When I was an undergraduate, I ran into entire schematics and documents from the 1950s through the 1980s on how to build atomic bombs and devices in our University Library in the engineering section. The documents were most extensive and had everything you needed to know including materials and engineering specifications. The only thing that would have been difficult to obtain was the plutonium or enriched uranium. I checked the documents out and spent a couple of weeks reading through them in a cursory manner, but I would not be surprised if they no longer existed at the library due to "National Security".
My point is that I agree with you in that the technology is pushing 60 years old for the basic principles.
Well, Geoff's unnecessary cock-etry aside, if it's an ongoing debate why did you feel the need to weigh in and correct him, hmmm? Hmmm?
Because people in the know, *know*. And we don't need Hollywood or people shilling for book deals screwing up history for us.
Plus, y'know... the fact that you obviously took the time to go cyberstalking some random poster who called you a cock on the internet.. well... kind of suggests he might be right.
Cyberstalking nothing. He had it linked from his own page which required what? two clicks to find it. Geoff could have simply tried to correct the post, but instead resorted to dropping a lame insult, so why should we expect that would not go unanswered? I tried to be gentle about it and give him a little ribbing, but apparently he is unable to laugh at himself. So, come on now.
Now, the link you posted to John Gabriel's site is funny, so thank you for that, but I am not looking for these folks. I had a bit of time sitting in the airport lounge and responded to a direct post.
Oh, that's even better. And you look like a freakin' genius yourself. crapping your pants much?
Ummmm, dude..... that is not me. It was a random runner in the Salt Lake Marathon.
Do you want to give up this little tirade and stop making assumptions about things you know nothing about? You are only making yourself look worse off. As for the page views, knock yourself out and let me know when you get linked on the main page of Slashdot or BoingBoing. I've had a couple of times where those links have been good for 500k hits/24hrs.
Look, I hold no animosity towards you and only responded with a little jab after you called me dumb. Don't you think that was fair? Or do you find anyone defending themselves against your attacks to be unacceptable?
You are actually pretty damn close to hitting the nail on the head. One of my best friends is about a year away from finishing her mathematics PhD. She basically has three choices. Become a professor, work for the NSA or work for Google. She'll probably opt for option number one (to stay local) but Google is her fallback. Its rather nice to be able to talk about your day at the office without worrying about breaking Federal laws.....
And yet another option she has is to go into academics and then simply........ collaborate or consult for the NSA (or other TLAs like the CIA or others) and/or Google. It's a pretty sweet deal and you don't have to have black periods on your resume as you still get to publish (just not on stuff you are consulting for and you have to be *very* careful about what you do talk about). Of course the pressures to go one way or another can be significant, it just depends upon your focus and how much time you can dedicate to each. However, if your work is hot enough, you have many options and academics is certainly much more open than many of the federal agencies.
Plus the pay is probably better
At Google it certainly is and the bigger they get, there are more options for where you can live (to avoid the Bay Area). The other nice thing about Google is the stock options for certain positions.
Naw, the NSA is simply that which cannot be named as their history of secrecy goes much further than that of the CIA. Interestingly though, they *are* the largest employer of mathematics PhDs in the world, but may soon find themselves in competition with Google as well.
Another term for the NSA is using the acronym for No Such Agency.:-)
You're a "Retinal neurophysiology scientist" and you think that intelligence comes from the face?
Geoff, chill dude. It was a humorous verbal parry against your insult of calling me dumb. Of course I don't think that, but you should not go around calling folks dumb either, eh?
Wow, America's education system really is doomed. Or maybe it's just the inbred retards in higher education in Utah.
Ah, now you *are* showing your ignorance and insulting all the good folks of Utah as well. As to your ignorance, have you ever considered that it might be that many of the folks in Utah are actually not from Utah? I am actually a Texan that moved to Utah. As to your insult of Utahns, I've actually found it pretty nice here. The people are not as friendly as they are in Texas, but they are smart, hard working and peaceable.
