If you are studying to be a clinical professional, focus on the skills that further that goal.
This is well-meant, and your advice is otherwise excellent, but the name of the game for a second-year med student is merely survival. The M2 and M3 students are expected to sponge up an absolutely unbelievable amount of information.
The standard cocktail for lethal injection is threefold: a barbiturate to induce unconsciousness, a paralytic to stop breathing, and potassium chloride to stop the heart. Barbiturates in the high doses used (multiple grams) produce a completely flat EEG. How do I know? I'm an anesthesiologist. When I was a resident working in the neuro ICU, we put people in barbiturate comas to try to save their brains from post-traumatic swelling (it takes less energy to keep a neuron alive if it's not firing). I've looked at their EEGs. They're flat.
I'd like to see the end of capital punishment, just because it's too expensive and because the thought of executing innocents bugs me. But lethal injection? Son, I've lost track of how many anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists have told me just exactly how they'd check out if they found themselves with a really horrific disease. Guess what the #1 method of choice sounds like?
YMMV, of course, but I dropped 80 lbs (275->195) in seven months without exercise, without calorie counting, and without portion control, and have maintained that loss for ten months, solely by eliminating almost all carbohydrate from my diet. I do eat green vegetables ad lib and cautious amounts of tomato and onion, and I drink whiskey and vodka when I feel like it.
Guyenet has an unfortunate obsession with studies that are just short-term observations of extreme behavior.
From your first link:
For example, overfeeding reliably increases fat mass in humans and can produce substantial body fat accumulation, regardless of whether the excess calories come from carbohydrate or fat, and regardless of changes in circulating insulin (49, 50, 51, 52). Similarly, underfeeding reliably decreases fat mass by a predictable amount, also regardless of macronutrients and changes in circulating insulin (53, 54, 55). "Exceptions" to this rule only seem to occur in studies where food intake is not measured accurately.
Of course, studies where food intake is not measured accurately are also known as "real life". The fact that overfeeding or underfeeding someone produces predictable effects on body mass doesn't really tell you anything about what sort of diet will result in sustained weight loss, because chronically underfed people are hungry, and hungry people eventually give in and eat. The potato diet is a perfect example of Guyenet thinking: it demonstrates that smashing food reward behavior to bits by eating only one very bland food is an effective method for losing weight, but he acknowledges from the start that he doesn't advise it (indeed, there's no reason to believe that it could be a complete diet, which animal products can be). Taubes has many mechanisms wrong but provides an effective solution; Guyenet is right on all the pieces but doesn't actually put it together into anything (though he tepidly embraces paleo in one of his linked articles, and he links to some guy who wants to sell you a diet plan for $40 without telling you anything about it).
Ultimately, the problem is that people want to know a method that works, and on that, Taubes delivers and Guyenet doesn't. All the rightness in the world can't overcome that.
80 (275->195, 29% of body weight) in seven months, maintained for 10 months. The only thing I count is carbs. Didn't work out, at all, until three months ago, and that only because I want to add some muscle - I don't do cardio.
Frankly, while I can imagine that you might know one person for whom low-carb doesn't work (hey, everyone's different), I can't imagine how you could gain weight from it, and certainly not multiple people. I strongly suspect they weren't being very dedicated - carbs are hidden in a lot of things and you have to be ceaselessly vigilant until you learn how to tell simply by taste when something has sugar or starch in it.
I can't speak for everyone, but I dropped 80 pounds in seven months by eliminating carbs from my diet. I didn't work out. I didn't count calories. I didn't portion control. All I did was keep carbs under 20 grams a day.
Or just find foods that sate, like protein and fat. Keto diet isn't for everyone, but if you haven't tried it and you want to lose weight, you should give it a run.
Theoretically appealing, but poor results in practice. If it were really that simple, nobody would be overweight. There are limits to willpower that have to be respected, and it is simply impossible to tolerate being hungry all the time.
I went to a keto diet in March 2012, lost 80 pounds in seven months, and have kept it off since. The primary advantage is the lack of hunger during weight loss, which means that you aren't constantly using limited supplies of willpower just to make it through the day.
The different cultural reaction is interesting, though. I know plenty of non-Kosher-keeping Jews who will eat pork, but even booze-swilling Arabs and Pakistanis of my acquaintance won't touch the stuff. They view it with about as much disgust as Americans have for cat meat.
