It fails entirely to account for absorbability, the fraction that gut flora will consume (which varies between people) and how much will be excreted largely unchanged
There is extremely little variability there, with a few notable exceptions like fiber.
By all means, point me to a reliable scientific source that claims there is a non-insignificant difference in calorie absorption between health adults, in the medium to long-term (not just a quick gut flora adjustment).
Until the 1960s, the USA received 33% of their sugar imports from Cuba.
I'm sure nothing has changed in the past 50 years, of course...
that fantastic table you link to is for 2014
Previous years have very, very similar figures. Click on the country, and you'll see figures back to 1960.
explain why sugar prices have been steadily rising in the USA over the last half century
The US has imposed tariffs on sugar imports, propping up domestic production of sugarcane (Hawaii), sugar beets, and corn. It, however, has NOTHING specifically to do with Cuba, as you claim.
you'd have us believe it's because Brazil will be the world's biggest sugar producer next year? Non sequitur much?
Brazil *IS* the world's largest sugar producer, has been for many years, is very willing to export to the USA, and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CUBA.
Calorie counting means you look at the food label and add up how many calories you ate. Then you go to the gym and the machines tell you how many calories you burned. Then you look at a chart on the internet for your age and weight and body type and daily activity level and it tells you how many calories you burned just existing.
No, you're vastly over-complicating things for absolutely no reason. Just start by recording how many calories you consumed before you start dieting. Then, if you want to lose weight, just slowly start to decrease the number of calories you consume. Going to the gym one day, versus not going the next, has a small enough effect to average out without crazy-close monitoring of yourself. It's really not necessary.
a lot is just sugar. Not good for long term nutrition
There's nothing wrong with sugar. Just comparable to eating a starchy potato. It's just bulk calories.
Consider the population who consumed "the old ones" compared to the soylent market and your points break down.
Didn't bother to read? I listed a full range of ages and health levels. There is no market Soylent can be targeting that doesn't have substantial overlap.
But your body varies that based on what it perceives are survival circumstances.
Yes, but that's just about the only exception, and it's merely a short-term effect.
You are laughably wrong
You're free to provide some evidence for your crazy assertions that go against basically all studies ever done. Otherwise, I'll be sure to ignore you and your trolling, as just one more sucker who fell for somebody's slick, expensive diet scam.
I decided I wanted to lose more and see my sixpack, so I divided my caloric intake by 3... and gained 25lbs. I'm now overweight again [...] It seems fairly clear that at least *my* body can save energy.
It's well-known that such a severe, sudden dietary restriction will cause such effects, but only in the short-term. More gradual transition is far safer/healthier. And over a longer-term, those effects wear off, as they must. Not to mention much of it is water-weight, not actually fat, so physics need not be defied...
Android, AFAIK, only allows one window to be visible no matter the size of the display.
Not true. I believe it's been since ICS you've been able to have calculators and several such things side-by-side with the application you're using. And of course there are add-ons that give you full-fledged multi-window support.
Android = Windows 8 without desktop mode and compatibility with older software
Each version of Windows makes a lot of older software incompatible. And the back-catalog doesn't really matter, if you can find suitable replacement apps for Android, and you nearly-always can.
But yes, Windows will always have this minor advantage, but it's really not one that ReactOS shares. And also happens to be one you can get with Wine on Linux/X11 more easily and reliable than on ReactOS.
That's nonsense. We're only talking about, say <2000kcal/day for an adult. Just try to show *anyone* who has gotten substantially fat on that kind of a diet. Your little imaginary dietary world is just that... imaginary and baseless.
You want a liquid meal replacement that's not sweet?
I have good news! Have you ever heard of this thing called "milk"? Looking at whole milk, 150kcal/8oz means you need about 36 oz of it to replace a meal. More if you're large, less if you'll be doing other snacking and drinking something other than water between "meals". And you can even go overboard, and mix powered milk into your liquid milk... That's the basic component of Carnation Instant Breakfast and similar.
