It ain't about boys or girls. It's about Google picking the kids who will make them appear most "helping" in the photos. Emphasis on appear. As in advertising.
germination speed by 50% is a decrease in germination time by 33%
Except, there is no reported decrease in germination time by 33%.
What they do report is:
In all test groups seeds treated with r.japonicum and r.leguminosarum germinated faster by approx 50% (p<0.001).
and
Based on our extensive experimental results we succeeded in showing statistically that two strains of Rhizobium bacteria can significantly accelerate the rate of crop germination (+40% for r.leguminosarum and 28% for r.japonicum; (p<0.0001).
While showing 13%, 40%, 28% and 23% reduced germination time. So, not "all test groups". Three of which are below your 33%. So, it is not a trend, or median, or average. Making that "approx" a weasel word.
How they got that number? By taking the highest result for r.leguminosarum bacteria and barley (40% reduced germination time) and r.japonicum and oats (28%), adding them up and getting from that the average of 34%. Does that sound like all test groups?
Or closer something to like saying that fertilizer A used on apples increases crop yield by 40%, and fertilizer B used on oranges increases the crop yield by 28%. Which makes ALL FRUIT crop increase by 34% by using both fertilizers A and B. Except it's NOT ALL fruit, NOR is it BOTH fertilizers, but SOME SPECIFIC fruit and SOME SPECIFIC fertilizers and MOST of them significantly LESS than the reported 34%.
That's weasel-wording to hide conflation of results and to get bigger and sexier numbers. After getting their numbers through cherry picking. Throw that outlier of r.leguminosarum bacteria and barley out and the average goes down to 21.3% reduction in germination time. Instead, they threw out to lowest results and then averaged the highest ones.
Which allowed them to take the 26% average reduction of germination time for various combinations of plants and bacteria......or 26.5% for average for barley and 25.5% for oats....or 20.5% for r.japonicum and 31.5% for r.leguminosarum....and misreport it as 34% reduction in germination time for bacteria A and B in ALL cases. Averaging out apples and oranges.
And then present it as much sexier 50% increase in speed across the board. Which is like treating reduction in some prices somewhere as an increase in all paychecks everywhere.
Also, note that they report their p-value as under 0.001 for ALL cases. However, their "optimum concentration" result for barley has a significantly higher p-value of 0.0264. Which they've reported as 0.001 in their graphs by knocking down their n to n=336 and thus reporting it as "1 day less". While all their other reported cases had n=672. That's p-hacking. Adjusting the experiment conditions to match the desired result.
So umm...
you display not only a sour attitude but poor math skills.
But thanks for pointing out that they didn't just misreport by accident - they purposefully cheated.
I'm gonna have issues with confirming my identity when crossing borders or identifying myself with my ID cards for whatever other reason.
My head is about two-three sizes bigger on my ID, my driver's license and on my passport, all of which I took out just before I started working on my weight and shape. Didn't realize how hilarious is the difference until last night. How often do you look at your own photo on your ID, right?
In short... None of the stuff claimed is true and nobody at Google Science Fair apparently read their project report. They won for being cute little girls. Possibly for having a puppy in the presentation for extra cuteness.
I initially wanted to correct myself on numbers above, cause it's just the germination that was up to 50% and Google Science Fair summary DOES state that the results showed "crop germination by up to 50%, and increased barley yields by 74%".
And then I checked the video and their results. Which are both loaded with weasel words, omissions and plain old padding the numbers.
The optimum concentration of r.japonicum for the germination of barley seeds was found to be 2x107CFU/ml (13% reduction; ANOVA p<0.0264). R.leguminosarum had a positive effect on the germination of Barley and reduced germination time by approximately 40% at 25oc (ANOVA p<0.0001). For Oats, an optimum concentration of 4x106 CFU/ml of r.japonicum was observed to be most efficient and resulted in a reduction in germination by 22 hours (28% Reduction; ANOVA p<0.0001). Lower concentrations of r.leguminosarium were most effective on oat germination. A concentration of 16x104 CFU/ml reduced germination times from 86 to 66 hours (23% reduction; Dunnett test p<0.0001).
13%, 40%, 28% and 23% reduction in germination time for various crops. Reported as 50%.
