They have the best ratings in news. To think that this is purely due to pandering would indicate you think the average american is pretty stupid and easy confused. I would disagree.
Personally, I think most people are reasonably intellegent and capable of forming their own opinions, rather than mindless fools. They are not going to support any news source for purely nationalistic reasons. That said: compare journalism now and 50 years ago. There is nothing wrong with being an American before you are a journalist. Its not a weakness, its a strength. Its always much easier to feign non interest in the outcome of a war, but its dishonest. Like it or not, all American journalists DO have a dog in this fight.
Please, don't confuse the ability to lose weight with being healthy. You could starve yourself and lose weight, but not be healthy. Read this article [sciam.com] from Scientific American. Read other scientific articles on health. If you follow some crazy diet just to lose weight, you may face bigger health problems down the road.
My claim of good health was not related to the loss of weight, it was based upon the opinion of my doctor, who is aware of my dietary change and supports it. Its also based upon how I FEEL. I sleep better, requiring less sleep to feel rested, have a better energy level all day long, and have better stamina. Not bad in my opinion. I would stay with Atkins even if I didn't lose weight simply because I FEEL significantly better.
LOL. If you had not posted as AC, I would gladly buy you a beer for pointing out my obvious error in assuming my previous comments would have any application here. I stand corrected.
agree you are correct that attacking all conservatives will not improve the perception of liberals, however, contrary to this, attacking liberals as unpatriotic etc. does seem to be the standard conservative approach.
I dont. Most conservatives dont. Just because a few conservatives have big mouths, dont assume all of us do. thats the whole point.
And actually, I DO consider Fox News to be more balanced than other news. They are the only station that allows conservatives on, and they almost always have a liberal on at the same time. it tends to lead to alot of shouting matches, but Im a big boy, I can form my own opinions, and its nice to see BOTH sides for a change.
Does America not remember that it's greatest Presidents were liberals?
Yuck. I just have never been hungry enough to eat tofu. I prefer dead animals. Tofu reminds me of Soylent Green for some reason, and the dead animals I prefer are not human.
But in fact culture does shape races, up to a point. For example, if you have a tribe (or country, or religion, etc.) where green-eyed women are considered "better", they will have a better chance to reproduce and green yees will tend to become more dominant in that culture. Same goes for any other characteristic. Call it "evolution by cultural selection". Cultures change faster than continents drift, though, so the influence of cultural selection (in the long term, at least) is not as big as that of the natural environment.
While this may have been true thousands of years ago, I believe that we are no longer evolving in a Darwin like manner. Examples are life lengthening procedures and medicines that allow people who would have died as a teen (diabetes, injuries, even small pox) to instead grow old enough to have children and pass those genes on.
Also, not just the green eyed people breed anymore. Its not longer a matter of certain people creating offspring. Even the ugliest of us can now spread our ugly genes:) I didn't mean to argue that culture shapes race, my main point is that it is BOTH, and perhaps some other stuff we don't understand yet. As smart as we are, (or think we are) we can't even cure a common cold. Maybe there is more to genetics than we understand yet. I would bet my lunch money on it.
I thought Slashdot didn't change articles other than to append them? Wasn't 'surprise' spelled 'surprize' just a few minutes ago.
hmmm...
Re:Just for comparison's sake...
on
Genome Surprise
·
· Score: 1
Agreed. But, also, all this implies that if you take an individual (e.g. an American) and raise him on a different country (e.g. Romania) then you have a guy of a different race, possibly he could be even 99.99% Romanian.
no no no. it doesnt prove that all to me. it mainly proves we don't know as much about genes as we thought. Or its not just the individual genes, but the interaction between them. Or something else we don't understand yet. My point was its obviously NOT just the number of genes that decides.
I can take a radio apart and show you all the parts. That doesn't mean I can tell you what each part does, or how to put it back together. The genome may be like that, but lots more parts.
the human genome...the planet's largest open-source project ever.