Also, you're free to dilute meal-replacement drinks with water (or milk) if you find them too rich or thick, and you'd be amazed how little you need to go from super-sweet to tasteless. I guarantee you won't even do 2:1. That will reduce aftertaste as well.
I agree about the horrible (after)taste of Ensure, Boost, and other popular products right now, but there are many great-tasting ones, too. Toping my list is Nutrament, esp Vanilla:
Second would be basic chocolate, strawberry, or vanilla powder, like Ovaltine, Nesquik, but I prefer store brands.
Third would be meal powders like Carnation Instant Breakfast, and all the store brands with the same purpose. Since you mix it yourself, you can mix as much milk and water into it as your taste buds allow.
And I'd dare say none of those have any nasty aftertastes like the non-dairy meal replacement drinks.
" It is only physics in universes where the human body cannot reduce it's work load to use less energy."
Nope. Your body's "at rest" metabolism absolutely dominates. Even a high activity level only BARELY changes the number of calories you need. It takes something on the order of running marathons to significantly change your metabolism. The level of deviation from base metabolism is positively tiny, across a wide range of physical activity levels.
" In fact, you are fooling yourself if you think that different people's bodies don't behave differently with regard to what gets burned vs. what gets stored with the calories they do digest"
This is utter nonsense. There are a few variations, in the form of lactose intolerance and the like, but those are ridiculously obvious. The differences in burning calories versus storing them as fat are not between "people" but between body types. A morbidly obese person who stays on a diet will eventually get the same metabolism and behavior as the skinniest person. If there were these huge differences, they would have shown-up in the endless diestary studies that have been performed. Instead, EVERYONE'S bodies behaveexactly the same to identical diets (eventually). And as I said repeatedly, if you aren't getting enough calories, it is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE for your body to deposit excess fat. You can't build a house out of one sheet of plywood, no matter how much some crazy "diet expoert" has said so, peddeling snakeoilthat's so much more appealing than the boring a difficult calorie constricted diets, that you'll keep coming back, even as you see no lasting results.
1) Car engines are extremely strict devices. Talk about turbines, stirling engines, or many others, and there's no problem changing fuels. Your body, similarly, is more than adaptive enough to digest extremely diverse foods, effectively. Steak and lettuce are about as far apart as you can get.
2) I absolutely *did* address exactly this "output" silliness. Read my previous post again, more carefully.
3) I also addressed this, and it's not relevant to this topic at all. In the more general case, I can say that it's only a small effect that definitely can be overcome with simple thought and will-power. But it is an interesting topic that certainly should get more study.
People who claim there are huge differences in calories from foods are just as guilty of misinformation (I'd say even moreso) as those who over simplify it down to pur calorie counts and will power. And in this case, all the other factors you named are not relevant to the topic, in any case.
Would you prefer they finish the Windows 95 compatibility?
Yes, I sure as hell would! There's tons of legacy software out there that still needs a Windows 9x box up and running. Decent (not perfect) Windows 95 compatibility would put ReactOS on parity with something like FreeDOS, which while horribly outdated, still remains imminently useful to a significant subset of the population.
There would be a TON of ancient hardware that would get loaded up with ReactOS. I've got an old 486 laptop lying around here, somewhere, that could use it. Things like netBooks would do well to run a super stripped-down OS with Windows 95 compatibility. Not to mention all the old developers out there, who would be happy to have a job again writing backwards-compatible applications.
Chasing a moving target is a good way to NEVER FINISH ANYTHING, which is the definition of ReactOS. Try to do everything, and in the end you accomplish nothing, which they have, for two decades.
And furthermore, you're forgetting about things like KernelEx, which allow Windows 9x systems to run many programs only compatible with XP (like Firefox these days).
Being pre-alpha is just a label -
No, it's labeled "alpha". I call it pre-alpha, because that's a much more fair label to attach to it.
