Please define willpower in a manner that does not rely on a healthy metabolism and psychological wellbeing.
You should appreciate that you are gifted with a sense of will that allows you to accomplish things by pushing yourself. Gifted. Not everyone recieved that gift.
And I'm glad for you that your metabolism is such that you actually experience willpower. Some of us do not react that way. You may encounter that personally someday if you ever get into an uncontrollable depression and this "willpower" you have suddenly vanishes without a trace or clue as to how to restore it, through no failing of your own. I hope you do not have to go that far, and will stop ego-tripping on your own "willpower" long enough to realize that there are people in this world who just are not wired the same way you are, for a variety of reasons both environmental and inherited.
The point isn't about whether you'll feel depressed or tired, it's about conservation of energy.
That's like saying a car can burn more gas if it travels more miles, but the point isn't about whether the car's engine is turned on or whether it is in gear, or whether it even has tires.
thus cutting back on calories absolutely does lead to weight loss
Not necessarily. It could instead lead to depression and inability to excercise or otherwise function, lower metabolic rate, or greater digestive efficiency. Among other things.
You can try this yourself. Go on a restricted calorie diet for about 3 days... say 25% less then you need. On the forth day, have some sugar water fed to you by IV, since you had vasovagal syncope on day 3 and are under observation at the hospital.
assuming you have the discipline to make it happen.
Assuming you have the discipline is a moral judgment. Discipline is the result of brain processes. Brain processes, and the processes the disclipine directs one to do, all require energy. Having the energy to do all that requires a relatively well functioning energy metabolism. Some people do not have that. Please stop jumping to judgements.
The wild speculation is concluding that that captivity diet has changed over the decades. Because if it hasn't, you have to have another explanation for why they are gaining weight.
It boils down to calories, if yoour body gets more calories than it needs and/or it gets calories faster than it needs then it has to do something with them.
Obviously you didn't RTFA, but what should we expect on/.
If you had, you'd have noticed that it primarily is concerned with debunking two things: 1) the idea that it all boils down to willpower and 2) the idea that it is "simple physics"
To wit, some chemicals and other things we are easily exposed to in today's world will cause you to store fat *instead* of giving you energy. Thus decreasing your ability to demonstrate any willpower. People that do not know that this can happen obviously think that if they were starving they would be jumping around and doing somersalts, instead of sitting in a chair trying to get their arm to move. They are deluded.
There is NO evidence of an obesity rise in WILD stocks of ANY of these animals.
[citation needed]
What do humans and lab animals have in common ? Diets filled with processed and manufactured foods.
AND, if you RTFA, a controlled temperature environment, exposure to artificial light, parents that have been on the same caloric regime, exposure to various industrial chemicals, exposure to pathogens, inherited microflora, and other such factors.
Not for nothing but do you really think lab feed isn't pretty well standardized. I mean, do you really think professional biologists just don't care what the aminals on whom their results depend are eating? Do they also take them home and let them run around on the carpet and feed them cheetos and let them watch TV?
The rise in diabetes, heart disease, and liver damage, are seeming to indicate that fructose consumption IS in fact reaching levels that are manifesting toxic effects
The whole point of TFA is you cannot blame obesity on any one factor. The rise in diabetes, heart disease, and liver damage are plausibly and with a good amount of evidence tied to an obesity epidemic, the cause of which is multfaceted. Given the number of plausible causes, how much a role fructose metabolism plays in that epidemic is quite probaby in the single digits percentagewise. So no, obesity is not a reliable indicator of an epidemic of overconsumption of fructose. This is why people who report on fructose consumption rates actually use evidence of the actual rates of said consumption, not circular logic.
That's a few hours of not eating. This can result in a lot less net calorie intake, if you can handle the crash and eat slow at the end instead of nomming.
Note that I said "if you can" because willpower is a function of biology, not magic, as many here seem to believe.
why would they want to thaw hundreds or thousands of people who are jobless with no family or means to support themselves, and will need extensive education and rehabilitation to re-enter society?
I dunno. Maybe they have gotten over hating people for their own ego's self gratification, happen to have some spare time on their hands, and do not particularly view such an education as a burden because they've developed kickass pedagogical techniques.
I mean, these days even with unemployment, social unrest, and environmental degradation, people still seem to find time to devote to sports, facebook, and other trivialities. Why not unfreezing people? It would make a great blog.
