In all seriousness, cutting all the bread out of your diet is a good place to start for health improvement. Beef is ok, but not as your sole source of nutrition. Cheese is problematic, but not because of the fat.
About a week after I eliminated bread from my diet (over 4 years ago now), my hands quit hurting all the time, and the pain has never come back. (See Life Without Bread by Dr. Lutz)
Eliminating bread, potatoes, and sugar from my diet has tremendously boosted my health -- and made it a lot more fun to exercise!
And yes, (fresh, raw) veggies are good for you, and exersize is so good for you that it can even reverse some of the damage done by a high-carb (aka low-fat) diet (which is all that quack Ornish ever actually proved with his 'research').
With all the faddy and medically unproven diets such as Atkins
The 'faddy' and unproven LOW-FAT diets, pushed by quacks like Ornish and McDougal, are a principal cause of obesity worldwide. I have personally lost over 100 lbs on a low-carb, high-fat diet (similar to Atkins), which had the side effects of improving my blood lipids, lowering my blood pressure, eliminating several of the problems caused by previously uncontrolled blood sugar levels, and in general, greatly increasing my overhealth health.
The best part is that I'm not hungry all the goddamned time, like I was on low-fat, so I'm not having any trouble keeping it off these past four years.
Fortunately, despite the hue and cry of the low-fat superstition supporters, research is coming out showing that low-carb (high FAT) diets are a healthy and effective way to lose excess bodyfat and maintain a healthy weight. There is no such evidence supporting low-fat diets (Ornish did manage to prove that exercise was so good for you that it even reverses some of the damage done by his diet, but that's about it). There are several "studies" which show health improvements, but without exception, the health improvements are associated with a reduction in sugar and/or glycemic load of the diet -- although the low-fat idiots don't see the correlation.
As for 'depriving' children of cow's milk, there's another thing that has never been medically shown to be worth anything, and has been implicated in a number of diseases and dietary intolerances. Cow's milk might be ok for baby cows, but it has a nutritional profile substantially different from human milk, and there is no reason to expect it to be good for humans of any age.
As mentioned in the article, one of the researchers is personally following a low-carbohydrate diet after she saw that removing sugar from the worms' diet substantially increased lifespan. She also reported that it was MUCH more tolerable than low-calorie. I can personally vouch for that.
Of course, low-carb is still politically incorrect. Quacks like Ornish and McDougal still rule the so-called 'medical' establishment, although some actual research seems to be surfacing in support of low-carb despite the efforts of low-fat supporters trying to dismiss it (or shout it down -- after all "everybody knows" that fat is evil, right?). Interestingly, I have been unable to find any study in which reduction of sugar and starch in the diet did NOT lead to substantial health improvements -- and I have looked hard.
I personally have lost more than 110 lbs on a luxurious high-fat, low-carb diet (after years of torturing myself with low-fat!). Low-carb also reduced my blood pressure, cured my 'arthritis', controlled my blood sugar, and improved my blood lipids, among other pleasant side effects (like the absence of constant gnawing hunger). Now that I am substantially healthier, the possibility that it might significantly extend my lifespan is even more appealing.
Of course, low-carb won't prevent accidental death, nor will it cure or prevent every disease (which low-fat supporters use to attack the notion, ignoring that the same is true of low-fat).
As for losing the 'nads, I'm past the age when I do my thinking with them, so losing them might be a reasonable tradeoff for a longer and healthier life. There really are other things in life besides sex, and I don't want any more offspring. Plus, losing the gonads does NOT necessarily mean the end of a satisfying sex life.
I could not get to http://kahanetzadak.com/; got an error 403:Forbidden. I did, however, manage to get to http://kahane.net/, where I found the following prose:
---- http://kahane.net/ -----
You are probably here because you recently read a story about how the Treasury Department added "kahane.net" to a list of terrorist organizations.
If you know anything about internet domain names (the addresses used to find things, like the address "kahane.net"), then you know that these things aren't permanent - if people don't pay their renewal fee for the domain name, then the name drops and becomes available for registration by anyone else.
So, what is the story with "kahane.net"?
Well, as you may know there are some Israeli extremists who admire the late nutcase, Rabbi Meir Kahane. Rabbi Kahane's goal in life was apparently to prove that terrorism is an equal opportunity occupation. A brief biography can be found at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Kahane.
If you run a search on Google for references to "kahane.net", you will see that prior to about two years ago, it looks as if the domain name "kahane.net" was being used by his nutcase supporters.
If you look at the current registration data for "kahane.net", you will notice a "created" date of April 27, 2002.
If you have a clue about internet domain names, then what happened should be immediately obvious to you, once you put those two observations together - The Kach idiots were using the domain name at some time prior to the current registration date. If you don't have a clue, then you have to be told explicitly that they didn't renew their domain name registration. So, the domain name dropped and was picked up by one of the many folks who like to pick up expired domain names.
This is the same thing that happened to taliban.com.
The REAL Kahane folks can be found at another website, but I would rather not send them the traffic.
I would, however, like to sell you a book about internet domain names. So if all of this domain name stuff sounds fascinating to you, then click on the link below:
---- end of http://kahane.net/ ----
No other mention of who now owns the url, or why, but it looks like some enterprising geek realized that the url was going to be slashdotted, and it was an excellent opportunity to post an Amazon affiliate link (BTW, the affiliate has the domain name "Taliban").
Not all selection is for survival advantage. A trait that is merely associated, either directly or accidentally, with some other advantageous trait, may end up selected merely because it doesn't cause a relative disadvantage prior to reproduction. Examples: the human bowel appendix, the need for sleep, the tailbone, and the lower part of the earlobe. If any of these have some survival advantage, it is not really immediately obvious to the casual observer. Some traits (such as the need for sleep) are the subject of substantial scientific controversy. Others appear to be things that once had some useful function, and just haven't been selected out (yet?). Likewise with many other traits which may or may not have had some advantage at one time.
On the other end of the spectrum are seriously negative traits that haven't (yet?) caused our entire genome to be selected out. Example: Inability to synthesize ascorbic acid (and some other vitamins), certain amino acids, and certain fatty acids.
So a particular trait can (appear to) be a negative, and still not be selected out, or maybe we just don't understand what the survival value is (yet?). So a larger-than-needed brain might have been only accidentally associated with some other trait that did enhance survival.
Plus, it is not totally obvious whether a particular trait is advantageous -- our mental capacity could possibly be the ultimate cause of our demise.