The CIA is often referred to as "The Company". You're simply wrong.
OK Geoff, you have stumbled into the long raging debate in some circles as to why it is referred to as The Agency or The Company. Each group has its preferences and the usage is based upon where you place your allegiances.
You're simply wrong. And dumb.
Watch who you call dumb. The face you put up on your Flicker stream does not look that smart to me.
Agency.... It is "The Agency", and yes, you can leave the Agency. People do it all the time. The thing you have to remember is that the CIA is a huge organization with most folks being support personnel for the large numbers of analysts. There is a small group in R&D, and an even smaller group in direct operations.
I would not be surprised in such a relationship as there has been a collaborative arrangement at least going back to the Google Earth project. For instance, when Google Earth was demoed to the folks at the NRO and NIMA, there was a collective smacking of foreheads followed by a long silence as they all realized that this was an easy way to represent data using superimposable layers. Soon after, agreements were reached with Google for technology development in exchange for funding and a significant amount of space in the South Bay area.
The fact that Google is very good at their core market (search engines and relational databases) and is aggressively entering new markets in a variety of fields, should make them an attractive partner for many federal agencies that cannot seem to get their IT $#!^ together (I'm talking to you, Robert Mueller).
It is only cheaper to hire contractors and hired guns (private security) when the conflicts are limited in scope and time. (think limited incursions, small police actions and small arms combat with a limited number of participants) This is a *war* and it is simply not economically feasible, responsible or morally acceptable to outsource war to private contractors.
Actually, Reps are still about strong military and lower taxes, but they are now fine with larger government and greater intrusion.
If the Republicans really *are* for a stronger military, then it would be hard to imagine given the cutbacks in VA funding for veterans in the face of tens of thousands of returning vets with significant wounds and lost limbs from the current Middle East conflict. If the Republicans really *are* for a stronger military, then it would be hard to explain given the increasing movement towards giving military jobs out to private contractors (and paying the contractors more). If the Republicans really *are* for a stronger military, then it would be hard to convince the Pentagon who has much less control and power over it's own affairs after Donald Rumsfeld has gone through and consolidated control away from the current flags. If the Republicans really *are* for a stronger military, then it would be almost impossible to justify in the face of decreasing educational programs within the military.
As to taxes, the only structures the Republicans are for lower taxes on is large corporate America. As a middle class citizen, my taxes have actually gone up. Factor in higher inflation rates, higher fuel costs, higher healthcare costs, fewer tax deductions for the middle class and a stock market that is only now climbing back to where it was six years ago and where are you?
It is not just a problem in the EU and UK. We have major IT issues related to privacy, government and oversight here in the US and this is why we need to start populating the political system with politicians who *understand* some of the political issues. People like Pete Ashdown who is running against Orin Hatch (the guy who wanted to remotely destroy computers of those who download music) in Utah are the types of folks that we need to elect. Pete owns one of the first ISPs in Utah and has been at the technological forefront for a number of years. He understands how technology impacts government and business and effects the lives of private citizens.
Populating the political landscape with technologically savvy folks will eventually happen as a matter of statistics, but right now we are dealing with lawyers, jocks and business people as politicians who it seems frequently rely on their staff to even read and answer their emails, much less actually possessing an understanding of more complex technological issues or their wider implications. However, with issues like the massive cost overruns and failure of projects like the FBIs agency wide computer system, loss of privacy and government intrusion into our lives sought by those in the Republican party (OT: what happened to the Republicans? They *used* to be about smaller government, less intrusion into our lives, lower taxes, and a strong military. They are now 180degrees off from all of those issues), we need a new generation of politicians who will be responsive to the people they represent, will understand some of the complex technological issues and all of the social, political and economic implications that technology brings.