Small Scale Agricultural Tests
R.japonicum was seen to have a positive effect on the length and dry mass of barley crops. (+10.4% length increase:+13% dry mass; p<0.0328), the effect was more notable at higher concentrations.
It was observed that Oats treated with a higher concentration of r.japonicum (4x106 CFU/ml) produced a greater dry mass (p=0.0248) and longer length (p=0.0043) than water treated seeds.
10.4% increase in length for barley. 13% increase in dry mass for barley and "a greater dry mass" for oats in small scale test.
Only problem is... length increase was noted for n=300 plants. Dry mass increase for only n=24. Cherry picking? P-hacking?
You won't find those numbers in the text though. Only in the tiny low resolution graphs.
Large Scale Agricultural Tests
Lower concentrations of r.japonicum (3x109 CFU/ml) with peat as a carrier were the most successful treatments (ANOVA p<.0001) and resulted in an average increase in plant dry mass of 0.284g/5 seedlings (74%).
Spraying the seeds with aqueous culture post planting increased dry mass by a mean of 44% (Dunn p<0.0001)
74% increase (and 44% increase for an alternative method) in dry mass is there BUT... It's dry mass of the entire plant. Roots and all. And this time, without the numbers on the length of the plants. And no information on if there is correlation between the length of the plant and its weight. I.e. Is it barley grain or barley grass?
Cause, as we are not talking about acres but of mass, crop yield of barley is just a fraction of the mass of the plant. So "an average increase in plant dry mass" IS NOT "increased crop yield by an average of 30% with some results exceeding 70%", as stated in the conclusion.
This is just Google throwing money at anything that will make them look good. No proof of results necessary. Just make it LOOK good.
Which gives me a very icky feeling of exploitation. Of children, minorities, certain genders...
2011 - three girls, from USA, two of them racial/ethnic minorities. 2012 - a "Caucasian" girl from USA, three boys from Spain (i.e. Latinos AND foreigners so it's a little more diverse and not all USA) and a
The girls determined that the bacteria could be used to speed up the the germination process of certain crops, like barley and oats, by 50 percent, potentially helping fulfill the rising demand for food worldwide.
It revolves around their discovery that bacteria which occur naturally in the soil can help kick-start the germination of some crops by as much as 50pc.
I've still got about 10 kilos or so that say otherwise. Used to be 20 though.
Then I got picky about HOW MUCH I eat and started eating less of what I like to eat. And what I don't like to eat. Haven't lost the taste for any of it though.
I use to live in a 100+ year old house. The structure was ridiculously over done. 12x12 logs holing up the roof, The bricks were 5 layers deep. In essence it was engineered by someone without strong science knowledge. He just figured more is better
Seems to me that someone engineered it to last 100+ years.
As for bricks... 100+years ago there were no air conditioning devices to keep the heat out in the summer and most heating was done by burning wood or coal inside the house in the winter. Such thick walls would sure come in handy for those circumstances.
That's called knowing WHAT you like, and knowing what you DON'T LIKE. Some might call that wisdom, others might call it experience. Ancient Greeks used to call that "knowing your shit".
Or do you also call anyone who is not outside, in the open space, 24/7 an agoraphobic?
Which can be noted from your conflation of several unrelated issues into a single one, without actual definition of a concrete question or an argument, because conflation is not based on logical reasoning but on a personal foregone conclusion you are working from. Ergo, paragraphs like this, littered with stacked, incomplete, shotgun questions, extended into other questions:
Using the math you just listed, you honestly believe that people maintain this rate of weight gain purely through the difference in consumption vs output? Do Zucker rats become monstrously obese (at the expense of organs and muscle) on a calorie restricted diet because of ??? (Do they lack the willpower to resist food like other rats? and if not, why wouldn't their genetic make up have some corollary to human obesity?)
As you are not setting up theses with those questions (no argumentation following to prove or disprove) those are clearly just inquiries. But, there is no single answer to all these questions, nor is there a way to provide argumentation which would answer them as a whole, as they are unrelated and even incomplete.
Seems to me that you have some personal belief about those rats and the issues regarding calories and obesity in general, which do not correspond to reality. Which is clouding your reasoning regarding those subjects, by providing some kind of a reasoning shortcut known only to you, which allows you to treat those issues as a single, generalized one, while allowing you to ignore the obvious issues of such reasoning.
