Actually it's the high carb / low fat diets that put you at greater risk of getting gall stones. And yes, going low fat is a treatment for gall stones, but that doesn't imply high fat causes them. If you eat a low fat diet you're using less bile to digest your food, and hence more bile stays in the gall bladder which influences the formation of stones. See http://gut.bmj.com/content/54/... for how high carb / low fat diets increase gall stones.
Typical lab mouse chow is far removed from the natural diet of mice. The carbohydrate comes from sugar and simple carbs, the fat from industrial seed oil and lard. Lard is fine for humans, but it's no where near what a mouse would eat naturally.
Our bodies are rather adept at turning grains into sugar, and sugar is sugar to your body when eaten directly or converted from grains. They have essentially the same metabolic effect and are almost equally bad for us.
Yes. Even in their so-called high-fat diet, it's still higher in sugar than it is fat, and typical mice chow is sugar and simple carbohydrate. And mice are not humans with their diet.
SAD is SAD for mice and humans. Lab chow is far removed from a natural diet for mice, as are the special higher fat or higher carb chows. LCHF will work very well for humans.
Although I can't read (without paying) the study to be exact, most chows for diet testing mice are pretty standard. Although the claim is that a high fat diet was used, we must be careful to consider the type of fat used and that it's still greater in carbohydrate than fat. The types of fat used in these diets all seem to contain industrial seed oil which is not something any of us should be eating, and all are what would still be considered a high carbohydrate diet, almost all from simple carbohydrate and sugar, again, not what we should be eating.
You know, if you posit a magically all-powerful being, and have a good imagination, you can reconcile any discrepancy you find and make any story, no matter how contradictory to reality or itself, "make sense".
That said, you're obviously a poe. Nicely done. They style and content are excellent.
Penile cancer rates are not zero among circumcised and it's such a none issue as it's also incredibly rare among the un-circumcised too. The recent HIV studies are very poor, and quite frankly, bad science (the circed men were given condoms and extra counciling the others did not, and the study was cut short, thus skewing the data as there was a good period where the circed men had to heal up before engaging in sexual activity).
Absolutely the "slap on the wrist" in Canada shows that it's cheaper to steal millions of songs and make vast amounts of profit from them, than to steal 22 songs or whatever and just listen to them. Of course, private copying is still legal in Canada, and that is done by stealing money from photographers and computer programmers and anyone who has backed up their files to a burned CD.
Well, yes there is because they're uniquely addictive, and encourage over-eating. While it's hard to over-eat on just high fat and protein - you feel full quickly and don't get those "snacking" urges between meals, you do with carbs, especially wheat. For a person with a healthy metabolism that hasn't been damaged, indeed you can consume a fair number of carbs. The problem is that so many of us no longer have such a metabolism due to the vast over-consumption of carbs (fructose is probably one of the main gotchas, along with wheat). Our bodies now react rather differently to carb intake.
"we're taking in more calories then we're using... and thus getting fat" - to say that helps not at all. What we need to know is "why" - why are our bodies that normally self-regulate so well, getting our energy consumption so wrong. Address that issue, and you'll get to the bottom of things quickly.
Typical motion picture film stock maxes out at around 14.5 stops of dynamic range. Any camera that shows a greater DR will hold the scene better. Film is also relatively noisy (grain) in the shadows meaning you get much better low light performance with a quality digital cinema camera. Good digital has already outdone 35mm film in terms of measured resolution and noise performance. It's just starting to take over on dynamic range.
Quantization is a non-issue because that is in film, grain limited and digital has been less noisy (it's equivalent to grain) for quite a while, hence the better low light performance.
No, good 35mm motion picture film stock like 5219 measures about 3k resolution. 80MP would equate to what - 12k. Don't be silly - that's a vast over-estimation of the resolution of film and you're also well into lens and diffraction limitations at that point. Don't confuse scanning resolution with measured detail, and don't confuse 35mm motion picture film with 35mm stills film which is somewhat larger...
Yes, there's some oversampling, so the 3k detail in 35mm film is scanned at 4k to avoid aliasing artifacts and get some over-sampling in there. But 65mm film is around twice the size, hence the greater resolution on it's scan at 8k to preserve it's detail with some oversampling, and larger again for proper IMAX for it's larger frame area.
A good 35 film neg will contain around 3k of resolution. This is generally scanned at 4k to preserve all the detail. Scanning beyond that makes for larger files, but no more actual detail. "Digital film" - as in the files from modern digital cinema cameras like the RED Epic is already recording more detail than that 35mm film neg.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. And without open access to the paper we can't have a well informed discussion on it.
Actually it's the high carb / low fat diets that put you at greater risk of getting gall stones. And yes, going low fat is a treatment for gall stones, but that doesn't imply high fat causes them. If you eat a low fat diet you're using less bile to digest your food, and hence more bile stays in the gall bladder which influences the formation of stones. See http://gut.bmj.com/content/54/... for how high carb / low fat diets increase gall stones.