You would look a lot less foolish if you didn't make public pronouncements on a topic which you don't understand and with which you have no experience. I could take apart your diet 'advice' point by point, but I'll be brief -- the only point you came even close on was exercise.
come back 20 years later and see whether you are net more healthy or less healthy than someone on another diet (e.g. Ornish).
All Ornish 'proved' was that exersize is so good for you that it even reverses some of the damage done to your body by a very-low-fat diet. Read his 'studies', and you will learn that he had a very loose grasp of scientific method.
So far, I have yet to locate any research in which carbohydrate was reduced, and there were no health improvements, even in 'studies' where the health improvements were assumed to be from some other cause (I posted an example elsewhere in this thread).
So far, I have yet to locate any research that demonstrated any problems with a high-fat diet that could not be directly attributed to excessive carbohydrate consumption, or excessive trans-fat consumption, or both. My own experience confirms that. 4 years into low-carb/high-fat, and my blood lipids and blood pressure are much better than they were when I started -- and continue to improve. Not to mention that my bg is now constant around 90. Or that the pain in my hands never came back.
OTOH, there is no evidence that a long-term low-fat diet is healthy, and a substantial body of evidence that it is not.
cavemen would NOT be eating so much meat...
Next time you are in the wilderness with only a rock and a sharp stick, and no other technology, be sure to make a list of all the high-carb goodies that are available. Better yet, look up the research of Dr. Loren Cordain before you venture out. The paleo diet was almost all meat, eggs, and insects, with a bit of seasonal fruits (and paleo fruits did not have several generations of selective cultivation for high sugar content). In fact paleo humans were responsible for some large-scale mammalian extinctions, which in turn lead to the agricultural 'revolution' and the subsequent shortening of the maximum lifespan.
I've had some experience with low-carb diets as well, and their effect can be quite remarkable. The key is to find a balance which you can sustain for the long term...
I have found my balance. Been on low-carb for a little over 4 years now, and don't intend to stop, ever. Pretty simple and easy to remember: No sugar, no bread, no potatoes. No processed foods containing sugar, grains, or starch. Fairly easy to follow, too, especially after the pain in my hands suddenly and completely left me... That only leaves, let's see, several dozen different vegetables, several dozen meats, and a few dozen relatively low-carb fruits. Oh, and nuts. Love those nuts. And don't forget the butter, cheese, and cream! Interestingly, my diet is substantially more varied than the SAD. Especially since a principal criticism of the diet is lack of variety.
I've got this really fabulous recipe for pizza (no crust)... Did you know that using heavy whipping cream in your coffee (instead of that non-dairy whitening crap) renders it a completely different beverage (yum!)? Until I got tired of them, I had 'waffles' for breakfast nearly every morning. Today, I had ribeye steak and eggs instead. Yesterday, it was tuna salad and cantaloupe.
I find it amusing that the same people who criticize low-carb as having "lack of variety" eat the same damned thing for breakfast nearly every day of their lives... And the SAD consists of roughly 15 menu items, period. I have had more than 15 different foods in the last 3 days.
I have also found a number of restaurants that will cater to my low-carb preferences, so eating out is not a problem. OTOH, there are a number of places I don't bother with -- such as barbeque joints that put sugar into absolutely everything on the menu, and chinese all-you-can-eats that put cornstarch into everything on the buffet.
I find it too difficult to avoid high carb foods altogether, as they are *everywhere*, so I find that this is a good method to keep the pounds off without going having any crazy limitations on what I can eat...
I have no trouble avoiding sugars and starches in my diet, because the negative effects they have on me are very pronounced. I don't feel particularly deprived, because I am no longer hungry all the damned time, which makes what looks to everyone else like 'willpower' very easy. The problem of 24/7 nonstop disinformation is handled by not watching TV commercials and ignoring the well-meaning fools who solemnly 'inform' me that my kidneys are going to fall out.
Oh, and I located a doctor who actually listens to me, and is low-carb friendly, so I have that base covered, too.
BTW, my favorite author on the subject is Ray Audette. For those of you already familiar with his writing, no, I don't follow the paleo diet, for 2 reasons. First of all, I like dairy products (and coffee) too much to completely give them up, and secondly, the paleo diet just isn't really available anyway, so the best you can do is approximate it.
How about a tax on foods of which more than 50% of the caloric content is provided by carbohydrates and sugars?
Ah, somebody who actually understands the primary cause of obesity. Problem is, the lawmakers in question don't, and they are just following the popular low-fat superstition, proposed and preached mainly by diet-guru-wannabes with MDs, some of whom have discovered one or two things that actually appear to work, and immediately concluded that they have all of the answers. Some of them (notably Ornish) either didn't understand the question, or answered the wrong one.
I would like to point out some interesting facts:
1) I have personally lost over 100 lbs on a high-fat diet (around 55% calories from fat at this point), and kept it off for 3 years now. In addition to the weight loss, I experienced several other major health improvements, most of which occurred within a few weeks of the time I started restricting the sugar and starch in my diet, and long before I actually lost a substantial amount of weight. I initially gained most of the excess weight following a low-fat diet.
2) I have personally surveyed several hundred 'studies', and have found that most, if not all, 'studies' in nutrition have essentially nothing to do with science. They appear to follow the general pattern of a) form a conclusion, b) do some 'research', c) toss out any data that doesn't reinforce the conclusion, d) get the 'research' reviewed by other folks that have already accepted the conclusion, and e) get published in some mutual-admiration-society journal. Even if some of the data in part c is included, the conclusion is published intact, and most MDs will read only the abstract anyway, and will never realize that the data either does not support, or may even contradict, the conclusion.
3) All of the evidence that I have found (anecdotal and otherwise) indicates that one of the most important keys to a long and healthy life (other than safety items like wearing your seatbelt and not operating heavy machinery under the influence of mood-altering drugs) is to reduce the body's need for insulin. There are three (approximately equally important) factors involved, namely, diet, sleep, and exercise.
4) So far, I have not been able to locate any 'study' where carbohydrate consumption was reduced which did not result in multiple health improvements, even in those 'studies' where the resulting health improvements were attributed to other causes. My favorite example of a study falling into the latter category can be found here. BTW, I read this study when it first came out, and the phrase "and sugar" was added to the abstract only after the 'researchers' got some rather nasty public feedback concerning the fact that they had not proven their case (both of the 'researchers' involved in this circus are so-called "ethical vegetarians", which only shows that being an "ethical vegetarian" is a serious impediment to doing real science). Note that the title was not changed.
5) Since the nanny-state not only has no clue whatever about what constitutes a good diet, but also is not really concerned with my health, I strongly prefer that they quit trying to tell me what I should eat. That is not a legitimate function of government. I have already conclusively demonstrated that I can do a better job of maintaining my health than they can, anyway.
