Taubes claim is that obese individuals don't consume excess calories or more calories than lean individuals, but that the percentage of carb intake is higher and that the source of calories causes fat gain.
You say this as if the hypothesis is axiomatically false.
If this is indeed his claim, it is not false based on any obvious reason. Two people may indeed consume the same number of calories and end up with vastly different amounts of fat storage.
Not all consumed calories are absorbed equaly
energy that is absorbed may be utilized or wasted
energy that is utilized can be utilized in several manners. IE it can be stored in fat cells, it can be used to grow other tissues, it can be used to increase anabolism, catabolism or both in creation and destruction of non-tissue biological molecules, it can be used to extract increased systems complexity, it can be converted to electrical charges, it can be used to power molecular pumping mechanisms and many other uses
It is a well known fact, and biochemical pathways are somewhat well documented, that insulin controls how this available energy is utilized.
Some types of insulin responses to sugar have been experimentally shown to increase the proportion of energy directed to fat storage as well as to a lesser extent muscle hypertrophy.
It does get complicated because there are wide variations with genotype, environment and even ancestral genotype and environment interactions.
Overall though, the preponderance of the evidence from all types of laboratory studies indicate that all things being equal, foods that induce sharp insulin responses also induce weight gain.
I just have one question. Where in the Constitution is the government given the authority to regulate the internet.
Answer: Nowhere in the Constitution.
Stated another way, I believe there's a good reason the Constitution was written as to make it clear that it is the people that grants the government authorities, not the other way around and the citizens have rights that are self evident and not something granted by the government.
I believe that the move to regulate the internet is nothing but a bare faced power grab by the feds under the guise of protecting it's people. It's fairy law. Solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.
I don't know WHY you bring irradiated foods into the discussion.
The informed opposition to irradiated foods formed because industry was using the irradiation as an excuse to reduce their levels of cleanliness and allow dirt and excrement in contact with the food they produced. "Who cares if there's a little excrement in your food, it's going to get irradiated anyway." was their modus operandi.
Most people who are indifferent to eating irradiated foods, do tend to be opposed to eating irradiated shit sandwiches and decided to not embark on the entire process because of the crap direction it was taking.
If you're a fan of content like Toy Story 2, Speed Racer and Spider-Man 3; Why would you care if they're astroturfing you? The content itself is bland, corporate and worse than the astroturf.
No, I'm guessing if that's the type of shit that you like (along with boy bands, American idol, Britney etc), you're already a 'consumer' and not a free thinking human being anyway. You can go eat your preserved McDonald’s chemicals and get your genetically diseased, roundup ready $8 popcorn and gallon of high fructose corn syrup when you watch your Hollywood consensus filth.
My guess is you'll end up a fat, boring, shallow, cancerous diabetic fuck who won't realize on their deathbed you've wasted your life away being stupid and getting poisoned and taken advantage of while having atrocities committed in the name of your cunt-numbing agnostic imbecility.
Most of you are the scum of the earth and nothing but impediments to my goal of exploring the knowable universe and sharing the experience with people who matter. You should just crawl in a corner and die now.
Wow, I just realized I need to go put a new nicotine patch in.
Hypothesis 1: the Earth's mean temperature is rising
Name: Global Warming
Hypothesis 2: Human emissions of CO2 are the principal cause of Global Warming
Name: Man-made Global Warming
Neither of these involve local weather, climate or any respective localized change.
Sorry but the name was changed in the public arena to obfuscate the issues. Just like the patriot act ain't about patriots and the "Value Added Tax" ain't about adding value.
Have you actually read the Qur'an? Or have you read the Tantras? The Sutras?
Please tell me you have read The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for otherwise how can you ever criticize Pastafarianism?
I'm writing a little book book right now with my penis. It's about the great Juju spirit that lives in my pocket. Would you blame someone if they criticized my book without reading it? I wouldn't, because it's obviously a load of bollocks.
Here's how it works. I'm sure this gentleman has had a taste of the bible considering it is basically forced upon a great portion of the world's population through no choice of their own. And he's heard some passages and some allegories and maybe he's even heard of some commandments. Is it not his right to call bullshit and reject it now?
If someone serves you a piece of shit pie, can you refuse the second slice, or must you finish the pie before you can criticize it?
It's exactly this type of BS that enables people to challenge well supported theories like evolution.
The hypothesis of global warming is in a similar stage to the Theory of Evolution as it existed 150 years ago. When you equate them, you discard 150 years of investigation, learning, prediction, verification, experimentation, understanding and opportunities for falsification.
Global warming should stand on it's own, without the need to bring unrelated science fact to justify itself.
Right now, there is a consensus that while there are a few outliers, the evidence as a whole points to the warming of the planet by a fraction of a degree in recent history. This is good. What I would like to see now is the very serious separation of global warming from 'man made' global warming in public discussions.
They are separable variables and should be very clearly treated as such. In every single discussion.
Oh, let's also drop the new fad of calling the hypothesis "climate change". The climate ALWAYS changes. Global warming is the only of the two descriptions that actually describes the hypothesis.
Well, if you look at what they are claiming to have already achieved, it's pretty good.
