While I've always believed this is true, I would caution about extrapolating study results to the real world at this point. The difference over a lifetime between being thin and fat is an imperceptible change in equilibrium. The weight of a nickel (5 grams) a day over 10 years equals forty pounds. What's more the human system is dynamic; it responds to the makeup of the calories it consumes in various non-linear ways. So this is a limitation of studies in which calories are strictly controlled, which are of course important kinds of studies to do because they answer some fundamental questions, but from answering those questions to understand behavior is a long way to go.
But it suggests to me that strict measurement of input and output are things worth trying for an individual.
There is no easy solution, unless you are constrained in multiple ways. It is very easy for a normal person to eat far more calories than he can burn, even if he makes a marginal increase in burning (e.g. walking more). You have to walk more, and reduce calories, and eat better quality calories. All of it.
First of all fiber is carbohydrate, but of course that's not what you meant, you meant digestible carbs. But for digestible carbs, it depends. Big slugs of refined carbs are especially bad for sedentary people because you get hungry fast.
On the othe rhand some of my gym rat buddies need to eat almost 4000 calories per day to keep from losing weight. These are people who spend more than a dozen hours a week in the gym. In other words these are very atypical people, which is why I says "it depends". For these people avoiding carbs may actually be bad. The bodybuilders in particular when they're preparing for a competition have to cut their calorie intake, but to keep from losing muscle keep their protein up. That translates into a very low-carb routine. This gets them "cut", but their lifting performance drops dramatically because they aren't eating enough carbs to support their normal, very high level of activity. They're relying on gluconeogensis to provide glucose, but if athletic performance was what they were aiming for (rather than appearance) they should be eating moderate amounts of carbs -- very possibly quantities that would be unhealthy for a sedentary person.
So it's the overall pattern of energy intake and output that matters, not one parameters (such as steps, or grams of carbs). It's a great big "depends". If you're gong to take conscious control of this situation, you've got to be prepared to dive into the data, not just one piece, but everything.
Exactly. Here's the problem; MOST people naturally gain weight in a modern environment of desk work and easy access to massive amounts of calories. In this basically unhealthy environment a healthy person will gain unhealthy weight unless he (a) artificially restrains his calorie intake[note] and (b) artificially inflates his exercise output.
Most people won't do those things, and therefore naturally tend to gain weight in a way that our ancestors of even fifty years ago didn't.
And activity trackers won't magically change that. Slap one on some random person who is in a weight-gaining mode, and he'll almost certain remain in that mode. HOWEVER: if you want to be in the small minority of people who are successful, then a fitness tracker is useful.
note: most diets that work by macronutrient selection (e.g. Atkins) when they work dos obecause people are sated on fewer calories.
Well, this is what happens when you take safety very, very seriously. You don't leave any room for judgment on the people in the field. The rules probably say: in case of fire, EVACUATE THE PLANE. They don't say, in case of fire, check to see whether it's a sufficiently big one and then evacuate the plane, although that does accord better with common sense.
You could do the common sense thing and tell the crew, "use your best judgment". But if you're smart you have your actuaries look over the relative costs of (a) the eventually inevitable occurrence of one individual making a bone-headedly bad decision with hundreds of lives in the balance and (b) the cost of a the unnecessary evacuations a simple-to-follow but inflexible rule causes.
The difference between making a decision for an individual event and weighing the net impact of many such decisions is behind a lot of the incomprehensible annoyances we put up with in modern life.
The notion that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is an "island" of trash is how the media spun it. In fact it's quite a bit worse than such a floating landfill would be, as explained in this video from NOAA.
The Wikipedia entry is likewise very informative:
The patch is characterized by exceptionally high relative concentrations of pelagic plastics, chemical sludge and other debris that have been trapped by the currents of the North Pacific Gyre.[2] Because of its large area, it is of very low density (4 particles per cubic meter), and therefore not visible from satellite photography, nor even necessarily to casual boaters or divers in the area. It consists primarily of a small increase in suspended, often microscopic, particles in the upper water column.
It is this combination of massive extent, depth, and modest concentration (typically four pea-sized pellets in 250 gallons of water) that make it impossible to remedy, but the ecological impact is nonetheless massive -- and likely to grow as human populations and standards of living grow. This is a combination of physical concentration through ingestion and bioaccumulation of organic pollutants, many of which act as estrogen-analogs in vivo.