Since you didn't bother to read the original post, you might take some time to go back and do that. Go ahead, I'll wait......Now, then. If you are using a digital camera to DOCUMENT ACCIDENTS, there might be a legal problem similar to what I face in doing ID photos for concealed handgun permits.
I'm sure that if you think about it long enough, you'll eventually "get it".
The photos are for putting on the CHL card, similar to a driver's license. The state doesn't allow me to use a digital camera, even though that's what they use for the driver's license.
I would love to use a digital camera for my Concealed Handgun Class photos, but the State of Texas will *not* allow digital photos for legal reasons. That's because a digital photo can be undetectably altered too easily. The same thing might apply to your situation.
Newspapers charge the ultimate consumer barely enough to cover distribution cost, if that much; the majority of revenue is for advertising.
There are a number of 'news'papers that you can pick up on the way out of the grocery store for free. They not only make all of their revenue from ads, their ad rates are typically lower than the larger papers that charge for subscriptions, and are usually better targeted. That's why I run most of my own advertising in the small specialized local papers.
I sell insurance, primarily to the over-65 market, but I also sell some insurance alternatives. It isn't worthwhile to me to market outside of the area I can easily reach by automobile. Therefore, the local, specialized papers not only save me money on ad costs, but give better returns. There are 10 different freebie publications that cater to the senior market in the Dallas area, and I could place ads in all 10 of them for less than the comparable ad in the Dallas Morning News.
There is a book that I read lately, The 11 Immutable Laws of Internet Branding, by by Al & Laura Ries, that goes into this phenomenon and others in a general sort of way. I listened to the audio book, and I found it to be very informative. I'm planning to put my copy of the audio book up on eBay (actually, my wife will be doing the listing) in the next week or so, in case anybody is interested.
The anti-low-carb idiots want to have it both ways; out of one side of their mouths, they criticized Atkins for not funding studies, and then when he did, out of the other side of their mouths, they criticized him for funding studies. Either way, it's insulting.
Your insult notwithstanding, here's a article summarizing the so-called 'medical' profession's confusion over low-carb.
The simple explanation, of course, is that the dominant religious beliefs in nutrition are in error.
Here's several more. I had to delete the conclusions and data to get around the lameness filter, so you'll have to learn how to look these up yourself if you want more information.
Reference: Sharman, M.J., Kraemer, W.J., Love, D.M., et al., "A Ketogenic Diet Favorably Affects Serum Biomarkers for Cardiovascular Disease in Normal-Weight Men," Journal of Nutrition, 132(7), 2002, pages 1879-1885.
Reference: Johnston, C.S., Day, C.S., Swan, P.D., "Postprandial Thermogenesis is Increased 100% on a High-Protein, Low-Fat Diet Versus a High-Carbohydrate, Low-Fat Diet in Healthy, Young Women," Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 2002, 21(1), pages 55-61.
Reference: Layman D.K., Boileau, R.A., Erickson, D.J., et al., "A Reduced Ratio of Dietary Carbohydrate to Protein Improves Body Composition and Blood Lipid Profiles During Weight Loss in Adult Women," The Journal of Nutrition, 133(2), 2003, pages 411-417.
Reference: Stern, L., Iqbal, N., Chiceno, K., et al., "The V.A. Low Carbohydrate Intervention Diet (VALID) Study," Journal of General Internal Medicine, 17(S1), 2002, pages147-148. (abstract #51080)
Reference: Shiue, H., Sather, C., Layman, D., "Reduced Carbohydrate/Protein Ratio Enhances Metabolic Changes Associated With Weight Loss Diet," FASEB, 15(4), 2001, page 301.
Reference: Reaven, G., "Syndrome X," Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine, 3(4), 2001, pages 323-332.
Reference: Borugian, M.J., Sheps, S.B., Whittemore, A.S., et al., "Carbohydrates and Colorectal Cancer Risk Among Chinese in North America," Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 2002, 11(2), pages 187-93.
Reference: Engelhart, M. J., Geerlings, M. I., Ruitenberg, A., et al., "Diet and Risk of Dementia: Does Fat Matter?: The Rotterdam Study," Neurology, 59(12), 2002, pages 1915-1921.
Reference: Hannan, M.T., Tucker K.L., Dawson-Hughes, B., et al., "Effect of Dietary Protein on Bone Loss in Elderly Men and Women: The Framingham Osteoporosis Study," Journal of Bone Mineral Research, 15(12), 2000, pages 2504-2512.
Reference: Bellomo, R., Seacombe, J., Daskalakis, M., et al., "A Prospective Comparative Study of Moderate Versus High Protein Intake for Critically Ill Patients With Acute Renal Failure," Renal Failure, 19(1), 1997, pages 111-120.
That should be enough for now. If you want more, do a google search for "adiposity 101".
You can look up the ones dealing with long-term use of extremely low-carb diets on children for epilepsy yourself, provided you can figure out how to use MEDLINE.
Now it's your turn: Please cite ONE study that reduces the amount of dietary carbohydrate WITHOUT producing any health benefits.
The meta-analysis in this case completely ignored published studies that showed:
1) Ketogenic diets have been shown to be safe in young children for periods exceeding 3 years. These include ketogenic diets with carb levels much lower than those advocated by Dr. Atkins. These studies span a period of over 6 decades, and were concerning treatment of epilepsy.
2) Low-carb diets have been shown to reduce all currently known indicators of heart disease and stroke, after an initial period of approximately 4 weeks (a period in which any weight-loss diet will raise blood lipids). All of the studies that show worsening of blood lipids on low-carb are very short-term studies, which (since the short-term effect of any weight-loss diet is well known) is a sign of intellectual dishonesty.
3) Low-carb diets have been shown to result in greater weight loss with less lean tissue loss than low-fat diets with equal calorie intake.
These studies are actually fairly numerous; just less-frequently cited due to their contradiction of the established low-fat dogma.
The studies chosen for this "meta-study" were carefully selected to agreed with the conclusion that the 'researchers' had already decided upon, typical of 'research' in nutrition.
I have personally been on a low-carb diet (less than 30g/day) for over 3 years. In addition to losing over 100 lbs, my health still contrinues to improve, sometimes in surprizing ways.
Interesting that this discussion comes in the same week that Dr. Atkins is very likely to die of a head injury. I'm waiting for the JAMA article blaming that slip on an icy sidewalk on his low-carb diet.