Like the fact that the Zucker rat argument carries no weight whatsoever as it is both an exception and an ENGINEERED exception to boot. Those rats are tailored by the researchers through gene manipulation TO BE FAT and to be hungry, along with their brothers who are genetically tailored TO BE THIN. On top of that, humans not being genetically manipulable laboratory animals... Zucker rats can't be used even as an analogy.
Which is why all your argumentation boils down to a single "Aaah, you don't get it" line.
Rats are not humans. Rats don't give a fuck about their health or physical fitness. Nor are they great at thinking long term.
As for Zucker rats... Ummm... You do know that they were DESIGNED TO BE LIKE THAT? They are a mutation created for research purposes.
For all intents and purposes - those are not REAL RATS, any more than one could consider pekingese to be wolves.
Calories in/calories out is at best a proxy for what's really going on under the covers (ie, insulin, hormonal reasons)...
...
...but that doesn't mean it's correct.
Correct premise, wrong conclusion.
It IS correct. BUT... It is not the only factor at play. And "obesity" is a generalization. There ARE genetic or health components involved - but not in the entire population. On average though, reducing/limiting intake and/or exercise IS equal to weight loss.
Yes, and if you look at what food items constitute 100 calories, it should become plainly obvious that human beings lack the consistency and precision in choosing food and/or exercise in order to maintain weight like we do.
Sorry, but number of calories in "some food A" is in no way in correlation with "human beings lack(ing) the consistency and precision in choosing food". I'm not really sure what was it you tried to say there.
Also, have you ever heard the phrase "work up an appetite" what do you suppose the body's very first reaction to burning those 100 calories is?
Actually... After spending 100+ calories through exercise... They probably won't be hungry. If anything, they'll be less hungry. IF they have some extra weight. They will be thirsty, though. I only have personal anecdotal evidence for it, sorry, but I do have a theory why it is so regarding hunger.
From fasting for 72 hours with only ~30 calories per day, and from doing 10-15 minutes of light exercise each day (to stave off muscle loss) which would cause, then relieve the sense of hunger. My guess is that I was forcing my body to reach out for those accumulated calories. Getting it to spend those ketones in place of glucose. I did it in order to compare it to just eating less. In short - you gain back the weight lost that way really fast. You do feel "un-bloated" though... Empty bowels and all that.
But regardless of it... It's not about those 100 calories spent. It's only ONCE a week. Who cares about what they eat ONCE A WEEK. It's about raising the BMR by spending those calories ON EXERCISE. You gotta do a LOT of exercise to spend those 100 calories. Keep doing it week after week, and you got muscles which you didn't have couple of weeks ago. You slowly start burning more even just resting. That's it. IF you pay attention how much you eat and don't just stuff yourself, that is.
Again... anecdotal, but I've knocked down my weight from 84-85 kilograms in December to 75 in June by limiting calories and exercising. Since then, I'm exercising less (maybe once or twice a week) and eating on average around 2000 calories (more than before), and I'm slowly moving toward 73-74 kilograms, at the moment being closer to 74-75 mark. Being in my mid-30s it's almost EXACTLY what you would expect from the formula.
Slow, continuous loss of fat through limiting of calories and through light exercise. It can be done faster, but then you end up buying pants more often. Yet another issue that rats never have to face.
At 25 years per generation that's only 80 generations or so. In comparison, rats reach sexual maturity after 5 weeks, gestate for 21 days, and have about 5 litters with 7-14 baby rats per litter.
That's about 6 generations of rats per year. Conservatively. We will "evolve" in 2000 years about as much as rats "evolve" every 13-14 years. Not squeaking much.
On the other hand, it is also optimistic considering how pessimistic people tend to be regarding our survival on this planet at all. Which IMHO has become a ridiculous notion for quite some time now. There's too many of us at too many places at the same time for most things to wipe us out as a species. Many things could fuck us up significantly... say a nuclear war... but we are too dispersed to be completely wiped out by anything that would not wipe out all life on Earth almost instantly.
But people love their antiquated 19th century ideas... After all that's only about 5 generations ago. My parents' grandparents' time. Well... except on my mom's side. She had a grandmother who lived to be 102. Not much room for evolution there. Of genes OR ideas.
But in 2000 years... we'll get some shit done on the ideas front. That we've shown that we are capable of. Unlike rats.