The absence of causality in the CI-CO = dW has been well established for centuries
It's pure PHYSICS that if you need a certain number of calories, and if you do not consume enough, you will lose weight.
There are several edge cases, things like fiber that your body can't digest (or lactose if you're in the unlucky few). And there are some that some that will suppress your appetite, versus those that stimulate it. But those DON'T MATTER at allon a strictly calorie controlled diet... that's only affects your un-monitored calorie consumption, or possibly your will-power at sticking to the stringent diet.
Absolutely ZERO doctors or scientists will claim you can maintain a healthy weight without consuming the number of calories the math says you need. If there was ANY WAY to do that, the US Military would be paying HUGE amounts of money to get the secret formula that lets them transport half as much food, halfway across the planet (through war-zones) to feed all those hungry soldiers.
The reverse isn't so strictly true, but honestly, there aren't THAT many examples of foods that don't properly digest (like fiber), or that stimulate your metabolism (like caffeine), and they neither cause HUGE effects, nor can they go unnoticed by the person who constantly running to the toilet, and/or who's sweating through winter and can't get to sleep.
If the food does not rise blood glucose level (either because it is low carb, or because it contains carbs that take time to digest), insulin remains low, and fat is burnt.
OR... his body is having a hell of a time processing it, it's going through him like Metamucil, and he's losing muscle mass.
Because I'd rather use a drug found to be 75-83% effective at treating my disease than die while waiting for someone to come up with one that's 99.9% effective.
The problem becomes when you're treating a non-life threatening ailment with a drug that turns out to:
1) Not help at all, ever. 2) Has other, life-threatening side-effects.
I don't see how "soylent" is superior to any of the other meal-replacements we've had for the past half-century. In fact, with all the problems people have had adjusting to the soylent diet, it sounds like the old ones were vastly superior.
I've known people who have survived entirely off of items like reliable old Nutrament, after surgical procedures made it too difficult for them to eat *any* solid foods for weeks... I've seen nurses preparing some generic forms of Carnation Instant Breakfast (powder), as meals for their feeble patients. And I've seen kids eating nothing but lots of chocolate milk for days at a time. With none of those do you need to FORCE yourself to consume them, nor do you get gastrointestinal distress after a couple days of use, and you certainly don't waste 1/3rd of the calories you consume.
Of course 30-days is really going to be too short of a time-frame to determine the long-term suitability of any meal-replacement. A little bit of up-front weight-loss sounds like a good thing for a few days, but *months* of losing weight would be a clear sign of a major show-stopping problem with the concoction. The same goes for the nutritional balance, as 30 days without fruits and vegetables won't show obvious medical signs, but would be obvious after months as your whole body turns strange colors...
It seems the only thing Soylent has going for it, is clever marketing and extreme claims, with a name that grabs reporter's attention.
Yes, it says alpha, but I've used it, and I don't believe it's fair in the slightest. They could call the next snapshot "stable" if they were delusional enough, but that wouldn't make it truely reflect the state of the project.
ReactOS is still a mess, that (poorly) supports very little hardware, runs far *FEWER* apps than Wine, and is utterly missing most everything.
If I had much interest in Windows, I would completely change their approach around... I'd start writing kernel patches that would allow Linux to load Windows device drivers. And then I'd write a GUI/front-end that makes a Linux/X11 system look and operate just like a Windows system, with all software running through Wine. That would get them most of the way there, in short order. And if they gain any popularity with their Linux-based Windows work-a-like, then it would drive a LOT of interest in Wine. Then they'd only need Wine improvements to get their OS up to parity with Windows.
Android is a different market altogether. Let's not pretend that it's gonna take over the desktop.
Android devices are already displacing a large number of desktops. There's little difference between a large tablet with a keyboard, and a desktop (or laptop, actually).