Hold up! The genome has been patented, or parts of it anyway. This means that if you procreate you are guilty of distributing patented material without a license. As the joke goes, sex is a misdemeanor, da more I miss, da meaner I get.
This might be some sort of DMCA violation (Dont Make Children Americans) so I suggest everyone not have sex until the courts have hashed this out.
Ok, bad jokes, but its not open source either, until we talk them into opening up the source, which would mean abandoning the patents so they go to the public domain. (except for Mexico.)
Re:Just for comparison's sake...
on
Genome Surprise
·
· Score: 4, Informative
That's nothing new, though - scientists have known a long time there's no scientific basis for the concept of "race" as applied to humans. It's a cultural construct.
Not to argue with your basic idea there, but how does culture determine the similarities then? The fact that most native Africans have dark skin, most Northern Europeans are relatively fair skinned, and most Asians are notably shorter than Native Americans? There has to be some genes doing something. Or some other mechanism we have yet to discover.
Our perception of 'race' is surely more exaggerated than the actual genetic differences alone justify, but race is more than genes. For instance: dictionary.com defines race as:
* A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
* A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
* A genealogical line; a lineage.
* Humans considered as a group.
So race is neither purely genetic, nor purely cultural. We forget that sometimes.
The problem is, it's not a tiny minority. Utah consistently elects senators that think this way, as does Oklahoma, and a scary part of the rest of the US. I believe it was West Virgina where a Judge got elected because he posted the Ten Commandments in the his court room, and promised to post them conspicously in the judicial building.
The population of Utah is 2,316,256 vs. a population of 288,368,698, which means that Utah represents 0.00803227 of the US. Less than one percent. And to address the real problem: If you are going to sit there and blame entire STATES, I think the real problem is that YOU are as intolorant as you claim conservatives are. I won't even get into more detail, your post speaks for itself in that respect.
(And since when have Ayn Rand followers been conservative? Randian philosophy is generally considered libertarian, strongly because it doesn't believe the "good community values" of conservativism.)
Libertarians ARE conservative on most issues, and more conservative than Repuplicans by a long shot. You should go read about them. Conservatism covers more than community values. Like I have said, I am not a christian, yet a conservative.
No need for further replies really, I have been nice enough to tolorate your intolorance against the entire populations of Oklahoma, Utah and West Virgina, but any further trashing wouldn't serve any purpose I care to participate in.
What goes around, comes around. Liberals are sick and tired of the right painting us as the cause of every problem that our country faces. Just look at the success of Ann Coulter and the buffoons at Fox News. Their fans don't seem to realize that the Constitution especially the Bill of Rights are purely liberal.
More of the same. Fox puts on more liberals than CNN puts on conservatives, so while they have plenty of conservatives on thier network, at least they open the station to all points of view. I watch both, personally. CNN tends to have more people in the field, Fox tends to get both sides in the studio, from my perspective. Ann Coulter is one of them. Alan Combs also has the number one rated debate show on cable, and he is a Liberal. Geraldo, Cavuto, and many more are known Democrats. Bill ORielly is NOT a conservative, no matter what anyone tells you. He is a populist. Just as I don't confuse the loudest Liberals/Democrats as the majority (Carville for instance) it would serve you better to not think all conservatives are represented by Jesse Helms or Sean Hannity.
Attacking all conservatives is not likely to improve how Liberal are perceived, rather it tends to reinforce it. Or prove it.
Yes, yes Harry Potter was burned in hell by far right conservitives who want control your lives. Its sort of stupid to ban books like Harry Potter and Huck Finn since its seen as the enemy. Its like burning the pages to The Catcher and the Rye.
Whoa now, hold on cowboy. Im as conservative as anyone you will ever meet, and I am not a Christian, so you can't stereotype us that way. Most conservatives don't give a damn one way or another about Harry Potter. Its a book. Its free speech. End of conversation. Next?
Don't confuse extremist christians with conservatives. Granted, most extremist christians are conservative in many ways, the fact is, they represent a small potion of the conservative political presence. Conservatives range from Log Cabin Republicans, business owners, ex military, Ayn Rand followers, soccor moms, and one hell of a lot more.