Also why exercise leads to weight loss, since training makes muscle tissue more sensitive to insulin, and fat cells less so. Seriously the amount of calories burned through exercise is laughable.
It is... but it isn't. It adds up. 100+ calories spent through exercise once a week don't seem much on their own... BUT.
It boosts one's BMR. So those 100+ calories spent doing exercise once a week boosts one's daily calorie requirement from those magical 2000 calories to 2290 calories.
And that adds up. 290 * 7 + 100 = 2130 That's about a pound lost (or not gained) in about 12 days. About 30 pounds in a year.
Now, sticking to one's daily calorie requirement and weekly exercise routine... that's another ball game entirely.
From your reply I can only assume that you are deliberately being dense. I.e. You are trolling.
Or, you would not have acted like you haven't realized that when I'm talking about there being 30% more fructose, and then saying that there is 4:3 mix in favor of "sugar for later" - that I'm not talking about sucrose but of fructose as "sugar for later", i.e. FAT. In fact, if you weren't trolling you could NEVER EVEN THINK that I was talking about sucrose, because you apparently acknowledge that you know that sucrose needs to be hydrolyzed into glucose and fructose to be used for energy by the body. I.e. You know what I'm talking about but you still choose to be obtuse.
Which, as I've explained above, comes out to 2 : 1 ratio in consumption of fructose and glucose through HFCS, compared to 1 : 1 ratio when consuming sucrose. Because the human body ends up eating twice as much of fructose when ingesting HFCS than when ingesting sucrose, while trying to raise the glucose in the blood to the same level. I.e. Your brain is hungrier for glucose longer. It wants two spoons of HFCS where a single spoon of sucrose would suffice.
But then again... you are trolling. Or you would not equate cheap HFCS used in Coke and Pepsi with VERY EXPENSIVE insect juice used in practically NOTHING commercially - because it is expensive and not "roundup ready". And it is also not a 55 : 43 mix, nor is it a 50 : 50 mix, but a whole other ball game which includes various antibacterial properties, a different mixture of mono- and polysaccharides and various other stuff which bees dump into their insect juice. Which can be gleaned from the link above.
HFCS is a ~50/50 mix of glucose and fructose. Both of those occur naturally.
That's like saying salted almonds occur naturally.
High Fructose corn syrup is called HIGH fructose because it contains a higher concentration of fructose, not because someone thought it would be cute to be friendly to it. "Hi Fructose!:)" It's a 55 to 42 mix for HFCS55 and 42 to 53 mix for HFCS42.
Guess which one is used in sodas? One that has 30% more fructose than glucose. I.e. 30% more sugar that goes to fat to be used later than the sugar that goes to immediate use and into glycogen for inter-mediate use.
On top of that, fructose which occurs naturally tends to be bound to fiber, i.e. indigestible cellulose. Which fills up your tummy sending the "I'm full" signal to the brain.
Meanwhile, fructose in sucrose is bound to glucose at 50 to 50 mix which must be broken in the body through the use of a(n) enzyme(s). I.e. A catalyst produced by the body as a tool for speeding up and controlling the chemical reaction. By feeding the body a blend of already hydrolyzed sugars, we are letting the chemical process in a factory somewhere predigest our food for us. Sorta like the difference between eating baked bread and eating raw wheat.
So, we end up taking 4 molecules of "sugar for later" with every 3 molecules of "sugar now", instead of 1 molecule of "sugar for later" with every molecule of sugar for immediate use. On top of that, 55-42 mix provides almost a fifth of "sugar now" LESS than sucrose - so to get the same glucose boost, body will take up 19% more of the the 30% enriched mix of "sugar for later". So it ends up being not even 4 to 3 fructose to glucose mix, but a 2 to 1.
I.e. 200% to 100%, with control of absorption of sugars relegated to a factory somewhere (HFCS), instead of a 50% to 50% mix with control being done by the body (sucrose).
Except that's the energy that goes on top of the stack, for immediate consumption, while fructose gets converted to fat which is moved to the end of the queue.
Also, glucose goes as glycogen into muscles, blood, brain... Fructose goes into fat, waiting for you to use up the stored up glucose OR to produce some sperm, which uses fructose. Hmm... Maybe Dr. Shukan Tokuho wasn't completely wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
What? Like the minority ones mentioned above?