Good on you for searching Pubmed and for your mad physiology skills. However, the claim is that this product will help people to burn calories by consuming the beverage. There are lots of studies that can be made looking at hormonal modifications, protein interactions, endocrine signaling and psychological motivations. However, the fundamental argument is that by consuming this drink, you will somehow upregulate metabolism to a point where you will burn more calories than you consume. Where compounds in green tea (EGCG and caffeine) may help one to modulate physiology so that you accumulate less fat and may exercise more, the fundamental issue is that thermodynamics is not wrong. You cannot consume more calories than you burn and expect not to gain weight.
Two post-docs and a current appointment as a research assistant professor. Is that good enough for you?
First off, your sentence is broken because you inserted "obtained" recklessly.
Typo, so sue me. This is Slashdot after all.... But the sentiment of the statement and overall construction stands.
Secondly, your position disagrees with Snopes.
And Snopes is the end all be all? Seriously though, there are other things like celery that we *could* eat, that will be indigestible and will cause you some effort to pass. Think dirt. To be fair, you get this though from your point on Metamucil.
Thirdly, your use of the thermic effect of food is a bit wonky. 10% is, first off, an average estimate.
Thus my utilization of "*might*" in the original post. One always wonders how much effort to put into a post on Slashdot for fear of going beyond many readers.
Even drinking cold water causes you to burn calories. Your body ends up doing the work to bring the water up to body temperature. How would digesting a highly fibrous water-stalk not take effort?
Who is saying that it is not possible to alter basic metabolism? If you cause a system to perform work without putting energy back into it, there will be a net loss, but the original point of the Coca Cola beverage being touted as "burning calories" is pretty easy to get through the system. There is no fiber to digest, right?
Yes, celery has a few digestible kcals per stalk, but you more than outstrip that in digestion. Will those extra burned calories make a marked difference? God no, but you're still on the wrong side of the argument.
You appear to be arguing with somebody else here as again, there is no fiber or cellulose in Energia to digest. What they are claiming is that their drink upregulates metabolism and causes one to burn more calories because you consume Energia.
I certainly hope I never need any of your work.
I hope that you do not either as I study the effects of retinal degenerations and how to intervene to save vision loss. If you needed my primary work, then you'd be in trouble. That said, we are developing technologies in the metabolomic space that can be applied to many other applications from cancer research to heart disease, drug development, agaronomics and defense, so perhaps you *might* need them someday? You would likely not know it, but you very well may benefit from our work.
To be considered right in an argument, it helps to actually be right.
Don't be an ass. You have said nothing here that is really of substance other than arguing loose points that appear to be aimed at other people statements.
Since nobody has these parasites nowadays, these diseases are now more common.
Tapeworms are *very* common in some areas of the world. For instance, just last week I saw the MRI of a patient with trichinosis. Parasites in the brain are a baaaad thing and not as uncommon as you might think.
I do not think it means what you think it means. I forgive you though. Your Ph.D. is clearly in a scientific field, and not in vocabulary.
It means exactly what I intended it to say in that it is a double negative used frequently back in the 1600s (obviously less commonly used today). However, I chose to use that usage so as to make my point about the degree without seeming too boastful about it.
But here is the kicker: they had both groups also engage in moderate exercise too. Why is this significant? Because I will bet you dollars to donuts that the placebo was not caffeinated!
You should also consider that caffeine inhibits the sodium reuptake pump in the kidney which leads to a net water loss (i.e. mild diuretic).
It's quite simple, actually. It's like celery. It takes more energy for you to consume it and your body to subsequently break the food down than is actually contained within the food.
You obviously missed my post here explaining this fallacy.
And yes, though their methodology wasn't mentioned in this article,.....blah blah blah.... It specifically says that it burns a few extra calories if you drink xyz amount per day.
Do you believe *all* press releases?
P.S. I call shenanigans on your Ph.D. Either that, or you just didn't read the article. Either way.
Feel free to check out my formal CV any time you would like and you should know earning it obtained reading a not insignificantly greater amount of material than a few press releases.