It's something that is of greater concern than an eyesore of a floating landfill would be.
Buzzfeed's business model isn't based around posting good content Nor it it based around posting bad content. It's about maximizing click-throughs, which means providing good content to people like you (i.e., smart people) and garbage content for all the idiots (i.e., people not like you) out there on the Internet.
But of course the cultural value of Buzzfeed is beside the point. Nobody in a free society gets to edit things other people say about them.
Yes, it is a vast conspiracy. The New York Ties in particularly loves Hillary. The thousands of federal agents who pored over Clintons emails were each one pinkie-sworn to secrecy too.
You miss the point, which going by the advertisement is obviously to create a better person than an actual person as a companion -- for people who don't like dogs.
Fascism is only opportunistically anti-capitalist, which you would know if you studied its history in various places as well as over time. It flirted with socialism particularly in the early 20th century because that was seen by many as the wave of the future, but when it managed to gain power it purged, sidelines, or even outright murdered the socialists in its ranks.
Your view is very parochial in any case; social democracies like Sweden are much less like the fascist regimes of the early 20th Century than, say, Russia is under the United Russia party, which (surprise) is made up of former socialists who are now crony capitalists.
Fascism and socialism are entirely different in their nature. A fascist can a capitalist in the morning and a socialist in the afternoon as long as it suits his purpose.
It's the polar opposite of being doctrinaire; the doctrinaire extremist fits the occasion to the theory; the fascist fits the theory to the occasion.
Charisma has everything to do with it, and policy nothing to do with it. An authoritarian leader can contradict himself on policy and his followers won't care.
Authoritarian leaders are not the least consistent about policy. That's why scholars have had so much trouble characterizing fascism as an ideology, because it's not an ideology. It's a disease of ideology; it's politics rotting from the head down, like a fish.
They are authoritarian followers, that fight anybody that disagrees with them with violence. They are irrational and dangerous. They are unable to find a middle-ground with others.
You're describing Hillary's followers here.
.
Because authoritarians follow charismatic leaders...
Just saying repeating what someone else says doesn't make it true, no matter where you claim your loyalties lie (or in this case loyalties you disclaim).
Well, if you've ever been an expert at something, you no doubt use certain words in ways that confuse non-experts, because you have need of more precision than they do.
I have no idea what the technical epidemiological standard is for being something- "free", but it can't be the utter absence of that something (which is the non-specialist's definition) because you can't prove a negative. So there must be some criteria short of absence.
It's been tried before, on an impressive scale. Humans haven't figured out absolutely how to keep rats, cockroaches and bedbugs out of their domiciles, much less most persistent and clever pest of all: other humans.
It'd probably be worthwhile for the rich to consider what being rich actually means. It's not having a lot of gold. Gold through the ages has only been useful as specie because (a) it's pretty and (b) it didn't have much practical use other than being pretty.
What being rich means is having the ability to command the cooperation and compliance of other human beings.
So a bunker is only good for a couple of weeks or at most months of disorder. It's a place to go while someone on the outside is struggling to re-establish the status quo ante. So it makes no sense to build one unless you also invest in the stability of the status quo, because if those people trying to preserve society fail you're actually in a worse situation than other survivors when you come out of your bunker. The vast majority of your money will become only scare-quotes "money" if the legal framework in which debts and ownership exist ceases to function.
Scenario: You discover to your surprise that you can have your fill of every pleasure money can buy, and then you notice you've still got a mountain of that stuff lying around.
What to do?
(1) Pursue power. This never gets old, because there's other guys with mountains of money doing the same thing. No amount of power.is ever enough, because it's relative power that brings satisfaction.
(2) Serve humanity. The ability to amass money on this scale is a function of the scale of society, and that means that society's problems scale proportionately. The material resources you command could have solved all humanity's problems -- five thousand years ago. Today they're just a drop in a bucket, and that's a challenge.
Slashdot Mirror
While I've always believed this is true, I would caution about extrapolating study results to the real world at this point. The difference over a lifetime between being thin and fat is an imperceptible change in equilibrium. The weight of a nickel (5 grams) a day over 10 years equals forty pounds. What's more the human system is dynamic; it responds to the makeup of the calories it consumes in various non-linear ways. So this is a limitation of studies in which calories are strictly controlled, which are of course important kinds of studies to do because they answer some fundamental questions, but from answering those questions to understand behavior is a long way to go.
