Yes, but I'm not particularly talking about weight, I don't own a scale, but my pants were all just as tight, as were my shirts, in all the same places, but also around the places I was growing muscle.
First of all, caloric content of food is very poorly calculated, how the body processes varies a great deal. I may have a more efficient colon that gets more of the calories out of food that isn't generally computated fully.
Second, I lost a lot of energy, meaning my BMR dropped substantially during the rest of the time I wasn't active, leaving me constantly cold and exhausted.
This is why computer programmers do so horribly in life sciences, between genetics, metagenetics, multiple levels of systemic efficiencies, enormous variability in all of our measures, you just can't make the assertions you claim are so easy, they don't hold up in the real world.
We set caloric content without much actual relation to how much our body gets out of it, the hunger pangs and pain for some people is a lot higher than others, the biological drive to eat is more powerful than cocaine, caffiene, or nicotine by a long shot, even stronger than sex drive.
The idea of blaming willpower, calling people lazy and shitty because they can't overcome that horrifically intense biology that makes them eat more, that pushes their weight set point higher, well, not much they can do about it, and that is reflected by the studies that show that the "eat less and exercise" is only effective as treatment about 1% of the time.
It isn't like just adjusting a parameter, switching shampoo, or taking the stairs instead of the elevator, it is trying to override hunger, and that just doesn't work. Nobody will commit to a long term change that involves continuous hunger, pain, suffering, inability to focus, constant annoyance, irritability, etc. People just won't do it. And that is the problem. They can't. It is built into the human brain to not resist that urge. If it were as easy as deciding to eat less, everybody would do that, but it isn't a choice many of us have unless we are forced into it by our economic situation (starving in the streets).
I agree, but low carb is definitely the way to go. Paleo goes over the top and makes a lot of unfounded claims, but low carb is just a generally good principle. I get around 40-80 carbs per day and that seems to be a healthy level.
Less than 5 companies with more than 70% of market share shows no evidence of competition. You really need at least 10 competitors within 50% before competition is powerful enough to matter.
Perfect competition is what is required for supply, demand, and price perfectly as you would see and expect in economics courses according to supply, demand, price charts. I wasn't refuting myself, I was pointing out that markets are NEVER perfectly competitive, that at best, competition is slow and weak, it takes a great deal of policy measure to enforce and maintain market competition to ensure markets are free.
Without market competition, all we have are command economies like Stalinist Russia, except where the rich run everything for themselves with no accountability.
Only in the real world, most consumers don't know until they buy bootlegged cartridges and find out when they get them and they won't work. Customers don't have perfect information or the time to get it, and likely won't know about the differences and will be hurt by them anyways, and then very quickly we will see the competition adopt the same practices.
Regardless, price discrimination should be illegal globally. It is just a way to extract as much as they can from every market sector when the price should be at the lower end where they still make a ton of profit, which is where it would be in a competitive market.
Only there have always been fat people, in all walks of life, as long as they weren't in a position to be starving to death. We have paintings of obese people from 4000 years ago. It isn't new.
It isn't basic physics. What causes the cravings? If I don't eat, I get intense pain that is so strong I can't do anything else until I eat, it is horrible, so I quench it. It isn't like "don't have a cigarette" I quit smoking cigarettes without a second thought. It took no effort whatsoever. Eating less? May as well be asking me to have surgery 3 times a day. The forces that make it impossible for people to stick to diets and life the lifestyle you demand, that force people to be sedentary are serious problems that you can't overlook. You can't pretend that it is just because people are lazy or gluttonous, that isn't true at all in the vast majority of cases.
So let's say in some people there is a very small push by the body to reach a high set point weight, they don't have a large appetite, they don't have a strong desire to eat, they don't have horrific hunger pangs when they try to eat less, they don't absorb as much of the extra calories from food, their body doesn't shut down the energy pipeline the second they've had less than ideal calories.
And in another person, the exact opposite is true on all counts to the point where losing weight requires constant, brutal suffering.
Will power? Fucking idiots. As though the workings of the human body and it's drives are as simple as "calories in, calories out" way be an idiot.