OK, true and in fact at some points in history, tapeworm eggs were used as a means to "diet", although I don't know anyone who would really want to be doing that as the negative health effects are significant. They don't call it parasitism for nothing.:-)
Also dysentary (sic) is another solution to lose weight without exercize and reducing your calorie intake.
True, but here we are talking dehydration or water weight, not fat loss and it should be noted that dysentery is one of the leading causes of death in the world.
Have you considered that perhaps it's digestion/metabolization ends up burning more calories than it can provide?
Yes, it's called the thermic effect of food or TEF and can be simplified to the following: TEF = total kcals consumed x 10% which of course means that 10% of anything you consume *might* be burned off leaving you with net positive calories. Think of it this way.... organisms eat to survive, not to lose weight.
"Enviga increases calorie burning. It represents the perfect partnership of science and nature," said Dr. Rhona Applebaum, chief scientist, The Coca-Cola Company. "Enviga contains the optimum blend of green tea extracts (EGCG), caffeine and naturally active plant micronutrients designed to work with your body to increase calorie burning, thus creating a negative calorie effect.
Oh man this is such a lie..... Did they perform metabolic chamber analysis? Where is the published paper? Why do people *always* seem to fall for marketing nonsense like this? Look, the only way to lose weight is to burn more calories than you consume. It's calories in versus calories out and Enviga, metabolically will not let you magically burn more calories by consuming it unless it can somehow short circuit the electron transport chain or mitochondrial respiration and that is dangerous as hell. (Think poisons like dinitrophenol or proteins in brown fat like thermogenin).
It's too bad, because I like Coca Cola products, but this claim that it will burn excess or extra calories is simply a marketing lie. And yes, I *do* have a PhD in physiology and am calling out Dr. Rhona Applebaum to back up her words with some scientific evidence that shows these claims are more than specious marketingspeak designed to increase the bottom line.
Let me tell you how it will be There's one for you, nineteen for me Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small Be thankful I don't take it all Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat If you get too cold I'll tax the heat If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
Taxman! Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
Don't ask me what I want it for (Aahh Mr. Wilson) If you don't want to pay some more (Aahh Mr. Heath) Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who die Declare the pennies on your eyes Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
*Snort!* Ha ha ha ha ha ha....... heeeee ha ha ha ha ha! *sniff*.......
In all seriousness though, there is nothing new here as this certainly plays off any number of sci-fi subjects going back to the late 1800s and early 1900s. People have been obsessed with this sort of thing for years and in fact, was the basis of racial profiling, discrimination, murder and genocide by the Nazis in the 1930s through eugenics.
The funny thing though is that even though many folks are obsessed with image and "beauty", people will choose mates for a variety of different reasons, that sometimes boggle the mind in their complexity or pathology and as long as you have people that are..... less than attractive with large amounts of financial reserves, you will always have confounds in the system. Other confounds are simply human relationships. For instance, my wife and I decided to date and then marry only after we had been good friends for some period of time. The fact that she is physically attractive was only incidental which brings up a whole other category of people who meet and then fall in love over the Internet without ever having met in person.
Oh, and speaking of confounds, the increasing use of plastic surgery among those that 1) have real reason to use it (true disfigurement) and 2) are just vain enough to want it (lips, cheeks, chins, breasts) will have an effect on this as well, leading to a whole new aspect of relationships. What is false advertising when it comes to body modification? Breasts are pretty easy to detect, but what about that nose which might have been bobbed? Straightened? What about those cheekbones? Teeth? All of these mods and others will confound any selection pressure and likely will increase in their statistical impact the more important "beauty" becomes to societies.
But hey, you know..... The Clone Wars will take care of all of this sort of nonsense..... or will it be Skynet?:-)
Nonsense.......... slide film is better than print.
Hello? Say what?