It ain't about boys or girls.
It's about Google picking the kids who will make them appear most "helping" in the photos.
Emphasis on appear. As in advertising.
germination speed by 50% is a decrease in germination time by 33%
Except, there is no reported decrease in germination time by 33%.
What they do report is:
and
While showing 13%, 40%, 28% and 23% reduced germination time.
So, not "all test groups".
Three of which are below your 33%. So, it is not a trend, or median, or average. Making that "approx" a weasel word.
How they got that number?
By taking the highest result for r.leguminosarum bacteria and barley (40% reduced germination time) and r.japonicum and oats (28%), adding them up and getting from that the average of 34%.
Does that sound like all test groups?
Or closer something to like saying that fertilizer A used on apples increases crop yield by 40%, and fertilizer B used on oranges increases the crop yield by 28%.
Which makes ALL FRUIT crop increase by 34% by using both fertilizers A and B.
Except it's NOT ALL fruit, NOR is it BOTH fertilizers, but SOME SPECIFIC fruit and SOME SPECIFIC fertilizers and MOST of them significantly LESS than the reported 34%.
That's weasel-wording to hide conflation of results and to get bigger and sexier numbers.
After getting their numbers through cherry picking.
Throw that outlier of r.leguminosarum bacteria and barley out and the average goes down to 21.3% reduction in germination time.
Instead, they threw out to lowest results and then averaged the highest ones.
Which allowed them to take the 26% average reduction of germination time for various combinations of plants and bacteria... ...or 26.5% for average for barley and 25.5% for oats. ...or 20.5% for r.japonicum and 31.5% for r.leguminosarum. ...and misreport it as 34% reduction in germination time for bacteria A and B in ALL cases. Averaging out apples and oranges.
And then present it as much sexier 50% increase in speed across the board.
Which is like treating reduction in some prices somewhere as an increase in all paychecks everywhere.
Also, note that they report their p-value as under 0.001 for ALL cases.
However, their "optimum concentration" result for barley has a significantly higher p-value of 0.0264.
Which they've reported as 0.001 in their graphs by knocking down their n to n=336 and thus reporting it as "1 day less".
While all their other reported cases had n=672.
That's p-hacking. Adjusting the experiment conditions to match the desired result.
So umm...
you display not only a sour attitude but poor math skills.
But thanks for pointing out that they didn't just misreport by accident - they purposefully cheated.
Thanks.
I'm gonna have issues with confirming my identity when crossing borders or identifying myself with my ID cards for whatever other reason.
My head is about two-three sizes bigger on my ID, my driver's license and on my passport, all of which I took out just before I started working on my weight and shape.
Didn't realize how hilarious is the difference until last night. How often do you look at your own photo on your ID, right?
In short...
None of the stuff claimed is true and nobody at Google Science Fair apparently read their project report.
They won for being cute little girls. Possibly for having a puppy in the presentation for extra cuteness.
I initially wanted to correct myself on numbers above, cause it's just the germination that was up to 50% and Google Science Fair summary DOES state that the results showed "crop germination by up to 50%, and increased barley yields by 74%".
And then I checked the video and their results.
Which are both loaded with weasel words, omissions and plain old padding the numbers.
From the project documentation:
https://www.googlesciencefair....
13%, 40%, 28% and 23% reduction in germination time for various crops. Reported as 50%.
10.4% increase in length for barley.
13% increase in dry mass for barley and "a greater dry mass" for oats in small scale test.
Only problem is... length increase was noted for n=300 plants.
Dry mass increase for only n=24. Cherry picking? P-hacking?
You won't find those numbers in the text though. Only in the tiny low resolution graphs.
74% increase (and 44% increase for an alternative method) in dry mass is there BUT...
It's dry mass of the entire plant. Roots and all. And this time, without the numbers on the length of the plants.
And no information on if there is correlation between the length of the plant and its weight.
I.e. Is it barley grain or barley grass?
Cause, as we are not talking about acres but of mass, crop yield of barley is just a fraction of the mass of the plant.
So "an average increase in plant dry mass" IS NOT "increased crop yield by an average of 30% with some results exceeding 70%", as stated in the conclusion.
This is just Google throwing money at anything that will make them look good.
No proof of results necessary. Just make it LOOK good.