Typical lab mouse chow is far removed from the natural diet of mice. The carbohydrate comes from sugar and simple carbs, the fat from industrial seed oil and lard. Lard is fine for humans, but it's no where near what a mouse would eat naturally.
Our bodies are rather adept at turning grains into sugar, and sugar is sugar to your body when eaten directly or converted from grains. They have essentially the same metabolic effect and are almost equally bad for us.
Yes. Even in their so-called high-fat diet, it's still higher in sugar than it is fat, and typical mice chow is sugar and simple carbohydrate. And mice are not humans with their diet.
SAD is SAD for mice and humans. Lab chow is far removed from a natural diet for mice, as are the special higher fat or higher carb chows. LCHF will work very well for humans.
Although I can't read (without paying) the study to be exact, most chows for diet testing mice are pretty standard. Although the claim is that a high fat diet was used, we must be careful to consider the type of fat used and that it's still greater in carbohydrate than fat. The types of fat used in these diets all seem to contain industrial seed oil which is not something any of us should be eating, and all are what would still be considered a high carbohydrate diet, almost all from simple carbohydrate and sugar, again, not what we should be eating.
The paper is here if anyone wants to cough up the cash to read it: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
You know, if you posit a magically all-powerful being, and have a good imagination, you can reconcile any discrepancy you find and make any story, no matter how contradictory to reality or itself, "make sense".
That said, you're obviously a poe. Nicely done. They style and content are excellent.
Penile cancer rates are not zero among circumcised and it's such a none issue as it's also incredibly rare among the un-circumcised too. The recent HIV studies are very poor, and quite frankly, bad science (the circed men were given condoms and extra counciling the others did not, and the study was cut short, thus skewing the data as there was a good period where the circed men had to heal up before engaging in sexual activity).
Maybe the visa numbers are stored in an unsigned short and can't go above 65535 anyway....
Absolutely the "slap on the wrist" in Canada shows that it's cheaper to steal millions of songs and make vast amounts of profit from them, than to steal 22 songs or whatever and just listen to them. Of course, private copying is still legal in Canada, and that is done by stealing money from photographers and computer programmers and anyone who has backed up their files to a burned CD.
Well, yes there is because they're uniquely addictive, and encourage over-eating. While it's hard to over-eat on just high fat and protein - you feel full quickly and don't get those "snacking" urges between meals, you do with carbs, especially wheat. For a person with a healthy metabolism that hasn't been damaged, indeed you can consume a fair number of carbs. The problem is that so many of us no longer have such a metabolism due to the vast over-consumption of carbs (fructose is probably one of the main gotchas, along with wheat). Our bodies now react rather differently to carb intake.
"we're taking in more calories then we're using... and thus getting fat" - to say that helps not at all. What we need to know is "why" - why are our bodies that normally self-regulate so well, getting our energy consumption so wrong. Address that issue, and you'll get to the bottom of things quickly.
Salt is not bad for you, indeed studies have shown that those that consume the least salt have higher mortality.
Well, yes it is excessive carbs that make you fat. And wheat is indeed killing us.
But there's nothing wrong with saturated fat? Where are you getting "low fat" from?
Since when was good saturated fat in meat bad for you?
Still some of the funniest comedies ever. Love them to bits.
Typical motion picture film stock maxes out at around 14.5 stops of dynamic range. Any camera that shows a greater DR will hold the scene better. Film is also relatively noisy (grain) in the shadows meaning you get much better low light performance with a quality digital cinema camera. Good digital has already outdone 35mm film in terms of measured resolution and noise performance. It's just starting to take over on dynamic range.
Quantization is a non-issue because that is in film, grain limited and digital has been less noisy (it's equivalent to grain) for quite a while, hence the better low light performance.
Add in the weight of the mag and film stock, and the size of the mag and film stock.
No, good 35mm motion picture film stock like 5219 measures about 3k resolution. 80MP would equate to what - 12k. Don't be silly - that's a vast over-estimation of the resolution of film and you're also well into lens and diffraction limitations at that point. Don't confuse scanning resolution with measured detail, and don't confuse 35mm motion picture film with 35mm stills film which is somewhat larger...
Which film stock are you referring to? at 35mm to get 8k rez you'd need a lens capable of passing detail at 160lp/mm.
Yes, the colour gamut of a modern digital cinema camera like the RED Epic already exceeds that of film.
Yes, there's some oversampling, so the 3k detail in 35mm film is scanned at 4k to avoid aliasing artifacts and get some over-sampling in there. But 65mm film is around twice the size, hence the greater resolution on it's scan at 8k to preserve it's detail with some oversampling, and larger again for proper IMAX for it's larger frame area.
For archive purposes they generally use open uncompressed formats. That takes up more space, but is utterly more reliable.
A good 35 film neg will contain around 3k of resolution. This is generally scanned at 4k to preserve all the detail. Scanning beyond that makes for larger files, but no more actual detail. "Digital film" - as in the files from modern digital cinema cameras like the RED Epic is already recording more detail than that 35mm film neg.