There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants older than age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or for diets of 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates. Among the published studies, participant weight loss while using low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with decreased caloric intake...
A more realistic and reasonable conclusion: Aggregating data from artfully-chosen original research and running it through a 'statistical' analysis provides insufficient basis to conclude anything about anything other than the bias of the 'researchers'.
This is the equivalent of a high school science fair project being treated as if it was actual research.
Seven 'researchers' "identify 2609 potentially relevant" articles (i.e., a MEDLINE search for "low-carbohydrate") and then reduce them to 107 articles by reading the abstracts, carefully avoiding anything that contradicts any currently-held beliefs... As I have mentioned here before, 'research' on nutrition resembles religion far more closely than it does science.
Publishing this article is the equivalent of publishing a google search, except that if it had been written by non-doctors, it would not have even been considered. If you doubt that, ask Dr. Richard Bernstein about his experience with JAMA.
Re:...Somebody who has never worked as a contracto
on
Microsoft Caste System
·
· Score: 1
Not disputing any of that. I was objecting to claim that contractors had guaranteed hours. Been there, done that, didn't get any guarantees.
The major difference between contractor and 'perm' is that the contractor is aware that his assignment can go away without warning. The 'perm' assignment can go away without warning, too, but the typical 'perm' labors under the delusion of permanence. I never use the word 'perm' anyway -- it's 'direct'. All jobs are temporary.
...Somebody who has never worked as a contractor
on
Microsoft Caste System
·
· Score: 5, Informative
They also are a bit more secure as they have a signed contract for X hours, which is legally actionable if not met...
You have just demonstrated that you have never actually been a contractor. Nobody who has ever worked as a contractor would make such a statement.
Contractors are generally hired to stabilize the work force, so that perms don't have to be hired or fired as often. I have spent more than half of my career as a contractor, and I have never had a contract with a guaranteed number of hours.
Also, the times that I have been dismissed early from a contract have usually been with no warning at all, due to the action of someone who has never met me and has no idea of what I do. It is typical in a really large defense contractor that the 3rd VP in charge of left-handed paperclips will wake up one morning and discover that there are (*gasp*) contractors in his organization, and issue an edict to get rid of all of them. About 6 months later, when it becomes obvious that the work isn't getting done, the lower-level managers start bringing them in again.
And then there are some employers that want their cake and eat it, too, like (a now-defunct telecom company)-- they fired me after less than 2 weeks because I wouldn't work unpaid overtime as a contractor. The amount of 'warning' I got was that my badge stopped working, and I had to threaten to call the police to get my personal items back from my (former) desk. I knew then that they were in deep trouble, and they have since been in the news, featured for being caught doing some creative accounting. Shortly after my experience, I discovered that I had been the 4th contractor in that position in less than 3 months.
Since that experience, I have been more careful about what companies I contract with, and I have 'fired' more than one of my clients at the first sign of dishonesty -- also without notice. The door swings both ways.
Word to the wise: A company that screws its employees (including contractors), its vendors, or its customers will eventually screw all three -- plus its investors. It's part of a general mindset in which the folks running the company think it's ok to screw people.
Music is a problem for me. Since I was once a musician, I have trouble with music because it engages too much of my attention -- even Musak is bothersome in that way. But I would add some other things to that list --
Workspace that isn't too hot
Workspace that isn't too cold
I've had problems with both of these. The worst was the too cold, because my hands hurt so bad I couldn't use the keyboard. The manglement would not make any effort to fix the problem, so I quit (I'm guessing they wanted to be rid of me anyway, since I was getting "overqualified", and they had recently remarked in my hearing that their group health insurance rates were going up & they needed to find a way to put a lid on the increases).
Too hot was easier to deal with. I just got a really noisy box fan and put it on the cubicle wall, and took my shirt off. For some reason, that also took care of some of the interruption problems...
I had a problem with my management along those lines. I started getting up and making a tally mark on the whiteboard in my cubicle every time I got interrupted. About the fourth time my manager came in and saw me do that, he asked me what the marks were for, and I explained to him that he could multiply the number of marks by 15 to get the amount of productive time I lost due to interruptions since I arrived at work that morning. Turned out that the number was roughly equal to the time I had been at work that day. I had a copy of "Flow" with me, and I loaned it to him.
He actually got the message. Not only did he quit bugging me, but he actually started running interference for me. Unfortunately, I haven't had many managers who were that bright.
Whenever I get one of these pitches, I generally respond with, "If you think it needs that kind of warranty, maybe I shouldn't buy it to begin with. You think maybe I should just put it back?"
Predictably, the article spent some time covering calorie restriction as one of the few ways thought to significantly extend lifespan.
Calorie restriction has one BIG drawback: You are hungry all the damned time. You can ignore hunger for a while, but it never lets up. Without the imposition of some external discipline, you will eventually cave.
There is a possible alternative: Carbohydrate restriction. Carb restriction has nearly all of the effects of calorie restriction, without the gnawing hunger. From my own readings, and my own experience with low-carb diet, I have come to the following conclusion: One of the most important keys to living a long, healthy life is reducing the amount of insulin required by the body. (Of course, you need to avoid other causes of premature death, such as failure to wear seat belts, or being in certain areas of town after dark.)
It is not really clear whether insulin itself is the culprit, or blood sugar, or both, or some interaction of those things with other factors. But the evidence is quite clear, and growing. I have yet to see a nutritional study in which either the amount of carbohydrate or the glycemic load of the diet has been reduced without causing some improvement in health (although such improvements are usually attributed to some other factor, because of an almost universal bias on the part of nutritional researchers).
There may be some other things you can do to reduce insulin requirements, but the 3 most important seem to be:
1) Carbohydrate (easy) or calorie (hard) restriction. 2) Adequate and regular sleep. 3) Load-bearing exercise.
As near as I can tell, these three items are roughly equally important, as least according to the measurements I have available for my own responses to these factors. Of course, that's not all there is to it; in addition to restricting carbs, you need to limit or eliminate things like trans-fats. In addition to weight training, you should probably do some aerobics. As for sleep, well, that may be the hardest part for the caffeine-addicted geek.
GNR's Claims invalid - RE: [registrars] GNR/Person
on
.NAME at a Crossroads
·
· Score: 1
There was a reply to the letter mentioned in the lead story, which outlines many good reasons for the failure of.NAME, including the main one that prevented me from getting a.NAME account: cost.
I looked at the sales site that Global Name Registry Ltd started to try to sell.NAME, and it has basically the same problem (they want $20/yr for a.NAME registration), so I can only conclude that they are not listening. I predict they will fail. Whether or not they make it, I'm not spending $20/yr for a.NAME.