Which gives me a very icky feeling of exploitation. Of children, minorities, certain genders...
2011 - three girls, from USA, two of them racial/ethnic minorities.
2012 - a "Caucasian" girl from USA, three boys from Spain (i.e. Latinos AND foreigners so it's a little more diverse and not all USA) and a
Yield is increased up to 50%. As it is stated in the independent link.
NOT 74% as stated by inhabitat, that well known source of unreliable news.
http://googleblog.blogspot.ca/...
The girls determined that the bacteria could be used to speed up the the germination process of certain crops, like barley and oats, by 50 percent, potentially helping fulfill the rising demand for food worldwide.
http://www.independent.ie/busi...
It revolves around their discovery that bacteria which occur naturally in the soil can help kick-start the germination of some crops by as much as 50pc.
I've still got about 10 kilos or so that say otherwise. Used to be 20 though.
Then I got picky about HOW MUCH I eat and started eating less of what I like to eat. And what I don't like to eat.
Haven't lost the taste for any of it though.
I use to live in a 100+ year old house. The structure was ridiculously over done. 12x12 logs holing up the roof, The bricks were 5 layers deep. In essence it was engineered by someone without strong science knowledge. He just figured more is better
Seems to me that someone engineered it to last 100+ years.
As for bricks... 100+years ago there were no air conditioning devices to keep the heat out in the summer and most heating was done by burning wood or coal inside the house in the winter.
Such thick walls would sure come in handy for those circumstances.
"...an agoraphobiAc."
That's called neophobia.
That's called knowing WHAT you like, and knowing what you DON'T LIKE.
Some might call that wisdom, others might call it experience. Ancient Greeks used to call that "knowing your shit".
Or do you also call anyone who is not outside, in the open space, 24/7 an agoraphobic?
I fear that it is the other way round.
Which can be noted from your conflation of several unrelated issues into a single one, without actual definition of a concrete question or an argument, because conflation is not based on logical reasoning but on a personal foregone conclusion you are working from.
Ergo, paragraphs like this, littered with stacked, incomplete, shotgun questions, extended into other questions:
Using the math you just listed, you honestly believe that people maintain this rate of weight gain purely through the difference in consumption vs output? Do Zucker rats become monstrously obese (at the expense of organs and muscle) on a calorie restricted diet because of ??? (Do they lack the willpower to resist food like other rats? and if not, why wouldn't their genetic make up have some corollary to human obesity?)
As you are not setting up theses with those questions (no argumentation following to prove or disprove) those are clearly just inquiries.
But, there is no single answer to all these questions, nor is there a way to provide argumentation which would answer them as a whole, as they are unrelated and even incomplete.
Seems to me that you have some personal belief about those rats and the issues regarding calories and obesity in general, which do not correspond to reality.
Which is clouding your reasoning regarding those subjects, by providing some kind of a reasoning shortcut known only to you, which allows you to treat those issues as a single, generalized one, while allowing you to ignore the obvious issues of such reasoning.
Like the fact that the Zucker rat argument carries no weight whatsoever as it is both an exception and an ENGINEERED exception to boot.
Those rats are tailored by the researchers through gene manipulation TO BE FAT and to be hungry, along with their brothers who are genetically tailored TO BE THIN.
On top of that, humans not being genetically manipulable laboratory animals... Zucker rats can't be used even as an analogy.
Which is why all your argumentation boils down to a single "Aaah, you don't get it" line.
Rats are not humans.
Rats don't give a fuck about their health or physical fitness. Nor are they great at thinking long term.
As for Zucker rats... Ummm... You do know that they were DESIGNED TO BE LIKE THAT?
They are a mutation created for research purposes.
For all intents and purposes - those are not REAL RATS, any more than one could consider pekingese to be wolves.
Calories in/calories out is at best a proxy for what's really going on under the covers (ie, insulin, hormonal reasons)...
Correct premise, wrong conclusion.
It IS correct. BUT... It is not the only factor at play. And "obesity" is a generalization.
There ARE genetic or health components involved - but not in the entire population.
On average though, reducing/limiting intake and/or exercise IS equal to weight loss.
Yes, and if you look at what food items constitute 100 calories, it should become plainly obvious that human beings lack the consistency and precision in choosing food and/or exercise in order to maintain weight like we do.
