I'm a pretty good cook for a non professional. I aim for the kind of quality we get in 1 star restaurants (not hard with practice, they all publish their recipe books). No startup costs because we ate out about 25% of the time and cooked 75%. My tree-hugging local supermarket isn't very cheap.
Nevertheless it was a surprise that it cost more to cook (about 10% more). We could have shopped at Winco (the nearest non tree-hugging super market) and maybe it would have been cheaper. But it would still have been a wash. I was expecting eating out to be 2X my grocery bill.
We don't eat at fast food places. 1 meal out often means 1 meal out + 2 leftovers, whereas I cook correct proportioned meals. I bet the restaurants don't use ingredients as nice as I use. Some store ingredients are outrageously expensive. Fancy yoghurts for example. Individually they's ok, but family members would buy several.
We kept a spreadsheet, so we know what cost what, but even being careful purchasers it is not such a big difference.
Hormones tell cells whether or not to take in, hang on to or release fats. Diet and exercise influence hormones.
If your hormones are instructing your cells to retain fats, your body will merrily rob your organs of nutrients instead where there's a calorie deficit.
If your feedback mechanisms are screwed, the hormones don't match the conditions and you get fat because your hunger and cell fat retention doesn't match your energy availability. This is the basic structure of metabolic disorder.
This, absolutely this. I believe the number one reason many people choose to disbelieve that energy balance is the primary determinant for weight gain/loss is simply that they don't like the answer it gives them: That to lose weight, you have to eat less food and that this means sometimes feeling hungry.
Magic, pills, voodoo, fad diets, resonant crystals, homeopathy... ANYTHING but having to exercise self-restraint.
What fantasy world do you live in? Less than 5% of Americans "work two jobs", and most of the ones who do don't do it for the money. Americans tend to work a couple of hours more per week than Europeans (not enough to make a difference), but less than Asians (who are less overweight and cook for themselves more). And unprocessed foods are cheaper than processed foods.
We (family of 3) tried not cooking for ourselves for two weeks, then cooking in every night for two weeks. The cooking in cost more, but the food is definitely better self prepared.
>Milk contains saturated fat which has proven negative effects on health
Oh please, keep up.
Saturated fat is exactly the thing that has been demonized, yet hasn't been shown to have negative effects on health. In reality it is the fat that doesn't oxidize and therefore doesn't contribute to atherosclerosis. There are lots of other related facts, but you need to get past your fat-o-phobia before you can move on.
Most GPs aren't scientists. They are basically "meat mechanics". They learn the best practices in their field when they go to school and if they are good they keep up with changes to practices. But they are people too and are still susceptible to falling prey to fads and superstition even if their education provides them some resistance.
My GP has a degree is biochemistry as well, which is awesome, because I can talk nutritional crap at her and she understands and can think.
There is no form of bread that isn't a highly processed foodstuff. It's also a bag-o-carbs, which is exactly what your standard western metabolic disorder victim doesn't need.
In the olden days, I wore an onion on my belt and everything was better.
God damn Slashdot.
See? Here we have a poster who claimed superior performance using a belt-onion—as everyone who knows anything would expect—but failed to give us an explanation of our upgrade options!
Who are the major players in the allicin-rich pants suspension market segment? Have you tried garlic suspenders? Any recent startups coming out of stealth mode with something like leek garters? What's disruptive here?!
Also, that post is worthless without at least an unboxing video.
It's been widely suggested that the '1 glass is good' studies (there were several) were all horribly biased by the differing socioeconomic status of those who drink wine. On the plus side, those studies also fail to show anything bad happening. So if there's an effect, it's so small that it doesn't show up. So don't worry about the wine in moderation.
The most damaging event in modern nutritional science has been the false correlation between fat consumption and heart disease. In 2014 the WSJ published a fascinating article about how that happened: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...
Mary Enig's book Know Your Fats is an excellent place to learn what fats are so you correctly interpret the utter bullshit that people spout about particular fat types.
Vitamin science is rather interesting right now, with lots of new findings coming out. If you can't read or even find the papers directly, Chris Masterjohn's blogs and videos are a great place to get fresh news from someone who is doing the science.