I'm fat, about 260 lbs, 6'. I've been the same weight for about 10 years now, no change at all. I went from doing nothing, to eating better and exercising a substantial amount. Nothing has changed. I've taken nootropics that reduce appetite, increase the bodies thermoproduction, that reduce the rate of fat storage, nothing has changed. I've counted calories and worked very hard to avoid overeating. Nothing changed. That is the situation we are discussing here.
When I eat less, my body reacts by draining me of energy until I can barely move, I get INTENSE hunger pangs that feel like being stabbed. There is a set point the body pushes to that is genetic and based in early life experience. The body will always aim just above that set point and try to raise it over time to increase safe margin's of calories for bad times per our evolutionary programming. The body will do almost anything to push you to that set point.
Fat in diets is not the problem. Fats and protiens are filling, create a feeling of satisfaction when eating, people on high fat, high protien diets tend not to overeat more than very slightly. Sugar and carbs on the other hand create no feeling of satisfaction and leave you very hungry, cause a build up of restistance to insulin over time, cause your liver to release more cholesterol into the blood, etc. Taxing fat would be the wrong idea, and most poor people's food is carbs. A tax does not seem the right way to deal with the problem. Subsidizing some foods over others, as in, subsidizing healthy food to a large extent would be a better approach, as would be looking for genetic cures and solutions to the problem of obesity.
This has been the state of the research for over a decade now. Dietary cholesterol is broken down immediately, has no correlation to blood cholesterol. Blood cholesterol levels are set by the liver, and the liver raises them in response to sugar input, lowers them in response to fat in the diet, as the liver uses cholesterol to make bile salts which it uses to break down fats.
here is a very well sourced article on the matter: http://chriskresser.com/the-di...
I don't know about him but I did. 6 months of 3 weekly weight lifting sessions and 4 weekly cardio sessions, 1800 calories per day. No fat lost, no thinner waist, no chance in anything whatsoever, no weight loss. But then the idiots here say things like "oh I bet you weren't really following it" and dismiss the millions of cases just like this all over the nation as purely anecdotal or made up or something like that. Or maybe it is more complicated than you give it credit for.
Different body chemistry caused by the gut bacteria and behavior could cause your body to store more fat and rob you of energy until you can't stick with your current regiment and you start packing on pounds. I guarantee you would gain weight like you wouldn't believe after such a transplant.
Definitely wrong. I used to be eating about 2800 calories a day, fat, and out of shape. I started eating less (1800 calories per day), weight lifting 3 times a week, doing intense cardio 2-4 hours a week, and I'm exactly as fat as ever. The same pants size, the same amount of fat. Even when I dropped calories to 1600 per day and upped cardio to 8 hours a week for 2 months I lost exactly 0 pounds, it all came out of my energy levels.
The genetic issue this article references talks about a gene which causes the body to store fat instead of burn it for energy when appropriate, which would cause exactly what I described above. There are also probably many variations on it, but of all the people I've known who have stuck hard to diets and exercise, only about 2% ever see any success.
Yea, he can totally go to one or 2-3 identical companies with identical products that do the exact same thing. SO MUCH FREEDOM!
Only repeated studies show that if fewer than 5 companies hold more than 70% market share, there is no measurable competition, and therefore no relationship between supply, demand, and price. Just look up the list of things required for perfect competition, a third of the items are physically impossible, a third extremely unlikely, and less than 5% of the factors exist when markets have so few major players.
Markets are only free if they are very competitive. Xerox can only get away with this because they don't have to care about pissing off customers, so long as they aren't an order of magnitude worse than their fellow giants.
Down voting something "troll" because you don't have any arguments to back up your positions instead of debating me is cowardly. I am not, nor have I ever been a troll. Of course, I wouldn't expect anything like reasonable debate from a Republican. Coward.
The Republican party policies pretend that all social problems like poverty and crime are caused by individual moral failings and that there is no systemic cause, no cause outside the individual for a lack of success, which is objectively false.