Sorry, but number of calories in "some food A" is in no way in correlation with "human beings lack(ing) the consistency and precision in choosing food".
I'm not really sure what was it you tried to say there.
Also, have you ever heard the phrase "work up an appetite" what do you suppose the body's very first reaction to burning those 100 calories is?
Ever heard of the phrase "Un bon mot ne prouve rien."?
Actually... After spending 100+ calories through exercise... They probably won't be hungry.
If anything, they'll be less hungry. IF they have some extra weight. They will be thirsty, though.
I only have personal anecdotal evidence for it, sorry, but I do have a theory why it is so regarding hunger.
From fasting for 72 hours with only ~30 calories per day, and from doing 10-15 minutes of light exercise each day (to stave off muscle loss) which would cause, then relieve the sense of hunger.
My guess is that I was forcing my body to reach out for those accumulated calories. Getting it to spend those ketones in place of glucose.
I did it in order to compare it to just eating less. In short - you gain back the weight lost that way really fast.
You do feel "un-bloated" though... Empty bowels and all that.
But regardless of it... It's not about those 100 calories spent. It's only ONCE a week. Who cares about what they eat ONCE A WEEK.
It's about raising the BMR by spending those calories ON EXERCISE.
You gotta do a LOT of exercise to spend those 100 calories. Keep doing it week after week, and you got muscles which you didn't have couple of weeks ago.
You slowly start burning more even just resting. That's it.
IF you pay attention how much you eat and don't just stuff yourself, that is.
Again... anecdotal, but I've knocked down my weight from 84-85 kilograms in December to 75 in June by limiting calories and exercising.
Since then, I'm exercising less (maybe once or twice a week) and eating on average around 2000 calories (more than before), and I'm slowly moving toward 73-74 kilograms, at the moment being closer to 74-75 mark.
Being in my mid-30s it's almost EXACTLY what you would expect from the formula.
Slow, continuous loss of fat through limiting of calories and through light exercise.
It can be done faster, but then you end up buying pants more often.
Yet another issue that rats never have to face.
And it was placed on the front page by the same editor, Soulskill.
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
Considering how long ago 1998 was, I think that it's time to start taking in account things like possible early onset senility of the editors.
Hey Soulskill! Having issues with memory or is it something related to sex in general?
Same study, same slashdot editor, 2 months ago...
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
So, why not just go over there and read the +4 and +5 comments for the last time?
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
in 2000 years or so
At 25 years per generation that's only 80 generations or so.
In comparison, rats reach sexual maturity after 5 weeks, gestate for 21 days, and have about 5 litters with 7-14 baby rats per litter.
That's about 6 generations of rats per year. Conservatively.
We will "evolve" in 2000 years about as much as rats "evolve" every 13-14 years.
Not squeaking much.
On the other hand, it is also optimistic considering how pessimistic people tend to be regarding our survival on this planet at all.
Which IMHO has become a ridiculous notion for quite some time now.
There's too many of us at too many places at the same time for most things to wipe us out as a species.
Many things could fuck us up significantly... say a nuclear war... but we are too dispersed to be completely wiped out by anything that would not wipe out all life on Earth almost instantly.
But people love their antiquated 19th century ideas... After all that's only about 5 generations ago.
My parents' grandparents' time. Well... except on my mom's side.
She had a grandmother who lived to be 102.
Not much room for evolution there. Of genes OR ideas.
But in 2000 years... we'll get some shit done on the ideas front. That we've shown that we are capable of.
Unlike rats.
Also why exercise leads to weight loss, since training makes muscle tissue more sensitive to insulin, and fat cells less so. Seriously the amount of calories burned through exercise is laughable.
It is... but it isn't. It adds up.
100+ calories spent through exercise once a week don't seem much on their own... BUT.
It boosts one's BMR.
So those 100+ calories spent doing exercise once a week boosts one's daily calorie requirement from those magical 2000 calories to 2290 calories.
And that adds up.
290 * 7 + 100 = 2130
That's about a pound lost (or not gained) in about 12 days. About 30 pounds in a year.
Now, sticking to one's daily calorie requirement and weekly exercise routine... that's another ball game entirely.
From your reply I can only assume that you are deliberately being dense.
I.e. You are trolling.