Your liver will make all the sugar you need, at exactly the right blood concentration. Instead we use our pancreas as a blunt instrument to knock it back down when it gets too high.
>Firstly, I don't think that science's position on diet has changed a great deal. Plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables,
Oh yes it has. The plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables is a post war idea. Paleo has worked for many people, but it's hard to say why, because it usually involves changing many variables in your diet.
The organization you seek is Nusi They are funding properly run basic nutritional experiments to put some grounding under nutritional science.
Yes, nutritional science is the stupid butt end of science. It has got everything wrong for decades and the vast majority of nutritional studies are horribly statistically flawed.
But you are at liberty to experiment on yourself. Sign up to a cost effective lab testing service (I use walkinlab.com), get you blood tested regularly (I get it done every 6 weeks) with an NMR test so you get LDL particle size and number (the part that matters) then try a diet that emphasis one of the macronutrients and see what happens over a few months.
The paper linked in my sig is of the results of two people eating an all meat diet for an extended period. Only good things happened. Nutritional orthodoxy would suggest this would kill you. With the occasional exception, I eat an all meat diet. I has fixed my cholesterol and dropped my weight to the leptin limit.
If you struggle with a standard western metabolic disorder, you owe it to yourself to escape nutritional orthodoxy and do some science on yourself to find what works. You are probably carb sensitive and need to eat none of it. But maybe not, that's why you need to test yourself, because unless you have a very enlightened doctor, no one else is going to do it for you.
Your strawman progressive seems to think affirmative action is a good thing. Whatever I am, I see it as a slippery slope at the bottom of which is the sort of nonsense that pushed out eager students to be replaced by less eager students in a given subject.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it's counter intuitive. It was for us too.
I'm a pretty good cook for a non professional. I aim for the kind of quality we get in 1 star restaurants (not hard with practice, they all publish their recipe books). No startup costs because we ate out about 25% of the time and cooked 75%. My tree-hugging local supermarket isn't very cheap.
Nevertheless it was a surprise that it cost more to cook (about 10% more). We could have shopped at Winco (the nearest non tree-hugging super market) and maybe it would have been cheaper. But it would still have been a wash. I was expecting eating out to be 2X my grocery bill.
We don't eat at fast food places. 1 meal out often means 1 meal out + 2 leftovers, whereas I cook correct proportioned meals. I bet the restaurants don't use ingredients as nice as I use. Some store ingredients are outrageously expensive. Fancy yoghurts for example. Individually they's ok, but family members would buy several.
We kept a spreadsheet, so we know what cost what, but even being careful purchasers it is not such a big difference.
The flour is processed from wheat. kneading the dough is processing.
I grew up in Europe and I know how to make very nice bread thank you. The quality of the bread is not at issue. It's the effect of wheat.
No. But the arrow of causation matters.
Hormones tell cells whether or not to take in, hang on to or release fats. Diet and exercise influence hormones.
If your hormones are instructing your cells to retain fats, your body will merrily rob your organs of nutrients instead where there's a calorie deficit.
If your feedback mechanisms are screwed, the hormones don't match the conditions and you get fat because your hunger and cell fat retention doesn't match your energy availability. This is the basic structure of metabolic disorder.
I'm trying to interpret the summary, but I cannot.
They found a 100Hz LCD inside of what? A graphics card? A laptop? The driver?
Yes, pretty much everyone who is paying attention to nutritional science is arguing with that.
Check my sig...
That sucks mightily.
This, absolutely this. I believe the number one reason many people choose to disbelieve that energy balance is the primary determinant for weight gain/loss is simply that they don't like the answer it gives them: That to lose weight, you have to eat less food and that this means sometimes feeling hungry.
Magic, pills, voodoo, fad diets, resonant crystals, homeopathy... ANYTHING but having to exercise self-restraint.
You haven't studied much cell biology have you?
What fantasy world do you live in? Less than 5% of Americans "work two jobs", and most of the ones who do don't do it for the money. Americans tend to work a couple of hours more per week than Europeans (not enough to make a difference), but less than Asians (who are less overweight and cook for themselves more). And unprocessed foods are cheaper than processed foods.
We (family of 3) tried not cooking for ourselves for two weeks, then cooking in every night for two weeks. The cooking in cost more, but the food is definitely better self prepared.