I agree with your point that some religous extremists want to control our lives. I agree that its stupid to ban books, and would extend it to say immoral to ban books, and it's an attack on all things American. I disagree with your assumption that anything more than a tiny minority of conservatives think this way. The vast majority of us do not. I don't think all liberals eat tofu either.
Where the hell do you get 8 ounce bottles or cans of Coke?
I used equal amounts for comparison. I was guessing you could do the rest of the math yourself. Most sources consider 8oz. of a fluid a serving, regardless of the packaging.
On the other hand, if you pour juice from a large container, you can always "cut it" with water to reduce calories without drastically reducing the flavor. You'd probably be surprised at how over-sweet most "natural" fruit juices are and how they still taste pretty darn good when mixed with 105 to even 30% water.
That is actually a very good point, especially with children. Before I began Atkins, I did this with grape juice about 50/50. Grape juice was a favorite, but was the sweetest as well. My preference is none, but this would be the next best thing to get the satisfaction without all of the sugars.
As for the health issues, my girlfriend had dangerously high cholesterol before starting this, just got it checked and she's in the clear now.
My wife dropped 17 points in cholesterol in 6 months by eating meat. I DO try to not get carried away with pork, because of the fat/cholesterol ratio, but I eat bacon 3-4 days a week, and pork chops once a week. I eat lots of beef, and try to eat more chicken than anything. Its a slow way to loose, but you feel so good, the journey is a pleasure. I miss a few things, but there are substitutes for most everything that are quite reasonable.
That said, I DO go to the doctor twice a year for blood screening, etc. I am cautious because it does go against everything we were taught, but so far, it has shown to be the healthiest thing i have ever done.
One more point: one reason we lose inches faster than pounds is fat weighs 1/3 of fat by volume. If we exercise right, we convert a lot of fat into muscle, which converts much faster because we are getting tons of protein. I noticed a DRAMATIC increase in muscle tone without any increase in activity (I was active enough already). This was a nice bonus. Same with the wife. As a reference, I started out around 215 aiming for 185 (overweight, not obese). The wife is significantly heavier (obese). I wont say cause she will kill me. She is losing preportionately faster than I am.
It is true that the OJ has more calories, but you are still better off drinking it for a number of reasons:
1. the glycemic index rating of OJ is much lower than coke's index. this translates to a difference in the amount of insulin that is released when you ingest the product, and is directly proportional to the energy you gain, the effect you feel later (slump) and the amount that goes directly to fat cells.
2. OJ has VITAMINS! Gasp! Coke? ZILCH.
Regardless.. both of these drinks will leave you dead tired after the sugar wears off. I'd drink OJ over Coke, but water is by far the best choice.
Thank you for the only intellegent reply so far. (may be more I havn't read yet, no flames please) Especially the glycemic index, a point BEYOND most self appointed dieticians here;)
I still choose to not consume either, myself, because of my choice of limiting my carbs, but more importantly, because of your last reason: The high/low effect. Once you get OFF carbs, and the roller coaster of blood sugar, it feels so good, you don't WANT to go back.
If you are wanting me, or anyone else, to take your opinions at heart, you will have to be specific as to what organizations you are referring. Just saying "most" or "some" is meaningless. It just comes off as bashing because it is not specific, documented, or well defined. This is like saying "All Americans are fat and lazy". Its an overly generalized statment that is usually used by people who are not concerned with the truth, but are instead only pushing an agenda with no regard to the truth at all. If you don't want to be perceived as such, you have to be specific.
Actually, you're still better off with the OJ. Although it has more calories, it's a good thing to drink if you're genuinely hungry but can't eat a meal yet. It definitely takes the edge off your hunger. Can't say the same for a soda.
You say its better, but you give no reason why. If I am already getting plenty of vitamin C and folic acid (and i do), then there is no advantage at all. Fructose is not better for you than sucrose. the body doesn't care, its all sugar to it. You may have been told this, but that doesn't make it true.