Or, you would not have acted like you haven't realized that when I'm talking about there being 30% more fructose, and then saying that there is 4:3 mix in favor of "sugar for later" - that I'm not talking about sucrose but of fructose as "sugar for later", i.e. FAT.
In fact, if you weren't trolling you could NEVER EVEN THINK that I was talking about sucrose, because you apparently acknowledge that you know that sucrose needs to be hydrolyzed into glucose and fructose to be used for energy by the body.
I.e. You know what I'm talking about but you still choose to be obtuse.
Nor would you spout the 1 : 1 nonsense.
HFCS 55 is a 55 : 42 fructose-glucose mix.
Which, as I've explained above, comes out to 2 : 1 ratio in consumption of fructose and glucose through HFCS, compared to 1 : 1 ratio when consuming sucrose.
Because the human body ends up eating twice as much of fructose when ingesting HFCS than when ingesting sucrose, while trying to raise the glucose in the blood to the same level.
I.e. Your brain is hungrier for glucose longer.
It wants two spoons of HFCS where a single spoon of sucrose would suffice.
But then again... you are trolling.
Or you would not equate cheap HFCS used in Coke and Pepsi with VERY EXPENSIVE insect juice used in practically NOTHING commercially - because it is expensive and not "roundup ready".
And it is also not a 55 : 43 mix, nor is it a 50 : 50 mix, but a whole other ball game which includes various antibacterial properties, a different mixture of mono- and polysaccharides and various other stuff which bees dump into their insect juice.
Which can be gleaned from the link above.
Sure.
But HFCS in Coke or Pepsi is not seasonal fruit.
HFCS is a ~50/50 mix of glucose and fructose. Both of those occur naturally.
That's like saying salted almonds occur naturally.
High Fructose corn syrup is called HIGH fructose because it contains a higher concentration of fructose, not because someone thought it would be cute to be friendly to it. :)"
"Hi Fructose!
It's a 55 to 42 mix for HFCS55 and 42 to 53 mix for HFCS42.
Guess which one is used in sodas? One that has 30% more fructose than glucose.
I.e. 30% more sugar that goes to fat to be used later than the sugar that goes to immediate use and into glycogen for inter-mediate use.
On top of that, fructose which occurs naturally tends to be bound to fiber, i.e. indigestible cellulose.
Which fills up your tummy sending the "I'm full" signal to the brain.
Meanwhile, fructose in sucrose is bound to glucose at 50 to 50 mix which must be broken in the body through the use of a(n) enzyme(s).
I.e. A catalyst produced by the body as a tool for speeding up and controlling the chemical reaction.
By feeding the body a blend of already hydrolyzed sugars, we are letting the chemical process in a factory somewhere predigest our food for us.
Sorta like the difference between eating baked bread and eating raw wheat.
So, we end up taking 4 molecules of "sugar for later" with every 3 molecules of "sugar now", instead of 1 molecule of "sugar for later" with every molecule of sugar for immediate use.
On top of that, 55-42 mix provides almost a fifth of "sugar now" LESS than sucrose - so to get the same glucose boost, body will take up 19% more of the the 30% enriched mix of "sugar for later".
So it ends up being not even 4 to 3 fructose to glucose mix, but a 2 to 1.
I.e. 200% to 100%, with control of absorption of sugars relegated to a factory somewhere (HFCS), instead of a 50% to 50% mix with control being done by the body (sucrose).
Except that's the energy that goes on top of the stack, for immediate consumption, while fructose gets converted to fat which is moved to the end of the queue.
Also, glucose goes as glycogen into muscles, blood, brain...
Fructose goes into fat, waiting for you to use up the stored up glucose OR to produce some sperm, which uses fructose.
Hmm... Maybe Dr. Shukan Tokuho wasn't completely wrong?
If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Also, knocking me down to -1 won't bring you the love of your father or the respect of your superiors which you crave.
If we're talking about porn stars.
I can't be the only person who'd want to watch that firework display.
Yes, it is quite popular to watch that. Or so I hear.
What is that, the thickness of 2 business cards?
Does it have a watermark?
Photos are taken from a wrong angle due to someone holding the phone wrong.
After all... It's the word of Steve. A known benefactor of humanity, through past and future incarnations as an Earth Sprite.
...that they are holding it wrong?
You're still wasting time on this? Good.