With rather full-featured and mature browsers, office suites, printing support, and a vast array of available software, I fully expect Android to continue encroaching on desktop computer usage. There is NOTHING to prevent it from doing so, over time as legacy Windows apps (slowly) die off.
any win64 projects should target Windows 7
And what do you plan to use your open source Windows 7 clone OS for, two decades from now?
There's a small difference in how complex DOS is vs. Windows.
Yes, but FreeDOS also didn't have a project like Wine to start from. And if pre-alpha in two decades sounds good to you, just WHEN do you expect to see a nice, stable ReactOS release? Will we still be able to find 32-bit computers, or will this be after the heat-death of the universe?
Slashdot Mirror
There is extremely little variability there, with a few notable exceptions like fiber.
By all means, point me to a reliable scientific source that claims there is a non-insignificant difference in calorie absorption between health adults, in the medium to long-term (not just a quick gut flora adjustment).
No, I'm saying they'd do it in A SECOND if it was worth "BILLIONS" of dollars.
Instead, the FAT licenses are surely quite inexpensive.
I'm sure nothing has changed in the past 50 years, of course...
Previous years have very, very similar figures. Click on the country, and you'll see figures back to 1960.
The US has imposed tariffs on sugar imports, propping up domestic production of sugarcane (Hawaii), sugar beets, and corn. It, however, has NOTHING specifically to do with Cuba, as you claim.
Brazil *IS* the world's largest sugar producer, has been for many years, is very willing to export to the USA, and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CUBA.
No, you're vastly over-complicating things for absolutely no reason. Just start by recording how many calories you consumed before you start dieting. Then, if you want to lose weight, just slowly start to decrease the number of calories you consume. Going to the gym one day, versus not going the next, has a small enough effect to average out without crazy-close monitoring of yourself. It's really not necessary.
There's nothing wrong with sugar. Just comparable to eating a starchy potato. It's just bulk calories.
Didn't bother to read? I listed a full range of ages and health levels. There is no market Soylent can be targeting that doesn't have substantial overlap.
Wow, that's just moronic...
Any kid can take a few measurements, plug them into the function, and get a good calorie range for a given body.
And EVERYTHING you buy has the calorie count right on it, so I have no idea why YOU find it impossible to know.
Yes, but that's just about the only exception, and it's merely a short-term effect.
You're free to provide some evidence for your crazy assertions that go against basically all studies ever done. Otherwise, I'll be sure to ignore you and your trolling, as just one more sucker who fell for somebody's slick, expensive diet scam.
It's well-known that such a severe, sudden dietary restriction will cause such effects, but only in the short-term. More gradual transition is far safer/healthier. And over a longer-term, those effects wear off, as they must. Not to mention much of it is water-weight, not actually fat, so physics need not be defied...
Right... We *ARE* assuming the person is *ALIVE*, and he or she is *EATING* these calories, as opposed to carrying them around as ballast.
Not true. I believe it's been since ICS you've been able to have calculators and several such things side-by-side with the application you're using. And of course there are add-ons that give you full-fledged multi-window support.
Each version of Windows makes a lot of older software incompatible. And the back-catalog doesn't really matter, if you can find suitable replacement apps for Android, and you nearly-always can.
But yes, Windows will always have this minor advantage, but it's really not one that ReactOS shares. And also happens to be one you can get with Wine on Linux/X11 more easily and reliable than on ReactOS.
I would hope so, but that assumes it's bio-available, and not getting flushed out right after he consumes it due to his difficulties digesting it.
That's nonsense. We're only talking about, say <2000kcal/day for an adult. Just try to show *anyone* who has gotten substantially fat on that kind of a diet. Your little imaginary dietary world is just that... imaginary and baseless.
You want a liquid meal replacement that's not sweet?
I have good news! Have you ever heard of this thing called "milk"? Looking at whole milk, 150kcal/8oz means you need about 36 oz of it to replace a meal. More if you're large, less if you'll be doing other snacking and drinking something other than water between "meals". And you can even go overboard, and mix powered milk into your liquid milk... That's the basic component of Carnation Instant Breakfast and similar.