Slashdot Mirror
In all seriousness, cutting all the bread out of your diet is a good place to start for health improvement. Beef is ok, but not as your sole source of nutrition. Cheese is problematic, but not because of the fat.
About a week after I eliminated bread from my diet (over 4 years ago now), my hands quit hurting all the time, and the pain has never come back. (See Life Without Bread by Dr. Lutz)
Eliminating bread, potatoes, and sugar from my diet has tremendously boosted my health -- and made it a lot more fun to exercise!
And yes, (fresh, raw) veggies are good for you, and exersize is so good for you that it can even reverse some of the damage done by a high-carb (aka low-fat) diet (which is all that quack Ornish ever actually proved with his 'research').
With all the faddy and medically unproven diets such as Atkins
The 'faddy' and unproven LOW-FAT diets, pushed by quacks like Ornish and McDougal, are a principal cause of obesity worldwide. I have personally lost over 100 lbs on a low-carb, high-fat diet (similar to Atkins), which had the side effects of improving my blood lipids, lowering my blood pressure, eliminating several of the problems caused by previously uncontrolled blood sugar levels, and in general, greatly increasing my overhealth health.
The best part is that I'm not hungry all the goddamned time, like I was on low-fat, so I'm not having any trouble keeping it off these past four years.
Fortunately, despite the hue and cry of the low-fat superstition supporters, research is coming out showing that low-carb (high FAT) diets are a healthy and effective way to lose excess bodyfat and maintain a healthy weight. There is no such evidence supporting low-fat diets (Ornish did manage to prove that exercise was so good for you that it even reverses some of the damage done by his diet, but that's about it). There are several "studies" which show health improvements, but without exception, the health improvements are associated with a reduction in sugar and/or glycemic load of the diet -- although the low-fat idiots don't see the correlation.
As for 'depriving' children of cow's milk, there's another thing that has never been medically shown to be worth anything, and has been implicated in a number of diseases and dietary intolerances. Cow's milk might be ok for baby cows, but it has a nutritional profile substantially different from human milk, and there is no reason to expect it to be good for humans of any age.
As mentioned in the article, one of the researchers is personally following a low-carbohydrate diet after she saw that removing sugar from the worms' diet substantially increased lifespan. She also reported that it was MUCH more tolerable than low-calorie. I can personally vouch for that.
Of course, low-carb is still politically incorrect. Quacks like Ornish and McDougal still rule the so-called 'medical' establishment, although some actual research seems to be surfacing in support of low-carb despite the efforts of low-fat supporters trying to dismiss it (or shout it down -- after all "everybody knows" that fat is evil, right?). Interestingly, I have been unable to find any study in which reduction of sugar and starch in the diet did NOT lead to substantial health improvements -- and I have looked hard.
I personally have lost more than 110 lbs on a luxurious high-fat, low-carb diet (after years of torturing myself with low-fat!). Low-carb also reduced my blood pressure, cured my 'arthritis', controlled my blood sugar, and improved my blood lipids, among other pleasant side effects (like the absence of constant gnawing hunger). Now that I am substantially healthier, the possibility that it might significantly extend my lifespan is even more appealing.
Of course, low-carb won't prevent accidental death, nor will it cure or prevent every disease (which low-fat supporters use to attack the notion, ignoring that the same is true of low-fat).
As for losing the 'nads, I'm past the age when I do my thinking with them, so losing them might be a reasonable tradeoff for a longer and healthier life. There really are other things in life besides sex, and I don't want any more offspring. Plus, losing the gonads does NOT necessarily mean the end of a satisfying sex life.
Without freedom *from* religion, there can be no freedom *of* religion.
I could not get to http://kahanetzadak.com/; got an error 403:Forbidden. I did, however, manage to get to http://kahane.net/, where I found the following prose:
---- http://kahane.net/ -----
You are probably here because you recently read a story about how the Treasury Department added "kahane.net" to a list of terrorist organizations.
If you know anything about internet domain names (the addresses used to find things, like the address "kahane.net"), then you know that these things aren't permanent - if people don't pay their renewal fee for the domain name, then the name drops and becomes available for registration by anyone else.
So, what is the story with "kahane.net"?
Well, as you may know there are some Israeli extremists who admire the late nutcase, Rabbi Meir Kahane. Rabbi Kahane's goal in life was apparently to prove that terrorism is an equal opportunity occupation. A brief biography can be found at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Kahane.
If you run a search on Google for references to "kahane.net", you will see that prior to about two years ago, it looks as if the domain name "kahane.net" was being used by his nutcase supporters.
If you look at the current registration data for "kahane.net", you will notice a "created" date of April 27, 2002.
If you have a clue about internet domain names, then what happened should be immediately obvious to you, once you put those two observations together - The Kach idiots were using the domain name at some time prior to the current registration date. If you don't have a clue, then you have to be told explicitly that they didn't renew their domain name registration. So, the domain name dropped and was picked up by one of the many folks who like to pick up expired domain names.
This is the same thing that happened to taliban.com.
The REAL Kahane folks can be found at another website, but I would rather not send them the traffic.
I would, however, like to sell you a book about internet domain names. So if all of this domain name stuff sounds fascinating to you, then click on the link below:
---- end of http://kahane.net/ ----
No other mention of who now owns the url, or why, but it looks like some enterprising geek realized that the url was going to be slashdotted, and it was an excellent opportunity to post an Amazon affiliate link (BTW, the affiliate has the domain name "Taliban").
Damned. Wish I'd thought of that...
Not all selection is for survival advantage. A trait that is merely associated, either directly or accidentally, with some other advantageous trait, may end up selected merely because it doesn't cause a relative disadvantage prior to reproduction. Examples: the human bowel appendix, the need for sleep, the tailbone, and the lower part of the earlobe. If any of these have some survival advantage, it is not really immediately obvious to the casual observer. Some traits (such as the need for sleep) are the subject of substantial scientific controversy. Others appear to be things that once had some useful function, and just haven't been selected out (yet?). Likewise with many other traits which may or may not have had some advantage at one time.
On the other end of the spectrum are seriously negative traits that haven't (yet?) caused our entire genome to be selected out. Example: Inability to synthesize ascorbic acid (and some other vitamins), certain amino acids, and certain fatty acids.
So a particular trait can (appear to) be a negative, and still not be selected out, or maybe we just don't understand what the survival value is (yet?). So a larger-than-needed brain might have been only accidentally associated with some other trait that did enhance survival.