Every statistical measure we have suggests the US is not a meritocracy but a society where favors are granted to friends and networks of the wealthy and where your parents have more to do with your success than any other factor. Our economy has a structural number of jobs due to it's consolidation, no matter how hard the poor work, they can have no effect on that number and are just beating out one another for resources, the number of unemployed can not be changed by those at the bottom, it is not an issue of dependence, it is an issue of currency manipulation pushing jobs overseas, and of market consolidation eliminating millions of jobs at a wide, structural level, not at an individual level.
No amount of moral fortitude, hard work, or skill guarantees or even suggests that anybody will be successful. The Republican policies further deregulate and support Cronyist policies. I've read most of the bills passed by congress in the past 8 years and every bill proposed and voted for by the Republican party was toxic waste deregulation, corporate tax cuts, wall street deregulation, NOTHING else.
Welfare is economically necessary to prevent demand spiral/demand crisis, which is what turns market crashes into great depressions, it also corrects the market structural issue of having insufficient jobs, since people's only 3 options are 1. get a job, 2. get the dole, 3. starve/die, as they don't have access to capital or goods to create new jobs and the big companies are too successful at suppressing that outside of fringe, freak accidents/events less likely than winning the lottery.
Investing in infrastructure, in education, in healthcare, in renewable, stable energy sources means more jobs, more opportunity, more market creation to overcome the jobs glutch created by the systemic consolidation of industry, more educated voters, and the democratic position of regulating those industries that create those structural issues is incredibly valuable to the economy.
According to complex systems theory, the more "efficient" or consolidated a system is, the less robust, stable it is. The more we let banks, wall street, and big business consolidate, the more of a threat we face as a society. The Republican position allows racism, it allows homophobia, transphobia, bigotry, ignorant economic policies that could cause near infinite harm and could even destroy America in a very real and permanent sense, as though the burning of the constitution's 4th amendment, 1st amendment with domestic spying and the gradual merger of government with religion with putting religion on money, in schools, in national oaths and in symbols and buildings of government.
I can't imagine any group as anti-humanist, anti-equality, anti-freedom as the conformity fetishists and order fetishists under the Republican party. As a leftist libertarian, the right wing authoritarian ideals of that party, which go against everything this nation has ever stood for and in blatant contrast to what is right and scientific, disgusts me.
It is classic market failure. Our abandoned homes outnumber the homeless by almost 10 to 1 factor. In a proper market, prices would fall until renters move up to homes, homeless move up to renting, fewer people inhabit each house/apartment, etc. But prices aren't dropping, so the supply and demand can't meet, because of the powerful banks who seek to control and extort from society for somebody's basic right to exist.
Congratualtions on getting so far in life without understanding the basics of currency markets. Outsourcing weakens currency which makes imports more expensive and discourages outsourcing. Only currency manipulation and cheating can achieve that.
The only reason we are expected to have so little is so that the wealthy, those who own everything, can have so much. Their wealth has increased a thousand times over while others see massive cuts throughout the middle and lower class. It is idiots like you that let our wages keep getting pushed down by those who manipulate currencies and the politicians who profit from that manipulation. In no natural state is outsourcing actually cheaper.
Actually it means more competition, lower profit margins, higher wages, and fewer lobbyists as none of the firms can afford to pay expensive lobbyists without taking an unacceptable cut in profits. Studies show fewer than 5 companies holding more than 70% of an industry shows no evidence of market competition. No competition means no accountability to consumers, low wages, high unemployment, high prices, shitty service, etc. Almost all industries in America follow this pattern increasing so every year since the early 1980s, in a few years we'll have made it all the way back to the 1800s. All working poor with a small upper class that gets all the gains.
I can make any industry look like it is struggling to turn a profit. Just reinvest all extra income and count it as a cost, then you can grow and prosper forever while looking like you are never profitable. Virtually all big US companies do this to a variable extent to suppress profit numbers. The company I work for grew 50% last year, but has profits at 5% annually. Which says plenty.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but I'm not particularly talking about weight, I don't own a scale, but my pants were all just as tight, as were my shirts, in all the same places, but also around the places I was growing muscle.