Just for your edification though, it is generally accepted that given current technology, the difference in dynamic range is still about 1.5 to 3 stops better with film than digital. Clicky clicky for just one reference out of many.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was an undergraduate, I ran into entire schematics and documents from the 1950s through the 1980s on how to build atomic bombs and devices in our University Library in the engineering section. The documents were most extensive and had everything you needed to know including materials and engineering specifications. The only thing that would have been difficult to obtain was the plutonium or enriched uranium. I checked the documents out and spent a couple of weeks reading through them in a cursory manner, but I would not be surprised if they no longer existed at the library due to "National Security".
My point is that I agree with you in that the technology is pushing 60 years old for the basic principles.
Well, Geoff's unnecessary cock-etry aside, if it's an ongoing debate why did you feel the need to weigh in and correct him, hmmm? Hmmm?
Because people in the know, *know*. And we don't need Hollywood or people shilling for book deals screwing up history for us.
Plus, y'know... the fact that you obviously took the time to go cyberstalking some random poster who called you a cock on the internet.. well... kind of suggests he might be right.
Cyberstalking nothing. He had it linked from his own page which required what? two clicks to find it. Geoff could have simply tried to correct the post, but instead resorted to dropping a lame insult, so why should we expect that would not go unanswered? I tried to be gentle about it and give him a little ribbing, but apparently he is unable to laugh at himself. So, come on now.
Now, the link you posted to John Gabriel's site is funny, so thank you for that, but I am not looking for these folks. I had a bit of time sitting in the airport lounge and responded to a direct post.
Best,
Oh, that's even better. And you look like a freakin' genius yourself. crapping your pants much?
Ummmm, dude..... that is not me. It was a random runner in the Salt Lake Marathon.
Do you want to give up this little tirade and stop making assumptions about things you know nothing about? You are only making yourself look worse off. As for the page views, knock yourself out and let me know when you get linked on the main page of Slashdot or BoingBoing. I've had a couple of times where those links have been good for 500k hits/24hrs.
Look, I hold no animosity towards you and only responded with a little jab after you called me dumb. Don't you think that was fair? Or do you find anyone defending themselves against your attacks to be unacceptable?
You are actually pretty damn close to hitting the nail on the head. One of my best friends is about a year away from finishing her mathematics PhD. She basically has three choices. Become a professor, work for the NSA or work for Google. She'll probably opt for option number one (to stay local) but Google is her fallback. Its rather nice to be able to talk about your day at the office without worrying about breaking Federal laws.....
And yet another option she has is to go into academics and then simply........ collaborate or consult for the NSA (or other TLAs like the CIA or others) and/or Google. It's a pretty sweet deal and you don't have to have black periods on your resume as you still get to publish (just not on stuff you are consulting for and you have to be *very* careful about what you do talk about). Of course the pressures to go one way or another can be significant, it just depends upon your focus and how much time you can dedicate to each. However, if your work is hot enough, you have many options and academics is certainly much more open than many of the federal agencies.
Plus the pay is probably better
At Google it certainly is and the bigger they get, there are more options for where you can live (to avoid the Bay Area). The other nice thing about Google is the stock options for certain positions.
Yeah, but you gotta live in a weird village, drive around in golf carts, and wear a big "#6"-type pin on your lapel..
Oh my. That *is* funny.
Somebody mod this up as funny! I have mod points, but have already posted in this discussion.
Naw, the NSA is simply that which cannot be named as their history of secrecy goes much further than that of the CIA. Interestingly though, they *are* the largest employer of mathematics PhDs in the world, but may soon find themselves in competition with Google as well.
:-)
Another term for the NSA is using the acronym for No Such Agency.
You're a "Retinal neurophysiology scientist" and you think that intelligence comes from the face?
Geoff, chill dude. It was a humorous verbal parry against your insult of calling me dumb. Of course I don't think that, but you should not go around calling folks dumb either, eh?
Wow, America's education system really is doomed. Or maybe it's just the inbred retards in higher education in Utah.
Ah, now you *are* showing your ignorance and insulting all the good folks of Utah as well. As to your ignorance, have you ever considered that it might be that many of the folks in Utah are actually not from Utah? I am actually a Texan that moved to Utah. As to your insult of Utahns, I've actually found it pretty nice here. The people are not as friendly as they are in Texas, but they are smart, hard working and peaceable.