Careful with Atkins. All protein and no carbs is a great way to send your body into ketosis (shuttling energy between organs as keto acids rather than glucose = not healty). You are basically starving yourself with Atkins. Also, the Atlkins diet can skew your dietary intake towards high cholesterol and fat, while lowering intake of dietary fiber.
No, ketosis is a desirable thing. I work to get my body in ketosis on purpose. Ketosis is the state where your body converts fats into glucose, which the body uses as fuel. You are thinking of ketoacidosis, which is an entirely different thing. Ketosis good, ketoacidosis, bad:) Its a common mistake, even some doctors make it. Read more here.
The biggest mistake people make is thinking: fat=9 calories per gram carb=4 calories per gram thus, fat = 2x the calories per gram.
Wrong. Your body expends almost NO calories in order to convert carbs to energy. It takes much more energy to convert fat to glucose than it takes to covert sucrose to glucose. You burn part of those calories UP in the conversion.
you should go check out the recent university studies. since the 70s when Atkins began developing his dietary theories, everyone has been more concerned with 'discrediting' him with fud than actual medical facts.
Go do some more homework and come back. I already have.
I think you underrate the reasoning power of a 6-year-old. My 4-year-old understands what "stealing" is, and she doesn't do it.:)
Now now, dont misquote me. I didn't say a 4 or 6 year old doesn't have reasoning power, I said " don't think a 6 year old has the reasoning power that I have". It was a comparison, not an absolute statement.
I agree that the government's got no right to tell us we can't spank our kids, but that doesn't mean I think spanking is right. There are other ways to teach kids, and pain isn't the only (or best) way.
Thats the most important part of my arguement: You and I can disagree about it being right or not, but the Govt. has no business interferring.
Finally, it's pure hypocrisy to tell your kid "Don't hit your sister", and then spank them for it.
It CAN be, or not. What makes it hypocritical is not the spanking, but how it verbalized. Just hitting the kid randomly is not good. You can't just spank and not explain why, just as you should not spank in anger.
I don't think you and I disagree in principal, even if we disagree on spanking. I don't look at spanking as a first resort, or as a prefered method either. I just consider it acceptable as a part of discipline.
I am familiar with Dr. Atkins heart attack. You need to read more info, I won't bother you with it here, but its not 'meat' related.
You can not seriously attribute your fathers diet for 3 months to a state of cancer. You need to read more about colon cancer, it does not spring up over a few weeks. If he was doing Atkins, he was also getting lots of fiber, which is required when doing Atkins properly, so there is no change of anything 'sitting' in your colon very long.
Your lack of understanding of Atkins, colon cancer and Dr. Atkin's prior heart attack is overwhelming.
Since email is the #1 app for internet use, all the ISPs have. Even Yahoo, who gives away free email, sells a very good 'deluxe' package, and has lots of takers. Its a good value as well, if that is your needs. Many people, including my mother, have internet access ONLY for email: everything else is incidental. Others pay pretty good money for so called anonymous relays, forwarding, and other services related to email. So, lots of companies are making money with email.
I see your point, which affirms my notion that IM will never see profitability anytime soon. It will remain free, or other free providers will pop up, to lure you to their other services. If aol/yahoo/msn quit free IM (not likely) then Google would likely pop up their own. Quickly. But I think you jumped the gun by comparing email. Some companies are not making money with email, but most are.
You will find that a nice cold glass of water/juice more than cures your hunger for the few hours until your next meal.
Orange juice 8oz: 100 to 120 calories Coke (or cola)8oz: 95 calories
Didn't want to argue, its just shocking how many calories, and carbs are in fruits and juices. You would have been better off with the coke. (fructose is not much better than sucrose)
I prefer the Atkins approach. I researched it for many months and spoke with my doctor about it. In spite of rumors to the contrary, it is quite healthy if done correctly. I have lost 20 pounds, 10 more to go, and feel better than I ever have. I lose it slow, and never go hungry. Ever.