>In other words, the more fat you eat, the skinnier you get?
As long as it's displacing carbs, and you have a carb sensitive disorder, like most fat people in the West, yes.
>Milk contains saturated fat which has proven negative effects on health
Oh please, keep up.
Saturated fat is exactly the thing that has been demonized, yet hasn't been shown to have negative effects on health. In reality it is the fat that doesn't oxidize and therefore doesn't contribute to atherosclerosis. There are lots of other related facts, but you need to get past your fat-o-phobia before you can move on.
>They are unscientific?
Yes.
Most GPs aren't scientists. They are basically "meat mechanics". They learn the best practices in their field when they go to school and if they are good they keep up with changes to practices. But they are people too and are still susceptible to falling prey to fads and superstition even if their education provides them some resistance.
My GP has a degree is biochemistry as well, which is awesome, because I can talk nutritional crap at her and she understands and can think.
There is no form of bread that isn't a highly processed foodstuff. It's also a bag-o-carbs, which is exactly what your standard western metabolic disorder victim doesn't need.
Stop complaining about slashdot.
In the olden days, I wore an onion on my belt and everything was better.
God damn Slashdot.
See? Here we have a poster who claimed superior performance using a belt-onion—as everyone who knows anything would expect—but failed to give us an explanation of our upgrade options!
Who are the major players in the allicin-rich pants suspension market segment? Have you tried garlic suspenders? Any recent startups coming out of stealth mode with something like leek garters? What's disruptive here?!
Also, that post is worthless without at least an unboxing video.
A proper sophisticate would use a belt-shallot.
Keep those pee sticks purple!
People gave me a funny look at work today as I ate the very nice steak I had prepared the night before, sans vegetables.
It's been widely suggested that the '1 glass is good' studies (there were several) were all horribly biased by the differing socioeconomic status of those who drink wine. On the plus side, those studies also fail to show anything bad happening. So if there's an effect, it's so small that it doesn't show up. So don't worry about the wine in moderation.
The most damaging event in modern nutritional science has been the false correlation between fat consumption and heart disease. In 2014 the WSJ published a fascinating article about how that happened:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...
Mary Enig's book Know Your Fats is an excellent place to learn what fats are so you correctly interpret the utter bullshit that people spout about particular fat types.
Vitamin science is rather interesting right now, with lots of new findings coming out.
If you can't read or even find the papers directly, Chris Masterjohn's blogs and videos are a great place to get fresh news from someone who is doing the science.
Your liver will make all the sugar you need, at exactly the right blood concentration. Instead we use our pancreas as a blunt instrument to knock it back down when it gets too high.
>Firstly, I don't think that science's position on diet has changed a great deal. Plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables,
Oh yes it has. The plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables is a post war idea. Paleo has worked for many people, but it's hard to say why, because it usually involves changing many variables in your diet.
The organization you seek is Nusi They are funding properly run basic nutritional experiments to put some grounding under nutritional science.
Yes, nutritional science is the stupid butt end of science. It has got everything wrong for decades and the vast majority of nutritional studies are horribly statistically flawed.
But you are at liberty to experiment on yourself. Sign up to a cost effective lab testing service (I use walkinlab.com), get you blood tested regularly (I get it done every 6 weeks) with an NMR test so you get LDL particle size and number (the part that matters) then try a diet that emphasis one of the macronutrients and see what happens over a few months.
The paper linked in my sig is of the results of two people eating an all meat diet for an extended period. Only good things happened. Nutritional orthodoxy would suggest this would kill you. With the occasional exception, I eat an all meat diet. I has fixed my cholesterol and dropped my weight to the leptin limit.
If you struggle with a standard western metabolic disorder, you owe it to yourself to escape nutritional orthodoxy and do some science on yourself to find what works. You are probably carb sensitive and need to eat none of it. But maybe not, that's why you need to test yourself, because unless you have a very enlightened doctor, no one else is going to do it for you.
Your strawman progressive seems to think affirmative action is a good thing. Whatever I am, I see it as a slippery slope at the bottom of which is the sort of nonsense that pushed out eager students to be replaced by less eager students in a given subject.
Is that why sardines on a plane taste like chicken?
Yes