You are doing an incredibly poor job of reading. All of the links that you have provided state that eating too few calories can result in lowering your metabolism. None of them say that eating less than maintenance calories (which you would need to determine for your new, lower metabolism) can result in weight gain, they say that it becomes easier to gain weight (and harder to lose it) once your metabolism has been lowered.
The reason that I don't need to talk to a doctor about it is that it violates basic principles of physics. Insisting that eating a poor diet that changes your metabolism and then going on to eat more than a maintenance level of calories equates to "eating too few calories" does not make it true.
Again, we are mostly arguing semantics, you seem to think that eating too few calories for a while is starvation, whereas I am insisting that it starvation consists of continually eating fewer calories than are required for maintenance (as determined by a persons metabolism on *that day*, not prior to their caloric restrictions).
Another reason that I don't need to talk to a doctor about it is that even if I am trying to lose weight, I would never try to come in below ~ 2000 Calories for a day, or if I am active, 500-700 Calories below my estimated expenditure. Neither of those is particularly likely to cause my metabolism to go into an extreme state.
We are down to semantics here. If every day you know your caloric expenditure and you make absolutely certain not to exceed that expenditure, you cannot gain weight (you could perhaps pack on some water, but that is more of a boring side issue). If you regularly eat far below your caloric expenditure, your body will indeed start to digest itself, but once that happens, if you continue on a starvation diet (i.e., less than the daily calorie requirement), you won't gain weight (but the rate at which you lose weight will slow down).
So a poor diet (eating far below daily maintenance) can complicate weight loss, but it really can't make you gain weight (I refuse to give the starvation mode+overeating the starvation label, so we probably shouldn't waste each others time arguing that point). Certainly, starvation mode could sufficiently lower daily caloric requirements to the point that daily consumption exceeded those requirements, but calling that starvation is kind of odd to me.
in terms of pound miles, driving my car to the store is far worse (so the problem isn't really that the cheap crap comes from 8,000 miles away, it is that it is being consumed at all).
Well, in addition to that, he did refer to a book that discusses the influence of cortisol and stress on obesity (as compared to fats and sugars, personally, I suspect that calories are a lot more important than composition), but he didn't actually cite any research, he just claimed that it was out there.
You don't have to be stupid to be biased or make errors in estimation.
At the very least, metabolism has to follow thermodynamics (if a person doesn't burn X Calories per day, their body temperature will drop and they will die, where X is more than 1,000 for essentially all adults, and quite likely to be over 1,500 for women, and 2,000 for men). So when someone claims that they exercise vigorously and only eat 1,500 calories a day and still gain weight, or that they eat 1/4 as much as other people, it isn't particularly ridiculous to assume that they are making some huge error in one of their calculations.
I don't think the problem with G.W. Bush was that he was stupid, it was that he was/is incredibly radical (he essentially chose to go to war in order to attempt to impose democracy, which is sort of difficult to do).
In the last few years, they came out with a solar powered GShock. Give them another couple hundred years and Casio will be turning out artifacts full time.
The atmosphere is a lot more dynamic than that. The sun hits the earth with more than 100 terawatts of power; on average, the earth has to radiate all of that power away, or it heats up. As you add more energy, you increase the amount of energy that is radiated away; if you absorb energy, you decrease the amount of energy that is radiated away.
Human activity currently averages at about 16 terawatts, but the net result of the majority of that activity is to release heat into the atmosphere (which minimizes the amount of energy actually be removed from the earth system...). So there might be some amount of energy that gets stored (but it is probably small), but for the most part, human use of solar energy looks a lot like the wind (moving energy from high availability to an area with lower availability), and it is unlikely that the effects would be sudden (because even if 50% of human power was captured from solar energy, it would only account for 5% of the system).
Slashdot Mirror
You are doing an incredibly poor job of reading. All of the links that you have provided state that eating too few calories can result in lowering your metabolism. None of them say that eating less than maintenance calories (which you would need to determine for your new, lower metabolism) can result in weight gain, they say that it becomes easier to gain weight (and harder to lose it) once your metabolism has been lowered.
The reason that I don't need to talk to a doctor about it is that it violates basic principles of physics. Insisting that eating a poor diet that changes your metabolism and then going on to eat more than a maintenance level of calories equates to "eating too few calories" does not make it true.