Also, you're free to dilute meal-replacement drinks with water (or milk) if you find them too rich or thick, and you'd be amazed how little you need to go from super-sweet to tasteless. I guarantee you won't even do 2:1. That will reduce aftertaste as well.
I agree about the horrible (after)taste of Ensure, Boost, and other popular products right now, but there are many great-tasting ones, too. Toping my list is Nutrament, esp Vanilla:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0015552FM/
Second would be basic chocolate, strawberry, or vanilla powder, like Ovaltine, Nesquik, but I prefer store brands.
Third would be meal powders like Carnation Instant Breakfast, and all the store brands with the same purpose. Since you mix it yourself, you can mix as much milk and water into it as your taste buds allow.
And I'd dare say none of those have any nasty aftertastes like the non-dairy meal replacement drinks.
" It is only physics in universes where the human body cannot reduce it's work load to use less energy."
Nope. Your body's "at rest" metabolism absolutely dominates. Even a high activity level only BARELY changes the number of calories you need. It takes something on the order of running marathons to significantly change your metabolism. The level of deviation from base metabolism is positively tiny, across a wide range of physical activity levels.
" In fact, you are fooling yourself if you think that different people's bodies don't behave differently with regard to what gets burned vs. what gets stored with the calories they do digest"
This is utter nonsense. There are a few variations, in the form of lactose intolerance and the like, but those are ridiculously obvious. The differences in burning calories versus storing them as fat are not between "people" but between body types. A morbidly obese person who stays on a diet will eventually get the same metabolism and behavior as the skinniest person. If there were these huge differences, they would have shown-up in the endless diestary studies that have been performed. Instead, EVERYONE'S bodies behaveexactly the same to identical diets (eventually). And as I said repeatedly, if you aren't getting enough calories, it is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE for your body to deposit excess fat. You can't build a house out of one sheet of plywood, no matter how much some crazy "diet expoert" has said so, peddeling snakeoilthat's so much more appealing than the boring a difficult calorie constricted diets, that you'll keep coming back, even as you see no lasting results.
1) Car engines are extremely strict devices. Talk about turbines, stirling engines, or many others, and there's no problem changing fuels. Your body, similarly, is more than adaptive enough to digest extremely diverse foods, effectively. Steak and lettuce are about as far apart as you can get.
2) I absolutely *did* address exactly this "output" silliness. Read my previous post again, more carefully.
3) I also addressed this, and it's not relevant to this topic at all. In the more general case, I can say that it's only a small effect that definitely can be overcome with simple thought and will-power. But it is an interesting topic that certainly should get more study.
People who claim there are huge differences in calories from foods are just as guilty of misinformation (I'd say even moreso) as those who over simplify it down to pur calorie counts and will power. And in this case, all the other factors you named are not relevant to the topic, in any case.
Yes, I sure as hell would! There's tons of legacy software out there that still needs a Windows 9x box up and running. Decent (not perfect) Windows 95 compatibility would put ReactOS on parity with something like FreeDOS, which while horribly outdated, still remains imminently useful to a significant subset of the population.
There would be a TON of ancient hardware that would get loaded up with ReactOS. I've got an old 486 laptop lying around here, somewhere, that could use it. Things like netBooks would do well to run a super stripped-down OS with Windows 95 compatibility. Not to mention all the old developers out there, who would be happy to have a job again writing backwards-compatible applications.
Chasing a moving target is a good way to NEVER FINISH ANYTHING, which is the definition of ReactOS. Try to do everything, and in the end you accomplish nothing, which they have, for two decades.
And furthermore, you're forgetting about things like KernelEx, which allow Windows 9x systems to run many programs only compatible with XP (like Firefox these days).
No, it's labeled "alpha". I call it pre-alpha, because that's a much more fair label to attach to it.
"Soylent... the great taste of friends!"
Every order of Soylent comes with a FREE TAPEWORM!