Slashdot Mirror
They have the best ratings in news. To think that this is purely due to pandering would indicate you think the average american is pretty stupid and easy confused. I would disagree.
Personally, I think most people are reasonably intellegent and capable of forming their own opinions, rather than mindless fools. They are not going to support any news source for purely nationalistic reasons. That said: compare journalism now and 50 years ago. There is nothing wrong with being an American before you are a journalist. Its not a weakness, its a strength. Its always much easier to feign non interest in the outcome of a war, but its dishonest. Like it or not, all American journalists DO have a dog in this fight.
Please, don't confuse the ability to lose weight with being healthy. You could starve yourself and lose weight, but not be healthy. Read this article [sciam.com] from Scientific American. Read other scientific articles on health. If you follow some crazy diet just to lose weight, you may face bigger health problems down the road.
My claim of good health was not related to the loss of weight, it was based upon the opinion of my doctor, who is aware of my dietary change and supports it. Its also based upon how I FEEL. I sleep better, requiring less sleep to feel rested, have a better energy level all day long, and have better stamina. Not bad in my opinion. I would stay with Atkins even if I didn't lose weight simply because I FEEL significantly better.
You're posting this to Slashdot?
LOL. If you had not posted as AC, I would gladly buy you a beer for pointing out my obvious error in assuming my previous comments would have any application here. I stand corrected.
agree you are correct that attacking all conservatives will not improve the perception of liberals, however, contrary to this, attacking liberals as unpatriotic etc. does seem to be the standard conservative approach.
I dont. Most conservatives dont. Just because a few conservatives have big mouths, dont assume all of us do. thats the whole point.
And actually, I DO consider Fox News to be more balanced than other news. They are the only station that allows conservatives on, and they almost always have a liberal on at the same time. it tends to lead to alot of shouting matches, but Im a big boy, I can form my own opinions, and its nice to see BOTH sides for a change.
Does America not remember that it's greatest Presidents were liberals?
Carter? Johnson? Who are you referring to?
I eat tofu
Yuck. I just have never been hungry enough to eat tofu. I prefer dead animals. Tofu reminds me of Soylent Green for some reason, and the dead animals I prefer are not human.
But in fact culture does shape races, up to a point. For example, if you have a tribe (or country, or religion, etc.) where green-eyed women are considered "better", they will have a better chance to reproduce and green yees will tend to become more dominant in that culture. Same goes for any other characteristic. Call it "evolution by cultural selection". Cultures change faster than continents drift, though, so the influence of cultural selection (in the long term, at least) is not as big as that of the natural environment.
:) I didn't mean to argue that culture shapes race, my main point is that it is BOTH, and perhaps some other stuff we don't understand yet. As smart as we are, (or think we are) we can't even cure a common cold. Maybe there is more to genetics than we understand yet. I would bet my lunch money on it.
While this may have been true thousands of years ago, I believe that we are no longer evolving in a Darwin like manner. Examples are life lengthening procedures and medicines that allow people who would have died as a teen (diabetes, injuries, even small pox) to instead grow old enough to have children and pass those genes on.
Also, not just the green eyed people breed anymore. Its not longer a matter of certain people creating offspring. Even the ugliest of us can now spread our ugly genes
I thought Slashdot didn't change articles other than to append them? Wasn't 'surprise' spelled 'surprize' just a few minutes ago.
hmmm...
Agreed. But, also, all this implies that if you take an individual (e.g. an American) and raise him on a different country (e.g. Romania) then you have a guy of a different race, possibly he could be even 99.99% Romanian.
no no no. it doesnt prove that all to me. it mainly proves we don't know as much about genes as we thought. Or its not just the individual genes, but the interaction between them. Or something else we don't understand yet. My point was its obviously NOT just the number of genes that decides.
I can take a radio apart and show you all the parts. That doesn't mean I can tell you what each part does, or how to put it back together. The genome may be like that, but lots more parts.
the human genome...the planet's largest open-source project ever.