First of all, caloric content of food is very poorly calculated, how the body processes varies a great deal. I may have a more efficient colon that gets more of the calories out of food that isn't generally computated fully. Second, I lost a lot of energy, meaning my BMR dropped substantially during the rest of the time I wasn't active, leaving me constantly cold and exhausted. This is why computer programmers do so horribly in life sciences, between genetics, metagenetics, multiple levels of systemic efficiencies, enormous variability in all of our measures, you just can't make the assertions you claim are so easy, they don't hold up in the real world.
We set caloric content without much actual relation to how much our body gets out of it, the hunger pangs and pain for some people is a lot higher than others, the biological drive to eat is more powerful than cocaine, caffiene, or nicotine by a long shot, even stronger than sex drive. The idea of blaming willpower, calling people lazy and shitty because they can't overcome that horrifically intense biology that makes them eat more, that pushes their weight set point higher, well, not much they can do about it, and that is reflected by the studies that show that the "eat less and exercise" is only effective as treatment about 1% of the time. It isn't like just adjusting a parameter, switching shampoo, or taking the stairs instead of the elevator, it is trying to override hunger, and that just doesn't work. Nobody will commit to a long term change that involves continuous hunger, pain, suffering, inability to focus, constant annoyance, irritability, etc. People just won't do it. And that is the problem. They can't. It is built into the human brain to not resist that urge. If it were as easy as deciding to eat less, everybody would do that, but it isn't a choice many of us have unless we are forced into it by our economic situation (starving in the streets).
I agree, but low carb is definitely the way to go. Paleo goes over the top and makes a lot of unfounded claims, but low carb is just a generally good principle. I get around 40-80 carbs per day and that seems to be a healthy level.
Less than 5 companies with more than 70% of market share shows no evidence of competition. You really need at least 10 competitors within 50% before competition is powerful enough to matter.
There are less than 5 that hold over 70% of the market. That is few enough that there is no measurable competition occurring.
Perfect competition is what is required for supply, demand, and price perfectly as you would see and expect in economics courses according to supply, demand, price charts. I wasn't refuting myself, I was pointing out that markets are NEVER perfectly competitive, that at best, competition is slow and weak, it takes a great deal of policy measure to enforce and maintain market competition to ensure markets are free. Without market competition, all we have are command economies like Stalinist Russia, except where the rich run everything for themselves with no accountability.
Only in the real world, most consumers don't know until they buy bootlegged cartridges and find out when they get them and they won't work. Customers don't have perfect information or the time to get it, and likely won't know about the differences and will be hurt by them anyways, and then very quickly we will see the competition adopt the same practices. Regardless, price discrimination should be illegal globally. It is just a way to extract as much as they can from every market sector when the price should be at the lower end where they still make a ton of profit, which is where it would be in a competitive market.
Only there have always been fat people, in all walks of life, as long as they weren't in a position to be starving to death. We have paintings of obese people from 4000 years ago. It isn't new. It isn't basic physics. What causes the cravings? If I don't eat, I get intense pain that is so strong I can't do anything else until I eat, it is horrible, so I quench it. It isn't like "don't have a cigarette" I quit smoking cigarettes without a second thought. It took no effort whatsoever. Eating less? May as well be asking me to have surgery 3 times a day. The forces that make it impossible for people to stick to diets and life the lifestyle you demand, that force people to be sedentary are serious problems that you can't overlook. You can't pretend that it is just because people are lazy or gluttonous, that isn't true at all in the vast majority of cases.
So let's say in some people there is a very small push by the body to reach a high set point weight, they don't have a large appetite, they don't have a strong desire to eat, they don't have horrific hunger pangs when they try to eat less, they don't absorb as much of the extra calories from food, their body doesn't shut down the energy pipeline the second they've had less than ideal calories. And in another person, the exact opposite is true on all counts to the point where losing weight requires constant, brutal suffering. Will power? Fucking idiots. As though the workings of the human body and it's drives are as simple as "calories in, calories out" way be an idiot.