Plus, it is not totally obvious whether a particular trait is advantageous -- our mental capacity could possibly be the ultimate cause of our demise.
You would look a lot less foolish if you didn't make public pronouncements on a topic which you don't understand and with which you have no experience. I could take apart your diet 'advice' point by point, but I'll be brief -- the only point you came even close on was exercise.
come back 20 years later and see whether you are net more healthy or less healthy than someone on another diet (e.g. Ornish).
All Ornish 'proved' was that exersize is so good for you that it even reverses some of the damage done to your body by a very-low-fat diet. Read his 'studies', and you will learn that he had a very loose grasp of scientific method.
So far, I have yet to locate any research in which carbohydrate was reduced, and there were no health improvements, even in 'studies' where the health improvements were assumed to be from some other cause (I posted an example elsewhere in this thread).
So far, I have yet to locate any research that demonstrated any problems with a high-fat diet that could not be directly attributed to excessive carbohydrate consumption, or excessive trans-fat consumption, or both. My own experience confirms that. 4 years into low-carb/high-fat, and my blood lipids and blood pressure are much better than they were when I started -- and continue to improve. Not to mention that my bg is now constant around 90. Or that the pain in my hands never came back.
OTOH, there is no evidence that a long-term low-fat diet is healthy, and a substantial body of evidence that it is not.
cavemen would NOT be eating so much meat...
Next time you are in the wilderness with only a rock and a sharp stick, and no other technology, be sure to make a list of all the high-carb goodies that are available. Better yet, look up the research of Dr. Loren Cordain before you venture out. The paleo diet was almost all meat, eggs, and insects, with a bit of seasonal fruits (and paleo fruits did not have several generations of selective cultivation for high sugar content). In fact paleo humans were responsible for some large-scale mammalian extinctions, which in turn lead to the agricultural 'revolution' and the subsequent shortening of the maximum lifespan.
I've had some experience with low-carb diets as well, and their effect can be quite remarkable. The key is to find a balance which you can sustain for the long term...
I have found my balance. Been on low-carb for a little over 4 years now, and don't intend to stop, ever. Pretty simple and easy to remember: No sugar, no bread, no potatoes. No processed foods containing sugar, grains, or starch. Fairly easy to follow, too, especially after the pain in my hands suddenly and completely left me... That only leaves, let's see, several dozen different vegetables, several dozen meats, and a few dozen relatively low-carb fruits. Oh, and nuts. Love those nuts. And don't forget the butter, cheese, and cream! Interestingly, my diet is substantially more varied than the SAD. Especially since a principal criticism of the diet is lack of variety.
I've got this really fabulous recipe for pizza (no crust)... Did you know that using heavy whipping cream in your coffee (instead of that non-dairy whitening crap) renders it a completely different beverage (yum!)? Until I got tired of them, I had 'waffles' for breakfast nearly every morning. Today, I had ribeye steak and eggs instead. Yesterday, it was tuna salad and cantaloupe.
I find it amusing that the same people who criticize low-carb as having "lack of variety" eat the same damned thing for breakfast nearly every day of their lives... And the SAD consists of roughly 15 menu items, period. I have had more than 15 different foods in the last 3 days.
I have also found a number of restaurants that will cater to my low-carb preferences, so eating out is not a problem. OTOH, there are a number of places I don't bother with -- such as barbeque joints that put sugar into absolutely everything on the menu, and chinese all-you-can-eats that put cornstarch into everything on the buffet.
I find it too difficult to avoid high carb foods altogether, as they are *everywhere*, so I find that this is a good method to keep the pounds off without going having any crazy limitations on what I can eat...
I have no trouble avoiding sugars and starches in my diet, because the negative effects they have on me are very pronounced. I don't feel particularly deprived, because I am no longer hungry all the damned time, which makes what looks to everyone else like 'willpower' very easy. The problem of 24/7 nonstop disinformation is handled by not watching TV commercials and ignoring the well-meaning fools who solemnly 'inform' me that my kidneys are going to fall out.
Oh, and I located a doctor who actually listens to me, and is low-carb friendly, so I have that base covered, too.
BTW, my favorite author on the subject is Ray Audette. For those of you already familiar with his writing, no, I don't follow the paleo diet, for 2 reasons. First of all, I like dairy products (and coffee) too much to completely give them up, and secondly, the paleo diet just isn't really available anyway, so the best you can do is approximate it.
How about a tax on foods of which more than 50% of the caloric content is provided by carbohydrates and sugars?
Ah, somebody who actually understands the primary cause of obesity. Problem is, the lawmakers in question don't, and they are just following the popular low-fat superstition, proposed and preached mainly by diet-guru-wannabes with MDs, some of whom have discovered one or two things that actually appear to work, and immediately concluded that they have all of the answers. Some of them (notably Ornish) either didn't understand the question, or answered the wrong one.
I would like to point out some interesting facts:
1) I have personally lost over 100 lbs on a high-fat diet (around 55% calories from fat at this point), and kept it off for 3 years now. In addition to the weight loss, I experienced several other major health improvements, most of which occurred within a few weeks of the time I started restricting the sugar and starch in my diet, and long before I actually lost a substantial amount of weight. I initially gained most of the excess weight following a low-fat diet.
2) I have personally surveyed several hundred 'studies', and have found that most, if not all, 'studies' in nutrition have essentially nothing to do with science. They appear to follow the general pattern of a) form a conclusion, b) do some 'research', c) toss out any data that doesn't reinforce the conclusion, d) get the 'research' reviewed by other folks that have already accepted the conclusion, and e) get published in some mutual-admiration-society journal. Even if some of the data in part c is included, the conclusion is published intact, and most MDs will read only the abstract anyway, and will never realize that the data either does not support, or may even contradict, the conclusion.
3) All of the evidence that I have found (anecdotal and otherwise) indicates that one of the most important keys to a long and healthy life (other than safety items like wearing your seatbelt and not operating heavy machinery under the influence of mood-altering drugs) is to reduce the body's need for insulin. There are three (approximately equally important) factors involved, namely, diet, sleep, and exercise.
4) So far, I have not been able to locate any 'study' where carbohydrate consumption was reduced which did not result in multiple health improvements, even in those 'studies' where the resulting health improvements were attributed to other causes. My favorite example of a study falling into the latter category can be found here. BTW, I read this study when it first came out, and the phrase "and sugar" was added to the abstract only after the 'researchers' got some rather nasty public feedback concerning the fact that they had not proven their case (both of the 'researchers' involved in this circus are so-called "ethical vegetarians", which only shows that being an "ethical vegetarian" is a serious impediment to doing real science). Note that the title was not changed.