Sure, the Carnot equations do predict that they have a lower theoretical maximum efficiency 1- dT/Th, however, they seem to make up for that in the following ways:
more efficient combustion process
recycling waste heat, not work heat, to get more heat to do work. (ie the heat that gets exhausted without going through the system)
making use of the lower Th to use lighter materials and better design. The videos shows the kind of materials they use are much cheaper looking and lighter for example
more useable tq and tq/vol ratio
they might be able to drop transmissions, oil, other added weight
They could probably harness heat off the brakes
much cleaner and more flexible engine with a closed loop Rankine design
They could end up with less maintenace and cost per maintenance too by the looks of it
Their exhaust temps seem just about right to think about heating the cabin as a final efficiency boost in the winter too
So, they give up some theoretical max efficiency to get a whole bunch of nice trade offs, and from the numbers they allege, those trade offs come back in terms of real world efficiency as well.
It seems worth more investigation before writing it off.. Plus, it looks like a Mr. Fusion.
Ha, I had a room mate in university who canceled the AOL service he no longer used. It took him 30 minutes on the phone of repeatedly and clearly stating "I don't want and don't need your service anymore, cancel it immediately" before he finally got rid of them and ended the call.
Let's see, there are two possibilities that come to mind since this was done in the proximity of the female Icelandic MP with connection to wikileaks:
The member of parliament who is a friend of wikileaks is in on this and wikileaks conducted the spying as is being ignorantly claimed
Agents on behalf of the US government conducted this in order to spy on the icelandic MP and others nearby because of her connection to wikileaks
Obviously we can throw out #1 because it does not at all fit with wikileaks modus operandi and cannot be carried out by their infrastructure. They're set up to anonymously accept documents and disseminate them, they're not spies. Moreover the icelandic MP in question would be risking much to do this only to access documents she probably already has access to.
Now you're just being twisted. You have no evidence whatsoever for your baseless insults. If you really gave it a chance, you would realize that the Freedom he fights for the little guy. The big guy is already in charge and most certainly doesn't need him preaching liberty.
The truly wealthy, already control the government and the money supply. Why do they need his changes? Why do they want a reduction in government when they already own it and use it as their power tool?
Why do they want a reduction in military spending and the exit from the wars; when they ARE the military industrial complex?
Why would they want a return to sound money when they are in control of the printing of fiat money? Why would they want de-centralizing of power when they control the centralized powers and continually push for more globalization and centralization of power - into their hands?
Why would they want to give individuals the right to be left alone and the right to free speech when they want more control over individuals and more control over the centralized mass media?
Give it a chance. Listen to him and listen to Judge Napolitano. Listen to his good friend kucinich.
That's more than enough coming from someone who doesn't seem to even have a basic grasp.
Libertarians want FREEDOM. They want the Constitution. They want sound money. They want friendly relations and trade with other countries without wars and without being the military dictatorship of the world.
They want the right to speak and the right to be left alone.
They want the government to be scared of the people and not the people to be scared of the government.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeap. Please see the gazillion examples of massive breaches in the U.K. if you need proof of this.
Taubes claim is that obese individuals don't consume excess calories or more calories than lean individuals, but that the percentage of carb intake is higher and that the source of calories causes fat gain.
You say this as if the hypothesis is axiomatically false. If this is indeed his claim, it is not false based on any obvious reason. Two people may indeed consume the same number of calories and end up with vastly different amounts of fat storage.
It is a well known fact, and biochemical pathways are somewhat well documented, that insulin controls how this available energy is utilized.
Some types of insulin responses to sugar have been experimentally shown to increase the proportion of energy directed to fat storage as well as to a lesser extent muscle hypertrophy.
It does get complicated because there are wide variations with genotype, environment and even ancestral genotype and environment interactions.
Overall though, the preponderance of the evidence from all types of laboratory studies indicate that all things being equal, foods that induce sharp insulin responses also induce weight gain.
Jesus christ where can I buy $2/watt solar panels? I'm drop 10k tomorrow.
Answer: Nowhere in the Constitution.
Stated another way, I believe there's a good reason the Constitution was written as to make it clear that it is the people that grants the government authorities, not the other way around and the citizens have rights that are self evident and not something granted by the government.
I believe that the move to regulate the internet is nothing but a bare faced power grab by the feds under the guise of protecting it's people. It's fairy law. Solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.
And now I really think I am owed a rectangular banana split.
The informed opposition to irradiated foods formed because industry was using the irradiation as an excuse to reduce their levels of cleanliness and allow dirt and excrement in contact with the food they produced. "Who cares if there's a little excrement in your food, it's going to get irradiated anyway." was their modus operandi.
Most people who are indifferent to eating irradiated foods, do tend to be opposed to eating irradiated shit sandwiches and decided to not embark on the entire process because of the crap direction it was taking.
After reading the story, the logical conclusion is Bankers are Pedos.
And you might also end up pissing yourself, dozing off and crashing anyway.
Am I doing something wrong?
No, you just have lower standards.
If you're a fan of content like Toy Story 2, Speed Racer and Spider-Man 3; Why would you care if they're astroturfing you? The content itself is bland, corporate and worse than the astroturf.