The CIA is often referred to as "The Company". You're simply wrong.
OK Geoff, you have stumbled into the long raging debate in some circles as to why it is referred to as The Agency or The Company. Each group has its preferences and the usage is based upon where you place your allegiances.
You're simply wrong. And dumb.
Watch who you call dumb. The face you put up on your Flicker stream does not look that smart to me.
Good luck. Nobody ever really leaves The Company.
Agency.... It is "The Agency", and yes, you can leave the Agency. People do it all the time. The thing you have to remember is that the CIA is a huge organization with most folks being support personnel for the large numbers of analysts. There is a small group in R&D, and an even smaller group in direct operations.
I would not be surprised in such a relationship as there has been a collaborative arrangement at least going back to the Google Earth project. For instance, when Google Earth was demoed to the folks at the NRO and NIMA, there was a collective smacking of foreheads followed by a long silence as they all realized that this was an easy way to represent data using superimposable layers. Soon after, agreements were reached with Google for technology development in exchange for funding and a significant amount of space in the South Bay area.
The fact that Google is very good at their core market (search engines and relational databases) and is aggressively entering new markets in a variety of fields, should make them an attractive partner for many federal agencies that cannot seem to get their IT $#!^ together (I'm talking to you, Robert Mueller).
It is only cheaper to hire contractors and hired guns (private security) when the conflicts are limited in scope and time. (think limited incursions, small police actions and small arms combat with a limited number of participants) This is a *war* and it is simply not economically feasible, responsible or morally acceptable to outsource war to private contractors.
Actually, Reps are still about strong military and lower taxes, but they are now fine with larger government and greater intrusion.
If the Republicans really *are* for a stronger military, then it would be hard to imagine given the cutbacks in VA funding for veterans in the face of tens of thousands of returning vets with significant wounds and lost limbs from the current Middle East conflict. If the Republicans really *are* for a stronger military, then it would be hard to explain given the increasing movement towards giving military jobs out to private contractors (and paying the contractors more). If the Republicans really *are* for a stronger military, then it would be hard to convince the Pentagon who has much less control and power over it's own affairs after Donald Rumsfeld has gone through and consolidated control away from the current flags. If the Republicans really *are* for a stronger military, then it would be almost impossible to justify in the face of decreasing educational programs within the military.
As to taxes, the only structures the Republicans are for lower taxes on is large corporate America. As a middle class citizen, my taxes have actually gone up. Factor in higher inflation rates, higher fuel costs, higher healthcare costs, fewer tax deductions for the middle class and a stock market that is only now climbing back to where it was six years ago and where are you?
It is not just a problem in the EU and UK. We have major IT issues related to privacy, government and oversight here in the US and this is why we need to start populating the political system with politicians who *understand* some of the political issues. People like Pete Ashdown who is running against Orin Hatch (the guy who wanted to remotely destroy computers of those who download music) in Utah are the types of folks that we need to elect. Pete owns one of the first ISPs in Utah and has been at the technological forefront for a number of years. He understands how technology impacts government and business and effects the lives of private citizens.
Populating the political landscape with technologically savvy folks will eventually happen as a matter of statistics, but right now we are dealing with lawyers, jocks and business people as politicians who it seems frequently rely on their staff to even read and answer their emails, much less actually possessing an understanding of more complex technological issues or their wider implications. However, with issues like the massive cost overruns and failure of projects like the FBIs agency wide computer system, loss of privacy and government intrusion into our lives sought by those in the Republican party (OT: what happened to the Republicans? They *used* to be about smaller government, less intrusion into our lives, lower taxes, and a strong military. They are now 180degrees off from all of those issues), we need a new generation of politicians who will be responsive to the people they represent, will understand some of the complex technological issues and all of the social, political and economic implications that technology brings.