While this was about eating vs not eating meat, not paleo per se (which I think you must be unfamiliar with - it's not extreme unless you want it to be)...
Meatheads don't last long with CrossFit. It's a different animal, and I'd never describe some roided-up dude as healthy. And most people I know who eat grains are fat. I was when I did.
Go read Why We Get Fat by Gary Taubes, or Doug McGuff's Body by Science. Be sure to check out Robert Lustig's "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" on YouTube (or the UC site, if that's blocked at work). There's really no reason in general to eat carbohydrates as such - the small amount you get from eating a good mix of non-starchy vegetables is more than adequate to supply most people's needs. If you're an actual elite athlete, of course, things may be different, but at a minimum that means competitive at the Division I collegiate level.
What's the deal with all the crazy vegans around here lately? Go to your local hippie store and look at the vegans. Then go to your local CrossFit and look at the paleo eaters. Which group looks healthier to you?
Bought from them all the time in the 90s and early 2000s... then we hit the point where you didn't really need to replace a computer every three or four years and the market they had carved out sort of fell away.
Eh, I was buying from those guys since ~'95. Hadn't bought anything in a good while; they had good deals but it was almost all on older hardware and overstock stuff. That said, if they had what you needed, the prices were great.
Depends on where you live - in the sunbelt, it never really cools off. The low tonight in Phoenix will be 86f/30c. Charleston, SC will be 79/26. And humid.
... says the AC who made up the story in the first place. I live in the southern US. I haven't even heard such a view - that nothing you can do that does not involve the "cock and balls" of an American man is torture - from the craziest rednecks I know. And they're crazy rednecks. I'd believe it if you claimed the dude said "Hell yeah it's torture, and I'll be first in line if they need help doing it!"
Slashdot Mirror
If you are studying to be a clinical professional, focus on the skills that further that goal.
This is well-meant, and your advice is otherwise excellent, but the name of the game for a second-year med student is merely survival. The M2 and M3 students are expected to sponge up an absolutely unbelievable amount of information.
Hearing goes after vision, probably because it takes less energy. The effect is well-known in anesthesia.
You're wrong about the medical end of things.
The standard cocktail for lethal injection is threefold: a barbiturate to induce unconsciousness, a paralytic to stop breathing, and potassium chloride to stop the heart. Barbiturates in the high doses used (multiple grams) produce a completely flat EEG. How do I know? I'm an anesthesiologist. When I was a resident working in the neuro ICU, we put people in barbiturate comas to try to save their brains from post-traumatic swelling (it takes less energy to keep a neuron alive if it's not firing). I've looked at their EEGs. They're flat.
I'd like to see the end of capital punishment, just because it's too expensive and because the thought of executing innocents bugs me. But lethal injection? Son, I've lost track of how many anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists have told me just exactly how they'd check out if they found themselves with a really horrific disease. Guess what the #1 method of choice sounds like?
YMMV, of course, but I dropped 80 lbs (275->195) in seven months without exercise, without calorie counting, and without portion control, and have maintained that loss for ten months, solely by eliminating almost all carbohydrate from my diet. I do eat green vegetables ad lib and cautious amounts of tomato and onion, and I drink whiskey and vodka when I feel like it.
From your first link:
For example, overfeeding reliably increases fat mass in humans and can produce substantial body fat accumulation, regardless of whether the excess calories come from carbohydrate or fat, and regardless of changes in circulating insulin (49, 50, 51, 52). Similarly, underfeeding reliably decreases fat mass by a predictable amount, also regardless of macronutrients and changes in circulating insulin (53, 54, 55). "Exceptions" to this rule only seem to occur in studies where food intake is not measured accurately.
Of course, studies where food intake is not measured accurately are also known as "real life". The fact that overfeeding or underfeeding someone produces predictable effects on body mass doesn't really tell you anything about what sort of diet will result in sustained weight loss, because chronically underfed people are hungry, and hungry people eventually give in and eat. The potato diet is a perfect example of Guyenet thinking: it demonstrates that smashing food reward behavior to bits by eating only one very bland food is an effective method for losing weight, but he acknowledges from the start that he doesn't advise it (indeed, there's no reason to believe that it could be a complete diet, which animal products can be). Taubes has many mechanisms wrong but provides an effective solution; Guyenet is right on all the pieces but doesn't actually put it together into anything (though he tepidly embraces paleo in one of his linked articles, and he links to some guy who wants to sell you a diet plan for $40 without telling you anything about it).