5) Since the nanny-state not only has no clue whatever about what constitutes a good diet, but also is not really concerned with my health, I strongly prefer that they quit trying to tell me what I should eat. That is not a legitimate function of government. I have already conclusively demonstrated that I can do a better job of maintaining my health than they can, anyway.
Since you didn't bother to read the original post, you might take some time to go back and do that. Go ahead, I'll wait... ...Now, then. If you are using a digital camera to DOCUMENT ACCIDENTS, there might be a legal problem similar to what I face in doing ID photos for concealed handgun permits.
I'm sure that if you think about it long enough, you'll eventually "get it".
The photos are for putting on the CHL card, similar to a driver's license. The state doesn't allow me to use a digital camera, even though that's what they use for the driver's license.
Bureaucracies aren't required to make any sense.
I would love to use a digital camera for my Concealed Handgun Class photos, but the State of Texas will *not* allow digital photos for legal reasons. That's because a digital photo can be undetectably altered too easily. The same thing might apply to your situation.
Newspapers charge the ultimate consumer barely enough to cover distribution cost, if that much; the majority of revenue is for advertising.
There are a number of 'news'papers that you can pick up on the way out of the grocery store for free. They not only make all of their revenue from ads, their ad rates are typically lower than the larger papers that charge for subscriptions, and are usually better targeted. That's why I run most of my own advertising in the small specialized local papers.
I sell insurance, primarily to the over-65 market, but I also sell some insurance alternatives. It isn't worthwhile to me to market outside of the area I can easily reach by automobile. Therefore, the local, specialized papers not only save me money on ad costs, but give better returns. There are 10 different freebie publications that cater to the senior market in the Dallas area, and I could place ads in all 10 of them for less than the comparable ad in the Dallas Morning News.
There is a book that I read lately, The 11 Immutable Laws of Internet Branding, by by Al & Laura Ries, that goes into this phenomenon and others in a general sort of way. I listened to the audio book, and I found it to be very informative. I'm planning to put my copy of the audio book up on eBay (actually, my wife will be doing the listing) in the next week or so, in case anybody is interested.
None of your studies even *mention* weight loss.
Didn't actually READ any of them, did you?
The anti-low-carb idiots want to have it both ways; out of one side of their mouths, they criticized Atkins for not funding studies, and then when he did, out of the other side of their mouths, they criticized him for funding studies. Either way, it's insulting.
/ hl sd1223.htm
., et al., "Diet and Risk of Dementia: Does Fat Matter?: The Rotterdam Study," Neurology, 59(12), 2002, pages 1915-1921.
Your insult notwithstanding, here's a article summarizing the so-called 'medical' profession's confusion over low-carb.
http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/pick_02
The simple explanation, of course, is that the dominant religious beliefs in nutrition are in error.
Here's several more. I had to delete the conclusions and data to get around the lameness filter, so you'll have to learn how to look these up yourself if you want more information.
Reference:
Sharman, M.J., Kraemer, W.J., Love, D.M., et al., "A Ketogenic Diet Favorably Affects Serum Biomarkers for Cardiovascular Disease in Normal-Weight Men," Journal of Nutrition, 132(7), 2002, pages 1879-1885.
Reference:
Johnston, C.S., Day, C.S., Swan, P.D., "Postprandial Thermogenesis is Increased 100% on a High-Protein, Low-Fat Diet Versus a High-Carbohydrate, Low-Fat Diet in Healthy, Young Women," Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 2002, 21(1), pages 55-61.
Reference:
Layman D.K., Boileau, R.A., Erickson, D.J., et al., "A Reduced Ratio of Dietary Carbohydrate to Protein Improves Body Composition and Blood Lipid Profiles During Weight Loss in Adult Women," The Journal of Nutrition, 133(2), 2003, pages 411-417.
Reference:
Stern, L., Iqbal, N., Chiceno, K., et al., "The V.A. Low Carbohydrate Intervention Diet (VALID) Study," Journal of General Internal Medicine, 17(S1), 2002, pages147-148. (abstract #51080)
Reference:
Shiue, H., Sather, C., Layman, D., "Reduced Carbohydrate/Protein Ratio Enhances Metabolic Changes Associated With Weight Loss Diet," FASEB, 15(4), 2001, page 301.
Reference:
Reaven, G., "Syndrome X," Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine, 3(4), 2001, pages 323-332.
Reference:
Borugian, M.J., Sheps, S.B., Whittemore, A.S., et al., "Carbohydrates and Colorectal Cancer Risk Among Chinese in North America," Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 2002, 11(2), pages 187-93.
Reference:
Engelhart, M. J., Geerlings, M. I., Ruitenberg, A
Reference:
Hannan, M.T., Tucker K.L., Dawson-Hughes, B., et al., "Effect of Dietary Protein on Bone Loss in Elderly Men and Women: The Framingham Osteoporosis Study," Journal of Bone Mineral Research, 15(12), 2000, pages 2504-2512.
Reference:
Bellomo, R., Seacombe, J., Daskalakis, M., et al., "A Prospective Comparative Study of Moderate Versus High Protein Intake for Critically Ill Patients With Acute Renal Failure," Renal Failure, 19(1), 1997, pages 111-120.
That should be enough for now. If you want more, do a google search for "adiposity 101".
You can look up the ones dealing with long-term use of extremely low-carb diets on children for epilepsy yourself, provided you can figure out how to use MEDLINE.
Now it's your turn: Please cite ONE study that reduces the amount of dietary carbohydrate WITHOUT producing any health benefits.
The meta-analysis in this case completely ignored published studies that showed:
1) Ketogenic diets have been shown to be safe in young children for periods exceeding 3 years. These include ketogenic diets with carb levels much lower than those advocated by Dr. Atkins. These studies span a period of over 6 decades, and were concerning treatment of epilepsy.
2) Low-carb diets have been shown to reduce all currently known indicators of heart disease and stroke, after an initial period of approximately 4 weeks (a period in which any weight-loss diet will raise blood lipids). All of the studies that show worsening of blood lipids on low-carb are very short-term studies, which (since the short-term effect of any weight-loss diet is well known) is a sign of intellectual dishonesty.
3) Low-carb diets have been shown to result in greater weight loss with less lean tissue loss than low-fat diets with equal calorie intake.
These studies are actually fairly numerous; just less-frequently cited due to their contradiction of the established low-fat dogma.
The studies chosen for this "meta-study" were carefully selected to agreed with the conclusion that the 'researchers' had already decided upon, typical of 'research' in nutrition.