But it suggests to me that strict measurement of input and output are things worth trying for an individual.
Well, according to the headline soon you'll drive by and see the same thing, only they'll be about 42 inches tall.
There is no easy solution, unless you are constrained in multiple ways. It is very easy for a normal person to eat far more calories than he can burn, even if he makes a marginal increase in burning (e.g. walking more). You have to walk more, and reduce calories, and eat better quality calories. All of it.
First of all fiber is carbohydrate, but of course that's not what you meant, you meant digestible carbs. But for digestible carbs, it depends. Big slugs of refined carbs are especially bad for sedentary people because you get hungry fast.
On the othe rhand some of my gym rat buddies need to eat almost 4000 calories per day to keep from losing weight. These are people who spend more than a dozen hours a week in the gym. In other words these are very atypical people, which is why I says "it depends". For these people avoiding carbs may actually be bad. The bodybuilders in particular when they're preparing for a competition have to cut their calorie intake, but to keep from losing muscle keep their protein up. That translates into a very low-carb routine. This gets them "cut", but their lifting performance drops dramatically because they aren't eating enough carbs to support their normal, very high level of activity. They're relying on gluconeogensis to provide glucose, but if athletic performance was what they were aiming for (rather than appearance) they should be eating moderate amounts of carbs -- very possibly quantities that would be unhealthy for a sedentary person.
So it's the overall pattern of energy intake and output that matters, not one parameters (such as steps, or grams of carbs). It's a great big "depends". If you're gong to take conscious control of this situation, you've got to be prepared to dive into the data, not just one piece, but everything.
Exactly. Here's the problem; MOST people naturally gain weight in a modern environment of desk work and easy access to massive amounts of calories. In this basically unhealthy environment a healthy person will gain unhealthy weight unless he (a) artificially restrains his calorie intake[note] and (b) artificially inflates his exercise output.
Most people won't do those things, and therefore naturally tend to gain weight in a way that our ancestors of even fifty years ago didn't.
And activity trackers won't magically change that. Slap one on some random person who is in a weight-gaining mode, and he'll almost certain remain in that mode. HOWEVER: if you want to be in the small minority of people who are successful, then a fitness tracker is useful.
note: most diets that work by macronutrient selection (e.g. Atkins) when they work dos obecause people are sated on fewer calories.
Well, this is what happens when you take safety very, very seriously. You don't leave any room for judgment on the people in the field. The rules probably say: in case of fire, EVACUATE THE PLANE. They don't say, in case of fire, check to see whether it's a sufficiently big one and then evacuate the plane, although that does accord better with common sense.
You could do the common sense thing and tell the crew, "use your best judgment". But if you're smart you have your actuaries look over the relative costs of (a) the eventually inevitable occurrence of one individual making a bone-headedly bad decision with hundreds of lives in the balance and (b) the cost of a the unnecessary evacuations a simple-to-follow but inflexible rule causes.
The difference between making a decision for an individual event and weighing the net impact of many such decisions is behind a lot of the incomprehensible annoyances we put up with in modern life.
they crumble down to micro plastics. whatever they are.
They are very small pieces of plastic. Glad I can clear that up for you, but do try to keep up net time.
The notion that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is an "island" of trash is how the media spun it. In fact it's quite a bit worse than such a floating landfill would be, as explained in this video from NOAA.
The Wikipedia entry is likewise very informative:
The patch is characterized by exceptionally high relative concentrations of pelagic plastics, chemical sludge and other debris that have been trapped by the currents of the North Pacific Gyre.[2] Because of its large area, it is of very low density (4 particles per cubic meter), and therefore not visible from satellite photography, nor even necessarily to casual boaters or divers in the area. It consists primarily of a small increase in suspended, often microscopic, particles in the upper water column.
It is this combination of massive extent, depth, and modest concentration (typically four pea-sized pellets in 250 gallons of water) that make it impossible to remedy, but the ecological impact is nonetheless massive -- and likely to grow as human populations and standards of living grow. This is a combination of physical concentration through ingestion and bioaccumulation of organic pollutants, many of which act as estrogen-analogs in vivo.
It's something that is of greater concern than an eyesore of a floating landfill would be.
... and let me punch your smug little face over and over again?
Buzzfeed's business model isn't based around posting good content Nor it it based around posting bad content. It's about maximizing click-throughs, which means providing good content to people like you (i.e., smart people) and garbage content for all the idiots (i.e., people not like you) out there on the Internet.