Good on you for searching Pubmed and for your mad physiology skills. However, the claim is that this product will help people to burn calories by consuming the beverage. There are lots of studies that can be made looking at hormonal modifications, protein interactions, endocrine signaling and psychological motivations. However, the fundamental argument is that by consuming this drink, you will somehow upregulate metabolism to a point where you will burn more calories than you consume. Where compounds in green tea (EGCG and caffeine) may help one to modulate physiology so that you accumulate less fat and may exercise more, the fundamental issue is that thermodynamics is not wrong. You cannot consume more calories than you burn and expect not to gain weight.
...post-graduate work?
Two post-docs and a current appointment as a research assistant professor. Is that good enough for you?
First off, your sentence is broken because you inserted "obtained" recklessly.
Typo, so sue me. This is Slashdot after all.... But the sentiment of the statement and overall construction stands.
Secondly, your position disagrees with Snopes.
And Snopes is the end all be all? Seriously though, there are other things like celery that we *could* eat, that will be indigestible and will cause you some effort to pass. Think dirt. To be fair, you get this though from your point on Metamucil.
Thirdly, your use of the thermic effect of food is a bit wonky. 10% is, first off, an average estimate.
Thus my utilization of "*might*" in the original post. One always wonders how much effort to put into a post on Slashdot for fear of going beyond many readers.
Even drinking cold water causes you to burn calories. Your body ends up doing the work to bring the water up to body temperature. How would digesting a highly fibrous water-stalk not take effort?
Who is saying that it is not possible to alter basic metabolism? If you cause a system to perform work without putting energy back into it, there will be a net loss, but the original point of the Coca Cola beverage being touted as "burning calories" is pretty easy to get through the system. There is no fiber to digest, right?
Yes, celery has a few digestible kcals per stalk, but you more than outstrip that in digestion. Will those extra burned calories make a marked difference? God no, but you're still on the wrong side of the argument.
You appear to be arguing with somebody else here as again, there is no fiber or cellulose in Energia to digest. What they are claiming is that their drink upregulates metabolism and causes one to burn more calories because you consume Energia.
I certainly hope I never need any of your work.
I hope that you do not either as I study the effects of retinal degenerations and how to intervene to save vision loss. If you needed my primary work, then you'd be in trouble. That said, we are developing technologies in the metabolomic space that can be applied to many other applications from cancer research to heart disease, drug development, agaronomics and defense, so perhaps you *might* need them someday? You would likely not know it, but you very well may benefit from our work.
To be considered right in an argument, it helps to actually be right.
Don't be an ass. You have said nothing here that is really of substance other than arguing loose points that appear to be aimed at other people statements.
Since nobody has these parasites nowadays, these diseases are now more common.
Tapeworms are *very* common in some areas of the world. For instance, just last week I saw the MRI of a patient with trichinosis. Parasites in the brain are a baaaad thing and not as uncommon as you might think.
I do not think it means what you think it means. I forgive you though. Your Ph.D. is clearly in a scientific field, and not in vocabulary.
It means exactly what I intended it to say in that it is a double negative used frequently back in the 1600s (obviously less commonly used today). However, I chose to use that usage so as to make my point about the degree without seeming too boastful about it.
But here is the kicker: they had both groups also engage in moderate exercise too. Why is this significant? Because I will bet you dollars to donuts that the placebo was not caffeinated!
You should also consider that caffeine inhibits the sodium reuptake pump in the kidney which leads to a net water loss (i.e. mild diuretic).
It's quite simple, actually. It's like celery. It takes more energy for you to consume it and your body to subsequently break the food down than is actually contained within the food.
.....blah blah blah.... It specifically says that it burns a few extra calories if you drink xyz amount per day.
You obviously missed my post here explaining this fallacy.
And yes, though their methodology wasn't mentioned in this article,
Do you believe *all* press releases?
P.S. I call shenanigans on your Ph.D. Either that, or you just didn't read the article. Either way.
