain fat weight from calories that you don't consume. You can't avoid fat gain if you metabolize more calories than you expend. Everyone digests things differently, but that doesn't negate the law of conservation of energy. This study did not concern itself with individual variations in gut biomes or other factors which could account for individual discrepancies in digestion, so let's not trot out that distraction.
This is idiotic - there is a lot of other outputs like heat, sound, flatulence, gas, faeces, gut flora. Read up on law of conservation of energy - it works on closed systems.
You derive your conclusions from the entirely baseless assumption that the relative calorie consumption between the groups was similar on average
You will note that I did not draw any conclusions - I just asked you for citations for your strong unsubstantiated statement I also hypothetically put it against another statement - weaker, with imperfect citation in TFA. I put it against your much stronger statement with zero citation.
The low fat craze started when the amount of fat in the average diet started climbing.
No. Ancel Keys did a multivariable regression analysis of various countries, diets and disease patterns. He found a positive correlation between fat consumption and symptoms of metabolic syndrome. Japan and Italy were countries with low saturated fat and low metabolic syndrome, US, England and Wales were with high saturaged fat and high metabolic syndrome.
He mentioned, as an interesting fact, that correlation is also similar for sugar intake - but he did not follow up on it and brushed it aside as sugar being correlated with fat. This was a fallacy, and the conclusion inadmissible. But he gained fame and his "recommendations" stuck - USFDA launched a war against dietary fat in early 80s. He should have followed up on the other possibilities and found that Italians and Japanese ate very little sugar, eat a lot of fish. His very methodology was wrong because in such studies huge genetic factors need to be considered as countries typically inbreed.
Fat consumption in US has since reduced 30%, but metabolic syndrome hasn't only increased.
With nothing available about their relative calorie consumption, probably on an average it was similar. What do you expect from a far from perfect citation? On the other hand, you have zero citation, while making a stronger statement.
And lets say I did provide all that information, would you then accept I was right?
Not sure about the other guy, but I will accept a good citation about diets being the same.
you could just ask someone over the age of 60 or 70. Ask them what they ate as children and what adults ate at that time
I asked, and they said they rarely had enough food nor enough time to eat it. Wheat and rice were only for the rich, coarser grains were staple. Vegetables were much cheaper, and diets contained much more of them than today'' diets.
Whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same
Citation needed. TFA is a citatin against this statement, though far from perfect. There are others, but none that support your statement.
Also note that your statement I quoted above is a stronger statement than "12 megacalories in pizza and 12 megacalories in kale can have different impact on someone's weight". Stronger because your statement needs to be proven for everyone, this one needs to be proven for just one person. Difference is proven even if of a millionth of a percentage, equality needs to be proven to a larger extent. So you will need more precise and better citation.
expenditures (loss) during human metabolism but these differences are already reflected in their rated calorie values - they are "net" values after metabolism
No.
Not only is the "loss" not accounted for in rated calorie values, it is not posible to account for it because it is different for different people.
you understand that the diet itself is only healthy in context with the exercise
Perfect.
And that the exercise is probably a great deal more important then what you're actually eating
Non-actionable, imprecise, non-falsifiable statement. Because 2 things are indispensable, and you are saying one is "more important" than another.
The point I made is that exercise can make a 12 thousand calorie diet of pizza healthy.
Many Americans are eating around one third of that 12 mega calories diet. Very very fewer are doing even one thirtieth of the exercise of Phelps, most are doing around one three hundredth. This shows that this example of yours did not make the point you think it made. It makes the point that no problem if they eat thrice as much, but they will have to exercise 300 times as much. Stresses that most people will do well to concentrate on their diets rather than dream of a impossible regimen of exercise.
You are right, but it makes my point nevertheless . Computers are being used for division and considered reliable for half a century. 3 decades after computers are ready, such a bug with such handling happened.
I have no problem accepting that more than 3 decades after self driving cars are ready, which is not yet, basic mistakes might be eliminated.
Software making specialists have perfected the at of not getting into trouble and convincing the world that all mistakes are users' fault. Ford isn't one of those specialists, even though it might make some; Google is.
I even said "software makers " in the part you quoted.
Do you? Are you prepared if the pedestrian darts into the road?
Wrong question. Context is that humans can determine from context the likely objects which could dart into the road. To that you said it doesn't matter, just that if anything does dart, Google cars are likely to be better.
After that you don't get to ask a human if they also slow down always, because the human, being human, can determine the likely objects which could dart into the road.
Really, it seems like you wont be happy unless it drives exactly like a human does, which is a terrible idea given the rate of auto deaths every year because of bad decisionmaking, poor reaction speed, and unsafe driving.
Really, it seems like you would be happy if it drives exactly the general state of software bugginess in the world today, which is a terrible idea given the everyday goof-ups because of rushing out releases, regulatory ignorance, lobbying legislators to keep out software makers of all trouble irrespective of consequences, and unsafe coding.
So the famous Intel math bug, the inability to properly add 2 and 2 together, never happened. Great.
Just because it is theoretically possible for an automaton to not make some kinds of mistakes doesn't mean all such automatons will actually not make said mistakes.