Again, we are mostly arguing semantics, you seem to think that eating too few calories for a while is starvation, whereas I am insisting that it starvation consists of continually eating fewer calories than are required for maintenance (as determined by a persons metabolism on *that day*, not prior to their caloric restrictions).
Another reason that I don't need to talk to a doctor about it is that even if I am trying to lose weight, I would never try to come in below ~ 2000 Calories for a day, or if I am active, 500-700 Calories below my estimated expenditure. Neither of those is particularly likely to cause my metabolism to go into an extreme state.
What is more efficient than feed lots? I only even see range fed beef being more expensive.
We are down to semantics here. If every day you know your caloric expenditure and you make absolutely certain not to exceed that expenditure, you cannot gain weight (you could perhaps pack on some water, but that is more of a boring side issue). If you regularly eat far below your caloric expenditure, your body will indeed start to digest itself, but once that happens, if you continue on a starvation diet (i.e., less than the daily calorie requirement), you won't gain weight (but the rate at which you lose weight will slow down).
So a poor diet (eating far below daily maintenance) can complicate weight loss, but it really can't make you gain weight (I refuse to give the starvation mode+overeating the starvation label, so we probably shouldn't waste each others time arguing that point). Certainly, starvation mode could sufficiently lower daily caloric requirements to the point that daily consumption exceeded those requirements, but calling that starvation is kind of odd to me.
Wind farms don't kill nearly as many birds as I do.
Take that nature!
They are going to tacitly approve of it for at least 4 years (or do you think that the EPA is going to go a-knocking?).
Still, no shame in being the runner up when Batman is involved.
Yeah, but that just leads to improper and illegal disposal.
I mean, does anybody really want a repeat of the Great Lawyer Pile of New Jersey? It burned for years and years.
Right. Poor nutrition can complicate weight loss, but on the other hand, you can't starve yourself to weight gain.
The difference between 900 and 1000 available PINS doesn't really make me worry a whole lot.
You can say you hit me with a trout all you want, I know better.
in terms of pound miles, driving my car to the store is far worse (so the problem isn't really that the cheap crap comes from 8,000 miles away, it is that it is being consumed at all).
Well, in addition to that, he did refer to a book that discusses the influence of cortisol and stress on obesity (as compared to fats and sugars, personally, I suspect that calories are a lot more important than composition), but he didn't actually cite any research, he just claimed that it was out there.
I believe you are confused.
You don't have to be stupid to be biased or make errors in estimation.
At the very least, metabolism has to follow thermodynamics (if a person doesn't burn X Calories per day, their body temperature will drop and they will die, where X is more than 1,000 for essentially all adults, and quite likely to be over 1,500 for women, and 2,000 for men). So when someone claims that they exercise vigorously and only eat 1,500 calories a day and still gain weight, or that they eat 1/4 as much as other people, it isn't particularly ridiculous to assume that they are making some huge error in one of their calculations.
Your anecdote is essentially meaningless, not proof.
Where did you check?
The mistake you are making is that you think Mozilla shares your goals.
If it isn't part of a conversation with a C-level friend, your point doesn't count.
Surely there are a non-trivial number of lawyers who have passed the bar but have not even appeared in court.
I don't think the problem with G.W. Bush was that he was stupid, it was that he was/is incredibly radical (he essentially chose to go to war in order to attempt to impose democracy, which is sort of difficult to do).
He didn't, much like the oil and eggs in mayonnaise, he stuck them in a jar together and agitated until they appeared to be mixed up.
In the last few years, they came out with a solar powered GShock. Give them another couple hundred years and Casio will be turning out artifacts full time.
You aren't very good at it, so yes, I do have a problem with it.
A minimum of 100 mg a day for the rest of your life?
The atmosphere is a lot more dynamic than that. The sun hits the earth with more than 100 terawatts of power; on average, the earth has to radiate all of that power away, or it heats up. As you add more energy, you increase the amount of energy that is radiated away; if you absorb energy, you decrease the amount of energy that is radiated away.
Human activity currently averages at about 16 terawatts, but the net result of the majority of that activity is to release heat into the atmosphere (which minimizes the amount of energy actually be removed from the earth system...). So there might be some amount of energy that gets stored (but it is probably small), but for the most part, human use of solar energy looks a lot like the wind (moving energy from high availability to an area with lower availability), and it is unlikely that the effects would be sudden (because even if 50% of human power was captured from solar energy, it would only account for 5% of the system).