Feel free to check out my formal CV any time you would like and you should know earning it obtained reading a not insignificantly greater amount of material than a few press releases.
I know a tapeworm that says you are wrong.
:-)
OK, true and in fact at some points in history, tapeworm eggs were used as a means to "diet", although I don't know anyone who would really want to be doing that as the negative health effects are significant. They don't call it parasitism for nothing.
Also dysentary (sic) is another solution to lose weight without exercize and reducing your calorie intake.
True, but here we are talking dehydration or water weight, not fat loss and it should be noted that dysentery is one of the leading causes of death in the world.
Have you considered that perhaps it's digestion/metabolization ends up burning more calories than it can provide?
Yes, it's called the thermic effect of food or TEF and can be simplified to the following: TEF = total kcals consumed x 10% which of course means that 10% of anything you consume *might* be burned off leaving you with net positive calories. Think of it this way.... organisms eat to survive, not to lose weight.
"Enviga increases calorie burning. It represents the perfect partnership of science and nature," said Dr. Rhona Applebaum, chief scientist, The Coca-Cola Company. "Enviga contains the optimum blend of green tea extracts (EGCG), caffeine and naturally active plant micronutrients designed to work with your body to increase calorie burning, thus creating a negative calorie effect.
Oh man this is such a lie..... Did they perform metabolic chamber analysis? Where is the published paper? Why do people *always* seem to fall for marketing nonsense like this? Look, the only way to lose weight is to burn more calories than you consume. It's calories in versus calories out and Enviga, metabolically will not let you magically burn more calories by consuming it unless it can somehow short circuit the electron transport chain or mitochondrial respiration and that is dangerous as hell. (Think poisons like dinitrophenol or proteins in brown fat like thermogenin).
It's too bad, because I like Coca Cola products, but this claim that it will burn excess or extra calories is simply a marketing lie. And yes, I *do* have a PhD in physiology and am calling out Dr. Rhona Applebaum to back up her words with some scientific evidence that shows these claims are more than specious marketingspeak designed to increase the bottom line.
Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
Taxman!
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
Don't ask me what I want it for (Aahh Mr. Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more (Aahh Mr. Heath)
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me
Taxman!
-George Harrison
*Snort!* Ha ha ha ha ha ha....... heeeee ha ha ha ha ha! *sniff*.......
:-)
In all seriousness though, there is nothing new here as this certainly plays off any number of sci-fi subjects going back to the late 1800s and early 1900s. People have been obsessed with this sort of thing for years and in fact, was the basis of racial profiling, discrimination, murder and genocide by the Nazis in the 1930s through eugenics.
The funny thing though is that even though many folks are obsessed with image and "beauty", people will choose mates for a variety of different reasons, that sometimes boggle the mind in their complexity or pathology and as long as you have people that are..... less than attractive with large amounts of financial reserves, you will always have confounds in the system. Other confounds are simply human relationships. For instance, my wife and I decided to date and then marry only after we had been good friends for some period of time. The fact that she is physically attractive was only incidental which brings up a whole other category of people who meet and then fall in love over the Internet without ever having met in person.
Oh, and speaking of confounds, the increasing use of plastic surgery among those that 1) have real reason to use it (true disfigurement) and 2) are just vain enough to want it (lips, cheeks, chins, breasts) will have an effect on this as well, leading to a whole new aspect of relationships. What is false advertising when it comes to body modification? Breasts are pretty easy to detect, but what about that nose which might have been bobbed? Straightened? What about those cheekbones? Teeth? All of these mods and others will confound any selection pressure and likely will increase in their statistical impact the more important "beauty" becomes to societies.
But hey, you know..... The Clone Wars will take care of all of this sort of nonsense..... or will it be Skynet?
Nonsense. ......... slide film is better than print.
Hello? Say what?
Just for your edification though, it is generally accepted that given current technology, the difference in dynamic range is still about 1.5 to 3 stops better with film than digital. Clicky clicky for just one reference out of many.