I'm fat, about 260 lbs, 6'. I've been the same weight for about 10 years now, no change at all. I went from doing nothing, to eating better and exercising a substantial amount. Nothing has changed. I've taken nootropics that reduce appetite, increase the bodies thermoproduction, that reduce the rate of fat storage, nothing has changed. I've counted calories and worked very hard to avoid overeating. Nothing changed. That is the situation we are discussing here. When I eat less, my body reacts by draining me of energy until I can barely move, I get INTENSE hunger pangs that feel like being stabbed. There is a set point the body pushes to that is genetic and based in early life experience. The body will always aim just above that set point and try to raise it over time to increase safe margin's of calories for bad times per our evolutionary programming. The body will do almost anything to push you to that set point. Fat in diets is not the problem. Fats and protiens are filling, create a feeling of satisfaction when eating, people on high fat, high protien diets tend not to overeat more than very slightly. Sugar and carbs on the other hand create no feeling of satisfaction and leave you very hungry, cause a build up of restistance to insulin over time, cause your liver to release more cholesterol into the blood, etc. Taxing fat would be the wrong idea, and most poor people's food is carbs. A tax does not seem the right way to deal with the problem. Subsidizing some foods over others, as in, subsidizing healthy food to a large extent would be a better approach, as would be looking for genetic cures and solutions to the problem of obesity.
This has been the state of the research for over a decade now. Dietary cholesterol is broken down immediately, has no correlation to blood cholesterol. Blood cholesterol levels are set by the liver, and the liver raises them in response to sugar input, lowers them in response to fat in the diet, as the liver uses cholesterol to make bile salts which it uses to break down fats. here is a very well sourced article on the matter: http://chriskresser.com/the-di...
I don't know about him but I did. 6 months of 3 weekly weight lifting sessions and 4 weekly cardio sessions, 1800 calories per day. No fat lost, no thinner waist, no chance in anything whatsoever, no weight loss. But then the idiots here say things like "oh I bet you weren't really following it" and dismiss the millions of cases just like this all over the nation as purely anecdotal or made up or something like that. Or maybe it is more complicated than you give it credit for.
Different body chemistry caused by the gut bacteria and behavior could cause your body to store more fat and rob you of energy until you can't stick with your current regiment and you start packing on pounds. I guarantee you would gain weight like you wouldn't believe after such a transplant.
Definitely wrong. I used to be eating about 2800 calories a day, fat, and out of shape. I started eating less (1800 calories per day), weight lifting 3 times a week, doing intense cardio 2-4 hours a week, and I'm exactly as fat as ever. The same pants size, the same amount of fat. Even when I dropped calories to 1600 per day and upped cardio to 8 hours a week for 2 months I lost exactly 0 pounds, it all came out of my energy levels. The genetic issue this article references talks about a gene which causes the body to store fat instead of burn it for energy when appropriate, which would cause exactly what I described above. There are also probably many variations on it, but of all the people I've known who have stuck hard to diets and exercise, only about 2% ever see any success.
Yea, he can totally go to one or 2-3 identical companies with identical products that do the exact same thing. SO MUCH FREEDOM! Only repeated studies show that if fewer than 5 companies hold more than 70% market share, there is no measurable competition, and therefore no relationship between supply, demand, and price. Just look up the list of things required for perfect competition, a third of the items are physically impossible, a third extremely unlikely, and less than 5% of the factors exist when markets have so few major players. Markets are only free if they are very competitive. Xerox can only get away with this because they don't have to care about pissing off customers, so long as they aren't an order of magnitude worse than their fellow giants.
Down voting something "troll" because you don't have any arguments to back up your positions instead of debating me is cowardly. I am not, nor have I ever been a troll. Of course, I wouldn't expect anything like reasonable debate from a Republican. Coward.