It's pure PHYSICS that if you need a certain number of calories, and if you do not consume enough, you will lose weight.
There are several edge cases, things like fiber that your body can't digest (or lactose if you're in the unlucky few). And there are some that some that will suppress your appetite, versus those that stimulate it. But those DON'T MATTER at allon a strictly calorie controlled diet... that's only affects your un-monitored calorie consumption, or possibly your will-power at sticking to the stringent diet.
Absolutely ZERO doctors or scientists will claim you can maintain a healthy weight without consuming the number of calories the math says you need. If there was ANY WAY to do that, the US Military would be paying HUGE amounts of money to get the secret formula that lets them transport half as much food, halfway across the planet (through war-zones) to feed all those hungry soldiers.
The reverse isn't so strictly true, but honestly, there aren't THAT many examples of foods that don't properly digest (like fiber), or that stimulate your metabolism (like caffeine), and they neither cause HUGE effects, nor can they go unnoticed by the person who constantly running to the toilet, and/or who's sweating through winter and can't get to sleep.
OR... his body is having a hell of a time processing it, it's going through him like Metamucil, and he's losing muscle mass.
The problem becomes when you're treating a non-life threatening ailment with a drug that turns out to:
1) Not help at all, ever.
2) Has other, life-threatening side-effects.
I don't see how "soylent" is superior to any of the other meal-replacements we've had for the past half-century. In fact, with all the problems people have had adjusting to the soylent diet, it sounds like the old ones were vastly superior.
I've known people who have survived entirely off of items like reliable old Nutrament, after surgical procedures made it too difficult for them to eat *any* solid foods for weeks... I've seen nurses preparing some generic forms of Carnation Instant Breakfast (powder), as meals for their feeble patients. And I've seen kids eating nothing but lots of chocolate milk for days at a time. With none of those do you need to FORCE yourself to consume them, nor do you get gastrointestinal distress after a couple days of use, and you certainly don't waste 1/3rd of the calories you consume.
Of course 30-days is really going to be too short of a time-frame to determine the long-term suitability of any meal-replacement. A little bit of up-front weight-loss sounds like a good thing for a few days, but *months* of losing weight would be a clear sign of a major show-stopping problem with the concoction. The same goes for the nutritional balance, as 30 days without fruits and vegetables won't show obvious medical signs, but would be obvious after months as your whole body turns strange colors...
It seems the only thing Soylent has going for it, is clever marketing and extreme claims, with a name that grabs reporter's attention.
Yes, it says alpha, but I've used it, and I don't believe it's fair in the slightest. They could call the next snapshot "stable" if they were delusional enough, but that wouldn't make it truely reflect the state of the project.
ReactOS is still a mess, that (poorly) supports very little hardware, runs far *FEWER* apps than Wine, and is utterly missing most everything.
If I had much interest in Windows, I would completely change their approach around... I'd start writing kernel patches that would allow Linux to load Windows device drivers. And then I'd write a GUI/front-end that makes a Linux/X11 system look and operate just like a Windows system, with all software running through Wine. That would get them most of the way there, in short order. And if they gain any popularity with their Linux-based Windows work-a-like, then it would drive a LOT of interest in Wine. Then they'd only need Wine improvements to get their OS up to parity with Windows.
Android devices are already displacing a large number of desktops. There's little difference between a large tablet with a keyboard, and a desktop (or laptop, actually).
With rather full-featured and mature browsers, office suites, printing support, and a vast array of available software, I fully expect Android to continue encroaching on desktop computer usage. There is NOTHING to prevent it from doing so, over time as legacy Windows apps (slowly) die off.
And what do you plan to use your open source Windows 7 clone OS for, two decades from now?
Yes, but FreeDOS also didn't have a project like Wine to start from. And if pre-alpha in two decades sounds good to you, just WHEN do you expect to see a nice, stable ReactOS release? Will we still be able to find 32-bit computers, or will this be after the heat-death of the universe?