Nature, at least on this planet, will not allow it.
Poppycock. Nature didn't allow opposable thumbs at one point, yet here we are.
And, one does not need to be narcissistic or even have a particularly positive self image to wish to avoid age-related diseases and the associated suffering.
We can get a much better QALY-increase-per-dollar by addressing the problems we know how to fix than we can by researching a cure for aging.
What makes you think continually training up new biologists will always be much more efficient than maintaining a mentally/physically healthy 100+ year old biologist?
The sooner people shed these backwards ideas that "nature" is on their side and "knows best," the better. Hopefully if science does bear fruit on this front, they will be far from the reigns of power at the time.
It is often said that the only way for science to move forward is for the old scientists to die.
Sure, but where is the scientific proof of that. Also, were this proven, fields could just implement "term limits." Many would rather reskill than die.
As to the "all great works before age X" that is just a rule of thumb, some great things are introduced by the elderly, and as long as longevity is acheived in a way that avoids prolonged states of senescence, many would be acheived by longer living humans.
Answer me this: why not routinely remove moles? Its always mystified me. If they are benign, then they should be safe to remove for cosmetic purposes, and if they are potentially dangerous, why not get rid of them ASAP?
The degree of chaos really depends on a lot of the characteristics of the cure, chiefly cost and effect on various aspects of senescense especially intelligence and reproductive capability. Much of the craziness in the world happens in spite of the futility of mortal existence, not because of it.
No, that's an example of the ISP not having developed a proper economic model nor invested in the gear to enforce it. Any ISP selling "unlimited" data should be prepared for that pipe to be full to capacity. Or in other words they should staple their PR department's dicks to the table for promising what they cannot deliver.
Slashdot Mirror
Please define willpower in a manner that does not rely on a healthy metabolism and psychological wellbeing.
You should appreciate that you are gifted with a sense of will that allows you to accomplish things by pushing yourself. Gifted. Not everyone recieved that gift.
So stop being a prick about it.
The problem here is that most fat people don't eat healthily, and don't exercise enough.
You obviously have never watched a fat housemate eat twice as healthy and half as much as you, and get more excercise, and yet still remain fat.
Stop talking out your ass, you know nothing.
And I'm glad for you that your metabolism is such that you actually experience willpower. Some of us do not react that way. You may encounter that personally someday if you ever get into an uncontrollable depression and this "willpower" you have suddenly vanishes without a trace or clue as to how to restore it, through no failing of your own. I hope you do not have to go that far, and will stop ego-tripping on your own "willpower" long enough to realize that there are people in this world who just are not wired the same way you are, for a variety of reasons both environmental and inherited.
The point isn't about whether you'll feel depressed or tired, it's about conservation of energy.
That's like saying a car can burn more gas if it travels more miles, but the point isn't about whether the car's engine is turned on or whether it is in gear, or whether it even has tires.
thus cutting back on calories absolutely does lead to weight loss
Not necessarily. It could instead lead to depression and inability to excercise or otherwise function, lower metabolic rate, or greater digestive efficiency. Among other things.
You can try this yourself. Go on a restricted calorie diet for about 3 days... say 25% less then you need. On the forth day, have some sugar water fed to you by IV, since you had vasovagal syncope on day 3 and are under observation at the hospital.
FTFY.
assuming you have the discipline to make it happen.
Assuming you have the discipline is a moral judgment. Discipline is the result of brain processes. Brain processes, and the processes the disclipine directs one to do, all require energy. Having the energy to do all that requires a relatively well functioning energy metabolism. Some people do not have that. Please stop jumping to judgements.
Yes, you can, if your body decides to make you depressed and less active, hence burning less for energy.
The wild speculation is concluding that that captivity diet has changed over the decades. Because if it hasn't, you have to have another explanation for why they are gaining weight.
It boils down to calories, if yoour body gets more calories than it needs and/or it gets calories faster than it needs then it has to do something with them.
Obviously you didn't RTFA, but what should we expect on /.
If you had, you'd have noticed that it primarily is concerned with debunking two things: 1) the idea that it all boils down to willpower and 2) the idea that it is "simple physics"
To wit, some chemicals and other things we are easily exposed to in today's world will cause you to store fat *instead* of giving you energy. Thus decreasing your ability to demonstrate any willpower. People that do not know that this can happen obviously think that if they were starving they would be jumping around and doing somersalts, instead of sitting in a chair trying to get their arm to move. They are deluded.