The Republican party policies pretend that all social problems like poverty and crime are caused by individual moral failings and that there is no systemic cause, no cause outside the individual for a lack of success, which is objectively false. Every statistical measure we have suggests the US is not a meritocracy but a society where favors are granted to friends and networks of the wealthy and where your parents have more to do with your success than any other factor. Our economy has a structural number of jobs due to it's consolidation, no matter how hard the poor work, they can have no effect on that number and are just beating out one another for resources, the number of unemployed can not be changed by those at the bottom, it is not an issue of dependence, it is an issue of currency manipulation pushing jobs overseas, and of market consolidation eliminating millions of jobs at a wide, structural level, not at an individual level. No amount of moral fortitude, hard work, or skill guarantees or even suggests that anybody will be successful. The Republican policies further deregulate and support Cronyist policies. I've read most of the bills passed by congress in the past 8 years and every bill proposed and voted for by the Republican party was toxic waste deregulation, corporate tax cuts, wall street deregulation, NOTHING else. Welfare is economically necessary to prevent demand spiral/demand crisis, which is what turns market crashes into great depressions, it also corrects the market structural issue of having insufficient jobs, since people's only 3 options are 1. get a job, 2. get the dole, 3. starve/die, as they don't have access to capital or goods to create new jobs and the big companies are too successful at suppressing that outside of fringe, freak accidents/events less likely than winning the lottery. Investing in infrastructure, in education, in healthcare, in renewable, stable energy sources means more jobs, more opportunity, more market creation to overcome the jobs glutch created by the systemic consolidation of industry, more educated voters, and the democratic position of regulating those industries that create those structural issues is incredibly valuable to the economy. According to complex systems theory, the more "efficient" or consolidated a system is, the less robust, stable it is. The more we let banks, wall street, and big business consolidate, the more of a threat we face as a society. The Republican position allows racism, it allows homophobia, transphobia, bigotry, ignorant economic policies that could cause near infinite harm and could even destroy America in a very real and permanent sense, as though the burning of the constitution's 4th amendment, 1st amendment with domestic spying and the gradual merger of government with religion with putting religion on money, in schools, in national oaths and in symbols and buildings of government. I can't imagine any group as anti-humanist, anti-equality, anti-freedom as the conformity fetishists and order fetishists under the Republican party. As a leftist libertarian, the right wing authoritarian ideals of that party, which go against everything this nation has ever stood for and in blatant contrast to what is right and scientific, disgusts me.
As a proud left-libertarian, thank you for point this out.
So taking care of the poor leads to the Gestapo how?
It is classic market failure. Our abandoned homes outnumber the homeless by almost 10 to 1 factor. In a proper market, prices would fall until renters move up to homes, homeless move up to renting, fewer people inhabit each house/apartment, etc. But prices aren't dropping, so the supply and demand can't meet, because of the powerful banks who seek to control and extort from society for somebody's basic right to exist.
Congratualtions on getting so far in life without understanding the basics of currency markets. Outsourcing weakens currency which makes imports more expensive and discourages outsourcing. Only currency manipulation and cheating can achieve that. The only reason we are expected to have so little is so that the wealthy, those who own everything, can have so much. Their wealth has increased a thousand times over while others see massive cuts throughout the middle and lower class. It is idiots like you that let our wages keep getting pushed down by those who manipulate currencies and the politicians who profit from that manipulation. In no natural state is outsourcing actually cheaper.
Actually it means more competition, lower profit margins, higher wages, and fewer lobbyists as none of the firms can afford to pay expensive lobbyists without taking an unacceptable cut in profits. Studies show fewer than 5 companies holding more than 70% of an industry shows no evidence of market competition. No competition means no accountability to consumers, low wages, high unemployment, high prices, shitty service, etc. Almost all industries in America follow this pattern increasing so every year since the early 1980s, in a few years we'll have made it all the way back to the 1800s. All working poor with a small upper class that gets all the gains.
Nothing honest about Scott Walker at all.
I can make any industry look like it is struggling to turn a profit. Just reinvest all extra income and count it as a cost, then you can grow and prosper forever while looking like you are never profitable. Virtually all big US companies do this to a variable extent to suppress profit numbers. The company I work for grew 50% last year, but has profits at 5% annually. Which says plenty.