No, I'm guessing if that's the type of shit that you like (along with boy bands, American idol, Britney etc), you're already a 'consumer' and not a free thinking human being anyway. You can go eat your preserved McDonald’s chemicals and get your genetically diseased, roundup ready $8 popcorn and gallon of high fructose corn syrup when you watch your Hollywood consensus filth.
My guess is you'll end up a fat, boring, shallow, cancerous diabetic fuck who won't realize on their deathbed you've wasted your life away being stupid and getting poisoned and taken advantage of while having atrocities committed in the name of your cunt-numbing agnostic imbecility.
Most of you are the scum of the earth and nothing but impediments to my goal of exploring the knowable universe and sharing the experience with people who matter. You should just crawl in a corner and die now.
Wow, I just realized I need to go put a new nicotine patch in.
Hypothesis 1: the Earth's mean temperature is rising
Name: Global Warming
Hypothesis 2: Human emissions of CO2 are the principal cause of Global Warming
Name: Man-made Global Warming
Neither of these involve local weather, climate or any respective localized change.
Sorry but the name was changed in the public arena to obfuscate the issues. Just like the patriot act ain't about patriots and the "Value Added Tax" ain't about adding value.
I think I'm going to start my own "movement that involves people" and I'll call it "Anonymous Coward".
Pretty soon I think I'll have a whole bunch of senior members posting on websites just like this one.
I'll be the founder, obviously you are the co-founder.
I now pronounce my first movement to recuse myself and nominate you as the founder. All in favor: eye. All opposed:. motion passed.
Ergo you are now responsible for all actions of anyone using the name "Anonymous Coward".
Please tell me you have read The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for otherwise how can you ever criticize Pastafarianism?
I'm writing a little book book right now with my penis. It's about the great Juju spirit that lives in my pocket. Would you blame someone if they criticized my book without reading it? I wouldn't, because it's obviously a load of bollocks.
Here's how it works. I'm sure this gentleman has had a taste of the bible considering it is basically forced upon a great portion of the world's population through no choice of their own. And he's heard some passages and some allegories and maybe he's even heard of some commandments. Is it not his right to call bullshit and reject it now?
If someone serves you a piece of shit pie, can you refuse the second slice, or must you finish the pie before you can criticize it?
The hypothesis of global warming is in a similar stage to the Theory of Evolution as it existed 150 years ago. When you equate them, you discard 150 years of investigation, learning, prediction, verification, experimentation, understanding and opportunities for falsification.
Global warming should stand on it's own, without the need to bring unrelated science fact to justify itself.
Right now, there is a consensus that while there are a few outliers, the evidence as a whole points to the warming of the planet by a fraction of a degree in recent history. This is good. What I would like to see now is the very serious separation of global warming from 'man made' global warming in public discussions.
They are separable variables and should be very clearly treated as such. In every single discussion.
Oh, let's also drop the new fad of calling the hypothesis "climate change". The climate ALWAYS changes. Global warming is the only of the two descriptions that actually describes the hypothesis.
BURRRRN!!
Sure, the Carnot equations do predict that they have a lower theoretical maximum efficiency 1- dT/Th, however, they seem to make up for that in the following ways:
So, they give up some theoretical max efficiency to get a whole bunch of nice trade offs, and from the numbers they allege, those trade offs come back in terms of real world efficiency as well.
It seems worth more investigation before writing it off.. Plus, it looks like a Mr. Fusion.
BULLSHIT
My my, that's a lot of apparent correlations there without a single causation.
I also did not say at the end that P=0.05 for a null hypothesis that wasn't even stated.
The post I made is clearly just a first reaction.
They really didn't want to do it.
Let's see, there are two possibilities that come to mind since this was done in the proximity of the female Icelandic MP with connection to wikileaks:
Obviously we can throw out #1 because it does not at all fit with wikileaks modus operandi and cannot be carried out by their infrastructure. They're set up to anonymously accept documents and disseminate them, they're not spies. Moreover the icelandic MP in question would be risking much to do this only to access documents she probably already has access to.
So #2 becomes the most obvious culprit.
Damn, so your mother never made it past reception.
The truly wealthy, already control the government and the money supply. Why do they need his changes? Why do they want a reduction in government when they already own it and use it as their power tool?
Why do they want a reduction in military spending and the exit from the wars; when they ARE the military industrial complex?
Why would they want a return to sound money when they are in control of the printing of fiat money? Why would they want de-centralizing of power when they control the centralized powers and continually push for more globalization and centralization of power - into their hands?
Why would they want to give individuals the right to be left alone and the right to free speech when they want more control over individuals and more control over the centralized mass media?
Give it a chance. Listen to him and listen to Judge Napolitano. Listen to his good friend kucinich.
I'm a free market libertarian and I can guarantee you have no sound reason to despise me.
Libertarians want FREEDOM. They want the Constitution. They want sound money. They want friendly relations and trade with other countries without wars and without being the military dictatorship of the world.
They want the right to speak and the right to be left alone.
They want the government to be scared of the people and not the people to be scared of the government.