There is NO evidence of an obesity rise in WILD stocks of ANY of these animals.
[citation needed]
What do humans and lab animals have in common ? Diets filled with processed and manufactured foods.
AND, if you RTFA, a controlled temperature environment, exposure to artificial light, parents that have been on the same caloric regime, exposure to various industrial chemicals, exposure to pathogens, inherited microflora, and other such factors.
Not for nothing but do you really think lab feed isn't pretty well standardized. I mean, do you really think professional biologists just don't care what the aminals on whom their results depend are eating? Do they also take them home and let them run around on the carpet and feed them cheetos and let them watch TV?
Yeah I'm sure the biologists studying this effect didn't think of that at all. They must not read Slashdot and were thus deprived of your wisdom.
The rise in diabetes, heart disease, and liver damage, are seeming to indicate that fructose consumption IS in fact reaching levels that are manifesting toxic effects
The whole point of TFA is you cannot blame obesity on any one factor. The rise in diabetes, heart disease, and liver damage are plausibly and with a good amount of evidence tied to an obesity epidemic, the cause of which is multfaceted. Given the number of plausible causes, how much a role fructose metabolism plays in that epidemic is quite probaby in the single digits percentagewise. So no, obesity is not a reliable indicator of an epidemic of overconsumption of fructose. This is why people who report on fructose consumption rates actually use evidence of the actual rates of said consumption, not circular logic.
That's a few hours of not eating. This can result in a lot less net calorie intake, if you can handle the crash and eat slow at the end instead of nomming.
Note that I said "if you can" because willpower is a function of biology, not magic, as many here seem to believe.
why would they want to thaw hundreds or thousands of people who are jobless with no family or means to support themselves, and will need extensive education and rehabilitation to re-enter society?
I dunno. Maybe they have gotten over hating people for their own ego's self gratification, happen to have some spare time on their hands, and do not particularly view such an education as a burden because they've developed kickass pedagogical techniques.
I mean, these days even with unemployment, social unrest, and environmental degradation, people still seem to find time to devote to sports, facebook, and other trivialities. Why not unfreezing people? It would make a great blog.
Nature, at least on this planet, will not allow it.
Poppycock. Nature didn't allow opposable thumbs at one point, yet here we are.
And, one does not need to be narcissistic or even have a particularly positive self image to wish to avoid age-related diseases and the associated suffering.
We can get a much better QALY-increase-per-dollar by addressing the problems we know how to fix than we can by researching a cure for aging.
What makes you think continually training up new biologists will always be much more efficient than maintaining a mentally/physically healthy 100+ year old biologist?
That part is easy: if the material is errored too badly, there is a miscarriage or a genetic disease.
DNA errors are only one part of aging. There are various other parts such as AGE crosslinks.
Error correction and even editing of DNA sound more plausible by the year.
Very, very well said.
The sooner people shed these backwards ideas that "nature" is on their side and "knows best," the better. Hopefully if science does bear fruit on this front, they will be far from the reigns of power at the time.
It is often said that the only way for science to move forward is for the old scientists to die.
Sure, but where is the scientific proof of that. Also, were this proven, fields could just implement "term limits." Many would rather reskill than die.
As to the "all great works before age X" that is just a rule of thumb, some great things are introduced by the elderly, and as long as longevity is acheived in a way that avoids prolonged states of senescence, many would be acheived by longer living humans.
So wouldn't the same be said for a lot of internal growths? Early detection would waste resources?
Answer me this: why not routinely remove moles? Its always mystified me. If they are benign, then they should be safe to remove for cosmetic purposes, and if they are potentially dangerous, why not get rid of them ASAP?
The degree of chaos really depends on a lot of the characteristics of the cure, chiefly cost and effect on various aspects of senescense especially intelligence and reproductive capability. Much of the craziness in the world happens in spite of the futility of mortal existence, not because of it.
No, that's an example of the ISP not having developed a proper economic model nor invested in the gear to enforce it. Any ISP selling "unlimited" data should be prepared for that pipe to be full to capacity. Or in other words they should staple their PR department's dicks to the table for promising what they cannot deliver.