Hold up! The genome has been patented, or parts of it anyway. This means that if you procreate you are guilty of distributing patented material without a license. As the joke goes, sex is a misdemeanor, da more I miss, da meaner I get.
This might be some sort of DMCA violation (Dont Make Children Americans) so I suggest everyone not have sex until the courts have hashed this out.
Ok, bad jokes, but its not open source either, until we talk them into opening up the source, which would mean abandoning the patents so they go to the public domain. (except for Mexico.)
That's nothing new, though - scientists have known a long time there's no scientific basis for the concept of "race" as applied to humans. It's a cultural construct.
Not to argue with your basic idea there, but how does culture determine the similarities then? The fact that most native Africans have dark skin, most Northern Europeans are relatively fair skinned, and most Asians are notably shorter than Native Americans? There has to be some genes doing something. Or some other mechanism we have yet to discover.
Our perception of 'race' is surely more exaggerated than the actual genetic differences alone justify, but race is more than genes. For instance: dictionary.com defines race as:
* A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
* A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
* A genealogical line; a lineage.
* Humans considered as a group.
So race is neither purely genetic, nor purely cultural. We forget that sometimes.
Intelligence fading....
Its probably because you just lost around 110,000 genes. It could happen to anyone.
The problem is, it's not a tiny minority. Utah consistently elects senators that think this way, as does Oklahoma, and a scary part of the rest of the US. I believe it was West Virgina where a Judge got elected because he posted the Ten Commandments in the his court room, and promised to post them conspicously in the judicial building.
The population of Utah is 2,316,256 vs. a population of 288,368,698, which means that Utah represents 0.00803227 of the US. Less than one percent. And to address the real problem: If you are going to sit there and blame entire STATES, I think the real problem is that YOU are as intolorant as you claim conservatives are. I won't even get into more detail, your post speaks for itself in that respect.
(And since when have Ayn Rand followers been conservative? Randian philosophy is generally considered libertarian, strongly because it doesn't believe the "good community values" of conservativism.)
Libertarians ARE conservative on most issues, and more conservative than Repuplicans by a long shot. You should go read about them. Conservatism covers more than community values. Like I have said, I am not a christian, yet a conservative.
No need for further replies really, I have been nice enough to tolorate your intolorance against the entire populations of Oklahoma, Utah and West Virgina, but any further trashing wouldn't serve any purpose I care to participate in.
What goes around, comes around. Liberals are sick and tired of the right painting us as the cause of every problem that our country faces. Just look at the success of Ann Coulter and the buffoons at Fox News. Their fans don't seem to realize that the Constitution especially the Bill of Rights are purely liberal.
More of the same. Fox puts on more liberals than CNN puts on conservatives, so while they have plenty of conservatives on thier network, at least they open the station to all points of view. I watch both, personally. CNN tends to have more people in the field, Fox tends to get both sides in the studio, from my perspective. Ann Coulter is one of them. Alan Combs also has the number one rated debate show on cable, and he is a Liberal. Geraldo, Cavuto, and many more are known Democrats. Bill ORielly is NOT a conservative, no matter what anyone tells you. He is a populist. Just as I don't confuse the loudest Liberals/Democrats as the majority (Carville for instance) it would serve you better to not think all conservatives are represented by Jesse Helms or Sean Hannity.
Attacking all conservatives is not likely to improve how Liberal are perceived, rather it tends to reinforce it. Or prove it.
Yes, yes Harry Potter was burned in hell by far right conservitives who want control your lives. Its sort of stupid to ban books like Harry Potter and Huck Finn since its seen as the enemy. Its like burning the pages to The Catcher and the Rye.
Whoa now, hold on cowboy. Im as conservative as anyone you will ever meet, and I am not a Christian, so you can't stereotype us that way. Most conservatives don't give a damn one way or another about Harry Potter. Its a book. Its free speech. End of conversation. Next?
Don't confuse extremist christians with conservatives. Granted, most extremist christians are conservative in many ways, the fact is, they represent a small potion of the conservative political presence. Conservatives range from Log Cabin Republicans, business owners, ex military, Ayn Rand followers, soccor moms, and one hell of a lot more.