I have personally been on a low-carb diet (less than 30g/day) for over 3 years. In addition to losing over 100 lbs, my health still contrinues to improve, sometimes in surprizing ways.
Interesting that this discussion comes in the same week that Dr. Atkins is very likely to die of a head injury. I'm waiting for the JAMA article blaming that slip on an icy sidewalk on his low-carb diet.
There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets, particularly among
participants older than age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or for diets of 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates. Among the published
studies, participant weight loss while using low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with decreased caloric intake...
A more realistic and reasonable conclusion: Aggregating data from artfully-chosen original research and running it through a 'statistical' analysis provides insufficient basis to conclude anything about anything other than the bias of the 'researchers'.
This is the equivalent of a high school science fair project being treated as if it was actual research.
Seven 'researchers' "identify 2609 potentially relevant" articles (i.e., a MEDLINE search for "low-carbohydrate") and then reduce them to 107 articles by reading the abstracts, carefully avoiding anything that contradicts any currently-held beliefs... As I have mentioned here before, 'research' on nutrition resembles religion far more closely than it does science.
Publishing this article is the equivalent of publishing a google search, except that if it had been written by non-doctors, it would not have even been considered. If you doubt that, ask Dr. Richard Bernstein about his experience with JAMA.
Not disputing any of that. I was objecting to claim that contractors had guaranteed hours. Been there, done that, didn't get any guarantees.
The major difference between contractor and 'perm' is that the contractor is aware that his assignment can go away without warning. The 'perm' assignment can go away without warning, too, but the typical 'perm' labors under the delusion of permanence. I never use the word 'perm' anyway -- it's 'direct'. All jobs are temporary.
They also are a bit more secure as they have a signed contract for X hours, which is legally actionable if not met...
You have just demonstrated that you have never actually been a contractor. Nobody who has ever worked as a contractor would make such a statement.
Contractors are generally hired to stabilize the work force, so that perms don't have to be hired or fired as often. I have spent more than half of my career as a contractor, and I have never had a contract with a guaranteed number of hours.
Also, the times that I have been dismissed early from a contract have usually been with no warning at all, due to the action of someone who has never met me and has no idea of what I do. It is typical in a really large defense contractor that the 3rd VP in charge of left-handed paperclips will wake up one morning and discover that there are (*gasp*) contractors in his organization, and issue an edict to get rid of all of them. About 6 months later, when it becomes obvious that the work isn't getting done, the lower-level managers start bringing them in again.
And then there are some employers that want their cake and eat it, too, like (a now-defunct telecom company)-- they fired me after less than 2 weeks because I wouldn't work unpaid overtime as a contractor. The amount of 'warning' I got was that my badge stopped working, and I had to threaten to call the police to get my personal items back from my (former) desk. I knew then that they were in deep trouble, and they have since been in the news, featured for being caught doing some creative accounting. Shortly after my experience, I discovered that I had been the 4th contractor in that position in less than 3 months.
Since that experience, I have been more careful about what companies I contract with, and I have 'fired' more than one of my clients at the first sign of dishonesty -- also without notice. The door swings both ways.
Word to the wise: A company that screws its employees (including contractors), its vendors, or its customers will eventually screw all three -- plus its investors. It's part of a general mindset in which the folks running the company think it's ok to screw people.
I've had problems with both of these. The worst was the too cold, because my hands hurt so bad I couldn't use the keyboard. The manglement would not make any effort to fix the problem, so I quit (I'm guessing they wanted to be rid of me anyway, since I was getting "overqualified", and they had recently remarked in my hearing that their group health insurance rates were going up & they needed to find a way to put a lid on the increases).
Too hot was easier to deal with. I just got a really noisy box fan and put it on the cubicle wall, and took my shirt off. For some reason, that also took care of some of the interruption problems...
I had a problem with my management along those lines. I started getting up and making a tally mark on the whiteboard in my cubicle every time I got interrupted. About the fourth time my manager came in and saw me do that, he asked me what the marks were for, and I explained to him that he could multiply the number of marks by 15 to get the amount of productive time I lost due to interruptions since I arrived at work that morning. Turned out that the number was roughly equal to the time I had been at work that day. I had a copy of "Flow" with me, and I loaned it to him.
He actually got the message. Not only did he quit bugging me, but he actually started running interference for me. Unfortunately, I haven't had many managers who were that bright.
Whenever I get one of these pitches, I generally respond with, "If you think it needs that kind of warranty, maybe I shouldn't buy it to begin with. You think maybe I should just put it back?"
Predictably, the article spent some time covering calorie restriction as one of the few ways thought to significantly extend lifespan.
Calorie restriction has one BIG drawback: You are hungry all the damned time. You can ignore hunger for a while, but it never lets up. Without the imposition of some external discipline, you will eventually cave.
There is a possible alternative: Carbohydrate restriction. Carb restriction has nearly all of the effects of calorie restriction, without the gnawing hunger. From my own readings, and my own experience with low-carb diet, I have come to the following conclusion: One of the most important keys to living a long, healthy life is reducing the amount of insulin required by the body. (Of course, you need to avoid other causes of premature death, such as failure to wear seat belts, or being in certain areas of town after dark.)
It is not really clear whether insulin itself is the culprit, or blood sugar, or both, or some interaction of those things with other factors. But the evidence is quite clear, and growing. I have yet to see a nutritional study in which either the amount of carbohydrate or the glycemic load of the diet has been reduced without causing some improvement in health (although such improvements are usually attributed to some other factor, because of an almost universal bias on the part of nutritional researchers).
There may be some other things you can do to reduce insulin requirements, but the 3 most important seem to be:
1) Carbohydrate (easy) or calorie (hard) restriction.
2) Adequate and regular sleep.
3) Load-bearing exercise.
As near as I can tell, these three items are roughly equally important, as least according to the measurements I have available for my own responses to these factors. Of course, that's not all there is to it; in addition to restricting carbs, you need to limit or eliminate things like trans-fats. In addition to weight training, you should probably do some aerobics. As for sleep, well, that may be the hardest part for the caffeine-addicted geek.
There was a reply to the letter mentioned in the lead story, which outlines many good reasons for the failure of .NAME, including the main one that prevented me from getting a .NAME account: cost.
.NAME, and it has basically the same problem (they want $20/yr for a .NAME registration), so I can only conclude that they are not listening. I predict they will fail. Whether or not they make it, I'm not spending $20/yr for a .NAME.
GNR's Claims invalid
I looked at the sales site that Global Name Registry Ltd started to try to sell