Ultimately, the problem is that people want to know a method that works, and on that, Taubes delivers and Guyenet doesn't. All the rightness in the world can't overcome that.
80 (275->195, 29% of body weight) in seven months, maintained for 10 months. The only thing I count is carbs. Didn't work out, at all, until three months ago, and that only because I want to add some muscle - I don't do cardio.
It's not torture: it's deliciousness.
Frankly, while I can imagine that you might know one person for whom low-carb doesn't work (hey, everyone's different), I can't imagine how you could gain weight from it, and certainly not multiple people. I strongly suspect they weren't being very dedicated - carbs are hidden in a lot of things and you have to be ceaselessly vigilant until you learn how to tell simply by taste when something has sugar or starch in it.
I can't speak for everyone, but I dropped 80 pounds in seven months by eliminating carbs from my diet. I didn't work out. I didn't count calories. I didn't portion control. All I did was keep carbs under 20 grams a day.
So yes, it's sometimes that easy.
Reddit's lack of upper and lower bounds makes it incredibly vulnerable to positive feedback loops.
Or just find foods that sate, like protein and fat. Keto diet isn't for everyone, but if you haven't tried it and you want to lose weight, you should give it a run.
Theoretically appealing, but poor results in practice. If it were really that simple, nobody would be overweight. There are limits to willpower that have to be respected, and it is simply impossible to tolerate being hungry all the time.
I went to a keto diet in March 2012, lost 80 pounds in seven months, and have kept it off since. The primary advantage is the lack of hunger during weight loss, which means that you aren't constantly using limited supplies of willpower just to make it through the day.
The different cultural reaction is interesting, though. I know plenty of non-Kosher-keeping Jews who will eat pork, but even booze-swilling Arabs and Pakistanis of my acquaintance won't touch the stuff. They view it with about as much disgust as Americans have for cat meat.
At least in Indian restaurants in the US, "mutton" often refers to goat.
While this was about eating vs not eating meat, not paleo per se (which I think you must be unfamiliar with - it's not extreme unless you want it to be)...
Meatheads don't last long with CrossFit. It's a different animal, and I'd never describe some roided-up dude as healthy. And most people I know who eat grains are fat. I was when I did.
Go read Why We Get Fat by Gary Taubes, or Doug McGuff's Body by Science. Be sure to check out Robert Lustig's "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" on YouTube (or the UC site, if that's blocked at work). There's really no reason in general to eat carbohydrates as such - the small amount you get from eating a good mix of non-starchy vegetables is more than adequate to supply most people's needs. If you're an actual elite athlete, of course, things may be different, but at a minimum that means competitive at the Division I collegiate level.
So does the summary, but the paper is behind Cell's paywall, so it really isn't all that open-source, is it?
What's the deal with all the crazy vegans around here lately? Go to your local hippie store and look at the vegans. Then go to your local CrossFit and look at the paleo eaters. Which group looks healthier to you?
Since it's not linked to an actual scientific article, just a press blurb, who knows? It might not do anything.
Bought from them all the time in the 90s and early 2000s... then we hit the point where you didn't really need to replace a computer every three or four years and the market they had carved out sort of fell away.
At one point they were compgeeks.com, if that helps.
Eh, I was buying from those guys since ~'95. Hadn't bought anything in a good while; they had good deals but it was almost all on older hardware and overstock stuff. That said, if they had what you needed, the prices were great.
Depends on where you live - in the sunbelt, it never really cools off. The low tonight in Phoenix will be 86f/30c. Charleston, SC will be 79/26. And humid.
No, usually the cops have to plant the drugs themselves.
And your own quote says, my bold for emphasis, "These firms are not legally obligated to pre-fund health-care benefits, but about a quarter do so."
Health care and retirement are different.
Not every AC is every other AC, you know!
No, but you are ;)
... says the AC who made up the story in the first place. I live in the southern US. I haven't even heard such a view - that nothing you can do that does not involve the "cock and balls" of an American man is torture - from the craziest rednecks I know. And they're crazy rednecks. I'd believe it if you claimed the dude said "Hell yeah it's torture, and I'll be first in line if they need help doing it!"