I agree with your point that some religous extremists want to control our lives. I agree that its stupid to ban books, and would extend it to say immoral to ban books, and it's an attack on all things American. I disagree with your assumption that anything more than a tiny minority of conservatives think this way. The vast majority of us do not. I don't think all liberals eat tofu either.
Where the hell do you get 8 ounce bottles or cans of Coke?
I used equal amounts for comparison. I was guessing you could do the rest of the math yourself. Most sources consider 8oz. of a fluid a serving, regardless of the packaging.
On the other hand, if you pour juice from a large container, you can always "cut it" with water to reduce calories without drastically reducing the flavor. You'd probably be surprised at how over-sweet most "natural" fruit juices are and how they still taste pretty darn good when mixed with 105 to even 30% water.
That is actually a very good point, especially with children. Before I began Atkins, I did this with grape juice about 50/50. Grape juice was a favorite, but was the sweetest as well. My preference is none, but this would be the next best thing to get the satisfaction without all of the sugars.
As for the health issues, my girlfriend had dangerously high cholesterol before starting this, just got it checked and she's in the clear now.
My wife dropped 17 points in cholesterol in 6 months by eating meat. I DO try to not get carried away with pork, because of the fat/cholesterol ratio, but I eat bacon 3-4 days a week, and pork chops once a week. I eat lots of beef, and try to eat more chicken than anything. Its a slow way to loose, but you feel so good, the journey is a pleasure. I miss a few things, but there are substitutes for most everything that are quite reasonable.
That said, I DO go to the doctor twice a year for blood screening, etc. I am cautious because it does go against everything we were taught, but so far, it has shown to be the healthiest thing i have ever done.
One more point: one reason we lose inches faster than pounds is fat weighs 1/3 of fat by volume. If we exercise right, we convert a lot of fat into muscle, which converts much faster because we are getting tons of protein. I noticed a DRAMATIC increase in muscle tone without any increase in activity (I was active enough already). This was a nice bonus. Same with the wife. As a reference, I started out around 215 aiming for 185 (overweight, not obese). The wife is significantly heavier (obese). I wont say cause she will kill me. She is losing preportionately faster than I am.
It is true that the OJ has more calories, but you are still better off drinking it for a number of reasons:
1. the glycemic index rating of OJ is much lower than coke's index. this translates to a difference in the amount of insulin that is released when you ingest the product, and is directly proportional to the energy you gain, the effect you feel later (slump) and the amount that goes directly to fat cells.
2. OJ has VITAMINS! Gasp! Coke? ZILCH.
Regardless.. both of these drinks will leave you dead tired after the sugar wears off. I'd drink OJ over Coke, but water is by far the best choice.
Thank you for the only intellegent reply so far. (may be more I havn't read yet, no flames please) Especially the glycemic index, a point BEYOND most self appointed dieticians here;)
I still choose to not consume either, myself, because of my choice of limiting my carbs, but more importantly, because of your last reason: The high/low effect. Once you get OFF carbs, and the roller coaster of blood sugar, it feels so good, you don't WANT to go back.
If you are wanting me, or anyone else, to take your opinions at heart, you will have to be specific as to what organizations you are referring. Just saying "most" or "some" is meaningless. It just comes off as bashing because it is not specific, documented, or well defined. This is like saying "All Americans are fat and lazy". Its an overly generalized statment that is usually used by people who are not concerned with the truth, but are instead only pushing an agenda with no regard to the truth at all. If you don't want to be perceived as such, you have to be specific.
Actually, you're still better off with the OJ. Although it has more calories, it's a good thing to drink if you're genuinely hungry but can't eat a meal yet. It definitely takes the edge off your hunger. Can't say the same for a soda.
You say its better, but you give no reason why. If I am already getting plenty of vitamin C and folic acid (and i do), then there is no advantage at all. Fructose is not better for you than sucrose. the body doesn't care, its all sugar to it. You may have been told this, but that doesn't make it true.