But of course the cultural value of Buzzfeed is beside the point. Nobody in a free society gets to edit things other people say about them.
Yes, it is a vast conspiracy. The New York Ties in particularly loves Hillary. The thousands of federal agents who pored over Clintons emails were each one pinkie-sworn to secrecy too.
You miss the point, which going by the advertisement is obviously to create a better person than an actual person as a companion -- for people who don't like dogs.
The implications is the writer hasn't grasped the difference between releasing fossil carbon and concentrating emissions of recently fixed carbon.
Fascism is only opportunistically anti-capitalist, which you would know if you studied its history in various places as well as over time. It flirted with socialism particularly in the early 20th century because that was seen by many as the wave of the future, but when it managed to gain power it purged, sidelines, or even outright murdered the socialists in its ranks.
Your view is very parochial in any case; social democracies like Sweden are much less like the fascist regimes of the early 20th Century than, say, Russia is under the United Russia party, which (surprise) is made up of former socialists who are now crony capitalists.
Fascism and socialism are entirely different in their nature. A fascist can a capitalist in the morning and a socialist in the afternoon as long as it suits his purpose.
It's the polar opposite of being doctrinaire; the doctrinaire extremist fits the occasion to the theory; the fascist fits the theory to the occasion.
Charisma has everything to do with it, and policy nothing to do with it. An authoritarian leader can contradict himself on policy and his followers won't care.
Authoritarian leaders are not the least consistent about policy. That's why scholars have had so much trouble characterizing fascism as an ideology, because it's not an ideology. It's a disease of ideology; it's politics rotting from the head down, like a fish.
Independent here, not a "Trump fan".
You're describing Hillary's followers here.
.
Because authoritarians follow charismatic leaders...
Just saying repeating what someone else says doesn't make it true, no matter where you claim your loyalties lie (or in this case loyalties you disclaim).
A Kia that I own with a Trump sticker in Baltimore got vandalized to the tune of $2500 in July.?
I am doubly sorry to hear that.
Well, if you've ever been an expert at something, you no doubt use certain words in ways that confuse non-experts, because you have need of more precision than they do.
I have no idea what the technical epidemiological standard is for being something- "free", but it can't be the utter absence of that something (which is the non-specialist's definition) because you can't prove a negative. So there must be some criteria short of absence.
It's been tried before, on an impressive scale. Humans haven't figured out absolutely how to keep rats, cockroaches and bedbugs out of their domiciles, much less most persistent and clever pest of all: other humans.
It'd probably be worthwhile for the rich to consider what being rich actually means. It's not having a lot of gold. Gold through the ages has only been useful as specie because (a) it's pretty and (b) it didn't have much practical use other than being pretty.
What being rich means is having the ability to command the cooperation and compliance of other human beings.
So a bunker is only good for a couple of weeks or at most months of disorder. It's a place to go while someone on the outside is struggling to re-establish the status quo ante. So it makes no sense to build one unless you also invest in the stability of the status quo, because if those people trying to preserve society fail you're actually in a worse situation than other survivors when you come out of your bunker. The vast majority of your money will become only scare-quotes "money" if the legal framework in which debts and ownership exist ceases to function.
Yes, I've noticed how anti-gun Hollywood is; you can see it in the movies that come out of there.
I think the problem is that real guns are so disappointing. If you could make one that sprays endless bullets with no recoil, well that'd be a hoot.
Scenario: You discover to your surprise that you can have your fill of every pleasure money can buy, and then you notice you've still got a mountain of that stuff lying around.
What to do?
(1) Pursue power. This never gets old, because there's other guys with mountains of money doing the same thing. No amount of power.is ever enough, because it's relative power that brings satisfaction.
(2) Serve humanity. The ability to amass money on this scale is a function of the scale of society, and that means that society's problems scale proportionately. The material resources you command could have solved all humanity's problems -- five thousand years ago. Today they're just a drop in a bucket, and that's a challenge.
(3) Build yourself a lavish Armageddon bunker.
(4) Any combination of the above.
The other responder I think put his finger on the problem with this, but I just wanted to say I appreciated the effort.
Establishing that knowledge *can* be property is necessary, but not sufficient to establish that any piece of knowledge *is* property.
But at stake here isn't knowledge; it's administration.