Careful with Atkins. All protein and no carbs is a great way to send your body into ketosis (shuttling energy between organs as keto acids rather than glucose = not healty). You are basically starving yourself with Atkins. Also, the Atlkins diet can skew your dietary intake towards high cholesterol and fat, while lowering intake of dietary fiber.
:) Its a common mistake, even some doctors make it. Read more here.
No, ketosis is a desirable thing. I work to get my body in ketosis on purpose. Ketosis is the state where your body converts fats into glucose, which the body uses as fuel. You are thinking of
ketoacidosis, which is an entirely different thing. Ketosis good, ketoacidosis, bad
The biggest mistake people make is thinking:
fat=9 calories per gram
carb=4 calories per gram
thus, fat = 2x the calories per gram.
Wrong. Your body expends almost NO calories in order to convert carbs to energy. It takes much more energy to convert fat to glucose than it takes to covert sucrose to glucose. You burn part of those calories UP in the conversion.
you should go check out the recent university studies. since the 70s when Atkins began developing his dietary theories, everyone has been more concerned with 'discrediting' him with fud than actual medical facts.
Go do some more homework and come back. I already have.
I think you underrate the reasoning power of a 6-year-old. My 4-year-old understands what "stealing" is, and she doesn't do it. :)
Now now, dont misquote me. I didn't say a 4 or 6 year old doesn't have reasoning power, I said " don't think a 6 year old has the reasoning power that I have". It was a comparison, not an absolute statement.
I agree that the government's got no right to tell us we can't spank our kids, but that doesn't mean I think spanking is right. There are other ways to teach kids, and pain isn't the only (or best) way.
Thats the most important part of my arguement: You and I can disagree about it being right or not, but the Govt. has no business interferring.
Finally, it's pure hypocrisy to tell your kid "Don't hit your sister", and then spank them for it.
It CAN be, or not. What makes it hypocritical is not the spanking, but how it verbalized. Just hitting the kid randomly is not good. You can't just spank and not explain why, just as you should not spank in anger.
I don't think you and I disagree in principal, even if we disagree on spanking. I don't look at spanking as a first resort, or as a prefered method either. I just consider it acceptable as a part of discipline.
I am familiar with Dr. Atkins heart attack. You need to read more info, I won't bother you with it here, but its not 'meat' related.
You can not seriously attribute your fathers diet for 3 months to a state of cancer. You need to read more about colon cancer, it does not spring up over a few weeks. If he was doing Atkins, he was also getting lots of fiber, which is required when doing Atkins properly, so there is no change of anything 'sitting' in your colon very long.
Your lack of understanding of Atkins, colon cancer and Dr. Atkin's prior heart attack is overwhelming.
but who, exactly, has made money from e-mail?
Since email is the #1 app for internet use, all the ISPs have. Even Yahoo, who gives away free email, sells a very good 'deluxe' package, and has lots of takers. Its a good value as well, if that is your needs. Many people, including my mother, have internet access ONLY for email: everything else is incidental. Others pay pretty good money for so called anonymous relays, forwarding, and other services related to email. So, lots of companies are making money with email.
I see your point, which affirms my notion that IM will never see profitability anytime soon. It will remain free, or other free providers will pop up, to lure you to their other services. If aol/yahoo/msn quit free IM (not likely) then Google would likely pop up their own. Quickly. But I think you jumped the gun by comparing email. Some companies are not making money with email, but most are.
You will find that a nice cold glass of water/juice more than cures your hunger for the few hours until your next meal.
Orange juice 8oz: 100 to 120 calories
Coke (or cola)8oz: 95 calories
Didn't want to argue, its just shocking how many calories, and carbs are in fruits and juices. You would have been better off with the coke. (fructose is not much better than sucrose)
I prefer the Atkins approach. I researched it for many months and spoke with my doctor about it. In spite of rumors to the contrary, it is quite healthy if done correctly. I have lost 20 pounds, 10 more to go, and feel better than I ever have. I lose it slow, and never go hungry. Ever.